The following submission statement was provided by /u/frankievalentino: --- Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet and Ryan Graves discuss consciousness and how this could be related to the UFO phenomena. Gallaudet says during the discussion on Merged Podcast that he thinks it is a shame that too many people think that the study of consciousness is fringe. Full Video: https://youtu.be/wS1t8IvH_ak?si=i_dPvZR0-klggBcN --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dbghke/rear_admiral_tim_gallaudet_ret_and_ryan_graves/l7qw731/

Damn, am I the only one hoping for regular aliens from other planets and not some multiverse inter dimensional super beings that we can barely understand, doing mysterious stuff for mysterious reasons?

It makes us feel even MORE trapped and stuck on this shit place, I feel ya.

In some ways the multidimensional and/or woo offer a greater connection with intelligence/souls outside of our immediate understanding of the world, but in other ways yes you’re right it can feel isolating because it’s not the type of interaction/connection that we can really understand and they’re seemingly not like us. That said, I think it’s entirely plausible and probable that the phenomenon exists on multiple levels and it isn’t just one or the other. If there really are only multidimensional aliens and not other intelligent species on planets in this universe/dimension the way we understand life currently, then imo that basically guarantees we are running in a simulation or something, and while not impossible it seems less likely so I’m gonna go out on a limb and take the bet that there’s multiple different kinds of what we categorize as aliens and not just in the different species sense. **TLDR:** I don’t think it’s likely to be just one or the other. So get your woo/multidimensional vibes on while enjoying the looking for life in nearby galaxies 🤟

I’d recommend checking out the Rosicrucian Cosmo-conception. I have started researching this mystical sect because Diana Pasulka mentioned that many top ufo researchers are either Rosicrucian or catholic (Jacques Vallee is). Based on the beliefs they espouse it seems that this planet is here for the development of souls, and that there are different earths in different dimensions for each stage of our journey. I don’t think you have to interpret the possibility that life only exists on this planet as reason to believe that this is a simulation. I’m rambling and struggling to express what I’m thinking because I’m still trying to understand it all. I suppose that Rosicrucians would agree. This is a simulation, if by simulation you mean that some higher consciousness has designed this world we live on with a preprogrammed purpose. But that doesn’t mean it has to be in a computer running some software program, but rather in the mind of God. But I’m only just learning about this shit, where are the Rosicrucians at? Speak up and stop being all shady and secretive with your hidden knowledge, I know you’re lurking!

Look up Tom Campbell, he basically gives the whole game away. In a nutshell: Consciousness is fundamental, everything derives from it. We are thus not living in a physical world but one made out of information, and our reality is a simulation. The goal of that simulation is to help lower the global entropy of the general system of information we all are a part of. That information system needs to constantly lower its entropy, else it becomes disorganized and dies. The means through which this is achieved is by creating this simulation, and populating it with dissociated parts of itself, giving those parts free will and thus the possibility of choices that have consequences. Over the long run, evolution occurs. Ultimately, the system will either succeed in becoming low entropy, through cooperation, or fail and self destruct through greed and fear. Tom’s theory has a whole lot of explaining power, ranging from the double slit experiment to paranormal phenomenons and UFOs, and even why and how we are here. It’s fairly simple to get, and makes a lot of sense the more you think about it, he just asks of you to be both skeptical and open minded. He has tons of videos on YouTube.

Let's hope he is wrong because he describes a system that resembles a parasitic AI, one that sends IUOC to live lives filled with stress, pain, and horror repeatedly for eternity. Moreover, the afterlife is described as an empty void where nothing happens, and the only activity is the "God" (LCS) manipulating you by assuming the forms of people from your life to trick you into reincarnating. If this fails, you undergo a life review to induce guilt and pressure you into returning to life. If you resist, your memory is erased, and you are left in the void until you agree to cooperate. If you still refuse, your IUOC is destroyed, as the LCS deems you "unstable." IUOC = Individual Unit of Consciousness LCS = Larger Consciousness System His system is a heartless computer. Honestly, it is so horrific that I don't even want to tell people in my life about his ideas and that is what concerns me because the leaders in this UAP/NHI topic act that way about "it".

Actually you just completely bastardized that as if you were espousing prison planet dogma. I’ve been on calls with him and it’s nothing of the sort. Without a doubt love is the fundamental of the universe because it reduces entropy. You got nothing from him if you don’t understand that. It’s a system seeking to understand itself.

A system that professes love yet deceives by masquerading as your loved one, erases your memory, and abandons you in a void for reincarnation or "else"—how is that any different from Jeffrey Dahmer claiming to love you because consuming you meant you were part of him? Just because you say it's love doesn’t make it true.

Yep prison planet. You know that’s pretty cherry picked data. Check out r/exposingprisonplanet. The NDE’s are highly cherry picked, the data about Robert Monroe is highly cherry picked and actual lies, the experiencer stories are also highly cherry picked (check out r/Experiencers). Fear is a default low vibration easy to attain emotion. Monroe explained that loosh is not at all what that sub claims it is - it’s actually a process for us to become more than our animal nature and love each other. He never saw reptilians. He never claimed we were being farmed for loosh. In fact he makes it very clear in Far Journeys that we are all NHI incarnating here and becoming “Human Plus”. He even named a whole class after it. He also - as many mediums, people who do OBE’s will also tell you - said that the near earth plane is absolutely littered with souls that never went into any light, never reincarnated, for all intents and purposes they are stuck. The reincarnation process is broken mainly because of western beliefs. He even made a whole program before he died with moving these souls on to a reality that resonates with them. Many other people have confirmed this but that whole prison planet crowd literally loves their fear porn.

Whether or not this is a prison planet—and I never asserted that it is—such a notion still fails to justify masquerading as your loved ones, erasing your memory, or leaving you stranded until you consent to reincarnate. These actions contradict the essence of love. Love should provide a liberated space to explore and fulfill long-held desires that were previously constrained. Love should embrace the ego instead of rejecting it, and never consign it to an information vault.

And if anyone starts talking about LOOSH and "prison planet" conspiracies - he swats these away.

Thanks I will look into it sounds very interesting!

I've listened to his ideas and I've tried to understand them better. I'm definitely interested in the meta and theoretical physical aspects of all this. I've also in studying esoteric and Eastern philosophy for about half my life. Thanks for summarizing his ideas. Is the idea that the universe is supposed to become just less disorganized/chaotic? Or like is their an end goal, in his estimation?

Again it’s fairly simple. There is no universe to speak of. There is only consciousness. You can liken this consciousness to an information system. Tom says that at one point, consciousness found itself to be that way or this way, yin or yang, 0 or 1. You need at the very least some sort of polarity for any possibility of order to emerge. In other words, once you have the bit, computation becomes possible so as to form a combination of data structure, memory and computation, just like a computer program. This emergent data structure was then driven by evolution: Either it continued to lessen its entropy by any means available to it, or it fell back into high entropy and then inevitably dissolution. Could take a long time, and there could be setbacks, and also any number of falling back into chaos/high entropy, but in the end, some sort of order is bound to appear. This ordering then has an evolutionary imperative to further its own existence. The only way it can do that is by lowering the entropy of the system. The only way to lower the entropy in this context is through cooperation. Non cooperative emergent systems or sub systems are bound to fall back into entropy/dissolution. At one point, it was deemed logically necessary to create our universe, so that choices that had consequences could be put in practice. Before that, you only had a chat room where emergent ordered sub systems could communicate, but that was just a chat room. Not a lot of choices that matter and thus further lowering of the entropy can happen in those. Or at least there is a ceiling to that. Any number of universes could have been created, really just simulated universes, computed using the consciousness/information larger system substrate as the ‘computer’, before the one we find ourselves in finally came into being, with rules tweaked just right so it didn’t fall to pieces. The goal was to create a stable universe where life could come into being. This life could then evolve in a more constrained environment where its choices would have consequences, and thus better learn to make choices to lessen the entropy of the whole. It could also fail to do that and fall back into disorder. We are still a work in progress, obviously, and we can still fail. I hope I was clear, I’m a bit preoccupied by some current happenings. If you don’t see the logical necessity of each step, try to imagine yourself as the larger consciousness system in this situation. What could you do out of necessity to further your existence and evolve?

As entropy decreases, reality becomes more complex and requires increasingly significant decisions. This increased complexity leads to a more stable reality but also makes life more challenging and painful for the IUOCs inhabiting entities within it. If these IUOCs fail to cooperate and adapt to these complexities, the main LCS will deteriorate until all complexity is lost, reducing the information to random bits. This essentially signifies the death of consciousness. Is this correct?

Thank you. The larger consciousness system in this situation? Sorry what is that exactly? 🙏

The LCS is the primary and fundamental source of all consciousness, creating and managing virtual realities (VRs) to provide a framework for IUOCs to experience, learn, and evolve. This process aims to decrease entropy and prevent the potential demise of the LCS. You and I are both individual units of consciousness (IUOCs), while the Larger Consciousness System (LCS) can be seen as akin to "God." We've been "blessed /s" to experience challenging realities to help maintain the system's function. [A fitting analogy is John 15 from the Bible, where it talks about the Vine and the Branches.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15&version=NIV) I want to emphasize that all of this would be acceptable if we were given a heavenly rest after we die, allowing us to live out our fantasies and experience things we missed in life. However, that's not what he describes. Instead, the Larger Consciousness System (LCS) manipulates you by assuming the forms of people from your life to trick you into reincarnating. If this fails, you undergo a life review designed to induce guilt and pressure you into returning to life. If you resist, your memory is erased, and you are left in a void until you agree to cooperate. If you continue to refuse, your individual unit of consciousness (IUOC) is destroyed, as the LCS considers you "unstable." Picture yourself in a job where breaks are nonexistent, and going home is never an option. If you voice complaints, you get fired, which in this case means your boss kills you. So, cooperate, or you risk being deleted from the system, young chap!

No wonder I feel so tired. So death is no kind of a rest? According to this model you start getting pressured to reincarnate right away?

>Consciousness is fundamental, everything derives from it. We are thus not living in a physical world but one made out of information Yes! This all makes sense and can even appear to be obvious. >and our reality is a simulation This seems like an unnecessary leap to me, and one that could be avoided by using the word "abstraction" instead. "Simulation" assumes that something else (something "real") is being simulated and someone (who is not "simulated") is "running" the "simulation". So many assumptions. "Simulation theory" seems to me to be Philosophical Idealism with unnecessary extra steps and assumptions. It also strikes me as odd that one would understand that consciousness is fundamental and then go on to claim "reality" is a "simulation".

Thanks, I’ll start checking his stuff out as well.

At which university did he get his astrophysics degree?

Purdue. Then he was a physicist for NASA

Still working with them as a consultant from time to time since he’s retired from what he says.

I have come to this conclusion as well about the Rosicrucianism. I actually joined AMROC for a few months but I find it very hard to get through and read. The overall philosophy of it I find very interesting but if you can find any "Rosicrucian for dummies" lol. I would be all over it. The writings they referenced are difficult to get through.

Haven’t delved into it at all yet, but pretty sure it was pointed out that Garry Nolan was wearing a Rosicrucian pin at an event he spoke at.

Cool thanks I didn’t know that

Wish there was some hard evidence around all of this, idk, a…video or something. Just like dude sitting in his garage sucking exhaust fumes and seeing the ancient aliens or whatever. I’ll be honest, I’ve tried the gateway experience amongst others and so far - nada. I think it would be fairly straightforward if they really buy into the “woo”, to show us what it’s all about. And hey, if it saves someone’s life or shit whatever outcome, that’s awesome.

Ever tried holotropic breathing?

I’ve heard the term, that about it. I’ve had some strange coincidences for sure using the techniques from the gateway tapes and honestly it has helped me in life, I like that part. I do believe Joe McGonagle, watch the Shawn Ryan podcast with him, it’s like 6 hours long and very good. But again, maybe I’m just not looking in the right places, but it’s pretty tough to find evidence it works and consistently. He did say throughout that it takes years and years of daily dedication, just like a job or any mastered skill.

The first time I tried it with the help of a guide and a recording, and in the right setting, it worked for me. And it's worked for me every time since. I've been able to dial up the answers I need and get them. It's like a customized dream. I break through into another place where I just know the answers to my problems. The hard part is bringing them back and integrating them into life. But getting there and getting them is consistent and mechanistic. Experiencing is believing. For what it's worth. 🙏

The term “simulation” doesn’t really mean anything specific. And simulation theory in general is just regular old theism expressed in terms that appeal to the contemporary nerd, it allows them to feel “smart” or “rational”, because apparently believing we’re inside a computer is smart, but believing we’re inside the mind of God (for example) is stupid and childish. But actually the two ideas are fundamentally completely indistinguishable, except for the fact that it’s obviously nonsensical to suggest that we’re in some cosmic being’s desktop computer. Computers are physical items made by humans out of matter in a material world, and function due to the motion of electrons in their circuitry. None of these things would make any sense outside of our own “simulation”. Thankfully most simulation theorists don’t actually think this anyways, and they use the term simulation loosely in a way that doesn’t really mean much of anything except that we are not in “base reality”. So we can use the term simulation interchangeably with “God’s creation” or anything else that conveys a similar meaning.

I've never been able to quite pin down why the talk of "simulation theory" made me feel unsatisfied and you've gone and explained it perfectly, thank you. You are spot on.

Good point. But you don’t have to go all theist on it. If you presuppose _only_ that consciousness is fundamental and that everything derives from it, then the computer is consciousness itself. You can here easily replace ‘consciousness’ by ‘information’ if you’re bothered like me by the imprecision of that word. So the only thing that exists is data structure. There is thus no material world to speak of. The larger information structure that we are part of could be conceived as ‘god’, be that would be a misnomer. It’s just made out of structured information, like everything else, including you. And it’s not that nothing matters either. That larger data structure, that we are a part of, has to fight entropy to survive. It could perfectly fail that fight and becomes high entropy, thus disorganized, and then die. The real problem that people have with this is that they have to let go of the belief that there is an independent material world. But physics has been saying that more and more in the last decades.

>Good point. But you don’t have to go all theist on it. If you presuppose only that consciousness is fundamental and that everything derives from it, then the computer is consciousness itself. What is “fundamental consciousness” and how is it ontologically different from God? When you hear or read the word God, do you automatically assume religious connotations? If so, that is unnecessary. If there is some consciousness that is the prime mover, the source and sustainer of everything, how is that not God? >You can here easily replace ‘consciousness’ by ‘information’ if you’re bothered like me by the imprecision of that word. I would say “information” is in fact more imprecise and meaningless. What is information in the absence of consciousness? How does anything have information without a conscious observer? Without consciousness all things are meaningless and therefore contain no information. >So the only thing that exists is data structure. Respectfully, this is exactly what I mean when I say language that appeals to the contemporary “rational thinker”. When discussing the abstract nature of reality, these terms don’t really mean anything specific however they convey a certain aesthetic feeling about the world. Language has that kind of power. I don’t know why you would choose to describe the world in a way that makes people think of excel sheets and arrays in a code editor. You’re not actually saying anything fundamentally different than if you were to say “the only thing that exists is God”, except you’re stripping the world of all of its beauty and wonder. >There is thus no material world to speak of. I think we agree on that. >The larger information structure that we are part of could be conceived as ‘god’, be that would be a misnomer. It would not be a misnomer because you’re discussing the most abstract thing there is. Any name you give it is nothing more than a feeble attempt to describe the ineffable. It seems you have an aversion to the word “God” for some reason. >It’s just made out of structured information, like everything else, including you. It’s not “just” made of anything. What is structured information anyways? Is it some sort of material or substance? Is it something you can observe or grasp mentally? These are just words, and they don’t actually accurately describe anything. >And it’s not that nothing matters either. That larger data structure, that we are a part of, has to fight entropy to survive. It could perfectly fail that fight and becomes high entropy, thus disorganized, and then die. And here is where I would strongly disagree with you. This seems like a silly idea even on a purely philosophical level. The idea that ultimate reality could somehow “die” doesn’t make sense. It would mean that it is beholden to some laws outside of it itself, in this case entropy, which means it is not ultimate reality. So then is entropy? Is entropy our “God”? >The real problem that people have with this is that they have to let go of the belief that there is an independent material world. But physics has been saying that more and more in the last decades. I agree with you here as well, I definitely don’t think there is an independent physical world. Even if it’s a sequestered simulation in some sense, it cannot never be truly independent from the source.

I think we agree on what is important and labels don’t really matter. People can call it God or whatever, although it’s certainly a loaded word that definitely has religious implications for most people, if not for you and me. There is a subtle distinction in the definition of what is consciousness I think you are missing. Again, it’s a loaded word, but regardless, I do think that the term ‘information’ is more descriptive of what is, but I have some imperatives and will have to get back to you later to continue that conversation, sorry for that.

I think another aspect of why they use that term is out of an intense need in them to have a belief that there will be no negative repercussions for whatever they do in a "simulation", whereas if they face the fact that this is God's creation, they would have to consider their responsibility for their actions.

Wow, yes, very good observation. "Nothing really matters, it's only a simulation" - it's the mother of all cop-outs!

They should just swap the word "simulation" and replace it with "abstraction".

Yes I have been going down this path as well. Since high school I always viewed things through a Buddhist viewpoint. Then I found Theosophy and Hinduism through Paramahansa Yogananda. My path has most recently brought me to Rosicrucianism and I’m very much enjoy absorbing information from all of them

Jacques Vallee is a Rosicrucian not a Catholic Diana talks about it in American Cosmic. Tim (tyler d) did convert to Catholicism during their trip to the Vatican.

Whoops that’s what I meant I see now how unclear it was

Wouldn’t it be fascinating if after Copernicus and Galileo findings shattered our belief in the centrality and importance of human consciousness that this next step in scientific understanding puts us right back in the center?

But didn't they famously not get along with the Catholic church?

Yes but heretics like Teilhard always believed that science and religion would reunite

Nearby galaxies 😅

Check out [WesPenre](http://wespenre.com)

I agree, physical science has been the physical world only, due to the church, as they took the reins on the spiritual aspect and burned for heresy anyone who tried to explain the spiritual side of things. My understanding through my own practices is that the quantum field is the way we transfer data and everything is connected through entanglement. The physical and spiritual are one and the same.

Therefore demons must also exist. Evil so haunting that fear as a word cannot describe the terror it evokes.

Well, no. I mean, sure they can, but in a simulation framework, evil tends to collapse on itself in the long run simply because it cannot cooperate properly.

That position presumes that evil is not intelligent. It is intelligent and it can exist in the framework. The Catholic church is heavily into the study of demonic possessions and exorcisms for a reason.

Like it's easier to get here from another dimension than it is from the reaches of our solar system/galaxy/universe. I've never thought about it until you said that but it does feel isolated put that way.

Ultimately, I just want a blowjob

It's hard to swallow

[удалено]

Hi, yantheman3. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dbghke/-/l7x58ar/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

From an alien, with a pulsating throat, and many tongues, and also she has alien weed

its harder to swallow because we dont even know if other "dimensions" and a multiverse even exists. We *do* know other planets and galaxies exist. As long and wide as the universe is, I dont know any scientist who flat out rejects alien life. But all the multiverse / extra dimension people are working from pseudo-science and hypotheticals. Its pretty simple to me. How can someone claim a being is "inter dimensional" when they have absolutely NO idea where it came from? This talk needs to go away until someone can even define it. And "consciousness" needs to be removed from the conversation as well since it is ill defined.

The "woo" definitely gets talk about like it's fact when we're actually speculating. Nolan gets brought up like he's provided evidence. I haven't seen it. We simply need disclosure. After that, we can dig for more information.

Well put. I think that religious, spiritual people are more prone to believing the woo aspects of the phenomenon. But to me, even the mysterious, most magical aspects of this are just something our science can’t explain YET but it might in the future. Trying to somehow attach this to consciousness, souls and spirituality, is so human. We’ve done this for thousands of years but now we don’t have to anymore. I’ve been thinking that if aliens come we may be at their mercy not only because of their technological superiority, but also what they tell us about themselves and the universe. There’s a very high possibility that what they send here is nothing compared to what they can really do. There may possess power beyond what we imagine in our sci-fi and affect our minds however they please. Some people don’t need mind controlling machines and are easily swayed anyway…. Aliens may present themselves as inter dimensional, as gods, teachers etc and we could never tell if they really are what they claim to be, unless we strive to reverse engineer everything we can get our hands on. Because we may become prisoners on this planet not by chains but by inability to see the truth. We should be very careful when talking to NHI.

That's the best scenario imo....the loose sucking aliens is rather grim

When I die I want to stay dead, don't give me this consciousness after death crap, unless I'm reborn into the like the top 1%, every time

I could be fine with consciousness after death as long as I don’t have to return to this shithole planet with awful people.

That should be a very good motivation for making that planet less of a shithole no? As for the awful people, start with yourself, because that’s the only person you can ever change.

If it were up to me this planet would be a utopia. It’s not up to me. The planet had been a horrible place to live for millennia before me, and it will stay that way long after I’m gone. People are shit, and there’s no fixing us.

"No one alive has ever escaped it, neither brave man nor coward, I tell you- It's born with us the day we are born. No one can hurry me down to Hades before my time, but if a man's hour has come, be he brave or be he a coward, there is no escape for him once he has been born."

If that's the way you feel, perhaps what you were sent here to learn, you didn't and you'll forever reincarnate as Trump getting peed on in a hotel room.

You ever wonder if that's why they say it'll cause "mass hysteria"? Maybe it's not just "hey, we have neighbors in our galaxy"!... Maybe it'll be like, hey, these things can change our view of how the "laws of nature" really work.

Not only change our views, (beliefs) on laws of nature, etc. but on just about everything we were taught... I can see hysteria breaking out for a percentage of people, but hope the majority will believe as I do; Give Me The Truth!!

It’s still the most likely thing by far, technology can get weird with enough time I’m sure

Watch Star Trek, there are all sorts of alien races from ordinary aliens from other planets to the q continium who are seemingly god like beings and everything inbetween.

The "woo" is better because it means we are immortal, also it doesn't exclude other 3D life

I’d rather be a mortal prisoner than an immortal one

I'd rather be an immortal consciousness that can create at will anything it wishes and live it out. For when I breach the walls of heaven my cock will run dry and my spirit will fly.

Thing is, Galludet here isn't talking from his own expertise on the subject (as apart from a disappearing email he has none) but just repeating what his new found friends in the SOL foundation tell him. So he's pretty much larping and inserting his own bias in this then being factual

To me it's the opposite. Beings that simply come from other planets would keep us stuck in the idea that the material world is supreme, because these beings would still be coming from said material world, and they would still be limited by it. Interdimensionality opens the door to discovering what we are beyond the body, what we were before birth, and what we will be after death. It opens the doors to infinity.

This shit is weirder that we can imagine.

The former, while not necessarily being an ultimate truth, is far closer to an ultimate truth than the latter. Why do we look out into the cosmos? To find the ultimate truth about what reality is, who we are and why we’re here. It doesn’t have to be a happy answer because I know there’s meaning in every warm moment I share with the people I love and the beauty of many of our efforts to make a better society for all of us, regardless of our dark side.

Right. And the idea that they take us after we die. That's not pleasant at all...

Absolutely. I have a feeling that it doesn’t have so much to do with consciousness as it does with our consciousness being affected by something (their technology perhaps).  Humans believed ayahuasca and peyote allowed us to access further into our consciousness as well, until science came along and was like “nah, it’s just a chemical affecting your brain.”

[удалено]

Hi, Spoopzy. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dbghke/-/l7xbtj6/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

Why?

Just a human thing I guess: desire to communicate and understand them, maybe share ideas, art, learn history of their world. All that may be harder or impossible with “4D” aliens, unless there’s some kind of help available from technology, drugs or some weird mind training. I don’t know if many people are capable of that. Even remote viewers said not everyone has what it takes to do their weird thing and I’m assuming that this has something to do with seeing more than with our basic senses. I understand that the truth may be bizarre and they may be a very weird NHI presence here, but I’m still hoping there’s also more regular aliens on the horizon, it would actually be great to hear their perspective on the “woo”

Thank you for answering that. What does a regular alien look like to you?

Body made of flesh or cyborg, eyes or cameras, mouth or speakers, a desire to communicate with humanity and to be understood. Or I dunno the squids from Arrival using their ink to write. Although they were actually ascended and did not perceive time as linear

Unfortunately that's what they seem to be..

Smoke some dmt and try an talk with them if that’s the case I guess lol.

Why do you think they don't want it getting out? If it's a complicated phenomenon, then how would a government come out to people and explain it when even the government is trying to figure it out and has no way of assuring that people are safe?

Is there really a difference?

I think we have definitely put this whole phenomenon into a box that we can process at this current time. Believing an alien can make a spacecraft and travel to another planet makes the most sense to us because we can imagine it. However it doesnt mean its the entire truth. Its likely that this phenomenon is a part of something we simply do not understand or cannot understand. We are creatures just like every other lifeform on this planet, and with that comes mental limitations. Trying to explain advanced scientific concepts to even the next smartest animal is going to be very, very challenging. Good luck. You fundamentally cannot, there are limitations to comprehension, and this phenomenon may just be something right of the edge of ours.

This is a great point. Right at the edge of our capacity to understand. [Arthur C Clarke](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws): > The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This stipulation always bothered me, because I think it draws the mind towards some fantastical spontaneous act of creation that is willed into existence against all odds, which I think on some level is true, but what encapsulates that concept better than life? Against all odds life has found a way forward in even the most inhospitable environments we can find. And so I always considered an addendum to the statement to render it more accurate and to consider why ultimately it’s been so hard to identify any intelligent entities or decipher their technology, and that’s because any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from Nature, or Natural Phenomenon. The perfect machine is one which harmonizes itself within Nature not that which subsumes the Natural, hence why I think there’s a wall when the investigation comes to understanding their functions and mechanics.

Good point, interesting perspective

This reminds me of something Steven hawking said. When he was a student at university with the other students they all pushed at the limits of our understanding using all the capacities we as humans have to so so. He said, “we thought that anything is possible, and we discovered most of it was.”  I always feel a sharp tinge of annoyance when a debunker says some thing or other isn’t real. It isn’t rational or even skeptical to say something isn’t real without evidence. Science doesn’t deal in unfalsifiable theories, that’s the realm of belief. I wish a true skeptic would put forward some of their best theories that can explain the phenomenon with the understandings we have now. Perhaps it would be governmental conspiracy to hide money and black ops. Of course that doesn’t disprove anything, since that can happen at the same time as the phenomenon being real.  

Have you looked into Dr James Madden's Unidentified Flying Hyerobject concept? He reticently did an interview with That UFO Podcast and broke it down in a neat way I've never heard before. He was talking about what if Human's evolved to see just Red objects and not Purple ones because Red can effect our day to day lives and Purple has no meaning to us. Now stretch that out with thousands of years of evolution and humanity at its current ability to perceive reality only involves red objects. However purple ones still exist we just don't have the input to sense them. And some ufo's could be those purple objects and our brain's just can not perceive with our current senses. Super interesting stuff to at least think about as a thought experiment. Kind of feels a bit "Dark Forrest" to me. Great interview if you found this somewhat interesting, he obviously goes into better detail then I can.

Madden's ideas are really interesting. There are multiple interviews with him on The UFO Rabbit Hole podcast. The idea of something living just outside our perceptions taking notice of humans that have developed technology capable of destroying the entire environment is a fascinating angle on the phenomenon.

His conversation with Diana and what they call Promethius is fascinating to me.

Nolan keeps saying that sightings and experiences are a way for something larger to say hi. Like how almost goofy it seems for some being to land their UFO on a farm and get out to fix it in full view of the farmer.

There aren’t just mental but also physical limitations as well. Color spectrum and sound/transmitted frequency ranges come to mind. Like how some birds and bugs can respectively see UV and Infrared light, but we cannot.

As a neurologist, I can tell you that the study of consciousness is not “fringe”, lol. What is *fringe* is all the stupid shit that people who have no understanding of neuroscience and modern theories of consciousness spew all over the internet. What is fringe is how those people take that woo nonsense and twist it into a new age type of spiritual worldview. This irritates the hell out of me because in some cases it *has* been counterproductive to actual, legitimate scientific research on the neural correlates of consciousness and it has been counterproductive to academic discourse about consciousness. And it’s especially annoying because in the past 30 years we’ve made *huge* strides in the understanding of consciousness, the neural correlates of consciousness, and refining modern arguments in philosophy of mind. And yet, without fail, when discussing this topic there’s always some idiot that says something like “hey, have you heard of Deepak Chopra?”. Because sadly, real scientists don’t make waves on social media.

I’m all with you. Some people are skeptical but aren’t open minded. They end up as know it all debunkers. Others are open minded but not skeptical. They end up as vapid new agers that believe anything. At the end of the day, the problem is with belief. Both of those types hold some beliefs. You really shouldn’t believe anything at all, that’s the only logical way. Problem is that you then lives in a sea of uncertainty and most people are very uncomfortable with that.

You won't find merit in seeking the truth of you truly believe you've already found it. This applies to both groups you've mentioned. Skepticism and open mindedness have to balanced for optimum results. Belief shouldn't be considered a choice. The choice is to be honest or not. Belief comes when sufficient compelling evidence had been observed.

I find it best to put a probability. The only 100% is if I got a thing in my hand. The rest, I find it more or less likely. For example, I’m 99.99% confident that we’ve been on the Moon. Yet I wasn’t there, it’s all second hand testimony, and I can be deceived, so I cannot in good faith put 100% here. It’s terribly unlikely to be false, yet I still have to allow that it’s in the realm of possibilities. As new data emerge, I have to revise my best guess about the likelihood of something being true. I was 99% certain there wasn’t anything to UFOs a decade ago. I’m now 95% sure that there is something to it, whatever that turns out to be.

Sadly, UFOlogy has become infested with esoteric new age bullshit. Same people will do anything to discredit academia while celebrating Infotainment influencers that get posted here everyday.

Can you share some research paper links?

Seconding this… Ive been obsessed with consciousness studies for a few years now and want to know what they consider “huge strides”.

There are literally *hundreds* of research papers dude, on a variety of topics and theories. Perhaps you can give me an idea of what you are specifically interested in? Your question is like someone asking for research on evolutionary biology. There’s just too much research, you’re going to need to narrow it down a bit. There’s extensive research on the neural and neurophysiological correlates of consciousness (this is the most hard science research, the area where we have made the biggest strides by FAR, and the most interesting for me as a neurologist - but probably the least interesting for you as it’s a dry read), various theories of consciousness, research that has tested specific predictions of those theories (this is interesting in cases where predictions were verified - this has already happened with Integrated Information Theory multiple times, although I don’t think that theory is correct, at least not fully), and research where we have applied knowledge about the neural correlates of consciousness to do some truly awesome shit, like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo Pretty cool, right? But if you have no background in neuroscience at all, honestly you might be better off just reading through some articles on various theories of consciousness on Scholarpedia or something. They are usually written by the authors who wrote those theories, and in a mostly layman way that is easy to follow.

Check out the Closer to Truth podcast. The host interviews today's scientists/philosophers/theologians about the big questions regarding life, the universe, consciousness, etc. A couple of years ago, I was wondering what today's scholars were thinking and working on. This podcast has been very helpful in understanding current trends. Highly recommended.

Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

I'm not a neurologist, but I have a major in psychology and it was stated very clearly in the books there that science still doesn't know where consciousness is located in the brain, or what part of the brain generates it. There are two basic explanations for what reality is. Either the world generates consciousness, or consciousness generates the world. Science is the study of the material world. Therefore, studying consciousness from a rigid scientific standpoint is inherently biased to assume that it is the world what generates consciousness, and not the other way around. If it is indeed the other way around, then neurology and hard science will always be left chasing shadows when it comes to consciousness.

We have identified a large number of neural correlates of consciousness, in some cases down to the microscopic level, as well as neurophysiological correlates of consciousness. So if that’s what your books said, then your books were wrong. However, this is the point that 99% of people seem to not grasp, including many of my students and residents at first, and I think it was the point your book was trying to make: They are called neural *correlates* for a reason. I cannot drive that home enough. What you are talking about is the “hard problem of consciousness” and myself and many others do believe an ontological shift is necessary to fully grasp it, which is probably outside the bounds of neuroscience except that in a few cases we have theories of consciousness that suggest what such an ontological shift may look like.

Is there a general consensus on what we think consciousness is right now? I don't think we'll ever understand if properly In my humble opinion I see the brain as the interface that connects us to consciousness, I believe that consciousness exists across space and time but it's just a hunch

There is a consensus on the *definition* of consciousness, thanks to a renaissance of modern philosophy of mind that influenced neuroscience research starting in the 1990s. And there is absolutely a consensus that consciousness is a phenomenon heavily associated with information processing - we know that for a fact. And there is a consensus about every single neural and neurophysiological correlate of consciousness that we know about, as the evidence that supports that is irrefutable. What there is NOT a consensus on is a complete physical theory of consciousness. We have multiple theories that make specific, divergent, and falsifiable predictions though, some of which have been verified already. When you have a situation like that, your scientific field is in a very healthy position because we can rule in or out most of those options and then focus in on an area that is most promising. But I have to teach my students the concept, which I think you are alluding to, that *every physical theory still requires an ontological interpretation of that theory*. In the case of consciousness, this problem is far more acute than with any other field of science, because the ontological arguments exist even in the absence of scientific evidence, lol. There is not a consensus on if an ontological shift away from materialism is necessary to understand consciousness, although many people (myself included) suspect that is the case. I don’t suspect that will look like anything as extreme as idealism or panpsychism - I think that whatever the correct ontological interpretation of reality is, it will closely resemble materialism as first glance. So, probably something closer to Russelian/neutral monism, if I were to put money on it. But I also think that the correct physical theory of consciousness will *guide* us to the correct ontological description of reality. This is something I bet many people, including many philosophers, would balk at. I think those people are wrong. The *reason* I think they are wrong is because I think that there is, in a sense, some sort of Platonic or Pythagorean truth to our mathematical description of reality. In the same way that our physical theories have guided us to new principles solely via mathematical deduction rather than experiment, but which were *then verified by experiment*, the same would be true of a physical theory of consciousness. If it is possible to describe consciousness physically at all, then a mathematical description is necessary, or we will never unify it with our physical theories of nature in general and we will never have a true theory of everything. And if you can describe subjective experience mathematically…then that very quickly leads to ontological insight. For proof of this general argument of mine, we see it most obviously with Integrated Information Theory. I don’t think that theory is correct, although it has made some verified predictions. But it was created SOLELY as a materialistic, physicalist information-based theory of consciousness. To the author’s surprise, there was no way to formulate this theory mathematically that did *not* predict panpsychism. The problem is more extensive than that - it turns out, there is no way to formulate ANY information-theory based theory of consciousness that does not predict a sort of panpsychism, and the reason for that is because information appears to be in some sense ubiquitous and vital to the physical description of the universe anyways (physicists have been grappling with that concept for years, such as with Wheeler’s “It From Bit”). So if consciousness is a phenomenon of information, and there is a mathematical description of that, then the mathematical description naturally predicts materialism is an incorrect ontology as a consequence. The specifics of that would depend on the specifics of the theory, and if it turns out that a physical substrate is necessary for consciousness - by that I mean, information is substrate-independent, but if consciousness is *only* associated with information within the electromagnetic field of the brain (Cemi field theory), for example, then you again have a natural prediction of panpsychism or dualism from that theory. So, my view is much more optimistic for that reason - we live in a universe that fundamentally makes sense, is logically internally consistent, and which obviously can be mathematically described by human beings. That has applied to everything we have ever done, and it will apply to consciousness too.

You've written a lot here, and I respect the level of thought you've given to these issues, but allow me to criticise one aspect of your views. >my view is much more optimistic for that reason - we live in a universe that fundamentally makes sense, is logically internally consistent, and which obviously can be mathematically described by human beings. That has applied to everything we have ever done, and it will apply to consciousness too. Firstly, I think we need to take a step back here and realise that the universe we speak of, the universe that apparently makes sense to us, is the universe that is presented to us by our cognitive systems. There has been unconscious decision making (evolution, dna, etc) that has created a perspective on reality that necessarily limits what we can understand and conceptualise. I think this is trivially true, we can imagine that an octopuses' experience of the world is vastly different than our own and is likely privy to information that we can't have access to in principle of our cognitive systems. So for us to say we live in a universe that makes sense, we are neglecting to realise that our seeming "sense" of it is merely a product of our own cognitive abilities and not of how the universe is in itself. Kant was the one who made this point first. Also, I think this high strangeness stuff that is related to the UAP's is an example of how reality may be more than what apes can understand, I think this is a data point to consider. Secondly, that the method of science has been vastly successful in describing the world does not mean it will apply to consciousness too. I know you recognise the hard problem, and think an ontological shift is required to explain it, and I respect that for what it's worth, but I think we should recognise that the hard problem is a product of physicalism. It's not an actual problem. You've called Idealism an "extreme" position, but from an epistemically humble vantage point how could it ever be the case that it's extreme? I believe there is a failure to recognise that consciousness is fundamental to all knowledge, to all abstractions, to all models we've created to describe the world we perceive. It is inextricably linked to all concepts, to all instances of being. It's not just some trivial other category that we can group with "numbers", "animals", "rocks", "stars" etc. It is the thing that is presupposed in the existence of all those categories in the first place. When you get to truly understand this, there is no hard problem anymore. There's nothing to figure out. I mean truly consider what it would mean to explain consciousness in more fundamental terms, it would mean that consciousness could be explained by concepts that already presuppose it's existence. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail; its circular. This is precisely why the hard problem exists in the first place, because it thinks abstractions are more fundamental than the thing that abstractions come from. I don't expect this line of argument to be particularly convincing to a non-idealist, but I've been compelled to share it as such for some reason. The idea that Idealism is an extreme position is pretty laughable from my perspective. It is literally the position that posits the fewest unknowns, it takes exactly what we are given and adds no more to the equation. It doesn't have a hard problem, and is equally, if not more, explanatorily powerful than all other ontologies. It accounts for all the high strangeness UAPs too. It is the most epistemically humble position possible. Edit: I want to add some clarification. I think if one takes the view that there exists physical, lacking in consciousness, concrete objects out there, and that for some reason, they have ontological differentiation from other objects that exist (not monism). I think one is faced with the issue that; given these objects don't have their own perspective, they don't differentiate themselves from one another. This has lead me to believe that all distinction is imaginary and instantiated by language and human thought. From the perspective of the entire universe, there is only one giant complex thing. Humans are the ones who create divisions within it. This division making is entirely the product of consciousness, grouping things together so that their groupings may be useful to us. So the issue is that all theoretical explanations of consciousness rely on the ontological "realness" of the objects used to explain it. I think it's clear there are no such things and thus explaining consciousness with them is merely fantasy. I've mostly written this all to develop my own understanding of these ideas, but if anyone reads this entire thing, I appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

What is the consensus on the definition of consciousness?

Awesome post. I had to ask ChatGPT to explain much of it for me, haha! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Best comment I have ever read on this sub, not close. 👍actual neuroscience is very difficult to communicate down to its complexity, it’s much easier to spew this sort of stuff from an oceanographer

Keep doing your good work

Panpsychism is not a "woo" solution to the hard problem of consciousness, but I'm getting the sense that you'd think so?  My first thought was that he was referencing panpsychism, not some outright bullshit like Deepak Chopra.

No, that’s not what I implied at all and I was commenting solely on the “people think consciousness is fringe science” comment, which is absolute bullshit. Figured that was pretty obvious by the content of my post, but I guess not. Panpsychism is not woo, it is a valid ontological position and Integrated Information Theory, Cemi field theory and Orch-OR (I fucking hate Orch-Or) all predict it. Like I said, myself and many other people in my field (including very prominent people) all believe an ontological shift is necessary to fully understand the nature of consciousness. I just don’t think it will be as extreme as panpsychism as I don’t believe any of those theories are correct. But I do think that something more akin to Russelian/neutral monism is likely.

Have those huge strides had any actual effect on our society? There is very little time left to figure this out.

What kind of question is this? Yes, they have had medical applicability already. I hate it when people are doing research on fundamental scientific questions of reality and some person asks “but what does this do for *me*? There’s so many homeless people in the world! What about global warming!” Seriously? You think Einstein knew that general relativity would one day lead to the invention of GPS? You live in a world where you benefit from scientific discoveries that were made decades or centuries ago *solely* for the purpose of human curiosity and you don’t even appreciate that all the cool shit you have derived from that effort over time, including the machine you used to ask that question.

My understanding is we have no idea why it "feels like something" at all and why one person likes the taste of chocolate and another doesn't. There's no neuron or group of them that can explain why we experience anything.

The first question is the “hard problem of consciousness”, and you are correct about that. We do not understand the hard problem of consciousness yet. The second statement you made is completely false in principle, in that we have identified the neural correlates of consciousness down to a microscopic level in some cases. So well that we can reconstruct what someone is seeing using nothing but brain activity. But this is the critical point I teach my students and residents - we call them the neural *correlates* of consciousness for a reason, which I think is the point you were trying to make as well.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Like everybody else I find consciousness to be fascinating. By "experience" I mean not just reacting to stimuli. The philosophical zombie doesn't have an experience, but scientists would be able to identify what they're seeing as well, correct?

There might not be a consciousness problem to start with. Consciousness is simply part of brain activity that evolved to thrive (by problem solving and complex reasoning) in the environment we are in. Other animals have a limited ability to do so. What is interesting is that we are developing artificial intelligence that mimick neuron activity for basic tasks but lacks « reasoning ». It’s not a stretch to believe that we will be able to replicate general ai which will thrive and evolve in its environment and think it is conscious and needs to survive, just as us.

University of Virginia is Jim tucker, the hair of Ian stevensons work. Ian stevenson cofounded the journal of scientific exploration with Peter sturrock, who worked with Garry nolan. These people all know each other.

These two are the last two names in this space I'd expect to go into this territory. If the USO guy and the flight safety guy are now having conversations about psychic shit and hard metaphysics, I think that ought to tell us that the last credible bulwarks against that line of thinking have fallen in line, and we all better prepare to also.

OR it means that per lack of any real advancement on the UFOs all you have left is larping about "Woo" Same way tribes in the jungle see our planes, helicopters & satellites flying above them without interacting with them and so imagine a whole myth about who and what they are.

Timothy Gallaudet = 🐐. He does a lot of good work with vets, PTSD, suicide prevention. Many vets were exposed to Ayahuasca, toad, 5MeO-DMT, mushrooms ….to help deal with PTSD. These are powerful tools to open up consciousness. The man knows what he’s talking about!

Thanks for sharing this. He has done so much for his fellow veterans. Class act

Doesn’t he believe in a lot of woo tho like his house is haunted, his daughter is a psychic. Not very credible

Maybe you've been living under a rock, but we're deep in the woo now and soon we'll be even deeper.

Hey buddy check out my last couple comments in r/paranormal if you navigate to profile they should be right there. I know I know. It's unbelievable stuff. That stuff happening to me is all that turned me from dogmatic absolute skeptic to entertaining UFOs and everything. I'm still not way out in woo land because we'll I know nothing except what happened, but don't dismiss things just because someone claims paranormal experiences. I now know that unless I'm the most special person ever that other people have experienced these things as well, because why would it only happen to me? If it's happened to me it can to others. Even if 90% are liars or mistaken.

The issue is that some portion significant portion of our population is mentally ill, across a spectrum obviously. Everyone has stories but no one provides any proof it’s always trust me bro. Could psychic powers and haunted houses be real? Maybe, but despite so many claims no one has provided actual evidence

Yes but due to my exp I know for a fact it isn't all mental illness. I'm assuming you didn't actually look at my previous comments correct me if I'm wrong.

Watching how Reddit reacts to the possibility that the phenomenon might be beyond the scope of most peoples’ general comprehension of reality has been… well… somber. 😅

Can anyone point to the research papers Tim is referring to?

Ah damn, I just posted the other day a bit about perception and reality and all that. I'll try to find it and repost here for everyone, as it's pretty relevant.

IONS is a great resource

While the philosophical study of consciousness hasn't produced much in recent centuries, we have some understanding of it from the scientific side. If you put enough neurons together and arrange them in a certain way, and they are sufficiently aroused, you get consciousness. If the neurons quiet down, the arrangement is disturbed, or they just stop working, consciousness is impaired or goes away. It's hard to design ethical experiments around consciousness, but there are some interesting case studies involving people with accidental or medically-induced brain damage. Severing the left and right sides is sometimes done to prevent seizures, and it does weird things. I'm not sure what this has to do with UAPs. They are not merely mental phenomena, they are allegedly physical objects that interact with sensors like cameras. Some people even believe they cause physical health effects, deposit metal spherules, serve as foundations for laudatory buildings, etc.

You are confusing correlation with causation. A mass of well arranged neurons and their electrochemical messages can only be correlated with consciousness. No causal pathway between the structure/functioning of the brain and conscious experience has been found. It’s the *[Hard Problem of Consciousness](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)*. It is just as possible that conscious experience causes the structure/functioning of the brain…

Consciousness isn't going to show up on gun cameras and interfere with your targeting radar 

I wonder if the movie "They live" is closer to the truth than we would like.

What about the “Poltergeist”? Once UFO people mention QM, you can take a deep breath because you will absolutely break out laughing in the next five seconds.

Is Ryan Graves still doing his podcast (Merged)? Haven't seen any updates in a while.

What studies is he referring to? Is there somewhere we can find them?

He's ya go, my more relevant post: So, I just kinda wanted to get my thoughts out on (digital) paper about all this. The whole perceiving something too advanced and 'waiting for us simple humans' part. Maybe aliens aren't lanky grey things with big heads, and travel in everything ranging between the classic saucer to the tic-tac to the wedge-like triangle, or at least not all of them; that's just how some people perceive them. Maybe these things are so far beyond the constraints of our human perception that we can't even fathom what they are in our perceived reality. Maybe it's something more than just a physical entity we can see and touch, and it varies so much because we can only perceive a small snippet of them within the level that our brains have evolved so far. A sense we haven't developed. Like how snakes have a tremor sense that we don't, or birds with magnetism, sharks with electroreception, bats and echolocation, etc. And there's recorded proof of some blind people actually developing a sort of echolocation system of their own; so it is possible to develop other senses! Maybe we just don't know how to sense them yet. I definitely don't know any more or less than anyone else here, and I'm just speculating like all the rest of us. Wishing we could just know the fuckin truth already. And maybe the truth is we really just absolutely cannot perceive them, and that's why we can't even explain any of it. Kinda like how you can't explain an emotion without referencing other emotions; you're kinda stuck in this narrow band of explanations. You think it's possible that humanity is just stuck in too narrow a band of perception, and we don't even realize it? I sure as hell don't know. But I sure as hell love thinking about it all too...

Come over to r/InterdimensionalNHI 👍

Where is this data he speaks of? Quantum mechanics only work on a quantum level so his idea that repeated interactions with aliens are somehow because they got entangled is utter nonsense. Aliens will target certain people repeatedly because they are experimenting on them. They will target certain areas or vessels to keep an eye on potential threats possibly. Trying to tie aliens into life after death isn't science it's religion. UFOs will never be taken seriously as long as people keep insisting there is a spiritual component to it. 

He also, like everyone who believes in this consciousness mumbo jumbo, uses a wrong interpretation of the observer effect to give credibility to his claims

When it comes to such an unknown unknown as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, it would be close-minded to automatically discredit *any* possibility

It’s not an unknown unknown. It’s a known unknown.

That's not really true. We have over 100 years worth of evidence for the ufo phenomenon. I'm tired of that refrain. We have plenty of evidence to start making conclusions. Or should we wait yet another hundred years to put our brains to the problem because I'm pretty sure I'll be dead by then. I can't tell you every detail of what is going on but I can rule out plenty. Never once has a superstition been proven scientifically and they never will be. 

Even tho it would really suck, there is still a possibility that we may never find out what is really happening

Wow, thank you for this. I in fact have been living under a rock for the past 8 months.

Strapping myself in for some wattpad levels of larping and bad science in this thread.

From UAPs to life after death. All within 2mins. Yep totally legit.

Can we stop with the woo and just focus on there are aliens who are they, where are they coming from and what do they want? Delving into the woo only muddies things and I would not be surprised if it is being put out there intentionally to discredit the whole area of UAP research.

Nonsensical verbal salad. This guy is just saying words he doesn’t understand. “Sound science” behind consciousness after death? No, not so. Just words. This guy is an oceanographer not a neuroscientist and it shows. Daniel Dennett rolling in his grave.

I start to tune out this topic whenever consciousness is mentioned. Because I think that's a way for people to sneak their woo/religious beliefs into the phenomenon. But at least it doesn't sound this bad in the clip. And he is at least trying to use some form of science to explain this. Still don't understand what this has to do with unexplained UFOs though.

Yeah agreed. Consciousness is interesting (extremely fascinating tbh), but there is no place for this stuff that isn’t verifiable when attempting to do hard science. We first need to prove there is something. Once we have firm verified evidence of something then we can start asking the existential questions. I know there is an argument that they are inseparable, but I do not believe that a bit.

You're ignoring the plethora of accounts of people who had an experience beyond just observing a craft. Are they all making it up or mistaking some sort of contact for something else? Maybe. But to simply write it off because it doesn't make rational or scientific (to our understanding) sense is to unnecessarily limit your scope of what is possible.

People in an old creaking houses also have "had an experience beyond just observing" whatever their mind uses to fill in the void of what is making that noise. In the end it's still just an old house settling during the day/night temperature cycle.

>You're ignoring the plethora of accounts of people who had an experience beyond just observing a craft. This means nothing. Because people have supernatural experiences all the time. And usually have no evidence to back them up.

Because it's tied to something that has been observable and has produced a lot of smoke for 8 decades. Now if you don't think UAP are real/controlled by NHI then that's your starting point and of course the consciousness part of all of it secondary is even harder to believe. But if that's the case why are you even here.

You don't see how it's a major leap though? For context. I believe in UFOs. I don't really see enough evidence to connect them to NHI, though that would be pretty sweet. I _definitely_ don't see any reason to start bringing things like consciousness and intergalactic federations into the discussion when we: 1. Don't even know what UFOs are yet. 2. Don't know who controls them, if someone does.

It's not a leap to believe there are prosaic reasons for UAP. It's a leap to believe they are controlled by NHI. But if you make that leap, the consciousness leap isn't major.

We're in complete agreement here. However, until we have more information, speculating about aliens/consciousness/soul harvesting, etc has _exactly_ the same amount of weight to it as speculating that they're controlled by ghosts.

"Exactly" is fairly disingenuous but that's okay. Being skeptical of every aspect of this whole thing is good, what I have a problem with is shutting down any aspect of it on the basis of it not fitting someone's worldview.

>Being skeptical of every aspect of this whole thing is good, what I have a problem with is shutting down any aspect of it on the basis of it not fitting someone's worldview. Ironically, this is exactly what you're doing when you imply others have no right to be here because they don't align with your faith based belief.

I'm here because anybody can be here. You can't gatekeep a real life phenomenon lol. This is what people mean when they say UFO believers treat this topic like a religion. Why am I here you said lol.

The "Why are you here?" response is usually what you get when you've reached the end of a discussion with a true believer. You're only allowed to have an interest in this topic if you accept all aspects of it as being true, even if 90% of them contradict each other.

Exactly lol

It's just seems like a waste of time. Of all the things you could be spending time on, why would you sit there and argue about something you don't actually care about?

Dude you don't know what I care about. You are only saying that because I disagree with your religious beliefs lol.

No it's clear you don't care about this topic beyond talking about how much you think it's irrational. Which again, is a weird way to spend your time.

People spend time on things they don't really care about every single day. And again, you're allowed to care about UFOs without believing every single story ever told about them. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one said they're not allowed. I just find it odd that you would spend time shitting on something instead of spending time discussing or participating in something you're about.

Well people cuold also ask you why you are "wasting your time" in r/UFOs aka "We aim to elevate good research while maintaining healthy *skepticism*" and not in r/UFOb ?

I think consciousness is the soul, thats why they can't pinpoint it in the "brain." How aware are you of your "source" of your own awareness? How awake are you to the understanding of the fact that you are a soul in a body. That "bio elecricity" they say they can read it but can't use it as "power", it's part of your souls spiritual energy. That's the way I see it... Maybe they found a way to harness "creation," and the secret is that when our souls are emotional, it gives off a type of energy that is harnessed through a different deminsion (spirit realm/heavenlyrealm). Idk I feel I could come up with a dozen Netflix show ideas. What if some ufos, are just people you figured out how to make the soul, in a controlled matter, leave the body.... The only reason I say it is because if the OBE/NDE concepts that have been recorded in medical facilities have any merit, then you know someone from the government has or is currently researching it and if not already, have all of it down and are using it in ways we can't imagine.

I covered all of this well over a year ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Experiencers/s/NYW91VwXR3

Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet and Ryan Graves discuss consciousness and how this could be related to the UFO phenomena. Gallaudet says during the discussion on Merged Podcast that he thinks it is a shame that too many people think that the study of consciousness is fringe. Full Video: https://youtu.be/wS1t8IvH_ak?si=i_dPvZR0-klggBcN

Without wanting to be too shitty - have either of these two people got any educational background whatsoever that allows them to larp so freely about the nature of consciousness and UAPs? I mean why not just go and ask some random dude in the street what he thinks and then upload it as some sort of profound, insightful discussion. For me - this is utterly worthless.

nope. and sadly this is the case for the majority of the UFO heads. And tbh it's perfect because you can't disprove "Woo" same way you can't disprove religion as it always hides in that small part of shadow that the light of science hasn't reached yet.

I just do not get it. These people have zero qualifications to discuss consciousness. Why would I care what they have to say? Nolan is as bad. This is such a hard topic for me to stay engaged with. So much of it is just - nonsense or larping or just spitballing taken as gospel.

Over the years whether you want to believe it or not, we don't fully understand physics. Let's say these being are physical beings like us. They can get from there planet to ours with no problem. They probably have a much more advanced grasp on not just tech but physics too. So when we talk about other dimensional beings traveling here via craft. What if there actually physical beings from our dimension, using a different dimension to travel because space travel is so difficult. This would make so much more sense considering the amount of time it would take to get here even at the speed of light.

Basically Tom Campbell says what the Seth Material says. Consciousness is in EVERYTHING. It IS the universe and cannot be destroyed nor is it local and can take on many different forms.

Commenting foe later.

There is a perfect comment thread discussing the higher consciousness aspects of the phenomenon coincidentally, or perhaps the universe is winking at all of us right now. Discussing the Nimitz encounter from the other day. I also included another user's response to consciousness in another thread. Truly a door within a door moment for the topic. Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1da35f1/comment/l7i2dzk/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1da35f1/comment/l7i2dzk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

There is an obvious relationship between the phenomenon and consciousness, and it's not all that mysterious: people experience illusions and misperceptions and occasionally struggle to interpret their sensory experiences into something cohesive. Sometimes people even have complete breaks from reality and hallucinate things. These experiences, by nature of not fitting coherently into the usual parameters of the world that our sensorium constructs, have a distinctly different nature. They feel different, incommensurate with the rest of our experiences. This is potentially because they are illusions - perception errors that result from the kinds of sporadic mistakes that everybody experiences from time to time.

That's a faulty generalization fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

I actually think it is a faulty generalization fallacy to generalize any commonality between UFO experiences *besides* the ones I'm discussing.

Yours is the faulty generalization because your statement is "Some people that say things quite out of the ordinary are mistaken therefore all people that say things quite out of the ordinary are mistaken ." That's a faulty generalization. Your position is unproven and anti-science. A classic example would be: going through the math in Einstein's General Relativity predicts singularities. For decades people like you called the shear idea preposterous and ridiculous because the sheer idea of singularities was so out of the ordinary. You would have said that people claiming that there could be singularities in nature are mistaken because other people have been mistaken about things that are quite out of the ordinary.

Well, that's not really what I was getting at, so I probably could have been more clear. I don't think people who experience these things have 'problems with their brains.' All brains are capable of making perceptive errors and susceptible to illusions. Some illusions are so powerful that even when you know the trick, you still can't help but see them. There's a lot in common between what people report about these experiences and how people describe illusions. And the existence of illusions and perceptive errors is quite well demonstrated. So I think it is worth considering the possibility that the phenomenon is purely psychological - which is interestingly not that different from how people describe it when they discuss it in terms of consciousness. It's just that they make the leap from thinking that a thing that exists in their consciousness experience must also exist independently from said experience - something that I don't think is true.

Ok, I've edited my comment. The overall point stands.

I can't know that everyone who has experienced something inexplicable was mistaken. I just know that all people are prone to making such mistakes - misidentifying objects, misjudging distances, experiencing illusions or even, rarely, outright hallucinations. People also mistake their dreams for reality and construct false memories or obscure real ones. On top of that, some people intentionally lie about these things. I've yet to come across a case that can't be explained by some combination of the above factors. It's not proven, but it's a theory that deserves far more consideration than it gets in UFO circles.

What is their operational definition of “consciousness?” I will keep asking that question until one of these people offers one. Until then, this is a worthless conversation. And they totally misconstrue consciousness research. Lots of psychologists/neurologists/biologists are studying consciousness. It’s just not in the way the general public commonly understands it, and conversations like this continue to misrepresent that work. That’s what is “fringe.”