Bruce Fenton, A Better Human Origin Story |429|

My concern resides in this: That the epistemology we (not the 'Royal We' - LOL!! and a great point by Bruce) are employing to establish the case for this particular proto-hypothesis inside Intervention theory (NOT intelligent design and NOT creation), consists of linear inductive inference. That is, it is an extrapolation from a line drawn through a loose series of Inductive Predicates. The lone Deductive Predicate does not exclusively support the line of inductive inference reason - and this is important. It compels us to move somewhere, but that does not necessarily imply here.
nice... I love this rigor.

how do we think about talk about paradigm shift in this context? I mean, your point calls into question how we normally move from one crackpot theory to another... so how do we do better? my natural tendency would be to jump on bruce's train and ride it as hard and fast as I can until it runs off the rails.


This proto-hypothesis must now begin to make specific predictions at risk under the theory. It must step into the world of deductive inference and out of the world of inductive confirmation.
more great stuff :) but I still feel a need to contextualize/measure our analysis within the science-as-we-know-it game we find ourselves in.

to put it in evolutionary terms, we don't have to be the fastest gazelle we just shouldn't be the slowest :)



This is an informal critique however, and does not serve to make Bruce wrong as the sponsor of this alternative idea. A skeptic is an ally at this point in the Scientific Method. As a skeptic, I love this progression of thought, and am an ally in its hypothesis development.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. The time of science or scientists is not wasted through
competing nor even fringe sponsored theories or observations. The ‘time’ of science is wasted
through the dogma and intransigence of those who patrol its discourse, enforcing single answers
under a pretense of ‘science communication’.
;;/?
 
Last edited:
My biggest question regarding all this (if true) is the ultimate motives of our “creators.” Is this motive a metaphysical one or a physical one? Both?
this is such a great point. I keep coming back to this question of spirituality and whether it exists in some "pure form" ( terrible phrase but you get the idea). I've come to think about it in the form of this question/thought experiment: does ET have a life review during his nde?

If so, then all this stuff seems a lot less important :)
 
For example - the 'NDE Life Review' is deductive in its mode and type of inference. And whether or not that event is real or is simply a pyschological construct, this is rigorously so (they just possess a skill at enacting deduction that we do not, LOL!!)

And as they say in maths, we are not inventing maths - we invent the symbols to describe it, but we only discover its tenets. Even so, in the spiritual realm, the ideas of logical critical path, reduction, consilience and falsification apply. They appear to be very big fans of such technique, we are merely here to discover it.
haha, but then again, I'm not sure I 100% agree. one of the takeaways from the "consciousness is fundamental" paradigm shift is that we are creating our reality. and as trite as that might sound we seem to have some experimental evidence that supports this idea. dean radin's double slit experiment suggest that the observer effect is real. and from here it's only a couple of small leaps to buddhist tulpas and the idea that we are essentially living a lucid dream.
 
This is why I focussed on the claims that could be proven or disproven, and not on the entire message, we can't just assume things are true because ETI say so, I can simply say that the message/download specified three major events which I felt could leave traces until today and that later I identified traces which matched expectations. For me, that is sufficient validation that at least those parts of the story are true, which gives more credibility to the parts I can't support with evidence (though falls short of full validation).
Couldn’t a download be deceptive as well?
 
haha, but then again, I'm not sure I 100% agree. one of the takeaways from the "consciousness is fundamental" paradigm shift is that we are creating our reality. and as trite as that might sound we seem to have some experimental evidence that supports this idea. dean radin's double slit experiment suggest that the observer effect is real. and from here it's only a couple of small leaps to buddhist tulpas and the idea that we are essentially living a lucid dream.
Right - I wonder if there is anyone whom you could interview that might go into all that in more detail - either in general or in relation to tulpas.

Regarding Dean Radin's double slit experiment, I am not sure if it really is any different from any other PK experiment. I mean suppose the meditators cause a small PK distortion of the slits themselves, or manipulate the laser - that would undoubtedly shift those fringes a bit.

David
 
My concern resides in this: That the epistemology we (not the 'Royal We' - LOL!! and a great point by Bruce) are employing to establish the case for this particular proto-hypothesis inside Intervention theory (NOT intelligent design and NOT creation), consists of linear inductive inference. That is, it is an extrapolation from a line drawn through a loose series of Inductive Predicates. The lone Deductive Predicate does not exclusively support the line of inductive inference reason - and this is important. It compels us to move somewhere, but that does not necessarily imply here.

We must be cautious in using linear inductive inference, as it has a high potential to be misleading. It bolsters its case off of confirmation (Anecdote being confirmed by Inductive Predicate) as opposed to prediction-under-risk and deductive consilience (what we need in the end).
This line of arguing really does my head in. I'd like an AI program that would translate arguments like that into something I fully understand!

David
 
haha, but then again, I'm not sure I 100% agree. one of the takeaways from the "consciousness is fundamental" paradigm shift is that we are creating our reality. and as trite as that might sound we seem to have some experimental evidence that supports this idea. dean radin's double slit experiment suggest that the observer effect is real. and from here it's only a couple of small leaps to buddhist tulpas and the idea that we are essentially living a lucid dream.
This issue of crafting a mind which understands the rigor of logic, critical path of syllogism, inductive versus deductive inference, etc. appear to be part of one's spiritual integrity - to the best I can fathom (still working on this and considering other views as well).

I worked in high school with a buddy for a couple weeks, injecting foam insulation into older out-of-spec buildings being renovated. They hired us kids probably because they knew it would be a short-lived job and they could expose us to the formaldehyde and fumes and not get a Workman's Comp claim. The job was a blast, with jokes and music blasting while we worked. Then beers and carousing after the job was complete - and good pay for a 16 year old, 4 to 6 hours a day - so not full time.

They put my buddy John on the 'nozzle' - and suddenly the light-hearted demeanor turned very serious and gruff. There was to be no doubt on the nozzle, about method, discipline, being aware of your mates, your mask goggles shoes and gloves, the circumstance and the condition of the line and pressure gauge. There was no messing about as nozzleman. John got careless with the nozzle a couple days in, and sprayed expanding foam onto the wall, some guys and our equipment. We young'uns got our butts kicked for that. I mean just flat-out ass chewed.

I think it is somewhat like that - yes we are being offered the wondrous joy of being able to create reality - but not before we learn how to control our nozzle. And this is a very serious subject it appears to me. The rigor of logic, critical path of syllogism, inductive versus deductive inference, etc. is the disciplined nozzle through which our creative energy will manifest? Would it not be?

And it is not that our energy must conform to the physical/mathematical constructs of this world, rather that our inner structure must bear the ability to deliver its creation with wisdom. Wisdom which apparently, only this unfair ass-chewing world can impart well?
 
Last edited:
This line of arguing really does my head in. I'd like an AI program that would translate arguments like that into something I fully understand!

David
I know... it took me 20 years to perceive this, and 10 years to attempt to describe it. Still working on it.

There is a difference between

- making a specific and probative prediction, which is placed at risk, and then is confirmed as true​
versus​
- forming a general conjecture, which is not tested, but for which multiple serendipitous-but-confirming events could appear to support over a long period of time (eventually I will find something inductive in every conjecture I make).​
This latter condition is what we have to watch for as those who ponder fringe ideas. I call this the Confirmative Model. More detail at Necessity - A Case for Plurality.
 
Last edited:
Right - I wonder if there is anyone whom you could interview that might go into all that in more detail - either in general or in relation to tulpas.
well I might turn that question around :) could you think we should talk to?

Regarding Dean Radin's double slit experiment, I am not sure if it really is any different from any other PK experiment. I mean suppose the meditators cause a small PK distortion of the slits themselves, or manipulate the laser - that would undoubtedly shift those fringes a bit.

David
totally agree. and I think your point is really important regarding how we misunderstand a lot of parapsychology data. then again, it's often about how we frame things up in order to break through paradigms. radin's double slit experiment was genius.
 
great stuff. I highlighted a couple of points I was hoping you might have further thoughts on... pro or con.
∧ Deductive inconsistency between genetic and archeo-datings for 'Out of Africa' singular migration hypothesis
Into Africa 73 Kya
∧ Eurasia migrations Out of Africa 50-60 Kya


I am gonna attempt this, but must comment that I am not fully versed on this and normally would not make conjecture therein. But will try and summarize what I think Bruce is supporting (???). Brian Sykes outlines in his excellent work, The Seven Daughters of Eve - the 7 mitochondrial (mother's) DNA groupings in which all of Humanity bear membership. All of these seven groups emanate from one individual female (moniker 'Eve') in Africa from 60 K ya.​
This fits nicely with Out of Africa socio-anthropology theory. It however is inductive only as a stand alone observation.​
Once we open up the vastly more complex and risky set of autosomal DNA (the complete makeup of the organism, not simply the mother's mother's DNA), the question of origins become more convoluted - not murky per se, but rather contradictory. Autosomal DNA shows older human autosomal DNA outside of Africa - which is a problem if one is to presume that mankind originated IN Africa.​
So, we face the alternative of assembling conjecture that this older DNA wandered INTO Africa and banged Mitochondrial Eve.. and that progeny then exited Africa at a later time.​
∧ These same changes were not paralleled inside other hominin, and should have had analogue progressions occur
∧ The HAR changes were enormously successful on the first try, as there existed no neutral interea mutations in the conserved genome

Chimpanzee and proto-humans split at a Last Common Ancestor around 4 to 8 million years ago. Common to both us and chimps are regions of the genome which pertain to our vocal, spatial processing and frontal lobe cognitive abilities. These regions of the genome have been very resistant to change through the history of hominidae (apes). They are our evolutionary fitness asset as a family.​
However, after humans diverged from this lineage, all of a sudden mutations in these regions became all the rage (human accelerated regions). Suddenly this area began to mutate in mass and more importantly, in blocks - and​
a. possessed no interea - i.e. no conserved history of neutral, benign or failed mutations​
b. happened 10,000 times faster than even average whole genome mutation rates​
c. produced specific highly advantageous ergodicity (advantageous capabilities)​
d. were constrained to only these cognitive functional areas.​
Meanwhile in our peer lineages - those sister hominidae species under the same environment and same genetic pressures and bearing the same exact DNA............................... NOTHING mutated. Humans were adapting at an alarming rate, ...................yet our sister species, eating the same things and bearing the same DNA, in the same exact environment, here longer, and under extaordinary genetic and inbreeding pressure themselves

..........did not have one base pair migration, did not undergo a single frameshift and had not altered a thing....
ca nyou explain this.png
ca nyou explain this 2.png
 
Last edited:
∧ Deductive inconsistency between genetic and archeo-datings for 'Out of Africa' singular migration hypothesis
Into Africa 73 Kya
∧ Eurasia migrations Out of Africa 50-60 Kya


I am gonna attempt this, but must comment that I am not fully versed on this and normally would not make conjecture therein. But will try and summarize what I think Bruce is supporting (???). Brian Sykes outlines in his excellent work, The Seven Daughters of Eve - the 7 mitochondrial (mother's) DNA groupings in which all of Humanity bear membership. All of these seven groups emanate from one individual female (moniker 'Eve') in Africa from 60 K ya.​
This fits nicely with Out of Africa socio-anthropology theory. It however is inductive only as a stand alone observation.​
Once we open up the vastly more complex and risky set of autosomal DNA (the complete makeup of the organism, not simply the mother's mother's DNA), the question of origins become more convoluted - not murky per se, but rather contradictory. Autosomal DNA shows older human autosomal DNA outside of Africa - which is a problem if one is to presume that mankind originated IN Africa.​
So, we face the alternative of assembling conjecture that this older DNA wandered INTO Africa and banged Mitochondrial Eve.. and that progeny then exited Africa at a later time.​
∧ These same changes were not paralleled inside other hominin, and should have had analogue progressions occur
∧ The HAR changes were enormously successful on the first try, as there existed no neutral interea mutations in the conserved genome

Chimpanzee and proto-humans split at a Last Common Ancestor around 4 to 8 million years ago. Common to both us and chimps are regions of the genome which pertain to our vocal, spatial processing and frontal lobe cognitive abilities. These regions of the genome have been very resistant to change through the history of hominidae (apes). They are our evolutionary fitness asset as a family.​
However, after humans diverged from this lineage, all of a sudden mutations in these regions became all the rage (human accelerated regions). Suddenly this area began to mutate in mass and more importantly, in blocks - and​
a. possessed no interea - i.e. no conserved history of neutral, benign or failed mutations​
b. happened 10,000 times faster than even average whole genome mutation rates​
c. produced specific highly advantageous ergodicity (advantageous capabilities)​
d. were constrained to only these cognitive functional areas.​
Meanwhile in our peer lineages - those sister hominidae species under the same environment and same genetic pressures and bearing the same exact DNA............................... NOTHING mutated. Humans were adapting at an alarming rate, ...................yet out sister species, eating the same things and bearing the same DNA, in the same exact environment, here longer, and under extaordinary genetic and inbreeding pressure themselves

..........did not have one base pair migration, did not undergo a single frameshift and had not altered a thing....
I guess all of that temporal inconsistency can be wrapped up by the ID folk - the designer(s) simply sat down (in some sense ) and designed a new creature, pulling their best code from previous experiments. A designer can do such things - they are no longer a puzzle.

Indeed, my understanding of Behe is that every organism on Earth needs a design update from time to time to reverse the damage that RM+NS produces (kind of vaguely like Windows 10). Behe doesn't actually state that, but is seems to me to be an unavoidable conclusion from the theory he exponds in "Darwin Devolved".

David
 
Wormwood asked, couldn't downloads be deceptive?

I brought up that possibility of trickster deception in downloads or visions and the like at the outset, but it wasn't picked up on. I know of a case where hundreds in a ufology forum were deceived by counterfeiters for many years. Eventually the latter were outed and the group dispersed, many with PTSD. Note also that many abductees talk of looking into the eyes of their abductors and feeling overwhelming love. Mind control is often at work, and the victims (many of whom can be very bright Ph.D.s) have no clue.
 
I find this all really interesting but a bit confusing.

Bruce seems to be talking nuts and bolts Alien manipulation on one hand and present day "psychic" manipulation at the same time, one fits a timescale and is accidental (if so who is doing the manipulation of that) the other a sort of psi "watcher" long term thing.

To my short observation there seems to be so many manipulations happening at once some of which we just ignore.

One of the strange manipulators is the whole "crapsicle" debate which seems to be morphing into a branch of science,
where gut bacteria can almost control the emotions of the host and a change in gut bacteria will make the timid brave and the brave timid.
Now if you control diet ( and most religions do) you can sort of control bacteria.
I know this is a small thing but I introduce it to show how complicated this manipulation really is and how we need to
look out to the mundane and see it isnt so mundane after all.
Step in a pile of shit and your whole life could change, never mind aliens landing on your head.
Sorry Bruce, not trying to downplay your study just adding an angle.
 
Have now listened to the podcast. Very interesting, and a great job done by both Alex and Bruce in presenting the ideas and contentions. Thanks, guys.

Would need at least to listen to the podcast another time, and almost certainly to read Bruce's and Valerie's books, before even hoping to come to a clear understanding of exactly what's being proposed and why, so if the response to the rest of this post is "Stop wasting our time - just do the listening/reading; that will answer your questions / address your points", then fair enough. I have, at least, reread those parts of this thread that are directly relevant to the podcast (as opposed to, say, the somewhat-related diversions into ID, which I skipped on a second reading).

That said, I would love - for the purposes of a clear overview - for Bruce to respond to David's post on page 3 re the proposed sequence of events.

I also think that malf's objection has not been adequately addressed:

Ok. But can any explain Bruce’s theory wrt Australia and the million years thing?
A fair question, malf. As I understand it (and this might be way off base), the exchange stands roughly like this:

malf: It doesn't seem to me that there's a problem with the mainstream view that Australia was populated 60-70,0000 years ago by migration from South-East Asia, because the route at that time was mostly by land (due to lower sea levels).

Bruce: But I'm not talking about 60-70,000 years ago, I'm talking about a million years ago.

In which case, isn't Bruce's a non-response? We are talking about the viability of the mainstream view, which is based on a migration several tens of thousands of years ago, so what happened millions of years ago is surely irrelevant?

I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting anybody, and I welcome any corrections/clarifications.

Also, to be clear: I am not endorsing either view, though I am very sympathetic to a view which has indigenous Australians here from the start, as their oral tradition claims (not least because their oral traditions have proven to have been reliable in many other respects).
 
One of the strange manipulators is the whole "crapsicle" debate which seems to be morphing into a branch of science,
where gut bacteria can almost control the emotions of the host and a change in gut bacteria will make the timid brave and the brave timid.
Now if you control diet ( and most religions do) you can sort of control bacteria.
Hi Blaise, I have heard that the most significant person in a Buddhist monastery is the cook, because they can influence the mental state of all the monks by how and what they serve for food, but this must surely be temporary, only 3 days for food to pass through. Is this what you mean by "crapsicle" debate?
True, an 'alien' bacteria could access a human body by one's stepping in shit and bacteria do treat us as gut hosts, along with viruses and fungi, but I think because they are not driven by a singular conscious entity, more a drive to survive, they cannot be compared to an intelligent outsider having the means to control by genetic manipulation.
 
Top