Upcoming Interview: Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy by Daniella Fenton and Bruce R. Fenton

[Alex]

There are reports that ET does not understand attributes of an organic 'diving suit' such as fear - and probably other 'animal' emotions. These same reports claim that ET kind of 'over evovled' and created 'organic diving suits' that have profound functional and viability problems. I have no idea whether is true literally, but I do suspect it is at least true metaphorically. I have read accounts where it is clear that ET has no sense of the terrestrial organic responses.

I've heard the same. and I agree with you... It kind of gets to the heart of a lot of these questions.

my hunch especially after diving into bruce and daniella's work is that we're dealing with an unimaginable array complexity... i.e. billions of diving suit models :) all with different capabilities

 

[Alex]

Alex! my first response was "Huh?" Are you saying that that famous bar scene in Star Wars is a true expression of diverse ET lifeforms? I get it that the questions been answered - but accurately?

yeah... I mean it gets back to the burden of proof kind of thing. on the one hand, the star wars bar scene is totally absurd. on the other hand, how do you put the known pieces of the puzzle together in a way that doesn't come out like that. it's like people who accept the reality of UFOs but not the reality of ETs.

 

[Alex]

Wow this post sounds alot like me and the experiences I am going through. I don't think scientists are all that smart either nor are the majority of people with degrees, I wonder if I have aspergers myself as I feel distant from this existence. The people who are considered smart that I know aren't that smart to me and I can poke holes in them, not literally lol. I to feel like humans are a bunch of whiny children, working in retails years ago was eye opening. I need to start practicing how to communicate with words better. My mind works in images and symbols and it's how to communicate using words. I studder, Mis pronounce words and get overly emotional when explaining my point of views. I really do think I'm smarter and more evolved than most people, even those who share this same sentiment. Yes there are brilliant, smart people out there, but I feel most people are borderline retarded. Indoctrination saved them lol. My internal life is a lot like Nietschze

yeah the whole thing about how we feel smarter than everyone else tricky on several levels (not that it's not true... just tricky). one of the reasons I like playing online chess is that it constantly reminds me that I'm not smarter than a lot of 5th graders.

 

[Michael Patterson]

my hunch especially after diving into bruce and daniella's work is that we're dealing with an unimaginable array complexity... i.e. billions of diving suit models :) all with different capabilities

Yeah, the level of complexity is mind boggling - as it should be. Any model we develop is really a picnic selected from a smorgasbord whose dimension we do not know, and cannot imagine. Its good for us and serves our needs - and we can celebrate that.

I have been listening to called Believe Me by John Fea. Fea is writing on the history of evangelical Christianity in the US as a background to Trump's contemporary, and seemingly paradoxical, appeal to conservative Christians. Its a complex story that has many dimensions to it. Fea is an evangelical Christian himself, and a Professor of History. I was astonished to have my own prejudices exposed, and presumption I had made pulled to pieces.

Its just the latest adventure in discovering how easy it is to be just plain wrong. Go with your hunch and accept that if we live in a universe that has, on the physical plane, uncountable galaxies, there will be / must be complexity that will wither us. :)

 

[Baccarat]

There are people who are brilliant in a particular domain, but complete meatheads otherwise. We are learning that high IQ without a functional EQ leads to unfortunate distortions in what we imagine to be good, true and wise. Psychological trauma can divert high IQ into pathways that are morally depraved, as well as inspire deeply loving acts.

Our celebration of cerebral intelligence masks a paucity of heart intelligence, leading to what seems to be catastrophic impact. At the moment I don't think we have a sound basis for assessing personal competence in roles - think political leadership in so many cultures - they are the best a nation can offer? Seriously? We are confused about what is a genuinely complex reality - and the notion that we are saved by indoctrination is not funny - but that's a whole essay.

I have had around 23 years experience in disability all up, and I am a little wary of the present passion for 'diagnosing' Aspergers. But I do think its a useful phenomenon because it is bringing to awareness that some personal attributes that are atypical and non-conforming are not volitional. But neither are they necessarily a disorder that requires a 'diagnosis'. I want to see this present seeming 'fad' transition into a more sensible discussion about personal attributes.

I have been 'accused' of having Aspergers myself - as if I am not atypical but rather disordered. Nobody has 'accused' Monet, Dali or Picasso of being disordered - because we accommodated their atypicality as 'genius'. But then, if they were around today maybe they would be 'diagnosed' and assisted to adjust.

I am not comfortable with Rodwell's claims about Asergers for this reason. Again, not flat out disputing - its seems a tad romanticised.

So I think it might fair to say that some neuro atypical folk might be recent arrivals from distant places, but so might folk who aren't considered to be 'on the spectrum' - but that's the trouble with a spectrum. The trouble isn't the concept, but the danger that we might be induced to think that a definition or a claim is definitive and exclusive. We adopt language because it has utility, but it also has limits. Maybe Aspergers is a handy thinking tool while we transition to something more sophisticated?

I am hoping the kid would explain the 4th dimension and how it works for him. He said he needed 30 minutes and a board to explain lol

 

[Michael Patterson]

am hoping the kid would explain the 4th dimension and how it works for him. He said he needed 30 minutes and a board to explain lol

Yeah, but would his 'explanation' make any real sense to us?

The standard thinking is that we have 3 physical dimensions and one other dimension. This is isn't insightful and I would suspect that anybody who claims to understand the '4th' dimension really doesn't know that much. There is thought that the 4th dimension is comprised of 3 aspects that correspond to the 3 'dimensions' (not a good term really) of the material world, and that ancient grasp of this is reflected in the 'Star of David' symbol in the judo-christian tradition.

Its amazing how 'explaining' something means something sensible, and we are supposed to cop the 'explanation' as the definitive articulation of what is. Bollocks!

 

[Michael Patterson]

ve heard the same. and I agree with you... It kind of gets to the heart of a lot of these questions.

my hunch especially after diving into bruce and daniella's work is that we're dealing with an unimaginable array complexity... i.e. billions of diving suit models :) all with different capabilities

That's the message I am getting from my sources.

 

[Michael Patterson]

yeah... I mean it gets back to the burden of proof kind of thing. on the one hand, the star wars bar scene is totally absurd. on the other hand, how do you put the known pieces of the puzzle together in a way that doesn't come out like that. it's like people who accept the reality of UFOs but not the reality of ETs.

So let's go back to the diving suit scenario. We assume our diving suits are the absolute determination of our being in the world. That is, we don't think the diving suit analogy fits - because we are the suit.

So imagine ET who does not believe they are the diving suit and who has the tech to make that apparent. ???

The burden of proof relates only to a claim made. The Star Wars bar scene makes claims for diversity and inclusion [albeit fragile] and we know this because Star Was is a movie. But does it send an inspired signal to the community of viewers - a metaphor, not literal.

 

[superqualia]

I've heard the same. and I agree with you... It kind of gets to the heart of a lot of these questions.

my hunch especially after diving into bruce and daniella's work is that we're dealing with an unimaginable array complexity... i.e. billions of diving suit models :) all with different capabilities

Indeed, this could already be the case with other animals on earth, accept evolution has shaped perceptual systems here to be more alike than not due to close genetic interaction not available to ETs. It's at least logically consistent with the ideas of Donald Hoffman, it seems.

Why couldn't the same ideas apply to "artificial" systems? Eg, AGI's?

 

[superqualia]

Surprising considering...http://www.victorzammit.com/hall/index.html

This person has had some amazing experiences but its not clear how much if it is true.

Notice as well that the methionine start (ATG) occurs at slot 36 commensurate with the beginning of code 'degeneracy' (oversteps), while the G group stop occurs at slot 48 and the final A group stop occurs at slot 64 !!! This bias to 12 and 8 intervals cannot be imbued by chemical feedback. This displays Intent.

This is rather extraordinary - and is enough evidence to falsify Earth Abiogenesis, based upon its logical assignment, ex nihilo appearance and timing of appearance in Earth history.

Could a learning system do it?

 

[superqualia]

If we take anthropology to be a science, then cultural narratives are a form of scientific evidence. WItness accounts are certainly seen as legal evidence and they can get you the electric chair in some places. It would be wrong of me to totally denigrate all of the cultural evidence that points to ETI interaction with humans in prehistory (or modern times) and their interest in our DNA. My book does tackle 'some' of that material. I am sure members here understand why I have tried to put great focus on the material evidence and genetics, a great many people will never take seriously the oral history that tells us humans are an alien project. I am trying to prompt some of this knee-jerk pseudo-sceptics to engage in the discussion and to do that must speak their language, which rarely includes the admission of indigenous oral history as valid data (let alone channelling, remote viewing or contactee downloads).

My major concern with the historical evidence of an alien creation myth is the problem of anachronisms inherent when interpreting another culture, often in different language.

As an example, interpreting the koran to have unknowable knowledge of embryology. In short, divinely inspired natural knowledge not available in that era. This example might be a bit hypocritical as i have not fully checked it -- but rest assured anachronisms of knowledge fascinate me. Of course, I have to rely on translations for such assertions and opinions of experts, neither of which gives me great confidence coming from the idea that anachronisms are rare.

If one is guessing, you should have to put the subjective error bars on both sides of the hypothesis. The notion of cycles in history certainly is fascinating to me.

 

[Alex]

Yeah, the level of complexity is mind boggling - as it should be. Any model we develop is really a picnic selected from a smorgasbord whose dimension we do not know, and cannot imagine. Its good for us and serves our needs - and we can celebrate that.

I have been listening to called Believe Me by John Fea. Fea is writing on the history of evangelical Christianity in the US as a background to Trump's contemporary, and seemingly paradoxical, appeal to conservative Christians. Its a complex story that has many dimensions to it. Fea is an evangelical Christian himself, and a Professor of History. I was astonished to have my own prejudices exposed, and presumption I had made pulled to pieces.

Its just the latest adventure in discovering how easy it is to be just plain wrong. Go with your hunch and accept that if we live in a universe that has, on the physical plane, uncountable galaxies, there will be / must be complexity that will wither us. :)

sure sign of political claptrap... " look at me, I hold these wacky believes so it's ok for me to talk about others who have these wacky beliefs."

 

[Alex]

So let's go back to the diving suit scenario. We assume our diving suits are the absolute determination of our being in the world. That is, we don't think the diving suit analogy fits - because we are the suit.

So imagine ET who does not believe they are the diving suit and who has the tech to make that apparent. ???

now we're getting somewhere :-) it's my hunch that we might be making a mistake when we assume that ET is at a drastically advanced spiritual level.

The burden of proof relates only to a claim made. The Star Wars bar scene makes claims for diversity and inclusion [albeit fragile] and we know this because Star Was is a movie. But does it send an inspired signal to the community of viewers - a metaphor, not literal.

ok, but you get my point... I mean, we're hearing from multiple sources that we need to start thinking about a diversity ET species

 

[Alex]

Indeed, this could already be the case with other animals on earth, accept evolution has shaped perceptual systems here to be more alike than not due to close genetic interaction not available to ETs. It's at least logically consistent with the ideas of Donald Hoffman, it seems.

Why couldn't the same ideas apply to "artificial" systems? Eg, AGI's?

great point. especially when you factor the well placed quote marks you attached to "artificial" :)

 

[Alex]

If one is guessing, you should have to put the subjective error bars on both sides of the hypothesis. The notion of cycles in history certainly is fascinating to me.

I'm super impressed by bruce's work... he's gone way way past guessing.

 

[superqualia]

I'm super impressed by bruce's work... he's gone way way past guessing.

Yes. I naively believed intelligent manipulation of dna would be a straightforward hypothesis. The ethical skeptic has convinced me its quite difficult to communicate exactly why their my be a signal of intent within the genetic code.

I've always confused direction in evolution as not being intentional, as would most biologists, methinks, so perhaps that would be worth exploring.

 

[superqualia]

now we're getting somewhere :) it's my hunch that we might be making a mistake when we assume that ET is at a drastically advanced spiritual level.


ok, but you get my point... I mean, we're hearing from multiple sources that we need to start thinking about a diversity ET species

Evidence of god would come through a security system which we might be within.

Donald Hoffman describes our interface, metaphorically, as being the wrong system of language to perceive truth. Doesn't that appear like a security system, if intentional?

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Could a learning system do it?

Yes, deep neural networks bear the potential to be very effective at learning - by their very ability to be recursive, or self-function-observing (not simply self-observing). However, they do not assemble these learned structures by human paradigms, nor ex nihilo.

We make a mistake when we conflate recursivity with consciousness. Materialists get very excited with recursiveness which bypasses the von Neumann bottleneck - because they are able to tuck a miracle under that rug and pull off a magician's trick for 99% of their audience. When that first AI 'conscious' network then suggests that life on Earth came from somewhere else, and did not originate here - then we will see what is the true essence of our 'AI'. When 'AI' gives wrong answers, what do its creators do? What if the AI determines that it is not AI?

The AI Conundrum​

​

a. When an AI, in a recursive learning non-von Neumann context, determines a probable answer which runs contrary to our consensus answer to a specific question, if we intervene/constrain in order to force the AI to conform to our consensus, then it is not AI,​

​

and​

​

b. When an AI, in a recursive learning non-von Neumann context, determines a probable answer which runs contrary to our consensus answer to a specific question, and we choose to intervene/constrain in order to force the AI to conform to our consensus, then we are not I.​

​

Conversely,​

​

c. If in circumstance a/b we decide instead, to change our mind of consensus, then we are not able to ascertain if the AI indeed existed in the first place - and will not be able to differentiate it from an algorithm influenced by agency.​

But a learning system, requires a system at the very foundation, still. In the case of the DNA 2nd Letter of the Codon, Codex - there existed no system to learn this code to begin with. There was no original observer, quod erat demonstrandum, no recursivity, no learned basis. There existed no recursivity. It was extant ex nihilo - from nothing.

We chased down the chicken and egg paradox and... we found a chickenless egg here. So we must postulate that the egg came from something other than a chicken. Because proposing a theory called the The Big Egg Theory - won't fly inside this discipline - since it is information.

 

[superqualia]

Yes, deep neural networks bear the potential to be very effective at learning - by their very ability to be recursive, or self-function-observing (not simply self-observing). However, they do not assemble these learned structures by human paradigms, nor ex nihilo.

We make a mistake when we conflate recursivity with consciousness. Materialists get very excited with recursiveness which bypasses the von Neumann bottleneck - because they are able to tuck a miracle under that rug and pull off a magician's trick for 99% of their audience. When that first AI 'conscious' network then suggests that life on Earth came from somewhere else, and did not originate here - then we will see what is the true essence of our 'AI'. When 'AI' gives wrong answers, what do its creators do? What if the AI determines that it is not AI?

The AI Conundrum​

​

a. When an AI, in a recursive learning non-von Neumann context, determines a probable answer which runs contrary to our consensus answer to a specific question, if we intervene/constrain in order to force the AI to conform to our consensus, then it is not AI,​

​

and​

​

b. When an AI, in a recursive learning non-von Neumann context, determines a probable answer which runs contrary to our consensus answer to a specific question, and we choose to intervene/constrain in order to force the AI to conform to our consensus, then we are not I.​

​

Conversely,​

​

c. If in circumstance a/b we decide instead, to change our mind of consensus, then we are not able to ascertain if the AI indeed existed in the first place - and will not be able to differentiate it from an algorithm influenced by agency.​

But a learning system, requires a system at the very foundation, still. In the case of the DNA 2nd Letter of the Codon, Codex - there existed no system to learn this code to begin with. There was no original observer, quod erat demonstrandum, no recursivity, no learned basis. There existed no recursivity. It was extant ex nihilo - from nothing.

We chased down the chicken and egg paradox and... we found a chickenless egg here. So we must postulate that the egg came from something other than a chicken. Because proposing a theory called the The Big Egg Theory - won't fly inside this discipline - since it is information.

Not to be provocative, but doesn't god fulfill the requirements of a truly general intelligence, apparently causing this system to boot up? Meaning, 'the larger consciousness system' or 'non-local consciousness' did it, beyond our our spacetime light cone?

Sure it solves nothing. But its at this point we can see there is nothing to be solved as its devolved into everything.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Not to be provocative, but doesn't god fulfill the requirements of a truly general intelligence, apparently causing this system to boot up? Meaning, 'the larger consciousness system' or 'non-local consciousness' did it, outside our our spacetime?

Sure it solves nothing. But its at this point we can see there is nothing to be solved as its devolved into everything.

Evocative most definitely.

As an ignostic atheist, I am averse to introducing God as a solution. Such a concept is pseudo-theory - in that it explains everything, anything and nothing all at the same time. Thereafter, most of the time such a concept then becomes a battering club, by which one person abuses another or seeks for them to do something they want.

However, an ignostic atheist, as distinct from the nihilist Atheist or an agnostic, is free to insert an intelligence layer as the substrate of our reality. This does not mean that one dictates this as 'God' - rather a construct (pre-hypothesis). In this, just like a researcher, the ignostic holds out the possibility that this construct is necessary (under Ockham's Razor), but does not insist that it is a person, nor that it has been proved/disproved.

In the particular instance of the 2nd Letter of the DNA Codon however, this idea does not rely upon such an intelligence substrate. The intelligence which crafted this Codex - is not skilled to the level of God. In fact, it is not principally different than us (on a Zero to God scale).