Dr. Mona Sobhani, Neuroscience and the Spiritual |575|

To continue my experiences. Eventually I left chemistry for software development. In those days (1974) computers seemed to offer endless prospects, and I'd already programmed computers to perform QM calculations as part of my PhD. There was a lot of talk about Artificial Intelligence. Most people didn't make a clear distinction between intelligence and consciousness (I'm still not sure one exists) and the world was building up to the first decade of AI hype (1980 - 1989). The problem was that the computer manipulations that were called AI didn't seem that sophisticated, and although the media were full of AI hype, the reality seemed almost puerile.

Computers also brought the Hard Problem into particularly stark relief unless you made a serious argument that consciousness was completely distinct from intelligence. Without that serious argument, the problem to me was that consciousness would reside in the AI software itself or maybe in the actual computer hardware itself! Assuming it lay in the software, that seemed rather in the realm of ideas rather than being tied to physical matter. I also tried (and failed) to envision how a conscious computer program would feel if it were debugged by repeatedly pausing it and examining its variables or registers!

Somewhere about that time, I discovered that there was already a scientific literature on psi with papers reporting successful ESP experiments and other types of phenomena.

Then I happened to watch a TV program about psi, which ended with a scientific skeptic who explained that there was "no scientific evidence for psi". It might have been Wiseman, but I'm not certain. However to me "no scientific evidence for psi" was factually incorrect if even one paper had been accepted for publication - which meant in turn that there were people who were prepared to lie to the public to keep psi secret!

David

Forum Borealis - Clif High - Clif provides the best explanation for consciousness I've ever heard. Not sure how much I agree with it as conclusive, but it's really a beautiful job explaining. I think it's a couple minutes long. The whole series of interviews is amazing, link to series playlist below also.

Clip starts at 9min40sec:

Playlist:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYZ4WxILI5DxAXhg3wBnTdTMD__OLCWDY
 
Forum Borealis - Clif High - Clif provides the best explanation for consciousness I've ever heard.

Not sure how this fits in, but I think it is important to remember that the being I call me, and every other being with consciousness (maybe we can call these "persons" for short, noting that persons needn't be humans), are not *just* conscious beings. Perhaps it's not universally true of persons, but human persons are aggregations of various disparate modules, many of which chug away well below the level of awareness. What presents in our consciousness is the product of this aggregation. And, just as with a computer, there are delays between the workings of the various modules. My awareness at a moment in time is actually the synthesis (performed unconsciously!) of module results that happened moments earlier. "I" am not some kind of "conscious thing." "I" am what is conscious of the outputs of my other parts.
 
Not sure how this fits in, but I think it is important to remember that the being I call me, and every other being with consciousness (maybe we can call these "persons" for short, noting that persons needn't be humans), are not *just* conscious beings. Perhaps it's not universally true of persons, but human persons are aggregations of various disparate modules, many of which chug away well below the level of awareness. What presents in our consciousness is the product of this aggregation. And, just as with a computer, there are delays between the workings of the various modules. My awareness at a moment in time is actually the synthesis (performed unconsciously!) of module results that happened moments earlier. "I" am not some kind of "conscious thing." "I" am what is conscious of the outputs of my other parts.

That just gave me a funny thought.
You know when you're driving and you notice like an hour or 2 just disappeared and you think holy crap was I fully non-self-unaware for that whole time? What if your higher-self is taking a smoke break?
I apply this same thinking to the idea of NPC's. I don't believe they exist. Instead, I think different people run on different levels/types of consciousness-intensity.
 
You know when you're driving and you notice like an hour or 2 just disappeared and you think holy crap was I fully non-self-unaware for that whole time? What if your higher-self is taking a smoke break?

Right, yet this is just a normal experience. Everything doing the driving is me, but I consist of more than the parts of me that are self-aware. Parts of my below-conscious mind are able to drive a car. Like Maverick says, "if you think, you're dead." Actually, to be a good driver you need to have trained your mind so the driving basics almost always are subconscious. Also -- you've heard the joke about being so old you turn down the music when the traffic gets tricky? The joke is funny, but it also points out something true of everyone, regardless of age: your mind can handle only a finite number of tasks, and yes, even listening to music (which itself may be done unconsciously!) costs compute cycles. It's actually the mark of a good driver to know when the traffic situation warrants cutting out distractions.

I apply this same thinking to the idea of NPC's. I don't believe they exist. Instead, I think different people run on different levels/types of consciousness-intensity.

We all do. I don't think of anyone as an NPC. They may be directing their self-aware moments toward things I might think are silly, but we're all so nearly alike in doing that, who am I to judge?
 
The timing and nature of ET disclosure largely sealed the deal for me.

Me too. it took me a long time to really understand the full implications of what has been disclosed regarding the ET misinformation disinformation campaign and how aggressive they were at trying to bully people and mind control people. once my eyes were opened it's hard not to see the parallels in these other areas.
 
nice. Al does such great work.
Thanks & Indeed.
I have a international flight coming up and I have downloaded in queue Forum Borealis episodes on “EVIL” with Alex Tsakiris 271 (part 1) A Rose by Any Other Name & 279 (part 2) Facing the Abyss.
looking forward to listening again after so long.

Links for anyone who hadn’t caught them previously:

https://forumborealis.podbean.com/e/evil-1/

https://forumborealis.podbean.com/e/alex-skeptiko-tsakiris-evil-pt-2-of-2-facing-the-abyss/
 
There are many interesting things in the podcast, and in her book. One in particular is that Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls" relates to a description of the afterlife that many others have also described. This phenomenon is encountered when people are regressed under hypnosis to solve psychiatric problems. Souls apparently form groups who often reincarnate together, so your mother in one life might be your uncle in the current life!

I always like to hear of hard-nosed materialist scientists who 'see the light' and discover that there is a huge published literature that is simply hidden from anyone who isn't curious.

David
I find the "counsel" that Newton describes to be quite interesting and plausible. However, I read something about people who challenge his credentials. I know character assassination is an uber skeptic tactic. But a Google search did present some questions. Any suggestions or knowledge about Michael Newton? I'm a little torn because in reading him sometimes I think "yep" and lots of Times I think "you gotta be kidding me." Sorry for a detour off original topic.
 
I find the "counsel" that Newton describes to be quite interesting and plausible. However, I read something about people who challenge his credentials. I know character assassination is an uber skeptic tactic. But a Google search did present some questions. Any suggestions or knowledge about Michael Newton? I'm a little torn because in reading him sometimes I think "yep" and lots of Times I think "you gotta be kidding me." Sorry for a detour off original topic.
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here but I think the wait you're raising is super interesting. let me take it in a slightly different direction...

what are we to make of the fact that not everyone reports the existence of a "council"?

what are we to make of the fact that nde science doesn't consistently report a council?

on the other hand :)

what are we to make of the fact that the nde science could be interpreted as being generally consistent with the idea of a council as long as we don't try and pin it down too much?

and more importantly, what are we to make of the fact that several different hypnotherapist who are independent of each other have all experienced their patients going into spontaneous past-life regressions?
 
"What does it take to change your mind? And what does it take to change someone else's mind?"
  • Curiosity - learning is a reward in itself
  • Ambitious and competitive - learning in order better accomplish goals or gain a competitive advantage
  • Courage - to face the consequences of accepting an alternative
  • Marginalized - Less courage required if you are already a relatively marginalized isolated person because you have less to lose (e.g. could be hard to leave Christianity or academia for the same reason: leaving behind a network of beneficial relationships, status, financial support, even a marriage, etc)
  • Boundary dissolving activities (activities that quiet the language/logic/planning/goal-centric part of the mind):
    • meditation, contemplative prayer, yoga
    • trauma (voluntary is best (e.g. climbing a mountain, an initiation) but occasionally involuntary can have the same effect (e.g. car accident)
    • near death experience
    • psychedelics
    • trance dance, tribal music, worship music
    • Forgiving someone
  • Access to a broad spectrum of information
  • Urgent needs are met allowing enough time and emotional energy to invest in pursuing curiosities
  • Friend or Mentor who is trusted and has already made the journey of changing their mind about the particular thing
  • Personal experience or crisis of faith - one's current map or reality proves insufficient to explain or help process an event
  • IQ - certainly not the most important, but must be reasonably high enough such that you are able to have some self-confidence in your own sense-making ability
  • Self-confidence and a lean towards contrarian positions - Must have some mental rigidity and back-bone to avoid caving to "trust the experts" pressure
  • Humility - to question yourself and your ideas frequently (ideally every time one posits something one then immediately begins mentally arguing a counterpoint and plays a game of mental chess with oneself to steel man opposing views - this habit can be learned through frequently engaging in debate with opposing viewpoints)
 
I've nearly finished Sobhani's book now, and will surely re-read it and have already recommended it to my daughters. However...I still feel that her upbeat optimism is unwarranted, for at least a couple of reasons.

First. My most fundamental worry is that the scope is too parochial. Consider, what are we doing when we ask "why" some state of affairs is what it is. For the moment, let's take "state of affairs" to mean just what we would think it means: some observation we've made, call it S. When we ask "why S?" what we are seeking is some explanation, call it X, that would render S more probable than any state of affairs that would include not-S. We might even add together a number of states of affairs, call that S+, and ask "why S+?" We could do that right up to the whole shebang, call that S++, which would be the state of ALL affairs in our observational radius. "Why S++?"

Now, you can give any number of explanations, X's, that would render S, S+, or S++ more probable than -S, -S+, -S++. Call those X, X', X'', and so on. How do we select which X is a "good" explanation for S, S+, S++? Well, the methodologies for selecting "good" explanations include, among others, the scientific method. Let's set aside that question of epistemic methodology, though, as it's been re-hashed ad nauseum already. The interesting points are: there will almost always be MORE THAN ONE "good" explanation, and even more importantly, "good" is not GOOD ENOUGH. What we need is a good explanation that is also a FINAL explanation.

What is a FINAL explanation? It is one that does not raise a further state of affairs that itself would stand in need of explanation. What does that mean? Well, let's say we have X, a good explanation for S++, i.e. X is a good explanation for all that is in our observational radius -- think Sobhani's model of Cosmopsychism ("the idea there exists one big field of consciousness that 'serves as the bedrock of experimental reality'" (p.209)). Is this a "final" explanation? The answer is no, it is not, because, supposing Cosmopsychism were true, IT ITSELF WOULD STAND IN NEED OF EXPLANATION. Why, in other words, does this field of consciousness exist???

Ok, so what WOULD constitute a final explanation? I think the best way to think about this would be to use Alvin Plantinga's notion of possible worlds: an explanation would be final if doesn't posit some state of affairs where there are possible worlds where that state of affairs does not hold. Huh? Well, apply that to Cosmopsychism. There clearly are possible worlds where Cosmopsychism would not be the case. That means that while Cosmopsychism might be a "good" explanation for S++, it itself needs to be explained: why does Cosmopsychism hold in OUR case when there are possible cases where it doesn't hold? Ultimately, I think the conclusion we will have to come to is either: 1) some states of affairs simply DO NOT HAVE an explanation (not just that we can't ever know the explanation, but that there literally IS NO explanation) -- and I am DEEPLY dissatisfied with that result, or 2) the only explanations that are truly "final" are grounded in probability, and that makes sense ONLY if we exist in an infinite multiverse. Example: why Cosmopsychism here? Because in an infinite multiverse, EVERY POSSIBLE state of affairs is instantiated SOMEWHERE (and, as an aside, we should not be surprised to observe our bubble universe is one where Cosmopsychism holds because that is one of the kinds of bubble universes where observers are even possible).

So, why do I feel optimism isn't warranted? Well, in case 1, if Cosmopsychism (or whatever other model you choose to explain S++) itself can't be explained, then we exist in a domain that is fundamentally irrational -- and if that is the case, ANYTHING might happen. And in case 2, where Cosmopsychism (or whatever other model you choose to explain S++) is explained by being just one point in an infinite set of points in the larger multiverse, then "meaning" is infinitely parochial -- it makes sense only in our little, wee neighborhood. And sorry, the immensity of the deep meaningless surrounding our bubble scares me too much.
 
Last edited:
Second. Even within a bubble universe explained by Cosmopsychism or something like it, why should we think what's going on is "friendly" to us? Jorjani posits that the reincarnation process has been hijacked by evil-minded humans ("At the very least," he writes, "it appears that there is a Psychotronic technology that allows the beings behind Close Encounters to cut into the process of death, the afterlife, and reincarnation, so as to manipulate human souls with a view to maintaining certain repressive and disempowering social structures." Closer Encounters, p. 239) Who is to say? If we remain within the bounds of S++, our observable radius, what leads you to think good is winning? Does it not seem rather the opposite? Personally, when I see what humans do to one another (and even when I look inside myself), I see little reason for optimism. What if, when you die and "go to the light," you are greeted by a bunch of f-ing Nazis who are intent on recycling your soul for their own purposes?

Give me a counter-argument, please :)

BTW, Jorjani doesn't think Nazis fully explain the UFO phenomenon, and I don't even know if they have any part in it. Jorjani thinks another aspect of the phenomenon is the egregore, a projection of the collective unconscious. I'm reading Vallee currently, and he seems to think the phenomenon is explained by "the gentry," interdimensional beings that in other times were identified as elves, gnomes, little people, angels, demons, etc. Personally, I am starting to think Jorjani and Vallee are BOTH partly right: "the gentry" ARE egregores. I think we humans, each of us, influences reality in ways Radin describes in Real Magic. We do this mostly without even realizing it, and there are so many of us, and so many of us are so unskilled at it, that reality is mostly stable and egregores are, relatively, rare. But that stability is like the placidity of an ocean; it is subject to storms. I think aspects of the phenomenon such as what we see at Skinwalker Ranch, cattle mutilations, alien "abductions" good and bad, are egregores, storms in reality produced by the collective unconscious of we humans. Don't take that to mean they aren't real. They ARE. You can photograph them. They appear on radar. They leave marks in the ground. They make grease spots out of unfortunate dogs, and mercilessly dissect unfortunate cattle. They ARE real, but they are NOT extraterrestrial; they are projections WE created. And what they do tells us something about OURSELVES. And what it tells us about ourselves is scary, horrible, not optimistic.
 
Last edited:
What if, when you die and "go to the light," you are greeted by a bunch of f-ing Nazis who are intent on recycling your soul for their own purposes?

Give me a counter-argument, please :)
here's a counter argument:
Rey Hernandez, Scientific Study of ET Contact and ... - Skeptiko

it's not perfect, but I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss these kind of medical surveys as they are the fundamental to Medical Science; and if done correctly have proven reliable.
 
here's a counter argument:
Rey Hernandez, Scientific Study of ET Contact and ... - Skeptiko

it's not perfect, but I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss these kind of medical surveys as they are the fundamental to Medical Science; and if done correctly have proven reliable.

An excellent interview and the FREE study sounds fascinating. I'd love to see the reports from the participants. Hernandez's website does not appear to be active any longer, however. I will check out the CCRI books to see if they may link to the data.

My second point above had to do with Sobhani's optimism regarding the karmic/reincarnation framework, while Hernandez's study had to do with the contactee phenomenon. Perhaps they are related, especially if something like Jorjani's notion that literal Fourth Reich Nazi's have hijacked the reincarnation process PLUS zip around in time-traveling saucers is true. (It stretches the limits of credulity, for sure, but it's undeniable that various Western interests funded the rise of Nazi Germany and after the war welcomed many Nazis into positions within agencies like the CIA and NASA -- so the idea of a Fourth Reich isn't TOTALLY incredible and who knows what the performance specs would be of the lastest-gen ME-262 :) ) But I don't know. In any case, I think the FREE study probably suffers from reporter-bias in just the way rape is under-reported -- indeed, more so: not only does the negative-experiencing contactee reporter incur the stigma of having been raped, they get the additional stigma of being thought literally crazy. So...maybe multiply the negative experience stats by a factor of 100 or so.

But I am not sure this harms Sobhani's case for optimism. I'm increasingly of the opinion that while the complete UFO phenomenon probably has a complex set of explanations (perhaps some ARE Fourth Reich or other human-made tech, perhaps some are truly extraterrestrial), the paranormal UFO phenomenon has to do with the human unconscious. Some cases are the experiencer manifesting their own flavor of the phenomenon (and this may or MAY NOT be an hallucination); other cases may be the collective unconsciousness of groups other than the experiencer conjuring (unintentionally) an egregore. I have to think this is what is happening when the beings experienced by the contactee have recognizable forms -- even reptilian -- or when the beings communicate "telepathically." These are beings WE created -- no true alien would have a recognizable form or be able to communicate mind-to-mind with us without agonizing conceptual mapping that, who knows, might not even be possible between species ("If a lion could talk...") -- and any negative experiences contactees have in these cases speak to the nature of we humans, not the possible framework of the world that gives Sobhani hope.

About my first point above, the business of Cosmopsychism not being a FINAL explanation, I had a thought. I confess, my intuition is that we exist in an infinite multiverse, one in which all possible universes are instantiated. I think this is because I have a natural abhorrence of "turtles all the way down"-type cosmologies, and an infinite multiverse is the only explanation that seems to avoid this. (If there were just one universe, ours, then positing Cosmopsychism would raise the question, where does this supposed consciousness field come from? That's when the explanation becomes "turtles all the way down." The same will hold for ANY "theory of everything" so long as it is WITHIN our one universe. It's only when you have an infinite multiverse that you can say: well, every possible universe is instantiated, and what we see is just one of the possible universes that would support observers.) But it occurred to me that if all possible universes are instantiated, then certainly SOME would be cases where Cosmopsychism held (it's a possible universe). And I am pretty sure it was Brian Greene who suggested that bubble universes within an infinite multiverse MIGHT be able to interact with one another. For example, two bubble universes existing in completely different spacetime dimensions might nevertheless exert a gravitational influence on one another. This might manifest as a "clumping" of matter at the largest scales within these bubble universes, giving the inhabitants at least a glimmer of evidence that there were other bubbles out there. So bubble universes might interact, and especially so if, in one of them, there happened to be...conscious beings, or indeed, an all-encompassing Cosmopsych field able to manipulate matter and energy at the largest scales possible (presumably, the Cosmopsych field, in this bubble universe, eternally was, and brooded over the void, conjuring from it forms of matter and energy ;) ). Might not that Cosmopsych field then find a way to "tunnel" from one bubble universe to another? Might it be possible that within an infinite multiverse, Consciousness would "spread" (in "hyper-time" since time would make sense only in particular spacetime bubbles) such that it became everywhere? Could Consciousness, a contingent fact in one bubble universe, NECESSARILY become omni-present throughout?

Well, maybe ;) It's a hopeful thought! And I'm trying to give Sobhani's optimism a chance. :)

Even to name it 'spirit' was perhaps to say more than was justified. Yet to deny it that name would be no less mistaken; for whatever it was, it was more, not less, than spirit, more, not less, than any possible human meaning of that word. And from the human level, even from the level of a cosmical mind, this 'more', obscurely and agonizingly glimpsed, was a dread mystery, compelling adoration.

- Olaf Stapledon, Star Maker
 
Last edited:
An excellent interview and the FREE study sounds fascinating. I'd love to see the reports from the participants. Hernandez's website does not appear to be active any longer, however. I will check out the CCRI books to see if they may link to the data.

My second point above had to do with Sobhani's optimism regarding the karmic/reincarnation framework, while Hernandez's study had to do with the contactee phenomenon. Perhaps they are related, especially if something like Jorjani's notion that literal Fourth Reich Nazi's have hijacked the reincarnation process PLUS zip around in time-traveling saucers is true. (It stretches the limits of credulity, for sure, but it's undeniable that various Western interests funded the rise of Nazi Germany and after the war welcomed many Nazis into positions within agencies like the CIA and NASA -- so the idea of a Fourth Reich isn't TOTALLY incredible and who knows what the performance specs would be of the lastest-gen ME-262 :) )

This is interesting speculation. I've gone down this trail more than a couple times :) but at least for me it never pans out. take the Bell... in my opinion the best evidence points towards a heavy particle accelerator rather than a flying saucer.

So I think the Joseph Farrell speculation about Roswell being nothing more than midgets in Nazi spaceships is kind of silly.

On the other hand, I take seriously his point about someone off-stage player being behind the directed-energy weapon that we probably saw on 9/11

But the main push back I have on the Breakaway civilization Nazi stuff, is that it often seems to be an end run on the reality of e.t. and I just think there's too much data to ignore their.

I think the FREE study probably suffers from reporter-bias in just the way rape is under-reported -- indeed, more so: not only does the negative-experiencing contactee reporter incur the stigma of having been raped, they get the additional stigma of being thought literally crazy. So...maybe multiply the negative experience stats by a factor of 100 or so.

Maybe... but according to dr. Robert Davis and Dr. Leo sprinkle, two of the guys behind putting together this together they were extremely careful in controlling for this. I actually pushed Bob pretty hard on this point during this interview and and I thought his response was very credible:

Dr. Robert Davis, Consciousness Connection |563| - Skeptiko

same goes for the NDE survey of Dr. Jeff Long:

Dr. Jeffrey Long, Near-Death Experience By the Numbers |502

The point these researchers seem to be making is that if you don't like this data than you better be ready to throw out the data on depression, pain, grief and a bunch of other stuff that requires asking human beings about their experience.



But I am not sure this harms Sobhani's case for optimism. I'm increasingly of the opinion that while the complete UFO phenomenon probably has a complex set of explanations (perhaps some ARE Fourth Reich or other human-made tech, perhaps some are truly extraterrestrial), the paranormal UFO phenomenon has to do with the human unconscious.

agreed

Some cases are the experiencer manifesting their own flavor of the phenomenon (and this may or MAY NOT be an hallucination); other cases may be the collective unconsciousness of groups other than the experiencer conjuring (unintentionally) an egregore.

agreed... I like where yr going :)

I have to think this is what is happening when the beings experienced by the contactee have recognizable forms -- even reptilian -- or when the beings communicate "telepathically." These are beings WE created -- no true alien would have a recognizable form or be able to communicate mind-to-mind with us without agonizing conceptual mapping that, who knows, might not even be possible between species ("If a lion could talk...") -- and any negative experiences contactees have in these cases speak to the nature of we humans, not the possible framework of the world that gives Sobhani hope.

don't agree [[cb]] haha... I have to give some credence to the ancient alien theory stuff and all the reptilian / dragon / half-human creatures depicted in ancient art work. so I guess I don't totally disagree with you I'm just not sure where we can draw the lines.

About my first point above, the business of Cosmopsychism not being a FINAL explanation, I had a thought. I confess, my intuition is that we exist in an infinite multiverse, one in which all possible universes are instantiated. I think this is because I have a natural abhorrence of "turtles all the way down"-type cosmologies, and an infinite multiverse is the only explanation that seems to avoid this. (If there were just one universe, ours, then positing Cosmopsychism would raise the question, where does this supposed consciousness field come from? That's when the explanation becomes "turtles all the way down." The same will hold for ANY "theory of everything" so long as it is WITHIN our one universe. It's only when you have an infinite multiverse that you can say: well, every possible universe is instantiated, and what we see is just one of the possible universes that would support observers.)

nice!

But personally, I choose not to go there. part of the reason is because from what I can understand about my vantage point of the cosmos (i.e. my human existence in this time space consensus reality) I don't have the right stuff to process this. it's all I can teach my dog algebra kind of thing... at least that's how I see it.


And I'm trying to give Sobhani's optimism a chance. :)

Me too... but unfortunately I think we have to consider the "why evil matters" question as well :)
 
The point these researchers seem to be making is that if you don't like this data than you better be ready to throw out the data on depression, pain, grief and a bunch of other stuff that requires asking human beings about their experience.


The argument the researchers make is that within the set of reporters responding to the survey, they have controlled for under-reporting. But what they cannot control is the set of reporters responding to the survey. Law enforcement agencies say sexual assault is the #1 most unreported crime, estimating that about 65% of sexual assaults go unreported. The problem with the FREE study is not controlling for the reluctance of participants to report sexual assault. It is that people who experienced sexual assault would not have even volunteered for the study in the first place.
 
don't agree [[cb]] haha... I have to give some credence to the ancient alien theory stuff and all the reptilian / dragon / half-human creatures depicted in ancient art work. so I guess I don't totally disagree with you I'm just not sure where we can draw the lines.

We probably agree about a few things:

  • Consciousness exists
  • Consciousness can affect the world -- mundanely, as in when I move my arm; more interestingly, as in what Radin has shown to be "real magic"
  • the reptilian / dragon / half-human creatures depicted in ancient art work require an explanation

Of course, one possible explanation of the ancient stuff is that the ancients actually were visited by alien reptiles. But...even reptiles are too close to what we'd expect from terrestrial evolution. It's just not "alien enough." As Vallee says, "the extraterrestrial theory is not good enough, because it is not strange enough to explain the facts." Vallee's position is that the ancient stuff is explained by the Gentry, which he takes to be real, interdimensional beings. The position I am inclined to, is that the ancient stuff and the Gentry are real-world manifestations, a la Radin's Real Magic, projected by the human subconscious. These manifestations may be intentional or unintentional, conjured by individuals (shamans, etc.) or by groups.

Example: I think about the case at Skinwalker Ranch where the Rabbi was chanting a "portal opening" incantation - and suddenly, viola, the thermal cams picked up huge variations. To me, it seems incredible that a Jewish incantation would affect the behavior of bonafide interdimensionals. Instead, consider: what does the Jewish incantation have in common with the other triggers of paranormal events -- rocket launches and digging holes? At first glance, nothing, right? But...what all three have in common is: they involve a group of people EXPECTING something paranormal to happen. And then, it does, and registers on infrared cameras, regular cameras, human senses, etc. The paranormal events are real; the cause seems to be the people watching.

Example 2: According to this study, Ukraine is currently a UAP hotspot.

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of UAP also. For UAP observations, we used two meteor stations. Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. We have developed a special observation technique, for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics.... We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215

The standard ET hypothesis would be that for some unknown reason, ET is interested in terrestrial military doings. But...really? Why??? The egregore hypothesis seems much simpler: there is a fantastic amount of psychic energy directed toward Ukraine at the moment, such that it is creating these reality storms.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top