Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 202
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 202
Thursday, April 12th 1990
Today's Topics:
Chronocentricity
Re: 3 Star Interview
Re: Looking For A Book
Re: Tesla/em
Re: Questions From A Beginner...
Well
Re: Moore Of The Same!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Knight <GARY@maximillion.cp.mcc.com>
Subject: Chronocentricity
Date: 10 Apr 90 22:54:11 GMT
THE CHRONOCENTRICITY PROBLEM IN U.F.O. RESEARCH
First off, I'm not a debunker. There is no doubt in my mind that
Something Else is Going On. Now that something else may be solely a
function of our central nervous systems, or it may be our inability normally
to perceive certain stimuli, or it may be due to co-existence in some sort
of parallel structure, or it may be due to extraterrestrial intelligence, or
time travel, or . . . . there are, as you all know, many hypotheses. I'd like to
focus this comment on the issue of the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligence which manifests itself in physical craft and other artifacts.
I'd like to focus on the crash/retrieval reality -- that we are being visited
by intelligent critters of non-Earth origin.
I think a strong case (probably meeting the current cultural
standard of burden of proof in a civil lawsuit) can be made for this
explanation. Some of the evidence is quite compelling -- e.g., the Roswell
incident data and the crash/retrieval documentation of Stringfield. But the
possibility always exists that we are being fooled by our own brains. I just
spend 3.5 years in a Ph.D. program in neuroscience and biopsychology at UT-
Austin, and I know a little something about brain function and human
psychology. I have a problem I call "chronocentricity."
The best example of chronocentricity concerns explanations of
brain function itself. If you look back in history, you find various
paradigms that were believed by the establishment science of that time to
almost certainly provide a correct explanation of how the old cerebrum
functions. Aristotle had his humors, coincident with his understanding of
physical structure of the universe. About the time we got a handle on
hydraulics and fluid dynamics, the prevailing theory was that the brain was
a hydraulic system. Later, the telephone switchboard got a lot of publicity,
and all of a sudden neuroscientists agreed that the brain functioned like a
telephone switchboard. Most recently, the digital computer became our
prevalent technology, and now nearly every neuroscientists and
neuropsychologist in the world is convinced that the brain functions like a
computer. I think this is hogwash. It's chronocentric -- whatever the state
of knowledge concerning physical devices at any given point in time, that
also happens coincidentally to be the prevailing view of brain function. We
fall into the trap of believing that the science and technology of our
particular time is the ultimate knowledge which can be applied by analogy
to explain other phenomena.
How we can persist in this view in the face of continued
technological development is beyond me. Yet one of the most highly
respected cognitive psychologists in the country said to me, when I
explained chronocentricity, that he couldn't imagine I was right because
what could possibly provide a more accurate description of the way the
brain works than the digital computer?! I answered that it would be
exactly how the next innovative technology worked. He asked me what that
would be. I answered, of course, that by definition I did not know -- that if
I did I'd have a Nobel Prize and a zillion dollars in my pocket. So he said if I
didn't know what it was, it must not exist and the computer is the ultimate
analogical explanation of brain function. Amazing! Anyone who thinks we
will not see further stunning technological developments, which will give
us both theoretical analogies and hardware tools for analyzing the brain
please raise your hands! If you just put your hand up, please go sit on a
mountain somewhere until you become enlightened! (-:
So, what I worry about in the context of U.F.O.'s is that throughout
history mankind has explained things he did not understand in terms of
things that he did understand (or at least could contemplate). You're all
aware of the references to wheels in the sky, chariots in the sky, airships
in the sky -- all explanations of something that was not understood in
terms of something that was. The early part of the 20th century saw
advances in rocketry, a lot of thoughtful discussion about the possibility of
life on other planets in our solar system, much science fiction on the theme
of interplanetary and interstellar travel, and so forth. This was the
prevalent understood (or contemplated) technology of the time, so is it
surprising that when things occurred that defied logical explanation
(especially when they occurred in the sky) we applied a chronocentric
explanation.
Maybe our current explanation is correct. But when you look back
through history at the long-standing trend to explain the unknown in terms
of the known AT THAT POINT IN TIME, one wonders if we aren't being a bit
chronocentric in accepting explanations that appear to be rooted in the
technology (and other knowns) of our own time. Maybe the Something Else
That is Going On is something, to paraphrase Eddington, that is not only
weird but weirder than we can imagine. Maybe the truth lies in
technologies or other forms of knowledge which we not only do not possess
but cannot even imagine. I get very suspicious when reading reports of UFO
experiences, encounters, etc., when the report is cast very much in terms
of known phenomenon, of known cultural behavior patterns. When aliens are
alleged to behave very much like humans, I get very suspicious. I suspect
that actual contact with alien intelligence will be of a nature that is so far
beyond our comprehension that we might be no more aware it was
happening than ants are aware of the finer nuances of high-energy particle
physics. At the very least, there were be extremely unusual behaviors
which do not have analogies in human experience (which means there is a
good possibility they simply won't register in our brains at all).
Chronocentricity -- aren't we dealing with a great deal of hubris
to believe that we, of all the people who have ever lived on Earth, or who
ever will live on Earth, have at this very moment the full and complete
explanation for these otherwise inexplicable phenomena? I wish I were so
lucky!! Maybe I am. But I'm suspicious.
Thoughts, anyone?
Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jeff.Marsh
Subject: Re: 3 Star Interview
Date: 10 Apr 90 11:14:16 GMT
PC> It SOUNDS contrived - something a mediocre S.F. writer could put
PC> together in a couple of hours. Once again, no documentation, no
PC> verifiable predictions, no nothing.
My biggest question(s) on all of this stuff is how and where do
we get proof. I am willing to believe, but I would also, at the
same time, like to not make a fool of myself and others. Which,
in fact, is a PLUS for those not wanting anyone to find out about
our governments dealings with UFOS. After all who wants to make a
public fool of oneself? I think that is partly why so much of this
UFO information is so unbelievable. Because we don't want to take
a stand and say "I really believe this stuff is happening and am
going to take steps to uncover the truth."
This is why I like Paranet so much. Because it is a common thread
for all of us who 'maybe' believe there is something going on. I'm
convinced there is! Firmly convinced! I can't divulge any of my
facts, and I haven't ever seen a UFO (although I thought I did as a 13
year old kid in Texas playing with a telescope)!
Enough ranting... I want to see one (UFO) and be sure I'm not
dreaming, etc... then I don't even know what I would do, except
try to tell the world about it.
Jeff
--
Jeff Marsh - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jeff.Marsh@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Looking For A Book
Date: 11 Apr 90 05:58:00 GMT
> No, not necessarily. There a number of mechanisms by which
> volatiles can be trapped. Without them, there would be no helium
> balloons, since Earth's gravity is too weak to hold Helium.
Wait a minute! Isn't natural gas our primary source of Helium? (Well,
natural gas and volcanic activity -- though we're not too good at recovering
He from active volcanos.)
Are you suggesting that there are reservoirs of trapped gas on the moon,
either in geological dome formations or in magma? If so, how do you account
for the volatile gases reaching the surface with no sign of vulcanism? And,
heck, how do you account for the dome formations, which are the result of
sedimentation and geological activity? The moon looks awfully DEAD, and it
looks like it's been that way for a long, long, LONG time. I mean, its been
there so long its rotation is locked!
No offense meant, but the helium/natural gas simile smells of swamp gas to
me. Are you suggesting the lights in and around the crater Aristarchus are
MARSH GAS? (I wish Dr. Hynek were around to read this. Well, here's to
absent friends...)
What do you think?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Tesla/em
Date: 11 Apr 90 06:29:00 GMT
> As for Tesla, I'm afraid I'm only familiar with his more
> mundane accomplishments such as AC power nets and the
> ubiquitous Tesla coils.
Hi John. Oh! to have a few mundane accomplishments like Tesla's, eh? Just
a handful of basic patents to paper the walls...
Seriously, Tesla also demonstrated fluourescent lighting and radio in the
1890's. Did you know he sued Marconi AND WON? Problem was, Tesla was broke
& Marconi's lawyers pioneered the IBM approach to litigation: They delayed
the decision FOR THIRTY YEARS by making constant, complicated, superfluous
motions. Marconi lost the suit about four months after Tesla died.
Nevertheless, Nicola Tesla invented wireless radio transmission. He used it
to remotely control a model electric boat that he demonstrated at the 1897
Chicago World's Fair!
> However EM radiation can propagate in the
> vacuum and sound cannot, so there are significant
> differences.
Thank you for your erudition re: sound vs. em phenomena. Of course, this
observable & obvious fact is what makes Tesla's comments about how "sound
is really an extension of electromagnetism" so very strange. He was
notorious for speaking allegorically. And for hype, too.
I believe that these comments of Tesla's should be viewed in the context of
the Ether Theory, which he steadfastly hung on to until his death. He
insisted that an Ether existed and, as a transcendent medium, it could be
manipulated for all sorts of things, death rays, wireless electrical
transmission (maybe) and interstellar communications.
Be that as it may (and no reputable scientist publically professes to
believe in a cosmic Ether any more), I wonder if there might not be
something to the IDEA of an ether? In other words, maybe it does exist, but
not in the way people looked for it. Perhaps it's dimensional? Or
interdimensional? Maybe most of the missing mass of the cosmos doesn't
exist as mass at all -- or it exists as mass in another dimension? Who
knows? Maybe the Hubbell telescope will tell us where it all went...
Speaking of Tesla, "ether" and interstellar projects, ever hear of Project
OSMA? A couple of people have mentioned it to me. It seems it was the
first thing Dr. Carl Sagan got involved in after college -- when he became
a SETI consultant to the U.S. Army in the early 1960's. Word is that the
gov't built a Teslian scalar wave receiver in Virginia to see if these
induced em fluctuations were being used for interstellar communications.
According to the story, they turned the thing on and ... message traffic
started POURING out of it. "Billions and billions" of indecipherable
messages, supposedly. Maybe the story's apocryphal, but there it is.
A pleasure typing to you!
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Questions From A Beginner...
Date: 11 Apr 90 06:33:00 GMT
> Let us assume that the U.S. Goverment (to take an example)
> admit and show their proofs.
^^^^^^
Maybe THAT's the problem. Maybe people would have more difficulty dealing
with the "proofs" than they have with the idea!
Or possibly such an admission would lead to further revalations that would
prove deeply embarassing. Or worse.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Forseti
Subject: Well
Date: 11 Apr 90 07:18:00 GMT
An open declaration of the existence of UFO's would have most probably a
very catastrophic impact on the world and things like that... I just wish
that at least they would declare it to groups like these (UFO net) , UFO
watch groups, etc, so the really curious will know.. and yet not verbose
enough to be believed by the press or the world, yet.
I wonder how, with all our satellites and telescopes, we never really
detect any aliens out there? Unless everyone that does detect it is
involved in the coverup, of course.
--
Forseti - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Forseti@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: Moore Of The Same!
Date: 9 Apr 90 17:25:00 GMT
> are still a number of good witnesses kicking around. It looks like
> we'll have to wait 'till December for the book by Randle & Schmitt, with
> the CUFOS monograph coming along after that. Nice typing at you!
> Regards -- John
John, is that the new timetable from CUFOS? So there IS more information yet
to come out from their research? Good....I was beginning to think that the two
issues of IUR they devoted to it were ALL they had (and I was VERY
disappointed at that prospect). Any idea why its taking so long? Are they just
delaying publication to coincide with the book coming out?
Any other tidbits you can throw us? What's this about documents from a
mortuary?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
