Aliens Have Intelligence But No Sentience
Whitley Strieber just pointed out a short post that Mac Tonnies wrote over two years ago. In one of those “I wish I had said that” moments, Mac mused on the concept of “aliens” and individuality:
If we’re dealing with aliens — regardless whether or not they originate in space or on Earth — maybe their clumsy, oblique interactions with us can be explained if they’re endowed with intelligence but devoid of sentience. They could have taken an evolutionary route that bypassed awareness entirely, or they could have achieved a form of sentience only to lose it, perhaps by recklessly merging with their machines.
This may be a good thought experiment, since it would explain a few things about supposed interactions with extra-human intelligence and their seeming lack of logic or purpose, unless we force one on them by our preconceptions.
Meanwhile, Mac linked to a post that speculates about the Fermi Paradox and the near impossibility of success for projects like SETI. I don’t happen to agree that radio waves are the end-all of communication or space travel, since we don’t know all the possibilities yet, even though we do know how fast radio waves propagate.
I’ll be at the ASPE conference Angel Fire, New Mexico with Nick from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon, so if you’re around, come by and say hello.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 10th, 2009 at 3:17 am and is filed under Alien Encounters, Blogroll, Conferences, Media Appearances, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
- Related News Stories:
- Alien Awareness »
- Intelligent Design, Or Nature? »
- First contact: The man who’ll welcome aliens »
- Mac Rethinks ET »
- UFO Spies in “Alien Worlds” »
- Royal astronomer: ‘Aliens may be staring us in the face’ »
- Aliens Among Us… »
- UFOs and a Certain Agency »
- UK-UFOs-Officialdom »
- Aliens: “We’re Bigger Than Jesus Now” »
|
Sep 10 2009 
September 10th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Um, I can’t find that post Strieber made about Mac’s comment. Could you provide the link pls?
PS: To me another possibility is that what we perceive as humanoid “aliens” are some sort of avatar that enables a non-human hyper-dimensional intelligence to interact with us in our level of reality.
But just as the cybernetic avatars or online games like WoW are sketchy and imperfect in detail and movement, so too their tridimensional avatars force them to move in clumsy ways —without bending their knees for example.
You remember that passage Strieber writes in ‘Transformation’ when some of the aliens show him a cabinet full of alien bodies that seemed wrapped up in clear plastic sheet, as in stasis or something? The alien who showed this to him seemed (to Strieber) very proud of this. Strieer theorized that he was shown this to help him lose his fear of death; but MAYBE he was just shown spare parts —or the tridimensional version of ’spare lives’ in a computer game
I really hope that James Cameron’s new movie “Avatar” prompts the Fortean community to discuss such possibilities.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
You are losing it here RP. It sounds like you are blurring reality with fantasy here, when this is supposed to be something real and taken seriously. Let’s not go off on science fiction tangents just for the sake it “sounds cool”, because no one will ever take you or this group seriously — and I would one would like this group to be taken seriously instead turning this into of a sci-fi forum for bouncing make believe avatars or other unscientific nonsense off of.
Let’s get this straight — Whitley is not an intellectual. He often doesn’t put a lot of thought into what he says, so when he says that aliens aliens are intelligent but not sentient, he is contradicting his terms. Instead of patronizing Whitley when he says something stupid, someone needs to tell him he’s talking stupid and needs to step back and reconsider his stance. He says he wants to be taken seriously, as so does the visitors, yet if the visitors are not sentient, then they have any personal worth and they cannot be taken seriously. It is an extremely stupid thing for Whitley to say and undermines everything he has ever said about the visitors. The highest worth that any living being can have in the vast majority of religions is to have sentience and to say they are not sentient is to say they are not even living beings, they are no different than the text on a screen you are viewing.
If the visitors are real, then start taking and acting like they are real. Don’t talk behind their backs like they are some kind of sci-fi avatar on a string that you can make up any ol’ silly idea about them being like and that make believe fantasy then becomes “a possibility”. Stop trying to make up your own ideas of what you wish they were like AND THEN try to hunt and peck for behaviors that will conform to your wishes. That is not science, that is not reason, that is turning this whole thing into a joke. If there are visitors, filter through all the hundreds of obvious BS stories and find the ones that actually have some substance to them, and then try to elicit what they are like from their own actions, don’t take some secondhand confession from a person whom has already admitted they aren’t clear about what is reality to them or not already.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Whoa! Someone missed his morning coffee, methinks
The “avatar” hypothesis I’m proposing is speculation, Sage; something I personally think it’s fun to do, and permissible in this line of study, where MOST of it is speculation.
“and I would one would like this group to be taken seriously instead turning this into of a sci-fi forum for bouncing make believe avatars or other unscientific nonsense off of.”
You’re really a hard egg to crack my friend. Often times you’ve stated that there’s nothing to the UFO mystery because it’s all fantasy and hoaxes and tall tales; other times you go out and defend the Los Angeles air raid as the best UFO case; then you go out and bash all people who claim to have seen a UFO. Seems to me Whitley is not alone in his inconstant postures
“Instead of patronizing Whitley when he says something stupid, someone needs to tell him he’s talking stupid and needs to step back and reconsider his stance”
I don’t patronize Strieber. I find his stories incredibly interesting, but I don’t take everything he says at face value; I mentioned the episode of him being shown a bunch of alien bodies because it’s one of high strangeness, and doesn’t seem o fit with the traditional ETH explanation of a bunch of scientists taking a trip from Zeta Reticuli or something to tend to their herds of naked monkeys. So *if* that episode is actually true, then how do we explain it? Maye the aliens are some kind of robots, like Mac Tonnies has suggested on some occassions; maybe they are “avatars” as I suggest —actually, if you think about it both hypothesis don’t contradict each other, since both assume the humanoid UFO occupants are devoid of sentience, but they may be ‘controlled’ by an intelligence who uses them to interact with us.
I do agree that Strieber contradicts himself on many number of times. For example, in his latest blog post he speculates (that word again!) that China could be the first country to have a first ‘official’ contact with the aliens, since “them’ realize we’re not gonna make it on our own and want to give us a hand. But on MANY other posts he has stated that the aliens won’t probably lift a finger to save us, because that would maybe negate the purpose of this whole experience that is life on this planet.
But, maybe this will sound crazy to you, but the fact that the man contradicts himself and changes postures constantly IS what makes me assume he did experience something extraordinary in his life.
“If the visitors are real, then start taking and acting like they are real.”
I’m not 100% sure that they are real. Are you?
“Don’t talk behind their backs like they are some kind of sci-fi avatar on a string that you can make up any ol’ silly idea about them being like and that make believe fantasy then becomes “a possibility—
Well, I’m sure they won’t mind
Because, in the end, all I tried to do was propose an idea that might explain some of those high strangeness cases where witnesses see the humanoids perform in incredibly awkward ways —like walking without bending their knees, something kind of ridiculuous if you consider that WE already have robots capable of mimicking human walk much more naturally. Other examles are of the humanoids not being able to twist their necks, or them walking in straight lines; or walking as astronauts on the Moon, as if the gravity of Earth affects them differently; and a long etcétera.
So, that’s why I started playing with the “assumption” that there might be other planes of reality that are beyond our reach of experience; so how would a hyperdimensional being (i.e. a being that lives and experiences more dimensions than our familiar three spatial ones and the 4th chronological one) be able to interact with us? Well, thats’ why I used the example of computer avatars in videogames as to illustrate that something similar —but obviously much much more complex— could be behind some CEIII reports.
Could I be 100% wrong? Of course; maybe tomorrow I’ll come up with something even wackier.
Enjoy your weekend
September 12th, 2009 at 8:12 am
“The ‘avatar’ hypothesis I’m proposing is speculation, Sage; something I personally think it’s fun to do, and permissible in this line of study, where MOST of it is speculation”
What you are doing is not speculating, you are confabulating. And another thing, you are absolutely not in any “permissible line of study” in this matter because you clearly have done no study in this matter whatsoever. By arbitrarily calling your confabulating a “permissible line of study”, you are trivializing the whole issue.
Whitely and friends cannot cry and complain that no one will take them seriously in their pursuits, when they won’t allow themselves to be taken seriously when they say stupid things like the visitors are intelligent but not sentient. Whether Whitley or you understand that or not, it indicates that Whitley deep down doesn’t believe in his own story of the visitors — his story is unraveling. The only permissible thing here to do is to admit the mistake but if you now try and defend that mistake, see if people don’t start trivializing you too, relegating your to the sidelines and snickering at at you as if you were a fruitcake — which they should. If you start acting silly, you should be treated like you are acting silly.
“You’re really a hard egg to crack my friend”
That’s an interesting metaphor there, RP. It indicates you don’t like mysteries and are more interested in attacking what you can’t solve instead of embracing it. Think about what this means. If you are having such difficulty figuring out how someone works that actually exists here and now on this planet for real, right in front of your own eyes, how are you ever going to figure out someone or something that you don’t? What is your expert plan for that? What kind of “permissible study” does that involve? Maybe now I’m some kind of avatar too that you can start confabulating about, since you don’t understand me either? Where is the logic in that? That is not the way reality works, RP. Show me evidence of the visitors and their behavior FIRST, then let us by logical extension of KNOWN facts, deduce what they are like. What you are doing is the exact opposite, taking UNKNOWN facts and coddling up to a good story around a campfire of how things could be in some alternate neato-cool sounding universe. You are turning this into a big joke. Stop doing that.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Its an interesting line of speculation-
but I’d think an “Unsentient” race would
be far easier to ‘catch’, after a fashion,
than some folks who could conceive that
someone else might actually be looking for them. I like Tonnies work and
thought, though I seldom agree with
it-he seems determined to stick to
some varient of the ETH, regardless
of how far “out there” some of his lines
of speculation run…
September 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am
From Webster online dictionary:
“Main Entry: con·fab·u·late
Pronunciation: \kÉ™n-ˈfa-byÉ™-ËŒlÄt\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·fab·u·lat·ed; con·fab·u·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin confabulatus, past participle of confabulari, from com- + fabulari to talk, from fabula story — more at fable
Date: circa 1604
1 : to talk informally : chat
2 : to hold a discussion : confer
3 : to fill in gaps in memory by fabrication”
So in the sense that I’m talking informally or holding a discussion, I would agree that I’m confabulating; but I imagine that you’re implying that I’m doing #3, to which I respectfully disagree, for I’m not deliberately fabricating anything here —for that would imply I’m consciously or inconsciously trying to deceive someone.
But let’s not drown in an ocean of semantics, shall we?
“Whitely and friends cannot cry and complain that no one will take them seriously in their pursuits, when they won’t allow themselves to be taken seriously when they say stupid things like the visitors are intelligent but not sentient.”
Actually, I think that would be Mac Tonnies; so perhaps you should address him directly and explain why you think his speculation is ’stupid’.
“Whether Whitley or you understand that or not, it indicates that Whitley deep down doesn’t believe in his own story of the visitors — his story is unraveling”
Maybe what it means is that he’s still not sure what to believe about his relationship with the visitors. Are they here to help us or to invade us? From what I’ve read in his blog, he seems to be of the idea that trying to pigeonhole their intentions is a mistake. There doesn’t seem to be a clear whitle/black motive with these guys, just as there isn’t with human groups.
“see if people don’t start trivializing you too, relegating your to the sidelines and snickering at at you as if you were a fruitcake — which they should”
I really wouldn’t care much if people criticize what I write on the Internet —provided they do so on a civil an intellient manner. I wasn’t aware I had a position to defend in the fist place!
“That’s an interesting metaphor there, RP. It indicates you don’t like mysteries and are more interested in attacking what you can’t solve instead of embracing it.”
If I wouldn’t like the mystery of your seemingly contradictory stances, do you think I’d bother to your comments with such long replies?
“Think about what this means. If you are having such difficulty figuring out how someone works that actually exists here and now on this planet for real, right in front of your own eyes, how are you ever going to figure out someone or something that you don’t?”
Hmmm… point taken. Although the only evidence I have of your existence are these texts that ‘magically’ appear on my screen occasionally. s you say, you could be an avatar for all I know —or just a guy who enjoys contradicting people
“That is not the way reality works, RP. Show me evidence of the visitors and their behavior FIRST, then let us by logical extension of KNOWN facts, deduce what they are like. What you are doing is the exact opposite, taking UNKNOWN facts and coddling up to a good story around a campfire of how things could be in some alternate neato-cool sounding universe.”
I wish I could show you evidence beyond the accounts of alleged witnesses, Sage. But you know as well as I that there are none that we know of.
But, as many of the people who like to hang around this site, I *DON’T* need such evidence to find reading about those stories an enjoyable pastime. So sue me!
And since none of us have to respond to a group of peers in order to receive a study grant, we can have the luxury to speculate as much as we want. Provided the speculation is founded on modicum of common sense, of course —that’s why I’m not speculating that the “aliens” are distant relatives of the Easter bunny, or the pink elephants you often like to bring up from time to time.
“You are turning this into a big joke. Stop doing that.”
Oh? And I suppose you’d care to show me the manifest in which you were appointed plenipotentiary inquisitor of UFO-related blogs.
You seem to be much too overzealous about a topic that is a bunch of nonsense, given that there’s no evidence of the existence of UFO’s & their occupants… right?
September 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I like how Mac – more so than anyone else – seems to base much of his thinking on the idea that just because things/life are a certain way on Earth, there’s absolutely no reason to expect the rest of the universe to follow suit.
We really only have 1 data point. Earth. So nothing should be off limits. Each idea is as good as the next.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:46 am
“So in the sense that I’m talking informally or holding a discussion, I would agree that I’m confabulating; but I imagine that you’re implying that I’m doing #3, to which I respectfully disagree, for I’m not deliberately fabricating anything here —for that would imply I’m consciously or inconsciously trying to deceive someone. But let’s not drown in an ocean of semantics, shall we?”
Then why are you obviously trying to drown in an ocean of semantics then? Put away your dictionary and listen. You can’t pick and choose MY definition of confabulation I applied to you just because you don’t like the truth. You are confabulating in every sense of definition #3, “to fill in gaps in memory by fabrication”. The other definitions don’t apply, and no, nowhere does that definition state a motive for confabulation, such as deceit. Confabulation is not a judgment, it is an observation. Live with it. I mean, honestly — science fiction avatars? That’s absurd and unscientific and irrational and most definitely not how someone tries to view things as supposedly being real. What’s next? Laser guns and photon torpedoes? There is absolutely no connection between that thinking and the visitors. So let’s find that real life connection instead of playing yet another version of Star Trek Online.
“Maybe what it means is…”
What it means is you guessing instead of researching. You will never know what Whitley believes or is clear about because you aren’t interested in Whitley and his experience, you are interested in Whitley and his public storytale. The storytale is interesting but that doesn’t tell us anything about reality. All I’m focused on here in regard to Whitley is his stupid comment that the visitors are intelligent but not sentient. That was a very terrible thing for Whitley to say about a real life being with real life feelings and if the visitors really existed and were reading this blog, how would they feel? How would you feel being being talked down in the third person as if you were insignificant, trivial, and not even considered worth feeling for? That is what Whitley is doing.
“I really wouldn’t care much if people criticize what I write on the Internet”
Then you don’t belong here. Some people do care and they don’t want to be a part of your media ring circus. Respect that for other people’s sakes please. You can do that, can’t you?
September 16th, 2009 at 2:15 am
“I mean, honestly — science fiction avatars? That’s absurd and unscientific and irrational and most definitely not how someone tries to view things as supposedly being real. What’s next? Laser guns and photon torpedoes? There is absolutely no connection between that thinking and the visitors.”
LOL so what, praytell, should be the right approach to understand the visitors, Sage? Do you know them personally that you feel so annoyed with my ramblings?
“What it means is you guessing instead of researching.”
Never have I stated that I am a UFOlogist or UFO researcher, compadre. I am at the most a Fortean student, and so entitled to speculate as much as I please.
“You will never know what Whitley believes or is clear about because you aren’t interested in Whitley and his experience, you are interested in Whitley and his public storytale”
So now you’re informing me about what I’m interested in? ROFL
“That was a very terrible thing for Whitley to say about a real life being with real life feelings and if the visitors really existed and were reading this blog, how would they feel?”
Why do you care about the real feelings of visitors that aren’t real? I mean… you’re reaching here, dude!
Are the visitors real, Sage? tell me what you think.
“Then you don’t belong here.”
I kind of assume that is not for you —another commenter in this blog— to decide, my friend. It would be up for Greg & Nick, no?
“You can do that, can’t you?”
And now you’re telling me what I can or can’t do?? Oh, man… thank you for making my Tequila hangover all the less unpleasant, Sage. Cheers!
September 18th, 2009 at 8:11 am
“I kind of assume that is not for you —another commenter in this blog— to decide, my friend. It would be up for Greg & Nick, no?”
No. I politely asked *you*, not Greg or Nick, to take the time to care about what what you confabulate in the alleged name of “permissible line of study”, and spare the rest of us from becoming a part of your media ring circus, but you are still refusing to respect that for other people’s sakes. You have the right to disrespect other people’s wishes, but don’t be surprised if people in general refuse to take you seriously in the future when you use completely make believe Star Trek-like terminology to describe something supposedly real with the likes of “some sort of avatar that enables a non-human hyper-dimensional intelligence to interact with us in our level of reality”. That is pure psuedoscientific nonsense terminology, and you will absolutely never find that terminology in any permissible line of study, peer reviewed science journal, or scientific discipline. Since you clearly indicated your declination to change, and we are way off the topic about Whitley and his mutually contradictory comment of the visitors being intelligent but not sentient, I will have nothing further to say on this topic. Have a nice day.