I doubt these people are lying. They actually saw something. Miracles are the easiest example to explain. Someone couldn't walk and then a saint said a prayer for them and they could walk again. It is pretty easy guess that it was a placebo effect or coincidence that the medical issue got better at the same time.
We have never seen someone with a X-Ray of a severed spine regain full walking ability after a prayer from a saint.
UFO's may exist, but it seems more likely that a combination of reflections, radar issues, tiredness/stress, "wanting to believe" caused them to see "something"
Let’s say some visual details are fuzzy. With a strong enough Bayesian prior (e.g. belief in UFOs), the human perceptual apparatus could subjectively see things that look like UFOs.
Mind bending, but this seems to me a credible and popular theory of brain functioning. I’m no expert and new to the theory. Please correct me if I’m butchering it.
P.S. Like anyone, I often detect motion in my peripheral vision without much detail. Maybe once a year (or less), I see weird things that seem implausible, but only for brief instant. When I look, there is nothing unusual. Yes, bring on the “what are you smoking?” comments… but I assure you the answer is “nothing”.
One of the prevailing hypotheses states that due to low inherent resolution of the retina these micromovements are used to create sort of sub-pixel resolution. Hence, visual cortex inherently works in predictive/generative mode with constant feedback correction. This hypothesis is sometimes used to explain phenomena like pareidolia and might as well be used to explain perception of UFOs.
Just think for a second, if such a thing was possible, why would it be restricted to "UFOs"?
Obviously, such an illness would be well known.
Who said it is? Tons of people report seeing all manner of nonsense.
The idea of whole departments in the US government being staffed with them is absurdist nonsense.
Most UFO reports fall into the Optical Illusion category rather than extreme schizophrenia.
Your allegation about UFO reports is accordingly simply incorrect.
So it seems strange that you have jumped to the conclusion that these must be real UFOs since most people do not hallucinate.
The whistleblower reports of the existence of a research program that he was briefed about. He testifies this program was stuying non-human technology, among that functioning craft, aka "flying saucers".
The determination of it being non-human in orgin was due to extensive material analysis, evident morphology and working characteistics of those devices.
I think I take your point: he doesn't have firsthand experience seeing the evidence.
That said, the quote "Someone claims that someone else told him material exists that is from aliens." doesn't by itself convey the significance of these other people being high ranking intelligence officials. A trained intelligence professional has much more analytical skill and credibility than a person randomly sampled from the U.S. population.
> The Debrief reported that Grusch’s knowledge of non-human materials and vehicles was based on “extensive interviews with high-level intelligence officials”. He said he had reported the existence of a UFO material “recovery program” to Congress.
> “Grusch said that the craft recovery operations are ongoing at various levels of activity and that he knows the specific individuals, current and former, who are involved,” the Debrief reported.
> In the Debrief article, Grusch does not say he has personally seen alien vehicles, nor does he say where they may be being stored. He asked the Debrief to withhold details of retaliation by government officials due to an ongoing investigation.
Indeed. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident you can listen to the audio recording of some soldiers investigating what happened at the site of a proposed UFO landing, where they observe weird lights and scorch marks on trees.
There's another page some guy set up where he posts photos he took himself at the site and even used screenshots from a TV interview of one of the witnesses of the event to clearly show that those lights were easily explain by surrounding structures (light house etc) and the marks on trees were probably left by lumberjacks.
I'm baffled how a bunch of trained soldiers investigating over several days can just "conclude" that it was all very mysterious stuff going on and that, despite it being clearly debunked, this event is still seen as THE UFO event in the UK.
Then again I have no idea how these latest videos of flying objects can be explained. To a lay person like myself it just seems completely crazy. How can a pilot claiming to see things fly at supersonic speeds doing impossible maneuvers be explained by a problem with the lens and / or "it's just a weather balloon". The "explanations" of it being ufos seem completely believable to me.
Or 20 UAPs zooming around, in and out from water, up and down from low Earth orbit in seconds.
You are not factoring in how many times he has tried to guess other people's pins. Or if some pins are more common than others.
Similarly here you are not factoring in how often an entire group of sensors has the same big and repots incorrect data at the same time in the same way. You are Cherry picking the one time the data looked like it might be a UFO. This is also a form of confirmation bias.
Someone who works in astrophysics for a govt entity in the US told me they have such massive budgets that it's not uncommon to throw some of it to some weird department just as a favor or to keep up the public's interest in "space stuff". Another person (working at ESA) confirmed it, they both rolled their eyes and claimed it was all BS.
NOT saying this is definitive truth.
Second, I will respond in terms of the charitable substance of your comment. I think there is some useful back-and-forth to be had.
Please be specific: part is “complete nonsense” to you; which of the following applies?
1. You reject the predictive processing theory? Why?
2. You reject my characterization of the theory?
3. You reject my application of the theory to the example of seeing UFOs? For the reason you gave? Is there more?
4. What research have you done to support your knowledge and claims?
5. Have you read “Hallucinations and Strong Priors” in Trends in Cognitive Science [1]? I referenced it in nearby comment as well.
Penultimate point: correctly or incorrectly, I am using facts and reasoning in my above comment; I don’t see how this qualifies as “hallucination” in terms of an AI or human phenomenon.
Final point: there is considerable nuance and skill required to criticize effectively. In asking questions 1 through 3, I’m offering an example of a better way.
As already stated, the whistleblower does not fall at all in the context you are discussing here, as he reports having been briefed on research programs that study non-human technology.
Now, in the case of those sightings by military pilots, you have multiple sensor systems and multiple pilots involved simultaneously. Clearly impossible to be explained by your idea here.
But even in cases of single eye-witnesses, their sightings are often over extended periods of time, entirely incompatible with your paper.
1. No. This interpretation of one HN Guideline is not accurate. Such a view would justify being non-charitable, which is incompatible with the guidelines more broadly.
Curious conversation should not stop because you think my comment is off-topic.
2. And as I explained at length in another comment, as conversations evolve in a tree of comments, there may be considerable distance (in terms of a topic vector space) from the root.
3. Each time you say “utter nonsense” or “bogus” (and the like) it comes across as insulting. Are you aware of this?
There are clearer phrases and terms to use that are not insulting. Depending on what you are trying to say, you might try:
- you could say you disagree (in the sense of a value judgment or a subjective matter)
- you could say that I’m making a logical or rational error
- you could say that something is not true, factually
- you could say that particular claim of mine is inconsistent with another claim
- you could say that I am not providing evidence or support for a claim
Onto a different point. You wrote:
> not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself).
4. Stating that I am not an expert in a particular cognitive science theory does not inherently disqualify the logic of my argument. It merely suggests an openness to learning if there are mistakes. Such an openness is indicative of humility and a tendency to not overreach.
As you can see in my other comments, I have recognized and agreed with some of your points. But these points have not contradicted or disproved what I wrote.
https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S136...
Trends in Cognitive Science
OPINION | VOLUME 23, ISSUE 2, P114-127, FEBRUARY 2019
Hallucinations and Strong Priors
Philip R. Corlett, Guillermo Horga, Paul C. Fletcher, Ben Alderson-Day, Katharina Schmack, Albert R. Powers III
Open Access
Published: December 21, 2018
Now, your idea of hallucinations being an explanation for such sightings, obviously impossible due to said sensors systems in the first place, is utter bogus since not only do you not have "strong priors" in such a situation, you also do not employ people suffering from hallucinations as pilots for mulit-million dollar fighter jets to begin with.
Your article finally describes an entirely different phenomenon than "seeing an object consistently for an extended period of time". Which is what is relevant here.
I’m sorry that you seem upset here and in your comments generally on this thread. I can relate to some degree; there is is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to the topics of evidence and people’s ability to evaluate truth claims.
Still, it is your responsibility to not take out on your frustrations on me or anyone else. Treat us with respect or your reputation will suffer.
Finally, you are making many assumptions which you then use to knock down straw men arguments. If you manage a civil tone, I will engage with you further. Otherwise, I don’t see it being productive enough to warrant the effort.
To be specific, I suggest reviewing the HN Guideliness. In particular, strive to ask charitable clarification questions and avoid emotionally charged claims; e.g. that what I’m saying is bogus.
I want to elaborate on one personal experience I alluded to above. I am curious if others have experienced anything similar.
While driving at about 20 mph across some train tracks, I noticed in my left peripheral vision a parked vehicle with its rear door open. For a tiny instant, I perceived it roughly like dirt was “flowing out” of the car. When I looked more closely — and again, this happened in a fraction of a second — it was clear that a dog, probably a golden retriever, was jumping out.
So my first fleeting perceptual experience got the motion roughly correct (movement out of a back seat onto the ground) and color (light brown) correct. It got the object wrong.
From what I can tell, this is a consistent subjective experience with the predictive processing model. It seems to me if one did not subscribe to the predictive processing model, one would expect the brain to only register a vague blur.
I think it is also worth mentioning that in the days leading up to that experience I had a DIY project where I dug a deep hole, and I put a bucket in the bottom which I filled before lifting it out and dumping it. (This was more efficient than doing one shovel load at a time.) This digging was not an expedient process which could have led my brain to spend energy processing better ways to do it.
“We need to increase tourism on the Town. Cowille business is booming since they had that Virgin Mary apparition. Anne-Marie, could that shape that you saw while tending the sheep be the Spirit of Saint Peter?”
Some people just like having the attention of other people, so it could still be an invented story just to have a great story to tell to the few that believe it.
Maybe he so desperately wants his $500,000 bail guarantors to remain anonymous because they're aliens!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/nyregion/george-santos-ba...
Yes. I was discussing something related to this with one of my young-adult children and I said something along the lines of "Some people don't actually like abstract or self-reflective thought. They prefer to just believe what they want to, or what's comforting to them, and not to think about it." I believe it hadn't really occurred to them so starkly before, and I felt kind of bad for that.