Review ：JACQUES F. VALLEE, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects"

Preface
- A few days ago, I posted a machine translation of the following paper written by Jacques Vallee on my Blog. Since this is a good opportunity, I would like to write down my thoughts on the paper before I forget it.


　　JACQUES F. VALLEE, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects"

　　ref: jse_04_1_vallee_2.pdf - https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_vallee_2.pdf



My view 1
- The "Five Arguments" Against Extraterrestrial Origins which  is a landmark point that is now considered a classic, so yes, indeed it is.

- The following hypothesis by Jacques Vallee that "the UFO phenomenon as a control system" does not ring a bell.


 In the mid-70's I proposed to approach the UFO phenomenon as a control system, reserving judgment as to whether the control would turn out to be human, alien or simply natural. Such control systems, governing physical or social events, are all around us. They can be found in the terrestrial, ecological and economic balancing mechanisms that rule nature, some of which are well understood by science. This theory admits two interesting variants: ( 1) An Alien intelligence, possibly earth-based, could be training us towards a new type of' behavior. It could represent the "Visitor Phenomenon" of Strieber (1987) or some form of "super-nature," possibly along the lines of a "Gaia" hypothesis. (2) Alternately, in a Jungian interpretation of the same theme, the human collective unconscious could be projecting ahead of itself the imagery which is necessary for our own long-term survival beyond the unprecedented crises of the 20th century.


- In the first place, the Gaia hypothesis itself lacks evidence and is a stinker(*1), and Jungian psychology is too ineffective as a tool for elucidating the UFO phenomenon.

My view 2
- The following passages in Jacques Vallee's article in question caught my attention.


 British researcher Randles has stressed that the analysis of the discourse of abductees consistently reveals a breakpoint in time, after which the percipient leaves normal reality behind. On the "other side" of this boundary ordinary spacetime physics no longer seems to apply and the percipient moves as if within a lucid dream (or indeed a lucid nightmare) until returned to the normal world. Randles calls this phenomenon the "Oz Factor." Building on this observation, one could theorize that there exists a remarkable state of psychic functioning that alters the percipient's vision of physical reality and also generates actual traces and luminous phenomena, visible to other witnesses in their normal state.

　

- The point he make in this section is extremely important. In particular, the following statement (if the word "actual" are removed) would mean almost the same thing as my "resonance hypothesis".


there exists a remarkable state of psychic functioning that alters the percipient's vision of physical reality and also generates actual traces and luminous phenomena, visible to other witnesses in their normal state.



-Just to put a fine point on it.... Jenny Randles seems to think that:

　　- "UFOs give rise to the "Oz factor" (i.e., transform space-time),"


 However, I believe the following:

　　- The experiencer feels the disturbance in consciousness (caused by EMF abnormalities, etc.) as the "Oz factor." In other words, the experiencer misperceives the cognitive decline and clouding of his/her consciousness as a transformation of the external world.


(*1)
- To begin with, the Gaia "hypothesis" does not reach the level of so-called theories or hypotheses, but is only a vague metaphor. It is, so to speak, like a parable for school children or a cautionary tale of good and evil.

- If we accept the Gaia hypothesis, the earth cannot exist on its own, so the sun and moon must be included. The solar system cannot exist on its own either, so the number of objects in the galaxy and galaxy clusters will continue to grow. On the other hand, even a neighborhood pond would have to be considered a "life form."

- In other words, the Gaia Hypothesis is a metaphor that takes advantage of the complexity of life, a system that is difficult to clearly define. In the same way, the nonsense prevalent in the spiritual world has taken advantage of the complexity of consciousness, a system that is difficult to clearly define.


- In this sense, the Gaia hypothesis is similar to Richard Dawkins' meme hypothesis or "selfish gene," which I have criticized below.


- Richard Dawkins' meme theory is not "misleading" or "the analogy is wrong", but rather it cannot be a natural science (biology) theory in the first place... in my opinion.

- To explain why in a simple metaphor, Richard Dawkins conflates "pathogens and defilement/filth/sin/impurities".


- Because pathogens are real as objective objects, they could be scientifically analyzed by biology. On the other hand, "defilements/filth/sin/impurities" treated in folklore and comparative religious studies are not real as objective objects, and therefore cannot be the subject of natural science research (not to mention biology).

- In this contrast, the meme theory is not on the side of the pathogen in both its object and process, but on the side of the "defilements/filth/sin/impurities." In other words, memes are not objective realities, but only exist metaphorically as abstract and ambiguous concepts in the consciousness of those who interpret them.

- Richard Dawkins should have proposed the meme theory not as a theory of biology, his specialty, but as a theory of folklore and sociology "with the explicit statement that it has nothing to do with biology". Needless to say, folklore and sociology are not (and should not aspire to be) "real" sciences.

- Incidentally, Richard Dawkins' theory of the "selfish gene" is not quite as close to the side of defilement as the meme theory, but it is dangerously close to the side of defilement, and I doubt if it can be a natural science theory.

ref: 　　A Critique of the Meme Theory by John R. Searle　（2015-08-12）
 (2015-08-12)



(2022-07-20)