The consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. III.

Introduction  

This is the third post on the connection between consciousness and the UFO phenomenon. However, this post has a somewhat different purpose than the two previous ones. I`ll come to the point of this post further down.

 My personal belief is that a deeper understanding of consciousness can help us better understand the UFO phenomenon and vice versa. How? My best guess at the moment is that the common factor that will explain the intimate connection between consciousness (i.e., altered perception/experience of reality as reported by experiencers) and the UFO phenomenon is some kind of quantum process. Perhaps consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and every one of us is a specific manifestation, or expression, of the fundamental consciousness? 

That is, of course, highly speculative. Still, even prominent people like Sir Roger Penrose endorse the view of consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe (but not in a panpsychism-manner, as my last question in the paragraph above is, perhaps, implying). That is, consciousness is not an emergent phenomenon or epiphenomenal. You can read about the philosophical underpinnings and problems of emergent properties in this entry on plato.standford.edu.  

Penrose is also convinced that consciousness is not computation and that consciousness is more than quantum mechanical (not in any new age-like manner, but simply because Penrose thinks we do not yet have an accurate understanding of quantum physics). You can listen to Penrose talk about his view of consciousness in this short clip (duration 22:59 minutes) from a longer interview of Penrose by Lex Fridman on his Youtube channel, Artificial Intelligence with Lex Fridman (a link to the full episode with Penrose from March 2020 is found in the description of the short clip).

But, whatever the studies of consciousness -- and the UFO phenomenon -- will tell us about human nature, science cannot tell us what we should do with all the data and the results. 

How should we respond, if at all, to results that show that, say, we do not have a self? Or what should we do with the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe? 

How should we act on such knowledge? Is it possible for humanity to agree on what to think and how to do with these potentially revolutionizing insights about ourselves and reality? These questions take us to the point of this post. (Sorry for the somewhat incoherent introduction...).

The point of this post

The main point of this post is to raise the question of what kind of attitude we should have towards the results of the study of consciousness and the UFO phenomenon. To clarify, my question concerns what kind of mental, emotional, and/or ethical attitude we should adopt towards the implications of our future knowledge and understanding of consciousness and the UFO phenomenon? 

Let me give an example from neuroscience. Our neuroscientific studies of consciousness, done over more than three decades, implicate the somewhat counterintuitive and, probably for many people, disturbing result that we do not have a "self" or an "ego". That is, there is no "I" as in "I am", "I want", "I do", etc. The subjective experience of having a unique self is, of course, real for every one of us human beings. But our thinking or assumption of having a self is an illusion. 

Or, as philosopher Thomas Metzinger calls this illusion (or simulation) in his book The Ego Tunnel (2010), "the phenomenal self-model". The content of the phenomenal self-model is, according to Metzinger, the ego, or the "I". That is, how you and the world appear to you. For Metzinger and the neuroscientists he has collaborated with for many years, the self is not a thing but a process that creates a naive, realistic model of reality. So "who" or "what" is directing the process (making decisions, choices, etc.)? 

As with most theories/models, there are problems with Metzinger´s phenomenal self-model. But my point here is not to find flaws in Metzinger´s theory. You can listen to Metzinger explain his phenomenal self-model in this TEDx Talk in Barcelona from May 2013 (duration 16:26 minutes). (At the end of this post, you´ll find another talk by Metzinger that is related to the point of this post).

My point so far is that these results (if true) about our ego or self as an illusion would probably be difficult for many people to accept. I can only guess what some of the ramifications would be on our view on, for example, free will (what happens with accountability and responsibility?), when this knowledge (if true) becomes more widespread among the general public. But we will have to have an open and honest conversation about what to think and how we should respond to (for instance, to legal and ethical issues) what science tells us about human nature. Science in itself cannot give us any answers to what is right or wrong on an individual or societal level. 

The same can be said about the ongoing confirmation or disclosure process of the UFO phenomenon. What implications will the truth (whatever it is and looks like) of the UFO phenomenon have on people´s psychology, ideology, view on human nature and our place in the bigger scheme of things? Again, those are complex issues and questions we will have to face and struggle with sooner or later. Science can give us facts that can help us in a decision-making process, but those facts have to be interpreted, evaluated, put into a human context, and so on. The latter makes the implications of the UFO phenomenon so complicated: every one of us interprets and evaluates facts from our own (idiosyncratic) perspective. 

So what kind of approach or attitude could possibly facilitate an open, honest and rational exploration of those complex implications on a global scale? Because the implications of the UFO phenomenon concern everyone on earth, not just some few in a position of power.

I am not suggesting that there is only one approach or attitude that is right or the best. And even if there existed such a "right" or " best" approach, there would still be the problem of convincing most of the earth´s population to adopt and practise it. This is the old problem of "convergence", that is, can humans from different walks of life, upbringing, education, culture, parts of the world, and so on, ever come to agree on moral, religious, political and other highly charged issues? 

As the world's situation looks at the moment, I think we have reasons to give a negative answer to the possibility of convergence of opinions on, say, the question of how to deal with overpopulation. Of course, one solution would be to create a one-world government that could force the world's citizens to think, feel, talk and behave in the same way. Needless to say, I do not endorse such "convergence" of beliefs and values. 

Would an official announcement that some UFOs/UAPs are not from this earth make any difference? Would it bring humanity a sense of unity and togetherness? Maybe, maybe not. 

Whatever might be the case, disclosing the truth of the UFO phenomenon will raise new and difficult issues for every human to come to terms with. But hopefully, the truth will come slowly and gradually so that there is some time for everyone to comprehend and adapt to the new paradigm. And prepare to have an open, honest, and respectful dialogue with the rest of the world. 

How could we do that?

I think one useful approach is the one that can be found in both science and spirituality, according to Thomas Metzinger in his talk below: namely, the unconditional will to truth. I do not agree with everything Metzinger says in his presentation, in particular, about religion. Still, I agree with his observation that the spiritual stance and scientific stance are conceptually related. For me, the key point with the unconditional will to truth is the intention to never deceive oneself. So one common aspect of the scientific and spiritual stance is an ethical stance to inner action (what you think, believe and how you think about your thinking and justification of your facts, beliefs). Or, as Immanuel Kant put it, you have a moral obligation, to be honest towards yourself. 

Whether one likes or dislikes Kant´s philosophy in general, I think his view on the moral obligation to be honest towards oneself to be absolutely crucial in today´s world of fake news, wokeness, moral relativism, nihilism, and whatnot. 

For instance, I believe most people in the woke movement are good and smart people. Still, they are obviously deceiving themselves: they only talk about rights but never about obligations, and their cancel-culture is the opposite of freedom of speech and other democratic principles. I am sure they genuinely believe that they are fighting for a better world, but, in fact, their actions and methods will lead to the opposite. [NOTE: To be clear: I agree with them in principle, that is, that inequality, discrimination, racism, etc., are real problems and change is needed. But I disagree with their oversimplified view of the causes of those problems and with their aggressive methods]. 

In other words, they lack the unconditional will to truth because the truth is hard to discover and has nothing to do with what and how you want to feel about yourself or the world. The question of how we make each other feel is central to human relationships and well being. It is, however, independent of epistemological questions.

So the unconditional will to truth is a rather demanding attitude. It demands you to look yourself and the world straight in the eyes and not avert your gaze from complexity. It demands you to stay open and vulnerable to other people´s opinions, values, and judgement. The unconditional will to truth demands you to consistently and regularly scrutinize your worldview and values. 

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that it is not the implications of the truth of the UFO phenomenon that is the most complex. Rather the complexity lies in human nature and our general unwillingness to perceive reality as it is. In other words, our will to truth is often conditional. Is the UFO issue an exception? Will a global convergence on what to think ("friendly or a threat") and do (peaceful communication, military response or something else?) about the UFO phenomenon be easy to achieve or not? Will it unite or divide humanity? 

I do not know, and I do not dare to guess. I only know that sooner or later, the world will have to face complex questions that have to be discussed on a global level. Therein lies the most complex issue with the UFO phenomenon: how do we have an open, honest, respectful, and rational conversation on a global scale? Science cannot answer that question for us. 

To sum up, my point with all of the above is that the world is going through a never before seen transition. This transition involves many different complex issues at once. Two of those complex issues are consciousness and the UFO phenomenon. 

More specifically, we will have to deal with the implications of what the truth of consciousness and the UFO phenomenon says about human nature, life and the universe. The question is how humanity can have an open, honest, and rational dialogue about those complex and highly emotional issues? 

One suggestion as to "how" is to cultivate and practice a common aspect between science and spirituality: the unconditional will to truth. In its essence, the unconditional will to truth is a pure intention not to deceive oneself (or others). It is an ethical stance towards knowledge (what counts as knowledge, how do I know that I know, etc.) and truth.

Below, you can watch and listen to philosopher Thomas Metzinger´s talk about the conceptual connection between science (intellectual honesty) and spirituality. Or, if you prefer, you can read his paper that the talk below is based on https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb05philosophie/files/2014/04/TheorPhil_Metzinger_SIR_2013_English.pdf.

"Spirituality and Intellectual Honesty with Thomas Metzinger." Published on the Youtube channel of Krishnamurti Educational Center, July 20 2017. Duration: 50:43 minutes.

In Metzinger´s talk from May 2017, he asks three questions: 1) What is spirituality? 2) What is intellectual honesty?, and 3) Is there a conceptual connection between the two stances towards life and one´s own mind? And even though Metzinger´s talk - and paper - is not academical or sufficiently technical (as he points out at the beginning of the talk), he wants informally to defend three theses:

1. The opposite of religion is not science but spirituality.
2. The ethical principle of intellectual honesty can be analyzed as a special case of the spiritual stance.
3. In their purest forms, the scientific and the spiritual stance emerge from the same basic normative idea.

The talk is straightforward, and Metzinger does what he initially set out to do: he goes through questions 1 - 3, and towards the end of the talk, he summarizes his defence of the three theses. Thus, the answer to question number three is that "the unconditional will to the truth" (the intention to avoid self-deception) is the basic normative idea that connects the scientific and the spiritual stance towards knowledge and truth. 

As I mentioned above, I do not agree with Metzinger´s overall characterization of religion (even though I can agree with some aspects of it), and I, therefore, do not think he succeeds in defending his first thesis. For instance, you could argue that Metzinger´s criterion for organized religion also applies to modern science. That is, science and religion are more alike than Metzinger seems to think. I am not defending organized religion. Rather I am pointing out a problem with Metzinger´s argument for the first thesis. His arguments for thesis 2 and 3 are, I think, valid and important for everyone to at least reflect upon (for reasons I mentioned in the text above the video). 

Take care!

Janne