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 will come to the point of this post further down.
My 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 panpsychist-manner, as my last question in the paragraph above is, perhaps, implying). 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 discuss 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 knowing 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 revolutionising 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 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 everyone 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 naïve, realistic model of reality. So, "who" or "what" is directing the process (deciding, making 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 ramifications would be on our view of, for example, free will (what happens with accountability and responsibility?), when this knowledge (if true) becomes more widespread among the 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 eventually. 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 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 was such a "right" or " best" approach, there would still be the problem of convincing most of the earth's population to adopt and practice it. This is the old problem of "convergence", that is, can humans from different walks of life, education, culture, 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 the 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 towards 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, I think his view on the moral obligation to be honest towards oneself to be absolutely crucial in today's world of hedonism, nihilism, and whatnot.
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 and judgement. The unconditional will to truth demands you to consistently scrutinise 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 eventually, 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 the above is that the world is going through a never before seen transition. This transition involves different complex issues at once. Two of those complex issues are consciousness and the UFO phenomenon.
More specifically, we will have to attend to 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 of 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 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.
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:
- The opposite of religion is not science, but spirituality.
- The ethical principle of intellectual honesty can be analysed as a special case of the spiritual stance.
- In their purest forms, the scientific and the spiritual stance emerge from the same basic normative idea.
As I mentioned above, I do not agree with Metzinger's overall characterisation of religion (even though I can agree with some aspects of it), and I therefore do not think he defends his first thesis. For instance, you could argue that Metzinger's criterion for organised religion also applies to modern science. That is, science and religion are more alike than Metzinger seems to think. I am not defending organised 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment