Angels, ghosts, UFOs, miracles all have the same characteristics. A person who seems very reasonable says they are sure that saw the thing, and they provide SOME circumstantial or grainy photographic evidence, but no one actually got a full resolution picture of the angel or ghost or UFO.
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"
It seems likely to me that “seeing things” is consistent with the predictive processing model from cognitive neuroscience. To summarize: the retina error-corrects a simulation provided from the cortex.
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”.
> Recent empirical work from independent laboratories shows strong, overly precise priors can engender hallucinations in healthy subjects and that individuals who hallucinate in the real world are more susceptible to these laboratory phenomena.
First of, this is completely off-topic, since the whistleblower reports being briefed on non-human technology in possession of the US, which is being intensively studied. Further, their related "sightings" are corroborated by multiple sensor systems simultaneously. And multiple pilots as well.
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.
You are not the final arbiter of what is on topic. Topics are subjective and connected cognitively differently by different people.
Also, in my view, my comment is directly on topic to the message it replies to. [1]
I’m curious about your user experience with Hacker News. Do you use the normal web interface or some other UI? I’m sorry to ask the obvious question, but I do want to rule it out: do you realize that comments are situated relative to the parent comment, right? Now, after factoring this in, do you see how my comment is a response to its parent?
If you’d like to think about it mathematically, try this. The original post could be characterized as having a topic vector in a many dimensional space. Each subsequent reply can be characterized similarly. As you get deeper in the conversation tree, the topic vectors diverge significantly. This does not mean a somewhat distant (in topic vector space) comment is “off-topic”. Quite to the contrary, it means the original post has generated a rich variety of discussion.
This said, I take your point that transitory perceptual errors do not explain all UFO sightings, nor do they directly bear on the whistleblower’s main claims.
One can make such a point without being prickly about it. I’m sorry that you seem upset here and in your comments generally across the threads here. 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.
I can also relate to prioritizing factual assessments at the expense of tact and empathy towards others. For many years of my life I did this, and it did not serve me well.
It is your responsibility to not take out on your frustrations on me or anyone else. Treat us with respect or your reputation may suffer.
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.
Lastly, you are making many assumptions which you then use to knock down straw men arguments.
Notes
[1] I say this based on a larger number of upvotes than I would expect on a comment this deep in the tree. This information is asymmetric; I recognize that you do not have access to it. I wonder what your assessment of this will be.
- If you think I’m lying, this would confirm what you want to believe about my comment being off topic and bogus.
- If you think I’m telling the truth, it would challenge your claims.
Sorry for digressing but having a formal tone comes off as predictable and like you've used AI to help you type. The best manipulation tactic when "responding to someone being dumb" is making the response sound like it came from an actual human and not from a professor or robot. And most UFO sightings are classified because other countries will assume that we are lunatics. America must keep the image of "we are strong and intelligent" to the public. Even hallucinating a weird tiktac in the sky without documentation is a UFO due to the acronym meaning Unidentified Flying Object. It's Unidentified. Doesn't mean it's an angel or alien, one could obviously be sleep deprived yet write about it like crazy, it's a flaw of entitlement. People assume they'll be the first to see it, so they start seeing things.
While this is not a well studied phenomenon, as in to the extent of having well formed theory, we do know that eyes constantly perform micromovements.
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.
> 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.
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.
First, your tone comes across as unnecessarily uncivil. Your comments could be rephrased to better promote curious discussion.
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.
Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself).
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.
> Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense…
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 and charitable conversation should not stop because you think my comment is off-topic.
2. Regarding topicality; 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. This is a normal and useful.
I’m certainly open and appreciative of someone adding to the conversation. You made a connection from my points to what you see is the central point. Your connection was ‘negative’ in the sense that you suggested my points about perceptions and priors does not apply to the original post. This sense of negative is not a problem, even though I disagree with some of your logic. But the way you did it — quite harshly — was unnecessary.
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.
> Most UFO reports fall into the Optical Illusion category
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.
I did not jump to that conclusion, you are putting words in my mouth.
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.
> "Someone claims that someone else told him material exists that is from aliens."
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.
Maybe so, but presuming such a visual hallucination phenomena exists, who said it's limited to aliens? xpe didn't say it only manifests as UFO sightings. Besides UFOs, you've got tons of people claiming to see big foot, ghosts, monster fish, angels, ball lightning, etc...
Really low chances that the cameras and other 70 sensor arrays located across an entire fleet of the US Navy are hallucinating simultaneously that they seeing, detecting an UAP.
Or 20 UAPs zooming around, in and out from water, up and down from low Earth orbit in seconds.
You have the math backwards. It would be like saying that someone who guesses your 4 letter pin code is a mind reader because the likelihood of that is low.
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.
It's less of a hallucination and more like a mirage - there's some real stimulus but the mind grossly misinterprets it. Most people don't see mirages regularly, but anyone could see a mirage under the right circumstances.
> The idea of whole departments in the US government being staffed with them is absurdist nonsense.
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.
UFO sightings are much less interesting then abductions. Sightings require almost no effort and ultimately can be explained away. But people who claim to be abducted basically are giving up the assumption they will ever be taken seriously again. So why tell others? Are there some subset of abductees who were actually taken? We certainly do the same to other animals so there's no reason why it wouldn't be done to us.
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.
I mean, there sure are a lot of mentally unstable people who actively choose to detach from reality. To some, living in a fantasy land is as simple as ignoring the truth around you.
“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?”
Tangential, but we tend to bring up the placebo effect pretty quickly in medical discussions about what works and doesn't but actually a lot of what people say is the result of placebo is just not even placebo but "natural" resorption, that is your body doing the work.
Placebo is measurable, it's whether taking a "fake" cure is better than "natural" resorption. For some affections, the effect is surprisingly important for others quite negligible.
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"