Deep Thinkers 3
 

Reaching total conscientious is nothing more than having common sense. We know that crop circles are man made, we know that Bigfoot is a ruse, we know the UFO's that have not been faked are secret military projects, and we know that we have not been visited by aliens. Area 51 was a ruse by the government to scare the Russians into thinking we had alien technology.
Star Wars defense system was the same. There are no alien creatures in the sea, in mountain caves, or in a government lab. Why do we spend so much time trying to fool people into believing something that is not real?

For the fun of it? To deflect attention from something you are trying to hide?

Because it’s a lot more fun than spending one’s time deep thinking.

Early science had it that there were five planets (six, if you counted the moon). We didn't know that Uranus and Neptune existed--until we did.

Early science had it that the Earth was the center of everthing (I mean, the VISUAL proof was right before your eyes). We didn't know that the Earth was simply one of the planets that rotated around the sun--until we did.

Until quite recently, cutting-edge "science" had it that disease was spread by various things: poisoned wells, or taking too many baths, or by smelling bad smells, etc. etc. We didn't know that microscopic critters that we couldn't see but rode around in various media such as the fur of rats, the guts of mosquitoes or the legs of houseflies and spread often horrific diseases--until we did.

And so on. There are probably hundreds of examples of what "common sense" told us in the past, that turned out to be absolutely false.

I find it interesting, if a bit specious, to claim that "total consciousness" exists of nothing more than knowing that something doesn't exist, simply because we've not found proof positive that it does. We're built to perceive things on a very narrow spectrum and it is only as we develop methods of perception that expand that spectrum do we learn just how narrow our "vision" was. Telescopes, for example, showed us the wonders of the universe in ways that we never could have dreamed. Anton van Leeuwenhoek's invention of the microscope allowed us to see those little critters that spread the disease. For millennia we stood in awe of birds and how they could take to the air, having very little idea of just how--until a couple of brothers named Orville and Wilbur Wright came along and proved that it was not only possible but actually pretty easy--IF one understood the principles. Birds and fish cover thousands of miles to nest or lay their eggs where they themselves were hatched. We still don't really know how they do it but the fact that we don't know HOW they do it doesn't mean that their ability to do so doesn't exist.

I doubt that total consciousness--or total understanding, which is what is really being discussed here--will never be achieved. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a worthy goal. The route to expanding consciousness first begins with an open mind; what we accomplish after that is dependent only on the vision of the people who allow their minds to BE open.

I do know one thing. And that one thing that has been proven time and time again to be an absolute barrier AGAINST expanding our consciousness is "Common sense".

Our understanding the world is constantly changing so who knows which of the above things you think are wrong are actually right.

After watching Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who and Men In Black, I got all the answers I need.

We cannot know that we have not been visited by aliens. We can know that we are not aware of being visited, we have no proof of the positive, but there is no way to prove the negative.

Your posit to the deep thinkers is "Why do we spend so much time trying to fool people into believing something that is not real?"

Everything your wrote before it is subjective, and a logical fallacy. We do not KNOW those things are untrue. You are using those examples to steer responses to your eventual inquiry. I believe it is an Argument of Ignorance fallacy, also known as Argumentum ex Silentio.

Ignoring the unproven claims with which your paragraph begins, and focusing on just the last sentence - the one that matters in this discourse, I offer the following:

We spend so much time trying to fool people (counter intel, psyops) for a variety of reasons. A few examples include:

1. To woo women. To make them think we are smarter, wealthier, stronger, more attractive than we are. For the opposite gender, they use make-up and flattering hair and clothing styles to "fool" men into think they are more attractive than they might otherwise be - so to woo men;

2. To save resources. If I fool an adversary into thinking I am stronger than I am, I do not actually have to build the hypersonic weapons he thinks I already have;

3. To create resources. To make money by convincing others (or fooling them) into thinking my product is the best one and the one they want to buy;

4. To influence society. If I can fool people into thinking the sky is falling, then I can get a majority to vote to increase funding to the "Sky Is Falling Agency" to hire more people (increasing the influence of that agency's administration), to spend on projects I prefer, and/or to direct money to studies or vendors of my choice.

I am certain there are more examples, but I wish to enjoy by coffee and peruse the web rather than type away with both hands.

They walk amongst us

Yes. We do.
👮👩👴👵👸👦👽👮👨👩

UFO's
 

I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who has seen UFO's

According to the ancient aliens crowd there is tons of proof all.around the world. Much of it fun reading or watching.

It is an interesting thing. Maybe 99.9999% of the reports of alien sightings or interactions are bogus. Overactive imaginations.

But if even ONE is true, then that 99.9999% doesn't matter.

Unless you can identify that there is a real one and which one it is, better take them all seriously. Imagine a scenario where you are the head of secret service protecting the president. There is a report of 1000 enemy snipers. Infact, there are 999 fake snipers with blank ammo and only 1 real sniper with real ammo. You have no choice but to find them all. After all, you have not idea that there is only one. There might be more. The one you miss could change the course of history.
Every sighting is possibly real until it is proven not to be.

The truth is here
 

keep looking over my shoulder for the guy with the dreads and bad breath

Klaatu barada nikto
 

didn't they just sort this all out in d.c.

Oooh, please expand on that...

And when there finally is proof of even ONE then the world will change a little.

Since you're in deep thought, you might want to learn to spell. Your third word in your diatribe is misspelled. Have a great day!

You have that backwards, you are starting from a false conclusion. Just because you have a report of 1000 or enemy or snipers doesn't make any of it true. Instead of 1000 enemy snipers there could be five rooftop gardeners and whoever reported otherwise was simply wrong. The story isn't true until proven false, the story is a story until proven true.

Every sighting is possibly real - sure.
...until it is proven not to be - NO.

Every sighting is possibly real but probably not until it is proven to be true.

Be careful of what you believe you "know" and what you are calling a "fact."

U.F.O.

Unidentified - sure, you saw something but you don't recognize it - it is unidentified

Flying - Do you really know it was flying? Since you aren't sure what it was, can you really know it was flying and not just falling? You saw it moving but a man without a parachute will also move and yet he would not be flying.

Object - Can you be sure it was an object and not just a glint in your eye or a reflection off a lens or some atmospheric condition? Cloud to cloud lightning can look like an object but isn't. A laser light show can look like objects but isn't. Even spot lights from a car dealership can look like something moving across the sky but is really just a reflection. Since whatever you saw was unidentified, can you really say it was an actual object and not just a trick of light?

I suspect it is likely you saw something you didn't recognize but you don't know that it was flying or that it was actually an object. Others may report seeing the same thing but they don't have any proof that it was flying or it was an object either. It was certainly Unidentified but you cannot know for a fact that it was an Unidentified Flying Object.

Should our beliefs always be based on factual evidence or should we allow that simply having faith that something is out there is enough reason to believe?

Yeah but stirring the pot often produces interest (and amusing) responses

Oh, come on!! Really??

Common?
 

Well stated.

I think you need to look up the meaning of consciousness. Also, it’s not called total consciousness, but known as universal consciousness or collective consciousness.

If you are talking common sense, it is definitely common sense to know that we have UFO’s and we aren’t alone in the universe. Out of millions of galaxies, and trillions of stars with planets, it’s common sense we aren’t the only Beings, and they can be much more advanced than us, since we are still juveniles when it comes to knowledge and wisdom. Btw, I have photos taken with my telescope of plasma ships. They are undulating masses of colorful light, then change into a solid ship, then back into a ball of colorful light. I have a series of photos as one is changing from a light ball into a solid form ship. They are quite impressive.

Great question.

Faith. Belief. Knowledge.

I might have FAITH that the majority of people are well-intentioned even though in this day and age the evidence is often contrary to that. I BELIEVE that when I get on that 737 Thursday it will take to the air in Orlando and land in Minneapolis a few hours later, because I've experienced it numerous times. But what do I, or any of us, really know?

Rene' Descartes said itbest. "Cogito, ergo sum". That is all I KNOW for certain. The rest of the world might be a side-effect of a psychotropic medication.

Ain't philosophy grand?

Deep thinking
 

We really don’t know. Here is link to recently released Eisenhower Report from our government. https://majesticdocuments.com/pdf/ei...r_briefing.pdf Very interesting read.

Here’s a deep thought . . . .

Is Reality a Hologram? a Social Agreement? or Just in Your Mind? Scientists Explain What Reality Really Is

Thanks for your profound observation ...:ohdear:

Guess I should have not said "report" and instead said "reliable intelligence" for my scenario. And, if you resided in the scenario and were not told by me the report was not accurate, you would not have known what was true or false. Due to the nature of the scenario it would be prudent to act as if it might be true until you can be certain it was or was not.

Consciousness
 

Good topic and conversation, thank you for the post.

We don’t have a working, scientific theory of human (or even animal) consciousness beyond I exist, therefore I am. It is under constant study though.

I’ve spent a good part of my life working with artificial intelligence so the concept of consciousness occasionally crosses my mind. (See how I did that?) Common sense is essential to AI and is developed in varieties. How an automated car interacts with a cat is different than a tank. Consciousness is something else entirely and, like humans, is sold like snake oil (albeit digital).

I agree with replies to this post saying that more science is welcome and with those for whom spiritually and faith is enough. We’ll know we’ve nailed the theory in either case when we not only understand consciousness in ourselves but recognize and relate to it in other people. AI seamlessly collaborates between digital entities (machines or other programs) using this common sense but that doesn’t happen as easily with conscious human beings largely because we haven’t developed much past “I exist”. It’s incredibly difficult and some even say impossible for a machine (the brain) to reliably study itself without bias that corrupts the output. Common sense is bias.

UFO’s absolutely exist but that doesn’t prove other intelligent species do. By definition, “UFO” is ambiguous to that which it labels. In science, most mathematical guesses presume that if species are capable of intergalactic travel, the odds are we would interact with at least one of them directly given the quantity of the universe. Kind of the opposite of thinking they must exist because the universe is so big.

One thing that seems certain from our existence is that a species capable of the enormous resources required for intergalactic travel are also masters of political science on their own planet. (Charles Krauthammer). That makes me think they’d be less like Predator and more like Captain Kirk.

Oh is it now? And you know this how??

[QUOTE=ThirdOfFive;2127965]Early science had it that there were five planets (six, if you counted the moon). We didn't know that Uranus and Neptune existed--until we did.

Early science had it that the Earth was the center of everthing (I mean, the VISUAL proof was right before your eyes). We didn't know that the Earth was simply one of the planets that rotated around the sun--until we did.

Until quite recently, cutting-edge "science" had it that disease was spread by various things: poisoned wells, or taking too many baths, or by smelling bad smells, etc. etc. We didn't know that microscopic critters that we couldn't see but rode around in various media such as the fur of rats, the guts of mosquitoes or the legs of houseflies and spread often horrific diseases--until we did.


YOU SAID IT....I have a lot of common sense but even more so, the older I get the less I know. With age and additional knowledge/learning you realize there is so much more. You can make choices of what you believe but you still need to keep an open mind.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

Wait! Bigfoot is a "ruse"?

It's common sense! ☺

I am not! I'm just shy. ☺

Given that there are typically hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, it is almost assured that intelligent "alien" life exists in at least one more place than earth.
That said, we will never know for certain because of the distances involved. It would take thousands of years, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands of years to traverse the distances, assuming life could even survive for so long in such a hostile environment as deep space. Furthermore, by the time the "signs" arrived, the sender would likely have long since gone extinct.
Be careful what you wish for. As Stephen Hawking once said (paraphrasing); "alien" life (i.e. European settlers) was not such a good thing for our Native Americans".

Someday I would love to, but not here. (Security issues still in affect). Breaking security issues is something you can't begin to imagine. That's as far as I can go.

While all this discussion on the existence (or not) of UFOs is of interest, it is a tangent to the originally posted question. The UFOs were just an example, as was Bigfoot and crop circles.

In an attempt to refocus the discussion to the primary objective, I re-posit the OP's sole inquiry:

"Why do we spend so much time trying to fool people into believing something that is not real?"