• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Which Theory May Explain Psi Phenomena?

I have read all of Dr Vallee's books and recall most of his ideas and 'theories' and I don't recall him
trying to explain 'all paranormal phenomena' as being an entity trickster driven phenomenon, and I also don't believe that Keel explained all paranormal things that way either using his 'Superspectrum' idea. It seemed to me from reading their books that they thought that many 'ufo related events' including things that happened just before and after some events could be explained in that manner but these often referred to the high strangeness events more than other events.
i have read keel recently and can confirm: he thinks that its all the fault of the superspectrum
 
i have read keel recently and can confirm: he thinks that its all the fault of the superspectrum
Can you cite a page from a book or quote a passage for me......I read 8th Tower several times in the past which is his theory book and I don't recall him saying all paranormal things were from the Superspectrum. So then he believes Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Mothman, all ghosts, psi events, hauntings, etc are all from his 'Superspectrum' idea?
 
Because human beings aren't mechanisms, and when you impose a mechanistic paradigm onto humans, invariably it returns worthless results. Take for example the notion of trying to superimpose computer models on the human brain. A couple of the ideas gain a bit of traction, but ultimately, the analogy breaks down completely. Even with the notion of "sentient" algorithms on the horizon, nobody has shown how the human brain is governed by algorithms, let alone where its central processor is. For memory we at least have some clues.
Missed this, busy week.

The complexity of human beings doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that we are mechanistic, that is certain inputs produce certain outputs or 'behaviours'.

That there are millions of variables as 'inputs', some real-time (i.e. in the time frame of an apparent response to stimuli), some genetic and/or as a result of previous experience, could make the end results, i.e. a human response or behaviour, appear to be not mechanistic.

That the resolution of this question is currently beyond our capabilities, at least to the level of each individual person, does not mean it ain't the case.
 
The complexity of human beings doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that we are mechanistic, that is certain inputs produce certain outputs or 'behaviours'.

Lets just face the fact that "biochemical" will never be the same as "mechanistic". The closest we have come in crossing that boundary is our nascent nanotechnology, and they are still different fields.

That there are millions of variables as 'inputs', some real-time (i.e. in the time frame of an apparent response to stimuli), some genetic and/or as a result of previous experience, could make the end results, i.e. a human response or behaviour, appear to be not mechanistic.

I take your point that in the not-too-distant future we may well be able to cross a number of critical lines between what is a machine and what is an organism. Presently I don't think we are close to discovering what consciousness is, and it is a field that is dear to my heart.

That the resolution of this question is currently beyond our capabilities, at least to the level of each individual person, does not mean it ain't the case.

Not really, it is a matter of scientific definitions, and presently, humans are considered to be biological entities and not robots. That is highly unlikely to change.
 
Lets just face the fact that "biochemical" will never be the same as "mechanistic". The closest we have come in crossing that boundary is our nascent nanotechnology, and they are still different fields.

mechanistic
/mɛkəˈnɪstɪk/
adjective
adjective: mechanistic
  1. relating to theories which explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms.
    "a mechanistic interpretation of nature"
    • determined by physical processes alone.
      "he insisted that animals were entirely mechanistic"
Humans can still be classified as ultimately mechanistic as they are likely to be governed by physical processes - we may not understand the brain, but that doesn't mean it's not explainable in purely physical or deterministic terms.

But it is very very complex.

I take your point that in the not-too-distant future we may well be able to cross a number of critical lines between what is a machine and what is an organism. Presently I don't think we are close to discovering what consciousness is, and it is a field that is dear to my heart.

I agree. I think we're some way from consciousness as we're not really sure what it really is. I'm not even sure how I'm conscious tbh.

Not really, it is a matter of scientific definitions, and presently, humans are considered to be biological entities and not robots. That is highly unlikely to change.
I didn't say people were robots. I said they are ultimately mechanistic as they are working clumps of (insanely complicated) physical processes.
 
So then he believes Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Mothman, all ghosts, psi events, hauntings, etc are all from his 'Superspectrum' idea?
he is still in denial over bigfoot and thinks there must be some real hominid along with a false paranormal one
yes to all the others
 
Back
Top