UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Mar > Mar 4

Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:13:57 -0800
Archived: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:33:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic

>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 22:10:01 -0000
>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:30:33 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic

>>>From: Eleanor White <ewraven1.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:49:36 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic

>>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>>Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:14:38 -0000
>>>>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic


>>>>However, have a memory of some clinician describing how his
>>>>patient saw even his breakfast table - ie. cereal packets
>>>>etc - as horrible and fearful.


>>What I've read on the subject of blind-from-birth having their
>>sight restored is that few ever feel totally comfortable with
>>the images, finding them confusing and difficult to interpret.


>>Exactly what this has to do with UFOs and aliens I'm not sure.
>>Novel images and objects can certainly confuse us, but normal
>>sighted people usually resort to metaphor to try to bridge the
>>gap between the known and unknown. Therefore, the UFO/creature
>>looked like, moved like, acted like, etc.


>>What exactly is "demonic" anyway?

>We've come full circle:

>First, I don't think there's a single 'normal sighted person' on
>this Earth who would be reliable when trying to describe
>something which was truly alien to his/her learned perceptions.

>As joint editors C.P. Snow (British Ministry of Technology),
>Prof. Henry Margenau (Yale University), Prof. Ren=E9 Dubois (The
>Rockefeller University) all agreed: "An examination of most of
>the data of vision would reveal no examples of what could be
>accurately called 'correct' perception." (in 'Light and

And yet here the human race is after millions of years still
going strong. Obviously _most_ of our perceptions have been
right on the money, or we wouldn't still be here: we correctly
perceive the leopard leaping out of the tree, the game we are
hunting down, the good plants from the bad plants, etc., etc.,
ad infinitum.

I do grow weary of these nonsensical statements that literally
no perception is ever correct. Correct in what sense Ray? Are
you constantly misidentifying family members, eating the wrong
food, dashing out into traffic, etc., etc., because none of your
visual perceptions are ever right?

>Second, at the start of this thread. I wrote: "been reviewing
>some presentations with agendas. They all use the "para"
>conclusions of folk like Mack and Hopkins, Hynek and Vallee, to
>steer their readers/viewers to believe that unexplained
>phenomena are either 'inter-dimensional' or 'demonic'" - and
>then went on to hypothesize that we can only 'see' what's
>already in our minds (from biological experiment and examples of
>different paranormal experiences being determined by existing

Only party true and again greatly overstated. Maybe we don't
know exactly what something totally novel is, but we can
certainly describe it in detail, draw it, etc. You are confusing
basic perceptual characteristics (color, form, depth,
luminosity, etc.) from identification and knowledge of what the
thing is or can do, which is something else again, and much more
dependent on actual experience.

If pushed for actual identification, then maybe somebody will
fall back on the familiar to compare it with. Thus an airplane
flying over the Amazonian jungle to natives who had never seen
one might be called a giant bird. But if you ask for details,
they can also correctly describe the details that don't match
with a typical bird: it didn't flap its wings, it was shaped
differently from a bird, it was much bigger, it made a lot of
noise, it was silvery, etc.

Again, not being able to correctly ID something because of no
background experience is NOT the same as being able to describe
it's characteristics.

>In other words, if an alien 'plasma-being' were to materialize,
>an MIT prof would 'see' an artifact - a saucer, or a robot etc;
>a mid-European peasant would 'see' something from fairy tales -
>a walking house or some such; while an Amazonian villager would
>'see' a zoomorphic Forest God - a giant magical animal.

But if you ask all three to describe the details, you will
probably get very similar descriptions.

>Don't forget: light is stopped by the back of the eye, so no
>human brain has ever had a (true) optical view of the universe.

So does a bullet hole into the brain give you a "true" optical
view of the universe? And what is there "seeing" the "true"
universe? A magical homunculus with its own eyes, that figures
out the correct perception - how exactly?


Exactly what is the "true" optical universe anyway?

There really is no "sound" when a tree falls in the forest
unless some animal is there with ears and a nervous system to
interpret the disturbance of air molecules made by the tree
crashing down. Likewise objects, colors, etc. have no optical
existence outside of some sort of visual perceptual system.

Any vision, whether us or by a computer, is necessarily an
interpretation of a visual image through data processing. A
photograph may more faithfully record the details of an image
and "remember" them better, but a photo does not "see", i.e. it
doesn't interpret. It is just storing patterns of photons and
can't tell you anything about what is in the image. Neither does
the camera, or a TV camera or an iPhone. "Seeing" only happens
when active data processing of the image takes place. Can
"mistakes" be made? Sure, but actually our perceptual systems
generally quite stable and accurate. Any inaccuracies tend to be
small and insignificant, thus visual illusions, which even at
the time we usually are aware are illusions because they
conflict with other analyzed attributes that ARE accurate.

Finally Ray, FYI the retina IS part of the brain, an outcropping
of neural tissue facing outward that arises early in
development. Unless there is some defect, it has a one-to-one
topographic mapping of the image formed on it, which is
transmitted to the brain and reflected in the one-to-one mapping
there, determined through electrophysiological recordings. There
may be "distortions" of the mapping depending on area, thus the
central few degrees of vision getting the lion's share of brain
tissue, but this reflects more detailed data processing of the
image there, with less being devoted to the periphery (we can
pack only so much brain tissue into our skulls). There are
further remappings, not all of them strictly topographic, but
this reflects analyzing specific attributes of the scene, such
as color, motion, faces, etc. If have to do the same sort
remappings in computer vision to make sense of the scene.

For animals, "seeing" the "true" optical universe is parsing the
image into analyzable attributes that help the animal stay alive
and reproduce. That is ultimately what "seeing" is, not some
esoteric "true" visual universe that somehow exists outside of
the existence of some sort of "mind" to interpret it.

David Rudiak

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com