Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer

Unless their anti-gravity tech requires emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum!
This got some laughs -- but it is a claim I've seen advanced seriously on UFO-believer fora as an ad hoc explanation for why the visible lights.

Might not even be that farfetched. I don't know of any way to build a working anti-gravity device, so am not competent to speak to what sort of wavelengths it might emit, but look at our jet engines, for example; to an entity that can see IR, they'd emit (viewed from certain angles) enough IR to produce quite a glare from some distance away!

28xp-UFO-mediumSquareAt3X-v2.jpg
 
Um, I'm in the awkward position that I agree with pretty much everything @Z.W. Wolf has put in his past 3 posts
(and the material returned by the Bard tool). But I'm not keen on Anil Seth's term "controlled hallucination" (while accepting his premises, and conclusions- I just dislike the phrase he uses to account for them).

It's been known for a long time that perception relies a lot on post-sensation processing, and that there are plenty of mechanisms, both external and internal, which can cause our subjective impressions of a stimulus or percept to be wrong. And our perceptions (even of the same thing) do vary from person to person, not just due to (often minor) differences in our sensory apparatus, but also because of individual differences in attention, and maybe higher-level cognition (and affect).

But generally we know what is meant by "hallucination", and it's not a term we usually apply to normal perception.
Anil Seth's term "controlled hallucination" is memorable, and we sort of understand (I think) why he uses that term, but I'm concerned that it might be misconstrued more generally as "external reality is an illusion" or "my reality is just as valid as your reality- your experience and beliefs are all based on controlled hallucinations too".
I'm not sure that the word "hallucination" is a useful one to use in the title for a general theory of normal perception (even if that theory is useful and in large part possibly correct).
 
This got some laughs -- but it is a claim I've seen advanced seriously on UFO-believer fora as an ad hoc explanation for why the visible lights.

Might not even be that farfetched. I don't know of any way to build a working anti-gravity device, so am not competent to speak to what sort of wavelengths it might emit, but look at our jet engines, for example; to an entity that can see IR, they'd emit (viewed from certain angles) enough IR to produce quite a glare from some distance away!

28xp-UFO-mediumSquareAt3X-v2.jpg

Sure, if someone says some kind of light emittance is necessary when operating an anti-gravity craft as a by-product you might be able to buy it. But the majority of UFOs are advertised as having purpose built lights such as these photos. Now this just seems to me like Aliens have been watching too much 'pimp my ride'.

ufo1.jpg

ufo2.jpg
ufo3.jpg
 
This certainly makes things easier. But you do have to have a knowledge base to write the prompts.
There seems to be excessive repetition in your examples, written much like a freshman with inadequate material to fill the requisite number of pages. I wonder if it would do a better job and be more readable with a request for a 2000 word essay, or if it would just omit some of the salient points. ;)
 
This certainly makes things easier. But you do have to have a knowledge base to write the prompts.
I like reading your thoughts and findings.

There is a growing body of evidence that supports the controlled hallucination theory of perception and consciousness.
Content from External Source
(Z.W. Wolf's post).
The irony is AI-sourced stuff can be unreliable due to what have been termed "hallucinations"
-Wikipedia article, Hallucination (artificial intelligence)

I'd hate to think that the machines, identifying you as a potential leader of the human resistance, spirit you away but keep posting from your account, and none of us notices... ;)
 
...
our brain has been trained with "innate priors"
...
In the case of hot air balloons we've learned other innate priors.
...

I'm perturbed by the concept of "training" or "learning" anything innate. This seems fundamentally contradictory. Is it a term of art in cogition, if so it's a terrible one? I've only encountered it in the field of AI, where it does indeed mean things that are preprogrammed into a model before the learning/training phase begins.

Your quoted material also seems to support the claim that we see spheriness before we see hotair-ballooniness, which was what you earlier objeted to.

Great thread, by the way, I've been on a road trip this last month and would have loved to have contributed earlier on. Alas, I couldn't log in on my phone. All the usual suspects can consider themselves broadly agreed with page after page after page, yourself included.
 
I'm extremely busy, so it's this or nothing
I'm using my knowledge base (which is general, not expert) to write the prompts and to vet the essays. If I had more time, I'd rewrite the essay.

The visual system is not linear.

I'll change, at least temporarily from "innate priors" to "preferred representations." I stole "innate priors" from Deep Learning. I'm not aware of a standard term in neuroscience. The important concept is that the computation has to have some hard assumptions.

Right now consider that you can't see this shape as rotating. Why? And would a caveman who didn't grow up with modern windows see it as rotating?



Next level - V2

Added some bold.

V2: The Secondary Visual Cortex

The V2 area of the occipital lobe is the second major area in the visual cortex, and the first region within the visual association area. It receives strong feedforward connections from V1 (direct and via the pulvinar) and sends strong connections to V3, V4, and V5. It also sends strong feedback connections to V1. In terms of anatomy, V2 is split into four quadrants, a dorsal and ventral representation in the left and the right hemispheres. Together, these four regions provide a complete map of the visual world.

The main function of V2 is to process more complex visual information than V1. This includes information about orientation, spatial frequency, size, color, and shape. Neurons in V2 are tuned to specific combinations of these features, and they respond more strongly to stimuli that match their preferred combination. This allows V2 to identify and distinguish between different objects and patterns in the visual field.

V2 also plays a role in visual attention. Neurons in V2 are more likely to respond to stimuli that are attended to, and they can also help to direct attention to specific parts of the visual field. This allows us to focus on the most important or relevant information in our environment.

Damage to V2 can cause a variety of visual impairments, including:

  • Visual agnosia: This is the inability to recognize objects, even though they can be seen clearly.
  • Achromatopsia: This is the inability to see color.
  • Visual neglect: This is the inability to see objects or parts of the visual field on one side of the body.
V2 is a complex and important part of the visual system. It plays a vital role in processing visual information and in directing attention. Damage to V2 can have a significant impact on our ability to see and interact with the world around us.

Here are some additional facts about V2:

  • V2 is located in the occipital lobe, at the back of the brain.
  • V2 receives input from V1, the primary visual cortex.
  • V2 sends output to V3, V4, and V5, as well as to other parts of the brain.
  • V2 is involved in processing visual information about orientation, spatial frequency, size, color, and shape.
  • V2 also plays a role in visual attention.
  • Damage to V2 can cause a variety of visual impairments, including visual agnosia, achromatopsia, and visual neglect.

Visual agnosia: This is the inability to recognize objects, even though they can be seen clearly.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1032121/brains-controlled-hallucination/

Liam McCoy, who had been nearly blind since he was an infant, was able to see almost clearly after a series of operations when he was 15 years old.

As McCoy described his experience of walking up and down stairs:

The upstairs are large alternating bars of light and dark and the downstairs are a series of small lines. My main focus is to balance and step IN BETWEEN lines, never on one … Of course going downstairs you step in between every line but upstairs you skip every other bar. All the while, when I move, the stairs are skewing and changing.

His brain was not trained as an infant during the period of brain plasticity. There's processing, but it's not as complete as most of us experience. The reality that his brain produces moment by moment is different. It's just as real... or unreal... as yours.
 
Last edited:
write me a 6000 word essay on why a ufo witness would be overconfident in the accuracy of his perceived visual experience

This is a two edged sword, though. We can't have human visual perception be so unreliable that just walking to the supermarket would be an impossible task. Humans generally rely on the accuracy of their visual experience. To drive a car I have to be able to clearly read a car number plate 60 feet away...accurately. I have to make hundreds of visual judgments per second and get them right. Sure people get it wrong sometimes...fail to spot the motor cyclist coming, and things like that....but the fact is that every day of the week millions of humans are making accurate visual perceptions on the roads. I'd find it a bit bizarre if this system failed people only when there's UFOs involved.

So I think one has to distinguish between people accurately reporting what they have seen, and people accurately interpreting what they have seen. Two people might accurately 'see' the same thing, their actual visual experience being identical, but one says they have seen a reflective sausage shaped balloon...while the other says they have seen a cigar shaped UFO. And that is what I think is really going on.
 
So I think one has to distinguish between people accurately reporting what they have seen, and people accurately interpreting what they have seen.
Kind of agree, it's clear that for most of us the visual system (including our interpretation/ understanding of what is seen) performs as we might expect, most of the time. Scaramanga's example of driving a car is good real-world evidence of this.
I'd be surprised if differences in, or aberrations of, lower-level visual processing would make someone with "normal" vision (say, someone who can legally drive a car) see UFOs; defects in lower-level processing would have a profound effect on vision, not just the odd misperception.

Incidentally,
Damage to V2 can cause a variety of visual impairments, including visual agnosia, achromatopsia, and visual neglect.
Content from External Source
I'm perhaps 20 years out of date, but not at all sure about this. Pretty sure V2 not implicated in hemi neglect (us. from distributed parietal lobe damage, maybe frontal involvement); visual agnosias from damage to ventral/ posterior temporal lobe (and fusiform gyrus in prosopagnosia), cerebral achromatopsia V4 / V5? Can Bard provide references?
 
Last edited:
Sure people get it wrong sometimes...fail to spot the motor cyclist coming, and things like that....but the fact is that every day of the week millions of humans are making accurate visual perceptions on the roads. I'd find it a bit bizarre if this system failed people only when there's UFOs involved.
You just wrote that it sometimes fails when traffic is involved, so it's, by your own admission, not "only when there's UFOs involved".

Then there's selection bias, correct perceptions never become UFO reports.

And there's cultural bias, 200 years ago people might've seen ghosts instead. Imagine Fravor talking about a cocoon-shaped apparition! And in antiquity, the gods rode the skies.
 
You just wrote that it sometimes fails when traffic is involved, so it's, by your own admission, not "only when there's UFOs involved".

I'm simply making the point that if human vision was as unreliable as some skeptics portray....I'd be scared to leave the house.
 
And there's cultural bias, 200 years ago people might've seen ghosts instead. Imagine Fravor talking about a cocoon-shaped apparition! And in antiquity, the gods rode the skies.
From a poll whose results were just released:

Angels even get more credence than, well, hell. More than astrology, reincarnation, and the belief that physical things can have spiritual energies.

In fact, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults say they believe in angels, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Content from External Source
https://apnews.com/article/religion-poll-belief-angels-devil-bee64258d6a47067a046ba7f3c50933a

It would seem from this poll that the willingness to believe things without evidence is sufficiently strong. I find it discouraging, as it suggests that no matter the solid evidence that we either demand or provide, beliefs about phenomena that are unsupported by evidence will continue in the minds of many.
 
I'm simply making the point that if human vision was as unreliable as some skeptics portray....I'd be scared to leave the house.
Cant speak for skeptics as a group, but for me I'd assume most folks see OK, my concern is how they interpret what they are seeing. In a case where we know a witness has vision issues, that belongs in the conversation, but it doesn't seem to happen very often. (I recall one ase in a book read years ago where astigmatism in the witness was a possible factor, but this exact case (or book!) is not recoverable by me any more.)
 
Cant speak for skeptics as a group, but for me I'd assume most folks see OK, my concern is how they interpret what they are seeing. In a case where we know a witness has vision issues, that belongs in the conversation, but it doesn't seem to happen very often. (I recall one ase in a book read years ago where astigmatism in the witness was a possible factor, but this exact case (or book!) is not recoverable by me any more.)

Isn't the 'skeptic' concern more about the reliability of one-time and often brief observations of objects which are not easy to identify (due to poor visibility, LIZ, or weird angle/high speed) and our fickle memory of these one-time observations as time goes by and people discuss with one another?

It's obviously not a matter of blanket distrust of the senses by the skeptic.
 
my concern is how they interpret what they are seeing.

Well, yes, that was my whole point. I don't think one needs to get into disturbances in V2 visual system, etc, etc, to explain why one person sees Venus while another person sees an alien spacecraft hovering over the trees.

A really really good example case is the infamous Yukon UFO. In fact one of Stanton Friedman's 'best ever' UFO cases. Most of the two dozen or so witnesses did quite accurately report what they saw. But...what they saw was almost certainly the re-entry of a Russian satellite. What's interesting is that knowing it was really a satellite re-entry allows us to look at the couple of witnesses who totally embellished their story and claimed the UFO was 1000 feet wide and hovered right over the road.

So we have a case with both mis-identification ( from most witnesses ) and sheer embellishment ( from 2 witnesses I think ). If this is a 'best ever' UFO case then there are no aliens. And apart from just making stuff up, most witnesses don't have vision problems...just lack of experience of falling satellites.
 
Isn't the 'skeptic' concern more about the reliability of one-time and often brief observations of objects which are not easy to identify (due to poor visibility, LIZ, or weird angle/high speed) and our fickle memory of these one-time observations as time goes by and people discuss with one another?
Spot on. I saw a warbler in the back yard yesterday that landed in the bird feeder. Correction: I saw a yellow leaf blown by the wind, verified by a closer look at the bird feeder. I'm sure almost everyone has said, while laughing at himself, "For a moment I thought ___" at a visual or textual misreading.

Those who see a "UFO" are generally denied the opportunity to take that second look, and are stuck with the first impression.
 
Incidentally,
Damage to V2 can cause a variety of visual impairments, including visual agnosia, achromatopsia, and visual neglect.
Content from External Source
I'm perhaps 20 years out of date, but not at all sure about this. Pretty sure V2 not implicated in hemi neglect (us. from distributed parietal lobe damage, maybe frontal involvement); visual agnosias from damage to ventral/ posterior temporal lobe (and fusiform gyrus in prosopagnosia), cerebral achromatopsia V4 / V5? Can Bard provide references?
Have you considered that there are many forms of visual agnosia? Apperceptive Agnosia is associated with early processing in the occipital lobe. So Bard could have been more specific. I did mention that I vetted these essays. I should have edited that part, but I can only plead lack of time.


And about visual neglect.
V2 is involved in visual neglect in a few ways. First, V2 is responsible for processing low-level visual features such as orientation, motion, and color. Damage to V2 can disrupt the processing of these features, which can make it difficult to attend to objects in the neglected hemifield.

Second, V2 is involved in the formation of spatial maps. These maps help us to keep track of where objects are in our visual field. Damage to V2 can disrupt the formation of these maps, which can also make it difficult to attend to objects in the neglected hemifield.

Third, V2 is involved in the integration of visual information from the two eyes. This integration is important for depth perception and for orienting our attention to objects in the environment. Damage to V2 can disrupt this integration, which can also contribute to visual neglect.

In addition to V2, other areas of the brain are also involved in visual neglect, including the right parietal lobe, the right frontal lobe, and the cingulate cortex. However, V2 plays a key role in the early stages of visual processing, and damage to this area can have a significant impact on visual neglect.

Here are some studies that have investigated the role of V2 in visual neglect:

  • A study by Karnath et al. (1998) found that patients with visual neglect had reduced activity in V2 when viewing stimuli in the neglected hemifield.
  • A study by Vallar et al. (2003) found that patients with visual neglect had difficulty discriminating between stimuli in the neglected hemifield when the stimuli were presented in different orientations. This suggests that V2 is involved in the processing of orientation information, which is important for visual attention.
  • A study by Ogden et al. (2008) found that patients with visual neglect had difficulty detecting changes in stimuli in the neglected hemifield. This suggests that V2 is involved in the processing of motion information, which is also important for visual attention.
These studies suggest that V2 plays a key role in visual neglect. Damage to this area can disrupt the processing of low-level visual features, spatial maps, and visual information from the two eyes, all of which are important for visual attention.
Keep in mind that the brain is a complex system.


My original intent in presenting this stuff was to give some appreciation for how complex the visual system is and that research has been done by scientists working in their special field. A layman doesn't need to... and can't... form ad hoc theories about it. About that time I'd been marveling at a YT comments section in which people were putting forth their own personal "theories" about cosmology. As if their opinions are based on anything.

I have more to say but I should be working now, even though it's a "day off."
 
Last edited:
Have you considered that there are many forms of visual agnosia?
Well, yes. I mentioned prosopagnosia.

Apperceptive agnosia: A form of visual agnosia in which a person cannot reliably name, match, or discriminate visually presented objects, despite adequate elementary visual function (visual fields, acuity, and color vision)
Content from External Source
(My italics) from Marotta, J.M., Behrmann, M., Encyclopedia of the Human Brain, 2002; you're unlikely to have adequate elementary visual function if V2 is damaged.


A study by Karnath et al. (1998) found that patients with visual neglect had reduced activity in V2 when viewing stimuli in the neglected hemifield.
Content from External Source
Reduced activity in V2 is not necessarily (or probably) causal of visual neglect. PCA CVAs can directly affect both the visual cortex and the structures usually implicated in visual neglect. Neglect is primarily an attentional, not a visual, problem.
I couldn't find much evidence that Karnath thinks that damage to V2 causes visual neglect.

A later Karnath paper, "The Anatomy of Spatial Neglect", Karnath, H.O., Rorden, C., Neuropsychologia 50, 6, 2012
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393211003083, says
The homogenous core deficit which we define as “spatial neglect” (biased gaze direction and search) is seen following damage to (particularly right) perisylvian regions.
Content from External Source
and
A perisylvian network for spatial neglect
For this core deficit, studies based on structural brain imaging suggest three major cortical areas straddling the sylvian fissure: the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) and inferior parietal lobule (IPL), the superior/middle temporal cortex and underlying insula
Content from External Source
(lengthy in-text citations omitted)
...at which point the open-access text ends, but I'd take a punt at guessing the third area is the ventral frontal cortex (VFC) as Bernard, Lemee et al. invoke these three as trans-sylvian areas (citing Karnath et al. for the TPJ, superior and middle temporal gyri and insula in the process) in "The ventral attention network: the mirror of the language network in the right brain hemisphere", Journal of Anatomy 237, 4, 2020 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13223

An earlier Karnath and Marianne Dieterich study, "Spatial neglect—a vestibular disorder?", Brain 129, 2, 2006, says
...a few areas of the human non-dominant right hemisphere (in right-handers) are important for the processing of head and body orientation in space, namely the posterior insula and retroinsular regions... the STG, and the TPJ... Interestingly, these areas seem to correspond to anatomical locations that can provoke spatial neglect in case of their lesion, i.e. lead to a spontaneous bias of eyes and head towards the right and neglect of information located on the left.
Content from External Source
No mention of V2.

A study by Ogden et al. (2008)
Content from External Source
...I couldn't find it ( I won't pretend I searched exhaustively!) but
Ogden, J.A., Psychology Today, 20 February 2012,
The most popular theory is that the right hemisphere of the brain, and especially the parietal lobe, specializes in attending to the space on both sides, whereas the left parietal lobe (perhaps because of its heavy involvement in language comprehension) only attends to the right side of space. Thus, when the right parietal lobe is damaged, it can no longer attend to the left or right of space, but the intact left parietal lobe is able to attend to the right.
Content from External Source
I just can't find evidence that Karnath or Ogden have evidence, as Google Bard states, that V2 plays a role in hemispatial neglect.

As an experiment, I asked Bard
"Bard, tell me about how visual area V2 plays a role in multiple personality disorder".
It responded,

The role of visual area V2 in multiple personality disorder (DID) is not fully understood, but some studies have suggested that it may play a role in the development of this disorder.

Visual area V2 is a part of the visual cortex that is responsible for processing higher-level visual information, such as shape, color, and movement. It is also involved in the integration of visual information with other sensory information, such as touch and proprioception (the sense of the body's position in space).

People with DID often have fragmented memories and identities. They may also experience visual disturbances, such as seeing things that are not there or seeing things differently from how other people see them....

More research is needed to understand the role of visual area V2 in DID. However, the findings of these studies suggest that it may be a key area of the brain involved in this disorder.
Content from External Source
My emphases added; to address each in order:
(1) What studies have suggested this?
(2) V2 is responsible for low-level visual processing (some would say low to intermediate).
(3) Damage to V2 is not a feature of MPD (or Dissociative Personality Disorder, DID). There are no known physical features identifying DID. Damage to V2 would cause serious and permanent visual problems, not a feature of DID.
(4) Nonsense- [Edited to add] -total nonsense- although the tonal style of this line is what you might expect reading the conclusion of an undergraduate paper.

Google Bard isn't a research tool, except for its owners and designers.
Bard will (now) clearly state that it is unreliable for research purposes.
My original intent in presenting this stuff was to give some appreciation for how complex the visual system is and that research has been done by scientists working in their special field.
That's admirable, but Bard doesn't draw exclusively on academic sources, so on complex subjects its summaries are unlikely to be representative of the scientists concerned.

Anyway, I wouldn't want us (Z.W. Wolf) to fall out over this- I enjoy reading your posts.
Hope your work/ day of went well!



 
Last edited:
To me it seems rather obvious what is going on. The least complication explanation, as well as the one with the greatest explanatory power, is that these experiences are unique to the experiencers. They are purely neuro-chemical in nature — they are not happening "out there," material or energetic objects perceived by the eyes and transmitted to the brain in the way that we see the Moon or lightning, but rather, they initiate in the brain. Perhaps there is a natural pharmacology involved, such as DMT or a related chemical (DMT occurs naturally in the body in small amounts). In the case of "my friend saw it, too," sociological factors such as peer pressure and the power of suggestion are at play — most dramatically, in the Ariel School sighting.
Edward it seems to me that you have to be careful approaching anyone with that hypothesis. You're claiming something new to neurochemistry (my field) without evidence. Imagine walking up to anyone and suggesting that a series of events are of DMT origin without evidence. Sure, we know DMT is produced natually by the brain but to correlate that to this phenomenon cannot be accepted out of hand.

It's different when we're talking about exceptional physiological experiences such as those encountered near death, drowning ect as a mechanism to explain near death experiences, but not in waking life.
 
In the last 6 weeks or so of my mother's life, she started seeing things. One day I took her and her dog up to the lake, and when I came back from walking Jackie, she matter-of-factly told me there had been a Viking ship on the lake. I can confidently attest that despite being an avid fan of Tucker Carlson, she was "not crazy" in any way. However, she had been in and out of consciousness for a week in the hospital, so, her body was in a new place physiologically.

Later, she had more disturbing visions — of menacing children and adults getting in her face, and things in the air which she would swat away. Like the major UFO experiences, these things were not merely in her visual field but embedded in reality: She could turn her chair away from the menacing people and they would turn along with the rest of her surroundings.

I did some reading to try to figure out what was happening. The description of the visions matched Charles Bonnet syndrome quite well, except that syndrome happens to people who are losing their eyesight, and she wasn't. Nevertheless, Bonnet syndrome hallucinations (which are purely visual) may be related to the major UFO experience, which typically occurs not only when it's dark but also when looking up at the sky, where our usual visual cues of shape and depth are absent. Perhaps some people are prone to brief episodes of the syndrome or a related phenomenon, under just the right circumstances. (Importantly, the Bonnet syndrome visions, like my mother's, are persistent and repetitive, where a major UFO experience is a rare or singular event.)

I wonder what percentage of major UFO experiences happen when someone is staring at the night sky? Are there cases where someone is going about their normal evening but sees something out a window and rushes outside, to find a giant triangle hovering above?
That's a different story Edward. Your mother was under physiological stress. These are more common than you think.
 
After talking for a short while with someone who believes strongly in non-human intelligence on Earth, it often comes out that the person has had a life-changing experience witnessing something extraordinary. The object(s) described and the experience typically fits a pattern:
1. It often has a "TR-3B" description of a black triangle with lights, or some other triangular thing, occupying a significant portion of the sky, the experiencer getting a good look at it
2. It appears and leaves suddenly (rather than for example slowly advancing from the horizon)
3. The experience often happens at nighttime
4. The phenomenon is visual only — the "craft" and its flight are silent
5. The experiencer is too stunned and in awe to think of getting a picture or video, or it happened too fast, it was before cell phones, etc.
6. Sometimes the experiencer is in a small group (2 or 3 people) who share the experience and report seeing the same thing
7. Critically, no independent observers report seeing such an object
8. Critically, no land- or space-based device captures images or other evidence of such an object

In talking to these people, I am moved by their stories. The experience forever changes the way they see the world. However, except in rare cases, they are convinced that the thing they saw was real — it was a feature of objective reality, and would have been available to all observers at that time and place ("I know what I saw").

Additionally, there seems to be a strong distinction between this kind of up-close, astonishing experience and more generic sightings. The latter can happen at any time of day, and the object is always small or far away (SFA) and in the low-information zone (LIZ), and nothing prevents the witness from getting a picture. This tweet exemplifies the distinction:
Screen Shot 2023-07-02 at 11.11.07 AM.png
Unfortunately these categories are often conflated, to where an "up close" experiencer is much more likely to believe that a SFA object in the LIZ is extraordinary, and they become intensely interested in the more mysterious cases like Gimbal.

These experiences affect people deeply, yet they are often brushed off by skeptics, including myself not long ago. I can empathize with experiencers' visceral reaction against the ECREE standard of skepticism: Experiencers have their own extraordinary evidence, and being disbelieved by others, having that personal evidence rejected, is not their problem.

To me it seems rather obvious what is going on. The least complication explanation, as well as the one with the greatest explanatory power, is that these experiences are unique to the experiencers. They are purely neuro-chemical in nature — they are not happening "out there," material or energetic objects perceived by the eyes and transmitted to the brain in the way that we see the Moon or lightning, but rather, they initiate in the brain. Perhaps there is a natural pharmacology involved, such as DMT or a related chemical (DMT occurs naturally in the body in small amounts). In the case of "my friend saw it, too," sociological factors such as peer pressure and the power of suggestion are at play — most dramatically, in the Ariel School sighting.

Now, you have to be careful approaching an experiencer with this hypothesis. In addition to "I know what I saw," the near-universal reaction is, "I'm not crazy" and "I wasn't hallucinating." A guy recently told me that he and his lady friend were on a rooftop in downtown Los Angeles and witnessed a giant UFO hovering over the city. He showed me a clip of his call in to Coast To Coast AM, imploring other people in L.A. at the time to come forward. And he got downright angry when I suggested it was anything other than an object in the sky at some altitude. It must be disturbing that such a life-changing experience cannot be corroborated by independent observers or devices.

I often bring up the Chelyabinsk meteor: Here was a once-in-a-century event, captured by enough dashcams from various angles, with enough clarity, to calculate the meteor's trajectory through the atmosphere to precision. But, how many giant-thing-in-the-sky experiences have individuals had over the years and decades? Not one of them has been corroborated by a single dashcam, cell phone, Ring camera, traffic camera, etc., etc.

You would think such questions would make an experiencer reconsider their conviction. Instead, it only cues heavily motivated reasoning.

We all want to believe that our perceptions and memories are an accurate reflection of objective reality. But the brain is a biological mess — extraordinarily complex, unpredictably unreliable and unreliably unpredictable, and subject to innumerable influences, both internal and external. It disturbs people that their perceptions and memories could be anything other than objective and accurate — something that can be seen in the popularity of social controversies such as the "Mandela effect" and "The Dress."

What's the best way to approach experiencers with this hypothesis? Are there illustrative examples that can help create a bridge to a common understanding? My go-to is usually an optical illusion, wherein I ask if they see yellow in this image:
no yellow illusion.jpeg
...but it is a long way from a routine optical illusion to a giant life-changing triangle in the sky (they know what they saw).

This seems like a ripe topic for neuroscience research, and maybe it already is. But it's not like you can put someone having a UFO experience in an MRI.
yes I agree. neuroscience must get involved I have a idea that it's some kind of artifact of consciousness, sounds weird I know
 
Edward it seems to me that you have to be careful approaching anyone with that hypothesis. You're claiming something new to neurochemistry (my field) without evidence. Imagine walking up to anyone and suggesting that a series of events are of DMT origin without evidence. Sure, we know DMT is produced natually by the brain but to correlate that to this phenomenon cannot be accepted out of hand.

It's different when we're talking about exceptional physiological experiences such as those encountered near death, drowning ect as a mechanism to explain near death experiences, but not in waking life.
Maybe it is something new to the field? it was a idea. A suggestion that we should start doing work on the effect of endogenous DMT. It's a very sm. amount but what if it's higher in some people what would be the effect? we need to get evidence
 
Edward it seems to me that you have to be careful approaching anyone with that hypothesis.
Stryer I pretty much abandoned it later in the thread, thanks to Metabunkers' help:
These are great points and make me re-think the neurochemistry hypothesis. Surely at least some of the major, life-changing UFO experiences initiated from ~3 mundane lights in the sky.

This is very insightful, and ripe for experimentation. If we have 3 lights in a black field, and 1 or 2 of them move randomly but smoothly, how much more likely are observers to describe them as a triangular object, compared with having 4 lights in a black field, and 1 or 2 of them move randomly but smoothly, being described as a rectangular object?

This effect was one of the undoings of the Twentynine Palms sightings: There were 5 lights, and 1 of them drifted much more than the others, and it became clear this could not be a solid object with lights on it. (Still, that did not stop at least one person from claiming the object had merely changed orientation! Womp womp.)

However, none of this addresses some of the details that I included in the OP, such as the semi-transparency of the black object seen over Los Angeles, or the warping/lensing of the background described in other such sightings, and similar details that go beyond a mere black triangle. Also, some of the black triangle recollections do not include lights.

Which leads me to another hypothesis: memory embellishment. These details, and perhaps even the loss of the lights in the recollections, may be embellishments of the memory over time. Experiencers will declare, "I know what I remember seeing!" but of course a person cannot compare what they remember today to what they remembered 5 minutes after the event (unless there's a narrated video or an immediately written-down account, which is rare).

Thus we'd have cases that are initially rooted in objective reality, while the astonishing details of the experience are indeed specific to the observer.
 
I've been thinking something similar specifically regarding the black triangles for a while. People are convinced they saw them (they "know what they saw"), but it's never corroborated by photos or independent testimony.

I've been wondering if the triangle shape has a specific neurological cause, like suddenly being able to see your blind spot, or something like is theorised with DMT geometric visions reflecting the actual shape or physical connections in the brain.

Article:
Many observers see geometric visual hallucinations after taking hallucinogens such as LSD, cannabis, mescaline or psilocybin; on viewing bright flickering lights; on waking up or falling asleep; in "near-death" experiences; and in many other syndromes. Klüver organized the images into four groups called form constants: (I) tunnels and funnels, (II) spirals, (III) lattices, including honeycombs and triangles, and (IV) cobwebs. In most cases, the images are seen in both eyes and move with them. We interpret this to mean that they are generated in the brain. Here, we summarize a theory of their origin in visual cortex (area V1), based on the assumption that the form of the retino-cortical map and the architecture of V1 determine their geometry. (A much longer and more detailed mathematical version has been published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 356 [2001].) We model V1 as the continuum limit of a lattice of interconnected hypercolumns, each comprising a number of interconnected iso-orientation columns. Based on anatomical evidence, we assume that the lateral connectivity between hypercolumns exhibits symmetries, rendering it invariant under the action of the Euclidean group E(2), composed of reflections and translations in the plane, and a (novel) shift-twist action. Using this symmetry, we show that the various patterns of activity that spontaneously emerge when V1's spatially uniform resting state becomes unstable correspond to the form constants when transformed to the visual field using the retino-cortical map. The results are sensitive to the detailed specification of the lateral connectivity and suggest that the cortical mechanisms that generate geometric visual hallucinations are closely related to those used to process edges, contours, surfaces, and textures.
2023-07-02_10-55-42.jpg

(and several other similar articles listed there)

But, as you say, it's hard to research such a thing. Perhaps someone might like to take some DMT and stare at the night sky?
Definitely an interesting idea, although it should be noted that form constants are nothing like what DMT produces, even at the lower dosage range. It's been a while since I ate enough mushrooms to trigger the honeycomb lattice, but I seem to remember it across my entire POV (and moving with my eyes, too).

Regardless, I think it's a good example of a potential explanation with the hardware. Our brains can definitely map non-existent objects to anchored spatial points, too, seen in some schizoaffective visual hallucinations. I think illusory contours is interesting, too, especially since a triangle is easy to find in dead space. Moonlit clouds, similarly shaped spy planes, people primed from hearing about "black triangles", 3 conveniently spaced points in the distance, etc.

Back to DMT, higher doses of the substance, it is something in a class by itself. It transcends visual phenomena and teleports you into a fully immersive experience with the same qualia as everyday life. It definitely extends far beyond geometric beauty and colorful visualizations, often involving neither. I don't mention this for pointless pedantry, but because many people find serious overlap between abduction tales and many DMT trips. Grays are often a part of these experiences, too, so I'd assume the connection has been stated prior on the boards.

The experience can definitely impart the subject with an overarching feeling of something superior running the show. I know it did for me. Given how DMT allows something to do things like completely transform the objects in my room into different versions in a split second, my understanding of reality is a bit different now at least.

To me, it shows that reality, or at least one's perception of it, is completely malleable by something (and seemingly external). Obviously reality is perception and we all see things differently. I guess I'm just saying that it's one thing to read about these aliens freezing people in their sleep, transcending the laws of physics, showing up in your room, and all this craziness. It's another to experience something like that, haha.

Anyway, I'm ranting on an old thread. Sorry for bump. I find the concept interesting.
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering if the triangle shape has a specific neurological cause

I'd say it is no more neurological than that three points automatically make up a triangle....the simplest possible shape for any object. The observer then convinces themselves that the three points are connected....at which point all sorts of spurious magical stuff can happen. If any single point moves, the 'object' will seem to re-align....or be seen from a different angle and hence have 'rotated'...and so on. Three points of light may be totally unrelated but the observer connects them.
 
I'd say it is no more neurological than that three points automatically make up a triangle....the simplest possible shape for any object. The observer then convinces themselves that the three points are connected....at which point all sorts of spurious magical stuff can happen. If any single point moves, the 'object' will seem to re-align....or be seen from a different angle and hence have 'rotated'...and so on. Three points of light may be totally unrelated but the observer connects them.
This reminded me of a reddit post I saw the other day
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1av3dsb/5_ufos_hovering_and_moving_in_formation_near_the/


where part of the submission statement was
I saw this video today, which was taken on 2/9/24 in Phoenix AZ. 5 UFOs are seen hovering and flying near/above the clouds, 3 of which in a triangle formation.

There's 5 UFOs, yet OP (who was not the original observer but someone that saw the video later) feels the need to give purpose to the UFOs, saying 3 of them are in a triangle formation. The triangle formation doesn't even maintain itself as constant through the 2 minutes of footage, but our brains just love to find patterns to stuff regardless of how useful that pattern is.
 
but our brains just love to find patterns to stuff regardless of how useful that pattern is.

That, I would think, is a bit hard wired into our brains. IF we evolved as, and from, some sort of gathering/hunting omnivore, then pattern recognition would be key to survival. I've done a bit of mostly non-productive hunting over the years and it's all about seeing patterns. Is that a stump or a deer? While gathering and foraging doesn't involve one's "prey" moving around, the forager is moving around and burning calories. Recognizing patterns that lead to more productive foraging would be an asset.

For a large part of human development, the negative consequences of occasionally seeing a pattern where it doesn't exist, pareidolia, would be minimal. Maybe Bob shot an arrow at a stump or Billy spent some time digging up the wrong tubers but the opposite, rarely if ever seeing the patterns, would be very detrimental.
 
I'd say it is no more neurological than that three points automatically make up a triangle....the simplest possible shape for any object. The observer then convinces themselves that the three points are connected....at which point all sorts of spurious magical stuff can happen. If any single point moves, the 'object' will seem to re-align....or be seen from a different angle and hence have 'rotated'...and so on. Three points of light may be totally unrelated but the observer connects them.
Similar effects can be observed in cats as well



A new study published in Applied Animal Behavior Science found cats were more likely to sit inside 2-D shapes that imitate an illusion of a square, and it may give researchers more insight into our furry friend’s perception of visual illusions, reports Ed Cara for Gizmodo. (The study is cheekily titled "If I fits I sits: A citizen science investigation into illusory contour susceptibility in domestic cats.”)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ws-felines-also-sit-illusory-boxes-180977681/
 
Very possibly the beginnings of animism and religion, too.
That's a foliate head, or a "green man". Almost certainly pre-christian and pagan, but I don't think it goes back much before that. Fairly commonly represented in christian architecture all over Europe, such as the above. Represents spring and rebirth.
 
That's a foliate head, or a "green man". Almost certainly pre-christian and pagan, but I don't think it goes back much before that. Fairly commonly represented in christian architecture all over Europe, such as the above. Represents spring and rebirth.
it's one of my favorites, though yes, a more recent example. But seeing trolls in rock formations, gods in the clouds etc. Is likely a very ancient thing, Especially with the help of entheogens.
 
OK, you got me, I had to look that one up! :D


Entheogen is a neologism to designate psychoactive substances employed in culturally sanctioned visionary experiences in ritual or religious contexts.
Content from External Source
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entheogen

Robert Gordan Wasson, a journalist by education, banker by profession and popularizer of "magic mushrooms", would suggest that many religions are at their root, based on entheogenic or psychotropic visions. Maybe a different thread.
 
Back
Top