Consciousness and Levels of Awareness

Not remotely so. The brain parses out content for awareness, but it doesn't do so by digitizing said content into "snapshots." That's what a digital camera does - freeze frames the stuff of consciousness, and via a play back, we get the impression that the resultant video is a fluid continuum.

Imagine a video capture device that didn't need to record by way of freeze frames, and instead could capture the uninterrupted flow of reality. Most people can't even imagine what such a device would look like.

Reality is smooth and continuous (not discrete/digital), and so is mind. The only way we can simulate mind is to do so by way of artificially dividing flow into a visual version of "rest mass," while we know that mass never actually rests.

Right: U.F.O. video :34 is the oblong white object between the two parallel gun camera sight lines videotaped in infrared by U. S. Navy pilots flying F/A-18F fighter jet in 2004 near San Diego, California, and released to The New York Times on December 16, 2017.

Left: GIMBAL video 2:45 was officially released to The Washington Post on December 18, 2017. Both infrared fighter jet gun camera videos were released by the DoD's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

we hear US fighter pilots struggling to determine the nature of object. Key findings include:

• Low observability in both electro-optical and electromagnetic spectrums.

• No distinguishable flight surfaces.

• Lack of obvious propulsion system.

• Never-before-seen flight capabilities.

• Possible energy or resonance field of unknown nature.

The filename “GIMBAL” seems to be traceable to the unusual maneuvering of the UAP.

transcript from audio:

Pilot one: “Yeah, that's a f*#king drone, bro.”

Pilot two: “There's a whole fleet of them. Look on the S. A. (situational awareness).”

Pilot one: “My gosh!”

Pilot two: “They're all going against the wind. The wind is 120 knots (138 mph) out of the west.”

Pilot one: “Look at that thing, dude!”

Pilot two: “That's not L. N. S. now, is it? It's ...”

Pilot one: “That is an L.N.S., dude.”

Pilot two: “Well, the FLIR...”

Pilot one: “Look at that thing! It's rotating!”

Commander David Fravor has had an 18-year-career in the Navy. The Washington Post describes the background of the more sensitive GIMBAL video as saying:

“The year was 2004. Fravor was the commanding officer of the VFA-41 Black Aces, a U. S. Navy strike fighter squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter planes doing an exercise some 60 to 100 miles off the coast between San Diego and Ensenada, Mexico, in advance of a deployment to the Persian Gulf for the Iraq War.” Commander Fravor says, 'As I get closer, as my nose is starting to pull back up, it (UFO) accelerates and it’s gone! Faster than I’d ever seen anything in my life.'”

By 2001, Bem had mostly set aside his mainstream work and turned to writing commentaries and book reviews on psi phenomena. He’d also quietly embarked upon a major scientific quest, to find what he called “the holy grail” of parapsychology research: a fully reproducible experiment on ESP that any lab could replicate. His most important tool, as a scientist and rhetorician, would be simplicity. He’d work with well-established protocols, using nothing more than basic tests of verbal memory, priming, and habituation. He’d show that his studies weren’t underpowered, that his procedures weren’t overcomplicated, and that his statistics weren’t convoluted. He’d make his methods bland and unremarkable.

In 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008, Bem presented pilot data to the annual meeting of the Parapsychological Association. Finally, in 2010, after about a decade’s worth of calibration and refinement, he figured he’d done enough. A thousand subjects, nine experiments, eight significant results. This would be his solid, mainstream proof of ESP—a set of tasks that could be transferred to any other lab.

Ross made his name as a psychologist, in part, by demonstrating that people often cling to their beliefs in the face of any challenge, no matter how profound. Bem’s paper struck him as an interesting challenge for the field. “You have a belief, and here’s some data that contradict it,” he said. “I thought it was time for a discussion [of] how we deal with surprising results in psychology.”

Wagenmakers drafted a rebuttal, to be published in JPSP alongside the original research. The problems he saw in Bem’s paper were not particular to paranormal research. “Something is deeply wrong with the way experimental psychologists design their studies and report their statistical results,” Wagenmakers wrote. “We hope the Bem article will become a signpost for change, a writing on the wall: Psychologists must change the way they analyze their data.”

medical doctor and statistician John Ioannidis published a short but often-cited essay arguing that “most published research findings are false.” Among the major sources of this problem, according to Ioannidis, was that researchers gave themselves too much flexibility in designing and analyzing experiments—that is, they might be trying lots of different methods and reporting only the “best” results.

Wagenmakers would later write that psi researchers such as Bem deserve “substantial credit” for the current state of introspection in psychology, as well as for the crisis of confidence that is now spreading into other areas of study. “It is their work that has helped convince other researchers that the academic system is broken,” he said, “for if our standard scientific methods allow one to prove the impossible, than these methods are surely up for revision.”

psi researchers proffer a different interpretation: Maybe this has less to do with the researcher’s expectation than with his ability as a psychic medium. “If it’s possible that consciousness influences reality and is sensitive to reality in ways that we don’t currently understand, then this might be part of the scientific process itself,” says Schooler. “Parapsychological factors may play out in the science of doing this research.”