Ref : UFO abductions

John johnhkm at netsprint.net.au
Mon Mar 29 18:52:21 EST 1999


Pierre wrote in message <7dlepq$ci1$1 at lnews.actcom.co.il>...
>Nobody has proven anything so far, but if you listen to all the pro- and
the
>anti- with open mind, the ''pro-abductions'' seems actually much more
>convincing.
>
>Dont forget that absence of proof is NOT proove of absence.


As the physicist Feynman said, the task is to concentrate on those things
that can be proven. All things are possible, everything is not permissable.
I think we have enough to keep us busy without being too concerned with that
which cannot be proven.

It can be said as a statement of faith that many experiences will one day be
explained in terms of neural activity. That they can be explained so proves
nothing with respect to the reality of these phenomena. So to assert that
because an experience can be artificially duplicated the experience was
illusory is sloppy logic, but the reason why people have investigated
phenomena like this is because hard substantial evidence has not been
forthcoming despite the veritable plethora of claims by self proclaimed UFO
abductees. Which surprises me and clearly distinguishes this UFO abduction
business from the greater bulk of human experience.
Nothing is convincing here, its just interesting.

This does deserve the attention of neuroscientists, for such experiences may
give valuable insights into the nature of brains and perceptions.


"If one could only say just once: 'this is clear', all would be saved. ...
The mind, when it reaches its limits, must make a judgement and choose its
conclusions."

Camus, Myth of Sisyphus.


John.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list