Article IX of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: Avoid
harmful contamination of planets and the adverse effects on Earth
from Space Exploration. While conducting research there
are no risks; upon discovery there are some risks, indirect.
After discovery there are long term, uncertain risks.
Risk assessment: For extra solar planets no problem.
Discoveries are not provocative. SETI won"t do anything until it
follows its protocols. For Solar System discoveries there
are no current policies in place; for instance, if we
discover life on Mars. Do SETI"s protocols need
updating?
There"s a current emphasis in discovering life and
our place. The societal interest and support still needs to be
developed. We also need renewed theological
deliberations. The International Academy of Astronautics
is a place to deliberate.
Eric J. Chaisson: American astrophysicist at
Harvard University appointed to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics. His scientific research addresses an
interdisciplinary, thermodynamic study of physical, biological
and cultural phenomena, seeking to understand the evolution of
galaxies, stars, planets, life and society devising a unifying
cosmic-evolutionary worldview.
Highlights:
Why are we not picking up signals after 50
years? Are "they" too advanced? Are they hiding from us
or quite simply they are not there? Is it possible we can learn
from a lack of signals? Maybe the "eerily silence" is itself
sending us a signal. Maybe we are receiving the signal
that we must first get our act together on this
Earth?
How do we increase the factor L (life) of the Drake
equation? I"m trying to develop a "Big History" approach, a
measure of complexity and intelligence. All systems and societies
are open systems. An optimal in-out flow gets complex. I tried to
normalize the lows as rate energy flows in and out of a system:
As energy; not as information: Energy rate density as a
function of time, plotting galaxies, the Sun, the Earth, plants,
animals and societies in a graph as ergs/second/gram vs. time (in
billions of yrs). This tells that more life = more complex. We
can speak of a "radiation era," "matter era," "life era." How do
we cross into the life era? If we want to survive we need to
acquire more energy.
We need to quickly adopt solar energy because it"s
already part of the Earth system.
Maybe we don"t hear them because there"s only a brief
period to adopt efficient energy of their parent star (and most
don"t).
Linda Billings: Ph.D. in mass
communications. She is a consultant to NASA"s Astrobiology and
Near-Earth Object Programs in the Planetary Division of the
Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington,
D.C.
Highlights:
There"s an "allure" about alien life in
society. SETI is more about us.
What do we know about alien life? Nothing.
In the public mind the distinction between microbial and
intelligent life is none.
What do we know about human intelligence? Little to
nothing.
The fictional aliens –and I"m a neo-Marxist-
serve to reinforce the whole male dominant culture. Lots
of fear of invasion movies of "others" not like us.
We have aliens as "messiah" as "id" as "brother"
as "us" as "them." There also are "alien antichrists"
for example as un-individuated swarms. It is a belief system, not
knowledge. We don"t know anything about aliens but they lend
themselves to profitable, easy to make documentaries abounding
now even in Discovery, History, Nat Geo, TLC, the Science Channel
and as series like "Alien Encounters" and "Are We Alone" attest.
It"s a belief system, not knowledge and part of it is that "they"
will save us, but almost always they are portrayed as dark and
angry.
Do you know there"s something called WETI or wait for
extraterrestrial encounter?
What about people that don"t have time for those
interests because otherwise they may not be eating today? We need
to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking.
Jennifer J. Wiseman, Senior astrophysicist
at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center moderated a Q&A
conversation period and a question was raised: If we are not
going to make ETI contact in many years is society going to
support this search? Linda Billings: For me it"s
interesting and, yes, society is already giving us
support. Margaret Race: Astrobiology is a way to
think outside of the box.
I asked a question if there were any efforts at
transdisciplinarity and said that that approach was already being
developed in Peru in the Astrobiological
Association. Linda Billings said that there was
some talk about multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, that
transdisciplinarity was a very complex subject and that there was
some talk about connecting disciplines at the National Science
Foundation.
Someone mentioned that NASA"s astrobiology program
focuses on microbes and that SETI is not part of their funding.
Also, has the universe developed microbial abundance, intelligent
abundance or super intelligent abundance? We don"t know yet. Is
science and-or mathematics universal? Do ETI agree about
objective things? Have we here contributed to the rise of
"astroculture," "astrotheology" "astroethics?"
Thomas Jefferson would embrace the idea of questioning
all assumptions as we have done here at the Kluge Center. We
prepare by preparing to do good science and to question
assumptions, educating the public and continuing research in this
area to engage the public.
We will soon include more papers, not so
Western-centric.
(And the symposium was formally over).
Personal
reflections
About the need for transdisciplinarity and for an
expansion of astrobiology research
Formal academic astrobiology needs to be informed by
serious UFO research, by the more plausible contactee research
and information, alternative physics involving consciousness and
multidimensionality and by exopolitics as much as the these four
latter fields need to learn from the careful, scientific,
methodological approach of formal academic astrobiology. However,
all of these fields, along with the social sciences, theology and
philosophy need to find a common ground to cooperate in order to
address the issue of "discovering" (in a widely socially endorsed
form) both microbial extraterrestrial life and ETI. A truly
integrative form of transdisciplinarity can assist key cultural
leaders to make sense of it all.
I really think that to coordinate all these empirical,
quantitative and rational-self-reflective, qualitative approaches
in relation to the key and multidimensional concept
of "life" (a leitmotif at least including
consciousness, first person, subjective experience, information
and volitional information-management, entropy, entropy
reduction, syntropy, self-organization, non-local quantum
holographic connectivity, a revived recognition of rational
metaphysics including formal causes, ontological levels and
teleology) astrobiology will necessarily have to be "informed"
by "TRANSDISCIPLINARITY," a necessary and
practical Meta philosophical and Meta scientific approach already
being developed by integrative thinkers like Basarab Nicolescu
and Ken Wilber.
To work with shared concepts, I"ll basically define
a "discipline" as a particular approach to the
study a phenomenon or a set of related
phenomena; "multidisciplinarity" as the use of a
plurality of disciplines to study that phenomenon or set of
related phenomena; "interdisciplinarity" as the
use of a plurality of disciplines and their methods to enhance
how a particular discipline studies a phenomenon or set of
phenomena and, finally, "transdisciplinarity" as
the use of shared patterns and principles common to a plurality
of disciplines to best understand and synergistically coordinate
them as a whole so as to study a phenomenon or set of related
phenomena more perfectly. Transdisciplinarity is the search of
commonalities among disciplines. Transdisciplinarity can itself
be somewhat limited to a particular metaphysics and epistemology
or be encompassing enough to integrate quantitative and
qualitative experiences, methods, theories and disciplines under
what could be called an all-encompassing integral metaphysics and
integral meta science.
The discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life will
quite likely grow in leaps and bounds collectively surprising us
on many levels and requiring from us (as an intelligent
planetary-wide, interconnecting species) a revision of the
premises and foundations of what today are often understood as
logically incommensurable or disconnected disciplines. Inspired
by Ken Wilber"s approach I"ll say that the need to make sense of
a complex, multidimensional discovery will transform these
disciplines into compatible constituents of a much more
encompassing, integral science that makes sense of the
qualitative and quantitative approaches inextricably needed to
further disclose physical, mental and spiritual realities under
objective, intersubjective and subjective perspectives (or the
True, the Good and the Beautiful as per platonic value
spheres).
Astrobiology and other mutually-reinforcing disciplines
will likely be understood in a holographic sense as perspectives
coordinated by common integrating patterns within a vast
intelligible whole of meaning, knowledge, methods and
experience. Astrobiology and other disciplines will
be "holographic" inasmuch as they reflect the
stable intelligible patterns of knowledge as a whole and
contribute to understanding that knowledge as a whole.
Astrobiology (as currently understood within formal
academic institutions heavily influenced by the excessively
incomplete and inadequate metaphysics of materialism) is the
focus of most current "academically valid" discussions on the
social and cultural implications about what may be an impending
discovery of what is deemed either as "intelligent or
non-intelligent" extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology – thus
understood- is already an emerging discipline gradually
recognized within established institutions like NASA, SETI and
leading universities, but in my view (due to inescapably
connecting with the ever-widening issue of "life") has the
potential to grow into an integrative, culturally-transforming
force surpassing the limits of conventional mechanistic and
physicalist-materialist science.
Yes, the discovery of extraterrestrial life would likely
encourage human society as a whole to find ways to think anew
and/or more deeply and expansively about science, culture, life,
theology, reality and civilization. Therefore, it is important to
continue having these conversations to prepare for the various
implications of discovering extraterrestrial life which might
formally occur under conventional means or under unconventional
means any time soon.
The conversation at the Kluge Center was basically
respectful and open to many ideas, although most speakers coming
from a conventional academic (and definitely also very valuable)
standpoint were clearly unaware of the best objective evidence
that there is a small percentage of serious UFO cases and alleged
human interaction cases with greater scientific validity
indicating that ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) is actually
interacting with us (through some of us) in ways that current,
conventional science doesn"t easily fathom. I don"t think they
were really considering all possibilities in the spirit of Thomas
Jefferson, only possibilities that seemed reasonable enough
within their boundaries.
But the process of self-selecting information goes
both ways among "believers" and "skeptics." In the case
of normal academic scientists, they are insufficiently informed
during their formative years and, once established in a
prestigious community that obtains funds and official recognition
they are psychologically "stamped out" from considering
extraneous information. Both for "believers" and "skeptics" it is
selective ignorance and knowledge.
While quite often there are extremes of gullibility and
over generalizing mistakes among those who think or
experientially known that we are already being visited, observed
or contacted and those that do not (the latter sometimes adopting
a committed skepticism and the former an ill-disposed, accusative
view), but the conversation must develop amply without mutual
animosity or offhanded dismissals.
While objectively seen with a neutral and critical
attitude the best UFO and "experiencer" evidence is reasonably
convincing that we are indeed being "visited" or interacted with
by intelligences which can qualify as "extraterrestrial" there
also are good reasons to doubt about the unscientific approach
and often overwhelming generalizations of many that are so
convinced. But being the issue of vital planetary and cultural
significance it is too important to be held back by
characteristic oversimplifying, dichotomous thinking in either
camp. We need to know; learning to think, feel and sense in ways
suitable to a reasonably harmonious planetary civilization
require it.
Serious individuals developing astrobiology and also
less recognized approaches to the political-cultural implications
of extraterrestrial life (like "exopolitics") not
only need an inter disciplinary approach but to discover
a TRANSDISCIPLINARY approach based on highly
inclusive universal patterns (not just reduced to or based on
modern scientific premises or even on pre-modern ones) in order
to coordinate the various qualitative and quantitative
disciplines and approaches to life in general and to
extraterrestrial life in particular.
Ken Wilber"s AQAL model, Nicolescu"s Transdisciplinarity
ideas, Edgar Morin"s Complex Thought, Archie J. Bahm"s
Organicism, Fritjoff Schuon"s overview of Metaphysics within a
"perennialist" integrative school as well as other integrative
meta philosophies (or developments which may contribute to the
development of meta integrative philosophies) should be able to
assist us to come together with a more intelligently inclusive
"meta paradigmatic approach." Our integrative attitudes would
also co-evolve (even surpassing the zeitgeist of modernity and
postmodernity) as we discover the meaningfulness and usefulness
of this approach.
The intrinsic inseparability not only of information but
of consciousness probably found amidst more intellectually
advanced extraterrestrial individuals operating within a science
capable of understanding how to manipulate spacetime will
probably have to be systematized and understood also by us in
order to survive as a species and to move on coordinating among
us as a planetary civilization with autonomy, respect and a type
of sovereignty recognized by the extraterrestrials.
We"ll need to surpass fragmentary thinking mainly
temporarily useful for certain survival applications in a
classical physical experience and we"ll need to adopt a higher
level of discourse, one that transcends and includes the distinct
disciplines under a more inclusive logic. Under that higher level
of discourse (including and surpassing the "excluded middle")
otherwise separate disciplines will seem commensurable. Its
premises will also transcend and include those of the natural
sciences.
Rational meta frameworks stemming from a deep
understanding of non-duality, logic, an integrative vision and
ultimate transcendental spiritual principles can be coherently
developed and they should. In particular Ken Wilber"s
AQAL model once again comes to mind as a promising,
incipient example as – among other virtues – it offers a
way to recognize in a logical way the quantitative and
qualitative aspects of life as inextricably
interwoven and simultaneous.
Sincere, dedicated, mentally balanced individuals
constantly willing to learn (whether convinced of the evidence of
an intelligent extraterrestrial presence or not) need to
carefully listen to each other"s best arguments, understanding
each other"s premises and finding whatever good there may be in
each other"s evidence-gathering methods to respectfully converse
on this important, society-transforming, planetary issue
affecting our entire species and planetary future. SCIENTISTS AND
NON SCIENTISTS alike would have to deactivate excessive mutual
criticisms and offhanded dismissals (which often go both ways)
because of seemingly incommensurable methods and premises under
limited pre-integral and pre transdisciplinary cultural attitudes
and insufficiently inclusive/connective Meta
principles.
Although I"m convinced by the evidence that we are
indeed being visited by intelligent beings from the Cosmos, I
also affirm that we need to seriously appreciate the dedicated,
methodical work of our conventional academic scientists, also
contributing in many ways to humanity"s development.
After decades of pondering on genuine and alleged
contactee, contactee-abductee and-or "experiencer" cases with
extraterrestrial intelligences already interacting with segments
of the human family I think that subjective and intersubjective
means and methods seem to work best to causally interact with
beings that (albeit their advanced technology) often seem to
physically exist in a more, shall we say, "refined" level of
reality; a reality with greater degrees of freedom relating its
quantum states with its macroscopic structures after
(entropy-and-probabilities-modifying) intention, measurement and
observation. In other words, while still under the structures of
exterior physical objective patterns to qualify as "physical"
there would be greater degrees of freedom to be able to affect
those structures through subjective and intersubjective means.
This would be one of the reasons why conventional scientific
means limited to exploring our own physical level
(and "time density fractal" as contactee Eric
Julien would probably assert) may be limited in reach to the
moments of convergence between these being"s reality system and
ours. However, although contactees working with subjective
and intersubjective methods may be relating more directly with at
least some of the alleged ETI I think that the conservative and
methodological approaches of most scientists and academicians
bring balance against the interpretive failures associated with
the contactee approach.
Thus we must also understand our own personal lack of
connectivity and understanding first rather than to be overtaken
by our achievements and to criticize and point fingers onto
others not apparently sharing our approach to a greater
understanding of "life." This includes us all and the
likely fact that most key "actors" (including us, some
politicians, some military in the know, renowned scientists, but
also contactee and abductee "experiencers," UFO witnesses,
committed skeptics, intelligence officers, UFO researchers, movie
producers, media reporters, and people in general have not been
able to adequately process, interpret and integrate unto
themselves whatever they may have found about the
extraterrestrial situation adequately. In these matters
(seemingly bizarre and challenging of specific instincts adapted
to our experience of a continuous, stable classical reality) we
are all together –both committed "believers" and committed
"skeptics." We are all learning to think more inclusively while
defending our partially valid and important truths as we
gradually overcome our fractional thinking patterns.
Reflections about
specific concepts shared by the symposium
speakers
Regarding what Dr. Steven J.
Dick thought about direct discovery of UFOs not being a
type of valid evidence he didn"t go into details of serious UFO
research evidence or clarified that only SOME "UFOs" may qualify
as adequate evidence of ETI.
Regarding the statements by brother Guy
Consolmagno, SJ, I think that quite often those of us who are
convinced that we are already being visited by ETI over read and
over expect members of the Vatican to secretly plan about, know
and care about ETI. While some may actually know we often think
that there must be a well-concerted plan for disclosure in which
someone like a Vatican Observatory astronomer must be in. To me
brother Consolmagno was not giving a surreptitious Vatican
pronouncement about ETI but simply giving his reasonable
theological views about the possibility of baptizing certain
types of extraterrestrials if certain specific conditions
pertaining to individuals with souls (like self-awareness, free
will capacity, capacity for intimate relationships, capacity to
love and to err and the desire to be baptized in spite of their
advanced knowledge and technology) were met.
As an astronomer and Jesuit brother he had simply found
himself needing to respond to these issues and he enjoys a degree
of freedom to take initiatives and engage on certain issues
without the Church hierarchy dictating or controlling him. I
really don"t think he was preparing the public or church members
for the discovery of ETI or that he was sent to lower down such
expectations. He was trying to raise the level of discourse
beyond simple expectations. I also don"t think that his
conference was a continuation or modification of a deliberate
policy connected with the previous declarations of Father Gabriel
Funes, SJ or of Monsignor Corrado Balducci. I think each case
should be judged independently.
Regarding John Traphagan"s assertions about our
interpretations being culture-centered are quite true and worth
considering but also excessively well-established on the
relativism known by anthropologists. This excess is already being
transcended by post postmodern integrative Meta philosophical
approaches needed for a post-disclosure and-or post discovery of
ETI period.
Regarding Susan Schneider"s concept of computational
frameworks being conscious, I think it is quite possible but not
as producing consciousness, only as support or physical
correlates which partially due to its complexity may be able to
interact with a subjective embodied consciousness that should not
be conflated with the objective, material aspect. While I think
that a self-aware individual can live in such a non-biological
framework I don"t think that uploading the intelligent,
information-processing pattern is equivalent to uploading the
subjective individual consciousness. There"s a qualitative
difference between information processing and subjective
experience. Thus, an uploaded intelligence and memory would
probably not be able to display free will and originality beyond
certain limits and that would become noticeable.
Whether non-biological frameworks/bodies would be
superior to biological ones (so that upon encountering advanced
ETI we would likely find non-biological entities who may have
created analogues of their original biological brains) I don"t
think it might be necessarily so as we have indications that
direct experiencers of ETI still seem to predominantly meet with
entities that still seem to be predominantly
biological.
Regarding Eric J. Chaisson"s increasing pattern of
energy and complexity leading to life, I think that there are
some categorical confusions between physical objects, biological
entities and societies. As Ken Wilber points out, each belongs to
a different category, while complexifying relations correlate
among them. I agree that the use of solar energy could be
necessary to support a more intelligent "life era" planetary
civilization but I also think that the use of zero-point energy
will also be useful. As a related issue, as per the Kardashev
scale of cosmic civilizations according to energy use, I would
add that the discovery of how to use zero-point or energies
internal and transcendent to spacetime would replace the need to
use exterior energies such as those available by harvesting stars
(such as in the "starivore" hypothesis offered by Clement Vidal
or the need for a "Dyson" sphere surrounding a star).
Conclusion
Astrobiologists should consider Integral Theory,
Transdiciplinarity and other integrative models in order to
coordinate the different quantitative and qualitative disciplines
used. Moreover, they should also take a serious, open-minded,
unbiased look at the best UFO and contactee research evidence
offered. Astrobiology impinges on policy-making regarding
extraterrestrial life and intelligence and astrobiologists should
dialogue both with integrative theorists and with exopoliticians
who are already convinced by the evidence that we are being
visited by intelligent extraterrestrial beings displaying a modus
operandi and level of technology that is difficult to interpret
according to modern scientific, academic assumptions.
Furthermore, integral and integrative thinkers should consider
learning from and becoming involved in a dialogue with
astrobiologists, serious UFO researchers, contactee researchers
and exopoliticians. All of these "elements" challenge
pre-integral ways of thinking and none can integrally flourish
without the other.
The transformation of the human family into a more
integrated planetary-wide civilization respectful of its
participant members, the planet"s living creatures and into a
species capable of being admitted as sovereign into a complex
cosmic community not only requires the adoption of a particular
integral or integrative model over another in order to better
understand some aspects of life while ignoring or
dismissing others. All sources of research, discovery, reflection
and information which can contribute to that integrative goal and
the expansion of human consciousness should relate under a truly
integrating approach.
The integral community should assimilate and work with
current orthodox scientific developments like "astrobiology"
gaining recognition but also contributing to that field assisting
it to become transdisciplinary. It should also examine and learn
from unorthodox scientific approaches that seem better suited to
connect non-local psychic events, consciousness, and multiple
levels of existence. Astrobiology, the integral theory movement
and other integrative movements should also move beyond
admissible modern-postmodern academic encapsulations (selective
and biased information-seeking and validating) and consider
taking a fresh look into all kinds of reality and
paradigm-expanding evidence which some of the more objective and
sincere UFO researchers, exopoliticians and contact experiencers
are also currently offering.
What is at stake is either a successful updating of our
personal and collective sense of reality and foundational
metaphysical premises in a truly coherently inclusive integral
mode or a sickly personal and collective lingering in denial
leading to limits on human freedom and an insane lack of
adaptation to an interconnected world. What is at stake here is
the possibility of coming together recognizing each other"s
contributions without hubris and offhanded dismissals to work in
the creation of a sane integral world or dismembering into
atomized, mechanistic failure, the inability to think and
disarray.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Postscript
Given that there is good evidence of truly "anomalous"
(non-conventionally explained) UFO sightings captured on film and
photograph and collectively witnessed and, given that serious,
dedicated UFO research has accumulated over several decades
credible evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial visitation in
ways that transcends most conventional knowledge of physics , as
soon as the symposium ended I individually asked Dr.
Shostak if any SETI or NASA scientists would care to go
to the fields with scientific instruments where truly anomalous
UFOs appear and he told me it wasn"t the SETI scientist"s task to
research into the UFO evidence although sometimes they were given
alleged evidence of an extraterrestrial presence and UFOs which
turned out not to be convincing. He suggested that that effort
should be ours. Like citizen scientists? I asked. Yes, he
replied. He suggested me to go out with two cameras and to try to
simultaneously take two pictures of a UFO with the cameras
separated from each other for a known distance, preferably a mile
or so in order to be able to triangulate. I asked if a mile
was excessive (as he probably thought that the object would be
too far away) and he said that that distance between the cameras
would be correct. It should be daytime and preferably with some
moderate cloudiness for reference.
I think that that the distance between the cameras may
be excessive but not impossibly so. If the UFO (or craft) is not
too far away the distance between the cameras doesn"t need to be
so long. Also, the two photographers could coordinate with
walkie-talkies and have someone else film them. Hopefully an ET
vehicle could collaborate for this and situate itself equidistant
from the cameras and not so far away. I suppose that if the
cameras have are of the same brand, model, lens and are programed
with the same picture-taking characteristics it would be
better.
I wonder if after achieving such a feat SETI scientists
would still be reluctant to go out and verify the phenomena for
themselves with adequate equipment or still doggedly try to find
alternative explanations, nonetheless I"m sure that many of the
issues raised at the symposium are still crucial for when the
time comes to develop a cultural, formal, national and global
exopolitical process after ETI is sufficiently verified. We all
need to work together in this in spite of our
differences.
Sources
Bahm, Archie J. (1979). The Philosopher"s World Model.
Westport: Greenwood Press.
Kluge Center at the Library of Congress, in
collaboration with NASA: September 18-19, 2014. Symposium:
"Preparing for Discovery: A Rational Approach to the Impact of
Finding Microbial, Complex or Intelligent Life Beyond Earth"
http://www.loc.gov/loc/kluge/news/nasa-program-2014.html
Morin, Edgar (2008). On Complexity. Cresskill: Hampton
Press, Inc.
Nicolescu, Basarab (2002). Albany: State University of
New York.
Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston:
Integral Books.
Autor:
Giorgio Piacenza
 Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente  |