Others

There has got to be more entities superior to the human being hidden in plain sight. We cannot be the only sentient species to dominate this planet. I refuse to believe that the reality is so simple. And in fact, I know it probably isn't that simple.. I was a witness to a UFO that was hovering above me before I got extremely scared/paranoid and I went back inside my house and screamed to what I saw. I really cannot deny what I saw in this. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even schizophrenic. No, reality cannot be that simple as to have humans rule the whole thing. There must be more to this but I don't know where exactly to find this information. Does Lainchan have definite information on other sentient living beings (aside from humans) on this planet, or, who revolve around this planet?

>>31714 You're talking about sapience, not sentience.

>>31716 I apologize, I haven't been actively learning for a long time, the last time I went to a learning institution was when I went to and graduated from highschool in 2015. Since then I have been NEETing with my parents but, regardless, we can also assume that these beings (if they exist, probably do) are highly sapient AND sentient. I just wish there was absolute proof of this but I have yet to find none.

>>31716 >None Any, rather.

>>31716 Look, I'm a simple man.. I'm not very smart either, I will admit this. And I don't really care much about alot of things save for food, drink, and a laptop. However, my eyesight isn't faulty. I did see a UFO in the past hovering above me. I had even wished for it on that night. It appeared with some purplish gas, was your usual disc-like UFO, had 3-4 lights on the bottom and I think its sole intention was to pick me up. Which is kind of why I rushed back inside.. But I really cannot deny what I saw, it was real, and I am certainly not crazy. There really has to be more to this reality. Do any of you have proof of this?

>>31716 Nevermind, Lainchan. Nevermind.. You probably won't have the information I seek, and you probably don't believe me anyway.

>>31716 But in case you do have definite proof/information concerning this, please do share of it with me. I will leave the thread up for this purpose.

look in the ground, through to the hidden mycelial connections which connect damn near everything in the world, and to the roots of the plants. These possess an intelligence, a slow and methodical intelligence that is nothing like the intelligence of humans, but knowledgeable and wise nonetheless. It has been around since before the time of the dinosaurs and it will persist long after humans are gone, feasting on the decay of our failed societies and proverbially wondering what the hell us apes were thinking, if it could even be said that such an intelligence "wonders" in the same way that we do. Humans are very wrong to think that we rule the world. Perhaps we rule each other, but we have barely any control over our "domain". Even ants are more important than us, in the grand scheme of things. Could there be some kind of more animal-like intelligence on this earth, superior to humans? Perhaps. Humans everywhere have stories of supernatural beings with magical powers, not too different from stories of aliens. But, in all those stories, it is made clear that these beings are not to be trifled with. I myself prefer looking to the wisdom in the ground. >And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even schizophrenic. you don't need to be schizophrenic to hallucinate. I have before. I won't deny what you saw because I do think it is quite possible there are other beings such as what you describe, but it is more probable that you hallucinated.

>>31721 >>31720 >>31719 >>31718 >>31717 Sapience is higher intelligence, whose elements are already found to a degree in species other than homo sapiens. Sentience is simply about having a central nervous system. Adding some philosophy to to this, I'll say that the only reason why we haven't figure out the answer to whether animals are sapient (as we've confirmed their sentience) is that we 1) don't want to find out 2) don't have the technology yet Since this world is Hell and we're the ruling demons, I can only imagine that all these creatures feel and perceive their own self and existence, and have higher thoughts than we attribute them, only in a different form whose elements we cannot recognize, due to our ignorance. As of now, we do not know the answer, so all I have is a question: 1) what if? What if we were exerting domain over creatures who are on the same existential level as us? What if we discovered we were the lowest form of sapience in this world all along, that we're all collectively a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect and think ourselves to be on the higher rung of the ladder while we're actually at the bottom? What is all our sapience even worth, if our empathy does not create harmony? It is nothing but a muscle or a tooth or a poisonous stinger. Why put so much importance in it? All in all even the terminology we have adopted to describe our standards, even before the standards, is polluted by our self-aggrandizing.

There is no proof because no proof is possible for this, until a majority of the population experiences contact with alien intelligence directly. To speculate on whether it is likely though, it seems likely if the chance of life forming on a given habitable planet is plausible, and of self-accumulating intelligence forming. If the former isn't, it is an extraordinary coincidence that life on earth formed so soon after the planet cooled. There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. It is 100k light years across. There is a window of opportunity of several billion years for a species with similar intelligence and technological progress to have formed before us. How long would it then take them to develop a system for spreading self replicating probes (with biological crew or not, either is possible) to every star in the galaxy? 10k years? A million years? The incentive to do so is clear (monitoring threats in their environment), so is the physical possibility of doing so. It would probably take a million years or less for those probes to build themselves and reach their destinations, but even if it took longer, they probably still had a billion years or more head start on us, so it's no issue. For these reasons I'd say it's almost safe to assume that we are at least monitored by an alien intelligence, and that they have at least some presence near or on Earth. Whether that corresponds with the UFO you saw, who can say. Maybe they have not yet revealed themselves and all the sightings are fake/delusions; passive observation has advantages over active involvement.

I too have seen ufos and otherworldy beings, it is frustrating that most people do not take any heed of the invisible worlds as tangiable, let alone real. Yet not only does quantum mechanics acknowledge the existence of other dimensions, that may be spatial in nature, but also the vast amount of fringe literature. Not only does this involve aliens that can manipulate spacetime, but i am also convinced there are higher planes of existence with beings and certainly these beings are aware of us and interact with us in hidden ways. Heres a link to a site with lots of good info on aliens https://www.ufocasebook.com/ Second link, somewhat more questionable, but seems to be extensive, read at own caution of sanity i guess. There are also some highly controversial accounts of cover t alien contacts and secret space programs of almost any imaginable kind, including granddaughter of eisenhower who had an alien guest in the white house.

>>31732 Forgot to paste second link. https://montalk.net/alien

>>31732 I don't mean to be dismissive of your premise, I believe that it is quite possible for such things to exist, but one thing that really annoys me is quantum woo. >Yet not only does quantum mechanics acknowledge the existence of other dimensions, that may be spatial in nature, but also the vast amount of fringe literature. some theories in quantum mechanics postulate the existence of objects which have more than three spatial dimensions. Please don't go around justifying your theories with pop-sci (aka wrong) explanations of quantum mechanics.

>>31724 >in all those stories, it is made clear that these beings are not to be trifled with I don't care, get me out of this hellhole ruled by violent, greedy apes. I want to stop being surrounded by stupid, selfish people. It's degrading my very being. It's degrading me.

>>31734 Not him but an n-dimensional space is the scientific equivalent of magic. It would mean there is something you can't see but it has influence on the 3d world you perceive. Thats the essence how magic/spiritual systems work.

>>31783 > It would mean there is something you can't see but it has influence on the 3d world you perceive. that's the thing, "having influence" is the same as being observable. If there's a planet hanging around in the 5th dimension then there would be measurable gravitational effects. Quantum physics already involves tons of soykaf that you can't see with the naked eye and runs counter to our intuitions; why would another spatial dimension be any different?

>>31794 Its not hard to come up with a model where spooky stuff is real but too rare so anyone would dismiss it as fake. A planet in another dimension wouldn't have any impact if our physics work only on our 3d space and it entirely resides outside of it. Think of parallel worlds where objects have a slim chance to shift in dimension. Maybe it happens once in 20 thousand years. All you would get is fairy tales of a great catastrophe from your ancestors. You could incorporate even the current quantum mechanics model - the uncertainty is explained as a shift in dimension in one of the models. There's a probability a large amount of particles of an object shift at the same time. However unlikely you have a model for ghosts here. Another approach would be to say not all objects have equal dimensionality. Wizards would be people who have n-dimensionality while us normal plebs reside only in 3d. Objects outside 3d space would be completely invisible/untouchable to 3d normal people while they would be real and interactive to the n-dimensional wizard. I think this is somewhat the classical take of old texts who claim magic people have special connections to the other world that allow them to interact outside our space.

>>31809 >Its not hard to come up with a model where spooky stuff is real but too rare so anyone would dismiss it as fake. it is also not easy to confirm it. >A planet in another dimension wouldn't have any impact if our physics work only on our 3d space and it entirely resides outside of it. actually it would. The laws of physics as we model them could work in any dimension with little to no modification. Since Einstein proved that you have to actually consider the whole structure of spacetime, not just space, people have tried to verify that there are only three spatial dimensions, and so far there is little reason to believe otherwise. >Think of parallel worlds where objects have a slim chance to shift in dimension. "shift in dimension" is a meaningless term, and would not be the same as "parallel worlds" if it means what I think it means. You could (locally) divide space into 3d 'level sets' and it is quite possible that it is rare for objects to move between these level sets. However that would not involve the dimensionality of the object(whatever that means) changing one bit and, as far as anyone can tell, the different level sets would still be able to interact with each other just as objects interact in 3d space. The mathematical formalism of dimension would be inappropriate to properly model "parallel worlds". Please use these words correctly if you want to discuss physics, they have very specific meanings. >You could incorporate even the current quantum mechanics model - the uncertainty is explained as a shift in dimension in one of the models. which one? >Another approach would be to say not all objects have equal dimensionality. This is actually an assumption of modern physics, although probably not in the way you mean. Muons are thought to be point masses, that is, when treated as particles they are zero-dimensional objects. The same might be true of quarks, I'm not sure. Basically physics has treated particles as point masses since forever. Some string theorists believe that those "point masses" may in fact be immersed higher-dimensional objects, but that is really more of a mathematical formalism than anything and has little to do with the dimensionality of space. >Objects outside 3d space would be completely invisible/untouchable to 3d normal people while they would be real and interactive to the n-dimensional wizard. if a 3-sphere passed through a 3-dimensional hyperplane, it would appear to be a sphere growing and then shrinking in a sinusoidal fashion. You can look up other visualizations of how 4-dimensional objects and 3-dimensional planes can interact, it's not that weird to be honest.

>>31820 I meant shift as in a translation/rotation operation. The other space doesnt have to be a identical copy this way. It could be anything given that you can just construct a fitting translation vector to make it work. Just used "parallel worlds" cause its easy to visualize. As for the second idea. Those interactions take examples that translate the object for visualization well because they want something to see. What if you however take a plane that is orthogonal to the hyperplane? It wouldn't show up at all. It would be invisible on the hyperplane.

>>31845 >Those interactions take examples that translate the object for visualization well because they want something to see. What if you however take a plane that is orthogonal to the hyperplane? It wouldn't show up at all. It would be invisible on the hyperplane. the intersection would be 1-dimensional, assuming you mean the total space is 4d. It would appear as a line, which may be impossible to see depending on what you think. Either way, since reality is apparently made of either point masses or "smeared" wave-like objects that densely occupy some region of space, objects which intersect the hyperplane would not be that different from objects that occupy the hyperplane normally. I don't like how sometimes people feel the need to add on to the laws of physics to justify the existence of 'inexplicable phenomena'. Plenty of simple everyday phenomena have no rigorous explanation, the laws of physics are relatively permissive and allow for complicated things that humans don't really understand. It is simply narrow-mindedness on the skeptics' part that makes it seem like something which they cannot explain with humanity's limited understanding of the world must necessarily not follow the rules as we know them.

>>31714 Plants are pretty cool.

timothy leary's infopsychology and john c lilly's the scientist bye