The Nightshirt Sightings, Portents, Forebodings, Suspicions

UFOs and “Psychic Phenomena”: A TMS Hypothesis

“We are faced with a technology that transcends the physical and is capable of manipulating our reality, generating a variety of altered states of consciousness and of emotional perceptions.” –Jacques Vallee

I’d be the first to admit that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. But of all things paranormal, I have the hardest time bringing myself to believe in telepathy and other “psychic” phenomena. Yet such phenomena are a mainstay of alien contact and abduction reports, and have led many researchers—even rigorously scientific ones, like Jacques Vallee—to accept them as an important aspect of many UFO experiences.

The problem as I see it is this: Thoughts take the form of neural activity in the form of activated associations among groups of neurons that encode basic symbols, concepts, and schemas. Effectively, thought at its most basic level is like a language, built from the sequential activation of arbitrary linguistic signs and private and idiosyncratic associations, cascading through our neural architecture. This must be true even of universal or “archetypal” symbols. Thought, in other words, is not something vague and ‘airy.’ It has to be instantiated in material form. This makes me skeptical of the notion of an immaterial “soul” as well. (Spirit is different, but that’s another story.)

Because they arise only in the form of a private language, there is no possibility of thoughts “traveling” outside the brain other than through some form of physical expression (words, gestures, pictures) using symbols. Even a simple symbol could not directly enter the brain except via sensory stimulation—a word or graphic image.

But even if actual thoughts cannot enter or leave an individual’s head, there is another possibility that could, in theory, explain many of the experiences reported by UFO contactees.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a technique now being studied and used by neuroscientists and psychiatrists to induce very specific changes in the cortex. Through rapidly alternating magnetic pulses delivered to the scalp, weak electrical currents can be generated in the brain, and depending on the area stimulated, it can produce sensory effects such as flashes of light and other hallucinations, enhanced creativity and genius-level thought, enhanced perception, religious experiences, as well as distortions of time and memory. It is easy to imagine that, with greater refinements, TMS or something like it could be used to stimulate specific areas of the brain to produce hallucinations of entities and voices and even more specific types of experience.

Unusual electromagnetic effects are very commonly reported in connection with UFOs, and high-power electromagnetic fields are generally regarded to be somehow the basis for their propulsion. What if these objects, or their inhabitants (if there are inhabitants), deliberately or even inadvertently stimulate the brains of witnesses via some sort of remote TMS? It could theoretically explain common aspects of the experience like amnesia, missing time, light effects, strange physical sensations like floating, motor paralysis, and frightening or benevolent entities that take a variety of forms that are sometimes totally bizarre but other times culture-specific or “archetypal.” Not to mention the sensation of psychically receiving thoughts or verbal commands in the contactee’s own tongue.

Hallucinations are very convincing, and seem to arise externally, even though they are produced within the individual’s cortex. TMS could theoretically explain how such experiences could be remotely stimulated but still be the unique product of an individual’s private symbolic and associative language. It would also potentially explain why abduction experiences often involve exactly the experience of sleep paralysis but include a richness of other experiences that are not covered by that rubric.

Again, such effects could be deliberately induced as a form of thought control or manipulation, but they could also be somehow an inadvertent byproduct of proximity to some kind of electromagnetic field having an unrelated purpose like propulsion—who knows. TMS seems at the very least an intriguing possible explanation for the commonality yet uniqueness of abduction experiences, and for “psychic” phenomena, without having to invoke actual thought transferrence and other of the more hard-to-believe aspects of the UFO experience.

Or maybe I’m just being a pedestrian materialist.

About

I am a science writer and armchair Fortean based in Washington, DC. Write to me at eric.wargo [at] gmail.com.

5 Responses to “UFOs and “Psychic Phenomena”: A TMS Hypothesis”

  • Interesting speculation – what if we discarded ET technology altogether and posited anomalous electro-geophysical events (earthlights, ball lightening, etc) as the TMS source? And what if we crossed it with Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis as seen through a Keelian ultraterrestrial prism?

    The ETH hypothesis is no longer necessary as soon as you bring in other elements which contradict its primary causality in these phenomena.

  • Maybe read up on psychic phenomenon before writing about it, K? Theres pleeeenty of psychic phenomenon literature entirely independent of ufos; add in your materialistic understanding of consciousness (go beyond synapses into possible quantum effects in the brain), and it’s glaring you’ve put the cart in front of the horse.

  • I’m reading this 2010 post in december 2018, maybe 6 weeks after first hearing about you and your work, which I found through jeff kripal and his former grad student who hosts the podcast ‘expanding mind’ (great interview).

    In this post you express strong personal skepticism about telepathy and related psychic phenomena. It strikes me that telepathy is easily allowed into the realm of the possible via precognition and time loops. Future jouissance shared between two people is a vector for precognition that ripples back and gives both people a shared cognitive experience.
    Am curious to see if you’ve included such thinking in your book, or if a particular post on the blog has returned to telepathy and amended your emotional tendency towards it.

    It’s interesting to observe/learn how your views on certain important bedrock concepts shift, loosen, re-solidify over time. Examples:
    free-will; glass-block (a/the key shift?)
    ET abduction hybridization (minor but definite shift)
    telepathy (do you shift?)

    I am a casual but dogged reader of your blog, and have neither read your book (soon!) nor your entire blog. My mind has picked up on a pattern of severe telepathy skepticism (bordering on mockery) in a couple posts. This mocking skepticism is common (at least in my sincere interaction with many scientific men) and has been perplexing to me, because I find accounts of telepathy to be incredibly fundamental/folksy and widespread.

    My guess is that you do cover telepathy – and how it works within a time-looping universe – in your book. If so, interesting to see how your thinking/perceiving has evolved.

  • Thanks, these are great questions. You are correct re: my “evolution” on lots of issues. I certainly wouldn’t take very much of my old writing on UFOs as indicative of where my head’s at currently — I hope to return to that topic in the new year, with some fresh ideas. Hopefully you can tell these old posts reflected my “beginner’s mind” as I had only recently begun delving into this rich subject. I was still grappling with Vallee’s perplexing (to a newbie) acceptance of psychic phenomena.

    Regarding telepathy, I’ve never intended to mock it, since it is a pervasive experience as you said, and alternative explanations like precognition are very hard to wrap our heads around. People will naturally gravitate to a “thoughts through space” or “mental connection” model. There’s nothing to be ridiculed in that. But you hit the nail on the head of how I think it probably really works: “Future jouissance shared between two people is a vector for precognition that ripples back and gives both people a shared cognitive experience.” This precisely mirrors how quantum entanglement is reframed in retrocausal models, as discussed in Ch. 6 of the book: It is not a “nonlocal” connection across space but a kind of zig-zagging causation that traverses the Minkowski block in two directions. It is my pedantic persnicketiness about terminology (and my attempt to get people to question the easier-to-think “thoughts through space” model) that makes me insist upon calling “telepathic” experiences misrecognized precognition rather than telepathy.

    I’m certainly open to counterarguments regarding telepathy — there are undoubtedly cases that stretch the precognitive explanation — but at this point the precognition model is most parsimonious as well as having the most plausible explanation. Ch. 3 of the book delves into this issue.

    You’re right, my most major shift since I began writing about this is over free will and the glass block. I take my own initial discomfort with eternalism/glass-block-ism as an index to why many find the idea off-putting at first. I’m trying to gently guide people to see why what seems initially like a bad thing is really amazingly cool upon further thought (and meditation — my Zen practice has been an important source of reassurance on this).

    Eric

  • Eric

    really appreciate the response. All of what you said makes sense and I have so much more to say, and fascination to share. Thanks for your superb work, can’t wait to read the book.