The U.S. military takes UFOs seriously. Why doesn't Silicon Valley or academia?

If this forum were anything like the CT promotion platform that Skeptiko has become, I wouldn't be here either. A forum where people discuss matters of common interest is bound to appear like an echo chamber to people with less of an interest in the subject matter. I'm not sure whether you expect more disagreement or are bemoaning the fact that some of the skeptics don't take part these days. I don't think that the skeptics have been driven off, if that is the charge, but I do think that it is difficult to maintain a presence on a forum which does not (and probably never will) reflect your own views. I wouldn't last long on an atheist/physicalist forum, for example although I understand that some people enjoy the challenge of attempting to change minds. That's not my motivation, however.

Don’t worry the skeptics are still here   Personally I don’t participate much these days due to the lack of newly published research papers of interest to discuss. No reasons to debate the same points over and over. Metaphysical musings are not my thing.
 These ufo sightings are interesting though.

 Metaphysical musings are not my thing.

I would have thought that metaphysical musings are precisely what this forum is about?

I would have thought that metaphysical musings are precisely what this forum is about?

For me, those musings are an 'afterwards' thing. They need to rest on some sort of foundation. For me that foundation has been personal experiences. For others it is scientific research or published accounts of occurrences. The latter is why this forum has the name 'Psience' as a direct and deliberate reference to science.

For me, those musings are an 'afterwards' thing. They need to rest on some sort of foundation. For me that foundation has been personal experiences. For others it is scientific research or published accounts of occurrences. The latter is why this forum has the name 'Psience' as a direct and deliberate reference to science.

Sure. I can only approach these subjects second-hand. I have no significant personal experience to draw on nor do I have any scientific qualifications or experience to enable me to assess the validity of the evidence that we discuss here. Nevertheless I do come to my own conclusions and share them here but I might well describe those conclusions as musings. I don’t know how many others might fall into the same unqualified category that I do but for myself, I can’t claim any kind of certainty.

Sure. I can only approach these subjects second-hand. I have no significant personal experience to draw on nor do I have any scientific qualifications or experience to enable me to assess the validity of the evidence that we discuss here. Nevertheless I do come to my own conclusions and share them here but I might well describe those conclusions as musings. I don’t know how many others might fall into the same unqualified category that I do but for myself, I can’t claim any kind of certainty.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be 'holier than thou' in mentioning personal experiences. It was more the ideas of people such as Kastrup and a few others which don't fill me with any great enthusiasm, too abstract for me.

I would have thought that metaphysical musings are precisely what this forum is about?

Like sbu, I react to the term metaphysics with its current connotations, especially when it is appended to the natural phenomena where information and knowledge jump across boundaries (Psi).  Psi phenomena have a trail of data points that take it beyond abstract speculation.  I am calmed down enough to admit - that in terms of modern philosophy you are right about the gist of our Forum.

My argument is that if information science is on an even footing with physics - then we can start to dispassionately measure, connect data patterns and cross-confirm how minds work.  In recent years it seemed to me that progress in this direction was rolling downhill.  Maybe, I am leaning forward too much, taking a free pass with the newness of the ideas.

When this book comes out - it should give a professional perspective on this battlefront.

 This book investigates the interplay between two new and influential subdisciplines in the philosophy of science and philosophy: contemporary scientific metaphysics and the philosophy of information. Scientific metaphysics embodies various scientific realisms and has a partial intellectual heritage in some forms of neo-positivism, but is far more attuned than the latter to statistical science, theory defeasibility, scale variability, and pluralist ontological and explanatory commitments, and is averse to a-priori conceptual analysis.

OK - I am onboard with blowing past the positivists and exploring the new territory of information science and how it reveals nature.   But the Bruce Long abstract moves on......

 The philosophy of information is the combination of what has been called the informational turn in philosophy and ontology, with the informational turn in logic. The book explores the intersecting theoretical commitments and metaphysical basis of both. It applies scientific metaphysics to the philosophy of information, and also correspondingly proposes a new informational interpretation of scientific metaphysics. These are applied to numerous outstanding ontological, philosophical, and theoretical problems in the philosophy of information, scientific realism, cognitive science, theories of semantic information, and informational logic. The book investigates known and new problems, and advances debates and insights in the philosophy of information. It will be of interest to philosophers of information and science, metaphysicians, and cognitive scientists.

  https://philpapers.org/rec/LONSMA

Questions at every turn.

Like sbu, I react to the term metaphysics with its current connotations, especially when it is appended to the natural phenomena where information and knowledge jump across boundaries (Psi). 

I can't claim to know a fraction of what you know about information science nor am I under any illusions that I know how it intersects with Psi or any of the subjects we discuss here. I am aware, however, that the word metaphysics seems to cause a reaction in others that I don't really understand. For example, I seem to remember one particular skeptic here insisting that he is interested only in science, not metaphysics, all the while espousing a physicalist dogma which is just as much to do with metaphysics as idealism or the supernatural. 

Again, I am not sure what point you are making above but I think we all know that your passion is Information Science though your quote from Bruce Long is typical of the language that makes my eyes glaze over. I'm sorry but that paragraph is impenetrable to me.

The Joe Rogan episode #1645 with Chris Mellon is worth a listen.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1...27F8wTZ9vQ

I feel this forum has devolved ... reminiscent of Skeptiko

Lol. Then all I can say is you obviously haven't visited the Skeptiko forum in a while. The depths it's achieved, even over the course of this year, are truly astounding and quite something to behold.