Jump to content
drbubb

The Breakthrough - Human thinking is changing

Recommended Posts

Perhaps I can help?

 

After having tried to explain the difference several times before, I couldn’t agree more.

As well as mentioning scientific THEORIES that support his ideas,

Wilcock has also cited scientific RESEARCH from many different scientists.

 

I have not (yet) read his book, so I cannot give you a point-by-point, but I do understand that the book contains many footnotes, and if you can afford to waste a half ounce of silver or so, you can get hold of a book and check yourself.

 

I will be buying a copy, but it may take a while to reach me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that: Science has plenty to learn from future Research.

Even in my own life, I have seen what is considered scientifically accurate evolve and change.

 

Just one example...

 

Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics /

'Fine structure constant' is indeed a constant -- right?

 

By Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

 

Legislators change laws from time to time, but Mother Nature's laws are eternal -- or so it has seemed.

 

Now, though, scientists are debating clues that suggest the laws of physics change over time. University of California scientists are among the major players on both sides of the debate, which threatens to shake up our basic notions of reality.

 

At stake is one of the fundamental values in physics: the arcane-sounding "fine structure constant," which measures how subatomic particles interact with light and with each other.

 

Some astrophysicists have proposed that the value of the fine structure constant, a.k.a. "alpha," has changed subtly over billions of years. They base this proposal on their work -- using telescopes like the giant Keck telescope, which sits atop a dormant Hawaiian volcano -- analyzing light from interstellar gas and galaxy-gobbling super-furnaces called quasars on the outskirts of the universe.

 

If they're right, then our theories of the cosmos might be due for an overhaul. One speculation is that alpha is changing over time because of now- unknown alternate dimensions. As these hidden dimensions change shape, they change the fine structure constant.

 

But skeptics, citing observations that contradict the claim that alpha is changing, are plentiful -- and even the pro-change claimants are being cautious, partly because there's so much at risk. The notion that the laws of physics are eternal and unchanging is one of the ground-floor assumptions of everyday life -- when you drop a ball, for example, you expect it to fall, not to rise -- and no one wants to abandon that assumption unless they've got compelling reasons.

 

"We are claiming something extraordinary here," acknowledged astrophysicist Michael Murphy of Cambridge University in England, one of the scientists who reported possible evidence of a change in the fine structure constant at a scientific conference earlier this year. "And the evidence, though strong, is not yet extraordinary enough."

/see: http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-05-09/news/17373316_1_technique-alpha-change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Bubb’s site, it’s his playground and if he wants to turn it into a conspiracy site because that is his religion then so be it and those that are here for finance will continue to drift away.

I was years ahead of you and others in getting into Gold,

and am maybe will be years ahead of many in trying to understand these alternative ideas too.

 

Within 3-5 years, if not much sooner, I reckon your thinking will have undergone a major shift.

Perhaps this thread will be one to look back upon. Just as you will find numerous threads here from 2006 started by me (and other GEI "pioneers") that predicted most of the financial shifts that we have seen

 

(JUST A FEW EXAMPLES):

 

Coming up?: A serious Recession, Triggered by Debt

These charts suggest a property bust may cause one DrBubb

dec.2006 / @: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=1318

 

15-year Bull market. or longer, says Jim Rogers

1999 + 15 = 2014, could be longer DrBubb

apr.2006 / @: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=253

 

Is Gold cheap or expensive ?

"Cheap" if you are looking at Copper, or LT inflation

apr.2006 / @: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=256

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazingly, Huffington Post picked up Wilcock's article,

together with some striking illustrations...

 

A Golden Age May Be Just Around The Corner (PHOTOS)

Posted: 8/22/11

 

Ancient prophecies foretold a coming Golden Age in our very near future - and the U.S. government may well have encoded these predictions into a variety of mysterious symbols. Antigravity, teleportation, time travel, energetic DNA evolution and consciousness transformation could create a world few of us ever even dreamed of.

 

Space, time, matter, energy and biological life may be the result of a Source Field that is conscious and alive in its own unique way - on a scale far too vast for the finite mind to fathom. Over 1000 different references, predominantly from mainstream scientists, make the case.

 

What is consciousness?

slide_188875_336273_large.jpg

1 of 14

 

Dr. William Braud is one of a variety of scientists who have performed rigorous, laboratory-controlled studies proving that mind-to-mind communication is very real, and repeatable in a science lab. Participants were able to induce measurable changes in the electrical conductivity of another person's skin at a distance without their conscious awareness.

 

Many of these experiments were done in rooms shielded from all electromagnetic signals -- proving this phenomenon cannot be explained by any known energy waves in the conventional spectrum.

 

By 1929, over 148 different cases of "multiples" had been documented in science -- where multiple scientists independently make the same breakthroughs at the same time. This included calculus, the theory of evolution, color photography, thermometers, telescopes, typewriters and steamboats.

 

There is wonderful, abundant proof that "extrasensory perception" is a natural gift we all possess -- but these groundbreaking studies have received very little publicity. Could the basic energy of the Cosmos be conscious in some way?

 

/more photos: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wilcock/ufos-government_b_933641.html#s336273&title=What_is_consciousness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE's "TOO OPTIMISTIC" - says this Customer Review

 

Great book, but too pollyannaish, September 6, 2011 (4-stars)

By Manuel Alvarez (Miami Lakes, FL United States)

 

The main problem with David's thesis is that there are clearly powerful negative forces (both physical and paraphysical) at work in the world. And they have an agenda which is not exactly people friendly. These dark powers exert a significant influence on the flow of current events. I'm not talking about David Icke's pan-paranoia, which expresses itself as a compendium of every conspiracy theory out there with a few lizards on top. I'm referring to the more sober folks who have painstakingly uncovered traces of this hyperdimensional manipulation of our 3rd density reality. This includes subjects such as alien abductions, evidence of an ongoing hybridization program, organic portal theory, etc... These phenomena have been investigated by respectable researchers like the late Bud Hopkins, the late John Mack, the late John Keel, the late Karla Turner and the still breathing David Jacobs. One could also include Gurdjieff, Carlos Castaneda, Aldous Huxley, Boris Mouravieff and the ancient Gnostics, all of whom have made relevant contributions to a less rosy awareness of the human condition.

 

I'm sure David is familiar with the work of Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who focuses on issues regarding the control matrix that is operated from higher dimensions, as well as the impact of psychopaths on society and their role as matrix agents. After having searched both David's website, Divine Cosmos, and Laura's sites, Cassiopea.org and Signs of the Times, as well as doing a Google search, I was unable to discover any interaction between them (critical, or otherwise). I found this a little disconcerting because their interests overlap at many important points. Those of us out here in the suburban, cognitive wasteland who are trying to put some pieces together would benefit greatly from a dialogue between those who are saying that a Golden Age cometh with the shift in our cosmic environment and those who see a more dystopian future, or no future at all for the eventual remnants of humanity on 3rd density Earth.

 

My questions to David are as follows:

 

(1) Do you acknowledge the existence of a negative, hyperdimensional encroachment on this planet which manipulates history and obstructs our spiritual evolution?

 

(2) If so, how does the negative ultraterrestrial activity relate to the coming shift?

 

/more: http://www.amazon.com/Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations-Prophecies/product-reviews/0525952047/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_8?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=8

 

 

Perhaps he just wants to avoid picking up a huge amount of negative baggage,

while aiming to shift people's thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as mentioning scientific THEORIES that support his ideas,

Wilcock has also cited scientific RESEARCH from many different scientists.

 

I have not (yet) read his book, so I cannot give you a point-by-point, but I do understand that the book contains many footnotes, and if you can afford to waste a half ounce of silver or so, you can get hold of a book and check yourself.

 

I will be buying a copy, but it may take a while to reach me.

 

Many scientific theories can be (and often are) used to support almost any idea (crazy or not).

 

I guess all you need to know is

 

1) Is it testable?

2) If so, is there an experiment devised to test it?

3) If so, is it repeatable (i.e. the same test gives the same result each time, or at least to a 3, or maybe 5 sigma** level of certainty)?

4) If so, is there enough detail that other people can repeat the test and get the same result?

5) Can it predict outcomes of further tests or observations?

 

If the answer to these questions is no, then the "theory" has no basis in science, but might still in philosophy.

 

 

** Just in case CMJ is reading this, I feel I must point out that this sigma is not, in any way, related to the Sigma cartel of the Alpha Centauri Star System :ph34r: , but rather a test, based upon a number of standard deviations, that is used to measure the odds that an experimental result is real or chance :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was years ahead of you and others in getting into Gold,

and am maybe will be years ahead of many in trying to understand these alternative ideas too.

...

 

I have been in engineering and science about as long as you have been in finance. You are ahead in finance and as I said in my previously post 'I have learned from you' but you have a very long way to go in engineering and science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in engineering and science about as long as you have been in finance. You are ahead in finance and as I said in my previously post 'I have learned from you' but you have a very long way to go in engineering and science.

Let's see whose thinking changes more in the next year or two.

 

I'm pretty certain I know more about these "alternative" subjects than you.

And I may have read more science than many on this site, but it is not a barrier for me in my thinking.

 

Instead of spouting negativity, why not make one or two specific points? (I have made several here)

 

You are doing nothing to advanced your argument, which I understand now as nothing but prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many scientific theories can be (and often are) used to support almost any idea (crazy or not).

 

I guess all you need to know is

 

1) Is it testable?

2) If so, is there an experiment devised to test it?

3) If so, is it repeatable (i.e. the same test gives the same result each time, or at least to a 3, or maybe 5 sigma** level of certainty)?

4) If so, is there enough detail that other people can repeat the test and get the same result?

5) Can it predict outcomes of further tests or observations?

 

If the answer to these questions is no, then the "theory" has no basis in science, but might still in philosophy.

 

 

** Just in case CMJ is reading this, I feel I must point out that this sigma is not, in any way, related to the Sigma cartel of the Alpha Centauri Star System :ph34r: , but rather a test, based upon a number of standard deviations, that is used to measure the odds that an experimental result is real or chance :D .

??

What is this list? Not an argument.

Why not take a specific point that Wilcock makes, and try to refute it.

 

As I have said, Wilcock has backed his arguments with references to science theory and scientific research.

 

Example:

wBraud2.gif : Publications

"Dr. William Braud is one of a variety of scientists who have performed rigorous, laboratory-controlled studies proving that mind-to-mind communication is very real, and repeatable in a science lab. Participants were able to induce measurable changes in the electrical conductivity of another person's skin at a distance without their conscious awareness."

 

Is that something you have reseached? Are you familiar with the study he references?

 

If not, then I think Wilcock may be making a stronger argument that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As such, this could be taken as potential evidence to support an element of the holographic universe theory. But this is a long long way from saying “The Universe is a Hologram”.

 

Conversely, when David Icke was asked how he came up with his “theory”, the response was “The lizard people told him.” :lol:

 

Need I say more. (Except perhaps that perhaps this thread should be on the fringe section, where it belongs).

Er, ah...

How do you know the lizard people did not tell Icke something useful?

Can you prove they do not exist? If so, how?

Or, are you merely assuming they are a figment of his imagination.

 

If they do exist, then he may have seen evidence that they are hundreds or thousands of years ahead,

technologocally. And he is therefore taking it for granted that they have science beyond ours.

 

Do I think they exist?

Actually I do not have a strong opinion on that. I have never seen one or interacted

with one, but I have heard testimony from enough people I consider to have some

credibility, that I not longer assume that it is impossible for them to exist.

 

Anyway, please agree with me that Wilcock is making much better arguments than Icke does in this instance. Wilcock cares about the science, and has made efforts to look at the science and find support (theory and research) for his own ideas, as developed in the Law-of-One materials. Are you familiar with those?

==== ==== ====

 

" this thread should be on the fringe section, where it belongs"

 

? A NY Times Best seller... #26 on this Big List

 

THE SOURCE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS, by David Wilcock. (Penguin Group.)

Wilcock peers at the hidden science and lost civilizations behind the 2012 prophecies.

 

With striking new theories supported by science theory and scientific research references.

What exactly is "fringe-y" about that? (Other than the mainstream hates some of the ideas.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, ah...

How do you know the lizard people did not tell Icke something useful?

Can you prove they do not exist? If so, how??

 

:lol:

 

Now there is an old chesnut, so I'll reply with one.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Or, the less polite version

 

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

 

"Dr. William Braud is one of a variety of scientists who have performed rigorous, laboratory-controlled studies proving that mind-to-mind communication is very real, and repeatable in a science lab. Participants were able to induce measurable changes in the electrical conductivity of another person's skin at a distance without their conscious awareness."

 

If something as profound as this was real, it would have been tested (as per the list offered earlier) repeated by 1000's of labs, all around the world and would have been the lead srtory on every news channel. Or did I miss it?

 

So, just like ghosts, and Lourdes, and cold fusion, and the memory of water and..........

 

However, he should have written up his results in great detail, so if you like, maybe you could test the theory and let us know how it goes?

 

A large part of scientific learning is being taught not to just accept what others say (even the greats of science), but rather, to do (repeat) the experiments and draw you own conclusions.

 

 

A NY Times Best seller... [url="http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2011-09-

 

THE SOURCE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS, by David Wilcock. (Penguin Group.)

Wilcock peers at the hidden science and lost civilizations behind the 2012 prophecies.[/i]

 

With striking new theories supported by science theory and scientific research references.

What exactly is "fringe-y" about that? (Other than the mainstream hates some of the ideas.)

 

Best sellar eh, must be true then.

 

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was a best seller too, as was State of Fear by Michael Crichton (who was actually invited to speak to congress about global warming during the Bush presidency). Each had elements supported by science, does that make them accepted scientific theories?

 

??

What is this list? Not an argument.

 

Er no Dr B, you've misunderstood, it wasn't actually meant to be an argument.

 

I was trying (very nicely I thought) to explain the difference between an idea, which we can all have, and a scientific theory which has to stand up to rigours testing.

 

Perhaps that is half the problem. Scientists used to explain their theories to the masses (and actually became the stars and celebs of the day). As the theories became more complex, this became more difficult, so that today you really need a physics degree just to start to understand some of the theories.

 

As such, I think most just gave up trying to explain them, leading to all the misunderstanding that arise today.

 

Anyway, please agree with me that Wilcock is making much better arguments than Icke does in this instance.

 

Yes I agree he makes better arguments than Icke, as does my 4 year old :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one example...

 

Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics /

'Fine structure constant' is indeed a constant -- right?

 

By Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

 

Legislators change laws from time to time, but Mother Nature's laws are eternal -- or so it has seemed.

 

Now, though, scientists are debating clues that suggest the laws of physics change over time. University of California scientists are among the major players on both sides of the debate, which threatens to shake up our basic notions of reality.

 

At stake is one of the fundamental values in physics: the arcane-sounding "fine structure constant," which measures how subatomic particles interact with light and with each other.

 

Some astrophysicists have proposed that the value of the fine structure constant, a.k.a. "alpha," has changed subtly over billions of years. They base this proposal on their work -- using telescopes like the giant Keck telescope, which sits atop a dormant Hawaiian volcano -- analyzing light from interstellar gas and galaxy-gobbling super-furnaces called quasars on the outskirts of the universe.

 

If they're right, then our theories of the cosmos might be due for an overhaul. One speculation is that alpha is changing over time because of now- unknown alternate dimensions. As these hidden dimensions change shape, they change the fine structure constant.

 

But skeptics, citing observations that contradict the claim that alpha is changing, are plentiful -- and even the pro-change claimants are being cautious, partly because there's so much at risk. The notion that the laws of physics are eternal and unchanging is one of the ground-floor assumptions of everyday life -- when you drop a ball, for example, you expect it to fall, not to rise -- and no one wants to abandon that assumption unless they've got compelling reasons.

 

"We are claiming something extraordinary here," acknowledged astrophysicist Michael Murphy of Cambridge University in England, one of the scientists who reported possible evidence of a change in the fine structure constant at a scientific conference earlier this year. "And the evidence, though strong, is not yet extraordinary enough."

/see: http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-05-09/news/17373316_1_technique-alpha-change

 

Very interesting - this is exactly what Rupert Sheldrake suggests - he says that laws of nature are not immutable and fixed but are rather like "habits" which evolve and change over time. This matches up exactly with what they say about the alpha constant (which then becomes a variable - but very slowly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting - this is exactly what Rupert Sheldrake suggests - he says that laws of nature are not immutable and fixed but are rather like "habits" which evolve and change over time. This matches up exactly with what they say about the alpha constant (which then becomes a variable - but very slowly).

 

Exactly.

 

Sheldrake (biologist) says "that laws of nature are not immutable and fixed but are rather like "habits" which evolve and change over time"

 

Whereas the scientists (physicists) studying this "reported possible evidence of a change in the fine structure constant" with Murphy going on to say "And the evidence, though strong, is not yet extraordinary enough."

 

Note the differences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD,

You are not advancing your argument at all

 

Now there is an old chesnut, so I'll reply with one.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I haven't made that claim. I was the one who said those beings may or many not exist.

You ridiculed Icke's sources, implying somehow that it was impossible.

Can you prove non-existence? If not admit it, and agree with me that their existence is unproven,

and therefore it is not impossible that he is getting information from that source.

 

I have heard more testimony than you about their existence, therefore I am more likely than you

to defend THE FACT that Icke's statement cannot be disproven, but logic should force you

to agree. And you are relying on mere prejudice in this part of your comments.

 

If something as profound as this was real, it would have been tested (as per the list offered earlier) repeated by 1000's of labs, all around the world and would have been the lead srtory on every news channel. Or did I miss it?

You haven't even examined his work, yet you reject it. Pure prejudice, once again.

Maybe you should try and round up a lynching party consisting of others who haven't examined his work,

but want to hang Wilcock or burn Dr William Braund as a heretic for his work.

 

Stake.jpg

 

Best sellar eh, must be true then.

 

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was a best seller too, as was State of Fear by Michael Crichton (who was actually invited to speak to congress about global warming during the Bush presidency). Each had elements supported by science, does that make them accepted scientific theories?

I don't get your point.

Wilcock's book is on the Non-fiction list, the others you mentioned were works of Fiction.

 

Er no Dr B, you've misunderstood, it wasn't actually meant to be an argument.

 

I was trying (very nicely I thought) to explain the difference between an idea, which we can all have, and a scientific theory which has to stand up to rigours testing.

 

Perhaps that is half the problem. Scientists used to explain their theories to the masses (and actually became the stars and celebs of the day). As the theories became more complex, this became more difficult, so that today you really need a physics degree just to start to understand some of the theories.

 

As such, I think most just gave up trying to explain them, leading to all the misunderstanding that arise today.

So, I am waiting.

None of the skeptics on this thread has bothered to show a single point of Wilcock's grand idea,

is unsupported by science. You and ID have merely stated that "it is nonsense", without advancing a

single specific argument. I have mentioned Braund's experiment, and the similarities with the theories

of Jung and David Bohm. Your arguments are empty.

 

Best sellar eh, must be true then.

 

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was a best seller too, as was State of Fear by Michael Crichton (who was actually invited to speak to congress about global warming during the Bush presidency). Each had elements supported by science, does that make them accepted scientific theories?

I don't get your point.

Wilcock's book is on the Non-fiction list, the others you mentioned were works of Fiction.

 

Yes I agree he makes better arguments than Icke, as does my 4 year old :)

Twas you that brought up Icke.

I merely pointed out that it was not a fair comparison.

I am not using Icke's methods to support Wilcock's ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."

Historically, a lot of metaphysics grew out of ideas of transcendence. Realist science is itself a branch of that endeavour, where reason [still assumed to be "outside" the physical world] turns to physical experience, and represents to itself the nature of an objective reality. So much for rationalism. Modernism increasingly drags reason, kicking and screaming from its transcendent stool, into the world of experience. Folding in on itself, reason looks for the contingent conditions of its own thought.... Marx, Freud and Nietzsche were the masters of this thorough-going naturalism, or 'hermenuetics of suspicion", where the faith in objectivity was lost.

 

If transcendent knowledge is exhausted, then maybe that other school of thought should be re-opened, that of immanence. they should never have moved away from the mystic early neo-Platonists. i blame Aristotle. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[“The biggest disease in the normal construct is this low vibration. Pop stars and kings and queens and junk food and war and Facebook – it’s all limiting, drab, rubbish. If you come to a place of stillness, the unmoving mind, a place of balance, that neutral space – you see the world as mysterious and extravagant.

 

“’The construct’ tells us we know most of what there is to be known, but as you walk your own sovereign path as master and warrior, you realize that science and politics and education know next to nothing about how this world works and fits together.

 

There is nothing new under the sun. This is taking the enlightened scepticism of Socrates [his argument against the sophists] and giving it a modern spin. As the philosophic sage said "I know that I don't know".

 

What still plagues the west after millenia is the relation between faith/ belief and knowledge. The way out is to give up on the "God's eye view" of "pure" knowledge, and settle for a less serious 'knowledge"..... one that acknowledges a correlated faith/ belief at its core. Isn't that how knowledge was first defined.... as justified true belief [coherency]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SECTIONS of Wilcock's book:

 

(I haven't read it, nor have others here - so here's a closer look):

 

2012: Tragedy, transcension or just another year? David Wilcock exposes many great secrets: DNA, consciousness science, wormholes, stargate travel, sacred geometry, three-dimensional time, the Mayan Calendar and much, much more!

 

Part I: CONVERGENCE The Movie, consciousness energy field, Edgar Cayce reincarnation, Da Vinci Code, Inconvenient Truth, galactic alignment, dodecahedron, 2012 / DNA crop circles, sacred geometry as vibration, tetrahedron, 19.5 degrees

 

Part II: Hans Jenny / Cymatics, space and time inverting, wave-particle duality, Buckyballs / fullerenes, DNA as a wave, Kaznacheyev, psychic healing, Dewey Larson, 3D time, space-time fabric, time-space

 

Part III: Fairy circles, natural stargates, ESP, nested spheres, channeling, chakras, Pineal gland, Sumerian tablets, Osiris, kundalini, pine cone symbolism, Tammuz, Shiva, Third Eye, Bindi, Bacchus, Dionysus, Jesus, the Vatican

 

Part IV: Pyramid sarcophagus, cathedral windows, the World Tree, melatonin, DMT, ayahuasca, Dreams, Out of Body Experience, the Silver Cord

 

Part V: Mark of the Beast, microclusters, synchronicity, shamanism, holographic sound, reverse-engineering the pineal gland, Dan Burisch, Project Looking Glass, CONTACT

 

Part VI: The Last Mimzy, the Roswell Crash, the Cube / Yellow Disc, Hellraiser, election tampering, pole shift, time-viewing technology, the Iraq War, DCTP / Doctrine of the Convergent Timeline Paradox, human-lineage ETs

 

Part VII: Tree of Life, Illuminati, Rothschilds, Hitler, New World Order, Lucifer, Luciferian philosophy, Catholic church, Philadelphia Experiment / Rainbow Project

 

Part VIII: Phoenix III, Montauk chair, time travel, Dec. 21, 2012, 20-year cycle, Stargate SG-1, Outer Band Individuated Teletracer / OBIT, The Outer Limits, Time Vector Generator / TVG, Mars pyramids, underground bases, jumproom, Total Recall, Minority Report, X-Men / Cerebro, Rifts in Time

 

Part IX: Forbidden Planet, psychic conduit, LSD trips, zero-time, 2012 dimensional shift, Edgar Cayce readings, Chandler's Wobble, pole shift, Library of Atlantis / Hall of Records, California earthquakes

 

Part X: Create your own reality, 2012 not cataclysmic, Russian physics, Dr. Sergey Smelyakov / Auric Time Scale, Mayan Calendar, spiral imploding into 2012 changing consciousness, Ascended abilities, spiritual growth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What still plagues the west after millenia is the relation between faith/ belief and knowledge. The way out is to give up on the "God's eye view" of "pure" knowledge, and settle for a less serious 'knowledge"..... one that acknowledges a correlated faith/ belief at its core. Isn't that how knowledge was first defined.... as justified true belief [coherency]?

Ah... if that, then:

Coherence to WHICH beliefs ?

 

I used to say: "TRUTH is a harmony of past belief."

 

If you accept that, then you had better realise that beliefs need to be constantly re-examined, and also have some means for discarding beliefs which have been disproven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... if that, then:

Coherence to WHICH beliefs ?

 

I used to say: "TRUTH is a harmony of past belief."

 

If you accept that, then you had better realise that beliefs need to be constantly re-examined, and also have some means for discarding beliefs which have been disproven

Coherence is not adherence. The ideal of coherency is to take all spheres of life... whether religious, artistic, philosophical, scientific etc and weave them together into a harmonic whole. The "best" belief will be the most universal one.... and this should also [ideally] be the most tolerant [of others] given its universality.

 

Errant beliefs are discarded if they don't resonate [or triangulate] with the larger unified back drop of perceptions/ conceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coherence is not adherence. The ideal of coherency is to take all spheres of life... whether religious, artistic, philosophical, scientific etc and weave them together into a harmonic whole. The "best" belief will be the most universal one.... and this should also [ideally] be the most tolerant [of others] given its universality.

 

Errant beliefs are discarded if they don't resonate [or triangulate] with the larger unified back drop of perceptions/ conceptions.

That's why I use the word "harmony", that's different from just "rhyming" and repeating the views of the majority.

 

But "TRUTH" for a Moslem would be different that "truth" for a Christian, since they would start with different beliefs, and if they don't re-examine and widen their understanding, they would stay locked in different "realities". Hence we have strong disagreements, even wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"We may be awoken from a life on Earth, just as we are awoken from a dream."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DrBubb,

 

I'd ask you why you feel it necessary to put threads like this in the main discussion forum? This is not meant as a criticism, I'm genuinely interested in whether you feel you need to help a wider audience to see your understanding for example, or whether you feel the topics do not get properly challenged in the fringe section? You obviously find some merit in these topics, for me the one thing you could do for me to follow the links through is to filter to ones which you have found practical and useful today, and say how. I don't generally care if the writer refers to conventional scientists or has traditional qualifications. Sorry for the long winded reply to the topic.

 

I do think a part of it is a deeper change taking place, that interest in these topics is being driven by a common force or collective subconscious, but so far there does not seem to be much genuine new knowledge created to date, instead many new gurus looking to profit from this drive. I think there is hope for a more concrete change when the scientific method is better applied to our own consciousness, but I see no indication that this is the case with the people you refer to here.

 

It would appear to me that many other people on this forum have decided to just ignore these type of topics completely and maybe I should do the same but I'm strangely drawn to such topics, not because I have any interest in them per se, but because I find it incomprehensible that any intelligent, logical, sane person could take them seriously and that’s interesting.

 

This echos back to the original topic of the thread - is human thinking changing? I have noticed people in a few different areas of my life take up more and more of the "fringe" views in recent years, both on the internet and off. In each case (including your self DrBubb) these are intelligent, logical and sane people. And yet 90% of the ideas do appear to be nonsense. You ask if the sceptics have followed the suggested links - in my case no. I realised a long time ago that I do not have time to follow through on every topic I find vaguely interesting and need to filter extensively.

I almost never watch video presentations - if a point can't be made without scary mood music and cheap animations it's not worth making. Superficial references to quantum this or multi-dimensional that put me off too. The best filter we have to date that I know of is peer review. If I come across an interesting mainstream article referring to some study I try to at least read the abstract of the original paper. In cases like this thread there is usually someone around to give a second opinion from a more conventional point of view, unless someone comes away with a changed point of view, or unless I have a lot of spare time I rarely follow the links.

 

So why are these topics becoming so much more popular? The conventional answer would be that the internet gives those with almost any conceivable idea with a way to meet and support each other in their beliefs. I think science has to take a large part of the blame, partly because a good scientific theory is intrinsically so much harder to understand than a good conspiracy theory, partly because so many useful science theories are funded by commercial interests who do not want to see the ideas go to a wide audience, leaving extremely complex but for the time being almost useless research for the wider public. The biggest fault with science is the condescending idea that scientists can come up with single coherent truths for the uneducated masses, when all theories come with a variety of conflicting interpretations which are worked out over time. For example the idea that an educated doctor has to have all the available knowledge of human health in his head for every patient, when most of them are well capable of researching a similar level of detail quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Mercury.

 

The changes coming in our thinking, and in our world, have the promise to blow away "the best laid plans of mice and men" in the financial world. If we do not explore this greater world, then people may find all their efforts in finding better investments suddenly come to nothing - if they wake up one day to discover "there are some risks that Gold cannot hedge", and all the risks they were ignoring prove more important that the ones they were focused upon.

This echos back to the original topic of the thread - is human thinking changing? I have noticed people in a few different areas of my life take up more and more of the "fringe" views in recent years, both on the internet and off. In each case (including your self DrBubb) these are intelligent, logical and sane people. And yet 90% of the ideas do appear to be nonsense. You ask if the sceptics have followed the suggested links - in my case no. I realised a long time ago that I do not have time to follow through on every topic I find vaguely interesting and need to filter extensively.

Thanks for being honest about that - I suspect some others here have not been.

 

My question to you is: What will it take to "widen" the filter you use?

If you wait for a really big shock, it may be too late. Cgnao had a function on HPC of delivering periodic shocks that got people to think about other risks. But here his posts function more like cheerleading, spurring on the already-converted to celebrate their gold holdings. That's why I occasionally dispute his posts, which here are a little like "Rocket" images on the Gold thread. They shock no one here, and bring no awakening to the already converted.

 

I almost never watch video presentations - if a point can't be made without scary mood music and cheap animations it's not worth making. Superficial references to quantum this or multi-dimensional that put me off too.

I mostly listen to podcasts, rather than watch videos.

This keeps my hands free, and I can take them with me and listen when I am jogging, or riding the tube... or just doing my research looking at charts or browsing articles.

 

...The best filter we have to date that I know of is peer review. If I come across an interesting mainstream article referring to some study I try to at least read the abstract of the original paper. In cases like this thread there is usually someone around to give a second opinion from a more conventional point of view, unless someone comes away with a changed point of view, or unless I have a lot of spare time I rarely follow the links.

That's a useful shortcut.

 

If you go the the Fringe section, you will find that a few people are beginning to change their thinking, and respond positively to some of these topics - but not all. It will be a slow process for most. AND THEN, some breakthrough will come, and many more people will see that this is a time of major change, which may be life-threatening for some. I just hope it does not take a catastrophic event to do that - I genuinely thought at the beginning of the year that Earth changes would get people to see the World is changing. I predicted a "tough year for the planet" in my 2011 predictions for FBB, and we have certainly seen that this year. But most people seem to have not allowed this to serious effect their world views. I wonder how far the changes will need to go...?

 

So why are these topics becoming so much more popular? The conventional answer would be that the internet gives those with almost any conceivable idea with a way to meet and support each other in their beliefs. I think science has to take a large part of the blame, partly because a good scientific theory is intrinsically so much harder to understand than a good conspiracy theory, partly because so many useful science theories are funded by commercial interests who do not want to see the ideas go to a wide audience, leaving extremely complex but for the time being almost useless research for the wider public. The biggest fault with science is the condescending idea that scientists can come up with single coherent truths for the uneducated masses, when all theories come with a variety of conflicting interpretations which are worked out over time. For example the idea that an educated doctor has to have all the available knowledge of human health in his head for every patient, when most of them are well capable of researching a similar level of detail quite easily.

You seem to believe that changes and greater awareness of deeper truths are not what is spreading, only "popular enthusiasm" is growing - without a genuine understanding driving that popularity.

 

Funnily enough, commercial interests appear to want to block the increasing interest on the Fringe. Military contractors do not want to see people challenge military spending. Drug companies do not want you to know your can find cheaper remedies, or avoid sickness altogether by eating the right diet. Monsanto does not want people sharing perennial seeds, when they can sell seeds that are good for only one season.

 

Most of the people presenting these ideas on the Fringe, are not getting rich from them - they are just trying to spread the truth - and many are locked into near-poverty conditions, or are fortunate enough to have a pension or other assets to live off.

 

Bob Dean discusses this in this short video: (jump in at 6:40 minutes to save time)

 

"A millionaire? I lost my shirt doing this... I have nothing to sell."

 

(Note: Wilcock is younger, has no military pension to fall back upon, and needs to make a living somehow. Still, many criticise him for being too promotional, and seem to be disturbed by the fact that he obviously thrives on the attention he is getting. Is that a bad thing? Would he give so much if he did not like the attention?)

 

Project Camelot's videos with people like: Bob Dean, David Wilcock, Pete Peterson and others were very influential in getting me to take these topics more seriously. Later, I moved on to listen to most of the key public and member interviews on: http://www.VeritasShow.com - as podcasts, they were more accessible.

 

Finally, I would like to get you to reconsider your comment that "90% of the ideas do appear to be nonsense." Think deeply about why you accept 10%, and reject 90%. What assumptions are you making? And what assumptions would you need to shift your acceptance level to 20%? 30%? Or higher?

 

However, I do agree that it is important not to just automatically believe everything. As Mel Fabregas says, "I don't want to believe, I want to know."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I use the word "harmony", that's different from just "rhyming" and repeating the views of the majority.

 

But "TRUTH" for a Moslem would be different that "truth" for a Christian, since they would start with different beliefs, and if they don't re-examine and widen their understanding, they would stay locked in different "realities". Hence we have strong disagreements, even wars.

Which is why I mentioned the connection between "universality" and "tolerance" before. A believer with a "universalist" frame of mind, whether Christian or Muslim, is likely to see themselves revering the same god. Though there are significant differences in their religion, they will no doubt focus on the points held in commmon... that they are both forms of monotheism for example, that they have much of the old testament in common etc.

 

I was listening to a program about the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in the US since 9/11. Some on the "religious right" are identifying muslims with terrorists these days. Here's an example of a burgeoning intolerance... where religion [or a religion] is associated with terror [or fundamentalism]. Yet events have taken a turn to show how silly this all is; the recent event in Norway involved a terrorist who professed to be a Christian..... so apparently no one religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Of course, this can lead to another form of intolerance; that religion per se serves to inspire terrorism. But this idea is also easily refuted by 20th century history, where there are many secular forms of terror, and on an industrial scale.... so neither does religion per se have a monopoly on terror.

 

It's not religion, but fanaticism [whether couched in a religious or irreligious form] that leads to terrorism. Fanaticism arises when power and violence get the upper hand of reason and restraint. Universalism, enlightened scepticism, and tolerance are the forces that keeps a narrowed fanaticism at bay. In a sense, terror was written on the wall once the balance of power [between the great powers... the secular halfway house of Christendom]] was destroyed by two world wars and replaced with a balance of terror.

 

 

Bringing this back on point, some of the new truths expounded look too individualistic... they almost read as new forms of mysticism, which may be fine for the particular individual but do not contribute much in regard to reconstructing a humane "society". Reason needs to be rehabilitating to power, and the "individual" to the state, in order for that to occur. Maybe Aristotle isn"t so bad after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×