Jump to content
drbubb

The Breakthrough - Human thinking is changing

Recommended Posts

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).

I can see many similarities between Wilcock's "Source Field" and Sheldrake's "Morphic Field" -

though I reckon DW believes that the patterns originate in the Source Field and radiate out into life and evolution.

Whereas the Morphic Field functions more as a group memory which can get over-written, if I understand it properly.

 

Definitions:

Wilcock's "Source Field":

"A universal matrix of energy creating all space, time, matter, energy, biological life and consciousness"

/source: http://marikal.com/

 

Sheldrake's "Morphic Field":

"Morphic comes from the Greek word for form, morphe, and a morphic field is a field of form, or field of pattern or order or structure. Such fields organize not only the froms of living organisms, but also the forms of crystals, of molecules. Each kind of molecule, each protein, for example, has its own kind of morphic field -- a hemoglobin field, an insulin field; each kind of crystal, each kind of organism, and each kind of instinct or pattern of behavior. So these fields are the organizing fields of nature. There are many kinds of them, because there are many kinds of things and patterns in nature. And I think our own mental life depends on just this kind of field."

/source: http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldra1.htm

 

sheldrake.jpg........david-wilcock.jpg....

Rupert Sheldrake - Early life and education : David Wilcock

Sheldrake was born in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire to a family of Methodists. He attended Worksop College, an Anglican boarding-school, and specialized in science. His father, an amateur naturalist and microscopist, encouraged his son's interest in plants and animals.[1]

 

Sheldrake obtained a scholarship to study Natural Sciences at Clare College, Cambridge. He specialized in biochemistry, graduated with double-first-class honours, and won the University Botany Prize.[2] He won a Frank Knox fellowship to study philosophy and history at Harvard University at around the time Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) was published, which he writes informed his view on the extent to which the mechanistic theory of life is just a paradigm. He returned to Cambridge, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry.[1]

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

 

I have attended one of Sheldrake's lectures in London, and was impressed by his ideas and ability to design experiments to test difficult hypotheses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you Rh negative? Only about 15% of humans are

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Svj4g3qgBg

 

People with these genes may just have a different origin:

 

+ They tend to have a higher IQ

+ Sensitive vision

+ Higher psychic ability

+ They often have reddish hair

+ Blue-green, or hazel eyes

 

RH- women will reduce a RH+ fetus

 

/More on Blood Types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

 

B L O O D - O F T H E G O D S

 

Are you an Rh Negative blood type?

If so you could be a decendent of the ancient astronauts themselves!

 

For the past decade many people have been working to prove that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial beings. Who are these visitors? Why did they come? Why did they leave? Did they leave?

 

If earth was visited in the ancient past, are there any descendants of these visitors? . . .

In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had except in the case of mutation. We can have any of numerous combinations of traits inherited from all our ancestors. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, if man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, their blood would have evolved the same way. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. It would seem that modern man and rhesus monkey may have had a common ancestor sometime in the ancient past. All other earthly primates also have this Rh factor. But this leaves out the people who are Rh negative (15% of global population).

 

If all mankind evolved from the same ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? If they are not the descendants of prehistoric man, could they be the descendants of the ancient astronauts?

 

/More: http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/rhneg.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is happening

 

many of the great artists, inventors, philosophers have tapped into the source of all knowledge.

 

more people need to open their minds - its hard for some given the brainwashing that has taken place over centuries

 

"The only real valuable thing is intuition"

 

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

 

- Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD,

You are not advancing your argument at all

 

There is no argument, I am just trying to explain the difference between science and psuedo science. It's obviously not working.

 

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.

 

As a true scientist, I cannot PROVE that (nor have I said I could), just the same as I cannot PROVE that you can't jump over the moon. That's the point, see?

 

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.

 

Yes, you cannot prove a negative, but that is not the same thing as saying these lizrds exist, is it.

 

Here, watch and learn from a master of reasoning and rationality

 

 

 

This is the same guy that has for decades offered a cash prize for anyone showing these off the wall “theories” to be real, through the use of controlled experiments.

 

No-one has ever done it, EVER!

 

 

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.

 

Now that's just silly. There is no prejudice. Ideed, history shows us that it was those that believed in things based upon faith, and not evidence, that attacked those that dared to question and ask for proof.

 

If you read my posts, you will see that I have not said anything about his work other than if he wants it to be accepted as real science, then there are several tests that need to be passed. I listed them previously. If he had done due diligence and his theories had passed these tests for the ideas he puts down, it would be all over the headlines. You know this to be true.

 

I don't get your point.

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

 

The Bible is on the Non-fiction list too. Doesn't make it a scientifically accepted theory does it.

 

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.

 

There is no argument. I haven't once said it's nonsense, but I have said it is not a true scientific theory as it doesnt pass the necessary tests.

 

Twas you that brought up Icke.

 

Actually it was you that brought up Icke in the previous thread we were both referring to.

 

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

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

 

Both do not pass the tests necessary to be claimed a scientific theory, therefore, both can be labelled philosophical theories.

 

Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method before talking about science?

 

Just to note, that is not a dig, but an honest request, as you seem to be missing the basic premise of what is scientific, and what is philosophical.

 

For example, a good start is here

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example of the way in which some valid scientific facts are intermingled with factual errors in order to present a hypothesis that sounds reasonable to the uneducated.

 

B L O O D - O F T H E G O D S

 

Are you an Rh Negative blood type?

If so you could be a decendent of the ancient astronauts themselves!

Wow, that's some hypothosis - let's follow the logic..

 

For the past decade many people have been working to prove that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial beings. Who are these visitors? Why did they come? Why did they leave? Did they leave?

OK, so we are looking for evidence to support this hypothesis.

 

If earth was visited in the ancient past, are there any descendants of these visitors? . . .

In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had except in the case of mutation. We can have any of numerous combinations of traits inherited from all our ancestors. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, if man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, their blood would have evolved the same way.

Oops. This last sentence is totally wrong. There is no reason to expect this at all. In fact we would expect the opposite but let's carry on...

 

Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. It would seem that modern man and rhesus monkey may have had a common ancestor sometime in the ancient past. All other earthly primates also have this Rh factor. But this leaves out the people who are Rh negative (15% of global population).

This builds on the error above. There isn't a problem here.

 

 

If all mankind evolved from the same ancestor their blood would be compatible.

No - Wrong again.

 

Where did the Rh negatives come from?

Now the above errors are used to setup the big question.

 

If they are not the descendants of prehistoric man, could they be the descendants of the ancient astronauts?

And finally a huge illogical leap. Even if the above was correct there is absolutely no reason to suggest any connection with ancient astronauts.

 

/More: http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/rhneg.htm

 

So no suggestion of evidence to support the above hypothesis plus numerous factual errors in the introduction - this doesn't inspire confidence in the video which I declined to watch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example of the way in which some valid scientific facts are intermingled with factual errors in order to present a hypothesis that sounds reasonable to the uneducated.

As usual, you have ignored the best part, which happened to be my summary, not what I quoted.

I will repeat it:

 

People with these (RH-) genes may just have a different origin:

 

+ They tend to have a higher IQ

+ Sensitive vision, (and cooler blood!)

+ Higher psychic ability

+ They often have reddish hair

+ Blue-green, or hazel eyes

 

RH- women will reduce a RH+ fetus

 

/More on Blood Types: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Blood_type

 

This doesnt prove that they are descended from Aliens, or Reptiles, but it does suggest that their

origins may be different.

 

Here are some more facts:

 

+ About 15% of global population is RH-

+ The percentage in the Basque population is more than twice that

+ The Basque people have an unusual language, which also suggests a different origin

+ By comparison, only 1% of the Asian population is RH-

 

82490.jpg

Another quote:

The Basque people have always had a very wonderful reputation as mystics and as pious people without hypocrisy or insincerity. Fundamentally, they are an unusually honest race of people devoting themselves mostly to agriculture, although they manufacture some artistic types of unique clothing or dresswear. The Basque hats have become quite well known throughout the world and are imported by many countries and especially France and England. They are typical of the beret type of headwear.

 

The women are charming in their appearance and complexion, in their magnetic personalities, sweet voices, pleasant mannerisms, and extreme cleanliness. The men, of course, are very industrious, and as a race the Basque people have fought very hard to maintain their own provinces as independent and neutral in all worldly affairs.

 

/source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_basques01.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example of the way in which some valid scientific facts are intermingled with factual errors in order to present a hypothesis that sounds reasonable to the uneducated.

 

Nice try WB, but it appears that Dr B can't see text in any colour except black :rolleyes: .

 

This is happening

many of the great artists, inventors, philosophers have tapped into the source of all knowledge.

 

more people need to open their minds - its hard for some given the brainwashing that has taken place over centuries

 

Wow, that's amazing, it’s exactly what everyone said before the millennium!

What happened? Oh, that's right, nothing :lol:

 

"The only real valuable thing is intuition"

 

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

 

- Albert Einstein

 

Yes, Einstein was indeed a very clever guy, probably one of the most bright minds in recent history.

 

Yet, he wasn't right about everything. (If you don't believe me, then just look at his reaction to quantum theory).

 

It's actually quite ironic that, of all his amazing work, he received The Nobel Prize for his work studying the photoelectric effect, an effect that turned out to be a quantum mechanical phenomena, the same quantum mechanics he just did not want to accept, even in the face of overwhelming (actual, repeatable) evidence.

 

Perhaps that was because he trusted his intuition a little too much? Who knows?

 

One things for sure though, he would turn in his grave if he knew some of the nonsense that people use his name and his quotations to try and legitimise. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try WB, but it appears that Dr B can't see text in any colour except black :rolleyes: .

For a so-called scientist, you do not read very carefully, JD.

Perhaps if you re-read my posts, you will begin to understand them, and focus on what I wrote,

more than parts I have quoted.

 

The RH- negative characteristics are very interesting, and do tend to suggest that the Basque people are "special"

somehow, and there are various theories about that.

 

Every time I make a specific point like this, it gets ignored, and you do things like posts lists of scientific

questions. A discussion with someone like you (who seems hard of hearing, or the text-related version of that)

is very unsatisfying. But then, I think you are not interested in discussion, just in "debunking" anything that

does not fit in with your "scientific education", which is probably obsolete by now.

 

BTW, I was the one who pointed out that your arguments were empty without logic,

and you make lists of logic : Physician heal theyself : you are the one who needs

to tighten your logic, not I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a so-called scientist, you do not read very carefully, JD.

Perhaps if you re-read my posts, you will begin to understand them, and focus on what I wrote,

more than parts I have quoted.

 

The RH- negative characteristics are very interesting, and do tend to suggest that the Basque people are "special"

somehow, and there are various theories about that.

 

Every time I make a specific point like this, it gets ignored, and you do things like posts lists of scientific

questions. A discussion with someone like you (who seems hard of hearing, or the text-related version of that)

is very unsatisfying. But then, I think you are not interested in discussion, just in "debunking" anything that

does not fit in with your "scientific education", which is probably obsolete by now.

 

BTW, I was the one who pointed out that your arguments were empty without logic,

and you make lists of logic : Physician heal theyself : you are the one who needs

to tighten your logic, not I.

 

Talk about pot, kettle, black.

 

Again, you are still missing the point. There is no argument, and certainly no need for ad hominem attacks.

 

I am simply trying to point out the differences between scientific and philosophical theories.

 

I am sure that if we look at some of the points you raise they might be quite interesting, but until you read and understand "the scientific method", there is no common frame of reference upon which to base discussion of these "theories" that you keep dropping into the thread.

 

This is the basis of modern science. This is what separates real science from pseudo science.

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

 

Once you have understood this, we can continue to discuss any theory you wish.

 

PS The scientific method has been the cornerstone of scientific training for a few hundred years. So, it wouldn't matter if my training was 1 year ago or 100 years ago, it would not be obsolete today, nor in another 1000 years. It is what separates real science from quack science. That will never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yOR ALL RONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PEEPL WIF DICK PIXIES HAV GOT LIKE BETAR STUF ANN ARE LIKE MOR RICH AN STUF AN ARE LIKE REEL CLEVAR

 

(rest deleted - you can find below - for the time being.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yOR ALL RONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PEEPL WIF DICK PIXIES HAV GOT LIKE BETAR STUF ANN ARE LIKE MOR RICH AN STUF AN ARE LIKE REEL CLEVAR

 

I DUN LIKE GOT MY DICK PIXIES FROM A NOCKING SHOP IN TIPTON LARST YEAR IT WUZ GOOD AN I AM MUCH MORE CLEVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TEH ITCHING ON ME DICK IS LIKE TOTALY LAME SO I SCRACH IT WIF ME PENNIFE WICH HELPS SO I PROOV IT MAYKS ME LIKE MOR CLEVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MY UNDAPANTS ARE LIKE TOO TIYT SO I GOTT GO NOW BUT IF YOU DONO LIKE GET YOR DICK PIXIES YOU ARE LIKE MISING OUT BIG TIME AN HAV A CLOSED MIND AN AR PROBLY A COMMIE AN A TERARIST AN A PEEDAFILE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes you are quite right, I stand corrected.

 

What was I thinking :D .

 

 

 

stop being a gatekeeper John

 

Sorry Peace, but without gatekeepers, we go back to the dark ages.

 

Is that what you really want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are quite right, I stand corrected.

 

What was I thinking :D .

 

 

 

 

Sorry Peace, but without gatekeepers, we go back to the dark ages.

 

Is that what you really want?

the dark ages - who says they were dark - was it the central planners in Rome

 

and back to the dark ages hmm - depleted uranium ,drone attacks, manufactured diseases, poisoned food, flouridated and chlorinated water, mercury fillings, spreading democracy at the point of a gun, trying to cover the whole world in EMF's.

 

humanity has been held back by those that seek to control - but their power to deceive is dwinding

 

Rife, Reich, Tesla and Schauberger are just a few that come to mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the dark ages - who says they were dark - was it the central planners in Rome

and back to the dark ages hmm - depleted uranium ,drone attacks, manufactured diseases, poisoned food, flouridated and chlorinated water, mercury fillings, spreading democracy at the point of a gun, trying to cover the whole world in EMF's.

humanity has been held back by those that seek to control - but their power to deceive is dwinding

Rife, Reich, Tesla and Schauberger are just a few that come to mind

 

Simple counterpoint to the 'dark ages' argument:

We (the world's population) have the longest life expectancy in history, while at the same time having the largest population that is better fed than ever.

Smallpox and Rinderpest has been eradicated, Polio is pretty much gone. We are keeping people with HIV healthy and alive for decades. Cancer outcomes are better than ever....

We have developed a dirt-cheap global voice & data communication & navigation network (GSM, internet & GPS) in just a few decades.

We're on the verge of privatizing access to space, possibly another revolution on the scale of air-travel.

We are getting ever closer to good renewable energy sources and possibly even fusion.

 

Yes, the dark ages surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple counterpoint to the 'dark ages' argument:

We (the world's population) have the longest life expectancy in history, while at the same time having the largest population that is better fed than ever.

Smallpox and Rinderpest has been eradicated, Polio is pretty much gone. We are keeping people with HIV healthy and alive for decades. Cancer outcomes are better than ever....

We have developed a dirt-cheap global voice & data communication & navigation network (GSM, internet & GPS) in just a few decades.

We're on the verge of privatizing access to space, possibly another revolution on the scale of air-travel.

We are getting ever closer to good renewable energy sources and possibly even fusion.

 

Yes, the dark ages surely.

you are being sarcastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the dark ages - who says they were dark - was it the central planners in Rome

 

and back to the dark ages hmm - depleted uranium ,drone attacks, manufactured diseases, poisoned food, flouridated and chlorinated water, mercury fillings, spreading democracy at the point of a gun, trying to cover the whole world in EMF's.

 

humanity has been held back by those that seek to control - but their power to deceive is dwinding

 

Rife, Reich, Tesla and Schauberger are just a few that come to mind

 

Oh peace do you really think that, how sad :( I see its my turn to send you a hug!

 

Sitting in your centrally heated house, with running water, power and light at the flick of a switch, connected to the whole world at the click of a mouse, at almost the speed of light (unless using GEI that is :rolleyes: ), free to discuss and spread your thoughts with just a few keystrokes without being hauled out of your home and burnt at the stake for your erm non conformist ideas.

 

Able to read and write, and obtain literature and art and knowledge from all around the world at the click of a switch and, moreover, not only able to obtain almost whatever food you require, but to actually call for food to be delivered to your house!

 

Able to travel to far off places and see for yourself the wonders of the world (be they natural or manmade)

 

Able to call for assistance in time of emergency, able to be treated for life threatening diseases, able to have one or two children with a very good chance they would both make it safely into adulthood, living twice as long (if not more) than you would have back then.

 

While I agree, there are many things now that are not perfect, but was it better then, really?

 

The final sentence is, the rest is of the post are facts giving cause for genuine optimism.

 

Well said, (and sorry, I seem to have repeated several of your points, but I only just saw your post after I had replied)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Basque people have always had a very wonderful reputation as mystics and as pious people without hypocrisy or insincerity. Fundamentally, they are an unusually honest race of people devoting themselves mostly to agriculture, although they manufacture some artistic types of unique clothing or dresswear. The Basque hats have become quite well known throughout the world and are imported by many countries and especially France and England. They are typical of the beret type of headwear.

 

The women are charming in their appearance and complexion, in their magnetic personalities, sweet voices, pleasant mannerisms, and extreme cleanliness. The men, of course, are very industrious, and as a race the Basque people have fought very hard to maintain their own provinces as independent and neutral in all worldly affairs.

 

/source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_basques01.htm

 

Being from Basque origins and having most of my family over there, I'm wondering if whoever wrote this article has been in contact with any Basque :)

"unusually honest" certainly isn't the first characteristic that springs to my mind to define them, especially when the biggest national sport (at least in the 3 French regions) is tax evasion. Certainly they are frank and direct...

 

I can't help but chuckle when I compare the chapter about Basque women to the memories of my grandmother :) (That said, I know a lot of nice Basque women, but so do I in the rest of France. And UK, and Sweden...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being from Basque origins and having most of my family over there, I'm wondering if whoever wrote this article has been in contact with any Basque :)

"unusually honest" certainly isn't the first characteristic that springs to my mind to define them, especially when the biggest national sport (at least in the 3 French regions) is tax evasion. Certainly they are frank and direct...

 

I can't help but chuckle when I compare the chapter about Basque women to the memories of my grandmother :) (That said, I know a lot of nice Basque women, but so do I in the rest of France. And UK, and Sweden...)

LOL

Tax evasion may be a worthy sport for independently-minded people in a country that wants to over-tax.

 

What about the "high number of psychics"? Is that a genuine observation about Basque people?

 

Some think that Basques have "holy blood" rather than an alien origin. Is it discussed by them, I wonder?

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 almost never watch video presentations - if a point can't be made without scary mood music and cheap animations it's not worth making.

 

...

 

 

Brilliant post.

 

 

 

1) I really don't like lies/misinformation/deceit.

2) I stereotype most of these fringey things as lies/misinformation/deceit.

3) Even if it is all completely true, I don't see how understanding it makes my life any better.

 

Dr Bubb:

 

You won't change my mind on #1.

I'm not going to discuss #2 unless I see some merit in doing so...

#3 is the mystery. How do you expect your life to be improved by gaining knowledge of these "fringe" things?

Not just improved, but improved by more than the time it takes you to to research/understand them?

 

Perhaps you have more time than some, so have a lower value threshold. Or, perhaps you get a greater satisfaction from the act of research/understanding itself? Or, see genuine value that I and some others are missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple counterpoint to the 'dark ages' argument:

We (the world's population) have the longest life expectancy in history, while at the same time having the largest population that is better fed than ever.

Smallpox and Rinderpest has been eradicated, Polio is pretty much gone. We are keeping people with HIV healthy and alive for decades. Cancer outcomes are better than ever....

We have developed a dirt-cheap global voice & data communication & navigation network (GSM, internet & GPS) in just a few decades.

We're on the verge of privatizing access to space, possibly another revolution on the scale of air-travel.

We are getting ever closer to good renewable energy sources and possibly even fusion.

 

Yes, the dark ages surely.

Oh, we think we're very clever monkeys. Too much of "we". What's the point in expanding the quantity of life - whether of populations or lifespans - if the quality of life becomes the casualty? And too many abstractions.... surely the crux of the matter is the existential meaning of one's own life [not to mention the meaning of science], and how to live it.

 

Zamyatin's novel "We" is a good read..... an early distopia [influenced Orwell]. And throw in a bit of Dosteovsky for good measure.... "Notes from the Underground" was my particular favorite. :lol:

 

 

 

Edit: just read Flap's post above; "3) Even if it is all completely true, I don't see how understanding it makes my life any better"

 

I think there is a way in which diverse reading, thinking, and interests do make us better. The danger is for populations to settle into a "normalized" science, where a certain orthodoxy [norm] sets in and people are "herded" into thinking of the universe, or cosmos, in a particular concrete way. Today's orthodoxy is that it works like some kind of machine.... however complex. The ramification of this for real lives is the loss of dignity and real personal freedom. In a machine-world, "freedom" becomes purely abstract.

 

Entertaining alternative theories, dogmas, whatever, is important because they help to 'unsettle" us and create an open "mind-scape". This is a liberating experience..... not in order to jump from one belief to another, but rather to cultivate an enlightened scepticism towards beliefs in general... beliefs that come to be seen as merely the products of our own machinations. All is art... there really is no science as such. That some find this difficult to acknowledge may be due to a trait of human nature [collective nature/ culture?]... and was analysed in Eric Fromm's "Fear of Freedom".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant post.

 

1) I really don't like lies/misinformation/deceit.

2) I stereotype most of these fringey things as lies/misinformation/deceit.

3) Even if it is all completely true, I don't see how understanding it makes my life any better.

 

Dr Bubb:

 

You won't change my mind on #1.

I'm not going to discuss #2 unless I see some merit in doing so...

#3 is the mystery. How do you expect your life to be improved by gaining knowledge of these "fringe" things?

Not just improved, but improved by more than the time it takes you to to research/understand them?

 

Perhaps you have more time than some, so have a lower value threshold. Or, perhaps you get a greater satisfaction from the act of research/understanding itself? Or, see genuine value that I and some others are missing.

 

Peace be with you flap.

We all have free will to follow whatever appeals to us.

No-one is being dragooned into any strange and wildly exotic concepts.

I guess Dr B is merely wishing to lay a few wares out for the guests who are unable to access the protected areas. I'm sure his intentions are of the best and highest good.

I expect very big changes to come - that we shall be told truths which will blow our minds such that if they are completely new, a person could be greatly hurt from an emotional and psychological point of view.

By widening our knowledge of theories which a person like you might consider to be utterly outrageous and ridiculous, should you then be confronted with them again, at least you would not be so shocked.

So I guess the point of raising such concepts is to 'innoculate' you from being too upset should you later have to confront them in your life. It might reduce the pain.

Sadly, not liking something does not protect you from meeting it.

So sorry.

 

But have a wonderful life and I hope all your dreams and expectations will be met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We (the world's population) have the longest life expectancy in history, while at the same time having the largest population that is better fed than ever.

Well, that's not exactly true in the US of A...

 

From my "Huge Holes in Pockets, Part 2" article:

 

Health care and Life Expectancy

 

Some will object to my comments, and say that lives are being prolonged by improved healthcare, and that advanced healthcare is inherently more expensive, as technology improves. Indeed, we have seen healthcare costs creep up as a share of GDP across the world, although to lower levels than in the US. The statistics show an improvement in the expected lifespan of individuals in the entire world, where the current world average life expectancy is 67.2 years, according to Wikipedia. In the US, the expected lifespan at birth has gone up from 68.2 years in 1950, to 73.7 years in 1980, and up to 78.3 years in 2010. That's a meaningful improvement, but if you look more deeply you will see that nearly all of that improvement is due to a reduction in mortality amongst infants and young children. More people make it 10, 20 or 30 years than they did in 1900, 1950 or 1980. But life expectancy beyond the age of 50 has improved very little*. In fact, we are more prone to fall prey to certain "modern" diseases, (such as cancer, diabetes, and HIV-AIDS.) The rise of these diseases have come with changes in our diet, lifestyle, and living arrangements. If expensive healthcare were rationed, as it is being done in other countries, people would need to take on more responsibility for their own wellness, and not expect the medical care system to bail them out from poor dietary and lifestyle choices.

 

You might expect that longevity would decline in hard times, but that has not been the case:

 

"The relationship between economic circumstance and life expectancy is not clear-cut, however. A study by José A. Tapia Granados and Ana Diez Roux at the University of Michigan found that life expectancy actually increased during the Great Depression, and during recessions and depressions in general. The authors suggest that when people are working extra hard during good economic times, they undergo more stress, exposure to pollution, and likelihood of injury among other longevity-limiting factors." (source)

 

Also, even with our advanced medical technology, and supposed top notch healthcare, the US is nowhere near the top in Life Expectancy at birth. According to the UN, that honor belongs to Japan at 82.6 years. Hong Kong is second (82.2 years), and Iceland is third (81.8 years.) In the UN data, the US comes in at number 36 (78.3 years.) And that's below the US Virgin Islands (#20, at 79.3 years), and Puerto Rico (#31. at 78.7 years.) Apparently, although Americans pay the most per capita for their healthcare, they are getting a much lesser result than countries that spend less.

 

The whole notion of healthcare needs to be changed in the US. The industry now gets paid when people fall ill and require treatment. This often means prescribing expensive branded drugs, because physicians have been "educated" about their benefits, rather than cheaper generic drugs, or herbal medicines which are little mentioned in medical education. There is little emphasis on prevention of disease. Americans eat a poor diet, get little exercise, and expect their doctors to prescribe a handful of pills when they are unwell. This is an expensive, wasteful and unsustainable health regime...

 

/source: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/dr-bubb/2011/08/31/america-has-huge-holes-in-its-pockets-part-2

 

Dumbed down, and brain-washed,

Americans pay too much for their healthcare, as the Doctors get rich,

and the pharmaceutical makers prosper.

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...

×