At the Brink of Civilisation

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moegli
From my viewpoint, emotion acts as an engine to free will. Without it you would not be compelled to do anything. What made you reply to my post? What makes cold blooded killers devoid of fear, relentlessly dish up terror?

And from my viewpoint, emotions are wide-sweeping behavior responses that grossly alter perception, in a sense limiting a person's free will to that of a cow, sheep, or any other basic mammal. How can an automatic, normally uncontrolled response facilitate free will?

I and psychopaths are acting for the same reason at the moment and that reason being that we both bore easily and crave stimulation.


reply to post by Zepherian
 

I fail to see the validity of the indiscriminate mixing of religion with (pseudo)science simple because sound waves produce geometric patterns in sand under the right conditions.




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Then think about it some more, because what you are seeing is a very low level of the fractal you are part of, you are seeing the very mechanics of the universe. As it's a fractal structure, ie, complexity derived from simplicity, once you have enough information over various fields of science you can see the correlations which show you a glimpse of what I guess we could call the total equation of reality. Don't pigeonhole yourself into just one field of knowledge and, with time, you will see what people like me are on about.

This is the sort of awareness that tends to click into place with a certain amount of knowledge, ie, it has a critical point, because you won't get to it from something experimentally verifiable like say the "god particle" or higgs boson or whatever, you get there by correlation of information untill the big picture slowly becomes aparant. It's a bit like staring at a stereogram untill the hidden image becomes aparent.

If you want a bibliographical reference I would suggest "Chaos" by James Gleik, which while not putting it perhaps in such definitive terms as I do here will at least show the correlations and put you on what is imho the right path.

But I won't badger you anymore on this, the decision to persue this is yours.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


I already own the book you mention and respectfully disagree with your views. I don't think that you have any real experience in any field of science and are just expressing new age views that have latched onto chaos theory in order to sound scientific when instead they are just perpetuating the post-'___', Eastern mysticism fad that has been popular in the West for some time now.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Well, good for you, owning a book is half way there to reading it which is half way there to understanding what it really means. There is hope for you yet.


And about the new age thing, I don't really see myself that way, no braided hair, no loose hemp pants, no unshaven beard. That's your bias not my reality. I'm just pointing out a possibility you may be missing of them being an underlying science behind all that, one that would work even for your average left brain slave being



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


If you have no scientific background and think that people who use the analytic and pattern-discerning half of their brain are mentally weak, why do you even bother trying to bring up chaos theory, a kind of math that goes way above your ability to comprehend and which you must surely be disgusted with because of the heavy left-brain requirements that such math requires, as though you have some sort of understanding of it? From what I recall of Chaos, it was not an attempt to disprove science or the scientific process of analysis or dissection but rather to study and predict complicated, deeply connected patterns and physical phenomena that conventional physics could not answer(the movement of clouds and their various individual particles was one example that I remember).

It's people who feel with their right-brains instead of plan and organize with their left- that cause the world's worst problems with the best of intentions.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 




From what I recall of Chaos, it was not an attempt to disprove science or the scientific process of analysis or dissection but rather to study and predict complicated, deeply connected patterns and physical phenomena that conventional physics could not answer(the movement of clouds and their various individual particles was one example that I remember).


You see, I am not trying to disprove science or it's process either, I'm just pointing out that the dataset could show you a philosophy and belief system which is wider in it's scope than you currently hold as your worldview. I have no issue with how you are doing or perhaps just defining science, I am just pointing out that what you interpret from it might not do justice to the actual data and is a result of your own mental filtration process. There is nothing hippy about this. Scientists have their own bias, and established scientists who work within the constraints of the grant system even have an imposed biased. Another name which illustrates this is the works of Micheal Cremo, who because he dosen't work within the limits of established archeology is a scientific pariah. But imagine if it turns out he is right, following names like Galileo and Darwin, who were also shunned by their peers....

See, there's a vibrational frequency pattern to everything in the universe, even the rejection of scientific truth in the favour of scientific dogma


But what do I know, I'm just a braided old hippy in mud stained hemp pants tripping on poison ivy and watching the sun zig zag through the sky...

Also, it would be nice if you realised that in this complex world, just because you can "do the math" as they say, that dosen't mean you understand and it certainly does not mean you have experienced.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


You keep doing it. You mentioned crave. What made you crave anything? Why do you crave it? No matter how much you deny it, you are still bound to triggers of emotion no matter how subtle.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Moegli
 


A need for stimulation is only to prevent neurological atrophy as a result of prolonged under-stimulation. I said that I can monitor the chemicals responsible for the delusional states that are emotions, not that I can micromanage my cellular growth or destruction.


Is it not traditionally the case that desperate attempts attack a man's character are the last resort of those who cannot defend their position against his words? Post like yours are just acknowledgement that you understand me to be right when I say that emotions are a delusional state and that acts motivated by uncontrolled emotion are short-sighted and unproductive by nature.

If you cannot win a game of chess through love, you cannot predict the results that your love-motivated actions will have on the world. Behave in a more controlled and analytic manner if you want to produce any functional benefit for your species or planet.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Right. Because as was mentioned earlier, you only understand if you do lots of drugs that distort your ability to think or perceive rationally. Stick to arguing metaphysics and spirituality because while they are invalid support of any argument they are better than an attempt to use science that you don't understand to support your emotionally-motivated views. It makes you look ignorant and uninformed when you talk about things you don't understand.

But that's just my left-brain talking. It's just the way that nature made me, as men naturally have larger left-brains than right.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Stop jumping to false assumptions. I have never, for your information, taken drugs to experience any spirituality in my whole life. Or for even recreational use. It's possible to get there without them. No, not even weed. I don't even drink alcohol...

You're trying to forcefully paint a picture of me which has nothing to do with my reality in the hope that will allow you to sidestep my points, and I won't let you get away with it. You don't need '___' to experience spirituality, although I guess it would be a hell of a lot easier, because you already have those chemical keys inside your own body, if you're detoxed and healthy enough to, via meditation, control them.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I have been trying to figure out what to say. - Pericle has said most of it for me.

Except for this: There are some statements expressed which I have read on this thread that reflect a mindset that I think is inappropriate and even sociopathic. The people that have expressed such arrogant disdain for their fellow human beings I have nothing but contempt for.

Other than that, refer to Pericle.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Wasn't referring to your post, bud, though apparently you seem to agree.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Not at all, I just haven't had a need for any substance, yet. I have nothing against the use of some of them. But here we would have to go on plant by plant and/or substance by substance basis, as some seem benign while others, such as hard drugs like heroin for example, seem to be very harmfull.

Meditation has been ok for me so far, so no need to risk damaging myself in the murky waters of pharmacology. I may try some before I die though...



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I know I'm a jerk for not registering. I've been reading this site for months and months now...but I rarely desire to post.
I think that your ideas are great but you are missing one very real, unarguable fact about giving a population unfettered access to resources: population growth. If your plan worked, what would stop the worlds population from multiplying at even faster rates that they are now? The earth, the people, could not handle it. It's basic anthropology...
?
My solution would be to add a strong desire to colonize space to your program. If you could convince people that they want to buy real estate in space/ mineral rights in space...then you could be on to something.
What do you think?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
As a fellow homosapian, in the global community-an ambiguous term as I do not believe we have reached anything near a community as this presupposes unity, collectivity, even love- I am constantly disgusted on a day to day basis of the apathy towards the masses due to the greed of few. The relative ease at we could solve these problems, as shown in the accompanied article, is a stark reminder that we as human beings have NOT achieved in the basic idea of valuing human life and the infinite possibilities that we as a species could accomplish. If only more people could develop the predisposition for caring, as the author of the article clearly has, this century could be one characterized not by the spoils gained in war nor by devision based on race, gender or culture. It could be a time for unity, a time for sharing and a time to realize the infinite beauty that human creative has to offer.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Do you even smile? frown?....shed a tear?.......or laugh?

What kind of life do you lead........ are you a spartan?



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
My philosophy professor said today "change comes from within." I feel like I've heard that somewhere, or maybe I just know it to be true.

In order to survive we're going to have to change the way we think of ourselves, not as consuming automatons and patriots, but more as thinking things as Descartes put it. It's a lost art to put it lightly. If you are, then think. Otherwise you're not. Just set aside some time from your busy important life to contemplate it rather than trying to escape from it through busying and "entertaining" yourselves, which is the ptb's mechanism of control. That's the only way to change what we have. The human condition doesn't have to be so depressing. Forget that, it's history. Those of us that live through this time of tremendous upheaval will be changed in the most profound way. Our real values will reassert themselves naturally, not those pushed on us by tribalism, or what the ptb ironically call norms. Debt slavery and alienation IS NOT NORMAL. It's a fabricated phenomenon to keep you from reaching your potential, so reject the rat race as false. Use reason. DOUBT. If you remember this you'll be free.

For those of you not into philosophy, spirituality, metaphysics, you know, the essence of being human...you should know that the scientific method (the thing that gave you your precious science and technology) came from descartes just sitting around one day thinking about stuff. Not to mention the only logical proof of God that I've ever come across. One of the most profound works ever, discourse on the method, just from being a lazy thinker, a Renaissance stoner if you will.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodshipForAll
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


Do you even smile? frown?....shed a tear?.......or laugh?

What kind of life do you lead........ are you a spartan?



After reviewing his posts, my belief in reptilians as a race has been renewed. Sorry, no pictures...



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by waterpie

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Harman
 

We have enough oil here, now, to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, which, incidentally, is dropping fast.


Not true. The joys of the exponential function. Please see:
www.youtube.com...

PS: Generally the consumption is increasing.

edit:
Well, strictly speaking, you might as well be correct (although I remember reading somewhere about hundreds of years and not a 1000). But what I am trying to say is that "at current consumption" is problematic. History, and the basic needs of our current economic system that needs constant growth, show that the trend is growth on growth on growth, which is exponential.
For example with a yearly increase of consumption of 7%, you won't run out in a 1000 years, but in 104.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by waterpie]


Yes, world consumption is increasing, and at a good clip I may add. However, US consumption is still the predominant factor. And it is falling HERE. And our birthrates are also dwindling down now, post babyboom. However, we, unlike Europe, are replacing that with a huge increase from immigration. Though Britain has seen a large Muslim population come in.
As far as a millenium of oil, I count now-recoverable oil from abandoned wells, sandtar oil, Alaska oil (that's a lot!), off-shore oil below 1000 feet, the new sweet oil fields in the northern US, (and at Gull Island in Alaska). From new technology, not counting any current depression, we are getting more MPGs on a yearly basis. The only problem with all this oil, is that it is 'politically incorrect' via the CDNC to drill our own oil, and we must now get our oil from other countries who may not give a rip about the environment. What we do to protect is irrelevant now. Off the table. Out of sight, out of mind. I once added up all the reserves of provable oil, and it adds up to one thousand years. I'm not in the business of proving it to you, check it yourself. I told you. Credibility? Check it, and then you will have learned my credibility. There are a LOT of other popular lies in our society that I like to discuss, and my credibility could be an asset to you. Not me, I don't really care.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Oh, re my statement of 'depression'. Perhaps you have heard this; the difference between a recession and a depression, is that in a recession your neighbor is out of work. In a depression, YOU are out of work. Just like Socialism vs. Communism, they are both the same thing, but the degree is different.






top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join