Print

[23]

I don't know if you guys are into spirituality, in my opinion this is more important than anything so i feel that i want to share some vital info regarding our universe focusing primarily on the fact that we have been constantly lied to by our governments (govern-mentis-mind "to govern one's mind").
I can't really share all my knowledge but i can link a site that explains just about everything you NEED to know to save your ass from being caught up in  this vicious cycle.
www.in5d.com
I hope to catch your attention with this.
We are all one if this helps even one of you it will make me very happy
Blessings to you all!

[MadPlanter]

I have been acquainted with most of those concepts before but I've never seen that site before. Its pretty amazing that once you've put enough links together to start seeing a truer nature of reality that everything that's ever happened makes you everything that you are. Obviously much more than just that as well. As the view widens your constantly jaw dropped by the things you start noticing.

Thanks for the link I'm always into a good read!

[23]

 

[cloud]

"We discourage topics that often bring dissent and circular arguments, such as religion, certain political discussions or conspiracy theories. We also discourage cursing words"

I understand that it is your opinion, but when linking to a site that contains dubious information, please add a disclaimer to discourage the spread of misinformation.

ie: "This site contains information that has value in creating fun and frivolous thought experiments. The information presented is predominantly unsubstantiated by experimental data or evidence. Read accordingly".

Albeit I didn't survey the site in great detail, when directed there from the link I was greeted with the headline "Did humans evolve from reptilians?"

I'm all for critical engagement with an off-topic discussion, but there should at least be a standard of some sorts.

[23]

"We discourage topics that often bring dissent and circular arguments, such as religion, certain political discussions or conspiracy theories. We also discourage cursing words"

I understand that it is your opinion, but when linking to a site that contains dubious information, please add a disclaimer to discourage the spread of misinformation.

ie: "This site contains information that has value in creating fun and frivolous thought experiments. The information presented is predominantly unsubstantiated by experimental data or evidence. Read accordingly".

Albeit I didn't survey the site in great detail, when directed there from the link I was greeted with the headline "Did humans evolve from reptilians?"

I'm all for critical engagement with an off-topic discussion, but there should at least be a standard of some sorts.

Hey you better stop it cloud i bet you didn't even read the whole article! i did and at the end it clearly explains this could not be true! (after explaining why they think it is)
So really stop it if you're a skeptic keep it to yourself. At least don't play the moderator OR the snitch. You already got on my nerves last time because i had never seen you nor talk to you and you were all so ready to point out my faults. It's not my intention to be mean to anyone in general. I don't think I forced you to read anything.

[23]

Oh and by the way cloud i hope you don't reply to this because the reason why I share my knowledge is to help people and if I don't resonate with something I keep it to myself you know.

[delta9hippie]

Oh and by the way cloud i hope you don't reply to this because the reason why I share my knowledge is to help people and if I don't resonate with something I keep it to myself you know.

I don't want to be a part of any fights here, but I don't think that 'if you don't agree with someone, don't say anything' is a very productive philosophy for a message board.

Apart from the rules and STS policy, which I am too new to confidently comment on, I agree with cloud that the linked site is dubious, and smacks of conspiracy theories mixed with bunk mysticism and "pseudoscience".

1 Like New Wisdom likes this.

[cloud]

23,

I didn't intend to offend you in anyway, I'm willing to apologize if I did, it was never my intention to. That being said, I don't appreciate the manner in which you respond. You posted something here, and given that it is a forum (by definition a platform to facilitate discussion on particular issues), the information shared is subject to critical evaluation.

I'd love to discuss issues with you, share ideas (even better if they differ) on various topics, I'm always open to new ideas or interpretations. If someone questions the ideas you present, why respond in the manner you did? I'd like to believe that's how we further our understanding of the world, by questioning, disagreeing and resolving different ideas.

I don't need an ultimatum to not respond, I'd gladly discuss topics and ideas with you.

[Mandrake]

It's not about resonating with something or not; I do resonate with the concept of a holographic universe, but if it's presented along with a collection of far fetched claims, that surely deserves some discussion, doesn't it? It's not only about ideas themselves, it's also about how ideas are presented. It's not all or nothing, take it or leave it.

To discuss the holographic hypothesis, there's great, solid references. One can read David Bohm in physics, Karl Pribram in psychology, even follow Stan Grof's work in trans-personal therapy. But if we mix it with much less solid hypotheses, it undeservedly loses value. I agree that the article about reptilians, for instance, doesn't help to take the source you shared very seriously. And yes, I've read it, and there is at least one big issue in how it's presented.

The article mentions David Icke (who is a very dubious source himself if you do a little research) and then goes on to say "There are certain physiological similarities between humans and reptilians" followed by a description of evolutionary connections between humans (and other mammals) and reptiles, while using the name "reptilians". The anatomic connections between mammals, birds and reptiles are a fact and are well covered in evolutionary biology. However, that does not imply reptilians exist, or ever existed. The article uses anatomical comparisons between reptiles and humans to infer we have evolved from reptilians, while there's no reptilian fossil evidence that I know of; only reptile fossil evidence.

23, if we react defensively to questioning instead of discussing the ideas and staying open minded, we're hardly going to make much progress. We need to stay open and question things to keep learning. 

And of course there is no "snitching" here; this thread has been here for everyone to read, cloud's comment does not bring anything new to moderator attention.

Regards,

Mandrake

[Caium]

This is a site to share seeds and grow plants, you know that right 23?
Here that's more important then anything, so we want to read some vital info regarding seed and plant, focusing primarily in the fact we have been here for that.

[23]

"pseudoscience".
[/quote]
And you call yourself hippie? go look what your science has done for you.

[New Wisdom]

"pseudoscience".
[ /quote ]
And you call yourself hippie? go look what your science has done for you.

So to be a "Hippie" you have to blindly believe pseudoscience that has absolutely no proof or scientific backing?

Also, I might add, science has brought so many positive improvements on the world.  Look at where we are!! We're in a freaking virtual community discussing plants!!!  In case you didn't know, science made this possible.

New Wisdom

4 Likes Caium, Greentoe, MadPlanter and Roze like this.

[Mandrake]

"pseudoscience".

And you call yourself hippie? go look what your science has done for you.

Science uses observation, reasoning and experiment. It's a method. It can return practical knowledge and tools. Whatever people do with that knowledge, or with the tools, is another story.

Pseudoscience uses scientific forms and pretension but fails in either observation, reasoning, or experimentation. If an article says that reptilians exist (note - it does not suggest that maybe they existed; it claims they do) and does not provide solid observations, or uses wrong reasoning, or does not allow experimental verification, that is not science. And if it tries to look like science, it's called pseudo-science.

Surely you can do better than attacking science in order to discuss an idea.

Mandrake

[23]

It's not about resonating with something or not; I do resonate with the concept of a holographic universe, but if it's presented along with a collection of far fetched claims, that surely deserves some discussion, doesn't it? It's not only about ideas themselves, it's also about how ideas are presented. It's not all or nothing, take it or leave it.

To discuss the holographic hypothesis, there's great, solid references. One can read David Bohm in physics, Karl Pribram in psychology, even follow Stan Grof's work in trans-personal therapy. But if we mix it with much less solid hypotheses, it undeservedly loses value. I agree that the article about reptilians, for instance, doesn't help to take the source you shared very seriously. And yes, I've read it, and there is at least one big issue in how it's presented.

The article mentions David Icke (who is a very dubious source himself if you do a little

It's not about resonating with something or not; I do resonate with the concept of a holographic universe, but if it's presented along with a collection of far fetched claims, that surely deserves some discussion, doesn't it? It's not only about ideas themselves, it's also about how ideas are presented. It's not all or nothing, take it or leave it.

To discuss the holographic hypothesis, there's great, solid references. One can read David Bohm in physics, Karl Pribram in psychology, even follow Stan Grof's work in trans-personal therapy. But if we mix it with much less solid hypotheses, it undeservedly loses value. I agree that the article about reptilians, for instance, doesn't help to take the source you shared very seriously. And yes, I've read it, and there is at least one big issue in how it's presented.

The article mentions David Icke (who is a very dubious source himself if you do a little research) and then goes on to say "There are certain physiological similarities between humans and reptilians" followed by a description of evolutionary connections between humans (and other mammals) and reptiles, while using the name "reptilians". The anatomic connections between mammals, birds and reptiles are a fact and are well covered in evolutionary biology. However, that does not imply reptilians exist, or ever existed. The article uses anatomical comparisons between reptiles and humans to infer we have evolved from reptilians, while there's no reptilian fossil evidence that I know of; only reptile fossil evidence.

23, if we react defensively to questioning instead of discussing the ideas and staying open minded, we're hardly going to make much progress. We need to stay open and question things to keep learning. 

And of course there is no "snitching" here; this thread has been here for everyone to read, cloud's comment does not bring anything new to moderator attention.

Regards,

Mandrake

Yeah i agree apart for the David Icke discussion. I too thought he was a nut until i came to the conclusion that he wasn't an enlightened being at the time he made his claims and acted IMO disrespectfully.
The truth is none of us is perfect ATM but at the same time if someone goes out of his line to explain something to me I listen. I know you guys are probably never going to believe me but i have seen with my eyes these entities(Grey aliens and reptilians), that is why I'm not against whoever speaks about them.

[23]

"pseudoscience".

And you call yourself hippie? go look what your science has done for you.

Science uses observation, reasoning and experiment. It's a method. It can return practical knowledge and tools. Whatever people do with that knowledge, or with the tools, is another story.

Pseudoscience uses scientific forms and pretension but fails in either observation, reasoning, or experimentation. If an article says that reptilians exist (note - it does not suggest that maybe they existed; it claims they do) and does not provide solid observations, or uses wrong reasoning, or does not allow experimental verification, that is not science. And if it tries to look like science, it's called pseudo-science.

Surely you can do better than attacking science in order to discuss an idea.

Mandrake

I'm not attacking science, by science i meant the current status of "modern science".In case you don't know, NASA is financed by corporations. And that tells everything