Tippaporn

Absolutely they can. One of the greatest fallacies taught is that answers aren't available. The belief that man cannot understand who he is and his reality acts as a literal blinder which prevents you and all others subscribing to that belief from accessing the answers. That belief produces a result. The result is blindness to finding answers. Here's how it works. You start by looking for answers. You belive that you cannot find answers. You do not find answers which then reaffirms your belief that you can't find answers. You again look for answers, still believing that you cannot find them. And again you don't find answers. Your belief is then reaffirmed. You repeat the exact same process over and over again. Eventually you convince yourself of the reality you've unwittingly created for yourself and then come onto a forum and express your "truth." "These questions cannot be answered by man." All that you've done is enter into an endless loop for which there is no way out as long as that belief is maintained. The only way . . . the only way out . . . is to change the belief. Change the belief and the results change. Just as the old belief produced results which mirrored the belief perfectly so too will a new belief produce results which mirror that belief perfectly. Do you now see how it works? Didn't Einstein famously quip that doing the same thing while expecting different results is the definition of insanity? You can look for an eternity for answers yet if the input remains the same . . . I can't find answers . . . then the output remains the same . . . I can't get any answers. What I've described above is a process. Every idea returns a result. I'll go further and say that this processs is the same for every and all issues. In reality all issues are the same for they all work using the exact same process. Every idea returns a result. Beliefs are oft repeated ideas. Therefore every belief returns a result. The sooner folks understand that the sooner they will be able to actually direct their lives on a conscious basis. For as long as that process is not understood you will not pay attention to the beliefs you hold for you will believe that ideas and beliefs do not produce effects. You will not understand how it is that you create. And you will therefore be at best half conscious. Ask yourself these questions: What are ideas? What do ideas do? What effects do ideas produce? What are beliefs? How do beliefs function? What effects do beliefs produce? The correct answers to those questions are critcal for anyone wishing to understand how it all works.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ had his second coming and spoke the truth he'd be crucified again in a New York minute. By the same people who so anxiously awaited his return as their savior, too. Because his truths would run counter to their false beliefs.

Here's what happens when you don't understand what beliefs are . . . you're apt to believe anything that has even a scintilla of rational behind it. Especially if the beliefs come from "experts" or "science" all citing "studies." There's no questioning "experts" or "science." You wouldn't question God, would you? Now that would be silly. For the science minded here, or those who blindly accept every word or study science produces as valid, I'll tell ya, given all of the known instances of whoring themselves out for money, compromising their integrity over ideologies, undermining their trust over conflicts of interest and even going so far as to be outright deceptive at times the institution is absolutely destroying their credibility. I remember in the 60's when a product bore the label "Made in Japan." it may as well have read "Junk." Because at that time the two were synonymous. These days whenever I hear the words science or experts I roll my eyes. Science as an institution has totally lost it these days. Anyway, I laughed my ar$e off watching this. So true, so sad.

If man creates hierarchy then surely it exists. All I'm saying is that hierarchy is not an inherent feature of reality. And perhaps, too, when observing animals what appears to be a hierachal order may be nothing of the sort. Only interpreted as such through belief. Glad to hear from you again, mauGR1.

I just had a conversation with a friend whose current view is that "indeed EVERYTHING has a level of consciousness," as stated in his own words. My reply to him is perhaps a better and more detailed explanation of the point I made in my above post on the perception of someone having a holier than thou attitude towards others. So here it is. Thoughts are always welcome. I would say that there are no levels of consciousness. Consciousness is what we are. There are obviously infinite types of consciousness. The consciousness of a man is not the same as that of a cat, or dog, or plant, or rock. They are different types to the end that each type of consciousness provides for a different kind of experience. Man has a penchant for making comparisons. And in making comparisons he can't help but categorize. And so he may attempt to categorize the various aspects of consciousness by intelligence, for example. Higher intelligence then being erroneously thought of as an indication of a greater degree of consciousness and so on. And his comparisons then also extend to making comparisons and categorizations of different consciousnesses of the same type. Usually in terms of higher and lower as promoted by currently held ideas about evolution. There is no such hierarchy in real terms. That is a man made construct. Basically, consciousness seeks to know itself in as many ways as possible through it's experiential expression of itself in as many ways as possible. What would it be like to be a doctor? A lawyer? A politician? An athlete? A musician? A bricklayer? A garbageman? A mundane floor sweeper? A famous scientist? Each occupation in these examples provides for a different type of experience and through that experience consciousness knows itself in ways that were previously unknown to it. A floor sweeper is no more higher or lower than a renowned and accomplished scientist in those terms. What would it be like to be a bat, a cat, a rat, a gnat? An amoeba, a fly, a plant, a fish? A rock, a hat, a mountain, a table, a planet, an atom, a cell? Each form which consciousness takes provides for a new and different experience and thus a greater knowing of itself. No different than any desire we may have to experience flying, or playing a guitar, or performing card tricks, or visiting another country. There's no hierarchy within any of that. No up or down, higher or lower, better or worse, more advanced or less advanced. And so it is, too, in the pursuit of knowledge.

I, myself, wouldn't be interested in hearing what Sheldrake thinks about my criticism. I would, though, be interested in a discussion with him. But that will never happen. I listened to the entire talk, including the Q & A. During which he revealed that he's since become a Christian and even attends mass. He'd have to have a mass conversion before he would accept any Sethian concepts, LOL. I believe Sethian concepts would be a bridge too far. Also considering his profession. He's already taken a lot of heat for changing his stance from one of materialism to that of panpsychism. Everyone has a different level of understanding regarding who we are and how the world works. (And just to ensure that no one takes that statement as a holier than thou attitude I'll point out that life isn't about climbing up the rungs of the ladder towards any kind of enlightenment where those nearer the top look down on those below. That's a childish perception usually stemming from a lack of self worth which I hope folks here don't buy into.) There are many explanations of reality out there; from watered down versions to in-depth versions. People will gravitate to whatever degree of expansiveness of an explanation that best suits their own purposes. Which is why I began by applauding Sheldrake and do not poo-poo him even though in my opinion he misses much. As you mention, Sunmaster, he opens people up to think differently about how the universe is constructed and he does take them in the right direction. Nothing but kudos for Sheldrake from me. As to the world not being ready for Seth's explanation of ourselves and the self created reality we find ourselves in. I share your sentiment . . . sometimes. Only when I feel frustration, though. For one, I recognise that statement as a belief and not a condition of reality. For another, I know also that it is not within my purview to decide such things. One the other hand I do admit that I yearn for more kindred souls.

Okay!! Shall we begin with a headbanger? I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed. Here are my comments and observations. My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up. I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism. He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious. Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much. From the video description: The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world. The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits. Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants. Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea. The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory. Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps. And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed. For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model. Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part. I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model. What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality. Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world? Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism. All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model. My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons. For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind. Consciousness is what we are. The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality. Consciousness creates the mind. The reverse of what panpsychism assumes. For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one. And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality. As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness. I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind. And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is. Or mentality, for that matter. These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are. And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about. From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality. There is also a definite and very real subjective reality. The source of objective reality is subjective reality. It's the other way around from the accepted view. Subjective reality creates objective reality. Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist. Consciousness creates form. Again, not the other way around as is supposed. With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else. Cohesion. When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting. For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science. Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted: "The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”" —NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975 What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought. I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true. And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well. Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation. The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none. A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience. And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly. I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order. And that source is not of this world. At least no longer. But only in our terms. Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk. Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon.

And my dear Norwegian friend.

I see a familiar face lurking below. Someone with the keen eyes of an owl.

Then I can return to my sabbatical! Good work all around, fellas!!

I've been on sabbatical these past months. Would someone quickly fill me in on what I've missed?

What's so funny @landtrout? Where's you're disagreement with what I wrote? Share it.

I call it principles. You either live by them or not. They're not something you waver on for light and transient causes. ". . . regardless of what the Thai people all around you on the BTS are doing . . . " I'm not a sheep. I'm not in the habit of doing as everyone else does without questioning whether it's a good idea or not. Wearing masks is not a good idea in my estimation. "it is the right thing to do . . . " What's right is relative, as is what's wrong. You should know that. Taking the (your) moral high ground doesn't in and of itself make your point of view correct. People often take moral high grounds as false argumentative tactics. I don't fall for that trick. BTW, the act of respect is the recognition of a person's worth. It has naught to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the ideas they hold or live by. I may or may not respect someone's wishes. But that's not the same as having respect for the person. I have respect for you because you have innate worth as a human being. As much as I do. But I don't agree with the ideas you're presenting here. Does my disagreement constitute disrespect towards you? Hardly. And so neither is my choice of not wearing a mask in a train full of mask wearers an act of disrespecting them as people. I simply don't agree with their ideas for wearing a mask. And in that sense also I'm respecting my principles. I'm respecting myself.

So you're dropping the wearing of masks as a 'cultural' thing? The goal posts change and now it's about respecting their sense of politeness. Now here's where you make a huge erroneous assumption: ". . . that is what the Thai people have decided is something that is important to them." It wasn't until mask wearing became mandatory that most Thais complied. Before the mandate went into effect there were some that did and a lot that didn't. I'd be careful before I claimed to know what all Thai people think (as if they all think the same, too).

You know, that's a point that I noticed back then, too. Tons of videos showing people collapsing everywhere. But I can't recall seeing a single similar video outside of China. Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."

Whose science and whose credible studies?

Since when did wearing a face mask become a Thai cultural norm? Thais didn't wear them before 2020. Or is this a new, modern Thai cultural norm you've just invented? When I don't wear a mask amongst Thais who wear masks I teach them to not be afraid. Otherwise, I fully agree with the adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans" and I practice it.

No. The cough spit circulates inside your mask.

When you find out that governments and media are not the truth tellers you thought they were then the game changes.

Whose scientific data? And how do you know the scientific data that you do go by is any good? Is it only good because you've been told it's good. Likely. Still, how do you account for opposing scientific data other that to perhaps call it pseudo-science and dismiss it? Would you, on your own, be able to tell the difference? Not likely. The above questions are for all of those here who think they know what's what because they "go with the science." In truth, they go with what they go with only because they trust they're not being lied to. In other words, they go on faith. That's about it.

Did you ever consider that we have facts which you are ignorant of? The MSM keeps you in the dark. Not only that, they work to discredit the truth. The truth is everywhere if you look for it. But you'll never look outside your self created paradigm since you've been so indoctrinated to believe everything outside of that paradigm is a lie. There's a great big world out there if you've the courage to step outside of your safe space. Give DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo huge credit for possessing the courage to face the oncoming onslaught that the media and big pharma will most assuredly attempt to wreak on them.

‘Paramount importance’: Judge orders FDA to hasten release of Pfizer vaccine docs https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ There's an army of mostly volunteer experts and lawyers going through those documents and are finding extremely damning information. They've also begun filing lawsuits based on the information they've uncovered. Unfortunately the MSM doesn't cover that type of news so for most posters here that information is denied to them as the only sources that do report on any of those findings are labeled "conspiratorial sites." How convenient if you want to hide the truth, eh? If the NYT, WaPo, et al don't report on it then it didn't really happen, right?

"You claim that any media source that reports information you disagree with is extremely biased." Your putting words in my mouth. I never said any of what you wrote. I only said that Axios is extreme far left and that is a fact. Such strong bias can never arrive at any truth. "I can't find the link to any article posted by you." Not true. You found the link to the BBC article without a hitch. "And as I've pointed out, Ron Johnson clearly doesnt even understand why it's invalid to use the VAERS the way he did. Link me to something he or his "experts" put in writing so I can debunk it." Educate yourself. Or is that a problem? You refuse to watch the video but claim it's all "conspiracy theory" (. . . "so I can debunk it . . . " - conspiracy theory implied with that statement) without ever knowing the facts they present? Am I dealing with a serious person here?

"This actually establishes the contrary of what you believe." Read your own writing. They have no proof, as I don't have proof. But to you their "possibilities" "establish" that the vax is NOT the cause. You honestly know neither but attempt to argue for your narrative anyway. BTW, I never stated my beliefs either way. There is most definitely a great number of deaths and adverse events taking place and I'm all for getting to the bottom of the causes. Which is what DeSantis aims to do. In heaven's name, why would you be so adamantly opposed to discovering the real truth about why we are experiencing so many unexplained deaths and destroyed lives? Do you care?

This is to appease @Bkk Brian> ". . . conspiracy theory . . . " Is that all you've got, placeholder? Call everyone who disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist? In essence, any opinion, any at all, which counters yours is automatically a conspiracy theory? I hope you understand that I see right through that tactic. Why don't you counter, in an intellectual, rational fashion, the other article I posted? Or perhaps counter what's in the video I presented? Or is it easier to use bully-boy schoolyard tactics of name calling? Sen. Ron Johnson's panel provides a great deal of expert data and findings, and I hope DeSantis works with him. Is there anything presented there that you disagree with, and over which we can have a rational debate? Or aren't those allowed in your world?