Messages

I've been kicking this idea around for a couple days and want to see what others think of it.

This branches off from the idea that we create our own realities; that everything we see as solid is just energy we've all agreed to interpret as solid.

The idea is that the difference between a dream and Frank's F4 is the number of other beings you're 'plugged in to', and possibly how much influence those other beings have on your reality. In a dream state, it might be only yourself creating your environment, or maybe there's some influence from another entity too, etc. Frank described F4 as being a total loss of self and merging with countless other beings, so this would be a reality with much more influence from many other beings. So there you have two extremes that we know of, and in between those extremes would fall our daily 3D, and F3, and the RTZ and possibly even being high off of weed and other such experiences; all would be dependent upon your relations to the realities of everyone else, from no relation at all, to a definite merging of realities, to everything in between.

This is just an idea I've been playing around with. I still don't know what I think of it, and thought maybe you guys could add some input on it. It seems to make some sense to me, but there's a part of me that just doesn't resonate with it for some reason that I can't put my finger on.

You may be sensitive to cannabis, from reports many users who are sensitive hear voices on marijuana. The medical profession labels these people borderline schizophrenic. The Medical system believes many schizophrenics are triggered into their condition by using marijuana.

Hearing voices is a symptom... schizophrenia is the label of the medical profession... i don't believe much in the medical model.

I wouldn't put much stock into that "medical profession" take on this, either.

I've studied psychology, and medically speaking, you either have schizophrenia, and you're going to develop it later in life anyway (supposing you live long enough -- most people develop it pretty early in life though), or you don't have it, and never will be able to have it. If it runs in your family, you have much better chances of having it, so in those regards it seems to be a genetic thing and not related to taking even insane amounts of drugs. You also have to match a whole list of criteria before being clinically diagnosed as schizophrenic, and you have to meet each and every criteria. Otherwise, you're suffering from something else, if you could call it suffering at all. LSD has been known to bring out dormant schizophrenia, and maybe other hallucinogens that cause hard trips, but I doubt that marijuana could do much unless you smoke an insane amount.

you can't know truth when your mind is perceiving a falsened reality.

Maybe just me, but I don't believe in a fake reality. I say if you're experiencing something, it's real.

Check this out:

http://www.schizophrenia.com/

Is it allright for me to edit out the words?

Of course it is. Just open it up in Paint and go to work.

There's nothing illegal about that, especially since the editing is for your own personal use.

Agnosticism isn't much concerned with answering the "God" questions, or at least doesn't care to commit to any particular answers. (If I would call myself anything, it would be agnostic, and I don't even like the term "God" to begin with.)

I think the major difference between a Christian and an agnostic, is that the Christian is a bit more hard and fast with their silliness than the agnostic would ever be.

An agnostic might tell you straight up, "dunno," or "doesn't matter to me," while a Christian will usually maintain that s/he must be fundamentally right, with no room for doubt (and I suppose this is what they call "faith" - and not having it is a no-no ).

Maybe you should get the hell out of Israel, Jenia. I mean, seriously, I don't have anything particular in mind, but Israel isn't exactly the safest country in the world nowadays. If friends and family of mine were sharing my dreams, and they were of that nature, I would be trying to get the hell out.


Speaking a little more scientifically, a psychologist might say that the reason you've all had these dreams is that you share a common fear of nuclear conflict, even if you're not consciously aware of it.

This seems unlikely to me because of the coinciding of dates and details, but that's nonetheless what you'd probably hear: social behavior/thinking common to both the US and Israel.

I'm guessing you will be a sucker for the next 'Iran is a clear and present danger and planning to launch an all out attack on the US' style headline, just like the one made up for Iraq. Will some people never learn?

The propoganda machine is already warming back up. Nukes this time, of course. One'll go off somewhere or something equally traumatic, and then we'll just have to go invade Iran.

They have such pretty cities, too.



That's a so-called "target-rich environment." So many people are dying over there already, can we please leave those people alone?

Here are some resources:

http://iota.goetia.net/info/CMT.htm
http://www.spiralnature.com/magick/chaos/
http://altreligion.about.com/od/chaosmagick/

I think you're confused on this as microevolution can be directly observed without the need for fossil records.

Glance to what I was responding.

Macroevolution was very well established (before the discovery of DNA) by the fossil record which established the connection between all the major taxas and kingdoms; though certainly we have not, and I dare say we will never have, a direct connecting line at the species level for all living and extinct organisms.

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I posted. It's impractical if not impossible to prove macro-evolution when there are so many fossils missing to illustrate so many assumed links. Now, I'm far from a creationist. I don't have any problems with the idea that organisms evolve. There are some things, like the appearance of modern man, and the domestication of certain animals, that come with conventional "scientific" views that don't sit right with me, but those are different issues and not related to the evolution-in-schools thing.

These religious talking-point issues, like the made-up "war on christmas" and teaching creationism and all that b.s., are all geared towards making the US an even more Christian country, and for no good reason. It's a psychological thing. Associate the state with your religion and you're that more compliant and trusting of them, and they're thereby allowed that much more power to do controversial things. Not to mention all the propoganda based around religion they can then drum up so easily, but we've already seen some of that with Bush's "God told me to" war justifications.

The fossil records have already proven evolution to be true.

Fossils can provide evidence for micro-evolution. I don't think there's any evidence for macro-evolution. Not to mention, there have been a lot of oddities along the way for which neither can reasonably account.

How do you channel Satan like that? Every time I try, I hear what sounds sort of like ... ph'nglui mglw'nafh cthulhu r'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn... then... the voice of willy Cheney?   :question:

So spill it: how do you do that?

May I ask where that comes from? and is there any more like it?

Honestly I can't remember. When you asked for such a picture, that one immediately came to mind for me but I didn't know where to find it again. Turns out I had saved it to my comp along with some other art, so I uploaded it to PutFile.

Have you seen the picture of the Astral Pulse Island? Or you can use Google Image Search and search for key terms, like 'open field' (not so many trees, lol) or 'spacescape' or whatever key words you think will help you hone in on the right image.

Hope that helps. At any rate, good luck.

Somewhere that someone would go to get away from everything
With the apparence that it is the only place in existance

That reminded me of this image:

http://x12.putfile.com/11/32901390247.jpg

I was expecting someone had taken Buddhism and given it some kind of Satanic spin or something, but that link is actually pretty nice.

Thanks for sharing!

There is no illness that hasn't been overcome by at least one person.

Here's a site that claims people cured of AIDS:

http://www.the-comforter.org/html/aids.htm

They link to scans of medical reports to confirm the text on their site. I suppose if you verification you can call the hospital number mentioned on the reports.

Rule #3:
You answer to your corporate bosses.

Actually, Fox News, for example, is known to send out memos to its anchors and other personalities, letting them know which stories the network is interested in and how to be cover them (ie, with what sort of bias).

CaCo,

'In Plane Site' is one of the older documentaries, and makes some faulty points, like the alleged objects attached to the planes, and a lot of the info regarding the Pentagon, etc., so you might want to keep an eye out for the info it presents in particular. The same goes for any of these documentaries, though.

Here are a listing of documentaries and the Coast to Coast AM show that you can download:

http://www.911wasalie.com/avalon/index.php?

I haven't seen them all, but what I've seen of 'Loose Change' seems pretty accurate and covers a range of info.

There's another very nice resource here: http://911research.wtc7.net/

Wooo! Maybe I'll see you here and not even realize it. XD

Nah, there's just a date in December of 2012 that the Mayans held in extremely high regard for some spiritual purpose. All their calendars ended on that date, because it's the end of a large cycle, so a lot of people assumed that the world was therefore going to end according to the Mayans, etc. I'm not aware of the Mayans ever saying what would physically happen then, if anything, but the cycle itself at least was apparently pretty important to them.

This new planet business seems like it's becoming pretty trivial. I'm still waiting for the body that's pulling on the outer planets to be discovered. They know it's out there because of the great amount of gravity it exerts. So where is it?

These are the types of articles I want to read: http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/news.htm

You might be clicking on broken links. Which ones exactly aren't working?

The things from that site that will actually do work as advertised, you can probably find online for free with a few Google searches.

He's comparing life to a computer game. Sort of like Shakespeare's comparison of life to a play. "And all the men and women merely players," except maybe there's more to it than that after the play.

I think we may just think in totally different ways here, Telos. I'm apparently severely right-brained anyway so it probably shouldn't be very surprising that I would have trouble comprehending certain perspectives.

Just to be clear, by "and they would know" I was not suggesting that they had intercepted al Qaeda plans or anything like that. But yes, they will lie and distort, of course. Again, this may just be propoganda.

Thanks for the info, Chohan.

I took notice of this:

Russian Intelligence Agencies are reporting today that the ongoing Secret War being conducted between various Intelligence Agencies in both the United States and Israel against each other has taken a most ominous turn as retaliatory killings have begun over what the United States believes was Israel's masterminding of the September 11, 2001 massacre in New York City...

The US and Israel must have some common agenda or goal with current events. I'm not sure exactly what, whether its mutual financial and territorial gains or what, but I don't believe Israel was the ultimate behind the attacks, and I think our intelligence agencies are well aware of that. After all, it was willy Cheney himself that was preventing a NORAD response to flights 11 and 77, and Cheney isn't Israeli at all. He's just, like Bush, a rich puppet that was formerly in the oil business and knows how to serve his masters.

Since the attacks, most of the benefits have been in our own favor, with getting Iraq off of the euro and back on the dollar (something that is really troubling the US - OPEC countries are considering the euro after China and Japan have already dropped supporting our currency), and of course the oil issue itself, and our new, huge military budget. The Israeli government is little better than our own, I'm sure, but what exactly their specific agenda and benefit is, I couldn't tell you. I don't think Iraq, or even Iran or Syria, was much of a threat to them.

Maybe Israel really is just the 51st state.

I pay no attention to any of it. I actually say bring it, but I am a little sick in the head

Same here, man. Of course I would rather none of this happen, and everyone live in peace and harmony and all that utopian jazz. But since a hopeless number of people are dense in true 1984 fashion, I say do what you will. I the mean time, why not enjoy the ride?

It's simplicity was not in the number of assumptions, but that it would explain two things at once. The idea would take out both the origin of UFOs and whether or not we've been visited by time travelers at the same time if it were true, as opposed to trying to explain each thing separately with its own line of assumptions. If we criticize assumptions themselves, then we should drop the whole conversation immediately because none of what either of us are saying has much going for it besides creative thinking. I didn't say I believed any of this, either, and thus the last part of my post (besides the wrong forum bit).

I understand it might seem fruitless at first, but consider the assumptions you've made... in 300,000 years we will have abandoned our current trend of cybernetics and genetic manipulation and continue to interface with computers as we do now? In that vast amount of time we will have sheepishly evolved around computers and not engineered computers to evolve around us?

It is safer to assume that our biotech trends will continue and our relationship with computers will change (into what, that is another line of inquiry), because such things are already happening now. Why would we engineer ourselves to have small, weak bodies?

I was basing my idea off of assumptions of..

1) hair becoming obsolete from not needing protection from the cold,
2) the sense of smell becoming obsolete, or at least much less useful,
3) eyes having to adjust to more strain (unless of course we compensate this ourselves artificially),
4) less use for manual labor,

etc... which would, as I see it, constitute less hair, a weaker/smaller nose, smaller frames, etc.

Weaker doesn't necessarily mean better or worse here, but just adapted for different purposes, just as we're physically weaker than Neanderthals, and yet we're the ones that survived. If we continue with modern trends, how much hunting do you expect will be necessary in the future? How much do you think we'll rely on our sense of smell? How much do you think we'll need hair to maintain our body heat, if we continue living in artificially heated homes? I expect more labor will become automated, as well, with fewer exceptions than today even. The most demanding activities would likely be sports, if they even continue to still exist. That's how I see it, anyway, if nothing will happen in the mean time to send us back to sticks and stones and we continue our current trends.

Your story appears more complex than the notion that by that time we'll have reconstructed ourselves using nanobots, because nanotechnology is already in use today.

Reconstructed ourselves into what exactly? More ancient forms of ourselves, simply to retain/regain our physical strength? Why? I can see how such technology would be used to fight disease or aging, but there are more practical reasons behind those sorts of things.

And that should we ever travel back in time we would do so using these miniscule machines, because the energy requirements would be lower and the device easier to construct (current theoretical possibilities of backwards time travel depend on wormholes of minute proportions).

There may indeed be time travellers here. And the reason we haven't met them is because they are so small, which is to their advantage, especially if they practice non-interference.

No reason for me to object to this, but theoretical science does have a tendency to change over time. Maybe this is exactly what will happen in the future, or maybe by the time we can actually do these kinds of things (if ever), we will haven taken a completely different approach. I don't see how there is not an assumption in the proposition that our current theoretical sciences will not have changed by then.