It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
reply to post by Nevertheless
I take umbrage to the condescension in your replies.
In fact I blame your closed mindedness and others like you in their pseudo-scientific faux authority on any subject, for the lack of any real great advancements in science over the past 50 years.
Now I'm not saying we haven't made great technological advances but everything we have done is building on great 'eureka' discoveries of yesteryear.
Phones, telecommunications, genetics, have made great strides, but the same 'psuedo-intellectuals' who espouse today's science would be the same ones who would have scoffed at Edison or Tesla.
Could you imagine just a few hundred years ago telling the world's top scientists that there are 'frequencies' that would enable humans to speak with one another over oceans? To see pictures of people on other continents?
"How silly" would be the reply of the 1760 version of Nevertheless. His smirky and useless retort would be "where is the evidence? Not possible."
Well, our current society has to thank those noble men, who dare to think outside of paradigms entrenched by those who would be better off doing data processing rather than theory.edit on 18-5-2013 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
Re; Nevertheless
Science has yet to give a satisfactory explanation for animal instincts.
The fact you failed to copy and paste a useless reply to that notion speaks volumes.
It is not a far fetched concept to theorize (yet) unidentified frequency to account for species communication via subconscious.
Biologists have noted similarities in the animal kingdom albeit different degrees. African Elephants can communicate over frequencies undetectable to the human ear, over many miles. When one elephant in a herd is in duress, other elephants can 'detect' a low frequency stress signal from miles away.
If you have something of value to add to this discussion, go for it. If you want to close your eyes & ears crying "nope, nope" take your copy and paste sideshow somewhere else.edit on 19-5-2013 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FlyersFan
I think this is an interesting idea - but I don't think it has to be metaphysical to still be interesting
People are social creatures - and we pass information on to each other in so many different ways. Who knows that we aren't picking up cues we're not even aware of. Advertising is one of the first things that comes to mind - understanding how to lead people to an idea - and have them think it was theirs to begin with
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The early information on this alleged effect has been widely discredited.
Science doesn't seem to be able to prove it exists.
However, DOES IT?? (I don't know ... I'm asking .... )
Is there a 'global mind' that all of humanity is a part of, but that we are unaware of?
What do you think? Hundredth Monkey Effect ... yes or no??
Group Global Consciousness? Yes or no?
And I guess shared Karmic debt would enter into this as well.
Does it exist? What do you think and why?
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
I fully believe that the 100th Monkey effect is a true phenomenon. Once a behavior becomes 'ingrained' into a species, this behavior becomes what we scientifically label as 'instinct'.
What does the scientific world have to say on species' instinctive responses?
What missing piece of the evolutionary theorem acts as a catalyst for species change?
I would say the 100th monkey effect and a collective subconscious is a very reasonable explanation for what we deem "instinct".
If you consider the idea of a global consciousness (and/or an external creator/control), was that statement you made, really "your" idea to detail in the post?
Could it not be argued that you just read/interpreted the post you have replied to and then came to the conclusion about what you were going to write based on the experiences and knowledge you have been able to understand from your life time to date?
Could it be argued that you have just been used to "advertise" something from a higher/deeper/outer level ("a statement", rather than "your opinion") to those reading the reply this post is to?
Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WebOfWonder
I'm honored - that you chose to make your first and only post a reply to me...
Feels special :-)
If you consider the idea of a global consciousness (and/or an external creator/control), was that statement you made, really "your" idea to detail in the post?
How can anyone answer this question? Built into your question is an assumption neither you or I can prove or disprove. Not only that - it's an idea that alludes to something that would obviously overwrite anything I might think, feel or say - if it exists
So, the better question isn't how can I answer your question - but why should I bother? :-)
Anyhow - was it really 'your' idea to ask me this question? Is there a way we can know the answer - to these questions? Will we ever know the answers - to these questions?
Could it not be argued that you just read/interpreted the post you have replied to and then came to the conclusion about what you were going to write based on the experiences and knowledge you have been able to understand from your life time to date?
Well - of course. Isn't this pretty much what we all do - all the time?
Could it be argued that you have just been used to "advertise" something from a higher/deeper/outer level ("a statement", rather than "your opinion") to those reading the reply this post is to?
Are you saying I'm more or less a TV set?
It could be argued - like this, or many other ways. Doesn't make it so. But it is fun to argue
If you want to hypothetically suggest that my opinion is a message sent from on high - then the message coming down to us from on high - through me - is that this is all very interesting
Still doesn't have to be magic to be interesting
:-)
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
reply to post by NorEaster
I see where you're coming from with regard to Homo Sapiens 'not having' an immediately observable collective consciousness. Or rather 'if' there was one that influenced behavior, it would be prolonged over many generations, thus requiring imperceptible changes to our DNA.
Is that the gist of your thoughts?
If so, consider 'lesser' species such as ant colonies and bee-hives that seemingly live within this 'modus operandi'.
They scurry about, with behaviour that seemingly indicates a 'hive mind' without external communication, but rather a co-ordinated objective, ingrained. It's as if one ant can 'subconsciously' communicate directives to others at a relatively great distance.
This is also the same as bees, flocks of birds, buffalo herds, etc, etc.
It is only to the outside observer that this behavior is identified. Do you think that these animals are 'aware' that they are a part of this 'group mind', or do they simply execute this behavior?
What if, (now this is a large what if), we were to be observed as an ant colony to a larger observer? With generations of Homo Sapien Species being nothing more than fractions of a larger picture in time?
Could analogies not be made?
But I would argue that the one thing that is preprogrammed is the initial framework for how you will percieve the world. Is this due to your biology? Possibly....but it is still there. Thus, when your psychologist tells you that your ego is this or that, despite the fact that ego is an abstract construct, it is able to be identified and discussed because we all have it. It is part and parcel to how we approach the world.
Could this be part of that message from on high?
What about the concept of "soul" or "spirit"?
How much of your life have you actually controlled?
Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WebOfWonder
I read your post WebOfWonder - twice
You went to some trouble to lead me down a path - and I understand where you're going. But all I can really respond to is this:
How much of your life have you actually controlled?
If you're suggesting that none of it was up to me - first of all I have to say, you haven't proven anywhere in all your examples that my influence on my own life is - nil. Next, I'm gonna have to ask - who was it made all those choices for me then - if not me?
:-)