"RING OF POWER"

[Apolan]

Step out of the line of sheep - watch it.

search youtube or mininova.org

[NoHachi]

Oh oh..here we go again

Homework for you: do a google search for "emergent behaviour". The TED talks on the subject could be interesting.

After that, try to imagine the emergent behaviour with "money" as an incentive. See if you still need your big boogyman to explain everything (does make life a lot simpler).

[Apolan]

Ah nohachi, i was expecting your response For once i'd like to hear your opinion instead of getting references to other sources. So if you could elaborate a bit on the subject, that would be appreciated. You're too quick to draw conclusions on my views, i see no boogymen in this documentary, just another side of "truth" which is told in schools/media. What anyone makes of it is his own decision. So please, do share your opinion. Those two lines were far from clarifying to me.

[NoHachi]

No time now, but the emergent behaviour remark was serious. If you want to understand my views, it helps to understand emergent behaviour. And usually the people at TED or similar seminars do a better and more interesting job of explaining it

By the way, it is quite an interesting subject (emergent behaviour, not the "NWO" BS

[Apolan]

Sorry man, but throwing a two word phrase on the table is hardly illuminating. I understand what it means, i read about it when studying for my urban planing course, yet i cant really see the direct connection to my post.

[NoHachi]

Ok, but if you really want to battle this out, then its probably better to do so via msn or something. Slowchatting via the forum would take centuries and probably just lead to a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

Basically: Take creationism. People look at the world around them and conclude that it is very complicated. Suspiciously complicated. So they conclude that there must have been someone planning this, some devine hand guiding all the devellopments on the planet. They search for some evidence and conclude that some things are not fully explained yet, so creationism must be true.

On the other hand you have this old geezer that comes up with a simple rule: natural selection, and goes on to explain many (but not all) things we observe in nature (note that this is an other way of providing evidence). The emergent behaviour of natural selection tends towards a world filled with specialised, complicated and intelligent creatures that we see around us.. Through a lot of small steps.

Which one you believe is irrelevant. To me the whole buisiness of conspiracy theorists is similar to creationsm (in fact many conspiracy theorists go on to doubt Darwinism as well. Most of them ending up with "alien intelligence" kind of theories). You take a look at the world around you and conclude that its complicated. In fact some things (like the war on Iraq) can not be understood if you believe the official story. That is all very good. It is VERY stupid to blatently believe what the media tells you. Especially because most "news" these days is generated by a "yournalist" sitting in his hotelroom spitting through the Reuters newsfeeds.
So things are more complicated then governments want us to believe..
Conspiracy theorists then immediately jump to the extreme conclusion: everything is being controlled by a group of mastermind conspiracy leaders that have controlled the world for centuries. Thats the bit that I don't subscribe to..
I believe that you don't need a global conspiracy to explain the world we see around us. That what you see is the emergent behaviour of a world where everyone egoistically strives to enrich themselves as much as they can, combined with a system where money immediately implies more influence and vice versa.

[Apolan]

And i agree, in a way. My purpose was just to get people thinking - that is the first step. I do not take every sassy conspiracy by heart, but i do think it makes for a good balance to the downright stupid official explanations, stories and lullabies (Reuters right there on top, as you mentioned).

As far as emergence vs. creationism goes - again i think, both are correct in a way. I think its such a fascinating time we live in, when science and spirituallity are finnally comming together. More and more of the "untangible" spiritual phenomena can be even mathematically prooven. The biggest right now beeing the so called "oneness" in the spiritual or the "superstring/unified field theory" in the physics world. Now does this mean that all the spirituallity in the history of mankind was invane? Quite the contrary in my opinion. Its a time of great change and anyone with some sense can understand how "money" cannot exist anymore in the (near) future, as you mentioned. Not with the intelligence/technology/level of conscioussness that we have.

See i dont believe that the state of the world is as such, becuse everyone acts to be a programmed egoist. Not everyone is like that - i would even dare to say more and more are not. Creationists have been mislead by the church and the (un)holy bible, thinking there must be a god, something superior to us all, that controlls everything. This is very passivising.

On the other hand the so called emergence is also passivising in a sense that people do not see their active roll in the process. Here's where the emergent phenomena gets very scketchy - can consciousness be built with such events? I'm sure time will tell, but none the less, we need to realise the active roll that we have. There is no "GOD" above us, we are the GOD. The whole cosmic consciousness is GOD, all the living and "dead" nature, with all of us included.

This is something else i'd like to talk about. Are we our brain? Is our brain our consciousness? "Emergence" would say yes. It is the growing in complexity that provides soutions to ever growing questions/problems. But the big ditch here is that this phenomena is limited only to the part of the vibration/energy spectre that we can sense. The span of "existence" is so great one can only (literally) dream of. Anyone who's ever given meditation at least a semi-decent effort or has had OBE's or shifts of consciousness etc., knows what i'm talking about.

So again, i'm on neither side, because i think its just two sides of the same coin, as clichee as it sounds. But with advances in science on one hand and spirituallity/consciouss awakening on the other both of these will come together, I think. But the emphassis here is that this roll of ours or the role of all the parts in the system is a very active one.

[JonnyAE86]

Zeitgeist is way better and less boring

[NoHachi]

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Some background on Zeitgeist, with some references that (should the impossible occur and someone becomes interested in something as boring as facts) allow people to cross check them.





No kidding-> the fact checking bit is [u:f8d9e9a5d8]boring [/u:f8d9e9a5d8]stuff. I guess thats why most conspiracy nuts don't bother.

[Apolan]

Interesting site. I'm loving the fact that somebody took so much time for this topic, but unfortunately, just the same as zeitgeist this guy is highly motivated to draw (pre-set) conclusions. I gave a site an hour or two and it soon becomes pretty clear that the "research" aspect is far from neutral. I also checked his references and its not very convincing. In my opinion, you can make the same thing look good or bad, choosing or twisting the evidence as see fit.

We people just love to take sides don't we? When it comes to theese conspiracies, you always have two major groups of people; one group will believe everything by default and the other will reject or frown upon everything by default. But this has less to do with what people really belive, than with peoples personalities (or ego). And so, its impossible to get constructive/objective resoults or opinions (well actually there is no such thing as objective opinion is there).

Its a shame that both of these parties work as enemies, where if they would work together, a combined research/discussion would surely bring out the truth - that is what they were set out to find no?