Prophecy is mostly fear mongering
Discussion
humans nearly didn't survive the event 75000 years ago
the amnesia of a short historical memory that keeps getting slashed by a 6400 year cull and the additional influence of people whose entire social status depends on them suppressing any substantive evidence of more than a few centuries of verifiable history means that everything that isn't "business as usual" is fearmongering
the number of evidences of epic disasters is beyond ample to suggest that such a blase attitude towards the future, and inevitable next catastrophe is both foolish and malicious
i'm not here to sell fear, either, the literal meaning of "fear monger"
i'm here to provoke thinking and investigation
believe it or not, there is facts that exist beyond the realms of current human mental models and records
we didn't create this universe, and we can't know what it is without looking and measuring and wondering what the measurements imply
This is why I follow you. Don’t always agree but your posts are thought provoking and trigger me to investigate and contrast with my prior learnings. This is why I am on #nostr - individuals posting their views and perspectives sans the hyperbole triggered by likes and algorithms - it’s what enriches our lives.
There is certainly evidence of patterns, cycles and environmental changes, however, what we don’t know is how fast the change happens and even if it will happen in our lives or the next generation and so on. I guess we’ll never get out alive 😁
Glad to know I'm not the only dark optimist around here nostr:nprofile1qqs2wguqtndxwfg3j8y8sm6d5k8hjlnfwavzxqf4fw5wjx7tqdpde8qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3jamnwvaz7tms09exzmtfvshxv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6qgnwaehxw309aex2mrp09skymr99ehhyec3pp4wx 😂
facts: those who are not equipped with warnings during extreme events are fucked, yes
smarmy superior attitudes are also a sign of such non-survivors, real world requires a weaker sense of certainty
😂 I'm pretty sure there's a lot of attitudes that wouldn't survive a mass extinction event. I don't think survival weighs on incertainty so much as adaptability.
exactly, being uncertain and willing to absorb new information is key
Would you be amenable to the idea that dog domesticated man 1000 or so years before man domesticated dog? 😂
i see the way the goats, sheep and cows look longingly at me and i never saw them before they started this behaviour
i think they started it, they recognised the adaptable, kind protector and warmed us up
same with cats also
not even intentional, per se, just one survivor follows another and the genetic program is printing
It was dogs... We had dogs long before livestock & cats. 😁
indeed, it is arguable that the first pet was a dog
the cat came after agriculture, probably, because of the vermin, the dog would have been part of the domestication of the sheep, goats and cows
and yes, dog is a hunter, and a mammal, mamma doggo is killed by human while doggo tries to hunt human and baby puppy follows hunter back to the village
the rest is entirely predictable
hunting came first, ergo, dogs were the first pet, cats, birds and rats all depend on grain agriculture somewhere in the equation
Gay
Gay
Gay
Gay
Gay
Gay
Yeah, the human/dog duo goes back 50k years... dogs are more scavenger than hunter so I think we were hunting, they were scavanging our scraps & offering protection from other predators because everything is scared of a pack of dogs. They opted to follow the best hunters so they did the conscious selection before we did. At some point we realized that we were no longer getting eaten by bears because of the dogs and began willingly sharing our bounty, marking the completion of our domestication & the beginning of theirs. 😅
indeed, but seriously, every time i pass the young bulls tethered to feed on patches of grass, and the goats and sheep, and the moment they notice me they are staring longingly at me, and i'm like, "hey, i don't know who you are this is kinda weird how you are looking longingly at me"
the whole complex is very clear, a web of organisms that work together and make certain pragmatic sacrifices that are natural to their biological limits to defend and feed each other
and on the 7th day, the Lord said, let's have a BBQ, and the sweet smell of the roasting wafted up to the heavens, and the lord said, feed the scraps to doggo, he made this all possible
🤣 🐕
Humans had to have survived 75k years ago. Not that something catastrophic didn't happen & set things way back but there's pretty clear evidence of migration something like 70k years ago. Or am I mistaken?
the genetic evidence says that as little as 5000 individuals made it through that one
Ok, I thought maybe I misunderstood something.
yeah, the disaster cycle is real, but they want you to believe that you using energy brings on the disaster instead of a giant rippling magnetic flux emanating from the biggest source of electromagnetic forces in our locality (the sun is big, but the galaxy is bigger)
Hmmm, what genetic evidence though? Any sources here?
I don't believe genes are what they're made up to be.
skeptical good
but this is based upon the genetics identified in various aged bones over the last 200k years, and that's what the current estimate is
the evidence of the event that did it is also questionable, if you are proper scientist you question everything, might be wrong, maybe that event was less bad than we thought but the people were just unlucky for no reason at all, just bad luck
idk if you read much Taleb and i hate this bastid nowadays but Fooled by Chance is a study in how we attribute causality where there is nothing but chaos
i'm not that big a fan of the stupid maxim that "what can be attributed to malice is more likely to be caused by stupidity" (because malice loves to induce stupidity) but finding pictures in the noise is another flaw in cognition that can cloud understanding as well, so, you have to actually study it to have a firm opinion
mine is very nebulous, but i like the way it fits with the rest of the data i have absorbed
Agreed and yes I read that book ✅.
My point is that I don't think DNA is much more than a determinant of what proteins can get made. It dues not contain information on morphology etc etc... AND it can morph into entirely different DNA in certain conditions. Inheritance is mostly resonance (morphic fields, ...).
So that's why I'm weary of calculations that use genes as some kind of proof for things like family trees, especially in time periods with violent changes in magnetic + other fields 😅
ah, well, the question of morphology is a good one... one change in the DNA you get 6 fingers or double the height
the morphology stuff is telegraphic and environmentally controlled i think, telegraphic as in, seemingly unrelated small changes in several areas can cause a radically different morphology
part of morphology even comes from how the growth accumulates, the "scaling" part of the process of growth
Curious what you believe about genetics here?
First book that made questions the mainstream genetic view was Morphic Resinance, by Rupert Sheldrake.
Inheritance through genes is a storyline where the math and many other things don't work out.
Thousand of fun examples like two headed plenarain worms inheriting the two heads (that humans created by changing the magnetic field around the worms) without any change in their DNA base pairs.
That does open up a lot of possibility.
Sounds wild 🔥 Putting it on my reading list
Curiosity continuum, here goes another 🐇 🕳️ 😂
In "Morphic Resonance," Rupert Sheldrake delves into a series of provocative questions that challenge conventional scientific understanding and encourage readers to think beyond established paradigms. Here are some of the most intriguing questions raised by Sheldrake, along with a deeper exploration of their implications:
1. **What is the nature of memory in biological systems?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** Sheldrake proposes that memory is not stored solely in the brain or genetic material but is embedded in morphic fields that transcend individual organisms. This idea suggests that memories can be accessed non-locally and are shared across species and generations.
- **Implications:** This challenges the traditional understanding of memory as a biochemical process confined to the brain. If true, it could revolutionize fields such as neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary biology, suggesting that behaviors and habits can be inherited through means other than DNA.
2. **How do organisms develop their forms and behaviors?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** According to Sheldrake, the development of forms and behaviors in organisms is guided by morphic fields, which are shaped by the cumulative experiences of past organisms. This means that the growth patterns and behaviors of an organism are influenced by a collective memory.
- **Implications:** This question calls into question the exclusive role of genetic information in development and opens the possibility that learning and adaptation can occur much more rapidly than previously thought. It suggests a mechanism for how complex structures and behaviors can emerge without a direct genetic blueprint.
3. **Can the concept of morphic resonance explain phenomena such as telepathy and instinctive behaviors?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** Sheldrake suggests that phenomena like telepathy and instinctive behaviors may be explained by morphic resonance, where individuals can influence each other across distances through shared fields. This could account for the seemingly instantaneous transmission of information and coordinated behaviors observed in some animal species.
- **Implications:** If morphic resonance can explain telepathy and instinct, it would provide a scientific framework for understanding these phenomena, which are often relegated to the realm of the paranormal. This could have profound implications for understanding communication and behavior in both humans and animals.
4. **What role do habits play in evolution and development?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** Sheldrake posits that habits, rather than being solely the result of genetic mutations and natural selection, are also influenced by morphic fields. Habits can thus be inherited and reinforced over time through repeated behaviors, creating a collective memory that shapes future generations.
- **Implications:** This view suggests that evolution is not just a random process but is guided by the accumulated habits of past organisms. It implies a more directed and rapid form of evolution where behaviors can be transmitted across generations without genetic changes, potentially explaining the rapid emergence of complex traits.
5. **How do morphic fields interact with physical fields and forces?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** Sheldrake explores the possibility that morphic fields interact with known physical fields (like electromagnetic fields) and forces (such as gravity) to influence the physical world. This interaction could provide a bridge between the material and informational aspects of reality.
- **Implications:** Understanding how morphic fields interact with physical fields could lead to a unified theory of biology and physics, offering new insights into the fundamental nature of reality. It could also pave the way for technological advancements based on manipulating morphic fields.
6. **Is there a collective consciousness shared among living organisms?**
- **Sheldrake’s Perspective:** The concept of morphic resonance implies a form of collective consciousness where experiences and knowledge are shared among members of a species or even across different species. This collective consciousness is mediated by morphic fields.
- **Implications:** This idea challenges the notion of individual consciousness as isolated and self-contained. It suggests that consciousness is a shared phenomenon, potentially leading to a deeper understanding of social behaviors, empathy, and the interconnectedness of life.
By raising these questions, Rupert Sheldrake encourages a re-examination of fundamental scientific concepts and opens the door to exploring new avenues of research. Whether one agrees with his theories or not, the questions themselves are valuable for pushing the boundaries of scientific inquiry and fostering a deeper exploration of the mysteries of life and the universe.
How many things that just tie together is mind-blowing enough... trying to apply those concepts to archeological discoveries is so very, very difficult for me to wrap my brain around... but somehow it always circles back 😂