Archaeologica.org

Interested Onlooker wrote:

I would have to agree with what you all were saying. What I'm having trouble understanding is how do we account for these inate qualities. It may be laziness, but it is easier for me to agree that there was an "un-earthly" influence to account for these characteristics vs. acquiring them from evolutionary random mutations and the applied natural selection pressures.

I'm not willing to go as far to suggest what this outside influence might be.

Why are you assuming an "outside influence"? Why not an inside influence? Could it not be that this enhanced state of consciousness (however achieved) brings us into a more holistic reality that the one we currently experience.

Scientists say we only see or perceive one per cent of "what is", and that we only use about five per cent of our brain. Scientists also can only explain five per cent of the material universe - the rest of it they call "dark energy", an imaginery substance because it cannot be perceived or measured tangibly, thus you just have to have faith in its existence - rather like God or gods wouldn't you say?

So 1 per cent is perceiving 5 per cent with only 5 per cent of the brain. What about the rest? Where is it? What's really going on?

Ishtar wrote: Scientists say we only see or perceive one per cent of "what is", and that we only use about five per cent of our brain. Scientists also can only explain five per cent of the material universe - the rest of it they call "dark energy", an imaginery substance because it cannot be perceived or measured tangibly, thus you just have to have faith in its existence - rather like God or gods wouldn't you say?

So 1 per cent is perceiving 5 per cent with only 5 per cent of the brain. What about the rest? Where is it? What's really going on?

The use of only 5 (or 10)% of our brains has been overstated. Check out this recent article from Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=peo ... t-of-brain

That being said, i, too question the assumption that there is an 'outside influence' when i see no evidence of such. And my own experience says there is alot more to us than 'they' would have us believe. Whoever 'they' may be in any given circumstance. Then again, i try not to believe anything either.

dannan14 wrote:
That being said, i, too question the assumption that there is an 'outside influence' when i see no evidence of such. And my own experience says there is alot more to us than 'they' would have us believe. Whoever 'they' may be in any given circumstance. Then again, i try not to believe anything either.

What do you mean by "they would have us believe". If you mean religion, they are operating on the same limited perception as everyone else. They don't have any hidden secrets to reveal to us.

The Christians starting systematically destroying any evidence to all of this about 1,800 years ago with book burnings, destruction of libraries, burnings at the stake and so on, and this carried on until relatively recently. The end result is that they have more or less succeeded in wiping out all traces of the mystic/shamanic experience and so we no longer know who are and we have lost our birthright.

Btw - that's an interesting article but it's written by a journalist who only sees a small perentage of what is about scientists who also see only a small percentage of what is. That way, we reinforce the collective conciousness of what is - but it' s not the whole story.

Natural selection is about 'thinning the herd'...seems like a lot of extra baggage we're lugging around if we're not using it.

This is why I lean towards the idea that we've been subject to a 'foreign' influence.

Interested Onlooker wrote:Natural selection is about 'thinning the herd'...seems like a lot of extra baggage we're lugging around if we're not using it.

This is why I lean towards the idea that we've been subject to a 'foreign' influence.

I don't follow your logic. We can't use the luggage if we can't see it. It's as if our ancestors were forced to put this baggage in a Left Luggage Locker, and then someone threw away the key. Because of that, we lost our connection to the natural world and our perspective of our place in it, and now we are just about to make ourselves extinct. Is that 'natural selection'?

So. you think it was aliens...or gods or something we can't yet understand?It has always seemed odd to me that civilization sprung up pretty fast and things changed quickly after that. I'm not willing to say it was aliens, but it does seem that some major change occured. Maybe it was just "enlightenment". Maybe an extraordinary person came along and opened everyone's eyes...or brainwashed them to his way of thinking. Maybe it jusr snowballed like the industrial revolution, where one advancement opened the door for other advancements. Maybe things didn't really happen as quickly as we pervieve that they did. This is a great discussion.

This is been stringing along for six pages and I have been waiting patiently for I/O to get to the point. Just say it, dude.

Ishtar wrote: What do you mean by "they would have us believe". If you mean religion, they are operating on the same limited perception as everyone else. They don't have any hidden secrets to reveal to us.

By 'they' i actually meant the point of view of the mythical 'average person'. Of course religion is a part of that since most people (and i am talking about the US since i've never been abroad) claim to believe in God even if they aren't active in any particular religion. In my experience, most folks who hear me talk about developing non-physical senses or exploring one's own mind meet me with blank stares or exclamations of disbelief.

i did not mean that the 'they' were hiding anything. 'They' just don't like to come out of their comfy little shells.

Btw - that's an interesting article but it's written by a journalist who only sees a small perentage of what is about scientists who also see only a small percentage of what is. That way, we reinforce the collective conciousness of what is - but it' s not the whole story.

That was the first article i found when writing my last post. i've seen alot of similar articles over the last 5 years or more. i think in this case science really is zipping along faster than usual. Science needs to be able to measure something to be able to understand it. It needs to understand to be able to explain. That is why it has taken centuries for science to just barely begin to realize that old wisdom isn't just old wives tales.

Forum Monk - I guess my thread title should be changed to "civilization questions".

This forum is a good sounding board with different perspectives. Probably the only thing most of us have in common is our interest in archeology. I've really appreciated the feedback I've received. It keeps me honest and my thoughts in check.

Frank - You could be right and it was simply an enlightenment with the advent of writing, for example. As we see today, the more effectively information spreads, the faster technology accelerates. It really might just be as simple as writing was the differentiaing factor, used to teach, for record keeping and as a method to enforce accountability upon a large group of people to laws.

On the other hand, a godly influence does jive with the ancient histories of all the major civilizations. Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc...even the Bible, track a lineage from god(s). Alexander the Great believed he was a descendant of Zeus...could have been an ego thing.

If there was a godly influence to a select group and this select group integrated with 'evolutionary man', history would support this when referencing the written histories of most of the civilizations of our past. Their history is what we now call mythology. However, there can be some elements of truth to these embellished stories.

So...what if there was this planet .. uh .. on a highly elliptical orbit so we we can't detect it right now. And what if it's populated by a superior race who visited ancient man when they were lost in the darkness of non-intelligent, non-communicative, dullard existences. And what if this race somehow altered these ancient men, genetically somehow, and soon they could speak, write and think. And they called the superior beings Anunnaki or Nephilim. But then they had to leave and they told the newly enlightened ancient people, they would be back and they gave them certain knowledge encoded into massive structures to remind them. But a sort of knowledge-dark-age took over, and certain priests destroyed the ancient books and wisdom and defaced the writing and we are only just now beginning to rediscover the real truth.

Oops. Wrong board. How do you delete a post again?

I was thinking about writing a sci-fi book along those lines. It's interesting, but only believable if you go into it willing to suspend your disbelief, as sci-fi readers do. Also part of the plot would be the inclinarion of mankind built in by the aliens, to collect gold and jewels and stockpile them so that, un-beknownst to us, the aliens could pick it all up when they return.....to check on us.....or whatever. Yeah wrong forum............sorry.

Yes, it is the wrong forum. That is not the same subject at all and by linking it to this one, it belittles its validity as a point for discussion.

We're not talking here about outside influences like the so-called Nephilim or some such science fiction, but about an inate ability that we no longer understand and have lost our connection with. Above the gate at Delphi, where we came in with this discussion, were the words: Know Yourself.

Their history is what we now call mythology. However, there can be some elements of truth to these embellished stories.

They are not embellished stories of historical events. Mythology is made of stories that are totally made up from start to finish. Their purpose is not to record history. Their purpose is to serve as allegory and metaphor for what what we now call shamanic or mystical experiences. These are inner experiences, and not outer.

FM, your comment ...

This is been stringing along for six pages and I have been waiting patiently for I/O to get to the point. Just say it, dude.

is in almost direct contradiction to Frank's ...

This is a great discussion.

Everything is just a matter of perception.

Everything is just a matter of perception.

And my guess is that neither of them needed drugs to make those observations.

Interested Onlooker:

I'm not willing to go as far to suggest what this outside influence might be.

I should leave it at this regarding this topic since it is way too easy to scrutinize and there has never been conlcusive evidence that an outside influence occurred.

Getting back to the main question regarding a global connection....

Has anyone, on this board, done any research on the earliest domesticated dogs in South America?