Ok cool, I though so too.
Ok thats interesting. See this is where I find it strange and almost a conspiracy to say nothing is going on. Because there is too much of something strange going on lol.
Its actually a good parallel. We have actual data of images and video before our eyes. We have testimony from average Joe Blows up to Pentagon level under congressional hearings.
How do you know this is all fake and imagination. Where is the evidence showing this is just imagination or some other phenomena.
I'm still waiting for one that is convincing. all vague or laughable.
I am very self aware. You underestimate me.
Are you? You seem to almost grasp that you are being fed "ancient aliens" level stuff (and the kissing cousin of it) but run away screaming when it is mentioned.
How do you think say a scientist can also be a Christian or believe in some transcedent reality. Cannot they reconcile them both.
Not relevant. No one made these claims.
This seems to be the assumption that because people believe or are open to alternative ideas or realities that they must be somehow deluded in some way. Not quite understanding reality or where its at.
But the ironic thing I think is that now even science is opening up to the idea of alternative ways of being aware. So what is being 'self aware;. Is it just withing the temporal world or does it expand beyond. Is the temporal worldview the surface and what is beyond is the fundemental which is beyond the objective reality we navigate through.
Why should I consider evidence presented from a realm that isn't even demonstrated?
I mean what about Simulation theory,
Foolish nonsense propagated by dude-bros sparking it up who have no idea what a real simulation takes.
or IIT or the other Information,
Don't know what that is.
A branch of knowledge, not related to this topic at all.
Mind based theories of reality.
You know already that I think it is bunk and unphysical.
Are they all quackery as well.
Math isn't.
Lol, its not a dodge. I have already acknowledged the material scientific or naturalistic knowledge of the world and reality. I am just saying that there are alternative ways of knowing the world, nature and reality.
Then post them in the "alternative reality" section of CF. This section is for science and science is *definitionally* naturalistic.
That its more than the gradualistic and reductionist worldview. Everything has to fall within methological naturalism and anything outside is not true knowledge. This is not science but epistemics and metaphysics. Its not a dodge to keep pointing this out.
No, then it is not science and it is off topic for this thread.
Actually no they don't. This is the whole point. You are accusing them of being a certain way. When I have actually heard or read out of the mouths of the people themselves clearly stating that (it was not about aliens or Atlantis) or stuff like that.
Now you may find from links on some sites to such ideas. But the actual people I am linking have clearly stated the exact opposite.
Oh, come on. Your very first post links a video by "Michael Button" who also has a video on his channel that is an *interview* on Hancock's channel. Should we talk about more of them or will you dismiss those as well?
Button is a "featured speaker" at an upcoming nut-job conference where one of the other speakers is Billy Carson.
If any idea like the precision vases or pyramids generating energy or other effects, or ancients or indigenous peoples pocessing alternative knowledge about nature ect. This is not alients or Atlantis and I have tried to link evidence for such.
When they lift the vagueness of their claims, it is absolutely the fantasy "alt reality" stuff.
So please stop assuming and trying your level best to strawman what I am saying with some stereotypical assumption about anyone who suggest or is open to alternative ways of knowing as far as epistemics and metaphysics go. This is an aspect of human reality I know well.
I am assuming nothing. All it takes is a brief look "under the covers" at who these people are to see. That you resist is telling.