Brian Gross

Portland, OR, United States

Someone is shy

Brian hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

182839
Brian Gross
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
I will reply here because the other spaces are full. So Pat, why exactly do you feel Graham's talk is not worth spreading or having a conversation about? Why is Mr. Hancock's work just a crazy loon compared to the "real scientist doing the real work"? What is this real work being done? I am genuinely interested. Seems Hancock doesn't deserve to beg these questions in your eyes because ( even though he makes no claims about the reality status of these entities ) you are saying he IS saying they are real. I disagree. Seems more like he is saying he believes in these entities along with a well documented culture of people who also believe. "Every legitimate scientific idea has to cross a threshold of basic rational plausibility before it's worthy of serious consideration." Says who? You? Science? I don't believe Hancock was expressing a "legitimate scientific idea." To me it appears that Graham was expressing an idea that questions our perception of ourselves and science. Whatever man. Your mind looks like its made up. I don't care what you think. What I do care about is people or institutions telling others what to think. Who gets that job anyway? The smart people get that job right? The scientist get it. Good thing the really smart people are figuring everything out for us. I didn't want to think anyway.
182839
Brian Gross
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
No basis because it is not there, or YOU have no basis because you do not have any education or experience in Ayahuasca? The proof may be in the pudding. Maybe you should educate yourself first and try the Ayahuasca experience before you claim someone's idea or conversation is unworthy. Maybe?
182839
Brian Gross
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Dear TED stooges, If you are coming in here to debate if TED has the right to remove videos from their website, just stop. Obviously TED can do what ever the hell they want with their brand. This is not the point, and you know it. Seems like all of the pro TED comments are about TED's right to manage their brand. What ever. We get it. The REAL debate is: Is this talk interesting? Is this talk worthy of honest consideration? If so, why? If not, why? Is the gesture of labeling Mr. Hancock "pseudoscience" appropriate or valid? Were TED's actions to remove this talk actually the right thing to do? The actual topics Graham tried to highlight in his talk ( Consciousness, The War on Consciousness, The State of Humanity and the Planet ) These points are debatable, not TED's right to censor. Just because TED has a right to manage themselves as they see fit does not make it right.
182839
Brian Gross
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
I feel that pretty much anyone who digested this talk properly within Graham's context would assimilate that Mr. Hancock is mostly asking questions; and asking the listener to ask questions. Few objective statements were made, and most of those were about the state of the planet and the impact humanity has imposed. Most of what Graham shared was not solely his opinion. No, these practices and traditions with psychedelic substances are at least centuries old. Fact is nobody knows how old, but OLD. Ancient is a good word for it. You would think that could be substantial for some credit. Apparently not in the eyes of the court of nameless people who feel this is too fringe for their brand. Cut the shit. Graham didn't declare anything. He did not say "everyone needs to take this drug to fix the world." He simply invited the willing. He shared his experience, and reported on the history and culture of this sacred medicine. Mr. Hancock was not wreckless at all and did not state any science facts. To me it seems as if Graham just wants this to be a topic of conversation and cautiously invited anyone willing to check this out for themselves. It is disgusting that nameless people are trying to label and defame this man because he wants to induce conversation. I am not surprised by this action at all though. Seems pretty obvious that there is a directive, governed by who knows, to suppress psychedelics and their inherent capabilities. The group telling you that this ancient brew and marijuana are the worst things in the world for you, is the same group telling you that cigarettes and alcohol currently get a thumbs up. They know cigarettes and Mc Donalds can kill, they just don't care; but they do care if you use psychedelics. This is not about Graham Hancock and whether or not he is a credible scientist. This is about information and minimizing conversation. This conversation will close in 13 days, 7 hours and 23 minutes on April 2, 2013.......for some reason......
182839
Brian Gross
Posted almost 5 years ago
Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
I have seen a video like this one before. The other was far more gruesome due to it being nighttime, the infered showed the victims as smears in the road. This video has added embarrassment because the soldier laughs. Embarrassing but extremely powerful. This is as real and truthfull as it gets. This is what ( insert your favorite news station here ) will not teach you. Zero spin here. I feel that truth in its absolute form here helps us organically form an almost unifying opinion. Almost everyone of us is sickened by these visuals. Some are embarrased. I hope that the day will come that the truth will encite feelings deep enough within us that we can no longer ask our children to kill others.