GOD?
- Auteur de la discussion magickpencil
- Date de début
mysticwarrior
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 17/8/07
- Messages
- 4 054
restin a dit:
I guess that's the way a internet community works. New people join and others staying away.
druglessdouglas
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/5/08
- Messages
- 5 910
Braineater was logged in earlier
Brugmansia
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 2/11/06
- Messages
- 4 372
What about DevXavier, Brewmaster and Siq then? There are many more gone if you go through the archives.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
Brewmaster leaves a message every now and then (check the 'what do you do for a living?-thread). He's rarely in contact with the internet nowadays...
G
Guest
Guest
I really liked BM, one of the most interesting people I've talked to since I landed here.
"It's based on astronomy, Mayan astrology and mathematics"
It's the intuitive links made between these things and the world - The postitioning of the planets is mathematical, but what has the postitions of the planets got to do with whether "Bob/Jim/Fred" is happy or not? The positions of the planets do have an affect on us through gravitation etc. but whats that got to do with mood, and why apply certain affects to certain star signs? especially when those star signs are slowly changing shape?
Am I right in saying knowing someones birthdate / time / place and where they'll be at a certain point in the future can lead to a prediction about what that person will be feeling under astrology? If thats true I could pic someone for you, and you would be confident you would be able to place their mood at a particular time, So I could ask for a time when the person chosen would be happy. Now imagine I chose someone unable to experience emotion (these people do exist): you cannot claim that the person is happy on the date, because they have no emotion, so the prediction is identifiably false.
Or we could find all the people under a certain specific star sign, and observe them, if we can find one person which that prediction is not true, the prediction is not a knowledge claim.
"Well, what is Newtons law based on? Observation"
Observation *and* repeatability... and linked physical phenomena.
"My common sense is telling me that the earth is flat."
common sense = intuition
The flat earth can be disputed with knowledge of the stars (funnily enough) without direct earth observation - as you go south, southern constellations are always much higher than they would be north, and lunar eclipse shadows are always spherical.
Observation can be given cause not by choosing whichever suits you, but by finding the "best" explanation - the observation of the world appearing flat by looking around you, versus the stars and earths shadow - finding a phenomena that cannot be explained any other reasonable way.
The same goes for human emotion - neurotransmitter levels, hormones, interaction with emotion causing stimuli etc. as apposed to being born on a particular day.
It's the intuitive links made between these things and the world - The postitioning of the planets is mathematical, but what has the postitions of the planets got to do with whether "Bob/Jim/Fred" is happy or not? The positions of the planets do have an affect on us through gravitation etc. but whats that got to do with mood, and why apply certain affects to certain star signs? especially when those star signs are slowly changing shape?
Am I right in saying knowing someones birthdate / time / place and where they'll be at a certain point in the future can lead to a prediction about what that person will be feeling under astrology? If thats true I could pic someone for you, and you would be confident you would be able to place their mood at a particular time, So I could ask for a time when the person chosen would be happy. Now imagine I chose someone unable to experience emotion (these people do exist): you cannot claim that the person is happy on the date, because they have no emotion, so the prediction is identifiably false.
Or we could find all the people under a certain specific star sign, and observe them, if we can find one person which that prediction is not true, the prediction is not a knowledge claim.
"Well, what is Newtons law based on? Observation"
Observation *and* repeatability... and linked physical phenomena.
"My common sense is telling me that the earth is flat."
common sense = intuition
The flat earth can be disputed with knowledge of the stars (funnily enough) without direct earth observation - as you go south, southern constellations are always much higher than they would be north, and lunar eclipse shadows are always spherical.
Observation can be given cause not by choosing whichever suits you, but by finding the "best" explanation - the observation of the world appearing flat by looking around you, versus the stars and earths shadow - finding a phenomena that cannot be explained any other reasonable way.
The same goes for human emotion - neurotransmitter levels, hormones, interaction with emotion causing stimuli etc. as apposed to being born on a particular day.
magickmumu
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 3/11/07
- Messages
- 4 166
the earth is not flat. The earth is round, like a disc :lol:
physical phenomena are based on observation. Yes, repeatability, but up to which point? Nowadays, in physics, this law is not true, even Einstein is outdated by complex formulae no normal human could possibly understand.
common sense = intuition AND observation.
The observation is the same, nevertheless the conclusion is human. I can give you thousand explanations why this is so. Reasonable? What the fuck is reasonable? I hate this word. "Be rational". Being rational means having no dreams, no emotions but trying to calculate something you cannot. I cannot see us being ANY nearer to any truth since the renaissance. We try to explain, web our net of thoughts based on assumptions. If one persons thinks the sky is blue, it is subjective, if all people do it is objective. Rubbish!
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/7/07
- Messages
- 9 628
They are correlated, that's all. Why that is, and how it is so I do not know.Pariah a dit:
Astrology is not concerned with any direct influence planets (or subjective star patterns) might exert upon our body. Gravity, electromagnetic rays and such are not relevant. Some astrologers may disagree with me, but from my perspective planets do not influence us. But their positions do correlate to our lives on all levels.
The signs are mythological descriptions of numerological principles. The cosmos can be divided into 12 sections of 30 degrees, comprising the Zodiac. Life on other planets will have a somewhat different solar system, with a different view into the cosmos and thus other constellations, but the principle of dividing the ecliptic into 12 equal parts can be applied everywhere. Astrology cannot be applicable to Earth only. It must be a universal principle, as universal for life as DNA is.
Their location at the time of birth is mathematically related to all future points in time and space. The now is a mathematically predictable progression from the time of birth onward. We are all whirlpools of energy, embedded in other whirlpools of energy, moving about in mathematically predictable ways. Despite the illusion of chaos, life on Earth is carefully scripted. Everything is happening as it should. Free will does not transcend the predetermined script of existence.
You would be using a mentally or emotionally handicapped person to test a method that applies to normal people. Is that a scientific method of testing a principle? No, it's a deceitful challenge. Of course you can come up with tricky tests no astrologer can pass.
Regarding the emotionally closed person, he or she might have a severe aspect between the Moon and Saturn in the birth chart. I have already mentioned many times that there is a typical astrological configuration that is common in the charts of those who have either epilepsy or bipolar disorder. I do not have any charts of autistic persons, but I'm sure they have a typical astrological signature as well.
To be fair, for testing the principle of astrology (NOT the astrologer) one should find regular people, some succesful and some poor but all physically and mentally sound, and do tests with their charts. You can do all kinds of tests that would astound any objective scientist.
That's not scientific. Astrology is based on the time and place of birth. That means the exact second, and the exact longitude and lattitude. Unless six babies pop out of one mother all at once, all horoscopes will be different. The typical newspaper "sun sign astrology" is not what I'm talking about. Vedic astrology goes into infinite detail.
The principle underlying astrology (a correlation between planetary cycles and the experience of life) can be observed and repeated by anyone willing to learn the science.
No astrologer will ever be faultless. But the correlation between cosmos and individual is absolute.
There are many vantage points from which to observe life. No one knows what causes everything to happen. Yes, emotions are involved, hormones are involved, food and drugs are involved, DNA is probably involved too. Life is complex. But there is order within the complexity.
"Astrology cannot be applicable to Earth only. It must be a universal principle, as universal for life as DNA is."
"You would be using a mentally or emotionally handicapped person to test a method that applies to normal people."
If Astrology is universalisable it applies to everything and everyone, even the mentally handicapped, afterall, why would the stars be picky?
If it doesn't apply to everyone it isn't universal.
"To be fair, for testing the principle of astrology (NOT the astrologer) one should find regular people, some succesful and some poor but all physically and mentally sound, and do tests with their charts."
I'd be interested in seeing some scientific articles which showed that a random selection of people were linked to their star sign *significantly* more than they are to a guess. Something with an ANOVA using a null hypothesis. In other words: Astound me!
A question: under what circumstances *would* astrology be able to be rejected?
***
"Being rational means having no dreams, no emotions but trying to calculate something you cannot. I cannot see us being ANY nearer to any truth since the renaissance. We try to explain, web our net of thoughts based on assumptions. If one persons thinks the sky is blue, it is subjective, if all people do it is objective. Rubbish!"
This argument is very polarised, I personally agree with not taking the rational exclusively - there's more to being human experience than animal instinct, as in art, music etc.. but rejecting rationality on this basis seems flawed, I'll give a polarised counter example in response:
Being irrational has no practical value: imagining food on your table doesn't mean you'll avoid starving to death, and by extension, thinking that disease is caused by "bad air" and using air freshning herbs doesn't stop you dying from cholera (an example post-renaissance).
Using this thinking the human race would not only NOT be more advanced than the renaissance, but would likely have died off long ago, spending their last breaths thinking how tasty that imagined mammoth stake they just pretended to eat was.
As for subjective / objective, the interpretation of what it is to be blue may be subjective in how we *experience* blue, but the true qualifying factors of blue are observer independent - explained by wavelength - so blue is the electromagnetic radiation at a certain wavelenth (objective), which we tend to experience as a colour we just happen to agree is "blue" (subjective).
"You would be using a mentally or emotionally handicapped person to test a method that applies to normal people."
If Astrology is universalisable it applies to everything and everyone, even the mentally handicapped, afterall, why would the stars be picky?
If it doesn't apply to everyone it isn't universal.
"To be fair, for testing the principle of astrology (NOT the astrologer) one should find regular people, some succesful and some poor but all physically and mentally sound, and do tests with their charts."
I'd be interested in seeing some scientific articles which showed that a random selection of people were linked to their star sign *significantly* more than they are to a guess. Something with an ANOVA using a null hypothesis. In other words: Astound me!
A question: under what circumstances *would* astrology be able to be rejected?
***
"Being rational means having no dreams, no emotions but trying to calculate something you cannot. I cannot see us being ANY nearer to any truth since the renaissance. We try to explain, web our net of thoughts based on assumptions. If one persons thinks the sky is blue, it is subjective, if all people do it is objective. Rubbish!"
This argument is very polarised, I personally agree with not taking the rational exclusively - there's more to being human experience than animal instinct, as in art, music etc.. but rejecting rationality on this basis seems flawed, I'll give a polarised counter example in response:
Being irrational has no practical value: imagining food on your table doesn't mean you'll avoid starving to death, and by extension, thinking that disease is caused by "bad air" and using air freshning herbs doesn't stop you dying from cholera (an example post-renaissance).
Using this thinking the human race would not only NOT be more advanced than the renaissance, but would likely have died off long ago, spending their last breaths thinking how tasty that imagined mammoth stake they just pretended to eat was.
As for subjective / objective, the interpretation of what it is to be blue may be subjective in how we *experience* blue, but the true qualifying factors of blue are observer independent - explained by wavelength - so blue is the electromagnetic radiation at a certain wavelenth (objective), which we tend to experience as a colour we just happen to agree is "blue" (subjective).
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/7/07
- Messages
- 9 628
It applies to the mentally handicapped as well, but if a person doesn't experience any emotions, you cannot interpret the Moon transits the way you would interpret them for a healthy individual.Pariah a dit:
It applies to every human being.
Star sign astrology divides humanity into 12 groups, nothing more. Do you think such a general distinction can ever be scientifically proven, especially when sidereal astrology claims the common Sun signs are off by 23 degrees.
What do you mean with "astrology"?
We've learned a lot about germs, viruses, atoms, planets beyond Saturn, the truth about myth and religion... The list is endless...
Well, imagine you have a small castle made out of Lego. Science is what would take this castle apart, would scruntisize every little brick and see *aha* well this castle is built from 224 black 112 grey and 23 red parts. It would see, that it is symmetrical or asymetrical, it would find out why it doesn't collapse-
-but it will never find out anything about the essence, the substance of this castle. It will find out what it is but not what it is for. It will make rules for building a castle but it will never understand what it is.
touché. There's more in life than just being rational. For a peasant it is essencial to observe and see that every year, there is a warm and cold period, one fertile and one infertile so he can plan the harvest. But that doesn't bring him nearer to the concept of time, past or eternity, will it? And the opposite of being rational is not neccesarily imagining. A musician is not just imagining the music he is playing, is he?
the electric radiation has no name, does it? And that's exactly the point. If everyone says that this particular color is blue, that doesn't mean that it is blue. And please don't say that we define a particular wavelength as blue - the definition is also man made.
As for science:
tell me the next number: 2,4,8,16,...
"Do you think such a general distinction can ever be scientifically proven"
No! thats why I think its unsafe to call it a knowledge claim, and why I call it a *belief* claim.
Be sure to note the term "scientifically proven" is misleading (science should constantly try to disprove null theories), whats important is that if there is no set of circumstances in which that theory would be false then it has little place as a knowledge claim (its unfalsifiable).
An example: if I held a pair of keys in mid air, let them go, and they hovered mysteriously in the air, then that would make the theory of gravity unsafe, assuming there was no other identifiable cause (in orbit they are constantly falling round the earth for example).
The reason I asked "under what circumstances *would* astrology be able to be rejected?" was to try and see if it could be investigated at all, or if your saying something along the lines of "heads I win tails you lose." As for "what is Astrology" that can be for you to decide - your the astrologer (I know that might sound a bit obnoxious, I don't mean to be, I'd say its a valid point).
***
Restin, I'd say you heading in a very interesting area with those thoughts here's my take:
The "whyness" of things isn't properly explained by science: whats the evolutionary advantage of being beethoven? yet we as humans identify with art on a fundemental level.
We identify blue not *just* as its physical function, but also as "what blue means to us".
So when some people ask "why?" they are saying "what caused that", and when others say "why" they are saying "what does it mean".
Thats where I think personal, subjective belief based are perfectly welcome: on the ideological level, being recognised as ideology / philosophy, its the bit beyond the rational, and a lot of the time where altered conciousness / psychedelics comes in - we can develop our own subjective truths about the meaning of things, and not clash with the functional part of "why".
As for the next number... I forget, but I'm pretty sure its a trick question :lol:
No! thats why I think its unsafe to call it a knowledge claim, and why I call it a *belief* claim.
Be sure to note the term "scientifically proven" is misleading (science should constantly try to disprove null theories), whats important is that if there is no set of circumstances in which that theory would be false then it has little place as a knowledge claim (its unfalsifiable).
An example: if I held a pair of keys in mid air, let them go, and they hovered mysteriously in the air, then that would make the theory of gravity unsafe, assuming there was no other identifiable cause (in orbit they are constantly falling round the earth for example).
The reason I asked "under what circumstances *would* astrology be able to be rejected?" was to try and see if it could be investigated at all, or if your saying something along the lines of "heads I win tails you lose." As for "what is Astrology" that can be for you to decide - your the astrologer (I know that might sound a bit obnoxious, I don't mean to be, I'd say its a valid point).
***
Restin, I'd say you heading in a very interesting area with those thoughts here's my take:
The "whyness" of things isn't properly explained by science: whats the evolutionary advantage of being beethoven? yet we as humans identify with art on a fundemental level.
We identify blue not *just* as its physical function, but also as "what blue means to us".
So when some people ask "why?" they are saying "what caused that", and when others say "why" they are saying "what does it mean".
Thats where I think personal, subjective belief based are perfectly welcome: on the ideological level, being recognised as ideology / philosophy, its the bit beyond the rational, and a lot of the time where altered conciousness / psychedelics comes in - we can develop our own subjective truths about the meaning of things, and not clash with the functional part of "why".
As for the next number... I forget, but I'm pretty sure its a trick question :lol:
the problem is, you cannot say :wink: you can guess that it will probably be 32 but you cannot prove me that. So that's what I believe modern science is doing. It is expanding this sequence as maybe (metaphorically) humans knew 2,4 they now know that it is 2,4,8,16,32,64. In the first sequence, you cannot even guess what the next number will be, while the next is more secure but still, still we cannto say what the next number will be. I hope you get what I want to say.
Of course I am happy that I can chose if I want to wear skinny or wide jeans, that I can chose if I am vegetarian or carnivore, that I can go to the doctor and get some pills if I have flu. Human beings have made progress in what can be lifestyle meaning medicine, the increased life-span, boredom etc. It really is easier to live and we are the first generation without problems (but: watch the suicide rates and the needs for psychiatrists in the west! We are really getting mentally ill from this new boredom). Still, on a philosophical level, we did not get nearer to any truth. That's my point.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
I'm starting to believe we should split this thread...
mysticwarrior
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 17/8/07
- Messages
- 4 054
Now i really get curious about what did happen with god? Did anyone heard anything about him yet?
