ilovefuzz.com

I realized that I missed some posts in this thread....

phantasmagorovich wrote:But what does this mean to me?
I mean, apart from the fact that I had to follow his links for someone to be kind enough to actually explain what 'the hicks' was, it is cool to find out what you can find out, but "the last piece of the standard model" and being so important, "because interacting with the Higgs is what gives all the other particles their mass", I just don't know what difference this makes to me. Would my life and my view of the world, my values and perception be changed by a review of the standard model? Or reinforced by its final approval beyond doubt? (Well, I'll just have to believe that 5 sigma IS beyond doubt, because, again, I have no idea what that means.)

See, there's something wrong there. I know some of what advanced science does can be explained in a way that is understandable. Why isn't that widely done? Why can a magazine like Wired (that's where the quotes are from btw) not explain this in a way that means something to me? Because it cannot be done? And if it cannot be done, what does it mean to me at all? I get the feeling that a lot of advanced science has encapsulated itself away from everyday life, no wonder people are looking for answers elsewhere.
I seldom stay awake at night and wonder how gravity works.

This^^^^ is the basis for my own stance. In my previous, too-long post, I feel like I failed to convey that I was talking mostly about human behavior, which, like all sciences, is ever-evolving. The Higgs Boson isn't going to help motivate me to make more money, or find my dream girl, or whatever. It's cool as hell, but right now it's basically 100% non-applicable to my everyday life. Maybe in the future something awesome will come of it, and I'm ALL FOR that. Phantasmagoravich makes a good point in saying "I get the feeling that a lot of advanced science has encapsulated itself away from everyday life, no wonder people are looking for answers elsewhere." Scientists and tech-experts invented the i-phone, so that millions of people around the world can use it for all the crazy shit it can do. Asking every i-phone user to learn how the technology works sounds silly. And the i-phone can't give you advice or help with introspection to solve your life's problems. In fact, it probably exacerbates them more often than not. Friends can give you help, but those who use runes or whatever probably also have friends, that they probably also consult. The smart ones will make intelligent decisions, and the dumb ones will make stupid decisions. If the runes/tarot/whatever helps one come to a new conclusion, and that conclusion works out, then cool.

devnulljp wrote:Real stuff is a bit harder because you don't get to just assert things and have them accepted, there is usually a shitload of a backstory you have to have in order for it to make sense.

I missed this somehow. You can't expect someone to know what the Higgs Boson is, or why it's important without explaining how physics (probably with some elaboration on quantum physics) works. Backstory.

I also constantly feel the need to say that I'm 100% in agreement with the science/logic sides of these discussions we're having. I know that esoterics are made up. I choose to occasionally use the Tarot to think about my life in another way. For you Thelemites on here, I confess to not knowing enough of the ins and outs of your way of doing things, so I really have very little comment on them.

Continue. I'm enjoying this thread very much.

Here's something cool.
http://www.sleightsofmind.com/

gunslinger_burrito wrote:http://www.sleightsofmind.com/

these cats hit the nail on the head for me.
Peter J. Carroll has written a lot along these lines

Derelict78 wrote:esoterics is not something thats just "made up" Some yeah but a lot has been tested over and over.

Still waiting ...

sorry I have important shit to do ( practicing witchcraft and searching for sasquatch)
Ill get to it when I have more than 5 min. at the computer

Ok lets start with a definition
esoteric
adjective
1.understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2.belonging to the select few.
3.private; secret; confidential.
4.(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.

BUT for the purposes of this thread I think we may be talking a little more along these lines:

Examples of esoteric religious movements and philosophies include Alchemy, Astrology, Anthroposophy, early Christian mysticism, Magic, Mesmerism, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Spiritualism, the Alawites, the Christian Theosophy of Jacob Böhme and his followers, and the Theosophical currents associated with Helena Blavatsky and her followers. There are competing views regarding the common traits uniting these currents, not all of which involve "inwardness", mystery, occultism or secrecy as a crucial trait.
I got that paragraph from Wikipedia but I think its a good starting point for what we are talking about.
Specifically the inwardness.
Alchemy (did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an avid Alchemist), Astrology, and Magic(k) all deal with symbology and the use of symbols to change you own point of view/ reality. In the past Alchemists were the Chemists of the time and Astrologists the Astronomers of the time.
Using this type of symbolism HAS been tested Over and over by psychologists like Carl Jung, Dr David Shoemaker ect.
as far as scientific proof of UFO's Telekinesis and whatever else you listed as bull shit I don't know I don't pay much attention to that stuff. Sure its all possible and far as extraterrestrials maybe even probable but im not really into all that.
Ok im done responding to Trolls If you have something productive to post than great but listing things YOU think are bullshit is not being productive.

People believe in a lot of religious, ideological, or politically motivated agendas, that can not be measured or studied by natural sciences in any meaningful way.

Being a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or practicing Tantra or Witchcraft doesn't necessarily disqualify a person from science career or practicing charity or riding a bike or performing art. Can You think if a Freemason Professor of social sciences and politics that studies, as a hobby, astronomy? Sure You can. And Jack Parson, Isaac Newton, and others should make a pretty obvious real life examples. Anybody can pursuit natural sciences and still define his person and ethos through alchemy or magickal ceremonies. And at least I am prepared to say that doesn't make the person in question any better or worse person than his colleagues with different political, social, and religious/ spiritual views.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted. said Hassan i Sabbah in his highly quoted supposed last words.

I certainly didn't intend my post to be a troll at all, and I think that I was being a bit more tactful about it than dev was, but anyways,

when you said that it had been "tested over and over", I assumed that meant that they had been tested scientifically and shown to actually product testable results. Is that not what you meant? Because alchemy indeed was pursued for probably close to a thousand years, but as far as I am aware, never produced any tangible reproducible results. That's all I was wondering.

this brings up a good point
a lot of what I would Call Magick is very difficult to test/reproduce in a lab
Higgs boson has not been proved but that does not mean that its a bunch of made up shit
its called a theory and we are just getting to the point of being able to test it.
I do think within the next 100 years we will be able to test things like Magick

bigchiefbc wrote:I certainly didn't intend my post to be a troll at all, and I think that I was being a bit more tactful about it than dev was, but anyways,

when you said that it had been "tested over and over", I assumed that meant that they had been tested scientifically and shown to actually product testable results. Is that not what you meant? Because alchemy indeed was pursued for probably close to a thousand years, but as far as I am aware, never produced any tangible reproducible results. That's all I was wondering.

no you were asking questions not trolling in the least
and No I did not mean anything about lab grade proof.
if you or anyone else it truly interested you can google things like Magick theory
Their are people out there testing.
Im not really into trying to run tests.
I have cast "spells" and for the most part they seem work. Why im not sure and I wouldn't want to speculate.
oh and no hard feeling to anyone I was just feeling a little pressured to "prove" something that I didn't claim

Derelict78 wrote:this brings up a good point
a lot of what I would Call Magick is very difficult to test/reproduce in a lab
Higgs boson has not been proved but that does not mean that its a bunch of made up shit
its called a theory and we are just getting to the point of being able to test it.
I do think within the next 100 years we will be able to test things like Magick

Well I would say the difference there is that a scientific theory is more than just a hypothesis. It is a testable/falsifiable explanation of past theories that have been validated via experimentation. A lot of the standard model of particle physics has been tested over and over again, and a large portion of it either worked just like the theory, or different enough that we had to tweak the theory a bit. The Higgs field is the standard model's explanation for why particles have mass, and if the Higgs boson doesn't exist, then we're going to have to redesign quite a bit of the standard model.

Regardless of all that, from the theory, we have an energy range where the Higgs boson SHOULD pop out and say hi, so it is testable. Anything that isn't testable or falsifiable is really hard for scientifically-minded people to accept, because if I can't test it, then how can I differentiate it from just some shit someone made up? I hope you don't think that I'm being rude here, I'm just saying that without proof or some sort of testable result, how do we know that it isn't just nonsense?

Derelict78 wrote:Ok lets start with a definition
esoteric
adjective
1.understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2.belonging to the select few.
3.private; secret; confidential.
4.(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.

BUT for the purposes of this thread I think we may be talking a little more along these lines:

Examples of esoteric religious movements and philosophies include Alchemy, Astrology, Anthroposophy, early Christian mysticism, Magic, Mesmerism, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Spiritualism, the Alawites, the Christian Theosophy of Jacob Böhme and his followers, and the Theosophical currents associated with Helena Blavatsky and her followers. There are competing views regarding the common traits uniting these currents, not all of which involve "inwardness", mystery, occultism or secrecy as a crucial trait.
I got that paragraph from Wikipedia but I think its a good starting point for what we are talking about.
Specifically the inwardness.
Alchemy (did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an avid Alchemist), Astrology, and Magic(k) all deal with symbology and the use of symbols to change you own point of view/ reality. In the past Alchemists were the Chemists of the time and Astrologists the Astronomers of the time.
Using this type of symbolism HAS been tested Over and over by psychologists like Carl Jung, Dr David Shoemaker ect.
as far as scientific proof of UFO's Telekinesis and whatever else you listed as bull shit I don't know I don't pay much attention to that stuff. Sure its all possible and far as extraterrestrials maybe even probable but im not really into all that.
Ok im done responding to Trolls If you have something productive to post than great but listing things YOU think are bullshit is not being productive.

dude, you sound like you really know what you believe in. thats pretty refreshing to read something by someone who can properly discuss and argue what they put faith in.

Thanks I try not to speak up on things unless I have some sort of an informed opinion.
Hugs to ALL of you! ILF!

bigchiefbc wrote:Regardless of all that, from the theory, we have an energy range where the Higgs boson SHOULD pop out and say hi, so it is testable. Anything that isn't testable or falsifiable is really hard for scientifically-minded people to accept, because if I can't test it, then how can I differentiate it from just some shit someone made up? I hope you don't think that I'm being rude here, I'm just saying that without proof or some sort of testable result, how do we know that it isn't just nonsense?

The thing is, how could anyone ever prove to you how a pineapple tastes without you tasting it?
Synchronicity for instance is a really personal thing, and when 'coincidences' that are farfetched as fuck start to happen in intervals of 10minutes after about a month and a half of doing a certain type of meditation daily, you can see the cause and effect, but how would you prove it? Hell, that's kinda tough. What would you even measure? Entropy of the system that the individual experiencing the synchronicity is in (being the universe lol)?
If you ask me, I would dub synchronicity and a few other 'paranormal' effects as emergence.

alexa. wrote:

bigchiefbc wrote:Regardless of all that, from the theory, we have an energy range where the Higgs boson SHOULD pop out and say hi, so it is testable. Anything that isn't testable or falsifiable is really hard for scientifically-minded people to accept, because if I can't test it, then how can I differentiate it from just some shit someone made up? I hope you don't think that I'm being rude here, I'm just saying that without proof or some sort of testable result, how do we know that it isn't just nonsense?

The thing is, how could anyone ever prove to you how a pineapple tastes without you tasting it?
Synchronicity for instance is a really personal thing, and when 'coincidences' that are farfetched as fuck start to happen in intervals of 10minutes after about a month and a half of doing a certain type of meditation daily, you can see the cause and effect, but how would you prove it? Hell, that's kinda tough. What would you even measure? Entropy of the system that the individual experiencing the synchronicity is in (being the universe lol)?
If you ask me, I would dub synchronicity and a few other 'paranormal' effects as emergence.

I think I could do a decent job of describing how a pineapple tastes to someone who hasn't had one, maybe not perfect but I think I could get in the ballpark as long as they've had some other foods I could compare it to.

If these syncronicities keep recurring at a certain interval, then they should be predictable. Anything that is predictable is testable. If they don't keep showing up at the predicted intervals, then either your theory that the syncronicities are linked is flawed, the interval is not correctly understood, or they were just your imagination / confirmation bias. Unfortunately, the third possibility always has to be considered, because the human mind is very very good at convincing itself that it sees patterns in things, and has an innate desire to confuse correlation with causation.

So we've gone from 'has too been tested and shown to work' to 'I just believe it'
Fair enough, but the two things are different. That's a faith-based position, and as such there should be no need to pretend it's not...unless deep down you realise it's nonsense. I don't get why people who reject science try to cloak their positions in scientific language and attempt to give it some kind of credence (mis)using science and then recoil when you suggest testing it (other than they know it's not true.

FWIW, disagreeing with someone is not trolling. I'm just not very good at dancing around and being tactful I guess -- and BTW I don't think it was me that got personal first ("it seems like you just made up a bunch of shit and did little to no research")?

I think made up bullshit and lack of critical thinking skills are dangerous. I'm surrounded by people who just believe homeopathy is a great way to treat illness and vaccines are evil and a host of other new age fluff that have real-world consequences.