Well on the train to work today, ideas just started splurging forth.
My reasoning behind this rant : People are turning to magic to achieve their goals. This is just going to breed stupidity and leave people ultimately powerless over their own actions - assuming they are relying on 'non-mundane' forces.
I tried to break it down as much as possible;
Analysis : Magic is the manipulation of energy to manifest a result
Of course, the act of manipulation as I see it, is refering to things such as
- walking to the fridge
- turning on a light switch
- waving hello
These all involve an intent, a process and a result.
However, it is wrong to assume that if your intent is to have food and that by forces of Magic (letting go of all Logic) and that just by thinking about food, it will end up in your hands - when the fridge is easily accessable. That is stupidty. Illogical if you will.
Magic is the one and same as science, it begins with a hypothesis (intent, reasons, aim), it has apparatus (tools), the method and of course the results; (Also if you want a quick reflection, aconclusion) - perhaps Magic is a terrible word to use, it has connotations attached to it which make me cringe. Anyhow, everything has a reason for being done.
It is easy to argue that
symbolicly Magic helps to by pass certain self-imposed barriers. Similar to hypnosis.
Though, once the belief sets in that it's possibly to modify external events by a mere utterance of words, waving arcane tools around or by thinking about it - this is very faulty and dangerous. It shows that a person is helpless, out of resouces and has done the worst sin - They have
accepted that they can do nothing about it. Oh, they might argue that they were thinking about it, but its just a cop-out way of taking a share of the reward that they did nothing to achieve but think about it. Perhaps it is a boost of their Ego. Maybe by that boost of their ego, they are able to do something else.
Of course, there are always going to be shit situations, and maybe by turning to faith - it will get them through, some people are just not ready to shatter the illusions of a soul.
As I said earlier, perhaps the word Magic is awful to use as it has too much history attached to it. Though, it provides an important lesson to those who step into the depth of madness itself, a new view on life. I know when I speak of Magic - I am talkign about life, when I say I am talking to another spirit. I am really talking to another person.
The lure of having a belief that one is practicing Magic - is that it has its own illusions making a person feel alive and in control of all things around them. But the danger here is that it is just a self-delusion, that by turning to belief it makes things ok in life. Its ok to suffer and put up with crap, because you believe your in control over it.
When is it safe, to assume that by chanting a series of invocations will make it rain to save your harvest? Would you be better off to get out of there, unfortunantely abandoning all you've worked for - but live to fight for another day. What does repeating a series of words ever do for anyone? Waste time?
I have taken on the stance that I hold no beliefs. I see that belief is just a tool, to get something else done. I have no reason to hold onto it. To insinuate a belief, is something that isn't certain. I would rather just stick with 'if it works, it works.' .. Much more convenient, no hassle of dogma. And it works!
In short : No point being difficult, magic is as simple as living life.
Hum, I think this is one of my most coherent rants I've made.
(I am beggining to understand that all 'masters of magic' have come to a similar conclusion - its just bullshit and mostly done for theatrics :lulz:)
eta : Hmmm .. I'm starting to think that this can be applied to most 'Spirituality' to, I think the best Spiritual Life is just living life itself.
Your definition of magic is too broad.
Science is NOT magic.
So that would mean you have a definition, what is yours?
The similarities are there, Science can do some pretty awesome stuff. Magic is a science itself the way I see it.
The horrendous grammatical error in the subject line of your post has caused me to not actually read anything you've written.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:34:05 AM
So that would mean you have a definition, what is yours?
The similarities are there, Science can do some pretty awesome stuff. Magic is a science itself the way I see it.
Magic is proto-science; in other words, theres a cause-effect correlation that is not explained rigurously yet.
If i tased a native from an island they would say i have "magical powers".
The ancient herbal medicine was achieved thru "magical" attributions (derived from trial and error) to plants, which later on were explained by biochemistry.
No.
Magic is a series of actions intended to cause a non-local effect, with no substantive reasoning or proof as to how or why it works, or even an above-average success rate.
You may apply the scientific method to magic, like Crowley did, but because magic does not bother with provable explanations, it can't be science.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 01:29:01 AM
Analysis : Magic is the manipulation of energy to manifest a result
accessable.
(http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/08/uncorncrappingrain.jpg)
OMG LOOK AT THE UNICRON MAKING MAGICK
This is a pretty terrible rant. The definition of magic used therein is shit. Using "energy" in the definition and seeming to never define it loses my interest but fast. To be fair, PD.COM tends not to be a good place to discuss magic at all. There might be a good thread or five to be made, on the nature of magic. But you -You're not the only one- assume there's a problem, name it presumptuously, and clatter away at he keyboard.
Uncle Al says:
I) DEFINITION.
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper I write "incantations"—these sentences—in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)
In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.
II) POSTULATE.
ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object.
(Illustration: I wish to prepare an ounce of Chloride of Gold. I must take the right kind of acid, nitro-hydrochloric and no other, in a vessel which will not break, leak or corrode, in such a manner as will not produce undesirable results, with the necessary quantity of Gold: and so forth. Every change has its own conditions.
In the present state of our knowledge and power some changes are not possible in practice we cannot cause eclipses, for instance, or transform lead into tin, or create men from mushrooms. But it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature and the conditions are covered by the above postulate.)
Yes, but Crowley was a hack blowhard who would do anything to validate his bullshit.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 04:50:35 PM
Uncle Al says:
I) DEFINITION.
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change pointless arguments to occur in on conformity PD.com with Will.
Fixt
Quote from: LMNO on December 24, 2009, 04:51:57 PM
Yes, but Crowley was a hack blowhard who would do anything to validate his bullshit. fuck with the British.
Fixt ;-)
I think there is a good comparison between magic and our current understanding of memes. If you look at "the one sentence meme-bomb thread", you'll see plenty of experimentation. To what end? To make someone stop and think? It's as vague a goal as making someone "better", and experimenting with herbs and advice to achieve it.
But it's not an entirely futile endeavour at all, because by setting up a vague goal we encourage a wide range of potential solutions - we invoke emergence. That, I think, is the only way to tackle a problem too complex for a single mind to fully comprehend - never mind solve.
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the benefits which can come from applying a higher goal to many of your day-to-day actions and interactions, I just think talking about spirits and non-scientific energy or forces, to be somewhat of a dead-end.
In fact, if we truly dig into Crowley we find that Magic is the art of fucking with other peoples head. His Mindfuck is still spawning little automatons today. His antics still confuse the Greyface and his books are still considered Holy by some... He would laugh his ass off at the modern spiritual movements, and fleece them for cash and cute girls and boys.
Crowley is an example for us all.
QuoteIt is disgusting to have to spend one's life jetting dirt in the face of the British public
in the hope that in washing it they may wash off the acrid grease of their
commercialism, the saline streaks of their hypocritical tears, the putrid perspiration
of their morality, the dribbling slobber of their sentimentality and their religion. And
they don't wash it!
Quote from: FP on December 24, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the benefits which can come from applying a higher goal to many of your day-to-day actions and interactions, I just think talking about spirits and non-scientific energy or forces, to be somewhat of a dead-end.
If you carefully parse the above comments, you will see we are criticizing the scientific jargon that some magicians use to validate their beliefs, not about the efficacy of certain types or theories of magic.
QuoteMagick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
This has got to be among the most imperfect definitions ever. My flipping a light switch matches that definition, but is in no way an example of "magic" as most people want "magic" to be defined. Typically folks want some sort of unexplained/unexplainable phenomenology to be present
Which is why I usually include the phrase "non-local".
Still not perfect, but it does address the expectations of most people.
Quote from: LMNO on December 24, 2009, 05:32:52 PM
Quote from: FP on December 24, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the benefits which can come from applying a higher goal to many of your day-to-day actions and interactions, I just think talking about spirits and non-scientific energy or forces, to be somewhat of a dead-end.
If you carefully parse the above comments, you will see we are criticizing the scientific jargon that some magicians use to validate their beliefs, not about the efficacy of certain types or theories of magic.
I'm not sure if you were joking about not reading the OP or not, but I was responding to that; not the "OMG! Non-scientists are trying to appropriate scientific jargon and are misusing it!" which followed.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 05:39:54 PM
QuoteMagick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
This has got to be among the most imperfect definitions ever. My flipping a light switch matches that definition, but is in no way an example of "magic" as most people want "magic" to be defined. Typically folks want some sort of unexplained/unexplainable phenomenology to be present
Crowley specifically includes things like flipping a light switch, because that is how his philosophy of Magic works. You want light in a room, so you run the mental program "go turn on the switch". Most of our days and nights are automated robotic responses, promptly running the built in program that may have come into existence from your parents training, your life experiences or education. The difference between going through life running these automated programs and committing acts of Intention and Will is the difference between Monkey and Magician. Magical Arts are simply methods and tools that the Magician can use to modify the programming through Will. So that even your daily activities are managed through Will rather than Robot.
After reading everything Crowley has written, I think that is his view in a nutshell. On top of that, he invoked his Will on others, mostly in the form of Mindfucks, again Magic.
In short Crowley just used insane metaphors to talk about jailbreaking from the Black Iron Prison...
Are there any non-magical examples of "a series of actions that cause a non-local effect?"
Further, bitching about the rubes that get caught in the "Magic Is Really Real" Mindfuck is not nearly as much fun as helping them.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to get neo-pagans and sSolitary Wiccans to do completely insane things because you can speak the jargon and grok the symbols well enough?
:lulz:
Bob Wilson said Discordians were the antibodies of the Neopagan movement... the people that would stop once in awhile and say "Hey guys, some of this might be bullshit". But really, it's been decades and the marks still don't get it. You can yell at the wall or paint graffiti on it, think about it.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
Are there any non-magical examples of "a series of actions that cause a non-local effect?"
Possibly, but currently unobservable.
It's, like, quantum and stuff.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 05:53:14 PM
Magical Arts are simply methods and tools that the Magician can use to modify the programming through Will. So that even your daily activities are managed through Will rather than Robot.
I'm pretty sure I get the point, and I would tend to agree that the "practice makes perfect" ideology could pave the way for yielding more regular results... just as it does with sports, or music, or any other discipline. However I suspect that, without a great deal of further discussion, most will reject the idea that "it's magic because I did it with conscious intent"
Quote from: LMNO on December 24, 2009, 05:58:09 PM
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
Are there any non-magical examples of "a series of actions that cause a non-local effect?"
Possibly, but currently unobservable.
It's, like, quantum and stuff.
:lulz:
(I think there may be some in computer programming... but I wouldn't want to spoil the lulz over it....)
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
Are there any non-magical examples of "a series of actions that cause a non-local effect?"
QUANTUMZ!!!!
Quantum Entanglement is possibly an example... but its also possibly just an incomplete model.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 06:02:04 PM
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
Are there any non-magical examples of "a series of actions that cause a non-local effect?"
QUANTUMZ!!!!
Quantum Entanglement is possibly an example... but its also possibly just an incomplete model.
Pretty much. The math currently indicates that two particles can act as if they have an effect on each other without information passing between them.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:01:08 PM
(I think there may be some in computer programming... but I wouldn't want to spoil the lulz over it....)
You might need to explain this a bit more. I don't see how computer programming could generate non-local effects.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 05:53:14 PM
Magical Arts are simply methods and tools that the Magician can use to modify the programming through Will. So that even your daily activities are managed through Will rather than Robot.
I'm pretty sure I get the point, and I would tend to agree that the "practice makes perfect" ideology could pave the way for yielding more regular results... just as it does with sports, or music, or any other discipline. However I suspect that, without a great deal of further discussion, most will reject the idea that "it's magic because I did it with conscious intent"
Well, thats like saying some Discordians will disagree with what I say because there aren't enough Fnords in it.
Modern "magic" practitioners appear to be largely made of idiots that just believe what they read, instead of actually trying to understand what they read. It doesn't matter what they 'expect', thats what most historical systems of Magic appear to be based on... with the exception of some of the more modern nonsense.
You can bring the fire, but earth is not burned by fire... much better to just mix the dirt with bullshit and see what might grow.
Quote from: LMNO on December 24, 2009, 06:07:34 PM
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:01:08 PM
(I think there may be some in computer programming... but I wouldn't want to spoil the lulz over it....)
You might need to explain this a bit more. I don't see how computer programming could generate non-local effects.
Sorry. I was referencing the definitions of magic from the computing dictionary.
The entire definition reads:
Quote
An early system on the midac computer.
[Listed in CACM 2(5):16 (May 1959)].
[jargon file]
#
1. As yet unexplained, or too complicated to explain; compare automagically and (Arthur C.) Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.
"TTY echoing is controlled by a large number of magic bits." "This routine magically computes the parity of an 8-bit byte in three instructions."
2. Characteristic of something that works although no one really understands why (this is especially called black magic).
3. (Stanford) A feature not generally publicised that allows something otherwise impossible or a feature formerly in that category but now unveiled.
Compare wizardly, deep magic, heavy wizardry.
For more about hackish "magic" see magic switch story.
4. magic number.
and I always find myself preferring the 2nd definition. It isn't specifically restricted to non-local events, but, to my way of thinking, neither is "magic".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 06:08:30 PM
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 05:53:14 PM
Magical Arts are simply methods and tools that the Magician can use to modify the programming through Will. So that even your daily activities are managed through Will rather than Robot.
I'm pretty sure I get the point, and I would tend to agree that the "practice makes perfect" ideology could pave the way for yielding more regular results... just as it does with sports, or music, or any other discipline. However I suspect that, without a great deal of further discussion, most will reject the idea that "it's magic because I did it with conscious intent"
Well, thats like saying some Discordians will disagree with what I say because there aren't enough Fnords in it.
Modern "magic" practitioners appear to be largely made of idiots that just believe what they read, instead of actually trying to understand what they read. It doesn't matter what they 'expect', thats what most historical systems of Magic appear to be based on... with the exception of some of the more modern nonsense.
You can bring the fire, but earth is not burned by fire... much better to just mix the dirt with bullshit and see what might grow.
So... magic is all auto-somal psychology? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just clarifying.)
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:46:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 06:08:30 PM
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 05:53:14 PM
Magical Arts are simply methods and tools that the Magician can use to modify the programming through Will. So that even your daily activities are managed through Will rather than Robot.
I'm pretty sure I get the point, and I would tend to agree that the "practice makes perfect" ideology could pave the way for yielding more regular results... just as it does with sports, or music, or any other discipline. However I suspect that, without a great deal of further discussion, most will reject the idea that "it's magic because I did it with conscious intent"
Well, thats like saying some Discordians will disagree with what I say because there aren't enough Fnords in it.
Modern "magic" practitioners appear to be largely made of idiots that just believe what they read, instead of actually trying to understand what they read. It doesn't matter what they 'expect', thats what most historical systems of Magic appear to be based on... with the exception of some of the more modern nonsense.
You can bring the fire, but earth is not burned by fire... much better to just mix the dirt with bullshit and see what might grow.
So... magic is all auto-somal psychology? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just clarifying.)
Crowley's magic appears to be heavily based on psychology... I'm not sure what you mean by auto-somal...
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 06:50:11 PM
Crowley's magic appears to be heavily based on psychology... I'm not sure what you mean by auto-somal...
I mis-spoke. I should have used auto somatic. I am thinking specifically of 'spontaneous remissions' and other forms of self-healing.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 07:05:03 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 06:50:11 PM
Crowley's magic appears to be heavily based on psychology... I'm not sure what you mean by auto-somal...
I mis-spoke. I should have used auto somatic. I am thinking specifically of 'spontaneous remissions' and other forms of self-healing.
Ah oh... Well I suppose that could fit in there, though its liklihood of success would be smaller than what Crowley's focusing on in general. Think more along the lines of method acting with the intent to modify one's own psychology and imprinted responses (or someone else if you're doing the magic on them).
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
Quote from: LMNO on December 24, 2009, 01:27:10 PM
The horrendous grammatical error in the subject line of your post has caused me to not actually read anything you've written.
Aw your letting my terrible english stepping in the way ? Atleast point it out :(
Quote from: JohNyx on December 24, 2009, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 01:29:01 AM
Analysis : Magic is the manipulation of energy to manifest a result
accessable.
(http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/08/uncorncrappingrain.jpg)
OMG LOOK AT THE UNICRON MAKING MAGICK
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23486.msg799529#msg799529
Some practices may not be as proveable, but by my understanding, in Ceremonial Magic - all Rituals are set out carefully - everybody is used with a specific reason, all moves are done as written, and everything is recorded.
'Manipulation of Energy to manifest an intent' - There by all actions are just Magic. But, this is a terrible term to use because of all of the JuJu attached to it. Replace Magic with living life and I think it fits in pretty well.
I've seem to of thrown out the idea of unproveable claims, haha. Perhaps my definition of Magic is really skewered at 90 degree angle
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 09:05:38 PM
Some practices may not be as proveable, but by my understanding, in Ceremonial Magic - all Rituals are set out carefully - everybody is used with a specific reason, all moves are done as written, and everything is recorded.
Multiple meanings usually.
Quote
'Manipulation of Energy to manifest an intent' - There by all actions are just Magic.
Not all actions are through Will, much of our actions appear based on programming, imprints and automated responses.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 09:04:31 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23486.msg799529#msg799529
Cheers I saw that mate. *oops forgot what I was going to write*
QuoteThis is a pretty terrible rant. The definition of magic used therein is shit. Using "energy" in the definition and seeming to never define it loses my interest but fast. To be fair, PD.COM tends not to be a good place to discuss magic at all. There might be a good thread or five to be made, on the nature of magic. But you -You're not the only one- assume there's a problem, name it presumptuously, and clatter away at he keyboard.
Thanks dude, I really appreciate that, I do tend to rant alot. If theres something missing I always love it to be pointed out.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 09:05:38 PM
Some practices may not be as proveable, but by my understanding, in Ceremonial Magic - all Rituals are set out carefully - everybody is used with a specific reason, all moves are done as written, and everything is recorded.
Multiple meanings usually.
Quote
'Manipulation of Energy to manifest an intent' - There by all actions are just Magic.
Not all actions are through Will, much of our actions appear based on programming, imprints and automated responses.
That makes perfect sense. I can't say that then can I
I'm pretty sure the OPs definition of magic IS crowley's definition. An act of will.
I wonder what Crowley himself believed in, or if he was just one of those "fake it till you make it" .. He did leave his mark regardless.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 24, 2009, 09:19:01 PM
I'm pretty sure the OPs definition of magic IS crowley's definition. An act of will.
There must be more to it than that, otherwise, by that definition, my pouring a cup of coffee is "magic".
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Hangshai on December 24, 2009, 09:19:01 PM
I'm pretty sure the OPs definition of magic IS crowley's definition. An act of will.
There must be more to it than that, otherwise, by that definition, my pouring a cup of coffee is "magic".
No .... your right.
I failed to use the definition that Magic was there to claim the unproveable (I ignored that unintentionally), I have focused on the Intent and Results too much.
But you are holding onto the term Magic is just something like a bad taste. There is a strong paradigm behind it. I think its similar to OOP in a way if you know Programming.
QuoteThe basics haven't changed, but the entire method of it has (thats just imo). Is there still a view magic that is this transcended force that isn't in ours to control?
Why is there a need to chant needlessly? I have never done a chant, perhaps I've recited a poem or two but I was forced to.
The idea I have grasped is that it is a means of a way to manifest results, I personally have little reason to talk to myself (When I am mad I vent to some unknown entity .. the side pavement for instance). I have no reason to call on the arch-angels. They have little to no meaning to me. Apart from sounding cool.
The magical thinking paradigm is one thing I DO like however, throw out all of the crap about rules, boundaries, reality itself and just keep at it to a simple thing as; a method to manifest your intention. Anything you use to manifest this intention are your tools. Then re-add all the rules of life itself.
Using this mindset, I am working magic. I am writing a message here, my intent is to push across what my understanding it. I am using the internet to express my will, I am writing words which will meld together on the readers view - maybe they will grasp something, maybe they won't. In the end, my intention isn't far enough to care what another may think.
Magic itself is a tool, another branch in the ways of working in the world. I like using the paradigm, since I can think very well in it. But this could be the programming side in me.
I've posted that on TCC.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 09:09:28 PM
Not all actions are through Will, much of our actions appear based on programming, imprints and automated responses.
With the limited exception of reflex and autonomic response, all actions are based upon will. It may not be *My True Will* in that it may be a desire I absorbed and adopted as my own after imprinting, programming, and automation, but, even so, acting on an adopted desire is still acting through will.
I was thinking more along the lines; if you put your hand ont the stove, you will immediately yank it off because it hurts too damn bad. Only those with the intent (and looniness) will keep their hand on there without pulling back. That or their reflexes are broken.
But, that might be counted for the Higher-Will, the Will that isn't controlled as easily.
But, (and I think this is part of where Dr. Rat was going) it may be possible to 'break your own reflexes' with enough intentional re-programming. I have heard that there are Tibetan Monks who can control their own heart rates etc.
Though I personally see no immediate benefit to exerting conscious control over my heartbeat, I can postulate some scenarios where it could come in handy.
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 09:52:33 PM
But, (and I think this is part of where Dr. Rat was going) it may be possible to 'break your own reflexes' with enough intentional re-programming. I have heard that there are Tibetan Monks who can control their own heart rates etc.
I think that it is possible, but as you said - where do the benefits lay? I know I can hold myself very well when being tickled, it pisses my friend off - because I am just ticklish as fuck everywhere. My natural reflex is to laugh, but I can hold it in and look like as if nothing is happening to me - but it does take consious effort on my half, other wise I'll end up squirming and laughing.. thats what she wants to see. :(
Everyday responses to events... If someone is an asshole to you, how do you respond? Is that a learned response? Is it automatic, or do you consider how you act in response to "asshole" stimuli?
If someone says "Hey, lets go trespass on this property because there's a cool old empty house to explore... how do you respond? Is that response the one you intentionally Willed, or is it automatic based on your training?
How do you react in front of a crowd?
Is your reaction "magic" reasoned on multiple points of view, or formed from a 'reaction' to your preconceived notions?
Think about how much of your life is automated response to external stimuli... what are your daily rituals in life? Did you intentionally plan them to be as they are, or did they form simply by repetition because of convenience, or the environment you're in?
But by following this route, it will end up going about 'Free Will vs Pre-determined' (Something I do not want to even read .. Its just a loop)
So, you are saying I will react the very same to everyone everytime? Or that my reactions are already pre-determined because of who I am.
Its started ~.~
Quote from: singer on December 24, 2009, 09:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 09:09:28 PM
Not all actions are through Will, much of our actions appear based on programming, imprints and automated responses.
With the limited exception of reflex and autonomic response, all actions are based upon will. It may not be *My True Will* in that it may be a desire I absorbed and adopted as my own after imprinting, programming, and automation, but, even so, acting on an adopted desire is still acting through will.
To be clear, True Will™ as Crowley puts it is really just Dharma. It's doing whatever your duty is in each moment. So an act of Will would be equivalent to a mindful act. Responding rather than reacting. So acting on an adopted desire may or may not fit each situation. To determine the right action in each situation one must be aware and respond accordingly. This is Will as opposed to intention.
I have always seen Will and Intention to be along the same lines
1 - "I will this to be the letter A"
2 - "I intend this to be the letter A"
Both have mention of an outcome
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 10:30:55 PM
I have always seen Will and Intention to be along the same lines
1 - "I will this to be the letter A"
2 - "I intend this to be the letter A"
Both have mention of an outcome
I wasn't sure that 'intention' is the best word choice...feel free to substitute 'desire' as that's really what i meant.
I think I agree with many bits of what I think is being said here.
We are living in a paradigm which rejects the term "magic" as long as we understand the mechanism of the manifestation.
Maybe this isn't so smart? I can think of a couple of reasons why this part of the definition is not serving evolutionary advancement well.
1) This forces us into a contradictory dilemma where on the one hand we will dismiss the on-screen image of levitation by David Blaine as "trickery" but accept without question the on-screen image of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon. We accept the technological explanation for these manifestations and NASA is all about technologies of various kinds so far above our heads that I don't even hear the whistle of them passing me by... but I have been given no better "technological" explanation for the images of Blaine levitating than "Photo-Technology" which is supposed to mean camera trickery.
So... If I had a better explanation... would it mean that levitation was "real"... what else would be different? Certainly not the on-screen manifestation... the phenomenon would be what it was whether I understood it or not.
which brings me to point #2) There is a fairly interesting dichotomy exposed in reducing the equation to "If I understand it then it exists... and if I don't understand it then it does not exist." because... expressed another way this becomes "My understanding determines reality" (which I find to be a very pro-magic statement) maybe even the central theme of "Psycho-Technology"
3) If we must relegate the principles of magic to "that which we do not yet understand" then it follows that magic is found at the leading edge of all cutting-edge "technologies" String theory, particle wave theory, quantum mechanics, dark matter, and other spooky actions at a distance are all understandings achieved at the "cutting edge" of our many technological advancements.
and finally 4) We inhabit "use it or lose it" bodies. Athletes use muscles every day which keeps them in the best possible shape and advances their skill. Philosophers and scientists use their brains every day which keeps them in the best possible shape and advances their skill... by rejecting psycho/technology or magic we are probably inhibiting the potential advancement of those skills.
I don't think I am about to posit that the answer is to sidestep the "proof" issue in entirety, but I have often thought that just concentrating on the "intent' and "result" bit would still be beneficial somehow. Maybe the same way it is beneficial to a stroke victim to work toward gaining the ability to walk by using a variety of tools meant to help them with support and balance, the sheer repetition of the muscular motion urges those damaged nerves and muscles to greater strength and repair until.... with enough repetition... they can move without the aid of the tool and through their own volition or will.
So... if for example, every time we flipped the light switch we also simultaneously "willed" the lights to go on. Or before we made a phone call we willed the recipient to "get the message" to be near the phone and available to receive our physical call... perhaps the repetition would strengthen "magical muscles" increasing the ease of their use?
I don't expect that anyone will ever successfully claim proof that their use of magical energy lights their house, and even wasting time and effort trying to seems "ability atavistic" (kind of like abandoning the match to rub a couple sticks together every time you wanted fire) , but, as this conversation seems to be defining it, "magic" may be far better suited to much more subtle applications (just like a hammer is a tool well suited to many tasks, but fixing a wristwatch isn't one of them) I believe this definition of magic may have many applications, but using it to move in opposition to other universal forces may not be the best or most efficient application of the skill set.
I also understand that this is perilously close to deliberately engaging in "self-deception" in order to "prime the pump" but, all that being said, I still think that the simple, daily, repetitive practice of pushing our will into the world without worrying about proving the mechanism might be an essential step to some kind of experiential advancement.
Now I'mma sit back and wait for LMNO to smack me.
Quote from: Burns on December 24, 2009, 10:34:29 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 10:30:55 PM
I have always seen Will and Intention to be along the same lines
1 - "I will this to be the letter A"
2 - "I intend this to be the letter A"
Both have mention of an outcome
I wasn't sure that 'intention' is the best word choice...feel free to substitute 'desire' as that's really what i meant.
To Will is to Intend, to Intend is to Desire, to Desire is to Will. (Ok may not be true in all cases but I think it sums up nicely)
I think before I further confuse myself, lets check out the dictionary
Will : power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
Intention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.
Desire : The object of longing: My greatest desire is to go back home.
But there are differences in the words (Will/Intention vs Desire) - I think one denotes that you have the necessary conditions to achieve, the other is a want but you are uncertain as to whether you can/will put the required resources in. I think it takes all 3 instances to want to get something done
Nicepost singer, I'll write up something.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 10:40:52 PM
Quote from: Burns on December 24, 2009, 10:34:29 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 10:30:55 PM
I have always seen Will and Intention to be along the same lines
1 - "I will this to be the letter A"
2 - "I intend this to be the letter A"
Both have mention of an outcome
I wasn't sure that 'intention' is the best word choice...feel free to substitute 'desire' as that's really what i meant.
To Will is to Intend, to Intend is to Desire, to Desire is to Will. (Ok may not be true in all cases but I think it sums up nicely)
I think before I further confuse myself, lets check out the dictionary
Will : power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
Intention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.
Desire : The object of longing: My greatest desire is to go back home.
But there are differences in the words (Will/Intention vs Desire) - I think one denotes that you have the necessary conditions to achieve, the other is a want
We're talking about very specific terms here set. you didn't include "Dharma" in your definition. Doing your dharma is acting in each moment with mindfulness or self-remembering. Your desire may or may not be the right action in any given moment so following your Dharma is different than following your desire (but obviously not in every case).
This is also the difference between doing what you
want and doing your
Will. Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". The 'shall be' are the key words here -- in that you will end up taking accountability for your actions regardless of whether or not you do the right action in each situation.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0)
Read that thread and you might have more of an Idea.
Quote from: Burns on December 24, 2009, 10:51:54 PM
We're talking about very specific terms here set. you didn't include "Dharma" in your definition. Doing your dharma is acting in each moment with mindfulness or self-remembering. Your desire may or may not be the right action in any given moment so following your Dharma is different than following your desire (but obviously not in every case).
This is also the difference between doing what you want and doing your Will. Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". The 'shall be' are the key words here -- in that you will end up taking accountability for your actions regardless of whether or not you do the right action in each situation.
Thats perfect actually. Each action is obviously up to the person, if they wanted something - but had to do shit to get it. Its up to them to choose which consequence to live with, whether they do shit to achieve their goal, or they do nothing and not get what they want. Both are consequences they'll have to live with.
Quote from: Kai on December 24, 2009, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0)
Read that thread and you might have more of an Idea.
Going to have alot of reading to do
*edit* Off to enjoy the feast, I'll get back to this later
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
Quote from: Burns on December 24, 2009, 10:51:54 PM
We're talking about very specific terms here set. you didn't include "Dharma" in your definition. Doing your dharma is acting in each moment with mindfulness or self-remembering. Your desire may or may not be the right action in any given moment so following your Dharma is different than following your desire (but obviously not in every case).
This is also the difference between doing what you want and doing your Will. Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". The 'shall be' are the key words here -- in that you will end up taking accountability for your actions regardless of whether or not you do the right action in each situation.
Thats perfect actually. Each action is obviously up to the person, if they wanted something - but had to do shit to get it. Its up to them to choose which consequence to live with, whether they do shit to achieve their goal, or they do nothing and not get what they want. Both are consequences they'll have to live with.
Congratulations, you are the sole source of your spiritual authority.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Then, what the hell is Magic :eek:
This is, btw, the clearest definition that I've ever heard that doesn't go into vague notions of 'energy' or other dumbfuckery.
Alan Moore - Art is Magic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Cw3SJMXTg)
Hey, we're getting somewhere.
Who is the magician that makes the grass green?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 24, 2009, 11:22:28 PM
Hey, we're getting somewhere.
Who is the magician that makes the grass green?
hey, i used that line at ESF! :D
I've got a letter forthcoming about this, so I'm not going to go into too much detail, but....
I learned a term in Toronto. Cathexis. Freud coined it as a opposite to catharsis. Whereas catharsis is a sort of upwelling and release of emotional energy and tension, cathexis is a infusion of power and emotional energy into non conscious entities and/or objects. You see it with icons (images of deities), the so called aura of art, and puppetry, as some minor examples. Freud was an idiot savant in that he came up with some much bullshit yet in a few moments in some of his "throwaway" thoughts he came up with some rather extraordinary things. Cathexis is one of those.
Freud saw cathexis as unidirectional, but he was pretty narrow minded like that. If you consider cathexis to be bidirectional, where objects are infused with power and gain power over time (in the sense that power is a 2nd-3rd circuit and up draw) and release it in an opposite direction much like a conversation, then magic makes a bit more sense. Objects, non conscious entities, thoughts, concepts, all of these things can store and generate 2nd-3rd circuit + power and release in a sort of communitory response.
And if this sounds like bullshit mumbo jumbo, it is. Freud thought so. It also isn't.
A.k.a. sublimation i think.
EDIT: i was more thinking of it in the sense of "opposite of catharsis" but it seems your main point was a different one.
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 02:35:58 AM
I've got a letter forthcoming about this, so I'm not going to go into too much detail, but....
I learned a term in Toronto. Cathexis. Freud coined it as a opposite to catharsis. Whereas catharsis is a sort of upwelling and release of emotional energy and tension, cathexis is a infusion of power and emotional energy into non conscious entities and/or objects. You see it with icons (images of deities), the so called aura of art, and puppetry, as some minor examples. Freud was an idiot savant in that he came up with some much bullshit yet in a few moments in some of his "throwaway" thoughts he came up with some rather extraordinary things. Cathexis is one of those.
Freud saw cathexis as unidirectional, but he was pretty narrow minded like that. If you consider cathexis to be bidirectional, where objects are infused with power and gain power over time (in the sense that power is a 2nd-3rd circuit and up draw) and release it in an opposite direction much like a conversation, then magic makes a bit more sense. Objects, non conscious entities, thoughts, concepts, all of these things can store and generate 2nd-3rd circuit + power and release in a sort of communitory response.
And if this sounds like bullshit mumbo jumbo, it is. Freud thought so. It also isn't.
I could buy into that. Could that work with personal objects as well, as in something you hold dear, for whatever reason therefore it has more meaning than what was originally intended(like a lucky whatever), or is it more of a focusing of will into art, like paintings or...puppets, I guess... I dont get that one really. Was it because puppetry was like theater, or because the puppeteer was controlling the puppet through/with cathexis or whatever?
I take it that the mention of puppetry refers to how we treat the puppet as an agent in its own right, rather than a humanoid figure being controlled according to the whim of a puppeteer. The lucky token holds a smidgen of the owner's belief in his own efficacy. The making of a magical tool, on the purely psychological level, would be an act of cathexis, if I understand rightly.
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 25, 2009, 07:32:28 AM
I take it that the mention of puppetry refers to how we treat the puppet as an agent in its own right, rather than a humanoid figure being controlled according to the whim of a puppeteer. The lucky token holds a smidgen of the owner's belief in his own efficacy. The making of a magical tool, on the purely psychological level, would be an act of cathexis, if I understand rightly.
Ok, I think I follow you, you mean the puppet being magical is more for the observer than the puppeteer.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 25, 2009, 06:54:34 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 02:35:58 AM
I've got a letter forthcoming about this, so I'm not going to go into too much detail, but....
I learned a term in Toronto. Cathexis. Freud coined it as a opposite to catharsis. Whereas catharsis is a sort of upwelling and release of emotional energy and tension, cathexis is a infusion of power and emotional energy into non conscious entities and/or objects. You see it with icons (images of deities), the so called aura of art, and puppetry, as some minor examples. Freud was an idiot savant in that he came up with some much bullshit yet in a few moments in some of his "throwaway" thoughts he came up with some rather extraordinary things. Cathexis is one of those.
Freud saw cathexis as unidirectional, but he was pretty narrow minded like that. If you consider cathexis to be bidirectional, where objects are infused with power and gain power over time (in the sense that power is a 2nd-3rd circuit and up draw) and release it in an opposite direction much like a conversation, then magic makes a bit more sense. Objects, non conscious entities, thoughts, concepts, all of these things can store and generate 2nd-3rd circuit + power and release in a sort of communitory response.
And if this sounds like bullshit mumbo jumbo, it is. Freud thought so. It also isn't.
I could buy into that. Could that work with personal objects as well, as in something you hold dear, for whatever reason therefore it has more meaning than what was originally intended(like a lucky whatever), or is it more of a focusing of will into art, like paintings or...puppets, I guess... I dont get that one really. Was it because puppetry was like theater, or because the puppeteer was controlling the puppet through/with cathexis or whatever?
Mostly it's just something that humans do without thinking about it. Puppets are fucking creepy things, but many people who are creeped out by them aren't really sure why. It's the unconscious cathexis aspect, that a piece of cloth suddenly is given the power and presence of a living thing. Even if I know intellectually that a puppet is not alive, is just an object, intuitively there will still be cathexis going on. Even if puppets aren't particularly creepy to me, paying attention to the cathexis generally makes it that way (mostly just a mixture of awareness and uncanny valley).
Icons, which are statuary and images of gods, divine beings and holy events, have associated cathexis because of belief. An icon (sometimes called a fetish) may be the physical presence of deity, or a representation, and both of those reasons generate cathexis. This ranges anywhere from the images of Voodun Loa, to depictions of Jesus on the cross, images of the virgin (pareidolia or real), statues of the Buddha (a very interesting example, since the representation is not only of a person but a state of being), holy texts of Islam and Judaism, churches and temples (especially if they are seen as the house of deity), or something as abstract as the metal "primordial egg" sculpture found in several places in the Unitarian Church of Toronto.
The former category often mixes in with the category of aura, that is, objects for aesthetic or other reasons which give off a presence, yet have no inherent significance in relation to religion. Paintings often are said to have an aura; for what other reason would people crowd around the little square of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? There are certainly prettier paintings. Another reason that objects may have aura is their age. Artifacts and fossils are interesting for what they can tell us about the past, but they also have an aura and presence of age associated, also a sort of cathexis. Otherwise a 2000 year old strip of cloth would just be an old interesting piece of cloth and not something with power to bridge the gap of time....but I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm sure you can think of other things with cathexis. Certain trees, and old trees in general, not only for their massive size and aesthetic, but for their age. Even concepts can have associated cathexis, if they become physically concrete enough. Certain pieces of writing, like the To Be or Not To Be Soliloquy of Hamlet, have taken on a life beyond just words in a script. I guess you can take the jump of intuition to memes from there, which opens up a /whole other/ can of worms. Like I said earlier, Freud was a real idiot savant in that he didn't realize the incredible usefulness of what he had discovered about the power and aura and /life-like-ness/ humans direct into objects/entities beyond what they are essentially. Just like Chi (psychosomatics), cathexis is not something of passing curiousity to be easily dismissed, it is an essential part of being human.
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 25, 2009, 07:32:28 AM
I take it that the mention of puppetry refers to how we treat the puppet as an agent in its own right, rather than a humanoid figure being controlled according to the whim of a puppeteer. The lucky token holds a smidgen of the owner's belief in his own efficacy. The making of a magical tool, on the purely psychological level, would be an act of cathexis, if I understand rightly.
Yes, a puppet is just a bit of cloth, wood and other human shaped materials yet it also has power to be "alive" in some way, and this comes from an emotional/intellectual....arg, trying to think of another way to describe it. Visualize a ray of light beaming from the head of a person to the puppet, amplifying and reflecting back. A projection, amplification and reflection. There's a communication going on, a communication of a this-ness, an is-ness, that is more than what the object essentially is (crafted cellulose).
This is a good place to start.
IMO: Magic is Metaphor.
This is interesting.
I like how you mentioned the tie in to art too, Kai.
Also Jung's interpretation of a mandala as "..a representation of the unconscious self" seems like it's designed to generate a specific kind of cathexis.
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 07:56:00 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 25, 2009, 07:32:28 AM
I take it that the mention of puppetry refers to how we treat the puppet as an agent in its own right, rather than a humanoid figure being controlled according to the whim of a puppeteer. The lucky token holds a smidgen of the owner's belief in his own efficacy. The making of a magical tool, on the purely psychological level, would be an act of cathexis, if I understand rightly.
Yes, a puppet is just a bit of cloth, wood and other human shaped materials yet it also has power to be "alive" in some way, and this comes from an emotional/intellectual....arg, trying to think of another way to describe it. Visualize a ray of light beaming from the head of a person to the puppet, amplifying and reflecting back. A projection, amplification and reflection. There's a communication going on, a communication of a this-ness, an is-ness, that is more than what the object essentially is (crafted cellulose).
I suppose you could throw in talismans into this too: Wedding bands, rosaries, goetic seals (oh wait, i already mentioned wedding bands), etc...
Quote from: Burns on December 25, 2009, 08:08:22 AM
This is interesting.
I like how you mentioned the tie in to art too, Kai.
Also Jung's interpretation of a mandala as "..a representation of the unconscious self" seems like it's designed to generate a specific kind of cathexis.
Oh, DEFINITELY. Objects can be created to generate cathexis (like icons) of a certain type. I think it's interesting that there is this whole genre of phenomena of many different kinds and associations which is overall the same sort of thing at base. Those who believe stronly in magic will dismiss cathexis as scientific reductionism, and the atheistic materialists will dismiss it as vestiges of superstition, only of passing interest, just like pareidolia, chi and every other artifact of consciousness. So it goes.
Quote from: JohNyx on December 24, 2009, 08:28:45 AM
Your definition of magic is too broad.
Science is NOT magic.
No, it's quantums and stuff.
Quote from: Burns on December 25, 2009, 08:14:49 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 07:56:00 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 25, 2009, 07:32:28 AM
I take it that the mention of puppetry refers to how we treat the puppet as an agent in its own right, rather than a humanoid figure being controlled according to the whim of a puppeteer. The lucky token holds a smidgen of the owner's belief in his own efficacy. The making of a magical tool, on the purely psychological level, would be an act of cathexis, if I understand rightly.
Yes, a puppet is just a bit of cloth, wood and other human shaped materials yet it also has power to be "alive" in some way, and this comes from an emotional/intellectual....arg, trying to think of another way to describe it. Visualize a ray of light beaming from the head of a person to the puppet, amplifying and reflecting back. A projection, amplification and reflection. There's a communication going on, a communication of a this-ness, an is-ness, that is more than what the object essentially is (crafted cellulose).
I suppose you could throw in talismans into this too: Wedding bands, rosaries, goetic seals (oh wait, i already mentioned wedding bands), etc...
If you can think of it, it probably can generate cathexis under certain circumstances. ANY object has that possibility, but some objects are more likely to. Hell, there are these old pencils with the name of the gas and service station my great grandfather ran and owned in the mid 20th century, and I have some strong cathexis associated with them.
ok, I just did a little more looking in to it and I think I get it now. Cathexis is a very good example, Kai, you were right. It is also mentioned in some of the stuff I found that it is associated with psychic energy (more the energy of thought than reading minds and moving stuff around and crap like that, though), or mental energy. Yeah, I can jive with that. But could you consider something like a meme magic? A thought that actually influences the thinker, rather than a thought you just observe and file away. I dont know if that totally makes sense, but, sometimes, when i see some of the stuff around this forum(or in stuff like intermittens), it really can give me a head-change.
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 25, 2009, 08:08:22 AM
This is interesting.
I like how you mentioned the tie in to art too, Kai.
Also Jung's interpretation of a mandala as "..a representation of the unconscious self" seems like it's designed to generate a specific kind of cathexis.
Oh, DEFINITELY. Objects can be created to generate cathexis (like icons) of a certain type. I think it's interesting that there is this whole genre of phenomena of many different kinds and associations which is overall the same sort of thing at base. Those who believe stronly in magic will dismiss cathexis as scientific reductionism, and the atheistic materialists will dismiss it as vestiges of superstition, only of passing interest, just like pareidolia, chi and every other artifact of consciousness. So it goes.
Seems like more one's aware of the cathexis process, the deeper the self awareness. At least with the things that a person considers really real and significant in life.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 25, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on December 24, 2009, 08:28:45 AM
Your definition of magic is too broad.
Science is NOT magic.
No, it's quantums and stuff.
:lulz: I'm starting to think you have it in for LMNO.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 25, 2009, 08:23:26 AM
ok, I just did a little more looking in to it and I think I get it now. Cathexis is a very good example, Kai, you were right. It is also mentioned in some of the stuff I found that it is associated with psychic energy (more the energy of thought than reading minds and moving stuff around and crap like that, though), or mental energy. Yeah, I can jive with that. But could you consider something like a meme magic? A thought that actually influences the thinker, rather than a thought you just observe and file away. I dont know if that totally makes sense, but, sometimes, when i see some of the stuff around this forum(or in stuff like intermittens), it really can give me a head-change.
I'm not sure about memes (a whole other can of worms). The meme would have to take on a life and power that is more than the meaning of the words essentially.
Quote from: Burns on December 25, 2009, 08:24:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 25, 2009, 08:08:22 AM
This is interesting.
I like how you mentioned the tie in to art too, Kai.
Also Jung's interpretation of a mandala as "..a representation of the unconscious self" seems like it's designed to generate a specific kind of cathexis.
Oh, DEFINITELY. Objects can be created to generate cathexis (like icons) of a certain type. I think it's interesting that there is this whole genre of phenomena of many different kinds and associations which is overall the same sort of thing at base. Those who believe stronly in magic will dismiss cathexis as scientific reductionism, and the atheistic materialists will dismiss it as vestiges of superstition, only of passing interest, just like pareidolia, chi and every other artifact of consciousness. So it goes.
Seems like more one's aware of the cathexis process, the deeper the self awareness. At least with the things that a person considers really real and significant in life.
Shit. I am /really/ gonna have to write this letter in the morning.
Art of Memetics mentions magic towards the start, as I recall.
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 08:26:06 AM
I'm not sure about memes (a whole other can of worms). The meme would have to take on a life and power that is more than the meaning of the words essentially.
I think that pretty much happened all over the '60s. The generational rift was so intense that one generation's apparently innocuous memes would actually spark violent reactions from the other.
I'm not sure how "cathexis" is different from "symbolism".
Also, @ TGRR: magic is quantum and stuff, because if I observe it, it doesn't exist.
If your cathexis doesn't make sense to anyone else, you might still be doing it right. Also, the object can represent something that isn't believed to exist otherwise. Symbolism: puppet represents man. Cathexis: the puppet is an entity; an extra layer of disbelief is suspended to treat the puppet like he's a human actor, or the character he plays.
LMNO, the difference I see is that Symbolism is of the mind, how you the thinker store and recall info using symbols and what they mean, when cathexis is actually putting your 'thought energy' into something, and im not sure quite how this works, but I think it may be more of a repressed unintentional thing. The example I got from what I read was the steam engine. Freud's theory (this is the wiki now, not me) was that the steam engine was only produced when it was because of the sexual repression that was happening at the time, Im sure youve heard that before. Well, the idea that the steam engine REPRESENTS the repressed sexuality is the symbolism, the idea of BUILDING a steam engine, or whatever, is cathexis. I think. The whole process of repressing and then having it come out, but not in a cathartic way(having sex, I would imagine), but directing it another way. Actually the more I think about all this, the more it TOTALLY jives with stuff like Mo Pai and Tai Chi and shit like that..
or somethng...
Quote from: Kai on December 25, 2009, 08:26:06 AM
Quote from: Hangshai on December 25, 2009, 08:23:26 AM
ok, I just did a little more looking in to it and I think I get it now. Cathexis is a very good example, Kai, you were right. It is also mentioned in some of the stuff I found that it is associated with psychic energy (more the energy of thought than reading minds and moving stuff around and crap like that, though), or mental energy. Yeah, I can jive with that. But could you consider something like a meme magic? A thought that actually influences the thinker, rather than a thought you just observe and file away. I dont know if that totally makes sense, but, sometimes, when i see some of the stuff around this forum(or in stuff like intermittens), it really can give me a head-change.
I'm not sure about memes (a whole other can of worms). The meme would have to take on a life and power that is more than the meaning of the words essentially.
There are quite a few schools of memetic magic these days, particularly for people that were already interested in NLP. Cathexis has a lot of similarities to "memetic entities" at this point... just a matter new symbols in new models ;-)
Well said.
Seems there's something to this "cathexis," since I didn't see any one-word translations of the word.
I like Crowley's definition and Moore's definition, and I think they're basically the same. Saying "magic" for me is just giving a different name to simple and explicable processes. I guess it can be unexplainable events too, but I ain't seen none of those.
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 28, 2009, 03:26:16 AM
I like Crowley's definition and Moore's definition, and I think they're basically the same. Saying "magic" for me is just giving a different name to simple and explicable processes. I guess it can be unexplainable events too, but I ain't seen none of those.
Well, simple and explainable in some sense... They seem mostly like alternate models, that is, we can describe the phenomena in words/symbols that are not "magical". The book "Mind Hacks" is a great example of this. However, I think its important to consider the usability of these different models. One of the key bits of value which 'magical systems' seem to rely on is the psychological links between the symbols and the ideas... Peter Carroll lays it out as a formula:
Magic = GL (1-R)(1-A)
Magic= The desired effect
G = Level of Gnosis, level of Conscious distraction
L = Magical Link (Psychological linkl, semantic relationship between object and mental concept)
R = Subconscious Resistance (difficulty of dropping the new "program" into your subconscious)
A = Conscious Awareness, Psychic Censor (The bit of your brain that says "Hey this Magic stuff is Bunk!")
Conscious Distraction balances out the Conscious Awareness;
Conscious Distraction may be High Ritual, running tarot cards, I Ching, deep meditation, nonstop laughter for minutes on end, autoerotic stimulation... etc etc... AKA stuff to distract your conscious mind from the goal.
The Magical Link balances out the Subconscious Resistance;
Some physical object, athame, pentacle, chalice, sigil, etc represents a psychological "handle". Using the symbolic object we hope to inject the goal into the subconscious.
The down side to books like Mind Hacks is that they do a great job of discussing the "why" your brain can do X... but they don't have the symbols, the semantics and the processes by which you can do an end run past your conscious and subconscious in order to reprogram your robot ;-)
The secret of Magic is not about throwing fireballs or astral projection or seeing the future... its all about brain change, both as self mindfucks and mindfucking others. Crowley, Carroll, Moore, Hine, Farber, Regardie etc etc all seem to agree on that point. The problem that most modern practitioners have is that rather than reading these guys with an eye to symbolism, they read the stuff literally... confusing the Map and the Territory as it were.
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.
We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.
If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....
"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.
In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"
Okay.
But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Okay.
But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.
Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.
At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.
I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...
But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.
If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.
I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.
I have a tool. It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 05:24:17 PM
I have a tool. It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.
:lulz:
Then by all means have at it! Perhaps you don't need hacks to modify your brain.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 05:31:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 05:24:17 PM
I have a tool. It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.
:lulz:
Then by all means have at it! Perhaps you don't need hacks to modify your brain.
No, I let the syphilis do that for me.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Okay.
But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.
Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.
At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.
I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...
But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.
If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.
I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.
I don't mean to be picky - but isn't there an inherent danger that the model you select will change your perception of your programming, rather than your actual programming? Since that is the path of least resistance. But then - how do you escape that - somehow (?!) apply a form of statistical analysis to what can be reasonably stated to provide results and what doesn't?
Or do self-delusional wizards simply procreate less?
Yeah, it's called insanity and obsession and stuff.
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Okay.
But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.
Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.
At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.
I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...
But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.
If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.
I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.
I don't mean to be picky - but isn't there an inherent danger that the model you select will change your perception of your programming, rather than your actual programming? Since that is the path of least resistance. But then - how do you escape that - somehow (?!) apply a form of statistical analysis to what can be reasonably stated to provide results and what doesn't?
"... if you go into that realm without the sword of reason, you will lose your mind, but at the same time, if you take only the sword of reason without the cup of sympathy, you will lose your heart. Even more remarkably, if you approach without the wand of intuition, you can stand at the door for decades never realizing you have arrived. You might think you are just waiting for a bus, or wandering from room to room looking for your cigarettes, watching a TV show, or reading a cryptic and ambiguous book. Chapel Perilous is tricky that way."Any model can be confused with reality. People eat the Menu all the time. Some Wiccans eat the menu. Some Thelemics eat the menu. Some Atheists eat the menu. Some people reject the menu because it has pictures of food instead of actual food on it... perhaps they see the menu as a crutch.
Peter Carroll wisely said "Never give a sword to a man that can't dance. Never give a wand to a man that can't deal with reality."
Getting confused happens, confusing the map for the territory happens. For me, personally, that's why I try to maintain Model Agnosticism, I should be able to play with all the models, without "believing" any of them to be true. Results are the measurement of success. Moderl Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine the "results" critically.
Getting trapped forever in Chapel Perilous, or coming out crazy is always a risk.
If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous. So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?
To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.
Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.
(Apologies to Winston Churchill)
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous.
Based on my understanding of Chapel Perilous, I would disagree... could you expound on this further?
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?
There is no system yet devised that I am aware of which can avoid human delusion and True Belief. I find that sort of intelligence seems to be the responsibility of the individual... even systems of No Belief, like RAW's views and ideas, or simply the lack of belief in a God can turn into groups of sheep held hostage by the loudest bleating. ;-)
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.
Maybe, but a model or map can't replace actual sense. Without sense, an individual will get trapped in any map, funny clothes or not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 06:36:39 PM
Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.
(Apologies to Winston Churchill)
A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.
We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.
If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....
"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.
In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"
Or I could just understand the concept of mind hacks ("what is happening") and make up my own personal bullshit system to implement ("how do I..") instead of relying on other people's bullshit.
Of course, somebody is going to come along and say "why reinvent the wheel?" And the answer is simple: If the whole thing works partially on belief, then I'm only going to be able to believe my OWN bullshit, and certainly not yours. Plus, my bullshit is less filthy.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 06:36:39 PM
Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.
(Apologies to Winston Churchill)
A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men.
I wouldn't know, because I am not the wisest man...but what I DO know is that the more jargon you need to describe your idea, the less valid it probably is. That's how MBAs survive, incidentally. By speaking a different language, so everyone thinks they know what they're talking about.
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.
We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.
If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....
"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.
In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"
Or I could just understand the concept of mind hacks ("what is happening") and make up my own personal bullshit system to implement ("how do I..") instead of relying on other people's bullshit.
Of course, somebody is going to come along and say "why reinvent the wheel?" And the answer is simple: If the whole thing works partially on belief, then I'm only going to be able to believe my OWN bullshit, and certainly not yours. Plus, my bullshit is less filthy.
This is the correct Magic Motorcycle.
I don't do Crowley's rituals, I don't have his background, his psychology or the social reality that he lived in... His specific rituals, then appear less useful to me... However, like I said earlier, its similar to reading through older scripts and tools that exploited computer code in the past, the specific incarnation might not work, but the principles can be applied.
Each of the authors I've spoken of have their own independent system of Magic. They all have their own terms, their own symbols, their own metaphors... Farber sets almost everything within memetics, Crowley used the spirituality movements of his time, Antero bases his work on Leary's model and his distilation of "ritual" across many different systems. Peter Carroll was one of the first "Chaos magicians".
Much like Kai's point, I don't simply use one of their preexisting systems, but I do look at all of them and steal what appears useful to me, modify what appears modifiable to me and make shit up wholesale.
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:22:46 PM
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Also, you tend to get taken for a smelly pagan.
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:22:46 PM
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Then what is wrong with that, if it's what you want to do?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:22:46 PM
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Then what is wrong with that, if it's what you want to do?
Nothing. R-prime just means making fun of anyone who calls it magic.
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:22:46 PM
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Then what is wrong with that, if it's what you want to do?
Nothing. R-prime just means making fun of anyone who calls it magic.
:lulz:
Well, intentionally eating the menu is good for a gag ;-)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous.
Based on my understanding of Chapel Perilous, I would disagree... could you expound on this further?
From my perspective, Chapel Perilous is a place where a spiritual journey languishes - it may refine itself and create another roadside attraction or two, but fundamentally it doesn't advance significantly from its own frames of reference. A group is as equally prone to doing this as is an individual.
And that's the point - individuals are happy within groups which serve their goals, regardless of m/any negative consequences. If an individual has no motivation to be part of another group, then their behaviour within their original group is unlikely to change. Another side to this is the barbarism our civilization metes out on itself - there's literally no other choice of group for an individual to be a part of.
Similarly - if an individual is happy within Chapel Perilous then unless they have a motivation to explore further, then they won't. You see this with pinealist newbies who either run away from the abuse they get here crying "hive mind!", or they then decide that the opinions of others means more to them than the love of their own fnordery.
It comes down to communication - if everyone else seems so beneath you that they can't appreciate your genius, insight and perma-gnosis, then it doesn't matter whether you're actually in Chapel Perilous or not, as no one else will ever "get it" - no matter how hard you try. But if you care to communicate with others you disagree with then that structure will end up reprogramming you anyway - we all "go native" sooner or later.
Of course, I could have it all ass-backwards, but it makes sense to me.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?
There is no system yet devised that I am aware of which can avoid human delusion and True Belief. I find that sort of intelligence seems to be the responsibility of the individual... even systems of No Belief, like RAW's views and ideas, or simply the lack of belief in a God can turn into groups of sheep held hostage by the loudest bleating. ;-)
Huh. I guess we need a "Wikipedia of Truth".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.
Maybe, but a model or map can't replace actual sense. Without sense, an individual will get trapped in any map, funny clothes or not.
Maybe "hive mind" is the way to go ;-)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 07:22:46 PM
Yeah, and part of my system is not calling it magic, because when I do it feels like someone elses bullshit, and is therefore shit for my uses.
Also, you tend to get taken for a smelly pagan.
Yes, and nobody likes someone who is both smelly AND pagan.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:36:51 PM
Well, intentionally eating the menu is good for a gag ;-)
This is why I don't post in TFYS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 07:06:01 PM
I wouldn't know, because I am not the wisest man...but what I DO know is that the more jargon you need to describe your idea, the less valid it probably is. That's how MBAs survive, incidentally. By speaking a different language, so everyone thinks they know what they're talking about.
The "speaking a different" language thing is probably true of most professions. Doctors, Lawyers, Bankers, Cops, Soldiers, Computer Programmers etc. all have a specific language used to convey information, and sometimes mis-information. It's true that an ability to sling the lingo is often mistaken for genuine knowledge, but, sometimes new languages emerge because the standard terminologies fail to convey the meaning.
There is also the emergence of 'new languages' because the professional jargon fails to communicate ideas across a broader spectrum. Like Tablature -vs- Sheet Music. There is a difference between the language of music as written out in standard sheet notation and as written in tablature, but they can both accurately describe the correct notes for a song. If you only know how to read tabs you may mistake sheet music for jargon, but, it isn't. It's just a different way to try to understand the same thing.
When considering a highly personal language, like magic or mind hack, common language is gonna be pretty hard to come by and eventually everyone resorts to metaphor. Then we all have fun criticizing the menu while ignoring the meal.
Of course, as you have so aptly pointed out, sometimes it's all menu and there is no meal.
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 07:37:37 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous.
Based on my understanding of Chapel Perilous, I would disagree... could you expound on this further?
From my perspective, Chapel Perilous is a place where a spiritual journey languishes - it may refine itself and create another roadside attraction or two, but fundamentally it doesn't advance significantly from its own frames of reference. A group is as equally prone to doing this as is an individual.
And that's the point - individuals are happy within groups which serve their goals, regardless of m/any negative consequences. If an individual has no motivation to be part of another group, then their behaviour within their original group is unlikely to change. Another side to this is the barbarism our civilization metes out on itself - there's literally no other choice of group for an individual to be a part of.
Similarly - if an individual is happy within Chapel Perilous then unless they have a motivation to explore further, then they won't. You see this with pinealist newbies who either run away from the abuse they get here crying "hive mind!", or they then decide that the opinions of others means more to them than the love of their own fnordery.
It comes down to communication - if everyone else seems so beneath you that they can't appreciate your genius, insight and perma-gnosis, then it doesn't matter whether you're actually in Chapel Perilous or not, as no one else will ever "get it" - no matter how hard you try. But if you care to communicate with others you disagree with then that structure will end up reprogramming you anyway - we all "go native" sooner or later.
Of course, I could have it all ass-backwards, but it makes sense to me.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?
There is no system yet devised that I am aware of which can avoid human delusion and True Belief. I find that sort of intelligence seems to be the responsibility of the individual... even systems of No Belief, like RAW's views and ideas, or simply the lack of belief in a God can turn into groups of sheep held hostage by the loudest bleating. ;-)
Huh. I guess we need a "Wikipedia of Truth".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 06:34:50 PM
To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.
Maybe, but a model or map can't replace actual sense. Without sense, an individual will get trapped in any map, funny clothes or not.
Maybe "hive mind" is the way to go ;-)
I think our views on Chapel Perilous are somewhat different. In the sense used in Cosmic Trigger and Angel Tech, its a bit different than you explained.
If you stay in Chapel Perilous, then surely you languish... just as if you stay anywhere halfway through a trip, rather than pressing onward. However, I think we have a difference in interpretation of what Chapel Perilous "is"... ;-)
Chapel Perilous in the sense I'm using it (cribbed from Cosmic Trigger), is much more about the experiences in life which utterly shatter your perceptions... its the wrecking ball that demolishes your BiP.
For me, my first trip to Chapel Perilous was a series of events where everything I KNEW to be true for the first 23 years of my life came crashing down, leaving me with no idea of what was true, false, real, not real etc. Of course, I had no idea that was Chapel Perilous at the time... I just felt like my whole reality was gone. Every moral, every belief, every concept that I had based my life on imploded.
I either had to run screaming back to the Belief System and try to forget the incident... or I had to stay there, trusting nothing at all... just paranoid and confused, or I had to press on, come out of the Chapel and find out what then hell was on the other side.
Based on my views of Chapel Perilous, I don't think its possible for a group to enter the Chapel together. (any more so than its possible for multiple people to inhabit the same cell in the BiP).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 07:46:18 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:36:51 PM
Well, intentionally eating the menu is good for a gag ;-)
This is why I don't post in TFYS.
I thought it was a good pun.
I
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 07:53:13 PM
Of course, as you have so aptly pointed out, sometimes it's all menu and there is no meal.
Very true... of course, unless you've ordered something off the menu and tried it... you don't really know. :wink:
I don't need to put my foot in a cow pie to know what it is.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 07:59:30 PM
I don't need to put my foot in a cow pie to know what it is.
I agree. However, cow pies are very useful when applied as fertilizer rather than footwear.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:56:41 PM
I think our views on Chapel Perilous are somewhat different. In the sense used in Cosmic Trigger and Angel Tech, its a bit different than you explained.
If you stay in Chapel Perilous, then surely you languish... just as if you stay anywhere halfway through a trip, rather than pressing onward. However, I think we have a difference in interpretation of what Chapel Perilous "is"... ;-)
Chapel Perilous in the sense I'm using it (cribbed from Cosmic Trigger), is much more about the experiences in life which utterly shatter your perceptions... its the wrecking ball that demolishes your BiP.
For me, my first trip to Chapel Perilous was a series of events where everything I KNEW to be true for the first 23 years of my life came crashing down, leaving me with no idea of what was true, false, real, not real etc. Of course, I had no idea that was Chapel Perilous at the time... I just felt like my whole reality was gone. Every moral, every belief, every concept that I had based my life on imploded.
I either had to run screaming back to the Belief System and try to forget the incident... or I had to stay there, trusting nothing at all... just paranoid and confused, or I had to press on, come out of the Chapel and find out what then hell was on the other side.
Based on my views of Chapel Perilous, I don't think its possible for a group to enter the Chapel together. (any more so than its possible for multiple people to inhabit the same cell in the BiP).
Thanks for that.. I'm not sure how I managed to get so completely confused on what it meant. To clarify - I took the "not recognising an element of your own programming" part as being inside the chapel, and "revelation" or the event you describe as leaving it.
Quote from: FP on December 28, 2009, 08:29:07 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 07:56:41 PM
I think our views on Chapel Perilous are somewhat different. In the sense used in Cosmic Trigger and Angel Tech, its a bit different than you explained.
If you stay in Chapel Perilous, then surely you languish... just as if you stay anywhere halfway through a trip, rather than pressing onward. However, I think we have a difference in interpretation of what Chapel Perilous "is"... ;-)
Chapel Perilous in the sense I'm using it (cribbed from Cosmic Trigger), is much more about the experiences in life which utterly shatter your perceptions... its the wrecking ball that demolishes your BiP.
For me, my first trip to Chapel Perilous was a series of events where everything I KNEW to be true for the first 23 years of my life came crashing down, leaving me with no idea of what was true, false, real, not real etc. Of course, I had no idea that was Chapel Perilous at the time... I just felt like my whole reality was gone. Every moral, every belief, every concept that I had based my life on imploded.
I either had to run screaming back to the Belief System and try to forget the incident... or I had to stay there, trusting nothing at all... just paranoid and confused, or I had to press on, come out of the Chapel and find out what then hell was on the other side.
Based on my views of Chapel Perilous, I don't think its possible for a group to enter the Chapel together. (any more so than its possible for multiple people to inhabit the same cell in the BiP).
Thanks for that.. I'm not sure how I managed to get so completely confused on what it meant. To clarify - I took the "not recognising an element of your own programming" part as being inside the chapel, and "revelation" or the event you describe as leaving it.
Ah!
Yeah, it took me awhile to get what was being talked about with the Chapel... I initially thought you 'broke out' of the chapel to free yourself of old beliefs... but RAW's discussion in Cosmic Trigger is pretty straight forward. It's all about losing your reality tunnel.
Of course, Bob includes things like Alien Abductions.
Omar doesn't believe in Alien Abductions. One night Omar sees strange lights, hears weird noises and around 2:30 AM greys break in, take him to their ship and probe him anally.
Omar is now in Chapel Perilous.
Omar could
A) Decide it was a bad dream, ignore the aching sphincter and try to forget his trip to the Chapel.
II) Decide it was absolutely real, completely factual and wear an aluminum foil hat to keep it from happening again.
3) Decide that he had some kind of experience which seemed similar to other reports of 'aliens', but without concrete evidence may have been something else, psychological, imaginary, some signal he picked up from the Collective Unconscious or maybe he'll just have to invent a new map of his reality with a small section for "What the Fuck?"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Lack of better term I guess. I like the sound of Mind Hack.
But whether it is called by the name Magic or by the term Mind Hack is irrelevant to the actual practice, all that needs to be kept in mind is the Will/Intent and the Result. Perhaps using it under the name of Magic IS a bad term, it is very easy to associate a term with Mind Hack and we could possibly claim it as our own.
Also, while I don't necessarily agree with Brain Fucking, I find it can be very important (and useful) - confuse the hell out of people, they will crave the truth if they play along, once a version of said truth is fed to them .. Its almost like you've caught them in a trap.
I really do have to read up on Crowley and the likes, I've never touched any of those books.
But IMO, perhaps someone should leave a mark on the term Mind Hack, sounds very BiPish
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic?
Then we can communicate with those who think the words are literal as well as those who know they're just names. Hopefully, though, the people I'm giving the time of day don't take it so seriously. Then I guess my real reason is, saying I'm a mage sounds super cool. ;)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 07:59:30 PM
I don't need to put my foot in a cow pie to know what it is.
I agree. However, cow pies are very useful when applied as fertilizer rather than footwear.
:x The metaphor's been extended so much I don't know what it means any more.
(now a 'pataphor)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Unless your intent is to watch rational empiricist's heads explode. Then "magic" works much better.
Im not so sure about that, too much fluff attached. In this conversation, its perfect since its been established what exactly is being discussed.
Take it to an academic or some else and you will spend a better part of your time discussing there is no attached supernatural, only think in terms as intent/result.
But they won't let go, though Magic is a good term to use to mess with others.
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Unless your intent is to watch rational empiricist's heads explode. Then "magic" works much better.
I don't think our heads explode.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 10:13:01 PM
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Unless your intent is to watch rational empiricist's heads explode. Then "magic" works much better.
I don't think our heads explode.
Mostly we just rage.
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 10:13:01 PM
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Unless your intent is to watch rational empiricist's heads explode. Then "magic" works much better.
I don't think our heads explode.
Mostly we just rage.
potato/potahto. "rational rage" is still pretty damn amusing, whatever you want to call it.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 28, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Lack of better term I guess. I like the sound of Mind Hack.
But whether it is called by the name Magic or by the term Mind Hack is irrelevant to the actual practice, all that needs to be kept in mind is the Will/Intent and the Result. Perhaps using it under the name of Magic IS a bad term, it is very easy to associate a term with Mind Hack and we could possibly claim it as our own.
Also, while I don't necessarily agree with Brain Fucking, I find it can be very important (and useful) - confuse the hell out of people, they will crave the truth if they play along, once a version of said truth is fed to them .. Its almost like you've caught them in a trap.
I really do have to read up on Crowley and the likes, I've never touched any of those books.
But IMO, perhaps someone should leave a mark on the term Mind Hack, sounds very BiPish
Mind Hacks is the name of a book http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007799/ on the topic...
As for why call it magic? Why call anything, anything? What sort of question is that?
Magioc, as being discussed here is what "magic practitioners" have been writing about since the days of Abramelin the Mage... we're just tearing off their mysticism and looking at what they were doing... then using symbols and tools to create similar results. Hell, I know some guys that invoke DC Superheros rather than Greek Goddesses.
Moreover, I've found that it is very good for the process to be able to 'believe' whatever it is that your doing, at least for the time you're doing it. Dressing it up with props and labels is very good for the slight of mind (gnosis as described earlier). If you can lose yourself in the ritual its easier to implant the new program.
But, it doesn't fucking matter what its called, Mind Hacking, Magic, Magick, Madjick, self-actualized psycho-analysis, NEuro Linguistic Programming, Memetic Programming, Remodeling You BiP, Changing your Reality Tunnel or Metaprogramming your Imprints... its all the same stuff.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 11:04:00 PM
As for why call it magic? Why call anything, anything? What sort of question is that?
"Magic" has supernatural connotations, and don't deny that the ancients (and some modern people) thought it was supernatural. Therefore it is somewhat misleading to use the old supernatural terms, and the question is, why not use more clear and literal terms.
(edit was for clarification)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 11:04:00 PM
Mind Hacks is the name of a book http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007799/ on the topic...
As for why call it magic? Why call anything, anything? What sort of question is that?
...
But, it doesn't fucking matter what its called, Mind Hacking, Magic, Magick, Madjick, self-actualized psycho-analysis, NEuro Linguistic Programming, Memetic Programming, Remodeling You BiP, Changing your Reality Tunnel or Metaprogramming your Imprints... its all the same stuff.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter. But I would rather work with a clean word.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 11:04:00 PM
Moreover, I've found that it is very good for the process to be able to 'believe' whatever it is that your doing, at least for the time you're doing it. Dressing it up with props and labels is very good for the slight of mind (gnosis as described earlier). If you can lose yourself in the ritual its easier to implant the new program.
Thats the truth, that is how I have been attacking my way. Belief is being used as a tool to achieve a goal. If I have a need to dress the part, then I will do it - but I have NEVER had a need to dress up and use the arcane tools - simply because they have no effect on my persona itself.
I see Symbolism as an important thing, but I think this term is being used loosely. I find symbolism in the programs I run, the shoes I wear, the clothes I wear, the food I eat.
When I am working, I will open Dreamweaver and my mind will shift over into the HTML/PHP framework, when I am working in C++/.NET I will open up Visual Studio 2009, my mind will shift to the right places (Haven't touched that for ages thankfully!)
Magic had supernatural connotations. When I first started looking at I assumed that it had supernatural connotations. However, Crowley, Carroll etc state their intent and their definition of magic up front. So when I'm working with their system I call it magic. IF I'm playing with NLP I call it NLP. When I did the various exercises in "The Book of Atem" I called it memetics.
I guess to avoid confusion, best to work with that then.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:29:20 AM
Magic had supernatural connotations. When I first started looking at I assumed that it had supernatural connotations. However, Crowley, Carroll etc state their intent and their definition of magic up front. So when I'm working with their system I call it magic. IF I'm playing with NLP I call it NLP. When I did the various exercises in "The Book of Atem" I called it memetics.
So, all these system are the same thing essentially, and what is that? Whatever a person wants to call it? So much for communication!
I've used the terms psychosomatics or ch'i work before. These techniques all seem to be formed of the connection between the physical outward actions and the inner workings of the mind, the so called mind-body connection.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 11:04:00 PM
Mind Hacks is the name of a book http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007799/ on the topic...
As for why call it magic? Why call anything, anything? What sort of question is that?
...
But, it doesn't fucking matter what its called, Mind Hacking, Magic, Magick, Madjick, self-actualized psycho-analysis, NEuro Linguistic Programming, Memetic Programming, Remodeling You BiP, Changing your Reality Tunnel or Metaprogramming your Imprints... its all the same stuff.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter. But I would rather work with a clean word.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 28, 2009, 11:04:00 PM
Moreover, I've found that it is very good for the process to be able to 'believe' whatever it is that your doing, at least for the time you're doing it. Dressing it up with props and labels is very good for the slight of mind (gnosis as described earlier). If you can lose yourself in the ritual its easier to implant the new program.
Thats the truth, that is how I have been attacking my way. Belief is being used as a tool to achieve a goal. If I have a need to dress the part, then I will do it - but I have NEVER had a need to dress up and use the arcane tools - simply because they have no effect on my persona itself.
You should do whatever works for you. Magic doesn't require arcane tools, Chaos Magic makes use of modern archetypes or whatever works for the practitioner the specific tools used by the practitioner are unimportant... the mindset and how most reliably to achieve it is what's important. Antero's 'Paratheatrics' uses nothing resembling arcane tools, but its still following the same formulas.
Quote
I see Symbolism as an important thing, but I think this term is being used loosely. I find symbolism in the programs I run, the shoes I wear, the clothes I wear, the food I eat.
Yes, so would I.
Quote
When I am working, I will open Dreamweaver and my mind will shift over into the HTML/PHP framework, when I am working in C++/.NET I will open up Visual Studio 2009, my mind will shift to the right places (Haven't touched that for ages thankfully!)
Yes... thats a good example of dealing with multiple symbolic systems...
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 12:38:52 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:29:20 AM
Magic had supernatural connotations. When I first started looking at I assumed that it had supernatural connotations. However, Crowley, Carroll etc state their intent and their definition of magic up front. So when I'm working with their system I call it magic. IF I'm playing with NLP I call it NLP. When I did the various exercises in "The Book of Atem" I called it memetics.
So, all these system are the same thing essentially, and what is that? Whatever a person wants to call it? So much for communication!
I've used the terms psychosomatics or ch'i work before. These techniques all seem to be formed of the connection between the physical outward actions and the inner workings of the mind, the so called mind-body connection.
Well, they're all metaprogramming systems if you use Leary's lingo...
However to say that they're all the same thing is like saying that (to steal the example above) PHP/C#/FORTRAN/Java/Cold Fusion/PERL and BASIC are essentially all the same thing.
Psychosomatic is a decent term to use, or self-psychoanalysis... but ch'i has a whole different set of preconceptions with it. Though, for some purposes, like a martial arts class, it may be the best word for the person to use.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
However to say that they're all the same thing is like saying that (to steal the example above) PHP/C#/FORTRAN/Java/Cold Fusion/PERL and BASIC are essentially all the same thing.
Especially as your favourite programming language today, will likely be the COBOL of tomorrow.
Quote from: FP on December 29, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
However to say that they're all the same thing is like saying that (to steal the example above) PHP/C#/FORTRAN/Java/Cold Fusion/PERL and BASIC are essentially all the same thing.
Especially as your favourite programming language today, will likely be the COBOL of tomorrow.
Very true... and there is limited usability for COBAL today... much (IMO) like a lot of traditional
magic psychological metaprogramming systems.
(Better?) :fnord:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
You should do whatever works for you. Magic doesn't require arcane tools, Chaos Magic makes use of modern archetypes or whatever works for the practitioner the specific tools used by the practitioner are unimportant... the mindset and how most reliably to achieve it is what's important. Antero's 'Paratheatrics' uses nothing resembling arcane tools, but its still following the same formulas.
Aye, its how I've been targeting it. I guess deep down I am a Chaote. I do what works for me - Over time I have observed over at TCC and made my own definitions up, so I am very distant from terms.
The way I see it is;
Anything I use in the process to make manifest of my Will/Intent are my tools. Each tool will have a specific purpose...
So if I am dressing up with the intent of what I think looks good so I can trap someone/thing (XD), I will choose the clothing carefully. The clothes are the tools. My intent is to lure someone.
Of course I don't say this all out loud :P .. it may just ruin the magic
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:53:21 AM
Quote from: FP on December 29, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
However to say that they're all the same thing is like saying that (to steal the example above) PHP/C#/FORTRAN/Java/Cold Fusion/PERL and BASIC are essentially all the same thing.
Especially as your favourite programming language today, will likely be the COBOL of tomorrow.
Very true... and there is limited usability for COBAL today... much (IMO) like a lot of traditional magic psychological metaprogramming systems.
(Better?) :fnord:
So true :p
In one sense the programming languages are similar, that you can easily go from one language to another (And learn another faster), but the meaning behind Magic in the modern day sense is much different than from the past. Not to be a self-promoter but here is a quote from earlier
QuoteThe basics haven't changed, but the entire method of it has (thats just imo). Is there still a view magic that is this transcended force that isn't in ours to control?
Why is there a need to chant needlessly? I have never done a chant, perhaps I've recited a poem or two but I was forced to.
The idea I have grasped is that it is a means of a way to manifest results, I personally have little reason to talk to myself (When I am mad I vent to some unknown entity .. the side pavement for instance). I have no reason to call on the arch-angels. They have little to no meaning to me. Apart from sounding cool.
The magical thinking paradigm is one thing I DO like however, throw out all of the crap about rules, boundaries, reality itself and just keep at it to a simple thing as; a method to manifest your intention. Anything you use to manifest this intention are your tools. Then re-add all the rules of life itself.
Using this mindset, I am working magic. I am writing a message here, my intent is to push across what my understanding it. I am using the internet to express my will, I am writing words which will meld together on the readers view - maybe they will grasp something, maybe they won't. In the end, my intention isn't far enough to care what another may think.
Magic itself is a tool, another branch in the ways of working in the world. I like using the paradigm, since I can think very well in it. But this could be the programming side in me.
I think this one is also ok to express; posted this on TCC a while back.
QuoteEvery act I do or take part in, is an act of Magic, I am living apart of it. Whether it ranges from the mundane to the fantastic. It is a simple process which involves using my intent to make a manifestation of my will. There are many processes to achieve the same goal, it is my choice as the practioner to use what tools I have access to - to make do.
(edited to fix my rush mistakes)
[fixed most of them atleast .. but shit, talk about not reading what you write]
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 28, 2009, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 10:13:01 PM
Quote from: singer on December 28, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
Then why call it magic? "Mind Hacks" works better.
Unless your intent is to watch rational empiricist's heads explode. Then "magic" works much better.
I don't think our heads explode.
Mostly we just rage.
potato/potahto. "rational rage" is still pretty damn amusing, whatever you want to call it.
Why? Any rational person rages all the time. Look around you. Anyone that isn't raging is delusional.
That, or they're drugged up.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 01:46:26 AM
That, or they're drugged up.
No.
I am drugged up, and I am still raging.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:53:21 AM
Quote from: FP on December 29, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
However to say that they're all the same thing is like saying that (to steal the example above) PHP/C#/FORTRAN/Java/Cold Fusion/PERL and BASIC are essentially all the same thing.
Especially as your favourite programming language today, will likely be the COBOL of tomorrow.
Very true... and there is limited usability for COBAL today... much (IMO) like a lot of traditional magic psychological metaprogramming systems.
(Better?) :fnord:
Psychological metaprogramming works for me. :)
Or maybe even, psychosomatic metaprogramming.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 02:42:14 AM
Or maybe even, psychosomatic metaprogramming.
PILLS HERE
:sad:
*casts level 10 shine*
Good discussion so far. I'll jump in with a few thoughts. I've been reading Peter Carroll's new book, Apophenion, and he has really condensed and laid out in simple terms the basis of his Chaos Magic paradigm (recently refined). Let's see if I can give the bullet points, and then I'll take responses and elaborate:
Chapter 1: Apophenia
-"Physics means no more than a set of ideas about how the world works; everybody has some sort of theory of physics, based on anything from simple experience and intuition to sophisticated experiential and hypothesis. As magic works, at least occasionally, it must form part of any complete theory of how the world works. I regard physics as that subset of magic that works fairly reliably. I regard magic, in the traditional sense, as a kind of physics that we strive to understand and render more reliable. So it all comes down to the same thing, a quest to understand and manipulate the world with a self-consistent and coherent theory." [Fr. Stokastikos here lays out the GAME RULES that the rest of the book should be read by. 1) Magic is a real phenomenon that does _something_, usually not reliably, 2) Physics is the magic that we have Named and Bound to repeatable circumstances and actions.]
-"If the word 'Magic' sounds too outrageous, then substitute psychological and para-psychological technology instead." [Here we have an echo to Arthur C. Clarke's quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" which people tend to misinterpret all the time.]
-"Apophenia means finding pattern or meaning where others don't. Feelings of revelation and ecstasis usually accompany it. It has some negative connotations in psychological terminology when it implies finding meaning or pattern where none exists; and some positive ones when it implies finding something important, useful, or beautiful. It thus links creativity and psychosis, genius and madness." [Here we have a restatement of both the Hodge and the Podge sides of the Law of Fives.]
Chapter 2: Panpsychism - Philosophy
-"Metaphysics means the set of assumptions underlying the way we interpret the phenomena that we perceive. Big assumptions like the existence of mind, matter, gods, causality, and randomness fall into this category. The word phenomena (or phenomenon for singualr), merely denotes events that we perceive. By refraining from talking about the 'things' we perceive we avoid making too many initial assumptions, in particular we avoid the questionable concept of 'thing-ness'. [He goes onto elaborate the complete illusory nature of 'thing-ness' with an example of a simple stone. Stones are constantly in flux, simply less violent flux than say, water. Stones molecules vibrate, it leaks vibrations as waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. It constantly interacts with it's environment or matrix, exchanging energy through light/sound/kinetic energy/inertia/gravity/etc/etc. Yet because most of these details cannot make it through the censor of our physics senses, and our mental image is an abstraction of an already filtered sensory experience, we are taught not to think of a stone as a _process_ but as a _thing_. This is why I find Roger, et al's, invocation of Teh Quantum really amusing in these discussions. Our recent science has allowed us to examine such 'things' as stones(molecules, arraignments of molecules) with enough detail that this illusion of 'thing-ness' that we have built with language breaks down. All is transitory, all a process.]
-"We cannot really ask what a stone 'is', we can only ask what it does, or what it resembles, or how we feel about it. We have no reason to suppose that it consists of anything other than the totality of what it does." [He then goes into an overview of the current state of physics, with special attention to the use of _operational language_, basically E-Prime.]
-"Thus I conclude that I do not have any sort of 'being', I consist only of the totality of what I do. I proceed through time as a process."
-"If we want to philosophise with clarity we can not say that any phenomena 'is' any other phenomena. We can only speak of actions, resemblances, differences. .... When we speak of what any phenomenon 'does' we actually imply what we think it has done and what we think it will do. 'Being' exists only as a neurological and linguistic hallucination."
-"The concept of 'being' implies some kind of metaphysical essence or quality in a phenomenon which exists somewhat independently of what we actually observe it doing. This being-doing duality leads directly to the misconception of a spirit-matter dualism which underpins nearly all religious ideas, and to a mind-matter or to a mind-body dualism which gives rise to insoluble but illusory problems and paradoxes in philosophy, psychology, and in our ideas about consciousness."
-"The abandonment of the language and concept of 'being' leads to a strict Monism, which eliminates any kind of spirit-matter or mind-body dualism. If we assert the reality of both spirit and matter, or of mind and matter, we should only do so in terms of what these phenomena actually do, not what we suppose the 'are'." [He then sets aside 'spirit' as meaning 'the mind of supposedly superhuman creatures', and as our medical science gives us no reason to assume the body consists of anything other than matter, focuses on the mind-matter duality. After an overview of 'theory-of-mind' (i.e. when children realize that phenomena in the world can act with intentionality of their own) he concludes with, "Perhaps mind constitutes a fundamental property of matter, and all matter does mind activity of some kind, and we should not regard it as dead and inert."]
I'll stop here for a while. I'm still digesting this material myself.
That's OK. It's just about time for someone to start flinging barstools. I may need to hoist one myownself... you know... as a 'being' who is considerably more than a 'collection of processes'.
Quote from: Telarus on December 29, 2009, 08:10:15 AM
-"Physics means no more than a set of ideas about how the world works; everybody has some sort of theory of physics, based on anything from simple experience and intuition to sophisticated experiential and hypothesis. As magic works, at least occasionally, it must form part of any complete theory of how the world works.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I can't wait for LMNO to see that. He's gonna rupture his quantum gland.
I've already written off most of this thread as Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
LMNO
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
I've already written off most of this thread as Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
LMNO
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
yeah, but as "pattern recognition monkeys" we cannot help but imbue correlation with significance. Which, BTW, is often a correct interpretation, you know, from a survival standpoint.
singer
-who wonders why one would engage in a conversation that doesn't exist?
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
:crankey:
Goddammit. Fucking cheatin-ass universe. Grumble, grumble...
Quote from: Telarus on December 29, 2009, 08:10:15 AM
Good discussion so far. I'll jump in with a few thoughts. I've been reading Peter Carroll's new book, Apophenion, and he has really condensed and laid out in simple terms the basis of his Chaos Magic paradigm (recently refined). Let's see if I can give the bullet points, and then I'll take responses and elaborate:
Chapter 1: Apophenia
-"Physics means no more than a set of ideas about how the world works; everybody has some sort of theory of physics, based on anything from simple experience and intuition to sophisticated experiential and hypothesis. As magic works, at least occasionally, it must form part of any complete theory of how the world works. I regard physics as that subset of magic that works fairly reliably. I regard magic, in the traditional sense, as a kind of physics that we strive to understand and render more reliable. So it all comes down to the same thing, a quest to understand and manipulate the world with a self-consistent and coherent theory." [Fr. Stokastikos here lays out the GAME RULES that the rest of the book should be read by. 1) Magic is a real phenomenon that does _something_, usually not reliably, 2) Physics is the magic that we have Named and Bound to repeatable circumstances and actions.]
-"If the word 'Magic' sounds too outrageous, then substitute psychological and para-psychological technology instead." [Here we have an echo to Arthur C. Clarke's quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" which people tend to misinterpret all the time.]
-"Apophenia means finding pattern or meaning where others don't. Feelings of revelation and ecstasis usually accompany it. It has some negative connotations in psychological terminology when it implies finding meaning or pattern where none exists; and some positive ones when it implies finding something important, useful, or beautiful. It thus links creativity and psychosis, genius and madness." [Here we have a restatement of both the Hodge and the Podge sides of the Law of Fives.]
Chapter 2: Panpsychism - Philosophy
-"Metaphysics means the set of assumptions underlying the way we interpret the phenomena that we perceive. Big assumptions like the existence of mind, matter, gods, causality, and randomness fall into this category. The word phenomena (or phenomenon for singualr), merely denotes events that we perceive. By refraining from talking about the 'things' we perceive we avoid making too many initial assumptions, in particular we avoid the questionable concept of 'thing-ness'. [He goes onto elaborate the complete illusory nature of 'thing-ness' with an example of a simple stone. Stones are constantly in flux, simply less violent flux than say, water. Stones molecules vibrate, it leaks vibrations as waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. It constantly interacts with it's environment or matrix, exchanging energy through light/sound/kinetic energy/inertia/gravity/etc/etc. Yet because most of these details cannot make it through the censor of our physics senses, and our mental image is an abstraction of an already filtered sensory experience, we are taught not to think of a stone as a _process_ but as a _thing_. This is why I find Roger, et al's, invocation of Teh Quantum really amusing in these discussions. Our recent science has allowed us to examine such 'things' as stones(molecules, arraignments of molecules) with enough detail that this illusion of 'thing-ness' that we have built with language breaks down. All is transitory, all a process.]
-"We cannot really ask what a stone 'is', we can only ask what it does, or what it resembles, or how we feel about it. We have no reason to suppose that it consists of anything other than the totality of what it does." [He then goes into an overview of the current state of physics, with special attention to the use of _operational language_, basically E-Prime.]
-"Thus I conclude that I do not have any sort of 'being', I consist only of the totality of what I do. I proceed through time as a process."
-"If we want to philosophise with clarity we can not say that any phenomena 'is' any other phenomena. We can only speak of actions, resemblances, differences. .... When we speak of what any phenomenon 'does' we actually imply what we think it has done and what we think it will do. 'Being' exists only as a neurological and linguistic hallucination."
-"The concept of 'being' implies some kind of metaphysical essence or quality in a phenomenon which exists somewhat independently of what we actually observe it doing. This being-doing duality leads directly to the misconception of a spirit-matter dualism which underpins nearly all religious ideas, and to a mind-matter or to a mind-body dualism which gives rise to insoluble but illusory problems and paradoxes in philosophy, psychology, and in our ideas about consciousness."
-"The abandonment of the language and concept of 'being' leads to a strict Monism, which eliminates any kind of spirit-matter or mind-body dualism. If we assert the reality of both spirit and matter, or of mind and matter, we should only do so in terms of what these phenomena actually do, not what we suppose the 'are'." [He then sets aside 'spirit' as meaning 'the mind of supposedly superhuman creatures', and as our medical science gives us no reason to assume the body consists of anything other than matter, focuses on the mind-matter duality. After an overview of 'theory-of-mind' (i.e. when children realize that phenomena in the world can act with intentionality of their own) he concludes with, "Perhaps mind constitutes a fundamental property of matter, and all matter does mind activity of some kind, and we should not regard it as dead and inert."]
I'll stop here for a while. I'm still digesting this material myself.
An excellent book.. though I'm biased ;-)
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
I've already written off most of this thread as Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
LMNO
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
yeah, but as "pattern recognition monkeys" we cannot help but imbue correlation with significance. Which, BTW, is often a correct interpretation, you know, from a survival standpoint.
singer
-who wonders why one would engage in a conversation that doesn't exist?
Sure you can help it. Recognize you're doing it, then cut it the fuck out.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
I've already written off most of this thread as Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
LMNO
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
yeah, but as "pattern recognition monkeys" we cannot help but imbue correlation with significance. Which, BTW, is often a correct interpretation, you know, from a survival standpoint.
singer
-who wonders why one would engage in a conversation that doesn't exist?
Sure you can help it. Recognize you're doing it, then cut it the fuck out.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on June 24, 2009, 04:01:58 PM
Erisesiastes 2
Wisdom and Folly Are Absurd
12 Then I turned my mind toward Wisdom,
but found that wisdom was subjective
and often depended on how well the person
could argue in circles. I looked also at
Madness and Folly and they didn't appear
much worse for the wear. For many claim to
have wisdom and few claim to be mad. Yet,
from what I can see all are Mad and few are Wise.
13 I saw that wisdom and folly were like the Light and
the Dark. Neither are bad, but unless you live
in Alaska, you probably like your day to be split
between the two.
14 Some may say that the Light is better for one can see.
Another may say the dark is better for one can find
peace. Yet, wisdom or folly or madness, leaves us
equally dead in the end.
15 So why choose Wisdom over Nonsense, if you're dead
either way?
Is the choice not absurd?
16 For both the wise and the foolish will live for a
time and then die. Soon they will be forgotten,
unless they were a real asshole and then they'll
only be remembered in Internet Debates and as
part of Godwin's Law.
17 One could hate life, and see it all as grievous and meaningless. Or one can get with the program and
figure out what to do with the time they have. 18 For that which we create and that which we write
will be passed on to future Spags, and who knows what fucked up ideas they'll have? 19 They will
interpret what you write as they see fit and not care what you thought. 20 After all, you are dead
and they live, that puts all the power in their hands... and even your Copyright material will be
theirs, unless you have an estate. 21 If you have an estate, they'll probably rape your corpse anyway.
22 Eris gives to the Wise man as much shit as she gives to the Fool. 23 She throws apples at the man who
toils under the sun and she throws apples at the man who relaxes on the riverbank in the shade. 24 To
the one in the sun, she gives heat exhaustion; and to the other she trips him and he falls into the
mud. 25 In the end, the only one really having a good time is Eris, the bitch. Embrace Sense or
Nonsense, either way she'll screw with you.
Rage into the Maelstrom, if you're having fun doing it... but don't presume that the crazy shit other people are doing is any less fun.
I'll presume what I want to, old man.
Incidentally, I wasn't saying she shouldn't do it. I was responding to her comment that you "can't help" doing it.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:11:54 PM
I'll presume what I want to, old man.
eh, sonny, ye young whippersnappers are all the same! *shakes his walker geriatricly*
Quote
Incidentally, I wasn't saying she shouldn't do it. I was responding to her comment that you "can't help" doing it.
Well, even then, is that really true? I mean, we can reprogram ourselves to try to catch 'pattern recognition' and not confuse it with causation... in fact, I'd argue that's exactly why RAW used 23 & the Quarter Trick so often. Same for the Law of Fives...
However, as others have so intelligently pointed out to me in the past, we can never fully break free of the BiP... and invariably that means that we will confuse pattern recognition and causation... at least occasionally. We may immediately recognize it and modify our position, or we may not realize it until someone hits us with a stick.
Surely we, as monkeys, are no more capable of exorcising pattern recognition than shit flinging?
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
I've already written off most of this thread as Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
LMNO
-If I don't read this thread, it may not exist.
yeah, but as "pattern recognition monkeys" we cannot help but imbue correlation with significance. Which, BTW, is often a correct interpretation, you know, from a survival standpoint.
singer
-who wonders why one would engage in a conversation that doesn't exist?
Sure you can help it. Recognize you're doing it, then cut it the fuck out.
But, what if the correlation I decide to ignore really is significant? What if it is only my present and presently limited knowledge that leads me to believe that the pattern I am recognizing is only correlative and not causative? Wouldn't that be stupid?
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Because sometimes what we "know" to be a causation turns out to be a correlation. And sometimes what we "know" to be a correlation turns out to have some causative properties. Every time we gain more knowledge... the whole balance of correlation/causation will seem to change, at least from our limited perspective.
My old engineering mentor gave me the secret to understanding all systems. It's quite simple... in the words of Wayne Ely (a 300lb 6'3" Santa from Hell):
"Every system has three things. The GOESINSA the GOESOUTSA and the THING IN THE MIDDLE."
If you didn't know what the THING IN THE MIDDLE did, you can look at the GOESINSA and GOESOUTSA and figure it out. Now mostly we applied this to transmitters, recording equipment, animatronics etc. However, it applies to the brain as well, I think.
Pattern recoginition is a GOESOUTSA, the data you found patterns in is the GOESINSA... being able to examine both allows you to learn something about the THING IN THE MIDDLE (you).
Or at least, thats currently the line of Bullshit I'm selling if anyone is interested in buying it.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms. Stupid fuckers these days still think we're dealing in a universe of cause and effect, as if anything were that simple!! We live in a universe of causes and effects swapping states back and forth in a cosmic feedback loop. Pattern Recognition sometimes correctly identifies some of these causes and effects. Sometimes it doesn't (or at least not in any way we can piece together with the available data).
Now, if you are saying that rather than 'calling' it something, they're really really for realz believing it 100% as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TROOF... then yeah, thats just crazy. Ummm, but I don't think anyone said that.
Screw you guys.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
This.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:46:23 PM
Screw you guys.
Hrmmm, how about at the party after your concert?
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Seriously.
In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).
I did a dance and it rained.
Ergo, my dance caused the rain.
Or words to that effect.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Seriously.
In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).
Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...
Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'
WTF is 'significance'?
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:59:42 PM
WTF is 'significance'?
Another way of saying "it's more fun to call this 'significant' instead of researching the underlying causes behind a pattern."?
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Just like your Mom.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Just like your Mom.
I accept your surrender.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Seriously.
In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).
Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...
Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'
Are you saying "syncronicity"?
I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 04:07:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Seriously.
In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).
Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...
Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'
Are you saying "syncronicity"?
I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.
I don't disagree with your point Kai... I just don't know who argued against it...
Well, if it wasn't you, why do you keep posting?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 04:07:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.
Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.
Why is this so damn difficult for you people?
Seriously.
In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).
Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...
Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'
Are you saying "syncronicity"?
I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.
I don't disagree with your point Kai... I just don't know who argued against it...
GODDDAMN IT., FUCK! DEWAIOEWFAI;UFWEAFRWEA
SRSLY.
If you are going to say things, and then completely ignore that you just said them. YOU SAID "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." I SAID NO. Okay?
arg.
Ah! I found it!
I think that I probably worded that badly.
Quote
Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms. Stupid fuckers these days still think we're dealing in a universe of cause and effect, as if anything were that simple!! We live in a universe of causes and effects swapping states back and forth in a cosmic feedback loop. Pattern Recognition sometimes correctly identifies some of these causes and effects. Sometimes it doesn't (or at least not in any way we can piece together with the available data).
My point was that we humans generally say Cause = Effect.
Because I didn't stop at the red light, someone hit my car.
However, its rarely that simple.
Because I was late for work, and the sun was in my eyes, I didn't notice the light turn red.
There are usually many causes which create many effects which in turn are causes for further effects. Claiming that pattern recognition is meaningless seems to miss out on this larger picture of causes and effects.
Patterns don't always equate to cause.... but examining patterns does sometimes lead us to the causes, or at least provides us with useful data in determining a cause... even if that cause is "Because I read too much Robert Anton Wilson, I see 23's everywhere".
I am not arguing that Pattern = Cause. I am arguing that pattern = useful (potentially).
Causation and Correlation are mutable, only in their scope.... (my point about causes rather than cause). My statement was unclear and I apologize for that!!
EDIT: And I'm still confused as to what this has to do with Magic....
Hey Rat, it might be a good idea to stop commenting in this thread if you're not even sure what you're commenting on, or why...
And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.
You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 04:38:50 PM
And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.
You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.
I don't think they're interchangeable... I said they were mutable (changable). The definition of 'cause' depends on the perception of the individual. The simple view identifies a single CAUSE and ties it to a single EFFECT. However, 'cause' may be more correctly perceived as 'causes' and 'effect' as 'effects'. Pattern Recognition is a very useful way to help identify these 'causes' and 'effects' which may stretch well beyond the singular cause and effect identified first.
I am in no way saying that pattern recognition = causation recognition. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Not entirely. And this is where it get's interesting for me.
Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness. Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.
20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.
20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.
Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.
So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...) Does this mean I reject today's facts? No. I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything. I have to trust researchers to a great degree. But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias. Just as I don't trust the 'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis. I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand. Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.
And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause? I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 04:38:50 PM
And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.
You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.
R-Prime in effect.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Not entirely. And this is where it get's interesting for me.
Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness. Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.
20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.
20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.
Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.
So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...) Does this mean I reject today's facts? No. I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything. I have to trust researchers to a great degree. But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias. Just as I don't trust the 'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis. I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand. Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.
And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause? I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.
I'm going to use Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here...for every lobster that grows 200 feet long and attacks cities, there's 1000 that go in the pot.
So you have your magic muffin, or your sigils, or whatever, and one person goes into remission. How many die a lingering death of cancer or whatever because they didn't seek real treatment?
As Kipling would put it, you can dance around and rattle beads, but when it's all said and done, reality remains. And the reality is that you are most likely NOT going to go into remission from a magic muffin.
I agree with Roger... Magic Muffins are great, especially if they're made with Kine Bud. But I don't ever expect them to cure my cancer.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy. It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method. It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level. It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.
Not entirely. And this is where it get's interesting for me.
Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness. Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.
20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.
20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.
Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.
So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...) Does this mean I reject today's facts? No. I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything. I have to trust researchers to a great degree. But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias. Just as I don't trust the 'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis. I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand. Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.
And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause? I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.
:facepalm:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 05:27:08 PM
I'm going to use Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here...for every lobster that grows 200 feet long and attacks cities, there's 1000 that go in the pot.
So you have your magic muffin, or your sigils, or whatever, and one person goes into remission. How many die a lingering death of cancer or whatever because they didn't seek real treatment?
As Kipling would put it, you can dance around and rattle beads, but when it's all said and done, reality remains. And the reality is that you are most likely NOT going to go into remission from a magic muffin.
Yes... exactly!!!! (I have never heard the principle, but I gotta say, I love it!). Of course probability goes into it and weighs heavily on the side of chemotherapy and other 'real treatment' regimens. But, physicians also know how important it is to share 'belief' with their patients. "I wouldn't recommend this course of treatment if I didn't believe it was going to work for you, Mrs. Smith" is said not because the doctor is 100 percent certain that he will effect a cure. He has loads of information about the significantly less than 100 percent probability of any course of treatment he offers. But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which
may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation. He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy. He'll bake a muffin if that's what it takes because he is truly unafraid to act past the either/or mind-set.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
Yes... exactly!!!! (I have never heard the principle, but I gotta say, I love it!). Of course probability goes into it and weighs heavily on the side of chemotherapy and other 'real treatment' regimens.
It isn't probability so much as chemistry.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Of course they are... they may not be evidence the kind of evidence accepted within scientific models or court cases... but thats only because those systems/models have specific definitions of evidence as it applies to their models.
There was evidence that rocks fell out of the sky in the 1700's. It was all anecdotal and therefore the royal Society called it rubbish and stated that there were no rocks that fell from the sky.
The anecdotes were evidence, but they ignored it.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Of course they are...
Okay, I'm done. If I wanted this level of discussion, I'd go to the John Edwards boards.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
No. But they can indicate patterns. Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors. Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
No. But they can indicate patterns. Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors. Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)
Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Of course they are... they may not be evidence the kind of evidence accepted within scientific models or court cases... but thats only because those systems/models have specific definitions of evidence as it applies to their models.
There was evidence that rocks fell out of the sky in the 1700's. It was all anecdotal and therefore the royal Society called it rubbish and stated that there were no rocks that fell from the sky.
The anecdotes were evidence, but they ignored it.
Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.
The royal society was misguided. They should have said, "There is currently no physical evidence to suggest rocks falling from the sky, but were we to be presented with good evidence, such a claim would be acceptable." This was all before the philosophy of science really got going, so I'd go easy on them for that.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.
I don't see any evidence in this thread that anyone suggested that anecdotal evidence was the equivalent of physical evidence.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
No. But they can indicate patterns. Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors. Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)
They can indicate patterns, but how well? All I have to work on is someones word, no physical measurements.
Exploration of patterns shows evidence of patterns, period. It takes INFERENCE (hypothesis) to go beyond that. A cladogram doesn't indicate evolutionary relationships, it only indicates a pattern of homologies, which are all individually hypotheses of sameness. From that, I generate a hypothesis of the reality, but that may not be the reality at all. The point is, you can never really KNOW the causal factors, which means you want the best fucking pattern evidence you can get to derive your inferences. Anecdotes don't cut it.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.
I don't see any evidence in this thread that anyone suggested that anecdotal evidence was the equivalent of physical evidence.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
Quote from: JohNyx on December 29, 2009, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
No. But they can indicate patterns. Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors. Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)
Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.
Sometimes it can, sometimes it can indicate actual useful information...
I don't think Singer is arguing that
all pattern recognition = Sciency Troof.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Of course they are... they may not be evidence the kind of evidence accepted within scientific models or court cases... but thats only because those systems/models have specific definitions of evidence as it applies to their models.
There was evidence that rocks fell out of the sky in the 1700's. It was all anecdotal and therefore the royal Society called it rubbish and stated that there were no rocks that fell from the sky.
The anecdotes were evidence, but they ignored it.
Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.
Anecdotes are not crap. They are certainly NOT objectively observed data, but that doesn't make them crap. WTF is with this IS/IS NOT thinking? Anecdotes are tremendously useful as long as they're seen as anecdotes and not objective observations. Both have value, the latter has MORE value, but the latter isn't always possible or available.
Quote
The royal society was misguided. They should have said, "There is currently no physical evidence to suggest rocks falling from the sky, but were we to be presented with good evidence, such a claim would be acceptable." This was all before the philosophy of science really got going, so I'd go easy on them for that.
Actually they should have said "We can't substantiate your claims, but we'll send Mr. Hooke, Mr. Wren and Mr. Wilkins out in the evenings to watch for this since so many individuals have reported similar experiences."
Anecdotes = evidence that MAYBE there's something worth investigating. Objective observation = evidence that provides some detail about what is being investigated.
Simply labeling anecdotes as useless leaves us missing an incredibly useful (though often misused) tool. Simply, scientific observation cannot be everywhere, all the time. Thus we depend on individual observation (anecdotes) as a starting point for many kinds of investigation... they are not what we should base any conclusion on, or consider to carry weight... but anecdotes are evidence and they are useful.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 06:46:07 PM
Anecdotes = evidence that MAYBE
wut :lulz:
And IS/IS NOT is what science is all about. It's provable and repeatable, or it isn't.
Quote from: JohNyx on December 29, 2009, 06:28:37 PM
Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.
I think that's what I like so much about the law of fives. It is one of the tools that can be used very successfully when following LMNO's advice to "cut it out". But so much of scientific advancement is sparked from intuitive leaps that further the collective understanding... all the testing and proving comes after the formulation of a hypothesis, so it seems a little counter-productive to stagnate by endlessly replicating the provable when the next big chunk of the puzzle is more likely to be out there with all the other black swans, just beyond present comprehension.
Blarg. I can't take any more of this new age crap.
I knew this all reminded me of something:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18590.0
Hold on...
Using Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here, which TGRR brought up and Singer agreed with:
if 1000 people eat a Magical Cancer Muffin, and 1 person gets healed for no apparent reason other than the MCM...
THAT IS NOT CORRELATION. THAT IS COINCIDENCE.
If 501 people (that is, greater than half) had spontaneous remission, THAT would be correlation.
You guys are worse than the wiccans sometimes, because you should know better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:48:03 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 06:46:07 PM
Anecdotes = evidence that MAYBE
wut :lulz:
And IS/IS NOT is what science is all about. It's provable and repeatable, or it isn't.
Why are you talking about science? Scientific models as I already stated to not (by definition) model anecdotal evidence. Therefore, one should not use the scientific model to discuss the value of anecdotes.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on December 29, 2009, 06:28:37 PM
Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.
I think that's what I like so much about the law of fives. It is one of the tools that can be used very successfully when following LMNO's advice to "cut it out". But so much of scientific advancement is sparked from intuitive leaps that further the collective understanding... all the testing and proving comes after the formulation of a hypothesis, so it seems a little counter-productive to stagnate by endlessly replicating the provable when the next big chunk of the puzzle is more likely to be out there with all the other black swans, just beyond present comprehension.
Im sort of afraid to jump into this thread, theres so much ambiguous terminology floating around and millions of possibilities of misinterpretation.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 06:54:03 PM
You guys are worse than the wiccans sometimes, because you should know better.
It pains me, LMNO. It really does. It makes me hate people even more, because even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
Goddammit, I fucking hate people. Every fucking one of them. I can't fucking stand it. Oh, Goddammit.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 06:54:03 PM
You guys are worse than the wiccans sometimes, because you should know better.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:43:46 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.
I don't see any evidence in this thread that anyone suggested that anecdotal evidence was the equivalent of physical evidence.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
Nope. I said he used the tool based on the anecdotal evidence in conjunction with the other tools in his healing arsenal. I did not suggest that he said "belief is enough, let's just dump this chemo down the drain". But, based on anecdote alone (albeit many many many anecdotes) the Dr. chooses to encourage patient 'belief' as an augmentation to the other tools at his disposal. I would be very surprised to find a Dr. that said "I don't think this will work, but I'm gonna give it to you anyway.", and I know some oncologists that spend a whole lot of time teaching each other how to sound and look hopeful so as not to shake their patients faith in the treatment, so it would seem that a patient's faith in the treatment must have an important role to play there somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't waste their very expensive time on it.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 06:54:03 PM
Hold on...
Using Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here, which TGRR brought up and Singer agreed with:
if 1000 people eat a Magical Cancer Muffin, and 1 person gets healed for no apparent reason other than the MCM...
THAT IS NOT CORRELATION. THAT IS COINCIDENCE.
If 501 people (that is, greater than half) had spontaneous remission, THAT would be correlation.
You guys are worse than the wiccans sometimes, because you should know better.
Is that actually the definition of correlation? More than half? What is 2000 people eat a magic muffin and 2 are healed for no apparent reason? 2 coincidences? How many individual coincidences does it take to be a correlative pattern (not being a smart-ass here, I really want to know if there is an answer.)
66.7%
2/3
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
:lulz:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:05:15 PM
But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation. He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
You know a doctor behaving this way? I want to know who the hell it is.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:05:15 PM
But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation. He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
Its the placebo effect. Psycho-somatics.
Quote from: JohNyx on December 29, 2009, 07:20:08 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:05:15 PM
But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation. He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
Its the placebo effect. Psycho-somatics.
But the placebo effect
can be replicated in experiments. There's a reason you use a placebo group.
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:42:52 PM
They can indicate patterns, but how well? All I have to work on is someones word, no physical measurements.
Exploration of patterns shows evidence of patterns, period. It takes INFERENCE (hypothesis) to go beyond that. A cladogram doesn't indicate evolutionary relationships, it only indicates a pattern of homologies, which are all individually hypotheses of sameness. From that, I generate a hypothesis of the reality, but that may not be the reality at all. The point is, you can never really KNOW the causal factors, which means you want the best fucking pattern evidence you can get to derive your inferences. Anecdotes don't cut it.
No. Anecdotes don't cut it. But they may provide the genesis of pattern recognition. For that reason alone they may have value.
AND: Is it true that you can never really know the causal factors? (again, not being a smart-ass, I just found that sentence jarring.)
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
No, it improves your listening.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 07:41:28 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
No, it improves your listening.
Perfect. Thank you TGRR, that was fun.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
At the very least, it will prevent me from reading any more of this thread.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 07:49:23 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
At the very least, it will prevent me from reading any more of this thread.
O'RLY?
So now I can start posting about how really real I think all of this Magic is then!!!
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 07:49:23 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
At the very least, it will prevent me from reading any more of this thread.
Too late. Teh sigilz are burned into your brain. Quantumly.
Goddammit.
This thread makes me want to go kick homeless puppies.
Fuckers. FUCKERS.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on December 29, 2009, 08:17:04 PM
Goddammit.
This thread makes me want to go kick homeless puppies.
Fuckers. FUCKERS.
This thread gave me encopresis.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 07:52:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 07:49:23 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
even the ones that ought to know better put blindfolds on themselves and run around hollering about the advantages of blindness.
There is some anecdotal evidence that it will improve your hearing.
At the very least, it will prevent me from reading any more of this thread.
Too late. Teh sigilz are burned into your brain. Quantumly.
TEH QUANTUMZ. THEY BURNZ...
\
:zombie:
This thread gave me much mirth.
Especially all the burning of brain cells and kicking of puppies!
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:26:13 PM
This thread gave me much mirth.
Especially all the burning of brain cells and kicking of puppies!
Yeah, but the burning of brain cells is from frustration, not confusion. Fail.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:26:13 PM
This thread gave me much mirth.
Especially all the burning of brain cells and kicking of puppies!
Yeah, but the burning of brain cells is from frustration, not confusion. Fail.
Funny is funny. What the hell are you doing getting frustrated on a goddess blessed Internet forum, over a topic that always ends like this everytime it comes up?
:lulz:
Because you, a relatively smart person, are arguing someone else's point; and you're doing it ignorantly, just to be contrarian.
Willful stupidity always cheeses me off.
This thread is like being stuck in Phoenix.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:38:08 PM
Willful stupidity always cheeses me off.
This thread is like being stuck in Phoenix.
And yet you found it necessary to be a part of...
as I said... is funny
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:36:03 PM
Because you, a relatively smart person, are arguing someone else's point; and you're doing it ignorantly, just to be contrarian.
After some people decided to take a piss on the discussion... I may have been a little contrarian. Just a little... like ... *this much*
:lulz:
People scream and rage when they could just not comment and get on with their life... sans burning brain cells. I dunno why people that aren't interested in Magic want to come poke a thread about Magic, but I'll be happy to entertain them while they're here.
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:39:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:38:08 PM
Willful stupidity always cheeses me off.
This thread is like being stuck in Phoenix.
And yet you found it necessary to be a part of...
as I said... is funny
:lulz:
Ever been to Phoenix? You don't know WHY you're there, and you can't fucking leave, for reasons that are always difficult to explain and impossible to overcome.
But, hey, you stirred some shit. Congratulations. A winner is you.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
I disagree. I gave useful comments to interesting posts from multiple users that posted here... just not the ones that have no interest in the topic at hand.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
:lulz:
so you say.
EDIT: Cause looking at this thread; a group was having a conversation... you came in to stir shit. Not that I mind, its fun watching you do your thing.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
:lulz:
so you say.
EDIT: Cause looking at this thread; a group was having a conversation... you came in to stir shit. Not that I mind, its fun watching you do your thing.
So, voicing an opinion is "stirring shit" and deliberately trolling is "having a conversation".
I see.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
:lulz:
so you say.
EDIT: Cause looking at this thread; a group was having a conversation... you came in to stir shit. Not that I mind, its fun watching you do your thing.
So, voicing an opinion is "stirring shit" and deliberately trolling is "having a conversation".
I see.
Nope,. the conversation that was in full swing before you stopped by with QUANTUMZ one liners wasn't trolling at all... Hell, even the past several pages haven't been trolling, not in any sense of the word. I mean, unless anything short of not responding to you is a troll...
When I said "I'll be happy to entertain them while they're here" I meant that I'd be happy to respond to your posts to maximize the lulz... However, I wasn't trolling, I was mostly hoping you'd get bored so we could go back to the discussion we were having before.
But, see it however you like.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 09:09:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
:lulz:
so you say.
EDIT: Cause looking at this thread; a group was having a conversation... you came in to stir shit. Not that I mind, its fun watching you do your thing.
So, voicing an opinion is "stirring shit" and deliberately trolling is "having a conversation".
I see.
Nope,. the conversation that was in full swing before you stopped by with QUANTUMZ one liners wasn't trolling at all... Hell, even the past several pages haven't been trolling, not in any sense of the word. I mean, unless anything short of not responding to you is a troll...
When I said "I'll be happy to entertain them while they're here" I meant that I'd be happy to respond to your posts to maximize the lulz... However, I wasn't trolling, I was mostly hoping you'd get bored so we could go back to the discussion we were having before.
But, see it however you like.
Okay, fuck off now. I liked you better when you were honest.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:11:59 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 09:09:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 29, 2009, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 29, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Sadly, you missed the opportunity to help out another board member with their thoughts, in order to stir up shit.
Nice going.
Looking back, that's really all he ever does.
:lulz:
so you say.
EDIT: Cause looking at this thread; a group was having a conversation... you came in to stir shit. Not that I mind, its fun watching you do your thing.
So, voicing an opinion is "stirring shit" and deliberately trolling is "having a conversation".
I see.
Nope,. the conversation that was in full swing before you stopped by with QUANTUMZ one liners wasn't trolling at all... Hell, even the past several pages haven't been trolling, not in any sense of the word. I mean, unless anything short of not responding to you is a troll...
When I said "I'll be happy to entertain them while they're here" I meant that I'd be happy to respond to your posts to maximize the lulz... However, I wasn't trolling, I was mostly hoping you'd get bored so we could go back to the discussion we were having before.
But, see it however you like.
Okay, fuck off now. I liked you better when you were honest.
Whatever Roger... you can read back through the thread and imagine all of my posts are trolls and yours are somehow valuable contributions.
It's Magic.
No idea what just happened there
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:20:48 PM
No idea what just happened there
No worries, TGRR and I have lovers quarrels all the time.
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for
proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a
proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
depends on where you are and what you are researching, I guess.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
Putting a lab coat on a monkey gets you a monkey in a lab coat.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Yes, of course. Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust. Silly me.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:12:30 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Yes, of course. Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust. Silly me.
Of course there are examples to the contrary. But still, the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of untainted research.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:21:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:12:30 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Yes, of course. Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust. Silly me.
Of course there are examples to the contrary. But still, the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of untainted research.
So it is your assertion that most scientists are hopelessly corrupt?
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
Yeah, but dont the assistants do ALL the work anyway?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 02:23:40 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:21:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:12:30 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Yes, of course. Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust. Silly me.
Of course there are examples to the contrary. But still, the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of untainted research.
So it is your assertion that most scientists are hopelessly corrupt?
It's not a scientific assertion, it's
only an anecdotal implication.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 30, 2009, 02:25:47 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
Yeah, but dont the assistants do ALL the work anyway?
Research assistantship simply means we get paid to do research. This is as opposed to a teaching assistantship where we get paid to teach.
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 02:23:40 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:21:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:12:30 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 29, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
to be honest I kind of liked this bit:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away. Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away. Many more complexities are revealed.
because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.
As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a proper scientist. Not that they don't exist. They just tend not to be on salary.
Yes, of course. Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust. Silly me.
Of course there are examples to the contrary. But still, the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of untainted research.
So it is your assertion that most scientists are hopelessly corrupt?
I don't believe I would necessarily limit it to scientists :lulz:
and
No. My assertion is that "them what pays the piper calls the tune". In almost every field of endeavor. There are lots of scientists who complain that findings contrary to the expectations of the funding source are discouraged and even buried. The funding source owns the research so the funding source doesn't have to publish what they don't particularly want publicized. Scientists are no more inherently corrupt than any other profession.
I'd like to corrupt a scientist...FOR SCIENCE!
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
Didnt you say before that anecdotes are evidence? Or was it rat?
IMO: Magic is only relevant in the realm of the imaginary.
If you want to have the imaginary be part of your everyday life, that's fine.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 07:22:03 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 29, 2009, 06:42:52 PM
They can indicate patterns, but how well? All I have to work on is someones word, no physical measurements.
Exploration of patterns shows evidence of patterns, period. It takes INFERENCE (hypothesis) to go beyond that. A cladogram doesn't indicate evolutionary relationships, it only indicates a pattern of homologies, which are all individually hypotheses of sameness. From that, I generate a hypothesis of the reality, but that may not be the reality at all. The point is, you can never really KNOW the causal factors, which means you want the best fucking pattern evidence you can get to derive your inferences. Anecdotes don't cut it.
No. Anecdotes don't cut it. But they may provide the genesis of pattern recognition. For that reason alone they may have value.
AND: Is it true that you can never really know the causal factors? (again, not being a smart-ass, I just found that sentence jarring.)
Nevermind.
So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true. Yes?
All the pagan forums made an akelarre during Xmas day, cooked some potions, inchanted some spellz and drew sigils all for the purpose of...
POSSESING PD MEMBERS TO TROLL OURSELVES !1!!!
:omg:
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2009, 10:42:37 AM
So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true. Yes?
No. I don't think that was the gist at all.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 30, 2009, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant. I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation. The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind. I hoped everyone understood that as well.
I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:
Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves
Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker
Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker
LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable
Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now
Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"
OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE
ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS
ETA2: FUCK YOU
Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2009, 10:42:37 AM
So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true. Yes?
In addition:
Some people who call themselves scientists are not actually practicing science, therefore science cannot be trusted; and fuck you, I'm a wizard.
:magick: :rpger:
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 30, 2009, 01:02:26 PM
I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:
Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves
Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker
Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker
LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable
Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now
Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"
OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE
ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS
ETA2: FUCK YOU
Whose house?
CAIT'S HOUSE.
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2009, 10:42:37 AM
So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true. Yes?
In addition:
Some people who call themselves scientists are not actually practicing science, therefore science cannot be trusted; and fuck you, I'm a wizard.
:magick: :rpger:
Addition addendum: No field of endeavor should be exempt from critical evaluation. Just because the assertions of any particular endeavor can be found to be imperfect doesn't necessarily mean that all assertions in that particular field of endeavor are suspect. You are among the greatest of Wizards in all of Oz.
You weren't asserting that science, a self-correcting discipline, was imperfect. You were asserting that people who call themselves scientists were corrupt.
One of the main problems in this thread is that you don't actually know where you stand; or if you do, you are having difficulty stating it.
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 30, 2009, 01:02:26 PM
I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:
Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves
Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker
Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker
LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable
Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now
Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"
OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE
ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS
ETA2: FUCK YOU
Really? That's trolling? I don't think I understand the difference between 'trolling' and engaging in a conversation/debate. Unless my exploration of the various emotional reactions to semantics is trolling, (in which case I apologize, I had no intent to 'troll'... whatever that means), I honestly thought I was just engaging in an interesting (if sometimes irreverent) conversation with some interesting and disparate points of view. I was actually enjoying the conversation, but I didn't intend for my enjoyment to be at anyone's expense.
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 02:17:03 PM
You weren't asserting that science, a self-correcting discipline, was imperfect. You were asserting that people who call themselves scientists were corrupt.
One of the main problems in this thread is that you don't actually know where you stand; or if you do, you are having difficulty stating it.
Didn't you read their signature?
On another note... this thread is pretty much shot to shit now and we all know the only REAL maghiqkal persons is Cris Angel. HE WALKED ON WATER..... He may be jesus......
:|
Khara, this thread was an abortion at conception
Magic is useful for nothing more than shitty books and not-so-shitty games
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 02:17:03 PM
You weren't asserting that science, a self-correcting discipline, was imperfect. You were asserting that people who call themselves scientists were corrupt.
One of the main problems in this thread is that you don't actually know where you stand; or if you do, you are having difficulty stating it.
Actually, I thought that I was asserting that oftentimes new data obviates old conclusions, and that makes clinging to many kinds of 'conclusions' (even those supported by present day knowledge) potentially inaccurate. Then I posited that the special interest of funding sources (and other authority) should always be factored in when evaluating the accuracy of the final conclusion.
I will confess though to having my position altered as new information becomes available to me. (Not just in this conversation, it's an overall part of my personality). If that looks like "I don't know where I stand" I apologize for the confusion. I don't think that part of my conversational style will change though. I sort of value the ability to refine any of my opinions when presented with different or new information.
Quote from: Khara on December 30, 2009, 02:25:24 PM
Didn't you read their signature?
I have sigs turned off. FOR SCIENCE!
Somewhere around here, I've posted something about magic
1 and magic
2, or some such shit, in order to clarify terms. Maybe I should look for it.
But honestly, the fact that Rat argued for two pages against something he ended up agreeing with should tell you something.
EDIT: oh yeah, it was here -- http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21358.msg727843#msg727843
Quote from: Khara on December 30, 2009, 02:25:24 PM
Didn't you read their signature?
That's actually a reference to the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle's Metaphysics treatise.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 12:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 30, 2009, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant. I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation. The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind. I hoped everyone understood that as well.
just so you know, noob, a few of us on this board have known each other for 5 years or more. Kai's scientific credentials are exactly what he says they are.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:27:41 PMI sort of value the ability to refine any of my opinions when presented with different or new information.
here's some new information for you:
"Magic" doesn't exist except in the basements of pimple-faced nerds who still live with their mothers and jerk off to lolicon. Find a less retarded hobby, like voting republican or something.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 30, 2009, 01:02:26 PM
I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:
Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves
Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker
Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker
LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable
Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now
Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"
OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE
ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS
ETA2: FUCK YOU
Really? That's trolling? I don't think I understand the difference between 'trolling' and engaging in a conversation/debate. Unless my exploration of the various emotional reactions to semantics is trolling, (in which case I apologize, I had no intent to 'troll'... whatever that means), I honestly thought I was just engaging in an interesting (if sometimes irreverent) conversation with some interesting and disparate points of view. I was actually enjoying the conversation, but I didn't intend for my enjoyment to be at anyone's expense.
Really? That's debating? I don't think I understand the difference between 'debating' and engaging in a dick-wagging contest. Unless your questioning longtime posters, saying hideously stupid shit and changing your tack every three seconds is debating, (in which case I won't apologize, you still were a complete fucking cocktoggle... and you know what that means), I honestly thought I was just observing that you were in a completely uninteresting (and always irreverent) conversation with some uninteresting and retarded points of view. I was actually enjoying you making an ass of yourself, and I intended for my enjoyment to be at your expense.
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 30, 2009, 01:02:26 PM
I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:
Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves
Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker
Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker
LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable
Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now
Cram will appear soon and vomit blood out of his ass
Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"
OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE
ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS
ETA2: FUCK YOU
Fixed
:lulz:
I fear that the screaming and bulging veins have left many here with a sadly dim view... I have no belief that I can change it or the self-righteous indignation. So I'll bow out of the thread and we'll have the same shit when the topic comes up again.
Nevermind, THIS thread has transmuted into bullshit. The other was intended to be so.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on December 30, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 12:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 30, 2009, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant. I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation. The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind. I hoped everyone understood that as well.
just so you know, noob, a few of us on this board have known each other for 5 years or more. Kai's scientific credentials are exactly what he says they are.
Troof. And if I wasn't concerned with anonymity, I would provide a link to the web page for my department. Alas, the world is full of assholes, and whatnot.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on December 30, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 12:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 30, 2009, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant. I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation. The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind. I hoped everyone understood that as well.
just so you know, noob, a few of us on this board have known each other for 5 years or more. Kai's scientific credentials are exactly what he says they are.
Just so you know, I have been aware of Kai's scientific career for several years as well. I have been pretty impressed with Kai's education and opinions in the past and I expect I will continue to be so. I did not (and do not) question his credibility. However this was not a comment about his credibility. It was a comment about the factual circumstance of an utterance offered as evidence and how that reflects upon it's indicia of reliability. Change the factual circumstance, say for example on a witness stand under oath in a courtroom, then his testimony becomes evidence with a greater indicia of reliability. It was in response to a suggestion that I don't know what "evidence" is. It was not a character assassination. I object to your trying to paint it as such.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on December 30, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 12:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 30, 2009, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
But only anecdotal.
That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.
Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.
If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.
And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant. I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation. The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind. I hoped everyone understood that as well.
just so you know, noob, a few of us on this board have known each other for 5 years or more. Kai's scientific credentials are exactly what he says they are.
Just so you know, I have been aware of Kai's scientific career for several years as well. I have been pretty impressed with Kai's education and opinions in the past and I expect I will continue to be so. I did not (and do not) question his credibility. However this was not a comment about his credibility. It was a comment about the factual circumstance of an utterance offered as evidence and how that reflects upon it's indicia of reliability. Change the factual circumstance, say for example on a witness stand under oath in a courtroom, then his testimony becomes evidence with a greater indicia of reliability. It was in response to a suggestion that I don't know what "evidence" is. It was not a character assassination. I object to your trying to paint it as such.
It read like one.
Is there a term for when someone performs a Reductio ad Absurdum on their own arguments?
If not, I propose the term, a "Singerism".
the utterance was backed up with years of evidence of the I AM AWESOME AT SCIENCE sort. It was not taken straight off as good, mostly because when Hustle first met me, I had just started my formal education. In other words, my claim is backed up by my consistent ability to show I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Sigh I was gonna stop posting here... but I'm giving one more attempt at clearing the air on the issue of evidence. This is because I am a masochist.
I think the main issue here is a confusion of models.
The model which most affects Kai's life is justifiably the Scientific Model. The model has specific requirements and parameters around what can be called evidence within that model. Most obviously, observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments under controlled conditions. These are used to support or disprove a hypothesis.
However, that is not the only model or the only definition of evidence. Evidence is everything that is used to determine the truth/veracity of an assertion. Some evidence is strong, some evidence is weak. Some evidence is useless on its own, and has value only when combined with other evidence (but then may depend upon inference and interpretation). Different models use the term evidence in different ways.
For example, in a court of law "eyewitness testimony" is an acceptable form of evidence. In scientific inquiry, that alone is NOT acceptable (they better have documentation etc). Indeed, 'evidence' is labeled as such by the judge who can decide if a prosecutions exhibit or testimony meets the standard for evidence in the Judge's view. This model is obviously far more relaxed than the scientific one.
Thus, we can say that anecdotes are 'evidence'. They are not strong evidence, they do not have a high level of trust associated with them... but they are considered 'evidence' in many different models. Intuition, Personal experience, Testimonial, Anecdotal are all forms of evidence... but they are not Scientific Evidence (they are not evidence that can be used when modeling the topic within the scientific model).
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 30, 2009, 02:25:24 PM
Didn't you read their signature?
I have sigs turned off. FOR SCIENCE!
Somewhere around here, I've posted something about magic1 and magic2, or some such shit, in order to clarify terms. Maybe I should look for it.
But honestly, the fact that Rat argued for two pages against something he ended up agreeing with should tell you something.
EDIT: oh yeah, it was here -- http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21358.msg727843#msg727843
I was being a smartass on the magic..... but I deserve at least a bit of credit for the jesus reference right? :lulz:
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:44:54 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 30, 2009, 02:25:24 PM
Didn't you read their signature?
That's actually a reference to the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle's Metaphysics treatise.
Oh wow, don't I feel intellectually inferior :|
hmmmmmm metaphysics.... science..... should I go on?
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.
And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).
Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?
And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!
Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 03:53:22 PM
Just so you know, I have been aware of Kai's scientific career for several years as well. I have been pretty impressed with Kai's education and opinions in the past and I expect I will continue to be so. I did not (and do not) question his credibility.
Yes you did.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.
And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).
Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?
And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!
Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.
And correlation still corresponds to patterns and causality still corresponds to process; they still have the same definitions. Thank you for the supporting evidence.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
Since when were we discussing philosophy?
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.
And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).
Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?
And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!
Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.
And correlation still corresponds to patterns and causality still corresponds to process; they still have the same definitions. Thank you for the supporting evidence.
*groan*
Ah, so we go from the definitions are not mutable (changeable)... to "Well, let's define them ion the broadest sense so Kai can be right"?
Correspond != definition
That's just dishonest.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
Since when were we discussing philosophy?
Since the beginning of the thread, given the topic... catch up old man.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 05:00:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
Since when were we discussing philosophy?
Since the beginning of the thread, given the topic... catch up old man.
Really? I thought we were talking about how magic is really psychology and whether or not science is reliable.
I saw no discussion of philosophy. However, if this IS a discussion about philosophy, then it's totally pointless, since 99% of philosophy is utter bullshit intended only for lazy Greeks and French people to use to look busy.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
They're not mutable either.
Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!
I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.
And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).
Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?
And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!
Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.
And correlation still corresponds to patterns and causality still corresponds to process; they still have the same definitions. Thank you for the supporting evidence.
*groan*
Ah, so we go from the definitions are not mutable (changeable)... to "Well, let's define them ion the broadest sense so Kai can be right"?
Correspond != definition
That's just dishonest.
No, asshole.
Done with this thread, and tired of the wishywashy bullshit. Plus, apparently my reputation has been attacked in some way. Whatever.
Yeah, that was pretty shitty.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 05:06:19 PM
However, if this IS a discussion about philosophy, then it's totally pointless, since 99% of philosophy is utter bullshit intended only for lazy Greeks and French people to use to look busy.
this.
Now I know why this thread seems so hauntingly familiar
http://www.erisbarandgrill.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=7839
The best part is, even in that thread, LMNO mentions the similarity most of these discussions tend to have:
QuoteIt really just becomes the same thread, repeated, doesn't it?
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.
I think this is an interesting observation btw.
It's pretty much the same thing I always concluded about magic. That what it basically does is fuddling up the whole correlation and causation stuff. Often even doing some sort of strange backflip causation.
When I was younger I was a really strong skeptic rational atheist person and this magical talk angered me greatly. Annoyed me to no end.
But then some stuff happened and I started looking at the topic while reserving my judgement, and I found it much easier on my peace of mind to think of it as "funny".
I mean, not that I
do magic, but when I read about it, if you understand the weird causal loop twist it makes, it's kinda funny.
It's a slide back into superstition, IMO. It's offensive in the same way that Kansas evolution-deniers are offensive.
A couple people have mentioned that they have practiced Qi Gong or Tai Chi. Recently I learned about another style called Mo Pai (although Im also finding out this may be Qi Gong, or somehow related). Ive always remained skeptical of stuff like this, but I still WANT it to be real, because life would be so much cooler with super powers. Anyway, here is a clip I found of a guy named John Chang, maybe youve seen it already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es&feature=related
My question is, this sure looks like the closest a human can get to magic, and Mr. Chang says it is not because he is special, but because he meditates daily with a yoga-like practice. The question I have for the resident scientists is is something like this even possible, with the manipulation of magnetic fields of the human body to manipulate matter outside the human body? My limited understanding of quantum physics makes me think yes, but only because it also makes me think that ANYTHING is possible with quantum physics. But, maybe there just isnt enough energy there, or its the wrong kind of energy. Like how you need fission or fusion to make bombs or energy, One particular sort of energy use for a desired outcome. Hope this makes sense, I am willing to elaborate if its not, but I am trying to be concise.
my limited understanding of quantum physics leads me to believe that quantum effects are neither observable nor reproduceable on a macro scale, so anything that someone does and explains to you as being somehow "quantum-based" is patently bullshit.
Quote from: Hangshai on January 02, 2010, 07:54:24 PM
A couple people have mentioned that they have practiced Qi Gong or Tai Chi. Recently I learned about another style called Mo Pai (although Im also finding out this may be Qi Gong, or somehow related). Ive always remained skeptical of stuff like this, but I still WANT it to be real, because life would be so much cooler with super powers. Anyway, here is a clip I found of a guy named John Chang, maybe youve seen it already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es&feature=related
My question is, this sure looks like the closest a human can get to magic, and Mr. Chang says it is not because he is special, but because he meditates daily with a yoga-like practice. The question I have for the resident scientists is is something like this even possible, with the manipulation of magnetic fields of the human body to manipulate matter outside the human body? My limited understanding of quantum physics makes me think yes, but only because it also makes me think that ANYTHING is possible with quantum physics. But, maybe there just isnt enough energy there, or its the wrong kind of energy. Like how you need fission or fusion to make bombs or energy, One particular sort of energy use for a desired outcome. Hope this makes sense, I am willing to elaborate if its not, but I am trying to be concise.
No, it's not quantum mechanics. The video is interesting, but since I have no physical evidence to go on and only commentary, thats all I can say. From what I have seen so far (personal experience, measurable phenomenon), Chi is a metaphor for the mind-body connection, a very real, powerful and useful thing, and a system of manipulating that connection. I started a thread on this topic at one point, and there was a lot of interesting discussion.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18255.0) if you're interested.
yeah, I found that thread earlier, and lost it again, so thanks for the link. I was hesitant to bring it up since I never finished reading it and I didnt know if it was all in there... Ill be able to find out now, thanks!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 01, 2010, 10:27:25 PM
It's a slide back into superstition, IMO. It's offensive in the same way that Kansas evolution-deniers are offensive.
well, yeah. I wouldnt want them to teach (chaos) magic in schools or anything. or if they would, it should be on the level as how phlogiston got mentioned in physics and biology class (which was in my school a perfectly reasonable explanation of why people believed such things a couple of hundred years back followed by an explanation why it is false).
Quote from: Cain on January 01, 2010, 10:09:06 PM
Now I know why this thread seems so hauntingly familiar
http://www.erisbarandgrill.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=7839
The best part is, even in that thread, LMNO mentions the similarity most of these discussions tend to have:
QuoteIt really just becomes the same thread, repeated, doesn't it?
[depak] OMFG, cyclical reality proves it's all just consciousness !!!!!!!111!!one!!oneone![/depak]
Quote from: Hangshai on January 02, 2010, 07:54:24 PM
A couple people have mentioned that they have practiced Qi Gong or Tai Chi. Recently I learned about another style called Mo Pai (although Im also finding out this may be Qi Gong, or somehow related). Ive always remained skeptical of stuff like this, but I still WANT it to be real, because life would be so much cooler with super powers. Anyway, here is a clip I found of a guy named John Chang, maybe youve seen it already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es&feature=related
My question is, this sure looks like the closest a human can get to magic, and Mr. Chang says it is not because he is special, but because he meditates daily with a yoga-like practice. The question I have for the resident scientists is is something like this even possible, with the manipulation of magnetic fields of the human body to manipulate matter outside the human body? My limited understanding of quantum physics makes me think yes, but only because it also makes me think that ANYTHING is possible with quantum physics. But, maybe there just isnt enough energy there, or its the wrong kind of energy. Like how you need fission or fusion to make bombs or energy, One particular sort of energy use for a desired outcome. Hope this makes sense, I am willing to elaborate if its not, but I am trying to be concise.
To the bolded line: Yes, but you have to surgically implant powerful magnets inside your body first. And that just lets you detect magnetic fields (because they tug on the implanted magnets, which you can feel moving.) I suppose if you used really powerful magnets could stick chunks of iron to yourself or something. Medically, all that would let you do is screw with people who have a pacemaker, and die if you ever got put into an MRI machine.
And as far as "anything is possible with quantum physics": if anybody tells you that something works by the power of quantum, they're full of shit, unless they're talking about a) flash memory, b) really tiny transistors, c) really cold liquid helium, or d) something smaller than a helium ion (alpha particle.) There are a handful of other things (chemical bonds, esp. the various fullerenes) but in general if someone is trying to apply quantum physics to something larger than a single molecule something is very wrong.
Quote from: Hangshai on January 02, 2010, 07:54:24 PM
A couple people have mentioned that they have practiced Qi Gong or Tai Chi. Recently I learned about another style called Mo Pai (although Im also finding out this may be Qi Gong, or somehow related). Ive always remained skeptical of stuff like this, but I still WANT it to be real, because life would be so much cooler with super powers. Anyway, here is a clip I found of a guy named John Chang, maybe youve seen it already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es&feature=related
My question is, this sure looks like the closest a human can get to magic, and Mr. Chang says it is not because he is special, but because he meditates daily with a yoga-like practice. The question I have for the resident scientists is is something like this even possible, with the manipulation of magnetic fields of the human body to manipulate matter outside the human body? My limited understanding of quantum physics makes me think yes, but only because it also makes me think that ANYTHING is possible with quantum physics. But, maybe there just isnt enough energy there, or its the wrong kind of energy. Like how you need fission or fusion to make bombs or energy, One particular sort of energy use for a desired outcome. Hope this makes sense, I am willing to elaborate if its not, but I am trying to be concise.
:facepalm:
thanks GA. I didnt really make the connection that even though I am made of atoms, and QP is used to describe the way those atoms do their thing, it doesnt apply the organism as a whole. I guess thats what is trying to be unified? why atoms move that way, but it doesnt really apply to the object as mass or a group of atoms, pretty fucking weird. Im still learning about all this stuff. its pretty tough to slog through. Usually I have to go back and read it or watch the docs a couple times, I never really catch it all the on the first go.
Here's an easy way to think of it:
A lot of the bizarro stuff of QP stems from the fact that uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum is greater than a small constant. Uncertainty is measured in absolute terms - it's not +/- a few percentage points, it's +/- a few nanometers. Which means that it doesn't scale - knowing that an electron is within a nanometer of there describes a small cloud of where the electron could be. Knowing where a person is to within a nanometer is an impressive feat of measurement in and of itself. The uncertainty due to quantum is negligible because it's less the the uncertainty of our instruments anyway. Being able to be in two places at once on the precondition that both places must be within a nanometer of each other is a very, very lame superpower. Also remember that the other component of the uncertainty is momentum, which is mass times velocity. For a very massive body (compared to an electron; if you stuck 20 zeroes on the end of the mass of an electron, it still wouldn't be a gram of mass, so what we consider to be "normal" is incredibly massive relative to an electron - even a proton is 2000 times the mass of an electron), even a tiny tiny tiny uncertainty in velocity, once multiplied by mass, is big enough that you can get by with an even tinier uncertainty in position as well. So we can know the position and velocity of a person to more accuracy than anybody would ever need without getting close to the quantum limit.
That was all mostly wrong, but if it helps anyone avoid scams, then go for it.
Oh, and what's trying to be unified with QP is relativity, not molecular physics. In QP, time and space are two different things; in relativity, going fast enough makes things shorter and take longer, "converting" distance into time. Schrödinger's equation snaps in half if time and space are interchangeable in the slightest. Also, in QP, a black hole can't collapse to a point because that would be like knowing the precise position of something; the way gravity works in relativity requires this to happen. The problem is that both theories have all kinds of firm experimental evidence backing them up, but they're mutually exclusive. So scientists know something is wrong with either or both (probably both) but they don't know what.
Quote from: GA on January 04, 2010, 04:56:57 AMA lot of the bizarro stuff of QP stems from the fact that uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum is greater than a small constant. Uncertainty is measured in absolute terms - it's not +/- a few percentage points, it's +/- a few nanometers. Which means that it doesn't scale - knowing that an electron is within a nanometer of there describes a small cloud of where the electron could be. Knowing where a person is to within a nanometer is an impressive feat of measurement in and of itself. The uncertainty due to quantum is negligible because it's less the the uncertainty of our instruments anyway. Being able to be in two places at once on the precondition that both places must be within a nanometer of each other is a very, very lame superpower. Also remember that the other component of the uncertainty is momentum, which is mass times velocity. For a very massive body (compared to an electron; if you stuck 20 zeroes on the end of the mass of an electron, it still wouldn't be a gram of mass, so what we consider to be "normal" is incredibly massive relative to an electron - even a proton is 2000 times the mass of an electron), even a tiny tiny tiny uncertainty in velocity, once multiplied by mass, is big enough that you can get by with an even tinier uncertainty in position as well. So we can know the position and velocity of a person to more accuracy than anybody would ever need without getting close to the quantum limit.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have seasons.
Fuck axial tilt.
Fuck evolution.
We should teach our kids QUANTUM in our schools!
:lulz:
This thread pains me :x
Quote from: NotPublished on January 04, 2010, 09:05:02 AM
:lulz:
This thread pains me :x
You brought it on yourself !
If you find most explanations about Quantum Mechanics tl;dr then read this:
When things get really, really small, weird shit starts happening. But only when things are small. That kind of weird shit doesn't happen to anything large enough for us to experience.
EOT.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 02, 2010, 09:15:17 PM
my limited understanding of quantum physics leads me to believe that quantum effects are neither observable nor reproduceable on a macro scale, so anything that someone does and explains to you as being somehow "quantum-based" is patently bullshit.
Quote from: LMNO on January 04, 2010, 03:10:22 PM
If you find most explanations about Quantum Mechanics tl;dr then read this:
When things get really, really small, weird shit starts happening. But only when things are small. That kind of weird shit doesn't happen to anything large enough for us to experience.
EOT.
Oh, yeah? Come to Tucson for 2 weeks and tell me that again.
Quantum is just a theory, we should teach our kids TUCSON in schools!
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2010, 06:30:04 PM
Quantum is just a theory, we should teach our kids TUCSON in schools!
Tucson is an alternate,
equally valid theory.
There's no sense letting the secular humanist "science" community run around unchallenged.
Fascinating ... so let's say you put a cat in a box, in Tucson, what happens when you stop observing it?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2010, 07:16:31 PM
Fascinating ... so let's say you put a cat in a box, in Tucson, what happens when you stop observing it?
It explodes and kills dozens of passers-by. Witnesses are aghast at the sheer quantity of blood.
But only if it was a non-local cat.
Quote from: GA on January 04, 2010, 04:56:57 AM
Here's an easy way to think of it:
A lot of the bizarro stuff of QP stems from the fact that uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum is greater than a small constant. Uncertainty is measured in absolute terms - it's not +/- a few percentage points, it's +/- a few nanometers. Which means that it doesn't scale - knowing that an electron is within a nanometer of there describes a small cloud of where the electron could be. Knowing where a person is to within a nanometer is an impressive feat of measurement in and of itself. The uncertainty due to quantum is negligible because it's less the the uncertainty of our instruments anyway. Being able to be in two places at once on the precondition that both places must be within a nanometer of each other is a very, very lame superpower. Also remember that the other component of the uncertainty is momentum, which is mass times velocity. For a very massive body (compared to an electron; if you stuck 20 zeroes on the end of the mass of an electron, it still wouldn't be a gram of mass, so what we consider to be "normal" is incredibly massive relative to an electron - even a proton is 2000 times the mass of an electron), even a tiny tiny tiny uncertainty in velocity, once multiplied by mass, is big enough that you can get by with an even tinier uncertainty in position as well. So we can know the position and velocity of a person to more accuracy than anybody would ever need without getting close to the quantum limit.
That was all mostly wrong, but if it helps anyone avoid scams, then go for it.
For some reason this whole notion just caused me to laugh so hard I shit myself out loud.
I'm picturing "Captain Quantum" and he's kinda like "The Tick" but without the antennae and dressed in pink :lulz:
So anyway - this uncertainty thing, it's more to do with the fact that we can't actually tell it's precise location rather than it has more than one?
Quote from: LMNO on January 04, 2010, 07:51:18 PM
But only if it was a non-local cat.
The out of town ones are
worse? :eek:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 05, 2010, 11:09:22 AM
So anyway - this uncertainty thing, it's more to do with the fact that we can't actually tell it's precise location rather than it has more than one?
Quote from: Beneath Reality
The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined. You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once.
...
As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection. Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature.
You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."
So, you can take one measurement, which will tell you where it is. But one measurement can't define a wavelength, which tells you how fast it's going; for that, you need a lot of measurements.
So, you can either measure a point, or you can measure a wave, depending on what you're looking for. But that just tells you what sort of measurement you're making.
So the whole deal is about conventions in the maths to account for shortcomings of the measurement apparatus? :x
What about the double slit thing, does that still behave maghwiqueally?
Nope.
Quote from: JHM III (Author of Beneath Reality)
The observer ALWAYS decides what to measure. ANYTHING you measure depends on the setup -- there's a very broad principle of relativity at work here. You always have to have a coordinate system, a framework, or measurement doesn't make any sense. What's interesting about quantum mechanics is that the choices of frameworks include much more than just coordinate systems -- they include whether you're going to measure position, or momentum, for example. In QM, choosing one or the other is exactly like choosing one coordinate reference frame or another. Nature will look different from these different perspectives.
In the "double slit" experiment, two completely different procedures are described. Choosing one of them amounts to choosing a coordinate frame in which to view the system. But nature still gets to decide what you see -- you don't actually create the natural phenomena, you only create the framework for it. Nature's choice shows up in the part of the experiment where you decide to look inside the boxes. You will never find a particle in both boxes. You'll find it in one or the other. Nature gets to decide which one. You can't affect that. All you do is put the boxes there and decide what to do with them.
You create the conditions for the results, but not everything is under your control. The two kinds of experiments, by the way, differ exactly in the things that the uncertainty principle says you can't measure at the same time. The interference experiment measures a wave property (momentum), the experiment where you look in the boxes measures position (where the entity is).
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 05, 2010, 11:09:22 AM
Quote from: GA on January 04, 2010, 04:56:57 AM
Here's an easy way to think of it:
A lot of the bizarro stuff of QP stems from the fact that uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum is greater than a small constant. Uncertainty is measured in absolute terms - it's not +/- a few percentage points, it's +/- a few nanometers. Which means that it doesn't scale - knowing that an electron is within a nanometer of there describes a small cloud of where the electron could be. Knowing where a person is to within a nanometer is an impressive feat of measurement in and of itself. The uncertainty due to quantum is negligible because it's less the the uncertainty of our instruments anyway. Being able to be in two places at once on the precondition that both places must be within a nanometer of each other is a very, very lame superpower. Also remember that the other component of the uncertainty is momentum, which is mass times velocity. For a very massive body (compared to an electron; if you stuck 20 zeroes on the end of the mass of an electron, it still wouldn't be a gram of mass, so what we consider to be "normal" is incredibly massive relative to an electron - even a proton is 2000 times the mass of an electron), even a tiny tiny tiny uncertainty in velocity, once multiplied by mass, is big enough that you can get by with an even tinier uncertainty in position as well. So we can know the position and velocity of a person to more accuracy than anybody would ever need without getting close to the quantum limit.
That was all mostly wrong, but if it helps anyone avoid scams, then go for it.
For some reason this whole notion just caused me to laugh so hard I shit myself out loud.
I'm picturing "Captain Quantum" and he's kinda like "The Tick" but without the antennae and dressed in pink :lulz:
So anyway - this uncertainty thing, it's more to do with the fact that we can't actually tell it's precise location rather than it has more than one?
It's worse than that - it doesn't even
have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event. The problem is that a well-defined momentum is exclusive to a well-defined position. It's not just that we can't measure both at the same time, it's that
particles waves things fundamentally can't have both at the same time.
Think of a wave/particle as being a rectangle with a minimum area, drawn on a Cartesian coordinate plane. The horizontal axis represents position, and the vertical axis represents momentum. The rectangle describes possible positions or momenta that the wave/particle could have - if the horizontal part of the rectangle goes from x=1 to x=3, then the position could be anywhere from 1 to 3; if the vertical part of the rectangle goes from y = 0 to y=4, then the momentum could be anywhere from 0 to 4. The wave/particle doesn't really "have" a position unless the width is zero - if the rectangle extends from x=2.3 to x=2.3, then the particle has a definite position of 2.3. If it just has a range of possible positions, all that means is that if we were to measure its position, we would get a result somewhere in that range, not that it actually is at one of those positions. We can squish or stretch this rectangle as long as we keep a certain minimum area, so if we get a better idea of where the particle could be by squishing the width to only cover from x=2 to x=2.5, then we would have to stretch the height to compensate (thereby making the momentum more uncertain, for example from y= -2 to y=10 gives us an area of 12, the same as the rectangle from x=1 to x=3 and y=0 to y=4.) Smooshing the rectangle to a width of 0 (as in the x=2.3 example) requires making it infinitely tall, from y = minus infinity to y = positive infinity. The rectangle can't have a width and height of 0 (that is, well-defined position and well-defined momentum) at the same time, because there is a fundamental minimum area that the rectangle must occupy.
ETA: To tie that in with LMNO's quote, choosing which framework to measure is like choosing whether to squish the rectangle vertically or horizontally.
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
It's worse than that - it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
Fucking cheating-ass universe. :argh!:
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
I've heard/read that before, but how was such a thing found out?
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8494/118871593985.jpg)
Quote from: JohNyx on December 24, 2009, 08:28:45 AM
Your definition of magic is too broad.
Science is NOT magic.
No, but according to Clarke's Third Law, sufficiently advanced technology becomes functionally indistinguishable from magic. At least superficially...
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on December 24, 2009, 08:28:45 AM
Your definition of magic is too broad.
Science is NOT magic.
No, but according to Clarke's Third Law, sufficiently advanced technology becomes functionally indistinguishable from magic. At least superficially...
I refuse to get involved in debating in this shitstorm of a thread.
I DO THIShhh FOR SChhhIENChhhEEEEE !1!!!
/
/
/
(http://www.lloydi.com/travel-writing/round-the-world-trip/country/04-new_zealand/south-island/images/wizard.jpg)
Moonwolf Ravenaether, notice how the love potion reacted to the spell incantations
we made during last months crescent moon?
/
/
/
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/Images/physician-scientist.jpg)
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:39:10 PM
Moonwolf Ravenaether, notice how the love potion reacted to the spell incantations
we made during last months crescent moon?
/
/
/
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/Images/physician-scientist.jpg)
:lulz:
If the world wasn't full of stupid people, this thread would end now.
WITH THIS ENCHANTED PENTAGRAM
I MAKE WOMEN DESIRE ME
AND MEN TO FEAR ME
/
/
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/0/09/Fat-wiccan.jpg)
I PUT INCANTATIONS TO THESE IMAGES, SO THAT I CAN BANISH THIS THREAD TO MOTHER GAIAS DEEPEST BOWELS !1!!
(http://www.spelldust.com/gallery/albums/random-pics/wiccan-wings2.jpg)
<Image speaks telephatically> I THANK YOU TOO HUMAN, FOR ADDING ME TO YOUR FANTASIES ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE (BUT ARENT BECAUSE YOURE OVERCOMPENSATING YOU FAAAAAAAAAT LARRRRDOOOO1!!!111)
OH WOE, NOT ENOUGH PIXIE DUST!
/
/
(http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Scientist_1096_18734530_0_0_6001294_300.jpg)
I actually formulated a law about that.
"On any Pagan board, the hotness of a woman's avatar is inversely proportional to the hotness of the actual woman."
- Roger's Third Law of Paganism.
for the men:
"A male pagan's commitment to paganism is directly proportional to their conservativism."
- Roger's Fourth Law of Paganism.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 11:51:12 PM
I actually formulated a law about that.
"On any Pagan board, the hotness of a woman's avatar is inversely proportional to the hotness of the actual woman."
- Roger's Third Law of Paganism.
for the men:
"A male pagan's commitment to paganism is directly proportional to their conservativism."
- Roger's Fourth Law of Paganism.
[/bombardment]
I can agree on the 3rd law, but i dont have empirical evidence to agree with you on the 4th one... it kind of seems counterintuitive to me... dw, ill take your word for it.
[bombardment]
(http://thegreatgeekmanual.com/images/graphical-gags/june/harry-potter-and-draco-malfoy.jpg)
OH HARRY, IF ONLY MY SIGILS WERE POWERFUL ENOUGH, WE COULD BE TOGETHER :cry:
WITH ENOUGH CONCENTRATION
AND THIS MAGICAL INCHANTED GLOVE
I CAN MAKE THIS INSTRUMENT FLOAT !!!
/
/
/
(http://blog.khymos.org/wp-content/2007/09/chefs-meet-scientists-air-l.jpg)
WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE
OF COLLECTIVE HYSTERIA
WE CAN SUMMON YOGSOTHOTH HIMSELF
NOW START SUCKING, APPRENTICE
/
/
(http://www.primerahora.com/XStatic/primerahora/images/espanol/090216santero-t.jpg)
Hey, if you die of cancer
serves you well,
for you didnt pray hard enough
and didnt have faith
/
/
(http://www.versionfinal.com.ve/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/padrepalmarportada.jpg)
FOR A LIMITED TIME OFFER ONLY,
I GIVE MY SERVICES TO ANYONE
THAT LIGHTS 10 BLACK CANDLES
AND MAKES INCANTATIONS NAKED
WITHIN A SALT PENTAGRAM!!!
/
/
/
(http://tinyrevolution.com/mt/mt-static/images/cthulhu.gif)
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:53:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 11:51:12 PM
I actually formulated a law about that.
"On any Pagan board, the hotness of a woman's avatar is inversely proportional to the hotness of the actual woman."
- Roger's Third Law of Paganism.
for the men:
"A male pagan's commitment to paganism is directly proportional to their conservativism."
- Roger's Fourth Law of Paganism.
[/bombardment]
I can agree on the 3rd law, but i dont have empirical evidence to agree with you on the 4th one... it kind of seems counterintuitive to me... dw, ill take your word for it.
[bombardment]
hxxp://mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30
hxxp://wicca.com/forums/index.php?board=11.0
When you're done, there's more.
:lulz: JohNyx
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:09:47 AM
FOR A LIMITED TIME OFFER ONLY,
I GIVE MY SERVICES TO ANYONE
THAT LIGHTS 10 BLACK CANDLES
AND MAKES INCANTATIONS NAKED
WITHIN A SALT PENTAGRAM!!!
/
/
/
(http://tinyrevolution.com/mt/mt-static/images/cthulhu.gif)
all the candles I have are orange and smell like pumpkin pie. Will that work? I only have three.
Also, sea-salt, kosher, what?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:14:35 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:53:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 11:51:12 PM
I actually formulated a law about that.
"On any Pagan board, the hotness of a woman's avatar is inversely proportional to the hotness of the actual woman."
- Roger's Third Law of Paganism.
for the men:
"A male pagan's commitment to paganism is directly proportional to their conservativism."
- Roger's Fourth Law of Paganism.
[/bombardment]
I can agree on the 3rd law, but i dont have empirical evidence to agree with you on the 4th one... it kind of seems counterintuitive to me... dw, ill take your word for it.
[bombardment]
hxxp://mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30
hxxp://wicca.com/forums/index.php?board=11.0
When you're done, there's more.
Theres always sinners, but never enough saviours.
Quote from: Alty on January 06, 2010, 12:19:25 AM
all the candles I have are orange and smell like pumpkin pie. Will that work? I only have three.
Also, sea-salt, kosher, what?
DID YOU SUMMON ME, MORTAL??!
/
/
(http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/typical-furry.jpg)
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2010, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
I've heard/read that before, but how was such a thing found out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
People used to be split among three camps:
a) Particles don't have a position before they're measured (which is counterintuitive)
b) They do, we just don't know where that position is (which means QP is incomplete, since it can't tell us where)
c) Asking what the state of something is before it was measured is moronic, since it's completely untestable and therefore unscientific - by definition you can't know what an unmeasured quantity is.
Then Mr. Bell came along and showed that it made a testable difference whether a) or b) was correct, which immediately threw out c). Later, the experiment he proposed gave really good evidence for a).
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/brains2.jpg)
:horrormirth:
I think you just won the next horrormirth competition.
Quote from: FP on January 06, 2010, 12:58:43 AM
:horrormirth:
I think you just won the next horrormirth competition.
I think I just did the whole internet experience in one pic. :horrormirth:
:lulz: :lulz:
Lots of love JohNyx!!
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 12:32:01 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2010, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
I've heard/read that before, but how was such a thing found out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
People used to be split among three camps:
a) Particles don't have a position before they're measured (which is counterintuitive)
b) They do, we just don't know where that position is (which means QP is incomplete, since it can't tell us where)
c) Asking what the state of something is before it was measured is moronic, since it's completely untestable and therefore unscientific - by definition you can't know what an unmeasured quantity is.
Then Mr. Bell came along and showed that it made a testable difference whether a) or b) was correct, which immediately threw out c). Later, the experiment he proposed gave really good evidence for a).
Thats because particles (like photons) don't collapse to particle vectors unless they are interacting with another particle. Otherwise they are more like a probability cloud, diffuse over an area. The very act of measurement causes the collapse.
Am I close?
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6467/brains2.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Oh my god hahaha
Quote from: Kai on January 06, 2010, 01:12:52 AM
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 12:32:01 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2010, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
I've heard/read that before, but how was such a thing found out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
People used to be split among three camps:
a) Particles don't have a position before they're measured (which is counterintuitive)
b) They do, we just don't know where that position is (which means QP is incomplete, since it can't tell us where)
c) Asking what the state of something is before it was measured is moronic, since it's completely untestable and therefore unscientific - by definition you can't know what an unmeasured quantity is.
Then Mr. Bell came along and showed that it made a testable difference whether a) or b) was correct, which immediately threw out c). Later, the experiment he proposed gave really good evidence for a).
Thats because particles (like photons) don't collapse to particle vectors unless they are interacting with another particle. Otherwise they are more like a probability cloud, diffuse over an area. The very act of measurement causes the collapse.
Am I close?
I think so.
Quote from: Kai on January 06, 2010, 01:12:52 AM
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 12:32:01 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2010, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: GA on January 05, 2010, 10:36:34 PM
it doesn't even have a precise location until a measurement event, and it likewise doesn't have a precise momentum until a measurement event.
I've heard/read that before, but how was such a thing found out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
People used to be split among three camps:
a) Particles don't have a position before they're measured (which is counterintuitive)
b) They do, we just don't know where that position is (which means QP is incomplete, since it can't tell us where)
c) Asking what the state of something is before it was measured is moronic, since it's completely untestable and therefore unscientific - by definition you can't know what an unmeasured quantity is.
Then Mr. Bell came along and showed that it made a testable difference whether a) or b) was correct, which immediately threw out c). Later, the experiment he proposed gave really good evidence for a).
Thats because particles (like photons) don't collapse to particle vectors unless they are interacting with another particle. Otherwise they are more like a probability cloud, diffuse over an area. The very act of measurement causes the collapse.
Am I close?
The act of measurement doesn't cause the collapse, it creates an uncertainty in Your data as you can only know it to arbitrary accuracy. Additionally its more because position and momentum are tied together that you cannot know both to exact accuracy, as you increase the accuracy of knowing one, the other becomes harder to pinpoint, however you can get the expectation value which is its overall probability for position/momentum for an area.
:lulz: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:54:34 AM
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/brains2.jpg)
This belongs on every forum on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:54:34 AM
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/brains2.jpg)
:lulz:
:mittens:
GA, by what mechanism do you measure smaller-than-photon or even photon-size particles? Doesn't hitting something with the measurement particle (I'm thinking with photons) change the measured particle's movement? or something? :?
So if QM is all fuzzy and full of shit like "we'll never know" how the fuck is it useful for anything?
pls note: I'm not disputing it's use (apparently it is) I just need an explanation as to how. :?
I spent so much time trying to get my head around it, and I really didn't, so I don't want to talk much about quantum physics. Though, it helps to visualise that between the measuring instruments and the actual events that are being measured, there is a mathematical model that attempts to map and predict what is happening in the time it takes for a particle to be fired and for it to be detected. That mathematical model is what mostly gets talked about, not explicitly what is happening in reality.
Here's a browser applet for the double slit experiment that's quite fun to play with. :D
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html (http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 08:48:14 AM
So if QM is all fuzzy and full of shit like "we'll never know" how the fuck is it useful for anything?
pls note: I'm not disputing it's use (apparently it is) I just need an explanation as to how. :?
Well there are now spectrometers that are highly accurate due to their ability to take into account quantum tunneling. That and in meso scale semiconductors. It has a huge range of applications, just no magical ones.
As much as metaphors are crappy ways of discussing QM, try this one on.
You can't use a themometer to tell you how tall a building is, and you can't use a ruler to determine the temperature*.
In the macro world, temperature and length are usually considered vastly different frames of reference. If you're trying to take the temperature, you can't also be measuring length.
In the quantum world, there are many more "frames of reference" than in the macro world. So, while it seems "normal" to have position and momentum relate to each other, in the quantum world, it is like trying to see how cold it is outside by using a yardstick.
*Yes, I'm sure you can find a way, if you're really clever. This is why metaphors suck when discussing QM.
I can measure time in bushels.
I can save time in a bottle. So, the first thing that I'm gonna do is to save every day 'till eternity passes away, just to spend them with you.
OK, more specific question
(x-posted from IM)
I'm pretty sure they've produced technology using quantum stuff but I just can't make the connection how saying "how the fuck should I know?" helps them to arrive at such goals.
Like you got Newtonian physics and that basically tells us, among other things, that the earth sucks so if you build a bridge a specific (read suction defying) way then you can run trains across it and shit.
Fine! I'm down with that - Speed = distance over time, makes sense to me.
Then Einstein comes along and says "Yo, Newton was useful but I gots better shit for y'all" and lo and behold the new model lets us build space ships and Ipods and all sortsa cool shit.
Fine! I'm down with that - E=MC2 Dunno what it means but I believe smart people who tell me they do.
But then The dalek guy comes along and says "fuck that einstein shit I gots new shit that basically says 'we can't work anything out', 'it's all just bullshit', 'our maths doesn't even know if a cat is alive or dead'"
And fucking what?? Apparently some apeshit new microelectronics developments in storage and processing. How?? I got no fucking idea where protons are either and it don't make my PC any faster :argh!:
Most of the "weird stuff" that people know about QM come mainly from the critics, who use them as examples of why that theory is "wrong".
Schrodinger's cat, the double slit experiment, QUIP, Heisenberg... For the most part, they're used to show how "fucked up" QM is, so "it can't be right."
But all it shows is that QM is inherently non-intuitive.
If you look at the history of QM, from Newton to the Higgs Boson, you see islands of proof in a sea of ignorance. Someone comes up with a decent piece of math, and someone else makes a bridge between that piece, and the other islands that make up the network of modern physics. If the math doesn't work, then something is wrong.
So, the math in QM, especially in the Standard Model, is well established. It works. Unfortunately, it works in a non-intuitive way, so it's hard to explain to people who don't want to bother with the math.
What QM does is describe the behavior of very tiny things. It does it in a way that doesn't make sense to most people. However, for people who want to work with and manipulate very tiny things, it is incredibly useful.
So, in your example, you need to know how Big Things work in order to make a bridge. Likewise, you need to know how Small Things work in order to build a nanotube, or a room-temperature superconductor.
Finally! Thanks man, I needed that. You're absolutely right - all I been hearing about, as a layperson, is the "weird stuff". Wrongly assumed it was coming from the the scientists.
So are you saying Schroedinger and Heisenberg were anti-QM people too? Only one I head about was Enistein with the "god doesn't play dice" thing.
Also the double slit trip - that's a metaphor? Like the wave doesn't collapse and/or it was never there in the 1st place - but to all intents and purposes, where your math is concerned, it does.
I would think Schroedinger and Heisenberg were just poking as hard as they could at the new theories to see if they would break, like proper scientists. Then it didn't break and everybody was like OMGWTF.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 02:36:43 PM
So are you saying Schroedinger and Heisenberg were anti-QM people too? Only one I head about was Enistein with the "god doesn't play dice" thing.
Eh, while Einstein did do some amazing work on relativity that doesn't obay classical physics, he never did much on the quantum scale. Funnily schroedinger didn't take relativity into account with the Schrodinger wave equation, it was Dirac who did that (his equations are HORRIBLE to follow), but schrodingers wave eqn can be used to solve certain characteristics of the hydrogen atom (these are sometimes referred to as the crowning jewel of physics). Saying Schrodinger was anti QM is like saying a carpenter is anti whatever he crafts.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 01:39:18 PM
I'm pretty sure they've produced technology using quantum stuff but I just can't make the connection how saying "how the fuck should I know?" helps them to arrive at such goals.
because the uncertainty principle is only a part of QM, and there are other things that have direct physical applications.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 02:36:43 PM
So are you saying Schroedinger and Heisenberg were anti-QM people too? Only one I head about was Enistein with the "god doesn't play dice" thing.
They weren't anti-QM, they were anti
the other guy's QM. When they were doing their thing, no-one was sure
what the fuck was going on, and everyone had different ideas. Schrodinger had these equations that didn't make any fucking sense, so he came up with a metaphor to show why they didn't make any fucking sense; Heisenberg tried to simplify what the math was saying (to Bohr's dismay), and in doing so got a fundamental part of the theory all twisted around. They may be physicists, but they're only human.
QuoteAlso the double slit trip - that's a metaphor? Like the wave doesn't collapse and/or it was never there in the 1st place - but to all intents and purposes, where your math is concerned, it does.
The double slit thing is, to use a previous metaphor, like sending an icicle into two separate boxes. One box has a thermometer in it, and the other has a ruler. If you look in one box, you can see that it
IS 32 degrees F. If you look in the other, you can see that It
IS 9 inches long.
OMG! HOW CAN THAT BE!?!?!?!?
Okay, I think I'm nearly there but I'm still not getting the double slit thing.
Double slit is like when you fire a little thing (photon/electron/mekon?) at a bit of card with two slits in it passes through both slits and interferes with itself?
I can't reconcile this to the boxes thing, despite the fact that the boxes thing makes perfect sense to me. How the fuck does the tiny thing manage to go through both slits and then bang into itself?
It doesn't. You're still thinking of it like a tiny billiard ball.
Remember, non-intuitive.
Magic?
Nope.
It's just weird.
So they're essentially observing something that's too small to see and describing it as a wave in one set of equations and a ickle ping pong ball in another, depending on what effect they want to produce but if you try to measure it one way the other breaks down. Truth is probably that the phenomena is neither a wave nor a ping pong ball?
That's closer than most people will ever understand, so I'm going to say Yes.
Yeah I realise I'll never be bang on, on account of I don't get the math but I was kind of hoping this was what was going on. It's only been the last couple of years that I've begun to realise how abstract science is. I thought, probably like a lot of laypersons, that the map was the territory but I'm starting to get my head around the idea that science is full of situations where things are described as "behaving predictably as if..." rather than "it does this because..."
It's kinda ironic that it's taken me this long, considering my approach to self psychology. Shoulda been obvious :lulz:
The key part I overlooked was how everything works a certain way until you get down to the SMALLEST level of matter, and then it goes apeshit. Which law or theory is the one about the wave that gets transmitted from the center of the universe, and then gets picked up as two particles that register as opposite values of each other? I dont know if Im getting that quite right, but I really got a kick out of that one the first time I had it explained to me.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 03:59:38 PM
So they're essentially observing something that's too small to see and describing it as a wave in one set of equations and a ickle ping pong ball in another, depending on what effect they want to produce but if you try to measure it one way the other breaks down. Truth is probably that the phenomena is neither a wave nor a ping pong ball?
The best way I have found to visualize it is that a photon is like a hazy orb, that collapses to a point when interacting with other hazy orbs. It's diffuse, a sort of spherical probability field of "energy" (for visualization purposes). So, it can GO through both slits at once.
Or I'm completely wrong.
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?
Im pretty sure it has something to do with our ability to measure things, and the way that you can only measure a particle's speed or position, but not both, at the same time. If I've been horribly misinformed, I'm sure someone will point it out, but this is how I visualize the wave/particle conundrum. When you measure speed, it acts as a wave, when you measure location, it acts as particle. Imagine, if you will, a car speeding by you. You can take a still photo that measures exact location, but not its speed, which would be particle like behavior. Or, you can use a radar gun to tell you it's speed, but not its location. That would be wave like properties. You WILL be able to tell WHEN it passes you though, by noticing the change in speed. That is the act of observing the experiment. I know its not a great metaphor, but it kind of helps me wrap my brain around it. Also, I dont think the distance of the slits matter. Its more of the fact that when you measure that 'phenomenon' of the particle, it has wave like properties. It shouldnt, but it does. But when you start to measure WHICH slit it goes through, instead of just the PROBABILITY of either slit, then you get particle like properties... I think.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 11:00:19 PM
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?
That's what HE said.
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.
Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.
Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.
In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.
Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.
Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.
Quote from: Kai on January 07, 2010, 01:03:19 PM
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.
Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.
Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.
In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.
Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.
Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.
Kai that is brilliantly stated! It is precisely what I meant though my explaination was clumsy and badly worded. Thanks!!!
EDIT: Also I'd like to clarify what I meant by saying that "correlation" was evidence.
"Correlation" can be evidence that "something is going on". Often investigation begins because of someone looking at numbers and seeing a pattern where there should be none. It is not evidence that "X is caused by Y because they correlate" but rather "Something funky may be happening to X because of this weird pattern... we should find out why".
So for example, when hiring people at Bletchley Park during WWII (where the Brits and Americans were trying to crack German cipher codes) they were careful about the height, age etc of people that they hired. If they hired only the best cryptanalyst, or if they hired predominantly women good at punching numbers... then the "bell curve" would be off and through this 'correlation' they were concerned that the Germans would say "Hrmmm, something isn't right there... what is happening at Bletchly Park?"
I think the reason I stated it directly before is because its an everyday occurrence in my job. Many of my investigations begin because of correlation, particularly Log reviews, scanner reports etc. The correlation isn't evidence that X person did Y thing... but it is evidence that "something out of normal parameters happened here... we must determine what".
Ok, I think I made that more clear...
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 06, 2010, 11:00:19 PM
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?
They have to be closer together than the wavelength of the photon passing through them.
Figured this was a good a place as any for this. Another vid of an acupuncturist/Qi gong master doing cool stuff with Chi/ki. Kinda like magic, I guess. Clip from Ripley's believe it or not. Entertaining, regardless of whether its magic or not.
Edit - Forgot the link... Duh..
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokinesis/
I can do that with my : (http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/37/10637-004-2DF981E5.jpg)
edit: I had to make it smaller.
Quote from: Kai on January 07, 2010, 01:03:19 PM
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.
Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.
Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.
In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.
Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.
Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.
In the case of the red light it looks to me like you are giving ultimate causes over all, just at different levels, the proximate cause would be muscle motions within the driver and mechanical operations within the car.
Quote from: The Johnny on December 24, 2009, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 24, 2009, 08:34:05 AM
So that would mean you have a definition, what is yours?
The similarities are there, Science can do some pretty awesome stuff. Magic is a science itself the way I see it.
Magic is proto-science; in other words, theres a cause-effect correlation that is not explained rigurously yet.
If i tased a native from an island they would say i have "magical powers".
The ancient herbal medicine was achieved thru "magical" attributions (derived from trial and error) to plants, which later on were explained by biochemistry.
The bolded section should have ended this thread.