StoneinaPond Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote] However, I don't want one of my favorite authors misrepresented, which was the sole purpose of my post. Heinlein DID believe astrology was bunk, and it's disrespectful to quote him otherwise. [/quote]Point was taken and aknowledged by both posters. Enjoy. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote] Ironically, I just heard a story on NPR around 7 this morning where there's a medical school in Texas that a professor is being sued because he requires students to answer questions relative to evolution. Why? Because some nutter of a "Christian" is upset because this professor doesn't give creationism equal time. The class is on PHYSIOLOGY. PHYSIOLOGY. Creationism has NOTHING to do with that. It's absurd that this guy has to deal with someone going "you can't do that because I say it's like this.. I don't have any tangible proof, but that doesn't matter I'm going to MAKE you accede to *my* beliefs". [/quote]Unfortunately, one man's belief is another man's poison. I am sure the suing party feels exactly the same about "science" as you do about "creationism." By the way, I am not defending either. But it is a problem that I do not know how to resolve on a societal level. Individually, I taught and will teach present and future children to question EVERYTHING. [quote] I don't discount that there couldn't be an "interconnectedness of ALL things". In fact, there probably is, quantum physics allows for all sorts of strange things. HOWEVER, I am not going to believe it's astrology or in the words of Han Solo "some mystical Force" that binds the galaxy together without some proof. As a *theory* - yes, as *reality* - no. [/quote]I am glad we have something in common here, but I am not suggesting that astrology is the binding entity. It is merely a single facet in an infinitely faceted manifestation. [quote] Actually, as a matter of fact, yes. If you can measure it, you can quite assuredly say "that is so". If it can't be measured - you can not positively say "that is so". You can *think* "maybe* - but you can't say for sure. [/quote]And having measured, what precisely does that tell you about it? Only that you have referenced yourself to it in some arbitrary way. [quote] I am a collection of experiences combined in a matrix bound by my brain. That is where my thoughts are. It would be stupid to presume they are somewhere else. I am not Archie Bunker. [/quote]Are your thoughts you? Are they real? Can they be quantified, not by the [i]reflections[/i] of electrical brain activity in a mechanical scanner, but by real and direct empirical evidence? [quote] It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle applied to non-stochastic phenomena: if the claim does not actually specify what it's obliquly refering to, does it actually have more of a realistic chance of being "true"? [/quote]This is where you lost me. I tried to do some fleeting research, but obviously the subject requires much deeper consideration than I am able to give it at this time. Perhaps you could re-phrase that in more simple, layman terms? Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 I took the time to review this thread this morning and I must say; you guys are pretty persuasive. I think I may have to re-think this astrology stuff due to the sheer depth and breadth of your arguments. I include them here in the hope that they will illuminate someone else. :rolleyes: Thanks again for the obvious thought that went into these stunning articulations. :wave: Stephen LeBlanc wrote: Astrology is a crock. I just clearly stated my belief that it's bullshit... ...just pointing out that I think Astrology is bullshit Dave Pierce wrote: Rubbish. Anifa wrote: I ain't believin' a word of it.....You must be easily led Master Zap wrote: Astrology is hogwash, and anyone who believes in it is an idiot. Simple as that, really. Roto wrote: It is absolutely ridiculous and complete bullshit Guitplayer wrote: But you don't REALLY believe this do you? Dan South wrote: Psychic and astrological phenomena have been proven to be unreliable. Chip McDonald wrote: I don't have to "explore" astrology. Astrology is bunk, it can't be proven otherwise. Joachim P. Dyndale wrote: But then, I don't believe in this astrology stuff, Mats_Olsson wrote: As I said, astrology is not science. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Pierce Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]I took the time to review this thread this morning and I must say; you guys are pretty persuasive. [/b][/quote]I'm sure it was a simple oversight that led you to leave out: [quote] I'm not saying astrology is bunk or not -- I am saying I've never seen a prediction specific enough to be tested. I doubt if I ever will, but if I do I'll happily say that I was wrong. [/quote]You wouldn't care to provide an example that would lead me to say I'm wrong, would you? Shouldn't take you but a couple of minutes to type it up. No? I didn't think so. :rolleyes: --Dave Make my funk the P-funk. I wants to get funked up. My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Dave, You must have missed this from mars; From Robert Zoller, medieval astrology specialist, and the only astrologer that I am aware of who made an accurate prediction concerning Sept 11th some twelve months before hand. He was the only astrologer who specifically stated that the attack would be by Islamic fundamentalists on US soil, that it would be in September 2001 and specifically named bin Laden. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predictions must be clear and unambiguous. They must convey practical advice that can be acted upon. Any statement that introduces ambiguity should not be called prediction at all. Part of the trouble with the current debate on prediction and its place within astrology is that the main proponents think they are debating on prediction but are mostly considering nothing more than Considerations before Judgment . Coupled to this is the manner in which people are apt to upgrade these inferior observations to foreknowledge. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Pierce Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Dave, You must have missed this from mars; From Robert Zoller, medieval astrology specialist, and the only astrologer that I am aware of who made an accurate prediction concerning Sept 11th some twelve months before hand. He was the only astrologer who specifically stated that the attack would be by Islamic fundamentalists on US soil, that it would be in September 2001 and specifically named bin Laden. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predictions must be clear and unambiguous. They must convey practical advice that can be acted upon. Any statement that introduces ambiguity should not be called prediction at all. Part of the trouble with the current debate on prediction and its place within astrology is that the main proponents think they are debating on prediction but are mostly considering nothing more than Considerations before Judgment . Coupled to this is the manner in which people are apt to upgrade these inferior observations to foreknowledge.[/b][/quote]If I see this guy's prediction in a reputable news source, and it is, indeed, unambiguous, then I will say I was dead wrong about him. It'll be the first time, too. (Not the first time I was wrong, ;) the first time I will have seen a specific prediction from an astrologer). --Dave Make my funk the P-funk. I wants to get funked up. My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Dave, You must have missed this from mars; From Robert Zoller, medieval astrology specialist, and the only astrologer that I am aware of who made an accurate prediction concerning Sept 11th some twelve months before hand. He was the only astrologer who specifically stated that the attack would be by Islamic fundamentalists on US soil, that it would be in September 2001 and specifically named bin Laden. [/b][/quote]How many other predictions did he make during that time that didn't occur? How many predictions did he make of terrorist attacks prior to that one that didn't occur? What is the success rate of his predictions? That's just one prediction that is still vague. If he could predict what was coming, why didn't he say it would occur in NYC, the WTC, the time of the attacks, and the method of such attacks? If I'm correct (I might be wrong) some US government agencies, as well as other countries made that same prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote] If I'm correct (I might be wrong) some US government agencies, as well as other countries made that same prediction. [/quote]You mean the US government hires astrologers???? :p Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george costanza Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Seeing that this debate continues, I'd like to propose a momentary interlude of musical entertainment. Let's dig into the Blues for a chorus or two of that Howlin' Wolf classic "I'm a Tailtragger"...with these new lyrics: "I'm a tailchaser, baby I chase my tail all down the line I'm a tailchaser, baby chase my own tail on down the line Can't change my own nor nobody else's mind" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [b] [quote] If I'm correct (I might be wrong) some US government agencies, as well as other countries made that same prediction. [/quote]You mean the US government hires astrologers???? :p [/b][/quote]Well actually in fact they do all the time. Remember Ronald Reagan? And sadly it is well documented that our president along with the FBI and CIA had intelligence regarding 9-11 and failled to act on it. But that's not about astrology, just incompetence in general. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 [quote] Well actually in fact they do all the time. [/quote]I'm sure they do. Not that they would advertise the position in Federal Weekly, but somewhere, in some shrouded research capacity...... But then again, maybe not. :cool: Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Great science, great art, great thinking in general will always require a "leap of faith". [/b][/quote]The things you quoted did not take a leap of faith, they were provable concepts from the start. Whether they proved useful later has no bearing on that - they were not "I think this is how it is" - they're provable. [b]theory be provable. The fact is; this science you cling to so desperately will in a hundred years or so resemble elementary school algebra [/b] You are suggesting that relative to something new it will appear that way. That may be the case; that doesn't mean it definitely will happen, nor does it mean the provable conclusions founded by science will therefore become illegitimate. [b]broader and bigger view of the cosmos. The person who first pronounces this new model will be criticized and ridiculed and eventually his/her ideas will become accepted as common knowledge.[/b] Next year Herve Villachez will be the starting forward for the Lakers. Ridicule me now, but... [b]real world every day, but I never would have thought that I would encounter it among a community of supposed artists.[/b] Well why don't you offer some proof as to why we should think otherwise? If I announce "I believe raindrops are in fact cubical" and then when someone says "I think that's rubbish - prove it" if I then go "you just have a small mind"... What is the point in that? Why would the other person alter his way of thinking, why should the other person just go "oh, well, maybe raindrops ARE cubical, despite everything I know about the subject and the physics of it"? *Why* should I believe in astrology when I do not see any evidence at all of it being a real phenomenon? Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]Conxactly :thu: Now if we could just get CM to quit doing that thing where he quotes a post & savages it point by point....[/b][/quote]I'm not CM and I will do as I please. Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [b]Unfortunately, one man's belief is another man's poison. I am sure the suing party feels exactly the same about "science" as you do about "creationism." [/b][/quote]The purpose of the class is not to inform someone of a religious point of view. The suing party are morons trying to impose their non-sensical will upon an innocent party. [b]I am glad we have something in common here, but I am not suggesting that astrology is the binding entity. It is merely a single facet in an infinitely faceted manifestation.[/b] Maybe so, I don't know. But I also claim no else knows for *sure*, either. [b]And having measured, what precisely does that tell you about it? Only that you have referenced yourself to it in some arbitrary way.[/b] No, it means that by the same senses I use to interpret my present surroundings the thing in question is definitely "real". If I can reference myself to something I can say that something does exist, and therefore my thinking about said thing is altered. If I can not reference myself to something, I likewise can not think the same way about it. It would be irrational to do so. [b]Are your thoughts you?[/b] Yes. [b]Are they real? [/b] They are not physically tangible, but by consciously writing them down I make them "real". My "thoughts" become tangible. Astrology does not have that property. [b]Can they be quantified, not by the [i]reflections[/i] of electrical brain activity in a mechanical scanner, but by real and direct empirical evidence?[/b] They don't have to be quantified, they are manifest in the actions of what I say and do. "I" am an animated concept; astrology is not, so it's not a good analogy IMO. CAT scans of brain activity is empirical. Activity is detected; an action happens; activity ceases; action stops. Cause and effect that is *reproducible*. [b] Perhaps you could re-phrase that in more simple, layman terms? [/b] Hmm.. let's see how brief I can make this... Roughly, Heisenberg states that for a given quantum system, there is no way you can observe it accurately without altering it's behavior, because the mechanism of observing itself requires physical interaction with said system. Supposedly only applies to quantum systems, but it translates well to other concepts. [b]Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.[/b] Thanks for not getting bent out of shape.... Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 CM. [quote] Roughly, Heisenberg states that for a given quantum system, there is no way you can observe it accurately without altering it's behavior, because the mechanism of observing itself requires physical interaction with said system. Supposedly only applies to quantum systems, but it translates well to other concepts. [/quote]Sorry, I should have been clearer. That part of your statement I am familiar with. It was... [quote] ....applied to non-stochastic phenomena: if the claim does not actually specify what it's obliquly refering to, does it actually have more of a realistic chance of being "true"? [/quote]That's the bit I don't understand. [quote] CAT scans of brain activity is empirical. Activity is detected; an action happens; activity ceases; action stops. Cause and effect that is *reproducible*. [/quote]Exactly. But all that tells you is that there is electrical activity in response to a stimulus, and where that stimulus is processed (what part of the brain.) Now I might respond to an image of what I consider a beautiful woman, and activity in a part of my brain is detected. Another person will see the same image and have no response, or the response will be different. Does that mean the image has no reality? Of course not. There is an object, which is composed of what we agree to call paper, covered with certain pigmentation that reflects light in a particular pattern. It is the action of my sense organs and the subsequent interpretation of the image that is different. I "experience" it differently. The other person does not have the same "attachment" to it as I do. So I form certain [i]conclusions[/i] based on my reaction. "The image is beautiful, desirable, and if you do not see the same, you must be blind." (Not directed at you.) Are those conclusions valid for everyone else? As you so eloquently stated.... [quote] ...there is no way you can observe it accurately without altering it's behavior...[/quote]([i] and therefore altering my perception of it.[/i]) I think at this point I need to redefine what I consider Astrology to be. It is the study of how the alignment of celestial objects influences other "natural" phenomena. It is a subject that I am not intimately familiar with, and I question our ability, for most of us, to reference it on what is a microscopic level when applied to the individual human. I do believe however, that these same celestial objects do effect me [i]constantly[/i]. Am I aware of these effects? Sometimes. Can I prove to you that what is happening to me at a given moment would be different if the objects were realigned? No way. Does it even matter at that point? Not really. Do I believe that certain people have an ability that I do not possess to look at the cosmos and make certain predictions of a temporal nature? I think so, although I pay it no heed unless I have to make a decision based on that information in reference as to how the possible of an occurrence might affect my life and the lives of those close to me. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [QB]CM.[/qm][/quote]I am not the person who calls himself "CM". [b] [quote] ....applied to non-stochastic phenomena: if the claim does not actually specify what it's obliquly refering to, does it actually have more of a realistic chance of being "true"? [/quote]That's the bit I don't understand. [/b] What appears to be a random event does not mean the system that produced it is random in nature. The more general a prediction is, the less variable it is likely to be, thereby increasing the likelyhood of a "hit" in a prediction. It may appear that the result of the prediction was "amazing" because of the nature of what it was, but that doesn't mean that the system that produced it was any more amazing than rolling dice: it was quite likely that the shuttle was going to have a problem with it's heat shield one day, making grandiose predictions about a disaster prior to it landing doesn't impress because of that. If the prediction had been more specific - had included something refering to the left wing, where the *variability of the result of the prediction* could not waver as much, that would be more impressive, and obviously less likely to be able to be correlated to any other possible event that could have been covered under the sweeping umbrella of Jotown's original post. [b]Exactly. But all that tells you is that there is electrical activity in response to a stimulus, and where that stimulus is processed (what part [/b] Cause and effect demonstrates something is there. You cannot do the same with astrology. [b]in a part of my brain is detected. Another person will see the same image and have no response, or the response will be different. Does that mean the image has no reality? Of course [/b] Your test is to demonstrate whether a subject can respond to a stimulus. In the first case there was a response; in the second there was not, that does not mean what is observed in the first case did not happen. You still have conclusive causal evidence of the effect of the brain observing an image. [b]It is the action of my sense organs and the subsequent interpretation of the image that is different. I "experience" it differently. The [/b] It doesn't matter that you experience it differently. The point is that in the other subject it was proven to create a response. That it didn't the second time doesn't not diminish the first result. [b]t I consider Astrology to be. It is the study of how the alignment of celestial objects influences other "natural" phenomena. [/b] How it *might* *possibly* influence "natural" phenomena, of which there is no evidence that it does. [b]believe however, that these same celestial objects do effect me [i]constantly[/i]. Am I aware of these effects? Sometimes. Can I prove to [/b] So explain how you know they affect you? [b]realigned? No way. Does it even matter at that point? Not really. Do I believe that certain [/b] I do not doubt that astrology as a *process* affects people's behavior. I do doubt that beyond that it has little effect. [b]people have an ability that I do not possess to look at the cosmos and make certain predictions of a temporal nature? I think so, [/b] I don't know. My point is that it is irrational to believe in a possibility that does not have any rational basis for working and goes against established science, while also being non-provable. Not to mention has a really bad track record. It is politically correct these days to go "oh, well, possibly maybe" but I see no reason to lie when it is presented as something that has a *direct* influence on the natural world - unlike religion that is relegated to the super-natural. If it's just an arbitrary speculative thing, fine. If it's presented as "reality" - that's different. Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]Chip McDonald wrote: I don't have to "explore" astrology. Astrology is bunk, it can't be proven otherwise.[/quote]I am amazed that this thread is still going. I was going to answer you point by point, but then I thought I would just apply your own logic to the situation and say: I don't have to "explore" Chip McDonalds view of astrology, because his view on Astrology is bunk, it can't be proven otherwise. :D Peace. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 [quote]I am not the person who calls himself "CM". [/quote]Apologies. [quote] What appears to be a random event does not mean the system that produced it is random in nature. The more general a prediction is, the less variable it is likely to be, thereby increasing the likelyhood of a "hit" in a prediction. It may appear that the result of the prediction was "amazing" because of the nature of what it was, but that doesn't mean that the system that produced it was any more amazing than rolling dice: it was quite likely that the shuttle was going to have a problem with it's heat shield one day, making grandiose predictions about a disaster prior to it landing doesn't impress because of that. If the prediction had been more specific - had included something refering to the left wing, where the *variability of the result of the prediction* could not waver as much, that would be more impressive, and obviously less likely to be able to be correlated to any other possible event that could have been covered under the sweeping umbrella of Jotown's original post. [/quote]OK. But, as I have said before, I don't think Jotown posts a prediction of something happening every day in the hope that he hits on something. As to the originator of the "warning" I don't know. And yes, a volcano could have blown up that day, or the George Washington Bridge could have fallen down. And planes do crash, people die, yadda, yadda, yadda, but the Space Shuttle flying is still a relatively unique event. Don't know, but I won't just dismiss things because of some "rationalist" [i]point of view[/i]. [quote] Cause and effect demonstrates something is there. You cannot do the same with astrology. [/quote]I cannot, but I wouldn't say that somebody couldn't. You just have not met anyone who can. [quote] in a part of my brain is detected. Another person will see the same image and have no response, or the response will be different. Does that mean the image has no reality? Of course Your test is to demonstrate whether a subject can respond to a stimulus. In the first case there was a response; in the second there was not, that does not mean what is observed in the first case did not happen. You still have conclusive causal evidence of the effect of the brain observing an image. [/quote]No, the “test” is to verify if an observed object has an inherent existence. I said there might not be a response, or it may be different. It could also be that on a separate day, I have no response or it is different. Therefore my response is unrepeatable and attaching any objective value to the observed object is unscientific. [quote] It doesn't matter that you experience it differently. The point is that in the other subject it was proven to create a response. That it didn't the second time doesn't not diminish the first result. [/quote]Yes, but does the mere existence of a response tell you anything about the real nature of the object? [quote] How it *might* *possibly* influence "natural" phenomena, of which there is no evidence that it does. [/quote]I'm not sure I am reading that correctly. How about ocean tides? Is the moon a celestial object? [quote] So explain how you know they affect you? [/quote] [quote] I do not doubt that astrology as a *process* affects people's behavior. I do doubt that beyond that it has little effect. [/quote]I guess you are agreeing with me. [quote] My point is that it is irrational to believe in a possibility that does not have any rational basis for working and goes against established science, while also being non-provable. [/quote]Rational, scientific, provable are all words that depend on you artificially limiting your experience in order to function within the sphere of those restrictions. It doesn't tell you the whole story. It just [i]describes[/i] some of it. That is all well and good if all that we are, is a rational entity. I for one do not believe that life ends at the borders of "established science." In fact, real life begins when we go beyond them. But hey, that's just an opinion, and to you, un-provable. But I've enjoyed the journey. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 [b]OK. But, as I have said before, I don't think Jotown posts a prediction of something happening every day in the hope that he hits on something. [/b] No, and I agree it's an absurdly coincidental thing. *That* is very interesting to me, the synchronicity of it; but not that it's the result of an actual process that exceeds the bounds of what we know of physics. That there could be some property beyond human awareness that creates such a circumstance - that is interesting, but it's not useful if repeatable results can't be created, or if it can't be proven to be a tangible thing. Likewise, I'm not going to go around and tell people they're narrow minded because they don't believe what I believe *might* possibly be "the case", even though I can't prove it. [b]yadda, yadda, yadda, but the Space Shuttle flying is still a relatively unique event. Don't [/b] There's are guys doing backflips 50 feet or more in the air on motocross bikes these days. I predict one day in the XGames we're going to see someone get paralyzed, or maybe even killed. While it's a pretty unique thing to do backflips on a motorcycle it is quite likely someone is going to eventually get hurt or killed by it. Likewise, the shuttle is such a complicated device - the most complicated ever created by humans some say - that it's quite likely something catastrophic is going to go wrong. Given the Goldbergian nature of the heat shield system, it's not exactly a surprise what happened. So what appears to be a random variable, a stochastic phenomenon - a component failing, it really isn't given the lifespan of the shuttle and the nature of how it operates. However, the synchronistic timing of a 3rd party making a "prediction" coincidental - that I find interesting, but that doesn't mean I am going to going to call a fatwa on those who don't believe what I believe. [b]know, but I won't just dismiss things because of some "rationalist" [i]point of view[/i].[/b] The human condition is by nature irrational. I try to do my part in fighting the entropic nature of the universe by trying to be rational when I can. Again - I personally think that runs counter to some of the machinations of "fate" as a statistical incarnation of interaction with the natural world. I have no distinct proof of that, so I'm not going to try to shove it down anyone's throat or start a flame war over it - *because* it's not provable and I admit it. [b]I cannot, but I wouldn't say that somebody couldn't. You just have not met anyone who can.[/b] Well that's my point, isn't it? I'm waiting for someone to prove otherwise. [b]No, the “test” is to verify if an observed object has an inherent existence. [/b] No, *you* are saying that. I could say "the test is to verify the taste of buttered scones" but that doesn't mean that's what it's about. Hooking someone up to a CAT scanner and looking at their brain emissions while the subject is stimulated by something is obviously meant to demonstrate the subject's brain is doing something, NOT what the nature of the thing creating the stimulus is. [b]I said there might not be a response, or it may be different. It could also be that on a [/b] It doesn't matter. If there is a stimulus and an observed response - that's proof. HOWEVER, the flipside - if this process was like astrology, then the stimulus would *never* have a repeatable effect, outside of one possibly spurious reading. That's not the case with the brain, so we know there is a causal relationship between stimulus and a response in the brain. [b]separate day, I have no response or it is different. Therefore my response is unrepeatable and attaching any objective value to the observed object is unscientific. [/b] But you are saying that there was a time when you *did* have a demonstratable response. The point is that once it is demonstrated, it doesn't *have* to be repeated *again*. The question is whether astrology is consistently right, but whether it has been to *ever* be right beyond what can be accounted for by statistical luck. [b]Yes, but does the mere existence of a response tell you anything about the real nature of the object?[/b] That doesn't have anything to do with the logic of the process, the process isn't to demonstrate the nature of the object creating the stimulus but to show if the observer is actually perceiving said stimulus. [b]I'm not sure I am reading that correctly. How about ocean tides? Is the moon a celestial object?[/b] I have already stated I of course acknowledge gravitational effects. But there is no evidence that it extends further than that. Now see, if astrology was based around the notion of gravitational tides exclusively - that would be interesting in part, although it would be difficult to prove that your horoscope could have any causal relationship to the moon's gravity. A star light years away does NOT have any bearing on life on earth. [b] [quote] I do not doubt that astrology as a *process* affects people's behavior. I do doubt that beyond that it has little effect. [/quote]I guess you are agreeing with me.[/b] That people find solace in astrology or amusement in it isn't the question, they obviously do. My position is that it's illusory and misguided, and whether there is some sort of statistical function involved I don't know, but it would have nothing to do with celestial orientation viewable from Earth. [b]Rational, scientific, provable are all words that depend on you artificially limiting your experience in order to function within the sphere [/b] Not true, that is a description you have created. I do not doubt again that someone can't function based on irrational beliefs, but that doesn't mean those beliefs are true. [b]it. That is all well and good if all that we are, is a rational entity. I for one do not believe that life ends at the borders of "established science." In fact, real life begins when we go beyond them.[/b] I would *like* to believe there is "more", but I am not going to pretend to the point of intellectual hallucination just because it's comforting or "it seems like it should be so". I willfully acknowledge I have "feelings" that there should be "more", but I will not jump to the conclusion that just because my body's chemistry is tweaked towards making me *feel* "there should be something more" means that I should likewise "believe" that there is. If there is there is, if there is not there isn't. If it appears to not be there to me I'm not going to fill that in with something imaginary, which is what it is to me unless someone shows me otherwise. Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uh Clem Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Wow - this still going on? You know, even if Astrology is for real and even if no one had any issues with that, that prediction was crap - it predicted nothing but same ol' same ol' at the very most, and in the least specific "CYA" way possible. So I say, don't shoot the messenger - shoot the message. Believe in what you like - no matter what, that prediction was a load of crap and while Astrology may be defensible - or no - that prediction was not. I think, at least initially, that is what bothered most people who were seemingly attacking Astrology (even those who didn't). How, by any measure of science, psuedo-science, religion, common sense, street smarts - whatever you got or want to use or call it, was that prediction worth a hill of beans? Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 i predict another post. -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]Wow - this still going on? You know, even if Astrology is for real and even if no one had any issues with that, that prediction was crap - it predicted nothing but same ol' same ol' at the very most, and in the least specific "CYA" way possible. So I say, don't shoot the messenger - shoot the message. Believe in what you like - no matter what, that prediction was a load of crap and while Astrology may be defensible - or no - that prediction was not. I think, at least initially, that is what bothered most people who were seemingly attacking Astrology (even those who didn't). How, by any measure of science, psuedo-science, religion, common sense, street smarts - whatever you got or want to use or call it, was that prediction worth a hill of beans?[/b][/quote]Well Steve, I predict you will continue to get into a lot of arguments due to your severely flawed reading skills. It was not a prediction, as has been stated several times. Re-read the post if you have any questions. It was a heads up to my friend here at musicplayer.com For some reason you keep missing that point. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uh Clem Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 So was it a prediction or a heads up? I'm too stupid to know the difference, so maybe you can clarify. [quote]He has quite a history of being able to make accurate [b]predictions[/b]. So keep your head up. -------------------- Jotown:) [/quote]WTF does that mean - excuse my "severely flawed reading skills, but when you type the word [b]prediction[/b] and I struggle to read it, sounding it out slowly with great difficulty to make sense of it - I come up with...prediction - yep, I'm just thick as a brick I guess. Or what about this: [quote] One more note: In the original prediction I recieved, ... -------------------- Jotown:) [/quote]Now it took me about 30 minutes to read that one - but hey, thanks 'cause when you repeat those big words like pre-dic-tion, well they get easier every time! One day I'll be readin' all them $25 words :thu: What it seems like is that when anyone attacks the content of the quote, prediction, message heads up - whatever you want to call it, you cannot face that in a specific way. You twist that into a personal attack or an attack on Astology and start making a defense that completely dodges the issue. Without me digging back thru all the other responses, have you addressed this? As an example: [quote]...So, tell me then -- what specific event is being predicted by this message? ... --Dave [/quote]Maybe Dave has poor reading skills too - he also saw the word prediction followed a list of possible events and got all confused like I did. Did you ever deal with his question, or did you just blow that off - because I thought it was an interesting question and would like to hear your answer. I could give a flying flip about your defense of Astrology. No, my guess is that you take this as an attack on your friend's ability to make a heads up (can we call it that?) and you get all squirrely over it. I purposefully tried to make my last post about the "heads up" message content and not anyone's belief systems just to see if I was right. I may not be able to read well, but I can sure see a big button that says "Push Me", it seems :eek: So, that's what I read into it :rolleyes: Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 [quote] Now see, if astrology was based around the notion of gravitational tides exclusively - that would be interesting in part, although it would be difficult to prove that your horoscope could have any causal relationship to the moon's gravity. A star light years away does NOT have any bearing on life on earth. [/quote]You seem to be fixated on the "horoscope" aspect of astrology, when I specifically avoided defining it in those terms. The original post was not about a specific person's horoscope. It was about a cataclysmic event. As you agree in the beginning of your reply. [quote] That there could be some property beyond human awareness that creates such a circumstance - that is interesting, but it's not useful if repeatable results can't be created, or if it can't be proven to be a tangible thing. [/quote]I guess it wasn't useful to the people on the shuttle. [quote] There's are guys doing backflips 50 feet or more in the air on motocross bikes these days. I predict one day in the XGames we're going to see someone get paralyzed, or maybe even killed. [/quote]That is quite likely, but the original prediction did not state "one day." Let's not get absurd about this. [quote] However, the synchronistic timing of a 3rd party making a "prediction" coincidental - that I find interesting, but that doesn't mean I am going to going to call a fatwa on those who don't believe what I believe. [/quote]Are you referring to anyone in particular when you speak of a "religious ruling?" [quote] I try to do my part in fighting the entropic nature of the universe by trying to be rational when I can. [/quote]Ever heard the story of King Canut? :) [quote] I would *like* to believe there is "more", but I am not going to pretend to the point of intellectual hallucination just because it's comforting or "it seems like it should be so". I willfully acknowledge I have "feelings" that there should be "more", but I will not jump to the conclusion that just because my body's chemistry is tweaked towards making me *feel* "there should be something more" means that I should likewise "believe" that there is. If there is there is, if there is not there isn't. If it appears to not be there to me I'm not going to fill that in with something imaginary, which is what it is to me unless someone shows me otherwise. [/quote]Ah, there's the rub. Nobody can show you how. That you will have to do all by yourself, either while you're alive or hopefully, at the very least, at point of death. But you are right about not filling it with something imaginary, just for the sake of filling a void. Many fall into that trap. Peace. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realtrance Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I'm a firm believer in coincidence. Nevertheless, I remain somewhat curious about the fact that I hadn't been paying at all close attention to the space shuttle, I woke up about a half an hour before the event occurred, I recall hearing on the radio, "the shuttle should be landing in about 13 minutes," and my first thought was, for no good reason, oh no, something's going to happen. It's probably because I'm Jewish and live in a world where most of the "luck" goes to non-Jews, still; and knew the first Jewish astronaut was onboard, and so had my usual sad feeling about how things haven't really gone right for us in about 5,700 years. Still, it was bad to have such a negative premonition so quickly fulfilled. Aside from all that, I definitely don't "believe" in astrology, but at some level all animals, hell, all living things, do seem to sense in gestalt-ic ways we probably haven't yet fully understood scientifically (in the rigorous sense of that term, as opposed to "scientistically," which is more, "science-like, but not really science."). For some reason these synthetic perceptive abilities seem to come to the fore under stress. And lead to things like pet rocks, pyramid power, and disco. I dunno; I knew a bad moon was rising the minute I started hearing disco again, and saw what I'd been hoping for lo these twenty years, low-riding hip-hugger jeans and platform shoes. It was just a matter of time. Break out the champagne when you start hearing some really good, cutting edge angry electric guitar-based classic rock 'n roll band that really knows how to play _and_ sing _and_ write really powerful lyrics. If it's like four women in the band, not using sex at ALL to sell their stuff, we're REALLY in for good times ahead (one of them will still display her belly-button, though, just to be cute). Keep your eyes peeled, and bow down to my mystical powers when my prediction has proven out. rt the Mystic One Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [b]It was about a cataclysmic event. As you agree in the beginning of your reply.[/b][/quote]Well then, what was the process that led to the "prediction"? [b]I guess it wasn't useful to the people on the shuttle.[/b] OBVIOUSLY NOT. [b]That is quite likely, but the original prediction did not state "one day." Let's not get absurd about this.[/b] Not get absurd...? Ok, let's say I make that prediction the day before the finals at the XGames and I use the same verbiage in the original post, substituting an allusion to motocrossers. Actually, that would be more specific, but.... [b]Are you referring to anyone in particular when you speak of a "religious ruling?" [/b] This is getting tangential and I don't see a purpose in pursuing that... Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Pierce Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]Wow - this still going on? You know, even if Astrology is for real and even if no one had any issues with that, that prediction was crap - it predicted nothing but same ol' same ol' at the very most, and in the least specific "CYA" way possible. So I say, don't shoot the messenger - shoot the message. Believe in what you like - no matter what, that prediction was a load of crap and while Astrology may be defensible - or no - that prediction was not. I think, at least initially, that is what bothered most people who were seemingly attacking Astrology (even those who didn't). How, by any measure of science, psuedo-science, religion, common sense, street smarts - whatever you got or want to use or call it, was that prediction worth a hill of beans?[/b][/quote]Thanks for putting this so nicely. This is exactly what I was trying to say all along. And on that note -- I researched the astrologer Jotown mentioned, Robert Zoller. Unless the lengthy article I read on him was lying, which I doubt: [b]I was wrong[/b]. He is an astrology who, on numerous occasions, has made specific prediction with no ambiguity, weasel words or other b.s. This is very much to his credit. I have no idea what his success percentage is, but that was never my point. It's interesting to note that in this same article he roundly criticizes vagueness in predictions. It's clear that he would have [b]hated[/b] the so-called "prediction" that started this thread. --Dave Make my funk the P-funk. I wants to get funked up. My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars_dup1 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by CP: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Dave, You must have missed this from mars; From Robert Zoller, medieval astrology specialist, and the only astrologer that I am aware of who made an accurate prediction concerning Sept 11th some twelve months before hand. He was the only astrologer who specifically stated that the attack would be by Islamic fundamentalists on US soil, that it would be in September 2001 and specifically named bin Laden. [/b][/quote]How many other predictions did he make during that time that didn't occur? How many predictions did he make of terrorist attacks prior to that one that didn't occur? What is the success rate of his predictions? That's just one prediction that is still vague. If he could predict what was coming, why didn't he say it would occur in NYC, the WTC, the time of the attacks, and the method of such attacks? If I'm correct (I might be wrong) some US government agencies, as well as other countries made that same prediction.[/b][/quote]Read the full article [url=http://www.new-library.com/zoller/features/]HERE[/url] I've seen other references to his predictions on the web - he was allegedly investigated by the FBI after 9/11 and has since gone rather quiet. From JoTown [quote] And sadly it is well documented that our president along with the FBI and CIA had intelligence regarding 9-11 and failled to act on it. But that's not about astrology, just incompetence in general. [/quote]Strangley enough, Zoller said the exact same thing back in 2000: [quote] "From September we are entering a period of increased danger to us in the West. In an earlier Nuntius I said that there is an increasing threat to the US citizens and this is particularly so on the Eastern sea border. I have also said that this threat is linked not so much to a new boldness in terrorist planning but more to US incompetence. At that time I couched those remarks as being non-astrological so as to play down the warning but I say again as was said in the July 99 Nuntius if the US does not cease acting incompetently, it will invite the depredations of adventurers such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam. This is a wake up call. Our way of life and cultural values (& our lives) are at stake." [/quote]For info on a possible scientific basis for Astrology from a respected astronomer, you should read [url=http://cura.free.fr/decem/09seym.html]THIS.[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 Hey Mars, thanks for those links. I am familiar with the work of Dr. Percy Seymour. There are actually quite a few scientists who have done work along these lines. I am sure you are aware of them. RE- Robert Zoller: [quote]I've seen other references to his predictions on the web - he was allegedly investigated by the FBI after 9/11 and has since gone rather quiet. [/quote]The astrologer who sent me the e-mail that started this thread was investigated also, and had his office/bookstore torched by arsons shortly after 9-11. The case remains unsolved. He is very cautious these days. That is why I did not include his name, or the complete text of his message. Seeing the venom regarding astrology in this thread, I have a whole new level of understanding in regards to his discretion. To Dave Pierce: I am impressed to see that you looked into the predictions of Robert Zoller. It says a lot about you that you actually took the time to explore some of these astrological possibilities. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Pierce Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]To Dave Pierce: I am impressed to see that you looked into the predictions of Robert Zoller. It says a lot about you that you actually took the time to explore some of these astrological possibilities.[/b][/quote]Nice of you to say so. I really don't care all that much about this topic one way or the other. But I did say this: [quote] You wouldn't care to provide an example that would lead me to say I'm wrong, would you? Shouldn't take you but a couple of minutes to type it up. No? I didn't think so. [/quote]And to my great surprise you actually provided an example. So checking it out was the least I could do! :D I guess it was my subtle way of saying, "Gee I was really a smartass back there, wasn't I?" :rolleyes: Don't mind me, I get that way sometimes. :evil: --Dave Make my funk the P-funk. I wants to get funked up. My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.