Author Topic: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination  (Read 11220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2010, 06:41:45 PM »
That's the point; if you want to use them as a tool, they can be.  I concede that.  But they're a tool to recognize things you've already decided, not to see into some collective gestalt.

I can go along with that, other than I wouldn't say 'recognize things you've already decided' exactly, because my experience is that I find myself surprised at the uncanny quality of it rather than it making me nod my head. It tells you what you want to hear or what you are afraid to hear, but it does appear to tell you something if you are open to it. Not a collective gestalt, but just the moment. The intersection of the subjective intent and objective chance.

Gambling to be lucky is a bad strategy if you want to try to make money, but gambling does generate a perception of luck - a relationship between the self and circumstance which is delusional on one level, but potentially irresistible on another. Both levels are part of the Cosmos.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2010, 06:45:25 PM »
Immediacracy:
Quote
True, but I would say that I'm not a brain. I come from a brain. Brain exhaust.

You do have the gift for a nice turn of phrase, Imm. "Brain exhaust"; lovely concept  ;D. Are you a writer?

Heh, thanks. Not professional writer now, no, but early on I did a bit of writing work. I've been as much of a writer on here this month as I think I can handle though. Jeez, it's, uh, exhaust-ing.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2010, 06:29:23 AM »
Old is relevant because when we deal with intuition, the closer we get to primitive consciousness the better. Opposite to the objective worldview where the most contemporary technology is generally trusted, with the subjective world, ancient models are potentially more revealing of the raw architecture of the psyche.
Neither does age imply primitivity, nor is intuition untrainable. It's capable of training and renewal as much as anything else; it's an adaptation only valid in a context.
Who says that the more primitive the better? If intuition is any indication of our psyches (certainly true to some extent), why would I be interested in using old methods describing my more primitive phsychic attributes rather than new ones? Why shouldn't modern meditation techniques, say, be able to supplant old techniques? The accumulation of knowledge and fine-tuning of accuracy need not be relegated to rationality.

Quote
Their meaning is what's important about them, which is a reflection of inner truth.
When you say reflection, I'm thinking of a scientifically describable phenomenon. The I Ching is nothing like that.
But again, where's the worth in those techniques if I can get the same stuff anywhere else?

Quote
QM can only be validated objectively. I Ching subjectively. It's just an entirely different orientation from top to bottom.
I'd argue with equivocation. The "validity" in the first sentence is qualitatively different from the one in the second. Any validation (as in "I feel validated") drawn from the I Ching is either formally indistinguishable from belief in the supernatural (while I certainly think it has the potential to be more accurate by virtue of a thinking person being involved exclusively) or formally indistinguishable from any other opinion about oneself. (Which leads me to argue that not only do you have no formal basis for claiming what you're claiming, but neither do you have any way to measure the validity (in any sense of the word) of formally similar "alchemistic" methods other than possibly by statistical analysis.)
QM can be validated independently; not independently from people for obvious reasons, but independently from person to person. Its truth is quantitatively different from your truth. It's accurate (not necessarily true) no matter what you believe. A personal truth revealed by the I Ching does not have a measurable degree of accuracy; QM does.

Quote
It's not about calling it anything. You just let it be what it is.
Which you and I both agree is impossible due to observation being done by observers.
Besides, when I Ching "validates" your beliefs, you're doing exactly that: calling it truth.

Quote
Yep. The TV works too. TV Ching. Nothing special about the I Ching or Tarot other than they are designed expressly for that purpose so you get a really rich and coherent vocabulary to draw from.
So the method is irrelevant then?
Just seems to support my stance that scientific methodology has and cannot have anything to do with it, and the two systems are logically incompatible simply by virtue of science being a methodology. I can just read a lot for the vocabulary and do my intuitive contemplation of my own. Which is what I do, in fact, I just don't call my conclusions truth. Not the same truth as the one described by QM in any case. I'm all over validation where possible, but do not trouble myself overly when I can't.

Quote
I'm not claiming that it's not a coincidence at all. (Everything is a coincidence, technically). I'm just saying that on one level the coincidence is meaningless, and on another level it appears uncanny. That's what consciousness is made of. Pattern recognition. Choosing to recognize a pattern or not.
Which is what I meant when I said pat rec is fine unless it's pareidolia. Seeing patterns where none exist and attributing meaning accordingly is a classical example of the mind being unreliable.
You can't choose to recognize a pattern. Lengthy encrypted messages can have a very simple pattern that is completely hidden to any observer, no matter how hard he/she tries. And optical illusions are not a matter of choice either; they're a result of our archaic pat rec mechanisms being unable to cope with graphic perceptions that do not appear in nature. Never even mind that patterns can be produced absolutely .

Quote
The point is not to use divination, but to understand that it's not nothing, and that it's shadowy semi-validity reveals some important truths about the Self and it's connection to the Cosmos.
About the self, quite possibly. Where does the connection with the cosmos come into the picture considering you don't have a methodology the results of which even you yourself could subjectively verify to any degree? Is satisfaction with the results the only criterion? How do you qualify the validity of a personal truth you reject ("the I Ching got it wrong") or accept ("the I Ching was spot on") even to yourself?

Quote
I agree. It doesn't stop people from using logic to prove the erroneous conclusion that imagination isn't real.
Who's claiming that? Links if possible, please.
Course it's real. It's just a complex process, like an eddy, nothing supernatural. If you define "exist" as "exist concretely, measurably, perceptibly" than you can indeed state that imagination doesn't exist. In much the same way as language doesn't. No bearing on the importance though.

Quote
[alleged semantics]
My point was that calling the universe ours has no bearing on what the universe is objectively like (as in "the abstract concept of absolute objectivity"). The fact that you can call white the opposite of black (even as the default definition) and have it be useful in communication has no bearing whatsoever on either the nature of the universe or descriptive accuracy (cold is famously the absence of heat; but it would still be very easy to posit cold as 0K and derive a descriptive system mathematically equivalent to the one we're using now, seemingly validating that there is such a thing as cold). That doesn't actually have to do with competing definitions at all.
In the same way, I can illustratively call the universe snifty, but it has no bearing on whether the word is an apt description or if snifty is just a word for a semantic model merely approximating our perceptions.
Likewise, nothing immediately follows from the fact that you can call objectivity and subjectivity polar opposites. Not validity, not desireability, nothing.

Quote
It doesn't claim. It teases.
So it can't? Screw it then, I'll do what everybody else does, form my opinions largely based on gut feelings and unsubstantiated claims where validation is not feasible.

Quote
Back into the science/not science red herring.
No; you want the prominent world view to encompass both subjectivity and objectivity, while claiming the SEW only caters to one part of the whole. The question why we should think a particular set of intuitive "methods" complementary (formally or socially) to science (or the SEW if you prefer) is a pertinent one, especially since one has a clear method while the other seems to be defined by arbitrarity and intution. There will be borders where they both will overlap and claim high ground; someone will find a personal truth that is demonstrably wrong and seek to perpetuate it, others will be overly critical of personal truths (which I'd call philosophies or views, not truths). These are two world views, not one. Or one incoherent one if you prefer.
And both are represented right now, I might add, quite routinely in the same person.

Quote
Absolutely. Not all aspects though. Not qualia.
Yes, but while science can tell us nothing about qualia, neither can anything else. Philosophy dealing with qualia uses logic just like science would.
My point being that you can't confirm or deny the reality of qualia even subjectively. Sure, you can feel validated, but that's about it.

Quote
True, but I would say that I'm not a brain. I come from a brain. Brain exhaust. Electric brain sweat, mayybe. I don't need to be here, my brain is perfectly capable of making it's computations without a me monitor and an I mouse connected to it.
One theory holds that our conscious thoughts are qualitatively identical to our subconscious ones, except that more thinking power is assigned to them.
Be that as it may, certain procedures (such as calculations) being automatic and subconsious does not mean they are not integral or constitutive. Whether you are your consciousness or all your brain functions, or the body as well is, I think, a moot semantic point indeed (unless you want a biologically feasible definition).

Quote
Nope, you're not getting it. Obviously having to think about it is the way it is, but why would it be that way if the universe were purely automatic? The brain can read words and letters and not bother you with the English deciphering process you had to learn, so why bother you with anything else?
See above (unconscious=/=not me). I don't think about my first sex experience all the time. It's still a constitutive part of my personality whether I recall it consciously or not.
If the universe is automatic, a living system subject to evolution necessitates a way to interact with its surroundings. Act and react. It's easy to see why a species that does not have the luxury of prodigious procreation rates would need an efficient way to act and react in a way allowing for sufficient offspring. That's true independently from any free will considerations. An animal of our size with no computational power (or another action/reaction mechanism) dies out.
As for consciousness, without an exact representative definition, it's hard to answer the question of why consciousness developed. It may be just a (genetically beneficial) self-perception, self-reflection, the perception of a process. Like yellow, we may never know why we perceive it as we perceive it. The important question is to ask how can we possibly tell (no matter which methodology), and why should we not regard the results as baseless (logically or otherwise) views.

Quote
haha. Well I think it can, because I think that order is inherent in the body and in all forms of the cosmos. But without any order exterior to human intellect, what do you suppose could lead to the invention of consciousness? Based on what provision of matter or energy?
Predictibality and thus order are indeed a prerequisite for intuition. I was (poorly) attempting to make the point that in no way does intuition imply a sense which violates constraints of "physical and temporal locality". Subconsious processes again.
Intuition is just another process in the brain "foretelling" the future, just like one may foretell the result of 4+5 or foretell the behavior of wounded prey. Intuition is an incredibly flexible adaptive process and it develops according to evolutionary principles, whether we're talking genetically or memetically. The "primitive" intuition (and pattern-recognition) of a hunter-gatherer is entirely unable to cope with cars or 3D movies.
So my stance is that while intuition is very valuable and produces good results, it has its limits just like anything else, and even where it works well it can easily crap out. Intuition can also only tell us about things that it has been trained to process, or which it was hard-wired to process. It completely fails outside those boundaries; when movement patterns are too complex or too qualitatively different to have been beneficially recognized during our evolution.

Quote
Every time you voluntarily move any part of your body you are directly influencing the universe. The body is part of the universe, no?
Yeah, sure. I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean your consciousness is directly influencing the universe, as opposed to influencing (or, in the automaton model, being the result of) small parts of it.

Quote
Yes but 'abstraction' loses relevance when we talk about color. Color is both entirely subjective but concrete. Our opposites don't need to have a bearing on the universe, they are the universe informing consciousness. We discover opposites, we don't invent them.
Yes, we do. In no way other than by arbitrary definition is black the opposite of white.

Quote
The logic of looking for an opposite is intuitive - we are searching for a relation that exists already internally, provided by our neurology, not creating it out of thin air and deciding it's an opposite arbitrarily.
As stated, intution is valuable but its method is unverifiable (for now) and unreliable. I don't care if searching for opposites is intuitive; it's also intuitive to attribute human-like characteristics to everything around us. We are searching for symmetries where none may exist.
Sure, that can be productive (science does that, albeit with heavy testing involved), but changing society on that basis and not much more?

Quote
Physics, no, but why not metaphysics?
Because I maintain that the only meaning the word "opposite" has is as a descriptor of purely formal relationships. Where it fails to be an accurate descriptor, a better one should be sought, or the definition changed for the duration of the discussion.
I would prefer a rigid definition (of any kind, as long as I know what it is) in this case because opposition is very fuzzily defined in everyday language. Women/Men, Rich/Poor, First World/Third World, -1/1. Symmetries in certain aspects between entities seem to us to imply opposition (as you stated, it's intuitive; see Foucault and postcolonial theory), but that need not be true in all aspects, only those routinely emphasized. If there is a symmetry in all aspects relevant to the discussion (even with a possibly "merely" conceptual axis), I would use the word; but it still would have only descriptive value illustrating what I think; nothing would follow from it directly unless I can show it is indeed an accurate descriptor (and used accordingly).
I'm much more lax in everyday language, but the more abstract and specialized a debate gets, the more important it is to have clear, workable definitions, shared concepts as unequivocal as is practical.
In this case, I would be willing to accept your definition of opposition, but maintain that nothing need follow from it unless you can show that the symmetry exists outside of language and abstract concepts.

Quote
That's what I'm saying, both the color wheel and the nuomenon of color are part of the Cosmos. It's not an either/or.
Of course. Just like consciousness and everything else. That does not mean both are accessible via the same or even diametrally opposed (by whatever measure/definition) methods, and it does not mean that one has things to say about the other and vice versa.
Us saying or arriving at the conclusion by whatever means that "two methods share some symmetries" is a part of the universe. No bearing on the universe whatsoever or our ability to cope with it, though; the conclusion that since consciousness is part of the universe, the symmetries we perceive are a representative measure of the universe itself just isn't admissible. Our consciousness need not be able to grasp or even reach for any truth about the universe in its totality or our own conscious part of it just by virtue of being part of it, and certainly not when regarding as representative a model that is demonstrably faulty in other areas and quite likely as arbitrary (not random though!) as language.

Quote
I don't think we have to know, I just think it's dishonest not to include them in any meaningful cosmology.
I agree we don't have to know.
But how? They are used as descriptors already. Where would we put the concrete circles? On what basis? "I don't know" is a sufficient incentive for most scientists but how would one go about incorporating circles as something concrete?

Quote
Oh, bummer. I hope you find one soon. I'm all for taking a break, hah.
Nah, then I'll have forgotten most of what I said.

Quote
I know what you're saying but I'm not talking about the physical universe. Other end of the Cosmos.
So ... arbitrary application of meaning again?

Quote
It's true to the degree that it's personally meaningful.
Like the existence of god?
I wouldn't call meaningful true, just meaningful.

Quote
I qualify it because numbers are too far infra to be considered objectively real. They are elemental decatypes to us. I have no reason to presume that the Cosmos has any such prejudice though. Our numbers may very well be as real to the nuonomenal Cosmos as cosmic rays or supernovas. Why wouldn't they be? Quarks are real to us, why wouldn't our 'ideoquarks' be real to it?
Cause we can infer and measure quarks (whatever they are), and only say and write numbers. We have learned how to assign meaning to communicable patterns; they are not physical entities.
If a number is objectively unreal, why wouldn't a circle be?

Quote
The color yellow is an example of a truth without evidence. A circle. etc.
I was using evidence in the empirical sense again (next time I'll use a qualifier); including self-perception. You can't claim any truth about your personal yellow-qualia without seeing something yellow (not honestly, anyway).
In any case, that's just a truth about the recipient, not about the corresponding wavelength of light (nonetheless true of course; but saying "it is as I perceive it" is a long shot away from "I perceive it as such").

Quote
An archaeologist of our civilization could easily that we worshiped the Stock Market, or any of the iconic deities that adorn our skyscrapers. I'm not positing that Greek myth is a myth, but that you may be painting prehistory with a broad brush. Zeus worshipers did alright with the math and the philosophy, the architecture, the democracy...not bad for people who believe things without any indication that they are true.
Yes, but we're outside their worldview now. The architecture is independent from their religion except for the aesthetic. Temples were either used for social functions independent of veracity or else completely wasted ressources. They weren't using their mythical worldview to inform their technological or mundane worldview (not exclusively, anyway); but they were influenced by it.
As an aside, the ancient Greeks believed for centuries that an object dropped from any given height will accelerate to its final speed immediately (i.e. infinitely fast) and proceed to maintain that speed.

Quote
Ah cool, I like that book but it did seem a little screwy in the structure department. I wonder if he got the idea from William S. Burroughs?
Couldn't say. Read the VALIS trilogy yet? Dude was completely nuts ...
He's done better books than High Castle, true. Vast fluctuations of quality, mostly owing to his habit of writing a book on amphetamins in two weeks whenever he ran out of cash, I think.

Quote
reply if you want but I gotta take a break for a day or two.
Suits me fine.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #90 on: May 20, 2010, 01:50:05 PM »
Who says that the more primitive the better?...
I'm not saying that it has to be better, just that it makes sense symmetrically that existential measurement is associated with modern technology, so essential exploration is associated with places or objects that have accumulated significant age or 'character'.  A crystal ball found in Rasputin's skull, for example, has a lot more spiritual character than one bought in The Sharper Image. May not work any better, and neither may your iPod have audio as good as an old Walkman, but this isn't about how it works, just why it seems like it should.

Quote
When you say reflection, I'm thinking of a scientifically describable phenomenon. The I Ching is nothing like that.
But again, where's the worth in those techniques if I can get the same stuff anywhere else?
I'm using reflection in a metaphorical sense. I only bring up the techniques to map out the symmetry. It's not that they are particularly useful, just that they reveal very esoteric and ambiguous relationships between interior and exterior that challenge conventional materialist axioms.

Quote
QM can be validated independently; not independently from people for obvious reasons, but independently from person to person. Its truth is quantitatively different from your truth. It's accurate (not necessarily true) no matter what you believe. A personal truth revealed by the I Ching does not have a measurable degree of accuracy; QM does.
That's part of the symmetry. QM demands no faith but offers no meaning either. QM won't tell you if you should move across country. QM doesn't know you exist. I Ching demands an openness to the idea that you yourself are accessible by the universe. I Ching seems to presciently observe you.

So the method is irrelevant then?
Not irrelevant, but directly proportional to the degree of sophistication of the vocabulary your has access to. If you open a random page of the phone book and stab a pencil somewhere - the answer to your question is going to be limited to a person's name, so not much room to see much of a meaningful pattern. The quality also suffers if you do the thing carelessly, frequently...it's like sex. It works a whole lot better when you really want to do it, if your question is unbidden and palpably pressing on your mind. I Ching comes through in the clutch. QM doesn't.

Quote
Which is what I meant when I said pat rec is fine unless it's pareidolia. Seeing patterns where none exist and attributing meaning accordingly is a classical example of the mind being unreliable.
Yes, but it's also a classic example of the mechanism of pattern recognition itself. It is close to pareidolia except that rather than passively witnessing simulacra, you are consciously inviting them. It's a method of opening the door to the unconsious, intuition, and madness.

Quote
Is satisfaction with the results the only criterion? How do you qualify the validity of a personal truth you reject ("the I Ching got it wrong") or accept ("the I Ching was spot on") even to yourself?
It's symmetrical to objective validation. You have to go in with the understanding of the paradox that the I Ching is always spot on and it's always untrustworthy. It's just an added layer of interest which you can refer to as time goes on in your life. It's not whether or not it's true, it's whether you can learn something more about your situation through it.

Quote
Who's claiming that? Links if possible, please.
On the OMM vs ACME there's all kinds of claims that 'words aren't things' etc.

Quote
Course it's real. It's just a complex process, like an eddy, nothing supernatural. If you define "exist" as "exist concretely, measurably, perceptibly" than you can indeed state that imagination doesn't exist. In much the same way as language doesn't.
Exactly. The difference though, is that since we are, 'inside' of ourselves, we have no reason to presume that there isn't some interior process going on within everything else. Not saying that a chair has an imagination - again, a bit like a deck of tarot cards is better vehicle for divination, a human brain is like a supercomputer anthill of subjectivity, it's elaborated to a fantastic degree, however, I think it's entirely likely that even the atoms in the peptides in our brain have some glimmer of proto-interiority. Just as white light hides the full spectrum, ordinary matter may be part of a cosmic schema of meaning.

(Riddle me this, OMMsters)
...Think of a square circle. It's only inconceivable because square and circle are mutually exclusive. That's not our definition, that's a property of universal visual logic. We can't imagine how another form of life would be able to conceive of it, let alone an organism evolve to that 'shape'. The universe can roll all the dice it wants and never come up with a square circle shaped anything. How can this be if squares and circles are purely invented by the human organism?

Quote
Quote
It doesn't claim. It teases.
So it can't? Screw it then, I'll do what everybody else does, form my opinions largely based on gut feelings and unsubstantiated claims where validation is not feasible.
I agree. Some people find it fun though.

Quote
The question why we should think a particular set of intuitive "methods" complementary (formally or socially) to science (or the SEW if you prefer) is a pertinent one,
Not complementary, just symmetrical. Opposite.

Quote
especially since one has a clear method while the other seems to be defined by arbitrarity and intution.
Because the opposite of a clear method is an obscure method.

Quote
There will be borders where they both will overlap and claim high ground; someone will find a personal truth that is demonstrably wrong and seek to perpetuate it, others will be overly critical of personal truths (which I'd call philosophies or views, not truths).
That's what lively discourse is like. It'll all shake out in the digital ubermind sooner or later.

Quote
These are two world views, not one. Or one incoherent one if you prefer.
It's a stereo worldview for a stereo Cosmos. I'm not the only one in on this, there's a few books along these lines already and something tells me you're going to see a lot more of them.

Quote
My point being that you can't confirm or deny the reality of qualia even subjectively. Sure, you can feel validated, but that's about it.
Because qualia runs on the 'opposite axis' from confirm-deny. You can't you confirm or deny that water feels wet, but nobody needs to do that, it's a completely inappropriate way to approach them. The wetness of water is what water is to 'us'. If you made a version of H2O that worked just like water but it looked like dishwater and felt like grease, it wouldn't be water.

The OMM ignores that important architecture of the Cosmos and says 'water is H2O. Wetness is simply the neurological blah blah blah I know everything...' It takes qualia completely for granted. As if 10 protons in three groups necessarily looks and tastes like water randomly. I like my water looking, tasting, feeling like water. I appreciate the packaging. I like the chemistry too, but if I had to do without one or the other, I'd go with the one that looks and tastes like pure water, even if there were a cheaper substitute on the market.

Quote
Whether you are your consciousness or all your brain functions, or the body as well is, I think, a moot semantic point indeed (unless you want a biologically feasible definition).
No, I disagree. A circle is a figment of consciousness, not of the brain. Cut open a brain - no circle. It takes a conscious observer to interpret the activity of the conscious part of the brain.

Quote
If the universe is automatic, a living system subject to evolution necessitates a way to interact with its surroundings.
Naturally. Just like a stomach needs to be able to process a variety of different kinds of food. Doesn't need to be conscious at all. Consciousness is just refined reflex, so why have a driver's seat? It's telling you what decisions to make anyways. It's giving you the wheel and the road and the driving lessons. Wtf does it need you for?

Quote
As for consciousness, without an exact representative definition, it's hard to answer the question of why consciousness developed.
That's why they call it 'the hard problem of consciousness'.

Quote
It may be just a (genetically beneficial) self-perception, self-reflection, the perception of a process. Like yellow, we may never know why we perceive it as we perceive it. The important question is to ask how can we possibly tell (no matter which methodology), and why should we not regard the results as baseless (logically or otherwise) views.

Through exploring numerology over the years, I know exactly why I perceive it as I perceive it. It's the third color of the spectrum. It has to do with the number three, and therefore I see yellow as an expression of joy, and of expression itself. It has to do with the third dimension, so surfaces and reflection, light and sound, piercing and penetration, fountains, flight, roller coasters, laughter, bubbles, injury and healing (surfaces, memory). It's a whole thing. Yellow communicates exactly what it is to us, it's no mystery. It's naive, optimistic, fragile, startling, silly, sweet, irritating... so very different when you speed it up to a tiny bit higher frequency you get Violet. Deep, meditative, 'different', mysterious, introspective. It's the seventh color of the spectrum - seven is a weird number. Look at it:

It doesn't resolve visually, it's uncomfortable or numinous, wrestling between one form and the next. If it had a color, it would be violet, would it not? Cumbersome 7. Philosophical, scientific, obtuse. There's books published full of descriptions of this stuff.

I see what you're saying about not being worth the trouble, but my hunch is that the answers to these questions may be entirely obtainable eventually. This is like the dawn of the Copernican era and you are telling me 'why should we care if the Earth isn't the center of the universe - we'll never know unless we leave the Earth and that's impossible.'

Quote
Predictibality and thus order are indeed a prerequisite for intuition. I was (poorly) attempting to make the point that in no way does intuition imply a sense which violates constraints of "physical and temporal locality".
I agree, but I think that the OMM posits that intuition doesn't exist or isn't important for the reason that it threatens locality.

Quote
So my stance is that while intuition is very valuable and produces good results, it has its limits just like anything else, and even where it works well it can easily crap out. Intuition can also only tell us about things that it has been trained to process, or which it was hard-wired to process.
I agree. My only mention of intuition is simply that it exists and does not fit neatly into OMM.

Quote
It completely fails outside those boundaries; when movement patterns are too complex or too qualitatively different to have been beneficially recognized during our evolution.
Mmm. I think that intuition is is possibly be present in all living organisms. Did you see the Chlorophyll article? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-photosynthesis-irreducibly-complex/

Quote
Yes, we do. In no way other than by arbitrary definition is black the opposite of white.
Color has it's own logic. (See yellow above) Numerologically, black would be 0, white/entire spectrum would be 9. They have coherent meanings, but vary somewhat from culture to culture. Black or White is associated with death, funerals, marriage, silence, purity, formality...lots of stuff. I would be surprised if there were many people who do not consider black the opposite of white. It's not the periodic table but I would hardly characterize it as arbitrary http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/color2.htm

Quote
We are searching for symmetries where none may exist.
Sure, that can be productive (science does that, albeit with heavy testing involved), but changing society on that basis and not much more?
But it's important to understand symmetry precisely to get around it. Stereotypes, archetypes, are present subjectively and if we are ignorant of them we will automatically project them on things we don't intend. For something like a worldview, symmetry is valuable, but for fixing someone's plumbing, not so much.

Quote
Because I maintain that the only meaning the word "opposite" has is as a descriptor of purely formal relationships. Where it fails to be an accurate descriptor, a better one should be sought, or the definition changed for the duration of the discussion.
In scientific examinations of the exterior cosmos, sure. In the ordinary world of human consciousness the concept of opposite is one of the primary essentials. Advance/retreat. Up/down. Left/Right. How not opposite?

Quote
Symmetries in certain aspects between entities seem to us to imply opposition

Oh sure, I get that. I think after working with this stuff for a long time I've lost the politically charged, moral connotations of the pairs of opposites. It's not good/evil, it's yin/yang. "I'm torn between the light and dark. Where others see their targets. Divine symmetry."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP2SS8ggLtU[/youtube]

Quote
unless you can show that the symmetry exists outside of language and abstract concepts.
not matter/antimatter? gravity/electromagnetism, acid/base, expand/shrink?

Quote
the symmetries we perceive are a representative measure of the universe itself just isn't admissible.
Right, not the nuomenal universe, but within the phenomenal cosmos the symmetries cross subjective and objective appearances.

Quote
Where would we put the concrete circles? On what basis? "I don't know" is a sufficient incentive for most scientists but how would one go about incorporating circles as something concrete?
A circle is an elemental pattern, just as Helium is an elemental atomic pattern.

Quote
Quote
I know what you're saying but I'm not talking about the physical universe. Other end of the Cosmos.
So ... arbitrary application of meaning again?
I'm too lazy to look up what we were talking about here. Sounds like I mean subjective end of the universe.

Quote
Quote
It's true to the degree that it's personally meaningful.
Like the existence of god?
I wouldn't call meaningful true, just meaningful.
I think that the idea of God is just a simple model of the Self, but projected inside out. There is truth to it, not as it relates to the outside world, but that it reflects what the human psyche is. God is isn't just imaginary, it's the source of imagination held up in a mirror.

Quote
Cause we can infer and measure quarks (whatever they are), and only say and write numbers.
Yes. Subjects aren't measures, they are communicated.

Quote
We have learned how to assign meaning to communicable patterns; they are not physical entities.
If a number is objectively unreal, why wouldn't a circle be?
Because if it were, then you could make it a square circle.

Quote
saying "it is as I perceive it" is a long shot away from "I perceive it as such"
how about "We perceive it as such"?

Quote
Couldn't say. Read the VALIS trilogy yet? Dude was completely nuts ...
He's done better books than High Castle, true. Vast fluctuations of quality, mostly owing to his habit of writing a book on amphetamins in two weeks whenever he ran out of cash, I think.
Haha, no I haven't read VALIS. It's hard for me to commit to reading an actual book these days. I could see a crankenstein flavor to his work. I guess Stephen King did a lot of coke and wrote. I'm just the opposite, I get amped from writing and then I can't get to sleep.
[/quote]
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #91 on: May 20, 2010, 03:19:06 PM »
Been following this thread for a while; wanted to jump in a few times, but never quite have.

I just wanted to say something about the distinctions being drawn by Imm. I am still struggling to really understand.

The "OMM (also referred to as the SEW) vs ACME" one seems simple enough, at one end of the scale we have epistemological meaningless; where anything means everything. At the other end we have strict epistemological method; the notion that by examination of the world we can gain knowledge about it. (Actually I think this scale is too simple, it needs a third axis of "things we cannot know". That aside though...)

But Imm is unclear, other times he talks of the "subjective vs objective" distinction. However they cannot be same. The ACME OMM, is an epistemological scale; the distinction between the subjective and objective is a boolean not a scale. So which one is it? A genuine epistemological division between the objective and subjective or an epistemological scale with method on one end and anarchy at the other?

But this contradiction aside Imm seems to be arguing for some type of epistemological distinction. He is slowly revealing himself to be some type of dualist. Yet at the same time there are hints of monism in what he says. Once again I cannot quite pin him down. Is there some real division in the world, or is everything ultimately holistic?

The trouble is that Imm has invoked the great leveler of imagination. This gives him licence to contradict himself; it is a neat trick. It allows him to talk of deep patterns in astrology and numerology without the hastle of needing to demonstrate it's truth. By shifting himself along his grand scale towards ACME or the subjective (dependant upon his mood); he can both present 'subjective' evidence, while resisting objective analysis.

So Imm, if you'll forgive a direct question.

What is it you believe to be true?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #92 on: May 20, 2010, 03:49:15 PM »
On the OMM side, I find the less I understand the more I want to know, but on the ACME side, the more I know the less I understand. Maybe it is part of my learning  curve, as I am in such unfamiliar territory on that side of the coin (ACME).

Maybe, as suggested above, there is a third part of the equation. Could it be that understanding  is when the coin is on it's edge rolling?

I need some sleep!
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2010, 05:41:03 PM »
I am still struggling to really understand.
I'm grateful. You're one of the few who is even trying.

Quote
The "OMM (also referred to as the SEW) vs ACME" one seems simple enough,
To clarify, I see the OMM extreme as more of the 'SEW gone wild'. When the SEW was conceived (largely through the works of alchemists like Newton and Des-Cartes) it was a shining beacon of reason and intelligence which 'enlightened' the classical worldview of a meaningful, theistic universe. As it matured and flowered it reached a pinnacle of scientific genius and produced technological development of a greater magnitude than had been dreamed of. It's only been since the late 20th century that, having fragmented and specialized into disconnected disciplines, and having super-saturated our cultural praxis, that we see the characteristic symbol blindness associated with OMM. Only Matter (or Material) Matters.

Blindness not only to symbolism, the meaning of symbols and their value, but blindness to all reality beyond it's own symbolic constructs so that the present moment, with all of it's depth and richness, is recontextualized as 'simply' the intersecting momentum of various unrelated chains of cause and effect. This is not to say that I deny that this level of reality potentially exists...unquestionable it does, but to project this level of objective extremism inward is to disqualify everything that we actually literally are.

I have a brain, I am a brain, I'm in a brain, but the brain by itself is not me. If you constructed a perfect synthetic brain, you would have no idea whether there was a person in there or not. A brain can do everything that it does perfectly well without having to invent some kind of holographic technicolor theatrical presentation of pleasure and agony based around a particular character, with an idiosyncratic gestalt that seems to animate or resonate it's face, voice, name, handwriting, etc. I don't care how many dice you roll for how many eons, I don't think that the dice will fall into something that wants to live - something that feels pain.

Sure, pain is functional (mainly when we ignore that life itself isn't funtional), but why is it even possible in the first place? What makes pain or consciousness or life-that-wants-to-survive/fears-avoids-death possible in any sense in a universe made only of matter?

Quote
at one end of the scale we have epistemological meaningless; where anything means everything. At the other end we have strict epistemological method; the notion that by examination of the world we can gain knowledge about it.
This is where I see the SEW>OMM bias. OMM is the notion that ONLY by examination of the world OUTSIDE ourselves can we gain ANY knowledge. That's what makes OMM epistemological fascism. It presumes that inner examination can produce no useful knowledge. Furthermore it is epistemocentric and therefore prejudiced at truths other than empirical knowledge. Meaning, truth, internally consistent logic is 'simply' the 'same thing as nothing', 'human made nothings that evolved to serve the cause of mammalian reproduction.

Quote
(Actually I think this scale is too simple, it needs a third axis of "things we cannot know". That aside though...)
That's a different thing. I don't even get into nuomena. It's not necessary other than to crack the window on our Cosmos to factor in the probability of uncertainty and incompleteness. OMM vs ACME is strictly about attitudes toward phenomena.

Quote
But Imm is unclear, other times he talks of the "subjective vs objective" distinction. However they cannot be same.
They are two sides of the coin. Life and probably matter are 'heads' on the inside, 'tails' on the outside. The metaphor can be extended as well: heads = teleology, purpose/intent pushes; tails = teleonomy, automatic/consequence pulls.

Quote
The ACME OMM, is an epistemological scale; the distinction between the subjective and objective is a boolean not a scale.
I don't characterize subjective/objective as strictly boolean. In astrological terms, the self constellates with pure self awareness, becomes more objective at the level of the body and possessions, the home, family and friends, work/hobbies - these are all 'below the horizon' of subjectivity.

At the horizon, objectivity and subjectivity are matched evenly in the area of the spouse/partner. The self confronts and cooperates with another self as an equal. Further above the horizon, there's investments/inheritance/sex/shared values, higher education/travel/philosophy, profession/status/legacy, and then it comes back around toward the self - community/neighbors, and karmic influences/faith/retreat.

At the top most point of the circle, the political realities of society are most prominent and the sentimental attachments of home and family are least emphasized. At the bottom of the wheel, society and political authority have the least influence and family comfort, security are emphasized. Self-Home-Partner-Career represent the four cardinal points.

That's an ACME facing map of it's take on the continuum between subjectivity and objectivity. I'm not trying to say that it's an objectively valid map or even a subjectively valid one, but it's a potentially interesting and meaningful one that has a lot of really gorgeous layered symmetries and cycles in there. It's a story, it's a mandala, it's trinities, quadrouplicities, opposites... it does for the elements of geometry what numerology does for numbers.

As for an OMM facing map, collapsing the waveform of subjectivity into a digital boolean form is part of what makes matter what it is. At the line where fate becomes coincidence, and pattern becomes formula we can model a graduated descent into 'the real world', passing through semiotics, psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, medicine, biology, chemistry, astrophysics, math (pure objectified abstraction/abstracted objectification)

Quote
So which one is it? A genuine epistemological division between the objective and subjective or an epistemological scale with method on one end and anarchy at the other?
From the OMM-facing view, ACME is anarchy. From the ACME-facing view, OMM is damned/lost. It's a scale. From the perspective of ordinary 18th century Western European for instance, they might see ACME as old fashioned or unsophisticated but OMM as sterile and alien.

Quote
But this contradiction aside Imm seems to be arguing for some type of epistemological distinction. He is slowly revealing himself to be some type of dualist. Yet at the same time there are hints of monism in what he says. Once again I cannot quite pin him down. Is there some real division in the world, or is everything ultimately holistic?
My hypothesis is that it is both sides of a coin. Existential dualism on one side, essential monism on the other.

Quote
The trouble is that Imm has invoked the great leveler of imagination. This gives him licence to contradict himself; it is a neat trick.
Haha. I'm not trying to do a trick. I feel like disqualifying imagination is the dirty trick.

Quote
It allows him to talk of deep patterns in astrology and numerology without the hastle of needing to demonstrate it's truth.

I'm not claiming that these things can be demonstrated true, just that their meaning may contain truth. I do not 'believe' that either astrology or numerology are 'true', but rather they are just models to give you a good language to talk about what is true.

Quote
By shifting himself along his grand scale towards ACME or the subjective (dependant upon his mood); he can both present 'subjective' evidence, while resisting objective analysis.
I'm not trying to win an argument, haha. I'm just presenting my observations - which are subjective and objective...just like the rest of the Cosmos.

Quote
What is it you believe to be true?
I might have covered that above, but yeah I try not to 'believe' anything, but I hypothesize that this is really what the Cosmos is. Just exactly what it appears to be and what we understand to be true...the universe is a deterministic lifeless machine on the outside, and an experience of order and meaning on the inside.

The mechanical exterior is ruled by teleonomy, evolution, probability, randomness, but also negentropy and expression of interior reflections through 'inventions' such as surfaces, radiation, reflection. The essential interior also has some teleonomy, evolution, probability, and randomness, but it's heart is negentropy and memory. It's blood is pattern and coherence, resonance, communication.

Is it really so terrible and incoherent? Is the author truly so idiotic and worthy of scorn?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 05:57:14 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #94 on: May 20, 2010, 05:44:52 PM »
On the OMM side, I find the less I understand the more I want to know, but on the ACME side, the more I know the less I understand. Maybe it is part of my learning  curve, as I am in such unfamiliar territory on that side of the coin (ACME).

I like that observation. I think it's partly the nature of the ACME-ward direction and partly our empirical brainwashing conditioning indoctrination education.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #95 on: May 22, 2010, 03:45:14 PM »
Just to show y'all that I'm not all woo...



My hypothesis/discovery being: Technology is about transportation. Bringing water to you (whaterweel), bringing you to the water, pulling on a track, pushing on a road, flying by air, bringing the data filled airwaves to you. Not the changing size of the control wheels...
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #96 on: May 22, 2010, 04:02:53 PM »
What happened to the collage of images. I didn't get a chance to really check it out.

And is there hidden message to be revealed in the new images?

Sorry...I missed the message below.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 04:04:59 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #97 on: May 22, 2010, 04:13:06 PM »
What happened to the collage of images. I didn't get a chance to really check it out.

And is there hidden message to be revealed in the new images?

Sorry...I missed the message below.

That's on the other thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14277.new;topicseen#new

I talk about it some here:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24864

Playing with symmetries of it - if yo wan't hidden messages, you got em: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=207943&postcount=6
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #98 on: May 22, 2010, 04:27:51 PM »
Thanx! I'll check those out.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #99 on: May 22, 2010, 04:50:52 PM »
I see that you are an astrologer. I believe I have not one but two Yods in my chart. I can't remember them, but I think one is with Jupiter, Pluto and Uranus. I was told that it was very rare to have one, but that's all I recall. What do you make of it?

June 13, 1955
4:30 am
Big Springs, Texas

ADDED:Not a setup. Genuine question. If you want to do a reading that's kewl and I will be glad to tell how you are doing.

Anyways, really want to know the meaning of the Yod (finger of God) thing., if you have heard of it. It's a weird aspect that looks like a Y,if you are not familiar with it.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 04:59:33 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #100 on: May 22, 2010, 06:24:56 PM »
I see that you are an astrologer. I believe I have not one but two Yods in my chart. I can't remember them, but I think one is with Jupiter, Pluto and Uranus. I was told that it was very rare to have one, but that's all I recall. What do you make of it?

June 13, 1955
4:30 am
Big Springs, Texas

ADDED:Not a setup. Genuine question. If you want to do a reading that's kewl and I will be glad to tell how you are doing.

Anyways, really want to know the meaning of the Yod (finger of God) thing., if you have heard of it. It's a weird aspect that looks like a Y,if you are not familiar with it.


Yeah, I know about yods, the call them 'the finger of God'. People I know going through yod transits are usually put in a difficult position where is seems like they have to choose one life path or another. But don't run into them very often. I don't want to get into doing a lot of charts on here, but looking at your chart (it really isn't a good test unless it's someone I've never talked to, but here..), I don't see a yod on yours though.

This chart is a Gemini Sun and Mercury in the second house (Taurus), Taurus rising. That alone fits with what you just talked about memorizing phase states. Taurus and Gemini are pretty hoardy together. Obects, buying and selling physical things, collecting, assessing values. Your Sun Mercury trines Neptune in the 6th house...it all sounds kind of lucrative to me. Do you have a collection of pristine midcenturing EE equipment or something?

Jupiter at 0 Leo on your nadir makes the this the chart of someone who is very much at home being at home. You like people to come to you and hang our in your kingdom. You like being stimulated by clever design and fresh controversial moves. People like your 00 Gemini Venus. Childlike enthusiasm and worldly wit. With your Mars in the third house with Uranus (Gemini's house) your way of doing things is to learn everything you can about them. You may drive people crazy being too familiar, making or taking things too personally.

Pisces Moon in the eleventh square your Sun. Intution vs. Logic in the House of Possessions vs House of Community. It's a close square, typically with a lot of nervous frustrated energy in your basic personality. Your character is contradictory. You don't see any reason why you should have to choose sides on issues, and your Moon tells you that you that it's better to transcend problems rather than solve them. The combination can be a bit 'Crispin Glover' at times I would imagine.

Taurus rising and Saturn conjunct right on the descendant. This is a difficult arrangement for partnerships. You tend to be strong and honest when you are by yourself, and the Saturn in Scorpio probably creates opportunities to feel defensive against others personal attacks. Some kind of jujitsu going on there - maybe you think that people consider you an easy mark for some reason and you put up aloof and potent mechanisms to protect you from ever being treated unfairly.

You are very well placed this year for outer planet transits. Through June, July and later in November, December you will have the potential from some very fortunate and enjoyable rides. It's a pretty big deal. Jupiter conjunct Uranus trine your natal Jupiter. It won't happen again in our lifetime. The temptation will be to take it for granted. A good time to take time off. Vacation, rest, retreat, etc. Your home life is really favored right now.

How was that for quick & dirty. Did it make any sense?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #101 on: May 22, 2010, 09:00:37 PM »
How was that for quick & dirty. Did it make any sense?

Holy cow! That was an awesome reading and right on in so many ways. I will Delete all the stuff that was not accurate and repost it, but first I have to tell you how I really fckd up. I gave you the wrong time! I used to have a fantastic memory, but when you said you didn't see a Yod, I dug out my birth certificate. The time was 3:59 PM, not 4:30 am.

I feel like such an ass. I am so sorry. I'll understand if you don't wish to re-do. It's amazing that you were so accurate with me being off half a day.





Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #102 on: May 22, 2010, 09:11:12 PM »

People I know going through yod transits are usually put in a difficult position where is seems like they have to choose one life path or another.

Obects, buying and selling physical things, collecting, assessing values.

someone who is very much at home being at home.

You like people to come to you and hang our in your kingdom.

You like being stimulated by clever design and fresh controversial moves.

People like your 00 Gemini Venus. Childlike enthusiasm and worldly wit.

your way of doing things is to learn everything you can about them.

You drive people crazy being too familiar, making or taking things too personally.

a lot of nervous frustrated energy in your basic personality.

character is contradictory.

a difficult arrangement for partnerships.

feel defensive against others personal attacks.

you think that people consider you an easy mark for some reason and you put up aloof and potent mechanisms to protect you from ever being treated unfairly.

July, and December you Vacation, rest, retreat, etc.

Your home life is really favored right now.


I ran this by my wife and she agrees with the above.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:29:24 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #103 on: May 23, 2010, 12:56:47 AM »
8am and am sitting in my sunny south London Garden smoking some fine Moroccan Hashish watching the Sun slowly crawl across my apple tree.

Imm, I should apologise, I have a horror of endless fractal posting where quotes become bifurcated and bifurcated again. So I will take the liberty of being selective. [Numbering {n} my own]

[...]

{1} OMM vs ACME is strictly about attitudes toward phenomena.

[...]

{2} That's an ACME facing map of it's take on the continuum between subjectivity and objectivity. I'm not trying to say that it's an objectively valid map or even a subjectively valid one, but it's a potentially interesting and meaningful one that has a lot of really gorgeous layered symmetries and cycles in there.

[...]

{3} My hypothesis is that it is both sides of a coin. Existential dualism on one side, essential monism on the other.

[...]

Is it really so terrible and incoherent?


Terrible I don't know; but I think your position is incoherent. Incoherence is not necessarily fatal; a good idea is a good idea regardless. Though it would seem to me you are a theologian not a philosopher.

Anyhow here is why I think your position is incoherent:

Point {1} is fine as it goes. Though it does have a couple of important implications.

First it means that: either; a the phenomenal is all there is; or; b there is something else. Though you have not explicitly stated that your OMM ACME Scale (“OAS”) encompasses all of knowledge it seems to be implied. In which case that something else in b will be unknowable (ie the Kantian noumenal).

Second it means that at the phenomenal level you are a monist, there is a scale to be sure (the OAS) but no sharp division between the subjective and objective. This position is confirmed by you in Point {2} where you say the subjective and objective are not distinct but a “continuum”.

In this context Point {3} is puzzling. When you say you are an “existential dualist” I am assuming that this implies you think there is a real division within the phenomenal (I assume 'existentialist' refers to the phenomenal – I struggle to see what else it would mean here). Yet in {1}and {2} you made the exact opposite point!

The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that you mean that in everyday life things appear as dualist. If so that seems a trivial point; moreover you are arguing that this dualism is illusory, so you are not really an existential dualist! The one thing existential dualism can't be is the dualism between the phenomenal and noumenal, as in no sense can the noumenal be 'existential'. I am puzzled.

Moving on to the other half of {3} we have 'essential monist'. Once again I am a little thrown by the late introduction of a new term (a friendly suggestion, and don't get me wrong you have a great style, if you decrease the verbosity of your posts you might increase the lucidity.). However I assume you are talking ontologically here (ie the 'essence' of things).

Everything, ultimately is one. I do find this of interest. It seems, has always seemed, to me to be intuitively true. Like you I have a dislike of sharp boundaries and lines. I think the difference between us is you see graded continuum, I see chaos, both deterministic and unpredictable.

I think what frustrates me about what you are saying is that in principle I agree with you. I too find the materialist hypothesis limiting and incomplete. Like you I think the hard problem of consciousness is beyond science - after all consciousness is incommensurable, and that which cannot be measured cannot be the the proper subject of empirical investigation.

Yet it seems to me that having hit upon this profound depth you do it a disservice by invoking  such palpable b*ll*x as numerology and astrology. By using these things to create meaning ex nihilo you are patching over the appalling realisation that the great edifice of human knowledge is built on air.  To confront this absence of meaning by appeal to spiritual superstition is cowardly.

There is a great story at the beginning of the film La Haine:

"A man falls from a building. As he falls he comforts himself by saying “so far so good, so far so good”.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #104 on: May 23, 2010, 06:41:36 AM »

Holy cow! That was an awesome reading and right on in so many ways. I will Delete all the stuff that was not accurate and repost it, but first I have to tell you how I really fckd up. I gave you the wrong time! I used to have a fantastic memory, but when you said you didn't see a Yod, I dug out my birth certificate. The time was 3:59 PM, not 4:30 am.

I feel like such an ass. I am so sorry. I'll understand if you don't wish to re-do. It's amazing that you were so accurate with me being off half a day.

Oh, no worries. It doesn't change what I wrote all that much. You have a Scorpio rising with Saturn in the first house. The realtionship trouble would be more indirect and due to your habits regarding secrecy (holding yourself aloof and private, but also wanting to show others that you can compete with the best of them).  In this config, the marriage is actually nicely aspected, with your Venus in the 7th, so bringing in a lot of little treats and doing things that keep things fun and moving. Good as a 'trading partner'. Still, there is enough intensity from Saturn and now Pluto in the 10th house to strain partnerships with some patriarchal, introverted defense mechanisms which push others away and seem to require solitude.

Jupiter is at the top now, so that even though Jupiter in Leo always prefers to luxuriate in it's kingdom at home, you experience that expansive, broadminded optimism up in your 9th house, so travel, philosophy, higher education, speculation, sports or gambling (moon in the 5th now so you are more emotionally spontaneous and may be prone to sudden getaways. Having the moon trine Uranus like that makes me think of the fresh, non-confrontational spirit of the 50s family, Disneyland (opened a month after you were born). You may reflect some of that Jiminy Cricket attitude (who seems suspiciously like the Dalai Llama).

With Mars in your ninth house your way of doing things still is about learning everything, but in the 9th house it's more authoritative knowledge you seek than basics. You want to get to the end of a long game rather than just play a little bit on a bunch of games (well with all that Gemini, you probably do both, but if a game makes you mad, then it's personal. and you have to climb to the top).

Your Moon Sun square is now between the 8th and fifth house, so still intuition vs logic and all that but it comes out in a different area of your life. The area of recreation, entertaining, children (or ideas that are put out into the world like children) is at odds with the 8th house, having to do with sex, death, investments. It's a paradox of being comfortable in an easygoing party setting but having to keep things concealed from the party for important reasons. With Pisces in there and Neptune (ruler of Pisces in Pisces house), it could be downright gangstery as far as feeling potentially paranoid. Fortunately Jiminy Cricket is in the perfect mellow space do go with Walt's family friendly philosophy. Everyone has fun, and learns something too!
[/quote]
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #105 on: May 23, 2010, 06:52:35 AM »
I applaud your courage in coming to these here forums and knowingly opening yourself up to criticism and ridicule. That is why I was able to jump in with the question involving my horoscope I am sure that I myself am inviting ridicule. Although I abandoned astrology over 30 years ago (because I could not understand how it worked) I still wonder at it's ability to accurately describe my experience.

I never felt as though I understood how electronics worked, even though I could construct working circuits, repair TVs and tape decks, etc.  

Often I put that aside and flick a switch, even though I am still not sure that electrons flow from negative to positive or from positive to negative. I am certain that the light will turn on (most of he time).

I'll try a bit harder to understand the ACME/OMM model, but I have read everything multiple times already. If I am able to offer anything to the conversation, I fear it will be by accident.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #106 on: May 23, 2010, 07:01:10 AM »
The reading is still awesome and I would tell you how good you did but
1) it would reveal far too much of a personal private nature
2) it wouldn't help you or others in this thread because no one here cares much about the anecdotal and highly subjective nature of my horoscope

Thanx, and I completely enjoy your crafting of sentences. You are a true wordsmith.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #107 on: May 23, 2010, 07:21:16 AM »
Oh, no worries. It doesn't change what I wrote all that much. You have a Scorpio rising with Saturn in the first house. <snip: the rest of this astrology stuff>

Damn. Are you going to tell me that you believe in astrology!? ! :o
You think that your life is influenced by how the stars stand? And that this even has to something with how the stars stand on when you were born?
How would that be Immediacracy? How would objects like Saturn or Jupiter influence the lives of persons, in an abstract predictive way? Even though their forces on Earth are insignificant compared those of the moon and the Sun?

You do know that astrology is unscientific, right? That it has not scientifically proven any predictive power, but rather the opposite? How do you verify these vague predictions of yours?

Really, I am astounded for finding an actual person believing in all this nonsense. And you even have your own personal follower!  :D
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #108 on: May 23, 2010, 07:36:48 AM »
^^^I follow no man. (I enjoy most of what you have to say as well.)

It's just that I can't so quickly dismiss things that I do not understand. I spent 3 years with astrology before abandoning it. I hoped that I would have made clear in my last post that I wonder at how things like astrology work or appear to work in my experience. In the same way that one may not understand how a phone works, but still is able to use it.

Sadly, Christianity had "worked" for me for nearly 50 years. I am a slow study, no doubt.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #109 on: May 23, 2010, 07:52:22 AM »
^^^I follow no man. (I enjoy most of what you have to say as well.)

It's just that I can't so quickly dismiss things that I do not understand. I spent 3 years with astrology before abandoning it. I hoped that I would have made clear in my last post that I wonder at how things like astrology work or appear to work in my experience. In the same way that one may not understand how a phone works, but still is able to use it.

Sadly, Christianity had "worked" for me for nearly 50 years. I am a slow study, no doubt.

Sorry for being a bit obnoxious. I can actually understand why you have problems dismissing it. I guess you are not really trained in the scientific method. Scientific methods measure and then theorize based on the measurements. This always works. These methods have lead to mobile phones, the internet, cars, micro wave ovens, etc. I see that if you don't have a basic understanding of the underlying principles of these machinery, they might seem magical. But they are not. They are machinery that builds upon a thorough understanding of the principles of nature and in the core these machines are not that complicated.

Astrology is a pseudo-science. It exists for a long time, because people are attracted to mysticism. That's fine, but astrology makes predictions about the real world. If astrology really works as claimed, even without really understanding it, we should at least be able to verify if its predictions statistically hold. A lot of these tests have been done in this field and a lot of other areas as well that are considered pseudo-science now, like parapsychology, psychic powers, etc. Nothing of these pseudo-sciences have ever held up under close scientific examination.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #110 on: May 23, 2010, 08:11:42 AM »
How would that be Immediacracy? How would objects like Saturn or Jupiter influence the lives of persons, in an abstract predictive way? Even though their forces on Earth are insignificant compared those of the moon and the Sun?

This is how that question would look to you:

"How would that be penkie? How would patterns like tertiary protein topology or nucleic acid sequence influence the bodies and brains of persons, in an abstract predictive way? Even though they deeply microscopic and are pharmacologically insignificant compared to medicine and radiation?"

That's the first point. Realizing that you have no experience trying to understand something like astrology at all, but yet to presume to know more about it than someone who has thousands of hours over two decades researching it first hand. Not to rebuff the question, and I don't mind you asking, but if you are interesting in learning something other than 'how stupid and superstitious everyone is', then you have to set your level of expectation down to novice.

Just as ACME is opposite to OMM, Astrology is opposite to genetics. In genetics, you start out learning WHAT it is and HOW it works, and then you practice on labwork for a long time and then you begin to play with the real deal. Subjectivity is just the opposite. You start out playing with the real deal - doing charts for yourself and friends, then you apply the principles abstractly, understanding how symmetry, zodiacal archetypes are projected. If you stick with it long enough then you can begin to ask HOW it works. At first you can only use astrology to ask 'who', then later on 'why'

Quote
You do know that astrology is unscientific, right? That it has not scientifically proven any predictive power, but rather the opposite? How do you verify these vague predictions of yours?
Astrology is very scientific, it's just not an objective science. The validation comes from 'in here' rather than 'out there'. The book I learned most from is Marcia Moore's PhD Thesis on astrology from 1978. I don't make predictions or verify anything. It's not about that. It's not like the scattershot newspaper approach that has almost nothing to do with astrology.

Your worldview is exclusively material. You can't conceive of the validity of anything that can't be used in some way to an advantage. You are seeing human life as a literal race to do more with the world. Astrology isn't about that world, not about human doing, it's about the being. Character, destiny, time. Mainly I use it as an analytical language, it's great for understanding history.

I can try to explain my understanding of why astrology 'works' to you if you want, but you won't believe me anyways. Like the experience of consciousness, you can't learn about it from the outside. You don't have to 'believe' in astrology, (I try not to) but you would have to do astrology to have a chance to understand it.

Quote
Really, I am astounded for finding an actual person believing in all this nonsense. And you even have your own personal follower!  :D
Astrology is tremendously popular. Mostly what is out there is crap though, but there are some excellent astrologers out there too.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #111 on: May 23, 2010, 08:14:39 AM »


Astrology is a pseudo-science. It exists for a long time, because people are attracted to mysticism. That's fine, but astrology makes predictions about the real world. If astrology really works as claimed, even without really understanding it, we should at least be able to verify if its predictions statistically hold. A lot of these tests have been done in this field and a lot of other areas as well that are considered pseudo-science now, like parapsychology, psychic powers, etc. Nothing of these pseudo-sciences have ever held up under close scientific examination.

Yes, I have some grasp of the scientific method and have used this same argument with others.

http://evolutioncreation-yoder.blogspot.com/
http://homeopathy-betterthanaplacebo.blogspot.com/
http://biolocation-yoder.blogspot.com/2010/02/biolocation-or-dowsing-in-mid-70s-i.html

As an inventor I have designed many things over the years, but most have come from pure imagination.
http://perspectacles-yoder.blogspot.com/
Although I discovered that the pseudoscope had been created by Wheastone over a hundred years before, i still came up with it on my own with no previous knowledge of neuroscience or how the eye works. And this before I understood the scientific method.

After I discovered my idea was not "original" I abandoned my provisional patent application and  made something similar I call the third eye which basically does the same.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/album.php?aid=328&id=1662663460




« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 08:22:39 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #112 on: May 23, 2010, 08:32:46 AM »
^^^I follow no man. (I enjoy most of what you have to say as well.)

It's just that I can't so quickly dismiss things that I do not understand. I spent 3 years with astrology before abandoning it. I hoped that I would have made clear in my last post that I wonder at how things like astrology work or appear to work in my experience. In the same way that one may not understand how a phone works, but still is able to use it.

Sadly, Christianity had "worked" for me for nearly 50 years. I am a slow study, no doubt.

Quickly dismiss is the key. What's the rush? Almost everyone who has played with astrology knows beforehand that there are no magic rays coming down from planets making us do things. Telling an astrologer astrology is not objectively scientific is like telling a geneticist that genetics is not DNA is not subjectively meaningful. They know. That's not the point.

Astrology is just about time. The planets are the actual hands of the actual clock that has been running this way since the dawn of life on Earth. Every cell, every organism has evolved under these constant patterns which are the only patterns which mark time at all, barring those stemming from the Earth's rotation and revolution. Seasons are astrology in action. Dawn, noon, sunset, and midnight are astrology.

I don't recommend that people get involved in astrology or numerology unless they have a particular interest in it. I'm not here to defend it. Most people shouldn't play with it too much. If you ask me I'll tell you that I use it mainly as a source of a powerful language to think about personality and history, and yeah, there's something to it, but it's not that big of a deal. It's not going to help you win the lottery, but it can help you know whether or not your procrastination is laziness to be overcome or wisdom in disguise. It can help you pick a good date for a wedding or a party.

It can tell you exactly what the issues are between people in a relationship. It can make you excited for upcoming time periods and relieved when they are over. It helps be more congnizant of all that. It's never 'wrong' because it never needs to be right. It's just like the weather report. Sometimes it rains when you think it wouldn't, but it never rains unless it's cloudy first. Astrology can tell if conditions are ripe for a storm (and boy, are they ever now. May was just the beginning...this summer/this year looks to be one of the most intense configurations since at least 2001, 1989, and maybe even 1966).

I don't mind people bagging on astrology at all. I used to myself.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #113 on: May 23, 2010, 08:54:36 AM »
This is how that question would look to you:

"How would that be penkie? How would patterns like tertiary protein topology or nucleic acid sequence influence the bodies and brains of persons, in an abstract predictive way? Even though they deeply microscopic and are pharmacologically insignificant compared to medicine and radiation?"
Ah, but if you can explain how it works that would be great. However, you cannot explain how it works as astrology cannot. But still you claim to be able to predict how this stuff leads to a predictable change in our every day lives. Well, fair enough, the Chinese have had herbal medicine before they knew how it intrinsically worked in our bodys for thousands of years. Nowadays, science has been able to verify if these traditional medicine really worked.  Most of it didn't, these were nothing better than placebos, but some of it did. These herbs then can be used in medicine, and that is before we completely know what it does exactly in the human body. You can scientifically show if it works or not, before understanding it.

However, astrology already fails there. You claim to make predictions about the lives of people. However, these predictions appear to be statistically unsound. Furthermore, astrology has come up with a complete method, but failed to explain why this method was a good idea and if and why this method works. Basically, its all bullocks!

Quote
That's the first point. Realizing that you have no experience trying to understand something like astrology at all, but yet to presume to know more about it than someone who has thousands of hours over two decades researching it first hand. Not to rebuff the question, and I don't mind you asking, but if you are interesting in learning something other than 'how stupid and superstitious everyone is', then you have to set your level of expectation down to novice.

The amount of time you spend on it is irrelevant. I am sure that alchemists spent lifetimes to see how they could turn lead into gold and many such procedures have been described. Even Newton worked on that. They were still all nonsense and we now know that is just can't be true.

If you can really show peoples future based on astrology, even if it is only accurate for a little bit, you should be able to proof science that it works. No astrologer has done this before and I don't have much hope for you either. But feel free to try. It would be in the major headlines of the news for years. You'd be a revolution to science. But we both know it isn't going to happen. The fact that I don't personally look into the theories of Astrology doesn't change that for one bit.

Quote
Just as ACME is opposite to OMM, Astrology is opposite to genetics. In genetics, you start out learning WHAT it is and HOW it works, and then you practice on labwork for a long time and then you begin to play with the real deal. Subjectivity is just the opposite. You start out playing with the real deal - doing charts for yourself and friends, then you apply the principles abstractly, understanding how symmetry, zodiacal archetypes are projected. If you stick with it long enough then you can begin to ask HOW it works. At first you can only use astrology to ask 'who', then later on 'why'
That's all fine. You don't need to know how it works. But you should be able to shot that it works. And the best astrologers in the world failed to do that to date.

Quote
Your worldview is exclusively material. You can't conceive of the validity of anything that can't be used in some way to an advantage.

It depends on how you define material. My worldview is exclusively based on the scientific method.
Note that you do (seem to) claim that astrology can be used in some way to an advantage. You make predictions and give advise based on it. If it doesn't really predict you anything, or is not useful to your advantage, then why then do it?
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #114 on: May 23, 2010, 09:52:02 AM »
If it doesn't really predict you anything, or is not useful to your advantage, then why then do it?

Yeah I don't use it to predict anything. When you look at your watch, do you use it to predict something or use it for an advantage?

Astrology is basically an illustrated calendar. People are born in time, and they live their lives changing in time. Astrology just gives you a language to look at that. It's not about predictions, it's just about reading stories into people and times that prove uncannily insightful. I don't try to predict things because all you can know is what you have experienced already. So I said, in the early 90s, that there will be a technology which deals with communication democratically, provides a way for people to communicate as equals regardless of cultural differences, age, gender, etc. I didn't know that it would be the www, but the pieces were there. What would it have gained me anyways? Place a bet on the internet existing?

Through astrology I've come to appreciate all different types of people, even those whose influences are very different from mine. I can see that for some people 'having an advantage' is what life is all about. But it's OMM technosis. All of our striving for advantage are what is are getting in the way - ruining the world for us all.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: God is Imaginary but Logic Fails to Address Imagination
« Reply #115 on: May 23, 2010, 11:45:25 AM »
Yeah I don't use it to predict anything. When you look at your watch, do you use it to predict something or use it for an advantage?

Of course I do. It allows you to plan activities. It helps me to predict if I can catch my train or plane. It allows me to measure time intervals, e.g. during sports. With my watch I can do all sorts of things, which I couldn't without it.

Quote
Astrology is basically an illustrated calendar. People are born in time, and they live their lives changing in time. Astrology just gives you a language to look at that. It's not about predictions, it's just about reading stories into people and times that prove uncannily insightful.

That's the problem. They are not uncannily insightful. They are just purposely ambiguous. You can't read someones story just by knowing where and when he is born. If you can, I suggest to show this to a related scientific community and see if your methods hold under scientific scrutiny. I am quite sure of the outcome, but if you have any proof science is certainly willing to listen.

Quote
Through astrology I've come to appreciate all different types of people, even those whose influences are very different from mine. I can see that for some people 'having an advantage' is what life is all about. But it's OMM technosis. All of our striving for advantage are what is are getting in the way - ruining the world for us all.

Life is not about 'having an advantage' for me, nor is it for science. Science studies nature in a structured way because of curiosity in the first place and wanting to understand the world. In the progress it allows to separate real valid science, from science-nonsense like astrology. It also allows the making of tools that can help us in our lives - depending on how we choose to use the tools of course.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."