Alchemists may not have succeeded in changing iron into gold or in creating the Philosopher’s Stone, but they did create the basic framework out of which laboratory chemistry developed, including basic procedures such as distillation and sublimation. They also gradually took over the the task of compounding drugs, which previously had been mostly produced by physicians themselves, and thus began the doctor-pharmacist relationship. In addition, they were the first to isolate a number of chemical elements, though of course they didn’t grasp the idea of an element.
I’m not even sure this is 100% true; I believe that astrology and alchemy were important evolutionary steps that led to the beginning of the natural sciences, but agree that the present day persuit of alchemy and astrology are a worthless aberration.
Forgot to add: In their futile quest for gold, the alchemists had to find ways of testing metals and other materials, which turned out to have practical applications in a variety of situations. Alchemy probably went on as long as it did because for all the futility of transmutation and the Philosopher’s Stone, its practitioners were able to provide a number of useful services.
Given that there is no evidence for God, belief in him is irrational, even if it’s true. Also, “direct experience of God” is indistinguishable from a hallucination or delusion; believing in that is irrational as well. Finally, rationality is “pinned to” everything.
Mainly by demonstrating how not to do things, often with lots of dead bodies involved.
Of course I can; it has no value.
This sentence contradicts itself.
No, he didn’t apply alchemy to everything, or he’d just be an obscure alchemist and someone else would have made his real discoveries.
A genius mystic will either apply his genius outside of mysticism ( like Newton ), or remain wholly mystical and accomplish nothing. He may be a genius, but he’s still a fool.
The only difference is which bit of nonsense you believe; it’s still all nonsense.
And they failed.
OK. Science is based on facts and falsifiability; mysticism on faith, lies, delusions, and unverifiable statements. Done; that was easy.
You’ve failed so far.
Too bad, it is.
Of course it’s settled; there is not and never was any evidence for gods of any kind, and religion has always been based on faith and ignorance. The theists can believe what they want and say what they want, but without evidence it’s empty babbling. The issue will be “unsettled” if and win they come up with evidence that what they believe is true.
There are none. Without objective standards, how is the term “advance” even meaningful ?
Except, it happens to be true.
Nonsensical.
Reality is what it is; it is not determined by belief or argument. If it was, lunatics could do the impossible, and fanatics could make what they believe real. Besides, if you really believe this, why do you claim I’m wrong, if my opinion defines reality ? When you get down to it, if I’m right I’m right, and if you’re right I’m still right. Frankly, your beliefs don’t make any sense.
Except that nobody else can see the flame, so why believe him ?
Think about what a shaman does. A lot of times when he’s performing his “magic” he’s putting on a big show. From what I can recall of Tesla he put on elaborate shows to push for his particular brand of electricity. Alternating current, right? I don’t see referring to him as a “shaman of the modern” era to be degrading or altogether inaccurate.
As for why the achievements of past thinkers aren’t respected by many I suspect it has a lot to do with ingorance. Until a few years ago I didn’t think alchemist did anything but try to turn lead into gold because their other works were rarely mentioned in any history class I ever took. Though when I think about some of the Greeks and Egyptian engineers I realize that ancient people had a far better grasp of mathematics then I do.
So does the south end of a north-bound firefly. I think our civilization will survive their attempts to control our minds.
Come on, just because you don’t know how something works it’s ‘magical’? Dude, I can tell you all about a cyclotron or a gamma spectrometer and magic doesn’t have anything to do with it. Magic and ignorance aren’t meant to be synonyms. Hey, if you want to believe that John Edwards can talk to the dead, fine. Just don’t expect that most people will find you credible.
You are missing the point entirely. You are defining a term to suit your argument. People use magic to describe that which fills thme with awe and wonder, and dismissing that is just being ignorant and rude, it doesn’t put you at some level of objective superiority. You just look like an idiot. If a child experiences something and attributes it to faeries then faeries describe the thing she experienced, it’s part of her subjective experience, it’s not Incorrect, it’s simply imprecise.
You’re the one clinging to the false dichotomy that there is some conflict between magic and science. Science is intellectual magic is emotional. Science is a pursuit into how something works. Seeing magic is to sit there with a little bit of awe and reverence for a moment. There’s no harm in that. It’s not the source of ignorance, it doesn’t perpetuate ignorance. Now ignorance perpetuates the belief that magic is the one and only explanation, but you’re putting the cart before the horse.
When I look up at the night sky and think about all those stars affecting my existence in some mysterious way, that’s magical. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation for it, however, there is always more to know about any given subject, it’s all infinite, that’s magical. If you think you know the answer to any question completely and totally you are merely deluding yourself, there is always more to know, and you can’t simply close the book on the mystery. That’s the essence of magic. That’s why schools of magic are referred to as “Mystery Schools”. That’s why the study of magic is referred to as the study of the ‘occult’ which basically means ‘hidden’. Magickal practitioners refer to their art as the “Occult Sciences”. Now you can scoff all you want, but the one doing the scoffing is the one that is actually ignorant. There are a lot of practitioners of Magick out there that would blow your knowledge of the sciences away with a whisper.
Go read about Aleister Crowley, look beyond some superficial debunking you read by one of his detractors. I am not saying believe a word he says, but the math involved in his work is quite deep. I seriously doubt any of the atheists here in this thread could find the flaws in Crowley’s work, because they’d have to understand mathematics at a much higher level. What I am wondering is how much of your ‘rational’ thought you came to on your own, and how much of it was bestowed by some article or book you read that supported your bias.
Oftentimes when people are calling others idiots for being incorrect, they don’t realize that these guys are failing at a whole other level. You can scoff at Newton’s Alchemical pursuits, but his knowledge of math was far beyond mine is even today, and I seriously doubt that there are many people on this board who’s skills in math can compare to the level at which he was being tripped up.
That’s the kind of reverence for the ‘giants’ who’s shoulders you are standing upon that I think is lacking on this board, and a change I think this board could use in it’s culture if it truly wishes to fight ignorance.
Unless one has directly experienced God, in which case it is entirely rational. You are assuming that just because you don’t know something, that nobody does. Your existance is a hallucination by the same logic.
Induction, lack of basis to back up. Need cite, doubtful that one is coming.
Induction see above. Value denotes quantification, leaves out any room for qualification.
If one is coming from the basic induction that mysticism a priori incorrect. This statement induces that mysticism and science are in conflict, the basic question which is up for dispute. It is up to you to prove that mysticism and science are in conflict, I do not believe that they are. Now that you’ve induced it deduce it for the rest of the class so we can find out whether or not it’s true.
You are applying a modern context to a past event, which is irrational. Newton must be studied in the context within which he lived, where Natural Philosophy, was the genesis for modern science from Astro Logos to Astro Nomy, and Alchemy to Chemistry. Newton was instrumental in this transmutation of human thought patterns, thus he achieved his alchemical aims, as transmutation is the objective of alchemy, modern science benefitted greatly.
Induction, you are making an assumption that practical application is not a part of the mystical process, this is false. Application is an integral part of the mystical pursuit. You are busy trying to divide things that are indivisible based on a misunderstanding of basic terms. Moving on.
Incorrect, the object may be sensed. Induction is false. Subject continues to believe that its own limited ability to sense applies to others, will not accept input to the contrary, probably due to subjects inability to sense. Moving on.
Induction once again incorrect. Pythagoras, Newton and Einstein examples of falsifiers to this claim. Science only requires on falsifier, I have provided the subject with three. Prognosis: Subject will most likely continue to misunderstand as these same examples have been provided to him numerous times, yet subject clings to illogic.
Induction false, mysticism does not require lies and delusions. The mystical pursuit is dedicated to uncovering lies and delusions. Faith is not synonymous with lies and delusions. Science is based on facts and falsifiability, subject still clings to vain belief that mysticism and science are in conflict, has not attempted to prove this assertion, continues to expect one to simply accept this assertion though claims are baseless. Subject again fails his attempt to understand science. Subject will know attempts have succeeded when subject realizes that mysticism and science are complementary not conflicting. Assertion: It is possible to directly experience knowledge. Assertion: It is not possible for science to prove this, as one cannot be forced to experience knowledge.
Succeeded time and again. Continued stupidity on subjects part is not fault of my logic, is fault of subjects logic.
Subject still unclear on definition of ‘rational’, still believes direct experience to be invalid source of knowledge. Subject still labors under the solipsistic delusion that subjects experience is only possible experience. Subject fails to grasp the irony of arguing about the non-existance of God. If God does not exist, why would we even conceive of it, let alone argue about it?
Subject still fights for subjective beilef over the subjective belief of another, does not understand the difference between own subjective interpretation and ‘objective’.
I have seen you argue more about objective standards than I have seen you apply them. When you start backing up ANY of your claims, which you never do, then I’ll take your cry for objective standards more seriously. Practice what you preach. Simple as that.
Baseless assertion, not that I expect you to back up your baseless assertion, I have yet to see you do it. Surprise me, and back it up.
Ok, I have a question for you. Is all reality predetermined and we only discover it? Do we have the power to create new structures, or is it just matter colliding? If so, are we just predetermined to argue this as a matter of course? If we are predetermined to argue this, why? Is learning possible, or is learning simply growing like a root system that finds the cracks in the soil beneath it? If it is all predetermined, is there such a thing as knowledge or are we simply matter playing out one possibility among many?
Remember the one thing we agree on? That memes rule our consciousness? I believe that you have yet to come to the point of accepting your subjective point of view, and that only upon accepting one’s inherent subjectivity is one able to possible grasp and inkling of that which is truely objective. This is the essence of the mystical pursuit. You are simply making an assertion based upon your experience, which in and of itself is not annoying, but in doing so, you are also claiming that other people’s experience is invalid, simply because you have not experienced it. I do not believe that you have much objectivity, based upon arguments and your consistant lack of support for what you say. You do not live up the standards you expect others to abide by. You simply want them to accept what you believe, without even trying to understand their beliefs. You cannot expect me to try and understand you if you are not attempting to understand me, as we must come to an inter-subjective middle point in order for us to even begin to discuss the objective. You are arguing that God does not exist, and I am arguing that your semantics out of touch with those you are arguing with, and that there is less disagreement than you might realize. You assume that because all of your atheist buddies share a similar definition of things to yours that you know the CORRECT meaning for words. I am arguing that there are a lot of people, the majority in fact, who’s definition of these words do not match yours.
I maintain that you and Miller and Voyager et. al. do not constitute “everybody”. The majority of people on the planet at the very least profess a belief in God, and while many of those are mechanically repeating rote knowledge, there are a lot of people who actually can see the flame. I am one of them, and I have met others who also can, in greater numbers than those who cannot in fact, so if I were to go by a belief system that followed what other people think and defined my beliefs as such, I would still believe in a God because the vast majority I have met in my life do in fact believe in God.
Let go, accept that your belief is completely subjective, you’ll come much closer to objectivity when you do. Stop trying to debunk people’s belief in God, and try to understand what they mean when they say they believe in God, because you don’t know. It is not reasonable at all to debunk something you don’t understand.
It’s like I am telling you I experienced Respainspurtay, and you are saying Respainspurtay doesn’t exist. How do you know Respainspurtay doesn’t exist, you don’t even know what it means? Respainspurtay is an experience I’ve had, it’s a word that came into my head that describes a particular experience that I’ve had off and on throughout my life. You don’t know what it means, it’s a nonsense word to you, as is God, however, the difference being that Respainspurtay doesn’t have a lot of trash dogma attributed to it for you, whereas the word God does. You are locked into the dogma of God that was fed to you over the years, and you won’t just admit that and let go of it. God clearly exists simply because it is an attempt by people to understand SOMETHING. What that SOMETHING is, is a big debate for a lot of people, but it doesn’t make people idiots for debating it. I do not believe in a bearded man in the sky, but I do, because that bearded man in the sky is a visual metaphor for some part of my masculine consciousness, and archetype, but what I have learned in my mystical pursuit is that despite the face I have placed upon God, it is still not a whole an accurate picture of what God is, but I do know that it’s describing something real, something I have genuinely experienced, something that others have genuinely experienced.
Quite frankly you are projecting all sorts of dogma on me that I don’t even believe in, but apparently you take quite seriously somewhere in your subconscious. So while I continue to attempt to relate to other beings in the universe using the vocabulary that I have acquired during my life, you continue to tell me that it doesn’t exist, when i know that most certainly it does, and that you don’t even know what I am talking about, and are making no attempt to understand it, only expecting that somehow you can make some declaration that what I have experienced is irrational, and if you repeat it enough times maybe somehow I’ll come over to your way of thinking.
If a child sees faeries, then faeries are indeed part of the child’s subjective experience. If a child sees a rainbow and infers the activity of faeries, that’s a different matter.
Personally, I pretty much agree with all of that. But if you’re going to use the word “magic” to mean “reverence and awe”, I suggest you put that definition in brackets after each use.
With you so far…
Well, if you’re going to make statements like that, there are a lot of practitioners of science out there who would blow your knowledge of magick away with a whisper, so there! I can safely say that, because the statement makes no concrete claims but at the same time reflects the very sort of arrogance you are pitting. “We know so much more than you, you ignorant fools…”
I’ve read nothing by Crowley, so can’t comment. I’ve read a lot of RA Wilson. I don’t think he’s a crackpot, although he does cherry-pick his sources. His efforts to break down his personal barriers and preconceptions certainly have merit.
Are you claiming there are people on the board who despise Newton?
Look, there’s plenty of approaches for exploring our universe, including science, philosophy, art, meditation, introspection, you name it. And the methods overlap - philosophy runs into logic and maths which runs into science. Art runs into representation, symbolism and communication, which links to maths and science. Meditation and introspection involve explorations of the self and way we relate to our external universe, which links into art and philosophy. It’s all good. BUT we must have some way of evaluating data, concepts and theories, whether they be aesthetic, utilitarian, ethical, or something else. If we can’t distinguish between useful and useless techniques, or ugly and beautiful techniques, then what use are our techniques for exploring the Universe?
Let me go back to our intrepid early humans, developing their fire technologies.
The fire scientist thinks it will be useful to find out how fire affects things, so he’s sticking things in fire and cataloguing the results. He’s learnt that dry wood burns better than wet wood, and which woods smoke more than others, and that some wood can be hardened by fire, and that some dried muds can be turned to stone by fire. If he keeps at it, he may discover copper and tin ores. That is basic research, and isn’t a bad approach as far as raw data goes.
But there’s also the other half of the coin. The realisation that the fired clay can be used to make pots. The realisation that fire can be used to hollow out logs for canoes. The ideas and the lightning bolts of inspiration, the mental combinations of things that have never been put together before. If you want to call that mysticism, or shamanism, or the occult, feel free - it’s certainly a mysterious process. But it’s not in opposition to science, it’s part of science! And re-reading your post, I think we agree with each other there.
And then there’s the third half of the coin. (Yes, I know. Run with it, would you?) The false trails. The dead ends and non-existent patterns, the systematic mistakes and perceptual filters and adoption of dogma. To properly explore the universe you have to be able to recognise these things. And it’s equally important to be able to recognise that rainbows do not imply the activity of faeries, as it is to be able to let the rainbow lift your soul. And this is where we appear to differ, because you don’t seem to allow the labelling of false trails for what they are. You seem to demand that all trails be regarded of equal merit, even if some lead you into the bog.
I have had mystical experiences, and I think everyone has, of some kind. Sunsets and sleeping under an open sky do it for me. So does snowboarding at the absolute limit of my paltry skills, knowing that I’m on the edge of disaster and if I fumble it’s going to hurt or worse, but also knowing that I won’t fumble because I’m in some zone where everything works and the board itself knows what to do and I’m just along for the ride. And yes, it’s mysterious, and yes, I believe there’s a scientific explanation (like SentientMeat, I’m a physicalist) and yes, there may well be modern mystics who know more about getting into that magic zone than anyone else. But they’re going to impede themselves if they won’t discriminate between what works and what doesn’t.
Hardly. “I think, therefore I am”. I know I exist, otherwise there would be nobody here to worry about it. I can’t say the same about God, and I see no reason to believe anyone claims “directly experience of God” is anything other than deluded or a liar.
A cite for what, the bloodshed caused by religion ? Turn on the news.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Induction see above. Value denotes quantification, leaves out any room for qualification
[QUOTE=mswas]
Stop talking like a bad sci-fi robot; I can’t understand what you are saying.
:rolleyes: I wasn’t talking about mysticism, I was saying that “I am not saying it in some big lofty way” and “you are hard headed and refuse to accept simple concepts” don’t belong in the same sentence.
No, I am applying a factual context.
Transmuting elements.
Nonsense. Mysticism fails whenever it is actually tries; application is not “an integral part of the mystical pursuit”. Failure is.
Robot talk again. Try to talk like a person, so I can respond.
I think I can understand the babble this time, but it’s still robot talk. They succeeded at science, failed at mysticism. If it succeeds, it’s fact/science because it is then verifiable; something cannot be mystic unless it fails.
More incoherant robot talk. However, since you appear to be comparing science and mysticism, I’ll say it again : Once something has proof, it’s not mystic; therefore, if something is factual it is not mystical. Science is about discovering facts, therefore it is the opposite of mysticism.
You’ve succeeded in making no sense, that’s all.
I’m skipping the rest of the robot talk; it’s incoherant and irritating.
I never said you’re an idiot. You’re just tone deaf to science (and I’m actually tone deaf, so I know what it feels like.)
The continual claim that I have tunnel vision is getting tiresome, but is amusing. I am as overpaid as much as I am because I am a generalist, knowing a little bit about a lot of things. I do have some standards though, which is why I’ve asked you again and again for something from mystical texts that has proven out. All I’ve gotten so far is evidence that someone doesn’t understand much about computers or DNA. You said, I forget what, yin/yang? is analogous to binary in computers. I explained why it wasn’t. No response. You said the triplets in the I Ching in some sense inspired the discovery of DNA. I said Watson didn’t seem to think so. No response, except to call me narrow minded. If refuting bs claims is being narrow minded, I plead guilty. The crackpot writing to the famous scientist who has carefully explained why perpetual motion machines are impossible often calls the scientist rigid with tunnel vision. I’ll take that insult from the likes of you as a compliment.
I’m happy to follow evidence wherever it leads, but you don’t have any, just appeals to authority. Even pitiful authorities like Leary and Wilson.
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Those are the people who keep the crystal shops open, and believe in medical quackery. Not many people on the SDMB seem to, though.
I know I’ve never said prove it. I’ve just asked for evidence. Doesn’t it strike you as telling that all the people who have done scientific experiments about this have had them fail. (I’ve read books by Rhine, for example.) This stuff would be really cool if it was true, but all the evidence is that it isn’t. There is not a thing wrong with hippies, but for the most part they never advanced our understanding much.
I’m curious about this: if you believe that something is true, why don’t you want to confirm or deny it? Are you afraid that your dearly held beliefs won’t pan out? Do you somehow think the confirmation process is not valid for your beliefs? A lot of people seem to think that if something can’t be measured on a meter, science is not interested, but there are a lot of more subtle ways than that of confirming or denying something. If whatever you believe in has some measurable impact, then we can check it. If it is indistinguisable from chance and coincidence even in principle, then we can’t. A case in point are those theists who say that prayer works, and that god is looking out for us, but explain all bad events as part of god’s mysterious plan. Surely you, who do not believe this, can see the difficulty with this position.
Actually I don’t think mysticism and science are in conflict. If mysticism makes claims about the world, the scientific method can be used to confirm or refute them. Refuting something is different from being in conflict with it. It is you who either deny or are not interested in applying science to mystical claims. If they pan out science would have to change, and that would be very exciting.
I’ve never tried to define god, by the way. That is the theist’s job, but they have so many definitions it does get confusing.
The average IQ of the American public is around 100. Nuff said. I think those on this board, of any stripe, are above average.
On preview, I find it hard to believe that you consider “mystery” a good thing. If two people were trying to sell you something, and one showed you the specs, let you take it home to try, and gave you the names of references, while the other only let you see the product in a darkened room and said that it was so great that it had to be hidden, who would you believe? Science is like the first guy, and your magic is like the second. Chances are the second guy is a con man. If magic is so great, open it up, let us all look.
By the way, mswas, bringing up Newton is further evidence that you don’t understand how science works. Scientific advances are not good or bad depending on the person who made them. That Newton spent time on alchemy doesn’t make Principia any less important, and the importance of Principia doesn’t make the unverified and even refuted alchemy experiments any more correct. Tesla was a raving loony some times, but AC still works. Another example of this is the Lady Hope myth; the contention that Darwin converted to Christianity and renounced evolution on his death bed. Besides being wrong, it is irrelevant. Even if he had, evolution still happens and he was still right.
Memorizing f=ma is not the same thing as understanding science.
I’m sticking with the definition of magic as a discription of the supernatural.
When people use that term, they aren’t attributing the ‘magical’ occurance to the supernatural or unexplained. I can surely call the nothern lights magical yet understand why they occur. You’re flip-flopping between the two definitions.
It’s incorrect and imprecise. The reality is that Mom or Dad take their tooth at night, no matter what the child attributes it to. This isn’t some Schrodinger equation.
Then don’t attribute how the world functions to magic. The world works according to the rules and laws of science, not emotion.
Attributing things to magic is ignorance. Mental illness was attributed to magic for a long period of time. That retarded efforts into solving the many problems that cause it.
You sure as hell don’t. And until you can produce one, which I highly doubt, it is just another unfounded allegation.
I can understand Newtonian equations just fine and I’ve survived advanced physical equations, including those pesky wave functions of quantum chemistry. My math skills exceed Newton’s.
Your constant confusing of the definitions of magic makes it tough to understand what you are talking about. If everything that you don’t understand is so truly awe-inspiring to you, you should use another term when describing your ignorance rather than just attributing it to ‘magic’ which connotates the mystical and supernatural.
mswas, could you give us examples of magickers who know lots about science? Do they have advanced degrees, have they done lab work, have they published? Or are they people who’ve read a book about quantum physics and say ooo - EPR, spooky action at a distance, tunneling, that means telepathy is true! Real scientists hate people like that. Your attempt to validate the I Ching through DNA is an example of this, and far from the worst.
Since magic doesn’t work, this does not bode well for a sufficiently advanced technological society. Interestingly, my attempts to coordinate my cable box and DVD player generally succeed no more often than would be expected by pure chance, so maybe we’re already there.
