The problem you have is that the Pythagorean theorem was known to the Babylonians and possibly to the Egyptians and the Chinese[sup]1[/sup] long before the Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans were possibly the first to come up with a deductive proof of the theorem[sup]1[/sup].
Mysticism is the claim to achieve direct knowledge by intuitive or ineffable means. The Pythagoreans, although mystics in many aspects of their beliefs, did not arrive at the theorm through mysicism, but rather through the application of deduction. Nothing mystical about it.
The theorem blew apart their fundamental mystical belief. That belief being that the natural numbers (whole numbers) were capable of describing all possible things. It turned out that when they tried to find a natural number, or a ratio of natural numbers, that would express the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle having sides of length 1 they couldn’t do it. Legend has it that they were so distressed at this discovery that they agreed to keep it a secret and assassinated on of their members who even spoke their name for such a number, alogon, to outsiders.
And what do you mean by the statement that gravity was one of the things that the Pythagoreans came up with?
I would like any example that can be demonstrated to another of direct knowledge of anything consequential that was arrived at through mysticism.
[sup]1[/sup]The Nature And Growth Of Modern Mathematics, Edna E. Kramer, Princeton University Press.
Race is arbitrary and inborn; mysticism is something people choose to believe in, and it defines people. You can’t be a mystic, unless you are either mystical or dishonest. Being black tells you little about a person, beyond sunburn resistance.
Really ? Do you think any scientist has ever bothered to test Babylonian cosmology ? It has nothing to offer, except backround material for a fantasy novel or game.
You aren’t really trying to claim Babylonian cosmology is anywhere near as credible as the modern version, are you ? Or is this more of your “if you believe it, it’s true” nonsense ?
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because perfect objectivity is impossible to obtain, doesn’t mean some positions and people aren’t closer than others.
“Materialist subjectivity” strikes me as somewhat contradictory.
“Someone somewhere” ? If something is millenia old, it can’t be scientific; science isn’t that old.
Neither is mystical, nor were they arrived at by mystical methods.
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Ever hear of “literacy” ?
:dubious: Yeah, right. You are the only person in my life who has called me average; I’ve been called many other things, but not that. Why would I believe some stranger with an agenda like you ?
That sounds like another way of saying that only true believers are allowed to judge the validity of this nonsense. My response : Too bad. I judge what I want, especially when others keep trying to push it on me or con me into believing.
In that case, we shouldn’t believe anything at all; we can’t really know anything, since God could have been behind any event we study. He could change the records, or our memories, or the past, or our perceptions. Living in a universe like that is rather like living in a hallucination - someone else’s hallucination.
So far, it appears to be real, and God-free. Not artificial, and subject to random alteration. Studying it therefore gives us and understanding of natural law; studying a fake universe just tells us the structure of the fake - for the moment.
It was likely a reference to Newton. Newton frittered away a lot of time in alchemy; therefore mswas uses him to argue that mysticism is valid - ignoring the fact that gravity didn’t come from alchemy.
Which one of us is rubber and which one is glue? I am mystic and can’t possibly verify for certain.
Is it less kosher than dismissing something you know nothing about because you “Don’t need to know”?
You tried it all eh? You know it all, and you know it’s all BS right?
I offered you books on the subject that refute your experience. So all I have to do to falsify your hypothesis is provide one example to the contrary. I provided three. Now your unwillingness to look at those examples, well that’s another matter entirely. You may have found that your particular path led you where you didn’t want to go, and you found another route, but that doesn’t reflect on everyone else that follows a similar path that you eschewed, now does it?
Enlightened folk = people who know. Is Quantum Physics open to everyone, not just “Enlightened folk”? Really? Or is there a lot of things people have to learn before they can get to Quantum Physics? Of course that can’t be the case, because science is open to EVERYBODY! Not just those that know about science!
So do squirrels and rabbits, and insects and other things that are not people. So does the butterfly effect.
Yeah, knowledge you know nothing about it probably useless to you.
Yes, I am the one being unskeptical, and judging every person within a particular milieu based upon my limited experience with a subject.
Your hypothesis is bunk my friend. And I’m sorry to say that I didn’t look up a Lobsang Rampa, but it’s really hard when you have religious zealots piling on you throwing long posts with various different things at you. It’s hard to keep track.
I think a refresher course in skepticism would do you good.
The first rule of skepticism club is you do not dismiss things you have no knowledge of.
The second rule of skepticism club is YOU DO NOT DISMISS THINGS YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF!
Why should I bother finding out what a fraud Lobsang Rampa is, I have never even heard of him before? I don’t even remember dismissing it. I probably dismissed it because it was irrelevant, because Robsang Lampa has nothing to do with me. You are trying to fit me into a category with someone for whom I have no context. If he’s a fraud, then why would I want to learn about him?
Are you willing to argue that no scientist ever was a fraud? I mean, I’m not holding you to the standards of fraudulent scientists. I am holding you to the standards of rigorous scientists, since of course you think science is so important and all.
How come you guys constantly ignore my examples? Like Newton or Pythagoras? Why do I have to justify some dude that I’ve never even heard of? Were Newton and Pythagoras frauds? They were mystics. Did Pythagoras figure out the Pythagorean theorem by accident? Because of course before SCIENCE!!!* came along, anyone that found the truth did so by accident.
*It is important to remember to pronounce this like a mad scientist from a cartoon.
And I do care about reading on the subject, but not when it deals on a path already traveled, as **David Simmons ** showed, I am still waiting on an example from yours that will show a good example to then **re-consider ** mysticism, so far it is more of the same.
I have the knowledge that mysticism doesn’t work. That’s why modern technology is built on science ( which works ) rather than mysticism ( which fails ). As I said, the essence of mysticism is failure.
We don’t; we point out that they are bad examples. Both I and **David Simmons ** did that just now.
Forgot to add: you really really really will not like to discuss even the first book you mentioned, the writer really lost me when the he began to talk about people living hundreds of years, humans communicating routinely via telepathy, and space travel via spaceships to other planets at the turn of the century…
Sorry to say it was the turn of the 20th century, the book was published in 1977 and in 2006 I am still waiting for all that.
So apparently the book lost you before you started to understand what he was talking about. Maybe the copy that you had didn’t have the preface where he talked about “Agnosticism”. You probably missed the part about it being about “Parapsychology” right. Or the part where he said he wasn’t trying to get you to BELIEVE anything. I bet you even missed the part where he talks about how you should question EVERYTHING you believe. I bet you missed the part where he talks about why he finds strict spiritualists and strict materialists as equally annoying. And since you didn’t get to the end of the book, I know you missed the part where he talks about how all of these concepts of spaceships aliens, etc… are ways that people have used to codify certain thought forms. So you definitely didn’t understand his point about Angels and Aliens being different metaphorical representations of the same thing, only in different times right.
But of course you know it’s all BS based upon your vast experience.
Der Trihs I wouldn’t hope to get anything resembling a cite from you, but how do you know that Mysticism is BS? Is it because YOU JUST KNOW MAN! Because it is! It’s Self-Evident Man!
You need to read some more posts from Citizen Bob or Left Hand of Dorkness, they could teach you a thing or a million about skepticism.
Nope, it is BS because he was wrong. If one cannot see how wrong he was on what I mentioned before, or on the Mothman Prophesies or the Lady of Guadalupe, then your level of questioning is really in question.
Bear in mind that I’m not at all religious, nor am I a believer in the supernatural, but… I think you’re way off base here. If you make a rule for your kids “no sweets after 9:00”, and then for some special occasion, you say “OK, today we’re making an exception, you can have candy tonight at 9:30”, does the fact that you can arbitrarily and rarely break the rules mean that suddenly the kids are living in a hallucination?
Certainly many of the great minds who have studied and codified the natural laws that we believe were also religious people who presumably believed that God could, and would on rare occasion, break those laws. That didn’t stop them from studying and believing them.
But is there a difference? What? And how? If I suddenly became convinced that our entire universe was being modelled on some enormous alien computer somewhere, how would that in any way change or affect my life?
But those rule changes occur embedded in a larger universe of natural law that the kids are aware of. The parents can’t say “Today, gravity is optional; the law of conservation of energy is withdrawn; and space now has six dimensions.” If they could, I doubt the kids would even believe in an objective reality; just "What Mom and Dad have decided on today.
Religious people ignore the logical/factual problems in their religion all the time. It doesn’t matter that they were “great minds”; religion is a thing of irrationality ( faith ), so intelligence doesn’t matter. The religious folk who are good scientists are those who can compartmentalize science and religion apart from each other.
Well, it would make life less trustworthy. You could never tell if tomorrow the aliens would turn the world off, or if the past really happened the way you remembered ( or at all ), or if you even existed yesterday ( or if there was a yesterday). Did you ever see the move Dark City ? Sort of like that.
You know that and I know that; I don’t think mswas knows that. He’s into this “we make up reality as we go along” postmodernist stuff.
If I had the power to turn off gravity, but left it on 364 days out of 365, I think that kids would grow up thinking “things fall down. Oh, and every once in a while, Dad can change that”, rather than “I have no idea what ever happens ever nothing is predictable AAAAAAAAUGH!!!”. But we’ve wandered kind of far off the topic here…
And my point is that there is nothing logically inconsistent in their position, which is that there are natural laws that are binding and omnipresent and studyable and rational, EXCEPT that God can change them if he wants to. But he super-rarely does, so they should be studied. Mind you, I don’t AGREE with that position, as I find it to be less elegant than the position in which there is no God, but it’s perfectly rational and consistent.
Except that those aliens might as well be God. And if I had some super-mystical experience tomorrow that convinced me with 100% certainty that there was a God, that wouldn’t affect my day to day existence, my belief in gravity and the sun rising, etc. Even if those aliens exist, long experience has shown that: (a) they don’t seem at all inclined to turn off the computer, and (b) they don’t seem at all inclined to meddle in our world. Or if they do, they do so in a way which is indistinguishable, to the occupants, from no meddling.
Furthermore, as long as our universe can be deterministically described (which it perhaps can if you adopt the infinite universes hypothesis), then it doesn’t matter if the aliens turn off their computer, we’ll continue to exist purely as mathematical entities, and will not be able to perceive or measure any difference at all.
If they exist, you don’t know that they don’t meddle. After all, they could just erase your memories and the evidence. For all you know, they drop you into a simulation of Hell for thirty minutes each day, then erase the memories.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, is the same as no meddling. They also might have constructed the entire universe from scratch yesterday, but if they did, they did it with all the evidence of a universe millions of years old, includnig both physical evidence and my memories. So who cares?
Besides, I would indeed care if I was being tortured, even if my memory was erased . It would hurt just as much at the time. It reminds me of something I read; that way back, unethical doctors who screwed up the anesthesia would give the patient a dose of ( I think ) sodium pentathol, as it has a 50/50 chance of inducing amnesia in recent memories.
Problem is then that what we have, is the blind leading the blind.
I can believe that something supernatural occurred, but remembering how wrong the prophets that resulted from those encounters were, one has to conclude that always there was a failure in communication.
And here is the thing, I can believe they experienced something, but unfortunately they become naïve in the idea that they can report the encounter in the proper way, or that they got the right message. When I was a kid, I listened with hope and fear the descriptions of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary, at the beginning of the civil war in El Salvador.
I can see now that the big primetime promotions and showing of the documentary on the miracles of Garabandal in Spain was made to counteract the atheistic Marxism of the revels back then, but I digress.
The show was seared in my memory in the sense that it felt like it had just happened and it was true, it was time to pray then.
Well, later I felt the beginning of betrayal when I found out that the phenomenon occurred in the early 60’s! And the prophecies that were going to happen any time now were 20 years old! (It was shown in El Salvador circa 1980) Later I found out that the church did not officially recognize the miracle but it did not condemn it either, now that is agnosticism I tell you!
Then I found that the alleged miracles were not very impressive at all, if you want impressive go to Fatima.
As the years did go by, the prophesies for this and other mystic gurus I was interested failed to materialize, that was bound to leave me an impression all right, indeed one has to question all beliefs, and now some Jonnie come lately is telling me now the mystics are right? Like they say in Missouri, ”you got to show me!"
However, being a skeptic I do remain open to mystery, as I mentioned before, I can indeed believe god broke some rules and some witnesses came forward. But, looking at the evidence, they obviously got the information wrong. Even if we believe they experienced something supernatural, we cannot rely on their say so.
You my friend are no skeptic, no matter how fashionable you may find skepticism.
How do you know that Newton’s Alchemical pursuits were fruitless? Or should I consult “The Modern World.”?
You are just regurgitating shit you don’t really understand. I have yet to see you ever supply a cite. It’s amazing that nobody but me seems to care that you can’t come up with a cite if you had a gun to your head. Maybe it’s because they have just accepted that you are full of it. Most of the time I ignore you but once in a while you just supremely irritate me.
Please take a cue from those atheists that are far more knowledgeable than you and actually adhere to the intellectual ideals that you find fashionable.
Oh please, not this “existence proves God” garbage again.
It was fruitless because it was alchemy. They stumbled upon a few basic tricks by accident; but as it was a fundamentally mystic pursuit it was doomed to uselessness. And yes, the “modern world” proves my point; we use chemists, not alchemists. Chemists, you see, actually know what they are doing; they don’t live in a fantasy world.
