|
Post by povey on Jul 17, 2009 5:38:38 GMT -5
See that was what I had been thinking.
I have on occasions woke up unable to move recently and have had problems with breathing due to stress a couple of months back.
I put it down to I am not working at the moment of course.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Jul 17, 2009 10:47:39 GMT -5
But if you have tried magical intervention and tarot readings and "sometimes" they came true, wouldn't that just be scientific probability playing itself out? I absolutely love the idea of magic, occult, all that stuff, but sadly I don't believe any of it to be true. I'm open to any proof of course! Exactly. Human beings find coincidences magical, because congruence leaves strong traces in the memory which non-congruent experiences fail to do. I think sometimes it would be beneficial if people were more interested in earthly concerns and trying to understand that which is comprehensible and seems to be empirically founded rather than obscure esoterica.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Jul 17, 2009 15:51:50 GMT -5
That was a wonderfully verbose reply mate!
|
|
|
Post by Beatende on Jul 17, 2009 17:49:29 GMT -5
On a perhaps vaguely related note, is anyone familiar with Old Hag Syndrome? no.. not heard of that. Explain?
|
|
|
Post by Beatende on Jul 17, 2009 18:13:27 GMT -5
But if you have tried magical intervention and tarot readings and "sometimes" they came true, wouldn't that just be scientific probability playing itself out? I absolutely love the idea of magic, occult, all that stuff, but sadly I don't believe any of it to be true. I'm open to any proof of course! Exactly. Human beings find coincidences magical, because congruence leaves strong traces in the memory which non-congruent experiences fail to do. I think sometimes it would be beneficial if people were more interested in earthly concerns and trying to understand that which is comprehensible and seems to be empirically founded rather than obscure esoterica. Yes, but then, a lot of our discoveries have been thanks to the inspiration provided by meditation or visions. If this is down to unlocking an under-utilised area of the brain, then shouldn't that be a worthy focus of effort? Wilhelm Reich discovered changes in the electrical charge of humans during orgasm, and noted the ability of a healthy sex life to improve general well being. Say what you like about Wilhelm Reich(he didn't really get a chance to prove his work since he got sabotaged by his corporate enemies), but his ideas on Orgone are just the science version of life energy, referred to by many religions and the occultists. Yoga is of occult origin in the same way that Martial Arts are, and those are proven to be of huge benefit to well being (well, Martial arts like Tai chi are, anyway). Buddhisms teaches that we are all buddha, and science teaches that we are all energy. Perhaps these Earthly concerns are interlinked with unearthly ones.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jul 18, 2009 8:43:34 GMT -5
Say what you like about Wilhelm Reich but his ideas on Orgone are just the science version of life energy... His ideas would be the science version of life energy if they were published in a peer reviewed paper. Until then, it's just conjecture. Such as? I am dubious about the concept of under used areas of the brain, since it flies in the face of evolutionary theory. We would not have attained the ability to use parts of our brain unless it conferred a survival or breeding advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Jul 18, 2009 11:27:30 GMT -5
I'm not making any judgement, but I'm sure that more outre/occult/esoteric ideas, even if founded in sound science get a raw deal, and would find it more difficult to get into higher quality journals/papers.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jul 18, 2009 13:14:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure that dreaming about work is the same as meditation. Interesting, though. I'm not making any judgement, but I'm sure that more outre/occult/esoteric ideas, even if founded in sound science get a raw deal, and would find it more difficult to get into higher quality journals/papers. Yes and no. Certain journals might not go near any paradigm breaking ideas, but others will happily print them, so long as the science is solid. Some journals fish for the really big stories, and you don't get much bigger than proving the seemingly impossible. It's just that none of these theories have ever been proven.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Jul 18, 2009 13:53:05 GMT -5
I've often wondered whether we can effectively use the term "magic" to say "things which are currently beyond the realm of our scientific understanding", or whether it describes things that exist entirely outside of what we typically call science. I appreciate that's not a particularly insightful comment, but the rise of technology has certainly seen a fall in the number of things described as being "magic" (except, of course, for Fernando Torres). It seems to me that humanity seeks to trade wonder for reason, and of course this has largely been beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 18, 2009 17:09:04 GMT -5
I know I'm butting in half way, but I don't really see this subject as something that should be debated online, much less a music forum. Whilst I personally don't practice any form of occultism, I have some (extremely limited) knowledge on the subject, and I believe it's a very personal thing and quite open to personal interpretation. Whereas I certainly don't believe in things such as predicting the future, I do believe that occultism can be used as a way to condition the mind through the use of esoteric symbolism. Through that, depending on the person's will in the matter, I guess that it is possible to use it to a desired effect, but I seriously doubt that it can have any effect on the real world outside the practitioner's own being. Using this reasoning I can see why people could consider such a thing dangerous and how it could have a detrimental effect upon a person.
What I'm rambling on about is basically that I think in a very personal setting occultism can be very real, but as for actual "magic", (indeed a term which seems synonymous now with camp Saturday night TV) I don't believe in it at all. Personally, it is in the same realm as god and evolution; until someone can offer me some proof, I don't believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jul 19, 2009 5:13:27 GMT -5
Personally, it is in the same realm as god and evolution; until someone can offer me some proof, I don't believe in it. Evolution - MRSA. Good luck killing that one with the antibiotics that it has evolved resistance to.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 19, 2009 6:28:13 GMT -5
Human Evolution. I'm aware that there is some evidence towards it, but until I see a half man, half monkey I'm not convinced. Apart from my sister's ex, I guess if there was proof of the missing link, he'd be the proof. Dragging arms, buck teeth, very basic communication skills...
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Jul 19, 2009 6:29:49 GMT -5
Personally, it is in the same realm as god and evolution; until someone can offer me some proof, I don't believe in it. Evolution - MRSA. Good luck killing that one with the antibiotics that it has evolved resistance to. I always wondered why more people don't cite viral mutations as an example of evolution. To be honest, I'm cautious of doing it myself since my knowledge of biology begins and ends with an A-level. But from the layman's point of view, the glove does seem to fit.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jul 19, 2009 12:00:18 GMT -5
The most convincing evidence for human evolution for me is not the fossil record, it's the genetic record. Since different species come from a common ancestor you can trace the similarities, changes and additions to the genome. For example, mammals have similars sets of genes as bacteria, except more complex. By the same token, mice have similar genes to humans, except that humans have a further evolved range of genes. In this manner, you can directly trace evolutionary lineages. Apes have a remarkably similar genome to humans, and from this alone we can deduce a common ancestor. Evolution - MRSA. Good luck killing that one with the antibiotics that it has evolved resistance to. I always wondered why more people don't cite viral mutations as an example of evolution. To be honest, I'm cautious of doing it myself since my knowledge of biology begins and ends with an A-level. But from the layman's point of view, the glove does seem to fit. Viral or bacterial mutation is proof of micro evolution. Creationists should only be prescribed penicillin to deal with infections, since it used to kill everything before they evolved. It doesn't prove macro evolution, i.e true speciation, but the principle is the same, just over a longer time.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Jul 19, 2009 12:47:20 GMT -5
Viral or bacterial mutation is proof of micro evolution. Creationists should only be prescribed penicillin to deal with infections, since it used to kill everything before they evolved. It doesn't prove macro evolution, i.e true speciation, but the principle is the same, just over a longer time. I think for me, it's sufficient proof to see evolution occurring with viruses and bacteria and sort of assume that it's happened for larger, more complex organisms. I know that's not particularly scientific, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm trying to remember from years ago, is it something like mitochondria that have similar characteristics to viruses? Or is it RNA or something like that?
|
|