|
|
  |
 Magickal Counterargument To Atheism, I think I've figured one out |
|
|
| Petrus |
 Feb 11 2009, 06:42 AM
|
Zelator
Posts: 227
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 6 pts
|
One of the things which has really held me back, as far as attempting any magical work of my own is concerned, and continues to do so, is at least a partial, intermittent tendency to try and hold my belief system subject to Richard Dawkins' approval. At first, it seemed like he was unavoidably, inescapably right; he seemed unassailably impossible to argue with.
I finally realised something, though; and that is that I virtually never read about anyone claiming anything on here that they don't also maintain that they've actually done. It strikes me that in a very real sense, a lot of the people in this forum are actual scientists themselves, in terms of the continual experimentation with evocation and other similar areas.
The other thing I realised is that contrary to direct experience, most atheistic arguments against God's existence (or the existence of any reality outside the physical) is based primarily on theoretical/logical abstractions, rather than direct experience. Dawkins talks about whether natural selection can or can't be used to discredit creationism, as one example, but it's still completely theoretical and hypothetical, and the reason why is because none of us have a time machine to allow us to go back 4.5 billion years and conclusively observe what actually happened, and so because of that, we can argue about that point theoretically as much as we want, but we still don't really know.
As a direct contrast to that, when people talk about evocation, as an example, they usually give direct experentially based reports of their experiments. One of the things that bothers me about contemporary science is that when its' advocates discredit certain things as unscientific, they generally disregard their own rules. The main rule I'm talking about here is repeatability.
If Darkmage or Imperial Arts write an account, for example, of calling up Marbas or Vassago, and mention Marbas or Vassago as manifesting in a certain way, if I then go to the Goetia myself, perform the same experiment myself in the presence of others, and depending on either an astral or physical manifestation, get verification from said other witnesses as to the consistency of the manifestation, particularly if I have not told them what to expect first, then that to me counts as valid scientific repeatability. It is empirical in the original definition of the word; I am relying directly upon the evidence of my five senses; in this case, primarily sight and hearing, probably.
I get the distinct impression that that is why Imperial in particular seems to be so very careful about doing everything by the book, where the Goetia is concerned; because he is considering it repeatable, but because, when you're exploring a process that you don't necessarily understand the mechanism behind, that someone else has recorded, if you change things, and the process then doesn't work, you have no way of knowing which specific alteration(s) to the process caused failure. Thus, if something is to be repeatable, if you don't completely understand the mechanism behind it, the only way to ensure consistent results is to reproduce said process to the letter.
Imperial does that, and according to his testimony, he gets specific results. Dawkins might counter that I have no way of knowing whether or not Imperial is lying about his results. My counter to that is that I have a perfectly sound means of finding that out, or if not finding out whether or not he is lying, at least finding out to my own satisfaction, whether or not his results are repeatable for me personally. The Goetia and all of the necessary reagents are equally potentially available to me, and I can, if I so choose, go and perform my own experiment and attempt to reproduce Imperial's results. If I am able to do so, then I have collaboratively and empirically proven, in the only ontologically possible and valid way, that the mechanism behind the Goetia does in fact produce concrete, repeatable results. Magic, I am realising, can and does hold up to empirical scrutiny.
Dawkins might also respond that any sighting of an apparition/evoked spirit would automatically count as delusion by default, and mass delusion in the case of supporting witnesses. I would argue in response to that, that logically speaking, a person is just as subject to visual hallucination when they look into a microscope and see bacteria, as they are when they see manifested entities.
It is therefore impossible, in my own mind, for science to claim that acorporeal reality demonstrably does not exist, purely on the basis of it not being detectable by external/mechanistic means. What atheists are forgetting when they make that claim, is that even mechanistic support for the existence of something ultimately falls back to being reliant on the physical senses; you still need to look at a computer screen or microscope for such, and as I have already said, I refuse to accept that the senses of a sane witness are necessarily any less reliable in their own house or loungeroom (the environment for evocation) than they are within a laboratory.
This post has been edited by Petrus: Feb 11 2009, 06:55 AM
--------------------
Magical Evocation. All the fun of train surfing, without having to leave the house.
|
  
|
|
|
|
| Darkmage |
Feb 11 2009, 07:27 AM
|
Snarkmeister
Posts: 276
Age: N/A
Gender: Female
From: 33N, 112W
Reputation: 2 pts
|
Haha, well done. (IMG: style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Or to quote Morpheus in The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." I think people forget that sometimes. I know people bash the 'cookbook' approach to magic, but I think it's the best way for beginners to start. They find a spell that covers what they want, try it, see what happens, write down the results, then try again. The scientific method is a bit different as you formulate a theory and then design an experiment to see what happens, but both are based on empirical observation and have similar logical pitfalls for the unwary. And if you're dealing with concrete, physical results, believing in a God is helpful but not necessary. Edit: and you can't prove a negative, only a positive. After all, if you don't have a radio or TV, you can't say radio waves don't exist--you just don't have the equipment to pick them up. Just because you can't detect something with the tech we currently have doesn't mean it's not there. This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 11 2009, 07:30 AM
--------------------
As the water grinds the stone,
We rise and fall
As our ashes turn to dust,
We shine like stars...
--Covenant, "Bullet"
|
|
|
|
|
| Imperial Arts |
Feb 11 2009, 10:03 AM
|
Zelator
Posts: 307
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Las Vegas
Reputation: 18 pts
|
QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 04:42 AM) 
It is therefore impossible, in my own mind, for science to claim that acorporeal reality demonstrably does not exist, purely on the basis of it not being detectable by external/mechanistic means.
There should be a disinction made between scientists and Atheists. There are usually a range of views on any subject among scientists, whereas Atheists uphold the dogma that "There is No God." In this sense Atheism is more like a religion, though it is one to which some scientists subscribe.
The "go and prove it to yourself" argument is sound reasoning on an individual basis, but there are gaps in the process of proving something that may not be fully grasped by the one attempting to do so, or other factors getting in the way. At any rate it is far more common to hear the skeptics demand to be zapped than to hear them request a reasonable argument or any amount of experimental suggestions.
To anyone that maintains a strictly materialist Atheism, I submit a very simple challenge to be settled by reason.
If we are merely organic creatures, whose every motive is purely biological in origin, devoid of spirit, we ought to be little more than complicated robots. We would seek out pleasure and hope to avoid pain, and for all our apparent reasoning and imagination, we would only be following the dictates of the brain and its chemical soup. Life would be a matter of response or reaction, with no will , spirit, or mind beyond that produced and contained by the body.
I do not believe that our choices, the act of directing the activity of the body and its thoughts, is a product of the environment. Choice, or will if you wish to call it that, is not necessarily a product of biological promptings. To the Atheists I would ask, "Are you nothing more than the slave of your body, your diet, your hormones? Is there no intelligence directing your life beyond that?"
I believe there is an intimate, individual, and inherent intelligence that is not produced by the body, which guides the brain rather than is made or ruled by it. This is a matter for reason, for self-analysis, not for lab tests and dog-trick proofs. Let them who would proclaim themselves stooges of fate, robots and zombies devoid of spirit, come forward and dispute the power and presence of the soul.
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| Jenfucius |
Feb 16 2009, 08:27 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 138
Age: N/A
Gender: Female
Reputation: 2 pts
|
QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
The other thing I realised is that contrary to direct experience, most atheistic arguments against God's existence (or the existence of any reality outside the physical) is based primarily on theoretical/logical abstractions, rather than direct experience.
Keep in mind that could be said of many theological beliefs as well. eg belief in "Hell fire and Brimestone" QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
Dawkins talks about whether natural selection can or can't be used to discredit creationism, as one example, but it's still completely theoretical and hypothetical, and the reason why is because none of us have a time machine to allow us to go back 4.5 billion years and conclusively observe what actually happened, and so because of that, we can argue about that point theoretically as much as we want, but we still don't really know.
There are mainly 3 positions. 1) Spontaneous creation (creationism) 2) Evolution 3) Evolution by Design Its not completly theoretical & hypothetical. There seems to be some substance to the natural selection claim. Have you actually done any research? I tend to favour the Evolution by Design theory personally. QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
As a direct contrast to that, when people talk about evocation, as an example, they usually give direct experentially based reports of their experiments.
The problem is credibility issue. There is such thing as people lieing or exagerating claims. There has been history full of swindlers and nutty messianic movements. Not all should be believed with a drop of a hat (figure of speech). QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
.... The main rule I'm talking about here is repeatability.
Repeatibility is good approach. One that I would endorse. QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
... if I then go to the Goetia myself, perform the same experiment myself in the presence of others, and depending on either an astral or physical manifestation, get verification from said other witnesses as to the consistency of the manifestation, particularly if I have not told them what to expect first, then that to me counts as valid scientific repeatability.
Scientific repeatibility means the experiement has to be repeated over and over again (not once). Enough to create a statistic about it. It also mean others can perform the same experiement and get the same results over and over again.. I think scientific repeatibility helps seperates magick from pure religion. (Respectfully the rest I cant make out what your trying to convey.) Note: I will say I'm religious but I'm not against science. I see science as a friend of metaphysics. This post has been edited by Jenfucius: Feb 16 2009, 08:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Dancing Coyote |
Feb 17 2009, 03:21 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 192
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 2 pts
|
QUOTE(Petrus @ Feb 11 2009, 07:42 AM)
One of the things which has really held me back, as far as attempting any magical work of my own is concerned, and continues to do so, is at least a partial, intermittent tendency to try and hold my belief system subject to Richard Dawkins' approval. At first, it seemed like he was unavoidably, inescapably right; he seemed unassailably impossible to argue with.
I finally realised something, though; and that is that I virtually never read about anyone claiming anything on here that they don't also maintain that they've actually done. It strikes me that in a very real sense, a lot of the people in this forum are actual scientists themselves, in terms of the continual experimentation with evocation and other similar areas.
The other thing I realised is that contrary to direct experience, most atheistic arguments against God's existence (or the existence of any reality outside the physical) is based primarily on theoretical/logical abstractions, rather than direct experience. Dawkins talks about whether natural selection can or can't be used to discredit creationism, as one example, but it's still completely theoretical and hypothetical, and the reason why is because none of us have a time machine to allow us to go back 4.5 billion years and conclusively observe what actually happened, and so because of that, we can argue about that point theoretically as much as we want, but we still don't really know.
As a direct contrast to that, when people talk about evocation, as an example, they usually give direct experentially based reports of their experiments. One of the things that bothers me about contemporary science is that when its' advocates discredit certain things as unscientific, they generally disregard their own rules. The main rule I'm talking about here is repeatability.
If Darkmage or Imperial Arts write an account, for example, of calling up Marbas or Vassago, and mention Marbas or Vassago as manifesting in a certain way, if I then go to the Goetia myself, perform the same experiment myself in the presence of others, and depending on either an astral or physical manifestation, get verification from said other witnesses as to the consistency of the manifestation, particularly if I have not told them what to expect first, then that to me counts as valid scientific repeatability. It is empirical in the original definition of the word; I am relying directly upon the evidence of my five senses; in this case, primarily sight and hearing, probably.
I get the distinct impression that that is why Imperial in particular seems to be so very careful about doing everything by the book, where the Goetia is concerned; because he is considering it repeatable, but because, when you're exploring a process that you don't necessarily understand the mechanism behind, that someone else has recorded, if you change things, and the process then doesn't work, you have no way of knowing which specific alteration(s) to the process caused failure. Thus, if something is to be repeatable, if you don't completely understand the mechanism behind it, the only way to ensure consistent results is to reproduce said process to the letter.
Imperial does that, and according to his testimony, he gets specific results. Dawkins might counter that I have no way of knowing whether or not Imperial is lying about his results. My counter to that is that I have a perfectly sound means of finding that out, or if not finding out whether or not he is lying, at least finding out to my own satisfaction, whether or not his results are repeatable for me personally. The Goetia and all of the necessary reagents are equally potentially available to me, and I can, if I so choose, go and perform my own experiment and attempt to reproduce Imperial's results. If I am able to do so, then I have collaboratively and empirically proven, in the only ontologically possible and valid way, that the mechanism behind the Goetia does in fact produce concrete, repeatable results. Magic, I am realising, can and does hold up to empirical scrutiny.
Dawkins might also respond that any sighting of an apparition/evoked spirit would automatically count as delusion by default, and mass delusion in the case of supporting witnesses. I would argue in response to that, that logically speaking, a person is just as subject to visual hallucination when they look into a microscope and see bacteria, as they are when they see manifested entities.
It is therefore impossible, in my own mind, for science to claim that acorporeal reality demonstrably does not exist, purely on the basis of it not being detectable by external/mechanistic means. What atheists are forgetting when they make that claim, is that even mechanistic support for the existence of something ultimately falls back to being reliant on the physical senses; you still need to look at a computer screen or microscope for such, and as I have already said, I refuse to accept that the senses of a sane witness are necessarily any less reliable in their own house or loungeroom (the environment for evocation) than they are within a laboratory.
"To make sense of the world at all, our scientists are, furthermore, now forced to talk about a reality founded on the notion of a ten-dimensional hyperspace-the idea that there are other dimensions or invisible layers beyond the world we know. There is no proof for this, of course; but only by supposition does reality become feasible. Without it, the world as we think we know it could not exist. But by believing in something they have no evidence for, our scientists have, in fact become theologians." In the book Plant Spirit Shamanism, by Heaven Charing. I'm not entirely sure how much truth this statement holds because I am no quantum physicist but if there is an ounce of truth in this theory, then all civilizations have indeed been working in a dimension scientists are numb to today. I have a work-in-progress theory I will post later regarding this subject (I don't have time to do it right now). Thanks, Dancin' Coyote This post has been edited by Dancing Coyote: Feb 17 2009, 03:23 PM
--------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced form of magick will appear indistinguishable from science"
|
|
|
|
|
| Petrus |
Feb 22 2009, 05:12 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 227
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 6 pts
|
QUOTE(Dancing Coyote @ Feb 19 2009, 08:40 AM)
I just found out that Atheism has no foundation, like religion.
Strong Atheism has a foundation, Dancin'. It's just that, as Darkmage pointed out, said foundational premise is a logical impossibility. It is impossible to prove a negative assertion. You guys might find this link interesting:- http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/magick/texts/evidence.txtIt led me to start reading a bit about aether theory; the scientific angle on what seems to be Bardon's "Akash," element. And what do you know; it turns out two scientists once tried to find a way of measuring it in 1887. They tried to detect a form of aetheric crosswind which they assumed would be generated due to the Earth being in continual motion, in terms of the orbit around the Sun. Turns out they did consistently pick something up, but the number was exceptionally small, and also wasn't always exactly the same; so small that the rest of the scientific community at the time apparently wrote it off as being within the margin for mechanical error, and the experiment was declared a failure. Still, apparently Einstein ended up making the statement at one point that, without the existence of aether, his theory of general relativity would be, "unthinkable." I don't understand the physics of it entirely, but for some reason I've had some optimism that the atom smasher that started up at CERN might possibly find some evidence for aether's existence that they'd be willing to look at, as well. If it does, there is basically our confirmation. Truthfully, I believe in it already; when a friend and I were collaborating on producing his second servitor, and I had my hand out to provide initial energy to it, the thing started sucking that hard that as well as a real pull on my arm, I ended up with heart pain. I had to pull away and stop for a bit; and that wasn't the only time I've felt a very distinct pull when feeding servitors, either. I've also had a number of other sensations which I can't account for when performing the Middle Pillar, too. When it mentions visualising the ball of light, at times it feels as though I've got an egg in my throat, and usually something bigger when it reaches my stomach...it's weird. You guys are probably also very used (moreso than I am, truth be told) to the feeling in a room when you've asked your God(s) or another positive entity to be present, and how the atmosphere in the room very noticeably softens, and sometimes also gets a few degrees warmer. The softness is a tactile sensation, almost...but not quite. I have no idea how any of that could be quantified in a way atheists would be happy with; don't know even if it can be at all. All I know is, what I get with that is real, sometimes it's disturbing, and I've had it multiple times, as well. I also don't believe they can chalk it up to suggestion, since the MP only tells you what to look for in a visualisation sense; the description sure as hell doesn't mention anything tactile. Truthfully, I really don't understand, when I think about it, how science actually could have missed this. I'm a raw newb; I'm only doing the fairly basic GD exercises so far, and what that mate of mine and I did in my old temple was pure, informal Chaos...and if I'm getting the above just from that, then surely that means there's something here which is sufficiently obvious that it would be given a second look. Apparently not, however. (IMG: style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
--------------------
Magical Evocation. All the fun of train surfing, without having to leave the house.
|
|
|
|
|
| ShireWeegie |
Feb 22 2009, 05:30 PM
|
3 Posts Probation
Posts: 2
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 1 pts
|
QUOTE(Dancing Coyote @ Feb 18 2009, 09:40 PM)
we have DNA, but DNA cannot reproduce itself so we've found RNA which is a protein based compound that can reproduce itself and is a cousin to DNA. However we are yet to figure out how to produce a scenario in which RNA could come out of the compounds of the beginning of the earth, or from a meteor. Until we find that gap, which I believe possible (but I also believe it's possible to find a god through scientific means) anyone's guess is feasible.
I am a biologist. I'm still an undergraduate but chances are I am going to pursue a career in it. I had some lectures last year concerning early evolution (as part of a microbiology course, so concerning early life), and there was mention of recreation of the conditions similar to the atmosphere when life first arose. If I remember right then this gave rose to ribonucleotides or similar "organic" compounds. RNA was around before DNA, a popular notion in the biology field right now is that of an RNA world. I'm really sorry that I don't have any links or references, but if you want to know more look up on RNA world, or PM me and I'll look out the notes from last year for you. As to add to the science/atheism discussion - I really think the line has been blurred far too heavily. People assume that because I am an infection biologist - and therefore witness evolution in the form of drug resistance e.g. MRSA - that I think everything is a 'big bag of chemistry' and hate creationists and religion. Well I dislike religion just as I dislike anything else that stifles me, and one of my closest friends is a devout christian and creationist. As for 'big bag of chemistry' and the whole original origins of life and life molecules: sure I think we are big bags of chemistry, but I can't believe that it was all by chance. Gaia, chaos etc.... all makes sense to me. EDIT: @Dancing Coyote - RNA is not protein based, but VERY similar to DNA. DNA encodes all the proteins necessary for life (parasites being an exception) and RNA acts as an intermediate. DNA is transcribed into RNA which is translated to DNA - this is (somewhat amusingly) referred to as the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" Double EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I think active atheism is pretty pointless. Absolute waste of effort. This post has been edited by ShireWeegie: Feb 22 2009, 05:45 PM |
|
|
|
|
| esoterica |
Feb 23 2009, 01:43 PM
|
left 30 aug 2010
Posts: 810
Age: N/A
Gender: Female
Reputation: 10 pts
|
i have been lots of places and talked to lots of intelligences, and i have met many gods, mouldy old gods, and even wanna-be gods, yet i have never met "god"
first off, you need to define who/what "god" is - the ancient idea of a "god" is some sort of a conduit of magical power (accessible, inaccessible, good, bad, ugly, whatever), and the judeo-christian version that most mean when they speak of "god" is really no different than any other version
to say 'there is no god' is to say there is nothing around that fulfils the searcher's definition of "god' - one's definition creates the reality, and suddenly something provides the fulfilment of the definition you have in your head, or it doesn't
for example, if you say god=good, then by definition, all things not good subjectively are therefore not god, but another person's view of goodness and therefore god-ness clouds the definition and is the beginning of conflict
if we define that "god" is our creator (which i believe, regardless of what that "god" ends up being), then we must answer to that god only if we add into the definition that our god cares about what we do - sins are inventions of definitions, without the definition, there is no sin
to change our definition to 'becoming aware of and advancing one's life-mission', is to be in accordance with god as creator when you are doing it, regardless of the definition of that god (since we know that life-missions exist, then so must a "god" who assigned it and that we must answer to if we fail it
the old gods gave rewards to those who served them properly and were 'pure' , as in the fable 2 idea of pure (not corrupt, not someone that takes advantage of whatever comes along, but of one stripe or type or mind) - you could easily tell when someone had failed their god because their hair turned gray and they got old suddenly
as far as creation and evolution is concerned, if you were going to make something physical, would you give it the means to adapt to changes in the environment, or not? = creation + evolution = the brilliance of god
-es
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| Dancing Coyote |
Feb 23 2009, 11:26 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 192
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 2 pts
|
QUOTE(ShireWeegie @ Feb 22 2009, 06:30 PM)
I am a biologist. I'm still an undergraduate but chances are I am going to pursue a career in it. I had some lectures last year concerning early evolution (as part of a microbiology course, so concerning early life), and there was mention of recreation of the conditions similar to the atmosphere when life first arose. If I remember right then this gave rose to ribonucleotides or similar "organic" compounds. RNA was around before DNA, a popular notion in the biology field right now is that of an RNA world.
I'm really sorry that I don't have any links or references, but if you want to know more look up on RNA world, or PM me and I'll look out the notes from last year for you.
As to add to the science/atheism discussion - I really think the line has been blurred far too heavily. People assume that because I am an infection biologist - and therefore witness evolution in the form of drug resistance e.g. MRSA - that I think everything is a 'big bag of chemistry' and hate creationists and religion. Well I dislike religion just as I dislike anything else that stifles me, and one of my closest friends is a devout christian and creationist. As for 'big bag of chemistry' and the whole original origins of life and life molecules: sure I think we are big bags of chemistry, but I can't believe that it was all by chance. Gaia, chaos etc.... all makes sense to me.
EDIT: @Dancing Coyote - RNA is not protein based, but VERY similar to DNA. DNA encodes all the proteins necessary for life (parasites being an exception) and RNA acts as an intermediate. DNA is transcribed into RNA which is translated to DNA - this is (somewhat amusingly) referred to as the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology"
Double EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I think active atheism is pretty pointless. Absolute waste of effort.
I do have to say, I'm not a scientist. I do however have dreams about going into the field, I will soon be going to college again. My initial post about DNA was something I've been reading about lately, especially what modern scientists find so damn interesting. I do have to say I don't know much about that set of language, so I will do my best to keep up with you. I tried to stray away from saying "all scientists are atheists" but I now see I have failed at doing so when I quoted someone who had done a very little bit of research and decided to use it as a back in his statement. I had read something similar about the compounds concerning the basic origins of life. So I dug out the book I read this from (less than twenty-four hours after I posted in this thread) It's titled What is your Dangerous Idea? Edited by John Brockman. The book is basically a collaborative text written by a bunch of "leading scientific minds" about what their "most dangerous ideas" are. Which I must say is very fascinating, because it not only shows what most of them are working on, but it also points a finger towards where these potential Frankensteins might lead. The following I quote from one of the scientists (Robert Shapiro) in the book. (upon closer inspection I've found he is a ...senior research scientist in the Department of Chemistry ) QUOTE "1953... ...Stanley Miller... ...demonstrated that a mixture of small organic molecules (monomers) could readily be prepared by exposing a mixture of simple gases to an electrical spark. Similar compounds were found in meteorites, which suggested that organic monomers may be widely distributed in the universe... ...James Watson and Francis Crick. They demonstrated that the heredity of living organisms was stored in a very large molecule called DNA. DNA is a polymer, a substance made by stringing many smaller units together as links are joined to form a long chain... ... the geometrical beauty of the DNA double helix, led many scientists to consider it the essence of life itself. One flaw, however, spoiled this picture: DNA could store information, but it could not reproduce itself without the assistance of proteins, a different type of polymer. Proteins are also adept at catalyzing many other chemical reactions considered necessary for life... ...Which came first: DNA or proteins? An apparent answer emerged when it was found that another polymer, RNA (a cousin of DNA), could manage both heredity and catalysis. In 1986, Walter Gilbert proposed that life began in an RNA world-that is, when an RNA molecule that could copy itself was formed, by chance, in a pool of its own building blocks. Unfortunately, a half century of chemical experiments have demonstrated that nature has no inclination to prepare RNA, or even the building blocks (nucleotides) that must be linked together to form it..."
After quoting the text I realized (coming from a non-scientific perspective) how I had assumed RNA was a protein based compound, my intent was not to stray away from actuality it was simply a mistake on my part and I apologize for the disinformation. Reading this with very little knowledge of the biological/scientific world the author Robert Shapiro summed up quite a bit how the foundations of RNA and DNA work in lamens terms. Thanks, Hope this has been insightful. Please expand on this I'm rather interested. Dancin' Coyote
--------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced form of magick will appear indistinguishable from science"
|
|
|
|
|
| Petrus |
Mar 3 2009, 07:34 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 227
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 6 pts
|
QUOTE(Imperial Arts @ Feb 12 2009, 03:03 AM)
I believe there is an intimate, individual, and inherent intelligence that is not produced by the body, which guides the brain rather than is made or ruled by it. This is a matter for reason, for self-analysis, not for lab tests and dog-trick proofs. Let them who would proclaim themselves stooges of fate, robots and zombies devoid of spirit, come forward and dispute the power and presence of the soul.
This is very interesting, Imperial, as having now read your Open Journal, I remember at one point that you wrote that you were doubtful of the idea of a soul. Was it the Goetia who provided you with sufficient evidence to change your mind on the idea, or other observations among humans? At any rate, for someone who is as cautious in these areas as yourself, to come down on the side of the existence of a soul does, I feel, at least give strong encouragement to the concept's validity.
--------------------
Magical Evocation. All the fun of train surfing, without having to leave the house.
|
|
|
|
|
| Imperial Arts |
Mar 3 2009, 11:47 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 307
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Las Vegas
Reputation: 18 pts
|
It is true that for most of my life I have alternated between abject disbelief in the soul, or doubt in its existence. Doubt is the more modest approach, in all things, than disbelief, and there is the fundamental difference between the pure scientist and the Atheist or Skeptic for whom doubt is synonymous with certainty in contrary positions.
I was never very keen on the idea of soul-searching, whether to find my own soul or that of others. I simply didn't need it, and certainly this hands-off approach guides me even now. By my estimate, most of the phenomena that might be attributed to the supernatural are perfectly natural. Out of body travel, apparitions of spirits, casting of spells, messages from the dead, and related subjects, can be ascribed to natural principles. On the whole these principles, or laws of you prefer, are obscure and ill-studied among the hard science fields, but it appears that they are all in some way entirely dependent on the physical universe and its ordinary rules and components for their existence and activity.
While it may seem to validate the existence of the soul for one to experience out-of-body consciousness, it may be little more than an awesome demonstration of the extent to which the brain can interact with its environment to produce stimulus responses from apparently remote sources. If there is some sort of vital energy to living things that can be seen, felt, or measured, even if only by esoteric measures, then this is only yet another part of what would otherwise be classified among gases and liquids if only it were better-known. Interesting as the various occult phenomena may be, they are no more the soul or spirit than lightning strikes are the fingers of the gods.
For this reason I never found it necessary to put faith in the existence of the soul despite having first-hand experience in the occult and corroborative testimony from others. I still feel that the concept of "spirit" is misappropriated in many cases to other factors which are purely material. I also find it inappropriate to discuss the matter in terms of "having" a soul whereunto one would supposedly have responsibilities. I am more inclined to think of the soul as the source of our ability to make independent decisions, and in that capacity it is wholly immaterial, consisting neither of energy nor substance measurable or observable by any material means. It is supernatural, and all creatures possessing such a will (it is not for me to speculate as to which do or do not!) are likewise animated by this indwelling power.
The idea of the soul as Absolute Thought is mentioned briefly among the lectures by Spirit #20, and by the familiar spirit thus bestowed, in the Imperial Arts Volume One. I am loathe to adopt any line of thought outright if it originates with these spirits, but the spirit gives the framework for understanding the will or soul as the Absolute Thought behind the brain-thoughts.
This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Mar 4 2009, 01:10 AM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| Insight Out |
Mar 6 2009, 05:34 PM
|
Initiate
Posts: 6
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: none
|
It's funny you mention that Ron, I was thinking of something along the same lines. After all, E = mc^2. Energy has a mass component and mass has an energetic component. If energy didn't have a mass like component, then dense matter wouldn't have a mass.
as for the main conversation, because of the nature of consciousness, we can't prove anything in the world around us is actually 'real'. All we know for sure is that we receive sensory information that our brain translates into sights, sounds, feelings, etc. Somewhere in our heads is an invisible observer watching what happens and deciding what to do next. Matrix reality, anyone? How can it be disproven?
|
|
|
|
|
| Petrus |
Mar 21 2009, 12:57 AM
|
Zelator
Posts: 227
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: 6 pts
|
Einstein on Aether:- http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einst..._Relativity.htmThis is a little tricky to follow, but it's interesting stuff. "Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium. But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space �Ether�; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real." This post has been edited by Petrus: Mar 21 2009, 01:00 AM
--------------------
Magical Evocation. All the fun of train surfing, without having to leave the house.
|
|
|
|
|
| Philalethes |
Mar 24 2009, 03:33 AM
|
Initiate
Posts: 7
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Florida
Reputation: none
|
what's apparent to the many, physical sensory? When one delves into somthing beyond the physical, the Occult or Esoteric aspect of the obvious superficial shell, the exoteric. The electrons spin about the protons/neutrons in variations which group together into elements, of which all the apparent reality is composed. Those same supposed particles of which lie below our set alignment of focus in light gathering sight, we use and discard, and supply with ingestion of new animal and plant matter to blossom and unfold our vehicle of use upon this plane, until we whither physically.
Just as in the past collective belief, when many thought the earth was flat, many have not traveled the outer reaches, yet on the deep sea the slight curve is seen taking in the complete horizon, the moon indicates a sphere in shadow, from the minute to the great revolves the great circle, as above so below, as below so above.
The guidlines of practical application given by those who have tread the Path before, if applied with sincere intent and devotion on a consistant basis will yield the results required for provisional faith to be transmutated into knowledge of the surface and a glimmer within, yet we all must conduct such as a scientific experiment and we are the quality control, that is the main of purification and preparation before approaching the greater questions, or methods brought to us by those who have lived and thought before, leaving there thoughts to guide those inclined to such.
Are you a minute bit of atoms collected into a body, a mere circumstantial mixture of chemicals that appear to express emotion, the fact that some can think of their thoughts, know that they know, contemplate what they physically analyze and arrive at "new" theories that were expounded thousands of years prior by esoteric scientints that recognized that this finite transitory reality was but a gross reflection as the light of the sun off the moon, as the odor from the rose, the heat from the ember, the light rays from the sun or any star, are but vibrations originating from a source.
There is nothing permanent but change, and that goes for our conception of reality, it seems that there are poles with extremes, and the middle is the harmonious path, between the black and white pillars we may rise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
Similar Topics
| Topic Title
| Replies
| Topic Starter
| Views
| Last Action
|
| Magickal Grimoires |
13 |
monkman418 |
15,462 |
Aug 17 2013, 04:37 PM
Last post by: Mchawi |
| Question About "modern Magick: 12 Lessons In The High Magickal Arts" |
2 |
Harkadenn |
10,170 |
Aug 14 2013, 04:53 PM
Last post by: Mchawi |
| Magickal and Non-Magickal cures for fibromyalgia |
3 |
Draw |
9,040 |
Oct 20 2012, 11:52 PM
Last post by: tiger |
| Manifesto Of The Magickal Order Gra |
0 |
teopiltzin |
6,779 |
Mar 24 2011, 06:14 PM
Last post by: teopiltzin |
| Magickal Perfume |
3 |
fatherjhon |
5,987 |
Jan 7 2011, 09:40 PM
Last post by: fatherjhon |
60 User(s) are reading this topic (60 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
