Copper Levels In Women (clipped From Earlier Post), And the value of References. Options

I would like to keep everything within the realm of known science. I would love to see a QUANTITATIVE (with math - that I can read) study which validates that men have more Iron in their "system" and that women have more "copper" in their system. Are we talking copper metal, copper compounds? cuprous oxides? ... and for iron - ferrous oxides? ferrous nitrate? ferrous sulfate? ... which chemicals are we talking about here. If we are going to bring science into the discussion we should CITE the document or literature which supports the claims being made. Second, if you are going to connect magic to science please do so with some grace and courtesy to scientists who are working exclusively in the boundaries of empiricism (i.e. none of this "women have more copper (unknown compound) than men, (how much more please provide statistics numbers charts graphs analysis of variance .... anything - in what part of the human anatomy or biology was this demonstrated ?? etc.) and this is why women are connected with or identified with Venus (the planet - the archetype - my roommates bunny named Venus ... what do you mean???) AND copper (obviously not a scientific conclusion). Please do not spout facts which have no basis in the literature.

666-Sirius-666

I would love to see a QUANTITATIVE (with math - that I can read) study which validates that men have more Iron in their "system" and that women have more "copper" in their system.

Women are more likely to have low iron levels. Female gerbils have more copper than males.

Not exactly what you asked for, but there doesn't seem to be much about this. Regardless, I agree with your general sentiment: there is far too much vagueness in the occult community, and if magic is connected to science, the posited connection ought to then be measurable.

On the other hand, I agree with the point Vagrant is making: if an object is associated with a ritual, the ritual most likely requires that object. (Edit: well, it appears he isn't quite making this point. I guess I am, then.) Magic differs from painting in that objective results are (apparently) obtainable - there will therefore be a way to measure if one method is more effective than another. There may actually be only one best way, Western cultural lens or not!

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Feb 6 2011, 02:54 AM

I would like to keep everything within the realm of known science. I would love to see a QUANTITATIVE (with math - that I can read) study which validates that men have more Iron in their "system" and that women have more "copper" in their system. Are we talking copper metal, copper compounds? cuprous oxides? ... and for iron - ferrous oxides? ferrous nitrate? ferrous sulfate? ... which chemicals are we talking about here. If we are going to bring science into the discussion we should CITE the document or literature which supports the claims being made. Second, if you are going to connect magic to science please do so with some grace and courtesy to scientists who are working exclusively in the boundaries of empiricism (i.e. none of this "women have more copper (unknown compound) than men, (how much more please provide statistics numbers charts graphs analysis of variance .... anything - in what part of the human anatomy or biology was this demonstrated ?? etc.) and this is why women are connected with or identified with Venus (the planet - the archetype - my roommates bunny named Venus ... what do you mean???) AND copper (obviously not a scientific conclusion). Please do not spout facts which have no basis in the literature.

666-Sirius-666

Are you serious? Copper compounds are connected to proper processing of estrogen and are critical to maintaining fertility. I shouldn't need to point to papers for this, it's taught as part of basic human physiology classes. Google it for endless amounts of information on both of those statements. I didn't make a scientific claim - I referenced traditional associations and reasons given for them as they apply to occult practices. No more explanation than that should be necessary, pay attention to context and read thoroughly, please.

Are you serious? Copper compounds are connected to proper processing of estrogen and are critical to maintaining fertility. I shouldn't need to point to papers for this, it's taught as part of basic human physiology classes. Google it for endless amounts of information on both of those statements. I didn't make a scientific claim - I referenced traditional associations and reasons given for them as they apply to occult practices. No more explanation than that should be necessary, pay attention to context and read thoroughly, please.

Vagrant, please produce something in the literature to establish the validity of your statements. In science, even the most basic formulae or concepts must be validated and revalidated empirically. If your statements regarding the concentrations of various materials human physiology are indeed not a fabrication (as I suspect they are) then you should be able to demonstrate their validity in the literature. Ex:

Are you serious? Copper compounds are connected to proper processing of estrogen and are critical to maintaining fertility. I shouldn't need to point to papers for this, it's taught as part of basic human physiology classes.

Yes I am serious. In your first quote you mentioned "copper" and now it is "copper compounds". What compounds ? A given compound might interact in a vastly different manner with the biology than compound B. Ex. Immunoglobulin-G (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_G) and Hemoglobin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin) are both "proteins" but have very different functions. One is an antibody and one binds to oxygen and transport it to cells the body. Second, what exactly do you mean by "processing" of estrogen. What is processing the estrogen, how is it being "processed" via these "copper compounds" to "maintain fertility".

If indeed you do produce a document which supports your claims then I will am more than happy read it and formulate an analysis as my understanding provides. Any claim that you make may be regarding the concentration of some compound in the physiology falls well within the bounds of science.

I didn't make a scientific claim

You did. You said women have more copper than men etc ... this is something that can be measured.

I referenced traditional associations and reasons given for them as they apply to occult practices. No more explanation than that should be necessary, pay attention to context and read thoroughly, please.

Science should stand in parallel with occultism so yes a scientific explanation is ENTIRELY necessary. If you have an idea and cannot provide a scientific explanation, then simply say so - leave it to the community to validate it. If you are talking about an experience, then describe your experience in a scientific way (as your abilities permit).

it's taught as part of basic human physiology classes.

Finally, I find this statement quite patronizing. Please, do not assume the span of my knowledge and please do speak with integrity as it demonstrates character.

There is too much invalidity in magick - and not enough fact checking. If we are to advance as a community, we should seek to embrace disciplines outside of that which indulges our fantasies. Furthermore, I would like to motivate the community towards a higher level of discussion which is coherent with the principles of science.

666-Sirius-666

(Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different thread as it deviates from the original topic of Necronomicon)

Vagrant, please produce something in the literature to establish the validity of your statements. In science, even the most basic formulae or concepts must be validated and revalidated empirically. If your statements regarding the concentrations of various materials human physiology are indeed not a fabrication (as I suspect they are) then you should be able to demonstrate their validity in the literature.

I will not. Doing so is the equivalent of offering 'something in the literature' to establish the validity of higher levels of testosterone in typical adult male physiology versus higher levels of estrogen in typical adult female physiology. I don't care whether you believe my statement or not, you would not have immediate access to any journal literature I might point to, and will refute the presence of this claim elsewhere on the ever-unreliable internet. Therefore, go ask a qualified medical professional, like any kind of blood, endocrine, or gynecological doctor. It won't cost you anything but a phone call. Feel free to come back and call me out afterwards if you find a doc who got a C in his physiology class. To be fair, it might be something more specialized than that. There was also a book written about the association of planets, metals, and some of the 'science' around it..... "The metal-planet relationship" by Nick Kollerstrom, which talks about all the planets and their metals.

Let's see, the copper compound is a protein called Ceruloplasmin, and in women its connected to oestrogen, not estrogen. Pardon, I'm not a doctor so this is all in laymen's terms for me. Go give a ring.

peace

Oestrogen and estrogen are exactly the same thing. Adding the 'O' at the beginning is a British spelling. It's not like 'its' (singular pronoun possessive) and 'it's' (a contraction for it is). Estrogens are a class of hormones, not just one, although Estradiol is the major one in humans. They tend to accelerate copper accumulation in the body; very rarely this may lead to toxicity. Men also make estrogens and women make testosterone, it's just the proportions are different in the sexes.

Men and women have roughly the same amount of copper and zinc in their bodies. Women need more during pregnancy and breastfeeding, but then, women need more nutrients across the board during pregnancy and breastfeeding, not just copper. Ceruloplasmin levels are elevated in various autoimmune diseases, primarily celiac disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Women do tend to get those more than men, but that's not the same as saying that ceruloplasmin levels are *always* elevated in women--just usually ones that happen to have RA or other AI diseases.

I looked around online and the only source I can find that states categorically that women have more copper than men is Dr. Lawrence Wilson. Most of the other sites regarding this subject parrot his information, and most of those are New Agey alternative health sites that are dubious at best. So, I placed a couple of phone calls to a couple of my docs. They told me the above information. BTW, my ob/gyn went to Yale, and my endocrinologist to Oxford. So...no offence, but I trust them over you, Vagrant. For future reference, it is wise to post your sources. You don't know what journals that people who read these posts have access to, so err on the side of caution next time and cite your references.

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 7 2011, 12:37 PM

Oestrogen and estrogen are exactly the same thing. Adding the 'O' at the beginning is a British spelling. It's not like 'its' (singular pronoun possessive) and 'it's' (a contraction for it is). Estrogens are a class of hormones, not just one, although Estradiol is the major one in humans. They tend to accelerate copper accumulation in the body; very rarely this may lead to toxicity. Men also make estrogens and women make testosterone, it's just the proportions are different in the sexes.

Men and women have roughly the same amount of copper and zinc in their bodies. Women need more during pregnancy and breastfeeding, but then, women need more nutrients across the board during pregnancy and breastfeeding, not just copper. Ceruloplasmin levels are elevated in various autoimmune diseases, primarily celiac disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Women do tend to get those more than men, but that's not the same as saying that ceruloplasmin levels are *always* elevated in women--just usually ones that happen to have RA or other AI diseases.

I looked around online and the only source I can find that states categorically that women have more copper than men is Dr. Lawrence Wilson. Most of the other sites regarding this subject parrot his information, and most of those are New Agey alternative health sites that are dubious at best. So, I placed a couple of phone calls to a couple of my docs. They told me the above information. BTW, my ob/gyn went to Yale, and my endocrinologist to Oxford. So...no offence, but I trust them over you, Vagrant. For future reference, it is wise to post your sources. You don't know what journals that people who read these posts have access to, so err on the side of caution next time and cite your references.

Darkmage - thank you for this very valuable and interesting information. It is great that to have this issue cleared up in a productive way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ! Vagrant - I strongly caution you against using an argument rooted in the physical sciences in order to back your magickal experience/beliefs unless you can validate your information. A serious student of the occult has enough difficulty with his or her studies; the last thing he or she needs is additional misinformation floating about.

666-Sirius-666

This post has been edited by sirius666: Feb 7 2011, 02:31 PM

Thanks for the detail about the variable spelling of estrogen - I read the word without the 'o' originally until I went back and read again, and assumed I was correcting my own misreading. I first heard this claimed during a physiology class during a discussion on trace minerals, from a nutrition standpoint.

My discussion with the doctor I treated today offered a different answer - that on average females maintain higher levels of ceruloplasmin, peaking under certain circumstances like pregnancy, but also around menstruation, specifically between 7-10 days prior. She's an endocrinology and genetics research doctor, not a medical practitioner. She went to Emory and teaches at UGA.

So, it sounds to me like there is some general disagreement on the subject among medical and scientific professionals. http://books.google.com/books?id=dWsv-_9RE...epage&q&f=false

and here: http://charles_w.tripod.com/copper2.html, referencing this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002...ULLTEXT_PDF_REG. The first page cites the article, I didn't care to subscribe to their journal to download the article.

So with minimal effort looking at "Ceruloplasmin ratios in men and women" and "Ceruloplasmin ratios in women", I found two references, one a peer reviewed article in the Ciba Foundation Symposium, a journal relating to biochemistry and medicine.

I can't vouch for the backgrounds of the scientists involved. But we've both managed to find references for and against in some fashion.

I'm gonna take the last several posts and clip out a new thread, this is way off topic.

peace

This is a post clipped from this conversation: http://www.sacred-magick.org/index.php?showtopic=8085&hl= continued here because it veered way off topic for that thread.

P.S. I moved it to fight club because I couldn't figure exactly where it should go, and we periodically dump the qlippoth and void content.

Well, here's the thing. Copper levels are elevated in women taking oral contraceptives and/or hormone replacement therapy. So, does that mean they're naturally that way, or is it a side effect of the medication? How many women are running around with undiagnosed autoimmune diseases? Quite a lot, in fact. I think it's safe to say that the jury is well and truly out on this issue and it's going to take a while to hammer out.

Disagreement among experts is more common than not. This is one aspect of science and medicine that a lot of people don't understand. A good deal of medicine is still trial and error--this is something that I have personally learned the hard way. :/ And my endo does research too, although given his habit of triple-booking patients (!) and waltzing in an hour late I wonder how much 'research' is him playing fantasy cricket or whatever the hell he does in his office when the patients and staff aren't around. :/ I have found, however, bringing my laptop instead of my DS is a very effective 'Summon Doctor' talisman. He has yet to be late when I bring my computer. Dunno why...

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 7 2011, 07:17 PM

Well, here's the thing. Copper levels are elevated in women taking oral contraceptives and/or hormone replacement therapy. So, does that mean they're naturally that way, or is it a side effect of the medication? How many women are running around with undiagnosed autoimmune diseases? Quite a lot, in fact. I think it's safe to say that the jury is well and truly out on this issue and it's going to take a while to hammer out.

I could speculate an origin of the assumption to be somewhere in the history of alchemical research, but without proper references I'd better not. Suffice it to say, the jury is out on a vast number of issues, some of which would seem blatantly obvious. I have six patients currently who received the proscribed surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome, each of which gained varying degrees of relief for between one week to three months, before the nerve pain began to return. I treated them with nerve mobilization and they have improved by 60-90% (some more like 60 currently, some closer to 80, using a 1-10 subjective pain scale and factoring in frequency of 'flare ups'). All of their doctors scoffed at the idea of going to a massage therapist, and referred them straight to a surgeon because 'early intervention is best'. They failed the diagnostics, failed the nerve conduction tests, so they were categorized under 'carpal tunnel syndrome' without any consideration for the actual working physiology of the nerves and the tissues surrounding them. The role of connective tissues in nerve pain is something that every doctor I have talked to about it is surprised to hear.

People are misdiagnosed constantly, suffer the consequences, and end up seeking some kind of alternative aid. People end up on a list of medications that literally create chronic pain in their bodies that was not there before, and sometimes these people are convinced that the pain will get -worse- if they try to drop some meds (by talking to their doctor about reducing their medications, not at my personal advice). With the seemingly haphazard way different doctors seem to treat the same conditions across the board, one begins to realize that the body is still largely a mystery; but you'll not often hear a doctor admit that, and the two doctors I work with in my practice I began a relationship with entirely because I heard them say "I don't know." I talk to a lot of doctors, both clients and local professionals, and you almost never hear them say it - even though there is more that we know we don't know, than there is which we know that we know.

Disagreement among experts is more common than not. This is one aspect of science and medicine that a lot of people don't understand. A good deal of medicine is still trial and error--this is something that I have personally learned the hard way. :/ And my endo does research too, although given his habit of triple-booking patients (!) and waltzing in an hour late I wonder how much 'research' is him playing fantasy cricket or whatever the hell he does in his office when the patients and staff aren't around. :/ I have found, however, bringing my laptop instead of my DS is a very effective 'Summon Doctor' talisman. He has yet to be late when I bring my computer. Dunno why...

haha, yeah, that's a variant of Murphy's law, I'm sure. My doctor friend is, I assume, genuinely doing labratory research, although she has grad students in her lab so she might well delegate if she's smart... but she's always ten minutes late so I doubt it. And if you take your computer, and wait, I bet he doesn't come out until you actually turn it on.

peace

(Okay I know, but it is a little bit funny.)

Actually I'm usually checking my mail when they call me back to take my vitals. There's an open network in his building, which probably violates every HIPAA law in the book, although it's not *his* network. I get five out of five bars for signal strength, though, so I'm not complaining. Whoever owns this network didn't even bother changing the default SSID from the router manufacturer's name. *facepalm* So I exploit their stupidity and watch Cats videos on YouTube and futz around on my forums while I'm waiting. The nurse practitioner or the doc has a knack for walking in right as I open up Battlezone in MAME, though. :eyeroll:

What you're describing IMO isn't as much a failure of Western medicine as it is a failure of the doctors to think outside the box. Most are extremely pressed for time, not only due to patient loads, but also to the inordinate amount of time they have to spend dealing with insurance companies. My allergist vented to me once about that--he said he went into medicine to heal people, not spend a third of his day filling out triplicate billing forms. :/ So...my own experience is with thyroid disease. My normal thyroid values (free T3, free T4) should be somewhere around 1.5-2x max normal range for me to *be* normal. I run at a speed that would sicken or outright kill most people. Who knows why. Anyway, my endo kicked me over to a bunch of different specialists to find out why I was still blown up at max normal (140lbs vs. 105lbs where I *should* be), only to be told, 'You need to learn how to read a CMP. We don't care where she is on the thyroid gauge, all of her secondary flags are tripping "hypo" and need to be corrected ASAP before she hits a wall.' Bear in mind the specialists automatically assumed I was hyper, not hypo, as my TSH is near zero due to pituitary failure. They had to look over ALL the blood work as well as perform a physical exam to realize I *wasn't* hyper, esp. since I started out with Graves' disease, flipped to Hashimoto's, and still have a witches' brew of thyroid autoantibodies circulating around. Secondary thyroid failure occurs less than 5% of the time, so it's fairly rare, and most docs will never see it. I'm an outlier, but the point was my doc had to *prove* I was a speshul snoflaik before he could treat me accordingly. I lost a lot of time because of this and it pisses me off, although I understand why he did what he did. However, while he was digging around, he found out that I actually had Schmidt's Syndrome although the jury is still out whether or not I have primary adrenal failure (Addison's) as the ACTH stim test says yes, but he never ran the steroid autoantibody test (21-hydroxylase) to confirm. I'm not making ACTH anyway so it's academic--the AI hypopituitarism was the extra prize in the Cracker Jack box. :/

I feel for your patients, I really do. Chronic pain complaints can get someone unfairly labeled a head case when that's often clearly NOT the case. I think most doctors don't want to admit when they're wrong because they're afraid of being sued, mainly. Besides, who *likes* to be wrong? Most docs have earned the right to be somewhat egotistical as most people don't have the ability to go through anywhere from 4-8 years of medical school after standard college. It's a blow to their egos to admit they could be wrong, and their livelihoods depend on certainty.

They call medicine 'practice' because Lord knows they still haven't gotten it right yet. :/ In fairness, though, we're making new discoveries every day. Stay tuned...

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 7 2011, 08:37 PM

See what happens when one overzealous science fanatic with a penchant for being right joins our midst? Not that he necessarily is right. Just that he would like to think he is.

Sirius, your coming in here and spouting off what you have, in the way that you have, is entirely idiotic. Just because you think you know a little about science does not mean that you have any right to act like you're the only one who knows what's what.

This is an esoteric discussion website. You are not only out of place, but you are being an ass.

See what happens when one overzealous science fanatic with a penchant for being right joins our midst? Not that he necessarily is right. Just that he would like to think he is.

Sirius, your coming in here and spouting off what you have, in the way that you have, is entirely idiotic. Just because you think you know a little about science does not mean that you have any right to act like you're the only one who knows what's what.

This is an esoteric discussion website. You are not only out of place, but you are being an ass.

We're also a public forum where everyone is entitled to their opinions and approach - I made a statement which I, having heard it in a class room (see how well that appears to work out for doctors, much less auditing auto-didactics!) I took to be a common knowledge previously verified and added to text books; when in fact there is a range of opinions and results showing for and against that statement. A good point was made, in general, about citing sources, and for that matter discovering whether or not a particular 'fact' is actually a fact and to what extent it is a fact. All facts are not created equal, and from month to month some facts change based on new research. The issue arises I think when we begin tying together the occult with the scientific - two subjects sometimes complimentary and sometimes at odds, depending on the tradition of each; and science is as much a matter of tradition as the occult. Where possible, if we want to look for the underlying connections, we have to balance experience and tradition with 'known' facts if we want to explore a scientific basis for occult logic, and that means digging into those 'facts' and figuring out whether those connections hold up.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion as well, especially in fight club.

peace

I just found the whole " ...are indeed not a fabrication (as I suspect they are) then you should be able to demonstrate their validity in the literature" bit to be rather dickish. In my opinion, this man seems to be asking for camaraderie between magick and science, while at the same time doing all he can to reject magick with the "traditions" of science.

Science and magick are NOT meant to coincide. Science is based on physical things. Tangible evidence. Magick is about faith and spirituality.

And furthermore, what is classified as magick is ONLY classified as such because science cannot explain it. Therefore, any argument involving magick and science is a moot issue.

I thought religion was about faith and spirituality. Magic is the bridge between religion and science--it steals from both while carving its own path.

You can achieve spiritual enlightenment without ever touching a spellbook, grimoire, or deck of Tarot cards, though you might have to read a Scripture or two. :/

How is magick a bridge between religion and science? Most people who practice magick don't follow a set religion. They just know that there is magick.

In a nutshell--science and magic follow procedures and natural laws. Control of effects is in the hands of the operator(s). Religion seeks to propitiate higher powers. Control of effects depends on the will of a higher power and the operator is now a supplicant that does not necessarily have any control over how their prayers turn out. In reality, these fields overlap considerably, particularly magic and religion.

Magic doesn't necessarily require faith to work. In its most basic form, it's similar to science in that if action X is performed, result Y will logically follow. Magic and science follow different sets of rules, but the methodologies are quite similar. Morality doesn't necessarily enter into this equation at all. If you can do something, there's no 'law' against it, although you might want to make sure your ass is covered because the Law of Unintended Consequences will inevitably come into play. Religion has a very strong moral bent and gives people sets of rules for living decent lives. Want to get into the Heaven of your choice? You'd best please whatever Gods you worship. Religion also defines our relationship to the Numinous, which is something magic and science have real problems with--and this is where faith comes into play. For example--magic can't explain what happens to you when you die, nor can science. Don't believe me? Conjure up a couple spirits and ask--their views are as varied on this as people's are. However, magic can indirectly lead to spiritual enlightenment just because of the preliminary work most people must do before they can get any results whatsoever. Religion and magic force people to look at themselves and their motivations and evaluate them. Magic also deals with intangible entities and states of being that cannot be measured by scientific instruments. Science deals with the material world (paranormal investigators try, but they're not often taken seriously) and the control and mastery of it.

In ancient times there was no distinction. Blame the Reformation for splitting magic, science, and religion apart.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 9 2011, 02:58 AM

]Magic also deals with intangible entities and states of being that cannot be measured by scientific instruments.

Cannot ever be measured, or cannot currently be measured? I think that science will eventually confirm anything that is real, almost by definition (it being a method for discerning the truth), so I would disagree with the former. (I also believe that there is nothing "beyond" the material world, only undiscovered forces and relationships. Something like the "astral plane" or "spiritual world" would represent a convenient category and not an actual division.)

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Feb 9 2011, 12:44 PM

Can they be currently measured? No. Might they be able to be measured in the future? Possibly. In the '50s people thought we'd be living like the Jetsons now. They had no concept of the rise of the Internet or cell phones, for example. Just because something isn't currently in existence doesn't mean it won't be invented sometime in the future.

There are things in the 'real' material world that science cannot measure--emotion comes to mind here. Does that mean emotions and feelings aren't real? What about the effects of experience? Does that mean they're not real, either?

Assuming that the 'material' world encompasses the subtle worlds that magic proposes to deal with is a major assumption. It might be true, of course, and hopefully time will tell on that. But it may also be that magic acts through a purely spiritual medium which is connected to the material world by consciousness alone - that there is no 'gradient' from material to spiritual but that there is a literal gulf between them. I suppose that without a sure knowledge either way, at this point it's a matter of placing bets, and that amounts to individual paradigms of magical cosmology.

I would also dispute personally that magic is necessarily about faith or spirituality, although it can be. My own magic involves a great deal of both, but your typical 'hedge witchery' and folk magic don't always - put some herbs and bones in this bag, say a rhyme, and put it in your neighbor's bushes, and your neighbor's cows won't produce milk (random traditional example with no bearing on any actual spell that I know of, but the principles are the clear). Magicians often choose to work within a paradigm that involves a pantheon or a deity, and there are various kinds of meditations and such that play into many of those paradigms. But conducting an experiment doesn't require faith - and in the case of magic like that the experiment is 'do x and y will be the result'; just as though you repeated a peer's experiment to reproduce their results.

So it seems to me that science is one way, religion is the other way, and magic can go either way. A bridge between the two? I think it can be a bridge, but isn't always. And sometimes magic is practiced in a way that has nothing to do with science at all - that doing such and such doesn't matter so much as the Deity's blessing which actually allows the effect to take place (or not depending on the 'will' of that deity). IN those cases, magic is really just a personal religion.

I will say that I believe that there are magical principles in operation in both the spiritual and physical worlds. Those principles present in the material world I think may well be explored by science one day. If the two worlds are separate but connected, then I believe that either 'science' as we practice it now will never really extend into that world, or that the science of tomorrow may rely on a different kind of method that is inclusive of the spiritual world in it's own way; not based on 'hard' facts, but on soft facts and principles that can be observed and applied but possibly never really understood.

peace

There are things in the 'real' material world that science cannot measure--emotion comes to mind here. Does that mean emotions and feelings aren't real? What about the effects of experience? Does that mean they're not real, either?

No; I don't think I implied that, either. Instead, what I would say is that these things will eventually be measurable. In fact, emotion already is, to some extent; you can monitor brain activity.

Assuming that the 'material' world encompasses the subtle worlds that magic proposes to deal with is a major assumption. It might be true, of course, and hopefully time will tell on that. But it may also be that magic acts through a purely spiritual medium which is connected to the material world by consciousness alone - that there is no 'gradient' from material to spiritual but that there is a literal gulf between them. I suppose that without a sure knowledge either way, at this point it's a matter of placing bets, and that amounts to individual paradigms of magical cosmology.

That's true; I just think the evidence lies more heavily on one side than the other.

Monitoring brain activity isn't the same as saying 'So and so is thinking about ice cream. $person happens to like strawberry best.' We know what consciousness is, but we have no idea how it works or even how to measure it with any degree of real accuracy.

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Feb 9 2011, 06:48 PM

Monitoring brain activity isn't the same as saying 'So and so is thinking about ice cream. $person happens to like strawberry best.' We know what consciousness is, but we have no idea how it works or even how to measure it with any degree of real accuracy.

Exactly. Vilhjalmr, you're assuming the materialists are correct, that brain=mind. Consider:
Someone has Alzheimer's. Their brain is damaged. Their mental functioning is impaired. Brain equals mind.
Someone recovers a past life experience, which is validated by physical evidence (see Sanderson's work). There is no way their brain could have obtained that information. Brain does not equal mind.
See the problem? We have two apparently contradictory sets of evidence. If both are valid then our concepts are incomplete and we can't make a valid theory of how brain/mind works.

Monitoring brain activity isn't the same as saying 'So and so is thinking about ice cream. $person happens to like strawberry best.' We know what consciousness is, but we have no idea how it works or even how to measure it with any degree of real accuracy.

what I would say is that these things will eventually be measurable. In fact, emotion already is, to some extent

Exactly. Vilhjalmr, you're assuming the materialists are correct, that brain=mind. Consider:
Someone has Alzheimer's. Their brain is damaged. Their mental functioning is impaired. Brain equals mind.
Someone recovers a past life experience, which is validated by physical evidence (see Sanderson's work). There is no way their brain could have obtained that information. Brain does not equal mind.
See the problem? We have two apparently contradictory sets of evidence. If both are valid then our concepts are incomplete and we can't make a valid theory of how brain/mind works.

That's a good point, but I have never seen any evidence that would indicate to me that brain != mind - so I do not have two contradictory sets of evidence. Sanderson is unknown to me, although I haven't Googled yet.

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Feb 9 2011, 09:38 PM

Ughh..... I leave a comment, and somebody argues their point. I get back online to respond to said argument and there are already so many other arguments which seemingly only open up to more argument that it's not even worth commenting on, except to say:

"Opinion has no place in debate."
and
"I hate logical fallacies."

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/gun2.gif)

lol this thread is very amusing