The IdeoSphere
July 29, 2010, 03:25:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: So, what's the future of this forum going to be?  We're discussing it in the top forum -- join and and give us your take.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: What results?  (Read 5466 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Isis
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2005, 05:49:00 AM »


And this goes well with the Lou Reed:
Mash-up of "Imagine" and "Walk on the Wild Side"

/quote]

Now that was good!
How did you know that Imagine was one of my other favorite songs?
Logged
jamadara
Guest
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2005, 10:44:53 AM »

Quote
Quote
Now it is not so that if you put a hundred people in a room to have sex, chances of conception increase through mass.
So why would chance of magical effects increase through mass?

It certainly would if the orgy had a 99:1 male-to-female ratio (ew).

A friend of mine (same friend who gave me the Shea book) pointed out that even if the ratio = 50/50, if the situation involved multiple partners, then the probability of conception would increase.

A magical circuit party, anyone?
Logged
anosognosia
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


[not to scale]


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2005, 01:25:59 PM »

A friend of mine (same friend who gave me the Shea book) pointed out that even if the ratio = 50/50, if the situation involved multiple partners, then the probability of conception would increase.

A magical circuit party, anyone?

If sexually transmitted diseases are venereal, would magically transmitted diseases be Ouranic?
Logged



Only this post (excepting any quotes) is under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
Please attibute to Zircephate the Anosognostic
jamadara
Guest
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2005, 02:37:52 PM »

If sexually transmitted diseases are venereal, would magically transmitted diseases be Ouranic?

Nice. How about *ethereal* diseases?
Logged
Telarus, KSC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2005, 03:57:55 PM »

You mean like monotheistic religions?
Logged
jamadara
Guest
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2005, 05:25:07 PM »

You mean like monotheistic religions?

Perhaps, but I would not normally feel inclined to employ the word _disease_, here, as I hold no quarrel with monotheism per se. It makes as much sense to me as pantheism, atheism, or any other such ism; just appeals to the One (unity) instead of the Many (multiplicity) or the None (nullity). Indeed, I have great respect for the religio-cultural changes that emerged/evolved during/from the Axial Period; quite an amazing, global phenomenon.

In my experience, mosbunall founders of monotheistic movements and mosbunall of the "sophisticated, educated theologians"[1] that have followed along with those movements have not shown symptoms of disease such as violent affirmations of faith in the idea that "my GOD is [sic] bigger, better, badder, and *truer* than your god(s)!" If anything, I suspect something else angry and intolerant uses monotheism—and any other host that can spread it while distracting the infected from coping with and healing their maladies (talk about sleight of mind)—as its carrier.

[1: From a recent interview with Richard Dawkins, called "The Atheist".

Quote
Slack: Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

Dawkins: It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States.

Interested parties can read the rest, here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/. I would like to go on record as saying that while I stand behind much of Dawkins' thesis in this interview, I do not support his use of the word _primitive_ as above (_retarded_, ok).]

Sorry for my big digression from the topic.
Logged
Telarus, KSC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2005, 05:50:05 PM »

No need to apologize ^_^

I got a distint vision of the VIRUS DOGMA infecting multiple HOST MEMEs. It was very vivid and in colour. Thanx!
Logged
Defenestrator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2005, 05:52:17 PM »


[1: From a recent interview with Richard Dawkins, called "The Atheist".

Quote
Slack: Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

Dawkins: It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States.


Interesting article -- I couldn't help thinking that Dawkins would regard mosbunall of us here as similary deluded -- I can't logically or scientifically prove that magic works, although that doesn't stop me from "believing" it works for me.

He also made the point that the current religious insanity is a feature of parts of the Middle East and the US, but not Europe and other parts of the world. I'm curious to hear from our non-US forum members what people in their countries think of the US these days -- does it appear that we've gone completely mad?
Logged
jamadara
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2005, 07:03:54 PM »

Interesting article -- I couldn't help thinking that Dawkins would regard mosbunall of us here as similary deluded [. . .]

Yep. Following him, Blackmore confirmed (and to a significant degree, *verified*) and explained our delusions with memetics! Funny how things work out.

My friend I mentioned above: one of the smartest, nicest guys I know. Working on his PhD in genetic anthropology. Or anthropological genetics. Or something like that. Turned me onto Dawkins, Blackmore, all kinds of good stuff. He thinks I am (sic) a fool for believing in magic. I think he is (sic) a fool for overlooking it (even if only as a big, important chunk of anthropology). The bigger difference between him and me: I suspect we are (sic) both right.

I do not find much conflict in reading, eg, both Blackmore and Carroll (or Dawkins and Eliade, or...), and trying to find truth in both; not just in their common ground (intersection), but also in their distinct perspectives and in their synthesis (union)—same thing I do with science-/magic, subject-/object, dreaming-/awakening, etc. I try to maintain a usefully exclusive sense of each's absolute position while maintaining a usefully inclusive sense of aspect ("the position of planets or stars with respect to one another held by astrologers to influence human affairs"—_Merriam-Webster_).

Reminds me of a favorite conjuration...

Quote from: Kurt Vonnegut title=The Sirens of Titan
Chrono-synclastic Infundibula—Just imagine that your Daddy is the smartest man who ever lived on Earth, and he knows everything there is to find out, and he is exactly right about everything, and he can prove he is right about everything. Now imagine another little child on some nice world a million light years away, and that little child's Daddy is the smartest man who ever lived on that nice world so far away. And he is just as smart and just as right as your Daddy is. Both Daddies are smart, and both Daddies are right.

Only if they ever met each other they would get into a terrible argument, because they wouldn't agree on anything. Now, you can say that your Daddy is right and the other little child's Daddy is wrong, but the Universe is an awfully big place. There is room enough for an awful lot of people to be right about things and still not agree.

The reason both Daddies can be right and still get into terrible fights is because there are so many different ways of being right. There are places in the Universe, though, where each Daddy could finally catch on to what the other Daddy was talking about. These places are where all the different kinds of truths fit together as nicely as the parts in your Daddy's solar watch. We call these places chronosynclastic infundibula.

The Solar System seems to be full of chrono-synclastic infundibula. There is one great big one we are sure ofthat likes to stay between Earth and Mars. We know about that one because an Earth man and his Earth dog ran right into it.

You might think it would be nice to go to a chrono-synclastic infundibulum and see all the different ways to be absolutely right, but it is a very dangerous thing to do. The poor man and his poor dog are scattered far and wide, not just through space, but through time, too.

Chrono (kroh-no) means time. Synclastic (sin-classtick) means curved toward the same side in all directions, like the skin of an orange. Infundibulum (infun-dib-u-lum) is what the ancient Romans like Julius Caesar and Nero called a funnel. If you don't know what a funnel is, get Mommy to show you one.

More digression. Oh, wicked, bad, naughty Zoot!
Logged
flibbertigibbet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2005, 09:19:58 PM »

dawkins has always turned me off because he wants everything to fit into his evolutionary theory.  yet i've never heard a decent explanation for how life emerged from chaos from any of the devout materialists.  they come off as much like zealots as any xian.  that said he does make some good points at times and i totally dig evolution/memetics etc, just not as the answer to everything.
Logged
Defenestrator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2005, 03:31:44 AM »

I did appreciate that Dawkins seems to have a genuine passion for life -- making the point several times about how lucky we are to be here at all, so stop wasting your life with b.s., etc. Some hardcore atheists come off as such depressing nihilists.
Logged
jamadara
Guest
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2005, 11:42:09 AM »

Re the article, I really liked how it ended:

Quote
Dawkins: In general, evolution is a blind process. That's why I called my book "The Blind Watchmaker." Evolution never looks to the future. It never governs what happens now on the basis on what will happen in the future in the way that human design undoubtedly does. But now it is possible to breed a new kind of pig, or chicken, which has such and such qualities. We may even have to pass that pig through a stage where it is actually less good at whatever we want to produce -- making long bacon racks or something -- but we can persist because we know it'll be worth it in the long run. That never happened in natural evolution; there was never a "let's temporarily get worse in order to get better, let's go down into the valley in order to get over to the other side and up onto the opposite mountain." So yes, I think it well may be that we're living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed.

I have added that to my collection of info/data dealing with some interplay of (space-)time binding, divination, sacrifice, realization of desire, and desire for realization. (That gets me back on track a little.)

I anticipate the re/cognition of an artificial (designed) intelligence <-> intelligent design (artifice) continuum, and I expect magic to play a significant part in it (behind the scenes?).
Logged
Isis
Guest
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2005, 11:55:57 AM »

Jamadara,

 
Quote
Right, then: so what's (sic) reachable with re to magic? That maybe all I have really asked here (critically, perhaps, but I feel no shame for that).


I like the question of what is reachable in magic.
What do I think?

Doing magic could be defined as any conscious decision to attempt or create deviation from the chance of something to occur random in favor to something to occur in the direction of a wished result.
With no other tool then mind and body.
In other words to cause a directed anomaly in a dynamics of causes, based on the observation
that these anomalies do belong to the possibilities, because they happen random or spontaneous.   
 
The wished result would be an intersection of mind [conscious/subconscious] with matter/or other minds or itself ,  (conception)  which immediate or with time ( pregnancy) leads to effects ( birth)

Now what we so far know is that what we call conscious has little effect in creating an anomaly alone.
So for an anomaly to occur we have to engage the subconscious as it seems not only to retrieve information from the environment , but also to insert information into it in a way that we could call subliminal. 
For that we need an interface that enables interaction of the conscious with the subconscious
and arouses ( Sex) it in such a way that it comes to an anomaly of the insertion of information into itself and/or  into the environment ( matter/other minds)  to such a degree that it causes intersection (conception).  In the wished outcome of the effects will be a correlation between the effect and the information inserted into itself or the environment, but the results are again indeterment.
We can however safely assume that those who will reach a higher occurrence of anomalies
are those who are disturbed and those who can disconnect from full conscious and can allows mindstates in which the subconscious contributes more then the conscious.
We also can safely assume that only the latter will create anomalies who’s effect are in favor of wished results.

Questions that still need to be answered is what makes intersection with the environment possible.
But I regard it as less important in the creation of anomaly and it’s success,  then the interface between conscious and subconscious.     
 
Now in this process of creating anomalies anything is possible from zero effect to mind-blowing surprises, but I wouldn’t necessarily attempt to move mountains with it, nor would I let perfectionism judge the results, or  look for proof through an attempt to clone results.

Concerning mass, I can imagine that a hundred very skilled magician can create a common abnomaly with an effect that leans toward a wished result, but not that a hundred people who try to create an anomaly with consciousness and belief alone will have any other effect then random occurance including the spontanious anomalies that occur too.
So they can be lucky, but not more then that.       
Logged
anosognosia
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


[not to scale]


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2005, 12:40:20 PM »

Jamadara,

 
Quote
Right, then: so what's (sic) reachable with re to magic? That maybe all I have really asked here (critically, perhaps, but I feel no shame for that).


Concerning mass, I can imagine that a hundred very skilled magician can create a common abnomaly with an effect that leans toward a wished result,

But doesn't this assume that each magician adds some amount of energy to overcome some inertia, and this assumpution puts a limit on what we can expect to achieve with a single magician. Stokastikos' formula suggests that the only advantage of having 100 magicians attempt a thing is that we have more chances for one of them might get things "just right," The idea being that one succesful enchantment is all it takes no matter the apparent size of the task.

I don't have enough experience with (intentional) group magic to offer an opinion on which better fits the results.

Anyone have any anecdotes or evidence suggesting one theory over the other? Could each just *be* a belief system?


Logged



Only this post (excepting any quotes) is under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
Please attibute to Zircephate the Anosognostic
flibbertigibbet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2005, 02:18:16 PM »

Stokastikos' formula suggests that the only advantage of having 100 magicians attempt a thing is that we have more chances for one of them might get things "just right," The idea being that one succesful enchantment is all it takes no matter the apparent size of the task.


this runs counter to my understanding of things.  take for instance consensus reality.  does the magic that holds this up come from the perfect action of one magician or the combined belief of billions of seemingly unaware participants?  to me the strongest magic comes from the combined belief of the many.  perhaps certain enchantments run counter to this, but in general, if enough people believe something it becomes not only possible but actual.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!