RE: Astrology

RE: Astrology (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:08:07 PM)
hold on ten seas, I am taking us all away from the false world and into minkowski space........... Whos the silly boy? Hah? You can wait.

Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:10:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, ass in the wind and the only chance you have to better it is stand on the hill, but ths problem is that you may be walking towards the lighning or away from it........isnt there something like that in the Havamal, Dustwad? But by dog (LOL) we must try...... quote: ORIGINAL: James Oliver Rigney, jr. (Robert Jordan) You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyway. While we happen to be touching on lightning... with such cheery chantys as these, how can I not love his writing: We rode on the winds of the rising storm, we ran to the sounds of thunder. We danced among the lighting bolts, and tore the world asunder. Health, al-Aswad.

mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:20:32 PM)
this............. is the sort of thing would make a fellow chang from sons-a-bitches to sons-a-norway-----------RIGHT HERE.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:55:44 PM)
No doubt, hippie, science has often been wrong. But there is an underlying premise that there are rules. scienceitists are quite open about the fact they are trying to figure them out, they make no claim to have already done so. But that they are there is the root of science. I am not saying that science says it can pick next weeks lottery numbers. I am saying that if Athiesm, as rationalised by science, is correct, an unbroken chain of causality will cause the numbers to be what they will be, and they can't be other. Aswad was exactly correct in saying that we seem to have free will, so it doesn't matter if its predetermiend or not. I am not making any sort of comment on how to live. Yes, live as if you have free will, of course. But in an Scientific Athiestic world free will can not exist.

Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 12:05:22 AM)
Hill, Knute. One of those days, eh? Guess it'd be pretty damn neat if there turned out to be any literal to the battle of the sons of light and the sons of darkness. Never mind redressing the matter of the broken Covenant; it would just be an unprecedented level of carnage. Hell, despite a few differences of faith, I'd rather stand with Angurvadel (if he found Uriel a tolerable general) than with a bunch of Saulian apologetics. Takes a bit to kick the old ticker into action, but the whole Ragnarok theme about does it, wouldn't you say? Reminds me of a third-hand recounting of a Russian squad encountering a minefield. No way back, no way ahead. And no way in hell is the man ordering anyone to die for him. «See you on the other side, comrades.» Bolted for the mine field, and the rest just follow on a line. If it had been deep, they'd not have made it through, of course. But it wasn't. The man got most of his men to safety, though he obviously didn't come along for the ride. Pursuers didn't have the balls to see the job done. Dulce et decorum, estne? Health, al-Aswad.

Alumbrado -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 9:49:58 AM)
quote: Morals, like faith, are arbitrary beliefs that cannot be substantiated by science, and which are inherently unfalsifiable. In light of that... what was wrong (or right, for that matter) about burning/drowning purported witches? Is it any different from all the other arbitrary reasons we will do such things for, really? As opposed to using science to detect them?[;)] Morals aside, the whole ducking pond, trial by ordeal, auto da fe thing was horribly inefficient, and the grandfather to today's voodoo science such as 'lie detectors'.

Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 11:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado As opposed to using science to detect them?[;)] Detect what? quote: Morals aside, the whole ducking pond, trial by ordeal, auto da fe thing was horribly inefficient, and the grandfather to today's voodoo science such as 'lie detectors'. Quite so. Health, al-Aswad fourth edit is the charm...

CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 11:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Just because it's predetermined doesn't mean we can't affect things, afterall.. it just means that we, too, are predetermined. It's not that we have no choice; it's that our choice and reality happen to coincide.. if I make any sense in saying this. Uh no - the boldfaced portion above is called a contradiction. Predetermined means exactly that, we have no effect because it is predetermined. Try as I might I cannot resist typing this scentence here. Or this next one... Oh god, please let me stop in your infinite mercy... please... I don't want to discuss this any more... please stop... you friggin' sadistic bastard... I bet you enjoyed torching Sodom too didn't you!... Something like that, only I would not know I was an automaton. Makes perfect sense, right? The problem with this sort of thinking is that you're going to have difficulty reconciling the patterned nature of reality with.. well, even itself. I'll grant you that it's a conceptual leap, but if decision is from you, and you're a set of chemical reactions with a predetermined outcome in a predetermined system (the universe), does it not seem to you that your decision, even if of your own free will, is also determined? Will, itself, is still a part of the universe and subject to predetermination.

Zensee -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 3:18:46 PM)
The mechanism of any given chemical / energy interaction is predictable. The result of any given interaction is not. If I strike a match in ideal conditions it has the predictable physical / chemical result of lighting. Whether I light a cigarette, a joint, birthday candles or a forest fire with it is not predicted by the chemicals in the match or in my head. Was the gust of wind which just extinguished the match also causally linked to this moment? Fifteen billion years ago, when the universe was nothing but subatomic particles, was a gust of wind was scheduled to blow out a match? What you call patterns in nature are more properly attractors, a vaguely related yet very different beasty from the pattern or template. Attractors describe the possible range of manifestations of an event but they, like the rest of nature, cannot predict a given event. minute changes in initial conditions, etc. etc. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 3:22:49 PM)
What are your thoughts, but chemical reactions in your head (actually entire nervous sytem, but can we just ues head as short hand)? IF your an athiest?

Zensee -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 3:32:30 PM)
As said previously, the chemical reactions in the brain are predictable at the molecular level but their results in real life are not. Besides, there are many other subtle, internal factors that determine brain function, not to mention the external factors effecting it. The chemistry in a given brain is not the only precondition for an action by the being possessed of that brain. The possibilities arising from a given set of preconditions, even in a relatively simple set, rapidly approaches incalculable. Z. PS: And the answer has nothing to do with one's religious beliefs.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 3:40:36 PM)
Zensee, the question isn't about whether we can actually predict it, but whether it occurs for scientific (predictable) reasons. We don't understand how chemical reactions in the brain create thought, but an athiest says it is a purley mechanical by-product of an evolving system. What other than the incompletely understood "rules of reality" ie science, could cause thoughts? Or could cause anything? As an Athiest. I am just slightly restating what Meat Cleaver and the rest of the Dawkins supporting athiests on these boards have been saying for some time. This is one of the Core Hard Cold Truths, that we with a belief in the divine, get accused of not being able to handle. Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster intervene in brains to seperate thier behavior from everything else in the Universe, giving free will?

Zensee -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 4:48:43 PM)
First off, I am not answerable for the statements of others or for your interpretation of the same. Secondly, you are not restating Dawkins, you are misstating him. The question you ask, by invoking predeterminism and by your admission of belief in deity, is whether a given event is predictable in any sense, not merely by humans. In the presence of an originating and controlling deity, the matter would be that deity's arbitrary choice - they make the rules. In the absence of such a deity, nature (not science) makes the rules. Science just attempts to describe them. Neither is the "cause" of particular outcomes in nature. For every manifest outcome there are a myriad of possible variations leading to the next generation of even more possibilities. Brain function enables thinking, it does not render pre-designed thoughts. Nature says that a particular compound of sulfur and phosphorus, exposed to heat and oxygen, will ignite. Nature does no it say that a man made concoction of those elements will be accumulate, at a given date and time, on the end of a cellulose stick and be used for purpose X by being Y. The absence of a controlling deity / force does not change this. Your assertion that science is predeterministic is neither supported by evidence nor does it follow logically from any observations you have made. Nor does it oblige scientific thought or nature to accept a deity or determinism in order to be lawful. That's the "cold hard truth". Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 5:06:46 PM)
I never said not implied that "does it oblige scientific thought or nature to accept a deity or determinism in order to be lawful. That's the "cold hard truth". In an athiestic world, nothing can be unlawfull(in the context of sceintific rules) Science does not make the rules, I already went through this. It attempts to quantify them. More importantly Sceintifc thinking has an underlying premise that everything (down to the thoughts in your head) is determined by those rules, regardless of whether we know them (yet) or are able to calculate ALL the variables. IF you can proove that wrong, you have busted my entire premise.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 5:08:42 PM)
Dawkins absolutly says there is nothing but the world of science, and life is just a part of the universe. Accidental and for no reason. He doesn't like to focus on the lack of free will part cause its a downer, but it absolutly follows.

Zensee -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 5:28:21 PM)
It does *not* follow that a universe run on natural law is deterministic, not by any definition of the term offered here. Science does not hold any such premise, expressed or implied, that natural law and processes "determine" the thoughts we have any more than a car manufacturer determines our many destinations, should we buy their car. There is simply no causal relationship between the two events. Remember this bit? - "The question you ask, by invoking predeterminism and by your admission of belief in deity, is whether a given event is predictable in any sense, not merely by humans." I repeat - the relults of natural law which you claim are deterministic, are not predictable IN ANY SENSE. Stop misquoting me. If you intend to use this line of thinking as a back door rationalisation for the presence of deity it won't fly. Z.

Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 8:27:17 PM)
May I suggest looking at Cellular Automata and the work done by Stephen Wolfram in that regard? One of the forwarded positions is that the interactional complexity of any sufficiently advanced entity (i.e. collection of CAs) is such that the most compact simulation is the entitiy itself, and that any simulation is effectively consubstantiate with the entity itself, thus rendering the point moot at a human level. Regardless, predetermination remains a red herring. Health, al-Aswad.

CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 8:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee The mechanism of any given chemical / energy interaction is predictable. The result of any given interaction is not. If I strike a match in ideal conditions it has the predictable physical / chemical result of lighting. Whether I light a cigarette, a joint, birthday candles or a forest fire with it is not predicted by the chemicals in the match or in my head. Was the gust of wind which just extinguished the match also causally linked to this moment? Fifteen billion years ago, when the universe was nothing but subatomic particles, was a gust of wind was scheduled to blow out a match? Yes. To have ignored the wind as part of the system is to have mutilated the system. The wind was predetermined, so its interaction was also. It's important to point out that predetermination and able-to-be-perfectly-determined-by-humans are two very different things.

Arpig -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 8:53:07 PM)
astrology is bullshit, and anybody who truely believes in it is a fool.

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/16/2008 9:03:31 PM)
But I didn't ask that question Zen. Able to predict by humans does not have any bearing on Natural law, which governs everything, in an Athiestic paradigm. As I have asked many times feel free to give anything that would override it. In any siutation. Obviously the simpler the event the easier it is to predict. The car doesn't do anything with out a driver....the Body does nothing with out a brain. The car does what the driver tells it to. What does the brain do? What its operations tell it to. and the operations function according to natural law. This isn't a backdoor proof of God. Admiting I am right, in no way leads to a gotcha. And you are lying about the definitions, I gave one of Determinism pages ago.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875