astrology and quantum entanglement

[theobserver]

I read them.



If it fails the simplest tests, what use is it?

Can you show that astrology works in any way at all?

That reply says you haven't read it properly. Didn't i mentioned very clearly that if the subject is aware of the fact that he/she is being observed, it changes their natural behavior? Didn't i mentioned that it cannot be proved unless x amt of people(under certain conditions) observe a same group of subjects belonging to a particular zodiac whom they know personally without even giving a hint that they are being observed? Didn't i mentioned that every time i was forced to observe, i got the results wrong and every time i did it casually within my comfort zone and with the awareness that I am not being observed, i got it right. Not once or twice. I repeated it for years. I can proudly say that am a bigger skeptic than most people I have ever met. But I don't let my skepticism blind me from reality by subscribing to an existing set of theories and tests. I test things all over again under various situations.

Tell me James, If am being honest in whatever I typed above and I did in fact observed such conditions as I stated, what does all these point towards?

Like I mentioned earlier, there are things in this nature which cannot be proved as per the narrow standards of science. There are a lot more such weird things in this nature which cannot be understood without first hand experience and observation.

 

[theobserver]

Natural processes of reality.

Please be kind enough to put it in scientific terms since you have claimed that science knows everything. I would say science is still in darkness about way too many things in this nature.

It can't handle thoughts? You'll have to clarify what you mean. As far as artificial life is concerned, I'll speculate that eventually humans will be able to make it.

What exactly happens inside our brain which are responsible for cognitive capabilities in humans?

What's "it"? Human claims for the existence of weird things?

Not all. Many of those fields have a small portion of truth in it. People often overlook that due to the major part being bs.

I don't know? If by psychological problems you are referring to claims/beliefs in the existence of weird things then those aren't psychological problems. They are components of natural human behavior.

Compare the list of characteristics listed as a disorder from 18th century till now and see how the list has grown.


Science has answers for everything that can be observed in the physical world. Scientists have uncovered a lot of things over the past century. I agree with all those. But they still have absolutely no clue about what causes life, what causes thoughts, what contributes to human character(still no proof to existing theories without a certain amount of speculation). That is something that questions the credibility of science and its existing set of methods in uncovering such easily observable factors in everyday life.

Most humans have an inclination towards buying popular theories which are not yet proven and convincing themselves that its all facts. And then they go on about arguing based on their own convictions. If you check with any scientist who has done any such studies, they will never dare to claim that many of what you believe as true or proven is actually proven.

Consider every single report on any of these character studies done in the past and read it a few times and see where all they might have made a mistake if humans have an extra component than genetics(hardware) and nurture(database). You would see my point then.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Please be kind enough to put it in scientific terms...

Energy is transferred to adaptable systems that collect energy in dynamic environments and persist.

...since you have claimed that science knows everything.

You'll have to show me where I said that because I don't think that's true.

I would say science is still in darkness about way too many things in this nature.

I agree. But if you value truth it's better to say "I don't know" than fill in that gap with fantasy.

What exactly happens inside our brain which are responsible for cognitive capabilities in humans?

Great question. Some of the answer is known and is found in neuroscience. It may take a bit of effort to work your way to the latest and greatest developments but I suspect youll find some very enlightening information.

Not all. Many of those fields have a small portion of truth in it. People often overlook that due to the major part being bs.

"Those fields"? You lost me there.

Compare the list of characteristics listed as a disorder from 18th century till now and see how the list has grown.

You mean real mental illness then like schizoprenia, autism, phobias, etc? In that case, yep the list has grown.

Science has answers for everything that can be observed in the physical world. Scientists have uncovered a lot of things over the past century. I agree with all those. But they still have absolutely no clue about what causes life, what causes thoughts, what contributes to human character(still no proof to existing theories without a certain amount of speculation).

That's not a true statement. Science has uncovered quite a bit about what causes live on Earth. A simple biology course should uncover some of that mystery. If you mean how life started on Earth (which is a different concept then we don't know definitively yet). Regarding thoughts and human character, there is alot of information about them that has been uncovered in various biological sciences. And of course there are theories built on top of that as well. I don't think we're quite in the dark ages that you appear to think we're in, but regardless what does it matter if science doesn't have all the answers? Do you feel the urge to plug any gaps with your imagination?

That is something that questions the credibility of science and its existing set of methods in uncovering such easily observable factors in everyday life.

I see, in your mind science becomes less credible if it can't answer all your questions at this very moment? What you are experiencing is another psychological phenomena of humans where it's better to have an answer than say "I don't know" as the former is much more valuable (credible) than the ladder.

I was once discussing science on an Islamic forum with a moderator. She asked me if I knew how life on Earth started. I said "no". She said "Ha!!". Her gap filler was far more valuable to her than the empty void I presented.

Most humans have an inclination towards buying popular theories which are not yet proven and convincing themselves that its all facts. And then they go on about arguing based on their own convictions. If you check with any scientist who has done any such studies, they will never dare to claim that many of what you believe as true or proven is actually proven.

Can you list some of those popular theories you are speaking of?

Consider every single report on any of these character studies done in the past and read it a few times and see where all they might have made a mistake if humans have an extra component than genetics(hardware) and nurture(database). You would see my point then.

I would say you should put hidden cameras in an area where people are socially active. Record their behaviors, review the tapes, and guess their signs. Then have other astrologers do the same using the same tapes. If you guess correctly then you're well on your way to becoming an important, rich, and popular guy throughout the world.

 

[theobserver]

Energy is transferred to adaptable systems that collect energy in dynamic environments and persist.

Does that mean life is energy? like electricity? How does it get transferred when it comes to life??

I agree. But if you value truth it's better to say "I don't know" than fill in that gap with fantasy.

Well... i used to say that. till someday i got tired asking questions to people who couldn't handle my curiosity. So i started off digging on my own. I was and still am a skeptic. But i don't try to delude myself into believing something is not true after finding it and proving it to be true because everyone else believes so. Trouble is that many of them cannot be proved to another person within the existing methods of science by writing a book or taking a documentary(at least that's what i feel till now). That's why i mentioned it can only be observed by first hand experience. Take it like an example of pain. You can tell people how much it hurts but will never be able to let someone else know exactly how it feels. That's due to the limitations of language. Human language cannot translate the entire set of brain signals at any given point of time. Most of it are lost in translation.

Great question. Some of the answer is known and is found in neuroscience. It may take a bit of effort to work your way to the latest and greatest developments but I suspect youll find some very enlightening information.

Nothing much interesting yet. Its still about the brain hardware and its functionality.

"Those fields"? You lost me there.

Many fields considered pseudoscience.

Regarding thoughts and human character, there is alot of information about them that has been uncovered in various biological sciences. And of course there are theories built on top of that as well. I don't think we're quite in the dark ages that you appear to think we're in, but regardless what does it matter if science doesn't have all the answers? Do you feel the urge to plug any gaps with your imagination?

Definitely not interested in making myself look ridiculous in a long term basis. But for a few decades, i would be more than willing to be labeled as a nut case. The uncovered information are still based on biological factors. Science has been spending so much of time to link these physical factors with human character but still haven't got a sure footing. Its still dancing with a few theories on the surface with the basis of those uncovered biological facts which matches human understanding of human behavior.

I see, in your mind science becomes less credible if it can't answer all your questions at this very moment? What you are experiencing is another psychological phenomena of humans where it's better to have an answer than say "I don't know" as the former is much more valuable (credible) than the ladder.

Science became less credible? No. Definitely No. But the people who consider themselves as men of science by practicing science with a bigoted mentality sure pushes my button. It was meant to be open to ideas in the first place. It slowly became a field for becoming rich and famous. It became - for mankind than for nature. There is a huge difference when we begin to perceive things for the advantage of mankind. We were always biased in that respect if you can see the history of science.

I would say you should put hidden cameras in an area where people are socially active. Record their behaviors, review the tapes, and guess their signs. Then have other astrologers do the same using the same tapes. If you guess correctly then you're well on your way to becoming an important, rich, and popular guy throughout the world.

I am not an astrologer or trying to be rich. I don't like that idea of being rich anymore. I am an artist and a photographer. May be you are aware of the fact that filmmakers observe people more closely than scientists. That's all we see and wonder about. There is a huge difference in taking candid shots and asking someone to pose for a picture. Both gives totally different set of gestures and facial patterns. If you are searching for basic simple proofs to make small time comparisons, I can recommend some movies and some instances.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Does that mean life is energy? like electricity?

Maybe this will help. Something that is alive is an adaptable system (made up of both compressed and uncompressed energy) that collects various forms of compressed and uncompressed energy.

How does it get transferred when it comes to life??

The question is confused. Something doesn't "come to life". A really oversimplified example of how this works is: sunlight (energy) is collected by plants. Plants (energy) are collected by animals. Animals (energy) are collected by other animals. As a result of collecting energy, plants and animals persist. Eventually the wear and tear of entropy will kick in and death will be a result so the plants and animals reproduce (long term persistence). In this whole scenario, nothing ever "comes to life". It's a steady stream without breaks. If this is all new to you, then there are some great biology and ecology classes that are out there.

Well... i used to say that. till someday i got tired asking questions to people who couldn't handle my curiosity. So i started off digging on my own. I was and still am a skeptic. But i don't try to delude myself into believing something is not true after finding it and proving it to be true because everyone else believes so. Trouble is that many of them cannot be proved to another person within the existing methods of science by writing a book or taking a documentary(at least that's what i feel till now). That's why i mentioned it can only be observed by first hand experience. Take it like an example of pain. You can tell people how much it hurts but will never be able to let someone else know exactly how it feels. That's due to the limitations of language. Human language cannot translate the entire set of brain signals at any given point of time. Most of it are lost in translation.

It's a bad anology. Pain is measurable and has an observable affect on people that is consistent and non-contradictory. It can also consequently be controlled. When there is a phenomenon which only you experience but doesn't have any effects that can be observed otherwise then that is the tell-tale sign that the phenomenon is strictly localized to your mind and if you think that it's really external then your mind as essentially duped you (which is normal). While a subjective experience of one person cannot be fully communicated to another, that may again only be a matter of time before we can record, replay, or even share in real-time subjective experiences.

Nothing much interesting yet. Its still about the brain hardware and its functionality.

Ooh that tells me you're not up to date. You would be amazed... little things like predicting people's preferences with 80%+ accuracy, pinpointing where someone is in a spatial geography (just by looking at their brain), and teaching bio-mechanical hybrids to fly an land planes in simulators. And that's just the surface of it.

Many fields considered pseudoscience.

I see. Well astrology is always going to be one of those fields... at least until it becomes too embrarrasing astrologers to exists.

Definitely not interested in making myself look ridiculous in a long term basis. But for a few decades, i would be more than willing to be labeled as a nut case. The uncovered information are still based on biological factors. Science has been spending so much of time to link these physical factors with human character but still haven't got a sure footing. Its still dancing with a few theories on the surface with the basis of those uncovered biological facts which matches human understanding of human behavior.

I think you're in for a few decades of being a nut case then .

Science became less credible? No. Definitely No. But the people who consider themselves as men of science by practicing science with a bigoted mentality sure pushes my button. It was meant to be open to ideas in the first place. It slowly became a field for becoming rich and famous. It became - for mankind than for nature. There is a huge difference when we begin to perceive things for the advantage of mankind. We were always biased in that respect if you can see the history of science.

There is always going to be bais "for mankind" in science. In fact the very understanding of reality is "for mankind". Science is still very open to ideas; however, those ideas it is open to are far more constrained then what was found in say the dark ages. The reason is that with the practice of science comes truth and if a collection of truth constrains ideas (after all you don't want to consider some idea that clearly reality disasgrees with).

I am not an astrologer or trying to be rich. I don't like that idea of being rich anymore. I am an artist and a photographer. May be you are aware of the fact that filmmakers observe people more closely than scientists. That's all we see and wonder about. There is a huge difference in taking candid shots and asking someone to pose for a picture. Both gives totally different set of gestures and facial patterns. If you are searching for basic simple proofs to make small time comparisons, I can recommend some movies and some instances.

I don't know, if I were going to spend a couple of decades in the "nut" category, the very least I would be after is evidence.

 

[theobserver]

The question is confused. Something doesn't "come to life".

I said "when it comes to life". means when it comes to the idea of life. Not abt something coming to life.

It's a bad anology. Pain is measurable and has an observable affect on people that is consistent and non-contradictory. It can also consequently be controlled. When there is a phenomenon which only you experience but doesn't have any effects that can be observed otherwise then that is the tell-tale sign that the phenomenon is strictly localized to your mind and if you think that it's really external then your mind as essentially duped you (which is normal). While a subjective experience of one person cannot be fully communicated to another, that may again only be a matter of time before we can record, replay, or even share in real-time subjective experiences.

I am not talking about physical pain. Its emotional pain. Basically there is no pain. Its brain which triggers the entire sequence and makes you feel pain. Even in cases of physical pain, its brain which lets you feel the pain. Phenomenon which is localized sure has effects. That's whats called behavior. But by the time it surfaces, it utilities a huge amount of information it gathered during its existence - nurture. Its presented in social format than in its natural ways due to social conditioning all his life. There could have been billions of calculations before the final set of gestures or words are produced within fraction of seconds. But where does it originated from? Under what protocols does it get calculated. What was the manner in which it picked words and used it to communicate? Why the gestures happened the way it happened and not like someone else? Everything fits in perfectly and makes logical sense when you place an unknown component between genetics and nurture.

You can have a thought experiment by yourself and see if it makes sense. Without that anything you reject would be because of prejudice or faith in existing theories of science. Try to add an unexplained operating system for your brain. You have your hardware - genetics, you have an operating system - code unknown but its different for each people, then you collect ur database - nurture. Try to see everyone around you with that idea and see if what they do makes sense. The way people learn are based on how their OS works. The way people arrange their database and communicate are also based on their OS. So people with similar OS will find it easy to get along with each other because they understand each other without any scientific base. people with similar OS and conflicting database would have troubles agreeing with each others unless they care to examine each others ideas without fighting. People with different OS would always have issues understanding each other and would be always be misunderstood. Same reason why kids often feel that their parents dont understand them properly but someone else in their family does. Same reason behind how we end up making friends with certain type of people. Same what we call chemistry between two people. Same reason why we have relationship issues(most people keep the ones they get along well as their friends and chase someone whom they dont understand for the role of partner). Same reason why some people piss each others off in forums.

Flying is a technically process. You don't use ur brain and body to balance yourself.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I said "when it comes to life". means when it comes to the idea of life. Not abt something coming to life.

I see. In that case the simplified example that as presented explains it.

I am not talking about physical pain. Its emotional pain. Basically there is no pain. Its brain which triggers the entire sequence and makes you feel pain. Even in cases of physical pain, its brain which lets you feel the pain.

Ok; however, everything I stated about pain applies to emotional pain as well.

Phenomenon which is localized sure has effects. That's whats called behavior. But by the time it surfaces, it utilities a huge amount of information it gathered during its existence - nurture.

Sorry, I miscommunicated something. What I should have said is:

"When there is an EXTERNAL phenomenon which only you experience but doesn't have any effects that can be observed otherwise then that is the tell-tale sign that the phenomenon is strictly localized to your mind "

Its presented in social format than in its natural ways due to social conditioning all his life. There could have been billions of calculations before the final set of gestures or words are produced within fraction of seconds. But where does it originated from? Under what protocols does it get calculated. What was the manner in which it picked words and used it to communicate? Why the gestures happened the way it happened and not like someone else? Everything fits in perfectly and makes logical sense when you place an unknown component between genetics and nurture.

Many of those questions are already answered or being addressed by neuroscience. I don't think that gap you are perceiving really exists; however, maybe what your looking for is what underlies genetics and nurture. The answer of course would be physics.

You can have a thought experiment by yourself and see if it makes sense. Without that anything you reject would be because of prejudice or faith in existing theories of science. Try to add an unexplained operating system for your brain. You have your hardware - genetics, you have an operating system - code unknown but its different for each people, then you collect ur database - nurture. Try to see everyone around you with that idea and see if what they do makes sense. The way people learn are based on how their OS works. The way people arrange their database and communicate are also based on their OS. So people with similar OS will find it easy to get along with each other because they understand each other without any scientific base. people with similar OS and conflicting database would have troubles agreeing with each others unless they care to examine each others ideas without fighting. People with different OS would always have issues understanding each other and would be always be misunderstood. Same reason why kids often feel that their parents dont understand them properly but someone else in their family does. Same reason behind how we end up making friends with certain type of people. Same what we call chemistry between two people. Same reason why we have relationship issues(most people keep the ones they get along well as their friends and chase someone whom they dont understand for the role of partner). Same reason why some people piss each others off in forums.

Flying is a technically process. You don't use ur brain and body to balance yourself.

I can entertain viewing things that way but it doesn't make any sense. A big flaw starts off in the euating of specific computer components with specific biological ones:

hardware - genetics
operating system - code unknown
database - nurture

I see things (using a computer anology) very differently:

hardware - genetics
software - genetics
properties - genetics
property adjustments - nurture
database - brain

One big difference of course is what we are assigning to nurture. The reason I assign property adjustments to nurture is because that's exactly what it does. Our genes are turned on an off like light switches via epigenetic markers. Nurture determines what epigenetic markers are turned on and off and gene activation / deactivation drastically alters our behavior.

Another big difference is that you are assigning operating system to an unknown source whereas I am assining all software (any potential OS included) to genetics. This is because our body's processes is controlled by DNA and RNA and that for all intents and purposes is the software for biological life on Earth.

 

[theobserver]

"When there is an EXTERNAL phenomenon which only you experience but doesn't have any effects that can be observed otherwise then that is the tell-tale sign that the phenomenon is strictly localized to your mind "

True. It can be pure delusional thinking as per our current understanding of system. That's how we socially condition people to believe that everything they feel is nonsense. May be none of you felt and keep feeling are part of your self delusional mechanism; instead the amount of knowledge you gathered over time to get your own brain to reject everything it feels the natural way could be the delusional factor. May be everything you feel is more accurate and natural than everything you think you are doing. Ever cared to examine the difference between a feeling and thinking. Under what circumstances do we use them? Which helps us survive? Can we survive without thinking the way we think we are thinking?

Many of those questions are already answered or being addressed by neuroscience. I don't think that gap you are perceiving really exists; however, maybe what your looking for is what underlies genetics and nurture. The answer of course would be physics.

Honestly, neuroscience still rests with a serious amount of speculation and theories. It sure has some resemblance with how things happen in nature. And statistics would support their claim since the subjects are more or less social subjects than natural human subjects who don't belong to a society. Testing a human who is already a part of this society wont reveal the exact parameters of human psychology. That only gives us social psychology.

I see things (using a computer anology) very differently:

hardware - genetics
software - genetics
properties - genetics
property adjustments - nurture
database - brain

One big difference of course is what we are assigning to nurture. The reason I assign property adjustments to nurture is because that's exactly what it does. Our genes are turned on an off like light switches via epigenetic markers. Nurture determines what epigenetic markers are turned on and off and gene activation / deactivation drastically alters our behavior.

Another big difference is that you are assigning operating system to an unknown source whereas I am assining all software (any potential OS included) to genetics. This is because our body's processes is controlled by DNA and RNA and that for all intents and purposes is the software for biological life on Earth.

Epigenetics only know about diseases and disorders and physical changes which can be observed physically. It still goes back to twin studies when it comes to behavior.

There are few complication if things were as you think they were.
-Kids don't think like their parents at all in way too many cases. They sure do look like their parents. Patents and kids have a hard time understanding each other. But at the same time kids can understand and get along with few members in their family or in the neighborhood. Why does it happen? On top of that siblings also have a hard time understanding each other.

-There would have been a thought wise imbalance across the world if entire OS was genetics. That means nature has zero control over human behavior; and if say someday a particular ethnic group kills another ethnic group, that would remove a set of people who think comparatively alike and that causes a gap. So with thousands of years of migration, war and so on, only the fittest of genetic groups survive. More possibilities that we all would be thinking alike. But that's definitely not the case. When there is someone who does something good(as in the eyes of humans). then there is automatically someone who does bad things. There is always a certain degree of balance in terms of collective thoughts.

-If our physical body is controlled by nature, its only logical to imagine the possibility that our thoughts are as well controlled by nature in a way it cannot be altered by humans beyond a certain limit.

- What causes completely unrelated people from various ethnic group to look, smile and think the same?(may be you should observe before you say it doesn't happen so) When many of their own family members and relatives cant agree with them?

We need to keep reminding ourselves that at one point in history, we used to believe that it was all because of blood. And we slowly learned that it wasn't simply just blood alone. Some people still believe that its the color of skin. We know it is not. Now we wish to think that its DNA and RNA and genetics. Its just the time... We wouldn't search for more answers if we already knew everything perfectly well and the law was foolproof. Ever wondered if your childhood friends of yours belonged to a same zodiac group as yours? Ever wondered what was your favorite cousin's zodiac? Or were you socially conditioned to reject it without considering?

 

[Oli]

And statistics would support their claim since the subjects are more or less social subjects than natural human subjects who don't belong to a society.

Are you implying that all subjects studied aren't or shouldn't be members of society? Or that humans in society aren't natural?

Testing a human who is already a part of this society wont reveal the exact parameters of human psychology. That only gives us social psychology.

Rubbish, social psychology is about studies of interaction, not the individual member of society.

That means nature has zero control over human behavior; and if say someday a particular ethnic group kills another ethnic group, that would remove a set of people who think comparatively alike and that causes a gap.

A gap? Of what sort?

When there is someone who does something good(as in the eyes of humans). then there is automatically someone who does bad things. There is always a certain degree of balance in terms of collective thoughts.

Specious rot.
If there was always a balance then there'd be no progress.

If our physical body is controlled by nature, its only logical to imagine the possibility that our thoughts are as well controlled by nature in a way it cannot be altered by humans beyond a certain limit.

Really?
If our physical body is controlled by nature then you assume it's logical that our non physical thoughts are also?

Ever wondered if your childhood friends of yours belonged to a same zodiac group as yours? Ever wondered what was your favorite cousin's zodiac? Or were you socially conditioned to reject it without considering?

More specious rot: my friends have birthdays spread throughout the year.

Astrology is pure crap and has been shown to be such.

 

[theobserver]

Are you implying that all subjects studied aren't or shouldn't be members of society? Or that humans in society aren't natural?


Rubbish, social psychology is about studies of interaction, not the individual member of society.

Individual member of the society has been molded by society they belong to. Individuals conform to society automatically. There is not much of individuals around found in its natural state of mind.

A gap? Of what sort?

of certain behavior patterns.

If there was always a balance then there'd be no progress.

Balance cannot be called balance unless there is continuous attempts to attain balance. Means a continuous state of imbalance would be present and it keep trying to attain balance within the existing limits.

Really?
If our physical body is controlled by nature then you assume it's logical that our non physical thoughts are also?

Yup. That's a huge possibility.

More specious rot: my friends have birthdays spread throughout the year.

Favorable zodiac groups are all around the year almost one month(not Georgian calender though) apart.

 

[Oli]

Individual member of the society has been molded by society they belong to. Individuals conform to society automatically. There is not much of individuals around found in its natural state of mind.

Except society, being an "invention" of humankind is itself natural. Man is a social animal. As are most others.
And individuals do not, demonstrably, conform to society naturally.
That's why have we laws, police, schools and parental instruction.

of certain behavior patterns.

Crap, there isn't a big list somewhere of what there "should" and "shouldn't" be.

Balance cannot be called balance unless there is continuous attempts to attain balance.

Rubbish, some balance is achieved without any effort at all.

Means a continuous state of imbalance would be present and it keep trying to attain balance within the existing limits.

Again, you're making the unfounded assumption that there "should" be a balance.
And we don't have balance, we have progress, forwards...

Yup. That's a huge possibility.

So it's gone from being "logical" to being a "possibility"?
It's a non-sequitur.

Favorable zodiac groups are all around the year almost one month(not Georgian calender though) apart.

So?
I should have maybe also mentioned my friends span -40 years to +20.
How does that fact fit into your specious "zodiac"?
And now "favourable groups" are all year round?
So this ridiculous astrology caters for a spread of 12 months?
How convenient.
How utterly futile...
In other words it's so general as to be meaningless.

 

[theobserver]

Except society, being an "invention" of humankind is itself natural. Man is a social animal. As are most others.
And individuals do not, demonstrably, conform to society naturally.
That's why have we laws, police, schools and parental instruction.

I didn't said conform completely. There is a part in each of us which stops us from conforming completely. Fear works as a catalyst. In fact fear is what made this society and keeps it together. Why is that we have to conform to something we created? Shouldn't we be already a part of it if its so natural? Isn't it because man's idea of society is far away from how nature is? Laws of nature and laws of society are miles apart. Laws of society is based upon humans selfish agenda and laws of nature doesn't care about humans the way we think it does.

Crap, there isn't a big list somewhere of what there "should" and "shouldn't" be.

No there is not. Why because nothing has been changed except that the society has changed. Man's nature still remains the same except for areas with changing social conditioning. If you can change something in your existing character, it means either it wasn't part of nature nor that was your nature. Now how would know which is natural and what was absorbed from society?

Rubbish, some balance is achieved without any effort at all.

For example????

Again, you're making the unfounded assumption that there "should" be a balance.
And we don't have balance, we have progress, forwards...


So it's gone from being "logical" to being a "possibility"?
It's a non-sequitur.

Its still a logical possibility and you cannot call it rubbish unless you examine the claims within your own subjective boundaries. The chances are more that I am right with my deduction because its not beneficial to human beings like we always wish to imagine. We usually speculate things which benefits us. Proving that its genetics or nurture has its own advantages. So they would struggle to keep it that way. But if you realize that humans from all races, all religions, all languages and culture has something in common the way they all think, it stops people from finding ways to separate each other and hate each other. People would eventually find common grounds within the nature's existing dynamics.

So?
I should have maybe also mentioned my friends span -40 years to +20.
How does that fact fit into your specious "zodiac"?
And now "favourable groups" are all year round?
So this ridiculous astrology caters for a spread of 12 months?
How convenient.
How utterly futile...
In other words it's so general as to be meaningless.

Your willingness to judge about a subject in which you carry no knowledge whatsoever makes you very unreliable in your judgment. When i say its equally balanced over each year, you should have guessed that it has its own complex laws. Laws which are not defined in any human language.

 

[Oli]

I didn't said conform completely.

Regardless, you stated "naturally" and I've shown that it's hardly natural since a goodly amount of education is involved.

In fact fear is what made this society and keeps it together.

Really? Any evidence?

Why is that we have to conform to something we created? Shouldn't we be already a part of it if its so natural? Isn't it because man's idea of society is far away from how nature is? Laws of nature and laws of society are miles apart. Laws of society is based upon humans selfish agenda and laws of nature doesn't care about humans the way we think it does.

Laws of nature? As in scientific laws?
They are descriptive as opposed to man made laws that prescriptive. Apples and oranges.
But, as you have said, we DO conform (generally) to society.

No there is not. Why because nothing has been changed except that the society has changed.

As has mankind.

Man's nature still remains the same except for areas with changing social conditioning.

Really?

If you can change something in your existing character, it means either it wasn't part of nature nor that was your nature. Now how would know which is natural and what was absorbed from society?

But society IS natural.

For example????

Well a simple example is sticking your finger at the six inch mark on a 12" ruler. The ruler balances with no effort to maintain it...

Its still a logical possibility and you cannot call it rubbish unless you examine the claims within your own subjective boundaries.

Which is why I used the term "non-sequitur". It is POSSIBLE, but so is all the water in the ocean flying of into the sky. But it doesn't follow from any given chain of pre-existing conditions.

The chances are more that I am right with my deduction because its not beneficial to human beings like we always wish to imagine.

Wrong. As simple as that.

We usually speculate things which benefits us.

Again wrong. We speculate on all the bad stuff as well, probably more so: the kids are late home - what if they've been hit by a car, what if they've been mugged... We DESIRE beneficial stuff.

But if you realize that humans from all races, all religions, all languages and culture has something in common the way they all think, it stops people from finding ways to separate each other and hate each other. People would eventually find common grounds within the nature's existing dynamics.

Um, we're all human?

Your willingness to judge about a subject in which you carry no knowledge whatsoever makes you very unreliable in your judgment. When i say its equally balanced over each year, you should have guessed that it has its own complex laws. Laws which are not defined in any human language.

Again you come out with this "defence". You stated several times that astrology is not what most people to consider it be and refuse to actually say what it is.
Laws not defined in any human language?
Oh please, so how can a human interpret them?
More specious crap.
Astrology is worthless speculative crap, with no scientific or factual basis.

 

[theobserver]

Well a simple example is sticking your finger at the six inch mark on a 12" ruler. The ruler balances with no effort to maintain it...

Only if you have a mark at 6 inches. If you dont, then you would be doing it till you find it.

Which is why I used the term "non-sequitur". It is POSSIBLE, but so is all the water in the ocean flying of into the sky. But it doesn't follow from any given chain of pre-existing conditions.

A Pre existing condition might be there. How can we ever know unless we investigate? No one has ever investigated this in any scientific manner.

Again wrong. We speculate on all the bad stuff as well, probably more so: the kids are late home - what if they've been hit by a car, what if they've been mugged... We DESIRE beneficial stuff.

We don't speculate anything negative, we deduct the possibilities using our existing set of memory patterns.

Oh please, so how can a human interpret them?
More specious crap.
Astrology is worthless speculative crap, with no scientific or factual basis.

Human's can't. If i could have, i would have posted it here. I cant. When science comes up with accurate ways to record human thoughts and read peoples brain without them speaking, may be we can. We speak metaphors for actual signals processed in our brain. Languages only represent what goes inside our brain in a very limited level. It doesn't mean exactly what goes inside our brain.

To see scientific basis to any subject, any human must possess certain degree of knowledge about the subject, test and experiment the validity of that same knowledge and then go on about trying to prove himself wrong. Anyone who accepts or rejects any subject without going through any such activity is by definition a believer.

 

[Read-Only]

Astrology is worthless speculative crap, with no scientific or factual basis.

Hey, Oli,

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I just happened to come across this article which basically says that even the "professional" astrologers are assigning the wrong sign to most people! I find that HIGHLY humorous, to say the least!!

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

Why stupid jerks continue to believe this medieval nonsense is beyond me.

 

[Oli]

Only if you have a mark at 6 inches. If you dont, then you would be doing it till you find it.

Facile and irrelevant. Once in balance it remains in balance.

A Pre existing condition might be there. How can we ever know unless we investigate? No one has ever investigated this in any scientific manner.

Go ahead, suggest a method to investigate... Neuroscience is a nascent science and it's waiting/ looking for answers.

We don't speculate anything negative, we deduct the possibilities using our existing set of memory patterns.

Again facile and irrelevant. We consider and speculate on the possible bad things that could happen. Existing memory patterns? Existing memories of the kids being run down by a drunk?

Human's can't. If i could have, i would have posted it here. I cant. When science comes up with accurate ways to record human thoughts and read peoples brain without them speaking, may be we can. We speak metaphors for actual signals processed in our brain. Languages only represent what goes inside our brain in a very limited level. It doesn't mean exactly what goes inside our brain.

So this language is what?
Telepathic?

To see scientific basis to any subject, any human must possess certain degree of knowledge about the subject, test and experiment the validity of that same knowledge and then go on about trying to prove himself wrong. Anyone who accepts or rejects any subject without going through any such activity is by definition a believer.

Agreed. You have no comprehension of the depth and breadth of my knowledge yet you claim, ah, believe, I'm just spouting off for the sake of it.

Show your data, its that simple.
Unless or until then I stand by my currently accumulated knowledge and experience: astrology is a non-science, a non-discipline, with no further cause to run any more investigation.

 

[Oli]

Hey, Oli,

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I just happened to come across this article which basically says that even the "professional" astrologers are assigning the wrong sign to most people! I find that HIGHLY humorous, to say the least!!
Why stupid jerks continue to believe this medieval nonsense is beyond me.

Ah, it's the silly season again.
At least Billy Chyldyshe didn't hang around very long after he'd failed to come up with evidence.

 

[Read-Only]

Ah, it's the silly season again.
At least Billy Chyldyshe didn't hang around very long after he'd failed to come up with evidence.

I guess some skulls are just thicker than others - while the brains are less dense (more air content).

Every time I see threads like this, it reminds me of one Ben The Man had about why idiots don't realize they are idiots. And the reason is quite clear, just as in this case, they aren't smart enough to recognize the fact that they are idiots.

 

[stateofmind]

The prospect of astrology makes more sense in an ancient setting. A fetus develops over the course of roughly 9 months - 3 seasons. Ancient civilizations had to eat what was in season (unlike today) and so a baby that was born in winter would be nourished with different foods, at different stages of their development, which would theoretically result in 4 main dispositions - winter-spring-summer, spring-summer-autumn, summer-autumn-winter and autumn-winter-spring.

 

[theobserver]

Progress only in the eyes of humans. Extinction for all other species. Only an insane human would consider anything as progress if its achieved by destroying something else and eventually its going to end up in self destruction.

Facile and irrelevant. Once in balance it remains in balance.

Till then what exists? - An attempt to balance.

Go ahead, suggest a method to investigate... Neuroscience is a nascent science and it's waiting/ looking for answers.

I did. check my old replies. Trouble is that current generation expects textbook knowledge. I hardly find people who are willing to study a bit to prove me wrong. Everyone has rebuttals. But usually the same old silly ones. The moment i see rebuttals, i know they hardly know what they are talking about. An informed person share knowledge and provide hints and ask questions. An uninformed person always argue on existing common knowledge.

Again facile and irrelevant. We consider and speculate on the possible bad things that could happen. Existing memory patterns? Existing memories of the kids being run down by a drunk?

That's one of the mistakes humans do. We think it might happen again because it happened once. We are obsessively concerned about human life beyond the limits of ourselves. We build in social laws. When nature's law says fittest will survive, humans tried to alter it to a point where even losers can survive. As a result, we have billions of semi conscious consumers walking around this planet in pursuit of something called happiness without even realizing that unless there is pain, happiness goes meaningless. We let our fears and emotions take control of us. When we think we are speculating, we are in fact deducing from our existing memory patterns and trying to logically put together ideas to form a new one.

So this language is what?
Telepathic?

There is no language.

Agreed. You have no comprehension of the depth and breadth of my knowledge yet you claim, ah, believe, I'm just spouting off for the sake of it.

Show your data, its that simple.
Unless or until then I stand by my currently accumulated knowledge and experience: astrology is a non-science, a non-discipline, with no further cause to run any more investigation.

I dont need to know anyone's credentials to know if they are sensible or not.
>The moment I see a subtle attempt to disregard a field based on existing knowledge, I see prejudice. Its that simple.
>Secondly, your post make it obvious that you haven't read any of my previous replies in this forum.
>Then people who believe that I am posting about astrology to prove something are obviously prejudiced. Because If i was trying to prove something to someone, I would have used better methods in a bigger arena than casual replies in a forum.

Its more about pointing out the prejudice in the minds of highly educated individuals who consider themselves as people of science. Most of them are educated and well informed about the subjects they were taught in classrooms, the subjects they were curious that they spend a lot of time reading books. But only a few have actually cared to experiment further at least a bit about certain fields before they accept it or reject it. First two methods learned science using non scientific methods of learning. Like someone said, Faith begins where logic stops. Most students believe certain things they learn are true because its out there in their text book. They don't care about cross checking. They dont have time and patience to spend years on subjects which probably might become a disappointment. They always go in for the sure bets.
No one ever care to ask the question if someone from history tried to distort reality with a set of sharp logic in order to gain something else. If religion can make people believe that Mary teleported herself to a place called heaven which exists only in imagination, I can bet that with time, few important fields of science can be distorted and classified as pseudoscience.