astrology and quantum entanglement

[theobserver]

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.

I would say it was more easy to observe the characteristics in ancient times because social conditioning wasn't much strong like today. There weren't much textbooks. So it had to be explained in real time. Plus it was taught like every other subject from childhood. Which is essential. With times we have forgotten the basics of learning. If you were to learn astrology today, how would you do it? You might just give up after 2 weeks because nothing would make sense for a few months. But if you were taught certain basics in school, you had no choice than to learn. Slowly with time it will begin to make sense. But those days there was more confusing factors regarding their own physical self. And a need to associate the observation of human nature to something around us to comprehend its weird laws complicated a very strategic field of science.

 

[theobserver]

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.

Once again you pin pointed your limited knowledge proving my point that you don't even know what you were talking about. Thanks for that.

Astrology, as far as I know has nothing to do with constellations. Its an age old belief. Everyone who know something about astrology know that there is a change in position. And if you were well informed as you demanded you were, I would have seen this as the very first rebuttal from you. There are lot many points on which informed people debate. I saw nothing in this forum till now. Which explains how less anyone need to know before you reject something.

I couldn't prove that astrology has some relationship with any of those constellations. I tried for a few years. Which means most of those calculations are made up nonsense(I am not sure though). But there is a very obvious difference between people born before and after the both equinox and solstice dates every year. Which means its more about the sun and probably about few planets(Which am not convinced yet).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

True. It can be pure delusional thinking as per our current understanding of system.

You have to keep in mind that a good chunk of that understanding comes from reality literally validating some idea. When reality valdates that something is true then believing something to the contrary IS delusion.

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?

The best way to answer this is that delusion is a part of survival. It's held entire soceities together. Our genetics don't care if we know the truth or not... all that matters is that we collect energy and persist. Fortunately we have an option to value truth and if we do then we have to put delusion to the side.

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 think your perception of neuroscience is based on some primitive dark-age version. Real neuroscience is pretty empirically based and while there is theory, it's not resting on a bed of speculation (but you are free to demonstrate something built on neuroscience speculation).

Testing multiple humans whom are part of siceity to revel an immense amount about human psychology. We are a social species so it is a very natural setting to be in soceity.

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.

Those physical changes can also be observed psychologically. Enabling / disabling the right combination of epigentic markers can drastically change how we think and feel.

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.

Kids think differently than their parents because:

* They have developing brains whereas their parents don't.
* Their social status is different. Kids lack the freedom and responsibility that adults have.
* They don't have identical genetics as their parents.
* Their default epigenetic markers are different than their parents.

Getting along with and gaining understanding from non-parents can be due to alot of reasons and it all starts in the nature of the relationship.

-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;

It would mean that nature has some control over human behavior (basically setting the default values foe epigenetic markers) and nurture would take it from there.

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.

I don't understand your argument. War would be an environmental pressue and would cause different epigenetic markers to activate / deactivate for those generationsa affected by it. Their behavior would be different than those whom were raised in peacetime. Additionally, those whom survive a war (either on the offence or defense) do so by thinking differently. You can have a successful offense and a successful defense at the same time and those behaviors propogate as a result.

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.

Sort of correct, but more importantly do you know why this is? It's because of physics. Everything that is not forbidden is comulsory... that is a simple truth of physics. What that means is that there will always be people exhibiting destructive behavior, cheating behavior, lying behavior etc. We can't stop the behavior but we can keep the beahvior from affecting us and making examples out of those who try. I wouldn't call that balanced.

-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.

That's probably true. Neuroscience shows that our conscious mind is the result of varying mental circuitry competing for claiming the stage. That competition is all nature.

- 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?

Genetics, epigenetics, thought process, and knowledge seem like the biggest contributors.

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.

Notice we have belief in the back of the bus and scientific knowledge at the front. Astrology is way in the back there.

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?

My childhood friends had birthdays across the year.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Once again you pin pointed your limited knowledge proving my point that you don't even know what you were talking about. Thanks for that.

Astrology, as far as I know has nothing to do with constellations. Its an age old belief. Everyone who know something about astrology know that there is a change in position. And if you were well informed as you demanded you were, I would have seen this as the very first rebuttal from you. There are lot many points on which informed people debate. I saw nothing in this forum till now. Which explains how less anyone need to know before you reject something.

I couldn't prove that astrology has some relationship with any of those constellations. I tried for a few years. Which means most of those calculations are made up nonsense(I am not sure though). But there is a very obvious difference between people born before and after the both equinox and solstice dates every year. Which means its more about the sun and probably about few planets(Which am not convinced yet).

The issue you are having with Read-Only is that he has a massive amount of knowedge in real science and that knowledge invalidates a whole range of ideas. He doesn't need to know anything about astrology except a single piece of its base that is invalidated by real science. The rest can safely be ignored and the methods used for promoting the validity of astrology are known human behaviors that are quite consistent with decption and / or delusion.

 

[Oli]

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.

That's (your) opinion stated as fact.
Wrong.

Till then what exists? - An attempt to balance.

So?
Oncce the balance achieved (easily and simply) it remains. Invalidating your point.

I did. check my old replies. Trouble is that current generation expects textbook knowledge.

You missed the point (again). Talk to neuroscientists if you have leads, not guys on the internet

...realizing that unless there is pain, happiness goes meaningless.

More opinion stated as fact.

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.

And again.

There is no language.

Really? So how does the "system" become operable?

I dont need to know anyone's credentials to know if they are sensible
or not.

Spoken like a true believer.

The moment I see a subtle attempt to disregard a field based on existing knowledge, I see prejudice. Its that simple.

Displaying your own prejudice.
I've already stated that I have extensive knowledge and see no reason to instigate further invetsgation.
Yet you come along claiming to have knowledge, which you refuse to disseminate, and then castgate me for not taking it into account.
Fascinating.

Secondly, your post make it obvious that you haven't read any of my previous replies in this forum.

Ah, you see? More spurious conclusions based on not actually thinking about it.

Its more ... snip large sections of the usual quotes from the Woo Woo Manifesto... classified as pseudoscience.

Yes, exactly: but you have STILL FAILED TO ACTUALLY PRESENT ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY OR SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS.

 

[theobserver]

You have to keep in mind that a good chunk of that understanding comes from reality literally validating some idea. When reality valdates that something is true then believing something to the contrary IS delusion.

Reality is once again human perception and have changed throughout time with new things learned. So trying to validate an idea with our reality often poses a bigger threat. We need to look into animal world more often. We need to compare and study the differences in understanding of reality with a period of time in history.

The best way to answer this is that delusion is a part of survival. It's held entire soceities together. Our genetics don't care if we know the truth or not... all that matters is that we collect energy and persist. Fortunately we have an option to value truth and if we do then we have to put delusion to the side.

Now does that mean ignorance is a part of survival? Why is that animals don't delude themselves?

I think your perception of neuroscience is based on some primitive dark-age version. Real neuroscience is pretty empirically based and while there is theory, it's not resting on a bed of speculation (but you are free to demonstrate something built on neuroscience speculation).

Those empirical evidences are based on human observation and interpretations of brain activity(with or without MRI) in a social being and all studies would provide evidence supporting social behavior than humans natural behavior. The only thing scientific world has against this is twin studies till date. If am wrong in my understanding please correct me with an article. I would be more than happy to get updated. There is no possible way brain activities and its link to genetics can be studied without twin studies. And they always underestimate the possibility of a third component.

Testing multiple humans whom are part of siceity to revel an immense amount about human psychology. We are a social species so it is a very natural setting to be in soceity.

so how do you account for religiously retarded people? Lets say we have 1000 samples. 800 of them are religious. Now since its not yet disproved, we would have to base our studies of psychology based on statistics. That makes practicing religion(belief in stories and chanting prayers) a very normal state for a society. So does that mean those who don't practice are socially challenged?

We cant afford to have a social setting for conducting studies to identify human nature. Which i have no idea why these silly people have been doing for decades. You pick anyone from this society, you get an instance of social psychology. Their brain is already aware of the fact that its being tested. so it produces a different pattern of behavior and results. That's way offset from real nature of human beings. The ones who are observing are also a part of this society; thereby making it even more complicated and mixing up a scientific study with various subjective factors and eventually people buy it because it makes sense to them. Thats what they observe around them. Thats NOT reality. Its our idea of reality we have created. As good as taking our own picture and saying it looks like us so it must be true.

Getting along with and gaining understanding from non-parents can be due to alot of reasons and it all starts in the nature of the relationship.

Its natures dynamics which determine why we get along with whom we get along. Social factors only play a secondary role. It would be quite easy to cross check. If you ask a kid why he likes each of his friends and every time he says because of so and so, its a social factor - bcoz he was able to identify it. When he says he don't know, it means its natural and way too complex inside his brains to put it in words. Still the pressure from society to conform would obviously confuse him more and more with time.

 

[Oli]

Now does that mean ignorance is a part of survival? Why is that animals don't delude themselves?

They don't?
Never heard of a lobster pot?

 

[theobserver]

That's (your) opinion stated as fact.
Wrong.

Please prove that its an opinion.

So?
Oncce the balance achieved (easily and simply) it remains. Invalidating your point.

So you think you can disregard the entire set of efforts taken to do the measurement and then jump into the state where there is measurements so there should be balance. There wont be any balance unless the measurements were right. Look around the world. Nature has its balance at all points of time. Humans still don't have it. Why because we still don't have the measurement and don't carry enough knowledge to identify it. We keep moving from one side of the scales to the other trying to find balance. Now there is no stage as "once the balance is achieved". That's only subjective balance and it wouldn't last for long like you can see around you.

Really? So how does the "system" become operable?

Nature has its own methods. Its only arrogance to speculate that we must be aware of everything that happens in this nature when humans hardly know what happens inside their own brain.

Spoken like a true believer.

You don't need credentials to know this nature. You are part of it. Even birds and donkeys know it real good. You can comprehend it as much as you are allowed to comprehend it without even knowing any language or reading any books. Trouble begins when we get lazy and try to depend on others for knowledge. They share their subjective experience and we begin the process of believing. Then we try to justify our beliefs, argue, try to reach common grounds and slowly we mess it up.

Displaying your own prejudice.
I've already stated that I have extensive knowledge and see no reason to instigate further invetsgation.
Yet you come along claiming to have knowledge, which you refuse to disseminate, and then castgate me for not taking it into account.
Fascinating.

You failed to convince me. I speak what i feel. What i feel is a result of billions of calculations gone through my brain per second and its outcome after reading your replies. If it says you are bluffing, its true in all accounts that you are bluffing. You would have to sweat a lot to convince me otherwise.

Ah, you see? More spurious conclusions based on not actually thinking about it.

Well i have mentioned why it cannot be tested and you never saw it.

Yes, exactly: but you have STILL FAILED TO ACTUALLY PRESENT ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY OR SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS.

Once again proving that you are more keen on rebuttals than reading what i replied earlier in this thread about it cannot be justified. I thought i typed it in simple english. :shrug:

 

[Oli]

Please prove that its an opinion.

Er, no: you made the statement and haven't given any evidence to support it.

So you think you can disregard the entire set of efforts taken to do the measurement

Yes, since your original statement was

Balance cannot be called balance unless there is continuous attempts to attain balance. Means a continuous state of imbalance would be present

There would be no "continuous attempt" - it's a simple one-off process and once the balance is achieved the system remains in balance.

Nature has its balance at all points of time. Humans still don't have it.

Again, opinion stated as fact. No supporting evidence.

Nature has its own methods. Its only arrogance to speculate that we must be aware of everything that happens in this nature when humans hardly know what happens inside their own brain.

So you know "naturally" and inexplicably how the stars affect our lives?
But surely since you are capable actually using this knowledge it must be expressible in some form?

You don't need credentials to know this nature.

Er, re-read what I was replying to: an attempt by you to discredit me for failing to learn something. And know you claim you know I'm not "sensible" because you know. Belief, pure and simple.

You failed to convince me. I speak what i feel. What i feel is a result of billions of calculations gone through my brain per second and its outcome after reading your replies.

Ah, purely internal.
Self delusion that's called.
"Billions of calculations per second"? No.

If it says you are bluffing, its true in all accounts that you are bluffing. You would have to sweat a lot to convince me otherwise.

Again, you make facile and incorrect assumptions.
And also try to turn the onus upon me.
You're the one making the claims: the thus far unsupported claims.

Well i have mentioned why it cannot be tested and you never saw it

Actually I did: if it can't be tested then it can't be proven. Therefore it's worthless.

Once again proving that you are more keen on rebuttals than reading what i replied earlier in this thread about it cannot be justified. I thought i typed it in simple english. :shrug:

You see: failure again.
You THOUGHT you had, but you actually haven't.
You have provided NO SUPPORT whatsoever other than "it's in my head", "it can't be tested", "it's natural".

You're a grade A woo woo and a waste of my time.
Six pages on this topic with not a single shred or word of acxtual back up from the crank lobby.
I'm out.

 

[theobserver]

Er, no: you made the statement and haven't given any evidence to support it.

I guess further evidence is not essential for matters which common sense can support. When its you claim that's not true, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Yes, since your original statement was
There would be no "continuous attempt" - it's a simple one-off process and once the balance is achieved the system remains in balance.

No. I didnt said that. You said it. What I said was "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." You quoted yourself and said its wrong. Thanks for that. You keep proving again and again that you are just in it for wasting my time.

Again, opinion stated as fact. No supporting evidence.

The planet still functions fine for itself though not for all humans. You need evidence for such claims?

So you know "naturally" and inexplicably how the stars affect our lives?
But surely since you are capable actually using this knowledge it must be expressible in some form?

Another baseless argument to waste my time.

I never even for once mentioned in this thread that I know that stars affect our life. Instead I said I know that sun causes it as far as I have proved it. I also didn't mentioned that this knowledge can be used like how humans use other knowledge. You are putting words in my mouth.

Only the physical consequences of that effect can be observed and it can be expressed under an umbrella term "feelings" and it has been happening for centuries in case you never noticed. Why you think people keep saying they feel it than explaining what it is? If you demand an expression to any feelings, try to explain your feelings in any language and see if you can get it accurate.

Er, re-read what I was replying to: an attempt by you to discredit me for failing to learn something. And know you claim you know I'm not "sensible" because you know. Belief, pure and simple.

If so what causes that belief? another person? As long as there is no second hand opinion or suggestion and I have repeatedly seen your cheap gimmicks and attacks without any rational or logical sense to what you have been arguing about, Its more than convincing that you are bluffing and flaming the thread like kids. I don't have to know rocket science to prove that to myself. I see a lot more mature replies from James and crunchy cat. May be its my belief?

Ah, purely internal.
Self delusion that's called.
"Billions of calculations per second"? No.

Really? what about billions per fraction of second?

Again, you make facile and incorrect assumptions.
And also try to turn the onus upon me.
You're the one making the claims: the thus far unsupported claims.


Actually I did: if it can't be tested then it can't be proven. Therefore it's worthless.


You see: failure again.
You THOUGHT you had, but you actually haven't.
You have provided NO SUPPORT whatsoever other than "it's in my head", "it can't be tested", "it's natural".

I said it can be tested under certain circumstances if science is grown enough to face it. Its not my fault that scientific methods sucks big time when it comes to human psychology. Humans invented it. If it cant be used, I suggest they find new methods which provide results than staying with age old belief system of scientific methods and its perfection. I can agree that its more than perfect for proving any observable factors. But when observable factors become we ourselves and our behavior, those same laws wont work like rest.

Now since I have repeatedly mentioned it over and over that its not that proof cannot be achieved but the humans stubbornness and bigoted mentality that proof has to be in ways they can understand easily is what stops the subject from being proved. No one wants to take any efforts. They all hope they can spend 20$ and buy a book and wise up. Keep hoping that non scientific ways are best to acquire knowledge. That only gives you information.

 

[Oli]

I guess further evidence is not essential for matters which common sense can support. When you claim that's not true, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Common sense is so often wrong. Which is why supporting evidence is required to confirm the observation.

No. I didnt said that. You said it. What I said was You quoted yourself and said its wrong. Thanks for that. You keep proving again and again that you are just in it for wasting my time.

Fail: I quoted YOUR post - post 90

The planet still functions fine for itself though not for all humans. You need evidence for such claims?

Of course since you stated "at all points of time". Broad assertion/ assumption

I never even for once mentioned in this thread that I know that stars affect our life. Instead I said I know that sun causes it and I have proved it to myself. I wish you read something than replying like read only. Another baseless argument to waste my time.

Um, apart from anything else the sun IS a star.

If so what causes that belief? another person? As long as there is no second hand opinion or suggestion and I have repeatedly seen your cheap gimmicks and attacks without any rational or logical sense to what you have been arguing about, Its more than convincing that you are bluffing and flaming the thread like kids. I don't have to know rocket science to prove that to myself. I see a lot more mature replies from James and crunchy cat. May be its my belief?

It is belief and nothing else.
Flaming? Bluff?
Get real.
You aren't even following the rules of this forum: EVIDENCE!

Really? what about billions per fraction of second?

Again, no.

I said it can be tested under certain circumstances if science is grown enough to face it. Its not my fault that scientific methods sucks big time when it comes to human psychology. Humans invented it. If it cant be used, I suggest they find new methods which provide results than staying with age old belief system of scientific methods and its perfection. Its more than perfect for proving any observable laws. But when observable law becomes we ourselves and our behavior, those same laws wont work like rest.[/quote]
Yup, again the quotes from the woo woo manifesto: you suggest someone else do your work for, rather present what you actually have (if anything) for examination.
And the ridiculous science doesn't work on this so we should junk science and go with what I belief although I'll provide nothing to show that I have anything worth looking at.

Now since I have repeatedly mentioned it over and over that its not that proof cannot be achieved but the humans stubbornness and bigoted mentality that proof has to be in ways they can understand easily is what stops the subject from being proved. No one wants to take any efforts. They all hope they can spend 20$ and buy a book and wise up. Keep hoping that non scientific ways are best to acquire knowledge.

And like I have repeatedly mentioned: you have actually presented nothing at all for examination other that your own beliefs, unsupported by any data. So what efforts should we make?

You are a waste of time and effort.

 

[theobserver]

Common sense is so often wrong. Which is why supporting evidence is required to confirm the observation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm
I hope you still remember what you said.

Fail: I quoted YOUR post - post 90

Please cross check once again. You seems to be getting confused about your own posts all the time. Also you seems to be getting confused over equilibrium of nature vs humans idea of balance.

Of course since you stated "at all points of time". Broad assertion/ assumption

Has there been a time in the history of this planet that it ceased to exist. Humans does. Not this planet. So at all points of time in the history of this planet, it has been at equilibrium.

Um, apart from anything else the sun IS a star.

You mentioned "stars " in your post. Which implies there is more than one. If it was sun alone, you would have said sun instead of stars.

Yup, again the quotes from the woo woo manifesto: you suggest someone else do your work for, rather present what you actually have (if anything) for examination.
And the ridiculous science doesn't work on this so we should junk science and go with what I belief although I'll provide nothing to show that I have anything worth looking at.

I didn't said someone else should be doing it. I said few things which lemme make it clear all over again...

1. To acquire knowledge in certain fields of science related to certain laws of nature, one must pursue the knowledge by himself than depending on second hand information and proof in the form of words and numbers.
2. Its essential to take necessary efforts and pursue knowledge before rejecting or accepting subjective claims.
3. Psychology as we know it, is purely social psychology and has nothing to do with human nature if they are not part of a society. In reality, human psychology is much more complex and cannot be studied using existing narrow methods of science.
4. Humans who consider themselves as People of science always reject claims of astrology in non scientific manner. It could be because of subconscious level deep fear that if studied scientifically they might be laughed at.
5. If anyone who wish to reject the possibility that sun and probably few other planets does have an effect on human nature apart from genetics and nurture(once again byproducts of sun), then he/she must be willing to spend a lot of their time to study the subject on their own before doing so since its a highly subjective matter.
6. If anyone who wish to prove the possibility using existing methods of science is simply wasting their time because its impossible to prove the relationship between sun and behavior of humans apart from genetics and nurture all by himself since current methods of science are inadequate to convince any other social being about their own natural behavior.

 

[Oli]

Please cross check once again. You seems to be getting confused about your own posts all the time.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2194587&postcount=90
I'm confused?

 

[theobserver]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2194587&postcount=90
I'm confused?

Ohhh yes.
I said

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.

And you replied quoting me saying

Yes, since your original statement was
There would be no "continuous attempt" - it's a simple one-off process and once the balance is achieved the system remains in balance.

As you can see, I never said what you claimed as my words. You got it all wrong. My best guess is that you misunderstood my complex sentence and its meaning and interpreted it in your own ways.

Please take your time and read carefully. I understand that you are in a big hurry to reply. I prefer a much more relaxed pace since I don't enjoy replying only to mention that you keep getting it all confused and messed up over and over again. So next time you reply, please be kind enough to find out where and how you went wrong and if I see the point fair and square, I would be more than happy to admit my mistake.

 

[Oli]

Ohhh yes.
I said
“
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.
”
And you replied quoting me saying
“
Originally Posted by Oli
Yes, since your original statement was
There would be no "continuous attempt" - it's a simple one-off process and once the balance is achieved the system remains in balance.
”
As you can see, I never said what you claimed as my words.

:shrug:

 

[theobserver]

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.

How do you understand that sentence to begin with? Appears to me like you comprehend everything in your own terms to match your own imagination. I am not surprised that you missed out the word unless and my attempt to explain the ongoing process and the factors that contribute to it and then your understanding that i was mentioning that there would be no ongoing process. Please try to understand the sentence as a whole and its underlying meaning as well than picking two words and then interpreting it the way you feel comfortable.

 

[Oli]

No, again (or still) you misunderstand.
I have shown that there can be balance WITHOUT continuous attempts to attain it.
Or do you you not know what the word "unless" means?
Continuous attempts are NOT a pre-requisite for balance.

 

[theobserver]

No, again (or still) you misunderstand.
I have shown that there can be balance WITHOUT continuous attempts to attain it.
Or do you you not know what the word "unless" means?
Continuous attempts are NOT a pre-requisite for balance.

lol!!! Then why did you mentioned earlier that

Yes, since your original statement was There would be no "continuous attempt" -

since I never mentioned it that way?


Now lemme try to explain. Try it work it out backwards. We live in a world with too much of confusion and misunderstanding and foolishness going around. Means we still haven't gained balance. Why does that happen? I would say it happens because we somehow skipped major factors of nature that must have been considered. With time, we lost focus and kept going and now humans find it hard to go back to square one and start the art of balancing all over again. We hope though, on a daily basis that someday we would get it all perfect. Religions, politicians, science, media and all such factors keep offering ways to reach stability. But we don't get it as a whole.

Even though you claim that continuous attempts are not a pre requisite for balance, it simply appears that we have been trying hard for centuries on a regular basis. Optimism cannot take you anywhere close to balance. Its all about being realistic in your understanding of this world.

Now I even tried to explain to you about your example of 12 inch scale. We had to learn to measure before we even created a 12 inch scale. Before we measure, we invented numbers. So suppose if you don't have any such options when it comes to collective set of thoughts? How would it have been? We need to start making guess works and keep doing the act of balancing for ages before we reach balance. Hence it can be concluded that there is no way balance can be achieved without an on going process of attempt to reach balance though collectively it will always be in balance. Means only the values within the sphere gets changed all the time. And during this time, we would be in a continuous state of imbalance.

Even though that's how it happens for humanity, the planet is in balance. The collective set of energy flow always remains 0. No matter whichever way we push it, it eats up from other species, nature and other unfortunate humans and builds back into 0. You don't notice it because it happens over a large period of time. So the only choice for humans is to conform back to nature as much as possible to be in peace with nature like other animals. Not to compete against it and build an alternate system of understanding and living to cater to our growing insecurities and greed.

 

[Oli]

lol!!! Then why did you mentioned earlier that since I never mentioned it that way?

Because continuous attempt is NOT necessary: as I stated repeatedly.

Now lemme try to explain. Try it work it out backwards. We live in a world with too much of confusion and misunderstanding and foolishness going around. Means we still haven't gained balance.

No it doesn't it means that people aren't listening or have more important things to do or would prefer to be foolish.

Why does that happen? I would say it happens because we somehow skipped major factors of nature that must have been considered.

You'd say that. On what evidence?
And do you mean MUST or SHOULD have been considered?
Either way, it's not a fact it's your supposition.

With time, we lost focus and kept going and now humans find it hard to go back to square one and start the art of balancing all over again.

What focus?
What was "square one" and why should we go back to it?
What balancing act? Between what and what?

We hope though, on a daily basis that someday we would get it all perfect. Religions, politicians, science, media and all such factors keep offering ways to reach stability. But we don't get it as a whole.

No, not all of those do.

Even though you claim that continuous attempts are not a pre requisite for balance, it simply appears that we have been trying hard for centuries on a regular basis.

It appears to you that way maybe.
Not to me.

Now I even tried to explain to you about your example of 12 inch scale.

Whatever length (known or unknown, measured or unmeasured) was used my example holds.

So suppose if you don't have any such options when it comes to collective set of thoughts? How would it have been?

It doesn't matter one jot how it would have been because that's not how it was or how we got here.

We need to start making guess works and keep doing the act of balancing for ages before we reach balance.

WE "need"? Why?

Hence it can be concluded that there is no way balance can be achieved without an on going process of attempt to reach balance though collectively it will always be in balance.[

No, that's a non-sequitur.

Means only the values within the sphere gets changed all the time. And during this time, we would be in a continuous state of imbalance.[/quotr]
What sphere?
What imbalance?

Even though that's how it happens for humanity, the planet is in balance. The collective set of energy flow always remains 0.

What collective set of energy?

So the only choice for humans is to conform back to nature as much as possible to be in peace with nature like other animals.

Rubbish, we are part of nature as we are now.

Not to compete against it and build an alternate system of understanding and living to cater to our growing insecurities and greed

Another assumption of yours?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Reality is once again human perception and have changed throughout time with new things learned.

Reality is experienced via human perception but is not human perception itself.

So trying to validate an idea with our reality often poses a bigger threat. We need to look into animal world more often. We need to compare and study the differences in understanding of reality with a period of time in history.

The only threat it poses are to those with whom accept things not based on evidence.

Now does that mean ignorance is a part of survival?

Yep.

Why is that animals don't delude themselves?

Other animals do, but it's constrained to those species that can comprehend truth and reject it.

Those empirical evidences are based on human observation and interpretations of brain activity(with or without MRI) in a social being and all studies would provide evidence supporting social behavior than humans natural behavior. The only thing scientific world has against this is twin studies till date. If am wrong in my understanding please correct me with an article. I would be more than happy to get updated. There is no possible way brain activities and its link to genetics can be studied without twin studies. And they always underestimate the possibility of a third component.

Your understanding does need a bit of updating. A good route would be education at a local university; however, as a starter Discover magazine recently released a special "The brain" issue and it would serve as a good high level introduction to what you are missing.

so how do you account for religiously retarded people? Lets say we have 1000 samples. 800 of them are religious. Now since its not yet disproved, we would have to base our studies of psychology based on statistics. That makes practicing religion(belief in stories and chanting prayers) a very normal state for a society. So does that mean those who don't practice are socially challenged?

It means three things:

1) Physics is working (remember what isn't forbidden is compusory).
2) Not all humans require religion to satiate their psychological needs.
3) Both religion and non-religion were necessary for society to become what is has become.

We cant afford to have a social setting for conducting studies to identify human nature. Which i have no idea why these silly people have been doing for decades. You pick anyone from this society, you get an instance of social psychology. Their brain is already aware of the fact that its being tested. so it produces a different pattern of behavior and results. That's way offset from real nature of human beings. The ones who are observing are also a part of this society; thereby making it even more complicated and mixing up a scientific study with various subjective factors and eventually people buy it because it makes sense to them. Thats what they observe around them. Thats NOT reality. Its our idea of reality we have created. As good as taking our own picture and saying it looks like us so it must be true.

Hidden / obscured cameras are a great way to observe people so you can catch them in natural settings without them realizing it. Ever been to a shopping mall security department? People don't act like they are being watched even though they are.

Its natures dynamics which determine why we get along with whom we get along. Social factors only play a secondary role. It would be quite easy to cross check. If you ask a kid why he likes each of his friends and every time he says because of so and so, its a social factor - bcoz he was able to identify it. When he says he don't know, it means its natural and way too complex inside his brains to put it in words. Still the pressure from society to conform would obviously confuse him more and more with time.

Here's an experiment that I think you should perform. Simulate a realistic prison environment with your friends... where some are prison guards and others are inmates. See what impact the social heirarchy plays between guards and inmates. You are going to see some things that contradict your ideas big time.