Poll

Are You practicing the Steps in Initiaion into Hermetics?

Yes, very strictly.
46 (15.5%)
Yes, mixed with my other practices.
112 (37.8%)
Kinda, of and on again.
53 (17.9%)
No, it doesn't fit with me.
49 (16.6%)
No, What is IIH?
28 (9.5%)
No, don't have the time.
8 (2.7%)

Total Members Voted: 296

Author Topic: Who is Practicing the IIH?  (Read 569261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 01, 2012, 01:07:35 PM
Reply #420

trismegistos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 371
  • Karma:
    22
  • Personal Text
    www.thedivinescience.org
    • View Profile

And should you find that offensive, just remember; I am not the one mashing randomly at my keyboard with the caps lock on.

Let me reveal to you the secrets of the Initiates in my writing of which the uninitiated thinks is random keyboard strokes.

YUNOMKSNSE



I was just toying with him (or I suppose mocking him really, which wasn't very nice of me).  I don't mind if someone writes like a know it all so long as they are providing information, but I have to admit it was getting on my nerves writing cryptic messages which share absolutely nothing except how superior someone is and how everyone else is a pion who is unworthy of anything but a miserable mundane life.

I see he deleted all his cool coded writing though.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 01:11:18 PM by trismegistos »

January 01, 2012, 02:49:00 PM
Reply #421

Jordana Divinorum

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 17
  • Karma:
    3
    • View Profile
I get what you guy are saying.  There are no "perfect" studies.  I'm not sure why scientists would be opposed to proving a "magical" feat is possible or not.  If it is possible, then it is simply part of the natural world, although rare to find.  I see no motivation for a scientist to cover up results of new human abilities.  It's the job of a scientist to uncover the truth.

Quote
And there's a reason for this; history. Scientists were very influential in proving that many superstitions were invalid, and thus they came to the conclusion that ALL metaphysical believes are superstitions, and continually try to tell society so.

I'm not sure what you mean.  If there are some metaphysical beliefs that are true, then the evidence should speak for itself.  If there is no evidence, why is it wrong to label such beliefs as "superstition?"  If I claim that slapping myself in the face can cause it to rain in Japan, shouldn't I show some type of evidence before it's adopted as the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madoDvtKEes
They performed tests in this show and the scientist didn't try to mess with the results.
For example, a themometer or sensors can be used to see if someone can contol their body heat or the temperature of the room.  A scale could always be used to see if a person could make their body lighter or heavier with the air or earth element.  I'm trying to be an open minded as possible.  I think anything is possible, but I'm curious as to why magic only seems possible in the absence of observers.  The man in the video is able to perform for a television crew and a scientist. 

January 01, 2012, 10:00:27 PM
Reply #422

mrblack

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 191
  • Karma:
    -6
  • Personal Text
    everything is true, everything is permitted.
    • View Profile
    • The Razors Edge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madoDvtKEes
They performed tests in this show and the scientist didn't try to mess with the results.
For example, a themometer or sensors can be used to see if someone can contol their body heat or the temperature of the room.  A scale could always be used to see if a person could make their body lighter or heavier with the air or earth element.  I'm trying to be an open minded as possible.  I think anything is possible, but I'm curious as to why magic only seems possible in the absence of observers.  The man in the video is able to perform for a television crew and a scientist. 

I'm just trying to understand what you want to test in magick, what fuels magick or what is magick in general?
What kind of tests available right now would you think possible to "gauge" what magick is?
Magick itself is as broad as it can be, we would need some massive work to be able to "test" all of it.

For example, lets take Low Magick - which is basically getting results with magick.
What kind of tests do we run on that? If we take a study of, AIRR lets say, and if their practitioners provide more
positives then negative - would that suffice that magick works?
hepaby!

beyondchaosmagick.wordpress.com <-- journal
thehollowones.wordpress.com <--collective

January 01, 2012, 11:05:19 PM
Reply #423

Jordana Divinorum

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 17
  • Karma:
    3
    • View Profile
I was thinking of testing magick in a similar fashion to the video.  Looking at if magick can alter the physical universe instantly.  For example, making your body hotter, colder, lighter, heavier with the elements.  Or having a room hotter or colder with the elements.  Things like that which are found in IIH.  It would be a lot harder to test low magic.  Almost as hard as testing a superstition like 7 years of bad luck for breaking a mirror.  But if someone says they can raise or lower the temperature of the room, or light a candle with their mind, I think that's more straight forward in terms of testing. 

January 01, 2012, 11:35:15 PM
Reply #424

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote
I'm not sure why scientists would be opposed to proving a "magical" feat is possible or not.
Religious beliefs are not only found in religion because "it's religion". That kind of thinking, whereby a person is reluctant to give up something they believe to be true, can be found in pretty much anyone on the planet. There's a lot of ego that goes into believing something, and having that belief turn out to be false (or even worse, having someone else lord it over you about how "you are wrong to believe in such-and-such") can cause a lot of otherwise openminded people into rather closeminded people. It seems to be a natural subconscious defense mechanism that even exists among scientists, whom we hold up to such high standards such that sometimes we forget that scientists are still humans with all of our flaws and problems. There are other reasons as well, for why people hold on to their believes rather than giving them up when shown actual facts and figures. You should be able to find courses at a college or university somewhere to study those reasons.

Quote
It's the job of a scientist to uncover the truth.
We typically hold the title of "Scientist" up to this standard, as we're constantly told how this standard is accurate, but in reality many scientists are paid to "determine" foregone conclusions based on what the-companies-who-hire-scientists want to "determine". Take the pharmaceutical companies as an example; lots of great things have come from them, but so have lots of placebo drugs and potentially dangerous drugs that could be made safer if the pharmaceuticals would make more money off it. And who develops all those drugs? The chemists. But who controls them? The companies.

Quote
If there are some metaphysical beliefs that are true, then the evidence should speak for itself.
It should, but it doesn't because people are quick to simply ignore the evidence and continue believing what they already believe. Except through magic, you can't force someone to change their beliefs and people have a strong sentimental attachment to their beliefs.

Quote
If I claim that slapping myself in the face can cause it to rain in Japan, shouldn't I show some type of evidence before it's adopted as the truth?
The problem here isn't with you showing evidence, it's in whether other people accept the evidence. You can put forth as much awesome evidence as you want, and each of the 7 billion people in the world have the inherent Right to simply disregard it and believe whatever they want to believe.

And at the very end of it, when there's so many people (who claim to be credible sources) who are saying that magic doesn't exist, to the point where it is taken "as a given" in our societies... the majority of people are going to believe that magic doesn't exist, regardless of what the facts and figures show. Monkey see, monkey do. Program a person from birth to believe that 1+1 = 3, and they will always believe that 1+1 = 3 even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

EDIT: Also, a couple of other things. The video doesn't necessarily show "magic" so much as "possibly dead nerves" or "extreme-but-not-superhuman feat". The tests to showcase magic have been done, and done, and done. It's not that they're only possible in the event of non-observers, but that they get discounted and thrown aside when done in the face of observers, and then the failures are trumped up on poles and paraded around the perceptions of the masses.

"Low magic" is typically defined in terms of capability of manipulating reality in order to affect day-to-day events, whereas "High magic" is typically defined in terms of alternate realms of reality or things that happen "behind the scenes" (breaking mirrors is just superstition, rather than magic). So low magic would actually be easier to test, and raising/lowering temperatures would typically fall into low magic.

~Steve

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 11:41:09 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 02, 2012, 12:06:06 AM
Reply #425

Jordana Divinorum

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 17
  • Karma:
    3
    • View Profile
I understand what you're trying to say, but empirical evidence speaks for itself regardless if people accept it or not.  For example, the video I provided.  The man is connected to sensors that take his temperature and other vital signs.  If we were to conduct a test where a person made the temperature of the room change, and did that test over and over with the same results, we would then have empirical evidence.  The equipment used to measure the heat or whatever we're testing would prove that a physical change is taking place.  I've never heard of anyone rejecting what happened in the video I posted.  Probably because the Iceman can repeat his results over and over regardless of who is testing him. 

If a person is capable of raising the temperature in the room, he should be able to repeat the results over and over for different scientists or whoever wants to test him.  No one has ever done this, or anything like this, to my knowledge.  I'm only suggesting scientific studies because having someone on the David Letterman show light a candle with his thoughts wouldn't exactly be a controlled environment. 

January 02, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
Reply #426

mrblack

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 191
  • Karma:
    -6
  • Personal Text
    everything is true, everything is permitted.
    • View Profile
    • The Razors Edge
Tibetan Buddhism is considered to be an eastern magickal tradition.

At the same time, neuroscientists using the latest technologies were challenging old assumptions about the relationship of brain and body. Psychologists were trying to account for abilities to change physical states (such as body temperature), as specifically demonstrated by individuals adept at meditation, when such influences on the body by the mind was thought impossible. Western science had emphasized external influences and was just beginning to investigate human life from the inside. So in various disciplines loosely grouped as mind sciences, some scientists were eager to experiment with more advanced meditation subjects, and they were ready to hear different points of view.

Several attractive and carefully edited books chronicle this unique journey, though each is also self-contained. Gentle Bridges: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind (Shambhala; 272 pages; $17.95), edited by Jeremy Hayward and Francisco Varela, impressed me as a kind of crash course in contemporary mind sciences, while Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism (Snow Lion; 183 pages; $15.95), edited by Zara Houshmand, Robert B. Livingston and B. Alan Wallace, most eloquently explains Buddhist thought, particularly in Alan Wallace's afterword. Healing Emotions: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Mindfulness, Emotions and Health (Shambhala; 277 pages; $15.95), edited by Daniel Goleman, and Sleeping, Dreaming and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness With the Dalai Lama (Wisdom Publications; 254 pages; $16.95), edited by Francisco J. Varela, delve into research in their respective subjects and pertinent Buddhist thought, while Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature (Oxford University Press; 263 pages; $27.50), edited by Richard J. Davidson and Anne Harrington, investigates the growing scientific interest in altruism, empathy and the psychology of violence. All these titles turn out to be at the cutting edge of science in these decades.


http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-11/books/17419863_1_14th-dalai-lama-physicists-uc-berkeley

As well.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

The reason I point these out is because the practices within IIH and Tibetan Buddhism is pretty close so if you're
looking for scientific research on the subject then feel free to jump in.

Even the video, Iceman accessing his "inner thermostat" sounded like a magickal technique to me.....  :wink:
As well, they never mentioned/did tests as to how he can do that - he was just able to do it. (unless the video
was incomplete?) To me, the video only clarified that he can get results consistently - not how he can do it.

Also check out the Skeptics Guide#73 podcast.
hepaby!

beyondchaosmagick.wordpress.com <-- journal
thehollowones.wordpress.com <--collective

January 02, 2012, 12:05:05 PM
Reply #427

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote
No one has ever done this, or anything like this, to my knowledge.
Maybe you should gain a bit more knowledge ;) I don't know if any specific tests regarding the temperature of a room have been performed, though I doubt it as there would be a shit-ton of factors to try and control when you have living breathing heat-generator biomachines in that same room (ie, the temperature of the room should raise simply from the existence of the person/people), but there have been many many other studies where the results DO speak for themselves... if anyone would bother to read them. In other threads kobok has given Searcher (Searching?) links to exactly the kinds of experiments that you're now talking about (you might be able to find those links if you check the threads started by Searcher), but even without someone else giving you the links you should be able to find something about the scientific experiments that have been done by searching for them yourself.

They may not be plastered on the front of Scientific America, but they're not exactly relegated purely the bottom shelf of one researcher's old desk; they are available to find if you start searching. You can start here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew if you'd actually like to see some evidence, rather than just continually asking "where is the evidence?" :)

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 02, 2012, 06:28:27 PM
Reply #428

Jordana Divinorum

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 17
  • Karma:
    3
    • View Profile
Steve: Thanks for the link.  I don't think measuring the temperature in a room would be that hard.  They were able to do tests on the Iceman in freezing cold water.  I'm sure a competent scientist would know how to compensate for a person being in the room.  Or the magician could raise the temperature of the room next to him.  Or.. he could lower the temperature in the room, or light a candle, etc.  I'll definitely check out the links you provided.

January 02, 2012, 06:57:01 PM
Reply #429

mrblack

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 191
  • Karma:
    -6
  • Personal Text
    everything is true, everything is permitted.
    • View Profile
    • The Razors Edge
Out of curiosity, what editions are people working with?
I've been working with the Ruggeberg edition till recently when I finally fully switched
to the Merkur edition.
hepaby!

beyondchaosmagick.wordpress.com <-- journal
thehollowones.wordpress.com <--collective

January 02, 2012, 08:06:02 PM
Reply #430

Searching

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1278
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Just Sayin'
    • View Profile
An experiment is (or many many experiments are) run by scientists, who document their efforts the same as they would any other experiment. After they're done, they publish their findings the same as always. After this is done, someone else entirely, who had nothing to do with the experiments yet who claims to have some sort of authority on the matter (whether claiming to be scientists, or professors, or studious persons of whatever background, or stage magicians), comes along and seem to cast so much "doubt" on the experiments, through nothing more than offering alternative explanations or outright lying about things that supposedly happened during the experiments, that society at large listens to the naysayers and let the matter be swept from their minds. Scientists found Facts; disbelievers made Claims. Yet it is the loudest voice, not the most accurate voice, which controls the perceptions of society.

The problem isn't so much that there are skeptics- the problem is that we have no way of verifying Nina Kulagina's experiments in the modern day for the variables that these modern skeptics point out.

There's nothing inherently wrong with skepticism.

Guys like Randi and other former stage magicians turned paranormal investigator providing prize money for proof made a very good living deceiving people professionally. They know the tricks that those uneducated in the field, whether they be your average person or even professional scientists, might not catch. There are very crafty people out there, and there are some things that if you haven't been taught, you just won't get. Things which may be counter-intuitive. Things you might THINK you would catch, but you don't.

In that sense, Randi and company provide a very valuable service, and we should learn as much as we can from them. If you want to know truth, it helps to know the myriad of ways you can be deceived.

So there is nothing inherently wrong with them looking at a case study or a scientific study and saying "well here's how I could think of a way to fake this. If I can think of a way, it's possible they thought of the same or similar way."

The problem is that Nina Kulagina isn't around to back up her claims under NEW scientific conditions which are vetted by the skeptics who want to eliminate the variables that they see.

The problem is that, even then, Nina Kulagina had health issues which prevented researchers from going to certain lengths.

And the problem is that, to date, there isn't anyone who is willing to go through the rigorous process of academic investigation.


It is a process and it is rigorous. Because something like telekinesis/psychokinesis completely contradicts the mainstream/popular understanding about what is possible in this universe and what it is possible for the human to perform.

So it needs to be understood that if someone comes up saying they can move things with their mind, if they have scientists claiming to back them, if they have popular media support, EVERYONE (generally speaking) is going to want to see for themselves, because, as far as "everyone" is concerned (again, speaking in a general, mainstream sense), PK is "impossible".

And it's going to take a LOT of work to overturn that idea in the mainstream.
"For sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was." - Captain Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

January 02, 2012, 08:18:59 PM
Reply #431

Searching

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1278
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Just Sayin'
    • View Profile
Quote
If I claim that slapping myself in the face can cause it to rain in Japan, shouldn't I show some type of evidence before it's adopted as the truth?
The problem here isn't with you showing evidence, it's in whether other people accept the evidence. You can put forth as much awesome evidence as you want, and each of the 7 billion people in the world have the inherent Right to simply disregard it and believe whatever they want to believe.

And then there's another problem that occurs with skeptics and metaphysical communities-

Skeptics go "what about variable X? Let's see an experiment that tests for variable X"

And the metaphysical community goes "variable X is irrelevant, you should accept what we've already given you".

Doesn't take a psychic to predict that unless you address the concerns that people have, they aren't going to believe you  :wink: and if you continue to ignore variable X, guess what the rallying cry of the skeptics is going to be? You guessed it: variable X.

Part and parcel of overturning long long term beliefs is, well, doing the legwork of addressing what people are going to be worried about. If you can't do that, well, don't whine about nobody believing you because, really, you should have seen it coming.

but there have been many many other studies where the results DO speak for themselves... if anyone would bother to read them. In other threads kobok has given Searcher (Searching?) links to exactly the kinds of experiments that you're now talking about (you might be able to find those links if you check the threads started by Searcher),

Searching.  :)

I thought I had the old links somewhere, I'll try and find them later. The conversations were in the psi section though, if anyone wants to go through and look for them.

But the most compelling studies that I've seen (to the best that I recall) weren't about a single individual doing amazing feats of PK and astounding researchers. It was large numbers of people performing really small amounts of PK on random number generators, and when taken altogether, made people say that the chance of all of this happening on the scale it happened was unlikely, so something must be happening.

Criticism centered on two things-
1) that the evidence was a statistical analysis of several disparate studies
and
2) some of the studies had issues with procedure (but NOT all), so the critics removed some studies from the pool

The critics combined those, removing experiments they had issues with (but keeping experiments that they agreed had solid procedures) and performing their own math, and found that the findings were not out of the ordinary.


At least, that's from what I recall.

If anyone is looking for a study where some magician is out lighting stuff on fire, or floating stuff around the room, or reading the minds of researchers.... I haven't seen it, and I don't think it exists.

And, you know... I've been "searching" for a while.... :)
"For sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was." - Captain Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

January 02, 2012, 11:07:07 PM
Reply #432

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote
The problem isn't so much that there are skeptics- the problem is that we have no way of verifying Nina Kulagina's experiments in the modern day for the variables that these modern skeptics point out.
The problem isn't that there are skeptics, no, but when skeptics become very vocal disbelievers who completely ignore scientific studies, then they definately become a problem. You can't verify nina kulagina's experiments for yourself and therefore they're invalid? Bullshit :P The scientists who studied her TOOK INTO ACCOUNT all of the arguments that randi et al try to use to debunk her. The scientists checked for trickery and designed several of the experiments that you can watch in the videos in order to remove exactly those kinds of cheats that randi and them want to believe she used. The problem here is that 40 scientists studied her and all came to fairly similar conclusions, and then one NON-scientist comes along with an opinion and we should believe him when he clearly hasn't even watched the videos or studied up on the experimental procedures? Fuck that. I will trust the 40 scientists over the one naysayer (if he JUST brought the questions to bear then he would be a skeptic, but he went steps further and used those questions in a rhetorical sense to basically call those scientists bumbling idiots and called the entire scientific process a sham).

Quote
There's nothing inherently wrong with skepticism.
If we were dealing only with skepticism, then you'd be right. But we're also dealing with people who refuse to see the truth and who parade about their own false notions that science is now proving wrong. You know what that makes them instead of skeptics? Delusional.

Quote
Guys like Randi and other former stage magicians turned paranormal investigator providing prize money for proof made make a very good living deceiving people professionally.
You think people like Randi have stopped deceiving people? They're not paranormal investigators, because investigators would actually care about what's going on. Randi will never admit that the paranormal exists because he believes it does not and is unwilling to change this belief.

Quote
They know the tricks that those uneducated in the field, whether they be your average person or even professional scientists, might not catch.
And there's the Great Lie that these so-called stage-magicians-turned-investigators keep pushing in order to give themselves a false authority into the matter. Scientists know how to catch many stage magic tricks, and they have caught quite a number. What you might not know is that it was scientists who, for a very long time, ran the forefront of the crusade in catching stage-magicians who claimed to have real supernatural powers Sure, scientists can be fooled some times, they are human after all, but you know what the biggest difference between scientists who are running experiments are, compared to Randi who is running his mouth? The scientists are actually involved in experiments, whereas Randi merely hears about them from afar and tries to give his "expert" opinion into why the experiments are always flawed.

Also, Randi is ONE stage magician. The weight of his words do NOT out-match the weight of many many scientists.

Quote
So there is nothing inherently wrong with them looking at a case study or a scientific study and saying "well here's how I could think of a way to fake this. If I can think of a way, it's possible they thought of the same or similar way."
And yes, actually, there is something inherently wrong with that: they haven't given me any reason whatsoever to believe them when they make such claims. They can claim that the moon is closer to the sun than it is to the earth, and you'll stop to question it, but when you actually look at the experiments/facts you'll see that those people are talking out of their asses.

Quote
The problem is that Nina Kulagina isn't around to back up her claims under NEW scientific conditions which are vetted by the skeptics who want to eliminate the variables that they see.
We've been over this time and again. The scientists of the time DID account for those supposed variables. They checked for strings, they used non-magnetic materials, they brought their own objects for her to move, the scientists had machines to measure various things, etc etc etc. None of those factors have gone unchecked, and you and Randi have both been unable to provide any other standards that weren't already checked. Thus, her tests are NOT invalidated by your lack of knowledge and lack of desire to learn more about the studies.

Quote
The problem is that, even then, Nina Kulagina had health issues which prevented researchers from going to certain lengths.
Not quite. She had health issues which forced her to stop participating in experiments. They already had her do many amazing feats on camera, in controlled environments, and with controls in place to defeat stage-magic.

Quote
And the problem is that, to date, there isn't anyone who is willing to go through the rigorous process of academic investigation.
Can you fucking blame them when every popularized show out there that delves into the paranormal always comes back and makes the people who believe in metaphysics look like idiots? What's the point of going on national television just to have all the good stuff edited out and have the very people who invited you to the show call you names and slander you?

Quote
So it needs to be understood that if someone comes up saying they can move things with their mind, if they have scientists claiming to back them, if they have popular media support, EVERYONE (generally speaking) is going to want to see for themselves, because, as far as "everyone" is concerned (again, speaking in a general, mainstream sense), PK is "impossible".
So what if you have two of the three? "if someone comes up saying they can move things with their mind, if they have scientists claiming to back them, if they have popular media support". Do we suddenly not believe the person when the scientists disagree with the media? Who are you believing when you have to wait until media supports the idea before you'll accept it?

Quote
Skeptics go "what about variable X? Let's see an experiment that tests for variable X"

And the metaphysical community goes "variable X is irrelevant, you should accept what we've already given you".
Yeah, but it's not the metaphysical community which are doing the experiments. Scientists are taking all of these variables into account. Have you been looking into the links that kobok gave you so long ago? Which variables are still being unaccounted for? Until you can answer that question with absolute specifics (ie, "they're not controlling for potential electrical interference caused by the lighting system. AND this is relevant because it could affect the supposed randon-number generation of RNG machines"), AND NOT GUESSES about what "might" not have been accounted for, then there's no point in continuing to bring the point up.

Quote
Doesn't take a psychic to predict that unless you address the concerns that people have, they aren't going to believe you
Doesn't take a psychic to realize that people will only-ever-always believe whatever they want to believe in anyway, regardless of what reality actually is like. Did you know there are people who still think Elvis is alive?

Quote
Part and parcel of overturning long long term beliefs is, well, doing the legwork of addressing what people are going to be worried about.
150 years of scientific experiments into the supernatural, with more than abundant significant results regardless of the era, means the legwork is already done a hundred times over.

Quote
If you can't do that, well, don't whine about nobody believing you because, really, you should have seen it coming.
I don't give a shit about them not believing me because I already know/believe they're not going to. I'm trying to explain to YOU that the problems you keep bringing up have already been taking into account by the scientific community while they continue to replicate significant results time and again.

Quote
The critics combined those, removing experiments they had issues with (but keeping experiments that they agreed had solid procedures) and performing their own math, and found that the findings were not out of the ordinary.
I'm sorry, where did this happen? I've heard the exact opposite from scientists such as kobok, dean radin, various authors, etc. Who, and please tell me it's not those fucking wanna-be-scientist stage magicians, redid the math after removing experiments from the pool in order to come out to normal numbers? And secondly, WHY did they remove each study? Just claiming something like "oh, those had poor criteria" without giving really good reasons why is a slimy tactic that at least a couple of people have been caught doing in order to just remove what actually were good experiments (and the other side of that occurred as well, where some experimenters wanted to show results so badly that they removed people from the experiment who were receiving low scores).

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 11:14:36 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 03, 2012, 12:57:44 AM
Reply #433

trismegistos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 371
  • Karma:
    22
  • Personal Text
    www.thedivinescience.org
    • View Profile
I think people have this misconception of "If it doesn't show up on the first page of google, such a thing must not exist."

As if every scientific study is right on the internet, not to mention that 99% of the internet doesn't even come up on search engines.  See deep web.  Whenever I've tried looking up studies that verify magic I have very little luck.

I think a good book to read is vol. 1 of Isis Unveiled.  When you get to "meteor cat" you will see just how far people will go in order to deny something that they can't explain or doesn't fit into their view of the world.

January 03, 2012, 01:42:14 PM
Reply #434

Jordana Divinorum

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 17
  • Karma:
    3
    • View Profile
Quote
I think people have this misconception of "If it doesn't show up on the first page of google, such a thing must not exist."

As if every scientific study is right on the internet, not to mention that 99% of the internet doesn't even come up on search engines.  See deep web.  Whenever I've tried looking up studies that verify magic I have very little luck.

It only took me about 10 seconds to find that video on the Iceman.  The discovery channel did a whole episode on him.  I'm a believer in magick, but I can't expect anyone else to think the things in Initiation into Hermetics are possible when there is no evidence.  If Wim Hof (the iceman) can be featured in Sciencedaily and the Discovery Channel, I think someone that is able to change the temperature of a room or light a candle with their mind would be able to as well.  The iceman can only change his body's response to heat/cold/bacteria, but a magician can change things OUTSIDE his body.  I'd love to see a whole episode of a guy lighting candles with his mind.

Article on immunse response:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110422090203.htm

Commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSa3Gt0k7E