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 569227 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 07, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
Reply #465

trismegistos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 371
  • Karma:
    22
  • Personal Text
    www.thedivinescience.org
    • View Profile
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?

A discussion between Searching and Steve lol.

January 09, 2012, 04:41:49 PM
Reply #466

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Damnit SearchER, now I'm going to have to doublecheck the names of the people posting if I don't want to mix you two up :P

Quote
It will help me and others to understand where both of you are coming from with regards to what you believe in, in respect to Majick/PSI etc.
We both believe magic/psi/whatever exists. What we're arguing over is something different: Searching keeps saying that the evidence isn't good enough, and when I try to press him for what problems haven't already been addressed, he keeps avoiding the question so that he can maintain his belief that the evidence isn't good enough. Until he takes a deep breath and plunges deeper than the concepts and theories, and starts looking at the facts and figures, he's never going to let himself become convinced because he's still so convinced of his misconceptions about how far the scientific experiments have progressed already.

-------
Quote from: SearchING
There aren't any that I want tested 

What part of that did you miss?
The part of that that I missed, was this part:
Quote
But there are other people (i.e. Randi) who have a variety of grievances with the research ("here is a way that we can fake that event under those conditions").

Ideally, we would be able to run experiments to isolate and account for whatever grievance is listed.
Where you do the complete opposite of saying there aren't any factors that you want taken into account. As I wrote above, until you actually look at what's going on, instead of turning your head from it in order to continue believing what you already believe, you're not going to see that these things have already been taken into account.

Quote
But she isn't around, so we can't.

The. End.
With quaint little delusions like this. Even if she's dead, if the factors that people have a problem with have already been taken into account, then it doesn't matter that she's dead because the tests were done to satisfaction before people even started saying they had problems with them. The only way that anyone can say "I have a problem with these tests" is to either 1) look at them and come up with exact, specific factors that aren't regulated, or 2) completely ignore the tests entirely and just make shit up (something Randi has been caught doing by lots of people). Until you or anyone else can come up with something that can be tested, then the books remain closed. So it's not "the end, we can't test for these factors" but "the end, we've already tested for these factors and she's already passed them to satisfaction."

~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 09, 2012, 07:31:25 PM
Reply #467

Searching

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1278
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Just Sayin'
    • View Profile
Damnit SearchER, now I'm going to have to doublecheck the names of the people posting if I don't want to mix you two up :P

Quote
It will help me and others to understand where both of you are coming from with regards to what you believe in, in respect to Majick/PSI etc.
We both believe magic/psi/whatever exists. What we're arguing over is something different: Searching keeps saying that the evidence isn't good enough, and when I try to press him for what problems haven't already been addressed, he keeps avoiding the question so that he can maintain his belief that the evidence isn't good enough. Until he takes a deep breath and plunges deeper than the concepts and theories, and starts looking at the facts and figures, he's never going to let himself become convinced because he's still so convinced of his misconceptions about how far the scientific experiments have progressed already.

-------
Quote from: SearchING
There aren't any that I want tested 

What part of that did you miss?
The part of that that I missed, was this part:
Quote
But there are other people (i.e. Randi) who have a variety of grievances with the research ("here is a way that we can fake that event under those conditions").

Ideally, we would be able to run experiments to isolate and account for whatever grievance is listed.
Where you do the complete opposite of saying there aren't any factors that you want taken into account. As I wrote above, until you actually look at what's going on, instead of turning your head from it in order to continue believing what you already believe, you're not going to see that these things have already been taken into account.

You can cease with the pontifications. You missed my point entirely.

I am saying this:

There is research out there, and people who don't believe the research is good enough. Unless you address what those people have problems with, you aren't going to convince them. Writing them off, ignoring them, insulting them, and going about your own thing is all well and good, and you can live your life however you want. Just don't be surprised when you don't convince someone because you failed to answer their questions.


Unless you missed something somewhere in that paragraph, I'm not saying that I, personally, am not satisfied with the research. I am saying there are people like James Randi and Ray Hyman out there who are out there critiquing the research. And the response to them is something along the lines of "no, they don't know what we're doing, we know what we're doing, we did it right the first time, we don't need to do it again, because we did it right the first time. So you should just accept that we did it right the first time, and stop asking that we repeat it. Because we already did it enough."

Quote
Quote
But she isn't around, so we can't.

The. End.
With quaint little delusions like this.

Wow. Um.... Okay? You're pretty far gone if you're responding like that.

Quote
Even if she's dead, if the factors that people have a problem with have already been taken into account, then it doesn't matter that she's dead because the tests were done to satisfaction before people even started saying they had problems with them.

And what do you do about the issue of repeatability? Which is part of the verification process?

Quote
can come up with something that can be tested

And THAT'S exactly my point: ON WHO?

Who is it that you think we'd be doing these tests on? A long gone Nina Kulagina? If someone comes up with a theory for how they can fake it, if they want to test it, how exactly do you propose they do that? Or do you just plan to infinitely write them off by saying "we've already tested for it, don't expect to do it again, because we've done it before, that should be enough"?
"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 09, 2012, 08:05:05 PM
Reply #468

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote
There is research out there, and people who don't believe the research is good enough. Unless you address what those people have problems with, you aren't going to convince them.
Until someone tells us what the problem is, we CANNOT address the problem because it DOESN'T EXIST except in theory. This is a completely fucking cop-out, and that's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time. What are the fucking problems? I know they must be addressed, hence why I'm asking what they are!

~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 09, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Reply #469

MariusAnil

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 167
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
@ Steve: to phase the intense skepticism of those organisations you would need double blind statistical analysis type experiments like this one :biggrin:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassandra-vieten/esp-evidence_b_795366.html.

Guess you all ignored this. Why are you guys bickering over one experiment. There are multiple experiments in the above link with over 1000 subjects. They can all also be repeated fairly easily.
Life is energy with purpose.

January 10, 2012, 06:24:02 PM
Reply #470

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
I'm not trying to ignore those, Marius. I'm trying to address the attitude, such as what Searching is using, that prevents a person from looking at any (number of) scientific experiment(s) in order to see what they have to say. Searching is so caught up on the idea that someone's doubt invalidate experiments that he fails to realize how that's just plain not valid logic. (And I'm doing that by arguing around a single set of experiments, rather than trying to argue around 1000 of them) The more scientific stuff you can produce for anyone else reading this thread, the better :)

If I have doubts about thermodynamics, I do not invalidate all of the tests and theories and whatnot that Einstein did just because he's dead and cannot personally refute me. The first step to be taken in such situations should be to look at the experiments that were done and see if any complaints/doubts have already been addressed; if they have been, then the doubts are invalid and in no way, shape, or form invalidate the experiments whatsoever and nor do they set up a requirement for further testing. The lack of ability to come up with specific complaints completely nullifies the concept that a valid complaint is put forward, and thus we can skip the entire process of "valid doubt" in the first place, since these are doubts based in ignorance that are being put forth.

~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 10, 2012, 10:27:18 PM
Reply #471

Searching

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1278
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Just Sayin'
    • View Profile
If I have doubts about thermodynamics, I do not invalidate all of the tests and theories and whatnot that Einstein did just because he's dead and cannot personally refute me.

Ay yay yay, again you harp on this point!

Of COURSE you'd have to look at other experiments because Einstein is not around. But then you'd be looking at the OTHER experiments, now wouldn't you?

So sure, Nina Kulagina might not be around, so you can look at this or that experiment to find verification that psi phenomena are real. Okay. Wonderful.

That doesn't help Nina Kulagina, who isn't any more around than she was previously.
"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 10, 2012, 11:20:07 PM
Reply #472

MariusAnil

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 167
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter if the person is alive, dead, or criminal. why are you bickering on these useless details? The only thing that matters is results. was the hypothesis proved or disproved. If you have doubt recreate the experiment and be objective of the results.

I know its not as simple as this but someone being alive to refute your doubt about their experiments would defeat the purpose of the experiment(its meant to be repeatable) in the first place. if it can't be easily repeated and the variables are... variable then its a poor example of an experiment(more like a recorded event). argue over valid experiments. :biggrin:
Life is energy with purpose.

January 11, 2012, 12:43:49 AM
Reply #473

trismegistos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 371
  • Karma:
    22
  • Personal Text
    www.thedivinescience.org
    • View Profile
I have a feeling he's one of those people that even if every variable was tested, they'd be like "well there has to be SOMETHING not being accounted for, it HAS to be a trick because my worldview SAYS IT IS."  I've known plenty of people like that who had nothing to contest about the studies, no variables they could think that weren't tested, but, it is SO obvious that they can't possibly be wrong about such a thing that there is obviously SOME KIND OF TRICK DAMNIT!!!  It all comes down to the lie so many people so often tell, about the whole logic thing and then that open minded thing, and the oh so prevalent "skeptic" thing, except skeptic really means "I've made up my mind nothing can change it unless Jesus himself beams down to Earth and turns me into a rabbit, and then I'll still be skeptical because that's what skeptics are, right?"

Not saying Searching is the kind of person I addressed after that first sentence, but it's just mind numbing how many "men of science" are really just men of dogma.

January 11, 2012, 10:35:24 AM
Reply #474

MariusAnil

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 167
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
Its not only that they are men of dogma. The system of scientific pursuit as it is now is based on reputation. Scientist are so afraid of being wrong because their career might be in jeopardy. That is why most scientist don't try to tackle controversial subjects like Metaphysics(or any other controversial subject). Because on the off chance that it is proven valid it would completely flip the modern physics paradigm. I'm not going into corporate interests because the history is too long and disgusting.   
Life is energy with purpose.

January 11, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
Reply #475

Searching

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1278
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Just Sayin'
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter if the person is alive, dead, or criminal. why are you bickering on these useless details? The only thing that matters is results. was the hypothesis proved or disproved. If you have doubt recreate the experiment and be objective of the results.

I know its not as simple as this but someone being alive to refute your doubt about their experiments would defeat the purpose of the experiment(its meant to be repeatable) in the first place. if it can't be easily repeated and the variables are... variable then its a poor example of an experiment(more like a recorded event). argue over valid experiments. :biggrin:

If you want to see whether it's possible to perform a slam dunk, who do you choose as your pool of subjects- average people off the street, or athletes who train at a professional level?

If you want to see whether it's possible to run a four minute mile, who do you research- average people off the street, or athletes who train at a professional level?

If you want to look at examples of exceptional telekinetic ability, who do you look at- average people who don't perform any feats in their day to day lives, or people who perform these things on at least a semi-regular basis?
"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 11, 2012, 01:39:00 PM
Reply #476

ThePhoenix13

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 103
  • Karma:
    9
  • Personal Text
    Reborn
    • View Profile
    • The Divine Science
I had a question that I wished to ask about the material in IIH, but seeing the absolute drivel on the past few pages has persuaded me to go elsewhere.

I felt I should let you know that this thread has deteriorated into nonsense.
thedivinescience.org

January 11, 2012, 01:49:34 PM
Reply #477

TakeV

  • Veritas Council
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Mad Scientist

  • 946
  • Karma:
    55
    • View Profile
I had a question that I wished to ask about the material in IIH, but seeing the absolute drivel on the past few pages has persuaded me to go elsewhere.

I felt I should let you know that this thread has deteriorated into nonsense.

Then ask the question, no need to be rude.

January 11, 2012, 01:55:50 PM
Reply #478

MariusAnil

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 167
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
Yes that is a valid point. but these are achievements of individuals. poor examples of experiments because the variables are variable. proving psychokinesis is extremely difficult because the numbers aren't there. there aren't enough people who can do it to convince the wider scientific community that it is possible.

precognition and retrocognition are abilities that are much easier to prove because the numbers(statistical analysis) are there. another example of this is scientific studies of meditation. many many people meditate so they can easily gauge the benefits of practice across a broad spectrum of individuals(heck they even found a gene that meditation activates that deals with stress differently then most people do http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/113735.php and also turns on disease fighting genes http://www.familyhealthguide.co.uk/meditation-switches-on-disease-fighting-genes.html ). again argue over valid experiments :biggrin:
Life is energy with purpose.

January 11, 2012, 01:57:53 PM
Reply #479

MariusAnil

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 167
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
I had a question that I wished to ask about the material in IIH, but seeing the absolute drivel on the past few pages has persuaded me to go elsewhere.

I felt I should let you know that this thread has deteriorated into nonsense.

yes it has sorry for contributing to the drivel
Life is energy with purpose.