OT: What's Your Zodiac (Sun) Sign? Theory to be tested

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:05 pm

This is a very interesting discussion.

Aaron, your points are well taken.

Certainly, you could challenge my lack of interest in the debunking books, as closed-mindedness.

Again, the problem is that there's no way I can transfer to you anything from my experience that would provide a basis for you to evaluate my point of view. So you have no way to know whether I'm approaching the subject with a closed mind or whether the experiences on which I base my point of view might actually be valid, even to the point, legitimately, of rendering the debunking books completely moot.

On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the possibility that many, perhaps even all, of the phenomena addressed by the books you've listed can be dismissed upon closer scientific examination as something other than what the proponents of those phenomena claim them to be, and that the books are correct as far as they go.

However, it's often a single, obscure exception to a "well-proven" theoretical system that causes the whole thing to unravel, or more precisely, reveals that the old system is just the way the universe operates under certain, limited conditions without taking into account other conditions, under which the universe operates differently. Sometimes it takes centuries for such scientific developments to emerge.

Of course, it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to accept a premise I present purely because I say "that's my experience" without any other evidence to support it. I wouldn't consider that closed-minded of you. However, there's a difference between not accepting a premise and rejecting it.

You don't know me very well, but I'm anything but closed-minded, and believe it or not, I'm anything but anti-science.

And thank you for this discussion. I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am.

Best wishes,
Jerry

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 pm

Well, I think there may be a place where all these streams converge, and it's somewhere in the field of quantum physics.

As we get closer to a TOE (theory of everything) that manages, successfully, to unify the fundamental forces of physics into one unified field, the properties of that field may begin to look more and more metaphysical.

I'm sure people will disagree forever, and probably continue to fight wars over it, as to whether one set of terminology is the right one and all the others wrong, but I do believe science has the potential to access truth that has been held out as the domain of religion and philosophy, without any violence to religion and philosophy.

In fact, although the very idea of science treading so close to theology may seem threatening to many, I believe for any who have to courage to look at it openly, it will affirm the great truths that have been handed down in various traditions through the ages.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[ This Message was edited by: Jerry Freeman on 2003-02-26 23:40 ]

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:50 pm

Born June 28, 1961, which makes me a Cancer, but I like to think my sign is "Don't even THINK of parking here!"

I'm also flat-footed. I like Chinese fortune cookies, but not Chinese food. I often get a fortune inside the cookie that says, "You like Chinese food." So I guess that disproves the fortune cookie thing.

I get very anxious before public performances, but I still seek them out. I feel great once I'm about a minute into the performance, and then for days after.

herbivore12 · Post by **herbivore12** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:55 pm

On 2003-02-26 22:05, Jerry Freeman wrote:

You don't know me very well, but I'm anything but closed-minded, and believe it or not, I'm anything but anti-science.

I don't doubt it. Taking opposing points in a debate, I've found, only rarely means that the folks debating don't actually agree on many primary points. I was only pointing out that criticisms of one viewpoint can also be levelled at the other, for the same reasons, and that we should all be aware of that. Making generalizations, though convenient, rarely serves its purpose as well as we think, nor as fairly.

And thank you for this discussion. I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am.

Best wishes,
Jerry

Wouldn't be here if I wasn't! I learned early in the years of the Internet that taking things personally in a medium that doesn't transmit body language or tone of voice is a bad idea, and not at all worth the stress it engenders. People who would otherwise have a good discussion over a beer get all bent out of shape, to no effect. So bring it on!

--Aaron
(I'm still right, though. Heh. . .)

[ This Message was edited by: herbivore12 on 2003-02-26 22:56 ]

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:33 pm

Aaron,

Thanks for your comments. It's a pleasure to get to know you.

Of course you're right.

Best wishes,
Jerry

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:05 pm

If my ability in mathematical
logic only approached my interest
in it, I would have been a
better philosopher.

Aristotle said: 'Philosophy begins
in wonder.' What did he mean?

Once if you asked people 'Where
did the sun and moon come from?'
they would answer: 'There was a
giant and he lay down and died,
and his blood became the seas,
his spine became the mountains,
and his eyes became the sun and
moon.' This was a mythological
explanation, it's like a
dream, and somehow the idea is
that the universe operates as
do the workings of the human mind.
Images connected in thought are
so connected in reality; really there
is no difference between thought
and reality. In a way the universe
is a poem or a dream.

Around 600 BC in Greece, something
changed and you start getting
pronouncemnts like: 'Everything is
made of water.' 'The earth is a
flat disk floating in water.'
And then the theories proliferate:
'The universe is made of material
atoms floating in a void.'
Mythology accounts are gone; poetic
accounts are gone.

People stopped thinking mythologically,
and when the scales fell from their
eyes they viewed the world in wonder.
Why are there different kinds of
things? Of stuffs? What's the difference
between earth, water, and air?
Why do cats have kittens and not
calves? Where did cats come from?
Why do kittens always grow up
to be cats? What are the stars anyway? Science is a non-mythological, non-poetic
response to wonder. It supposes
that the universe isn't functioning
like a dream or a poem, that
symbolic connections that connect
ideas in our minds are no indication
of what's happening outside our
minds.

Divination is pre-scientific,
and it seems to suppose that the
world is a poem--that the events in
my life are mirrored in the pattern
of raindrops in a puddle outside
my door. Things are connected almost
in a mentalistic way.

There's something odd in defending
this sort of thing scientifically.
Maybe we'll find the remnants of
the giant; perhaps a controlled study
of pregnant women who step on strings
will vindicate, after all, the old claim
if a pregnant woman steps on a string
it's likely the baby will be strangled
in the umbilical cord. (Note the
psychological force of this
silly but scary idea.) This
stuff is coming at reality in a
different way from science, it's
pre-science.

The universe appears to be a vast
collection of physical things flying
apart from each other on account of
an explosion long ago. The distances
between things are stunning. A large
number of flatulant monkeys infest
a speck of dust on the edge of
an immense galaxy. I, one of them,
have a weakness for fortune cookies,
also for whistles. That this would
be so was written in the stars
at my birth! The account was arrived at
by people who didn't know what stars
were, or what the universe was.
The only thing that makes this begin
to make sense is the idea that
the universe is a vast poem--in which
our affairs matter importantly. Things
are connected almost as they are
in the mind.

Of course it might be true. Studies
may bear it out...Or quantum mechanics.
But I think it
may put things in perspective to
see divination for what
I believe it is: the mind of
primitive humanity trying to control
and predict this murderous world
by psychologizing natural processes.
Divination keeps its grip on us because
psychologizing natural processes
comes naturally to us, which is
why we thought this way to begin
with. And it keeps us at the center
of things--yes, yes, my destiny
was written in the heavens at
my birth!--it plays to our
vanity and our deep need to
make reality out to be a romantic
place. I prefer wonder. Best

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2003-02-27 00:13 ]

JohnPalmer · Post by **JohnPalmer** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:42 am

March 14
Pisces
Lefty
Love performing in public
Play by ear
Love to improvise
Love to practice
Love to cuddle my 5 year old, little red-haired girl. (The older boys think it's gross)
Don't read very long threads or posts, but am amazed at how fast this thread reached 11 pages. (Must be the record)
Still want a decent low D
Got a new (80 year old) violin for my bday (early present)

My wife is a cancer, who has a beautiful soprano voice and can accompany herself on the piano.

JP

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:28 am

Hi, Jim.

What a beautiful piece of writing!

What I'm picking up from it is at least two either/or scenarios:

Divination vs. Wonder

An almost mentalistic connectedness vs. Science

I don't see either of these pairs as mutually contradictory or exclusive. More like both/and.

The more physics probes the nature of matter, matter becomes more and more like mind-stuff.

I believe the sense that "I and my thoughts are in here and the world is out there" is an illusion or artifact created by the machinery of perception.

I also believe that physicists will eventually, if they care to examine it, have the theoretical basis for understanding what mind and consciousness are, and I believe they will discover that mind and consciousness are everywhere, just as they already know that a single photon is everywhere. The greatest mystery will be, how did mind and consciousness become multifold? How did there come to be many selves and many consciousnesses? And why?

I agree with you that divination is used by primitive minds as a defense against unfathomable, uncontrollable forces, but I don't believe that's the only truth about divination.

I also believe we have to be careful how we judge the thinking of the past. Baradwaja wrote thirteen volumes on metallurgy. There is an iron pillar in India that has stood for centuries and never rusted. What did they know? It is vain of us to assume that we know more or better. We know differently. Science is a valid approach to knowledge, but it is not the only valid approach to knowledge.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[ This Message was edited by: Jerry Freeman on 2003-02-27 02:33 ]

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:42 am

God bless the scientists.

nickt · Post by **nickt** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:40 am

On 2003-02-26 13:55, Lorenzo wrote:
The natural universe is void of intelligent operations based on design, or instructions from a higher source. Chaos rules within our "apparently" peaceful and harmonious place in space. I say "rules," because the random factor holds every other factor hostage at any arbitrary time. It is tempting to assign design to the universe, simply because the theory appears to work some of the time, but time and time again this proves to be only the soil in which off-shoots grow.

This is so opposed to my thinking - I see order and wonder in everything. How come we all have one head, two arms, two legs if not? (As one of literally millions of examples). I am not being critical or judgemental, just gobsmacked at how differently we can all see the world!

I'm also not trying to change your view Lorenzo, you have yours and I have mine.

nickt · Post by **nickt** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:51 am

On 2003-02-26 15:17, herbivore12 wrote:
Some good books have been written to address why it is that people tend to adhere to things like astrology. To state baldly that "the science supports astrology" is, I'm afraid, not very accurate, or informative.

Best,
Aaron

It is accurate, but I agree, not very informative.

Therefore, check out the work of Michel Gauquelin, a French scientist who decided to once and for all quell belief in astrology. He used the great French benefit of having date/place/time recorded on French birth certificates (most countries don't do this), and produced the horoscopes of 300,000 people (a VERY large statistical sample).

What he discovered shocked him because it validated the planetary influences - wherever a planet was positioned either just above the ascendant or midheaven, it's influence was paramount in the person's life. To be more specific, Saturn = scientists, Jupiter = actors or politicians (what's the difference?!), Mars = sportspeople or militaristic people, Venus = artists and Mercury = writers, sales people, communicators, journalists.

His work has been checked many times and found to be flawless and incontrovertible. But after several centuries of investment into the "astrology is crap" school of thought, science will not change its view overnight. Just ask Darwin.

SteveK · Post by **SteveK** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:28 am

On 2003-02-27 02:28, Jerry Freeman wrote:
The more physics probes the nature of matter, matter becomes more and more like mind-stuff.

If you say that Sally is like her mother, there are two independent things to compare- Sally and her mother. But no independent mind-stuff has ever been observed so how is it that matter is like mind-stuff?

Steve

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:16 am

Hi, Steve.

The more and the closer physicists look at "hard," material things, the more they become abstract, soft and non-material.

I can't give you much of a list because I don't have the kind of memory that facilitates keeping lists and I'm not a physicist.

However, there's the fact I mentioned earlier, that a photon doesn't have a definite position in space until someone observes it. Up to that point, it is infinitely spread out in space and can be said to follow every possible path simultaneously. Only when someone observes it does it collapse to appear as a particle following a single path. This is mind-like in the sense that we can't say where in space mind is situated, and mind is capable of entertaining numerous, even contradictory, trajectories simultaneously.

There is also the effect seen with paired particles that have opposite spin that when the particles are separated such that they couldn't possibly communicate, each somehow "knows" the condition of the other and they remain paired, even though all particles of the same species are identical.

Perhaps the most mind-like behavior I know of is the property of spontaneous dynamical symmetry breaking of proposed unified field theories that say that the field giving rise to all material manifestation begins undifferentiated and somehow "wakes up" without any external input, and begins to differentiate. I've heard respected quantum physicists say that it is as if the field becomes aware of itself and begins to stir.

There's also the property of multiple dimensions that become rolled up and invisible as the field begins to express itself into matter. I believe one or more of the leading theories postulates "24 degrees of freedom" that exist, but don't appear to view because somehow in the process of the field's emergence into matter, all but the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time get "rolled up" and disappear from view. This sounds a bit like the multiple dimensions of consciousness that stream simultaneously in our experience of the world. Past impressions flow in and out of awareness, physical sensations are present, emotions play, the intellect formulates and examines, etc. -- multiple dimensions that are not strictly bound by time and space.

While these may not be exact correlations with human consciousness, they are interesting and suggestive. As I said, the closer we look, the more matter becomes abstract and mind-like.

Best wishes,
Jerry

nickt · Post by **nickt** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:16 am

On 2003-02-27 08:16, Jerry Freeman wrote:
Perhaps the most mind-like behavior I know of is the property of spontaneous dynamical symmetry breaking of proposed unified field theories that say that the field giving rise to all material manifestation begins undifferentiated and somehow "wakes up" without any external input, and begins to differentiate. I've heard respected quantum physicists say that it is as if the field becomes aware of itself and begins to stir.

Jerry

And to think this thread started out as a request for sun signs for a survey!

markv · Post by **markv** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:44 am

"I am not able to understand,
only to understand more.
The picture that I wish to examine is not static, it is growing and living.
Even as I understand how the hinges of a door allow me to open it,
I find that it leads to a room even larger than the first.
But I think perhaps that is part of wisdom. Knowing that I cannot know all, understanding that I cannot understand all. If the Maker's creation was understandable would I not find the Maker something less than great, would I not consider myself equal with the Maker? It is a tribute then to His greatness when I find myself
more confused even at the very instant that I have gained insight."

1000 bonus points for anyone who knows the source of this quote.

Mark V.

[ This Message was edited by: markv on 2003-02-27 09:46 ]