And, Duv name-calling and threatening, poor Anartaxius here?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :
Dear MJ you are making a large assumption and possibly a transference of
something in your thinking on to me. I have not problem with Duv here and what
he writes here. I often appreciate what he has to contribute here. However
'how' he says it affects us all if it is in violation of the yahoo-groups
guidelines. He is certainly free to speak his mind on FFL so long as it is
within the boundaries of the yahoo-groups guidelines. That has nothing to do
with me. -JaiGuruYou
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :
you've got a lot of fans here Duv, and most of 'em proly want you to go for
it, but are too afraid to say so for fear of gettin' whupped up on by Buck and
the FFL police.
From: Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Astrology Science?
Anyone want me to smack Anartaxius around a little? I usually just post my
stuff and then forgive all the trolls, but Anartaxius seems to be asking for it.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttt, it's so much work to rub someone's nose in their own
doo-doo, and I'm not up for it unless I can get a mob assembled here that wants
me to give Mr. A a major fucking correction about his FFL posting morals.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuutt, I don't have any fans here, so this ain't going to happen,
and no way Taxi changes even if God appears before him and tells him to shape
up.
Okay, I'll put a number on it. If I get five others here to publicly encourage
me to get him my best shots, I'll tear him a new one.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:14 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Anartaxius, you ignorant slut. So, in replying to my criticism you are
consorting with prostitutes and those of dim and unlearned intelligence? Seems
like a good fit.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : On Wednesday, May
27, 2015 10:44 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Seems to me that since a single photon of light hitting a dark-conditioned
retina can trigger a change in the flow of consciousness -- a single photon
could possibly be a tipping point's "final straw" and so, an
infant's-personality-that's-ever-so-fragile could thereby get hard-wired into a
"something or other."
I think we discussed this point some weeks ago. a single photon of light
likely, on the basis of experiment, can affect the retina of the eye, but it is
not an event the becomes conscious because the impulse does not get any further
than this in the nervous system.
I used "dark-conditioned retina" which I believe DOES send a full message to
the brain about a single photon, but one or a dozen, so what? The evidence is
that a very small amount of light can be registered in consciousness -- which
could be a tipping point experience. EMPHASIS ON "COULD." The issue is
whether such an event in consciousness could be some sort of keystone in an
upside down pyramid -- we know the concept "tipping point" is valid, and we
know the infant is "brand new" and ready for "imprinting like a baby bird"
MAYBE. See the word "maybe" there?
Yes, but belief is not evidence. And the evidence of the experiments shows
that while it is likely a single photon could affect the retina, considerably
more photons are required for the signal to get sent from the retina further up
the processing chain. There is a difference between a 'small amount of light'
and a single photon. So far there has never been an experimental result where a
single photon was noticed. In fact scientifically 'an event in consciousness'
is undefined because there is no scientific definition of consciousness.
I am aware of the 'tipping point' concept (the writings of Malcolm Gladwell),
but if there is no evidence that a single photon can have effects to the extent
you would like to believe. You seem to be looking for some frail excuse to have
jyotish somehow work even when your own experience demonstrates it failed.
Now if you had an infant just at birth, don't you think all the activity
surrounded by the birth would have a much much larger impact on the child's
experience? We encounter things all life long that appear to tip us in one
direction or another. And many things that have more mass and energy than a
single photon impact us everyday so looking for the tiniest, least effective
impact to be the tipping point seems like a wasted opportunity and clearly on
the borderlands of irrationality.
Of course, it's hard to imagine a research scenario that could measure such
thing. But I mention this as a viable concept for this discussion, because of
the research on the "dirty water that is purified by radiation" -- "purified"
means anything-not-water gets separated out. I'll link below to the research,
as I have done several times here at FFL,
You did not link to the research, you linked to a YouTube video. That is not
scientific research. Pollack supposedly published this research in a low
quality on-line journal called Water, but it turns out, what was uploaded was
not a scientific paper, but a page listing the table of contents of his book,
purchasable elsewhere. So no published research at all, just advertising. This
is the abstract for the article, which is not an abstract for research but a
sales pitch:
So what? Do I need to do a Steve-Martin-EXCUSE ME? for using "research?" Give
me a break -- it's clear that the "error" you underline is not germane to the
discussion -- do you admit this? Are you not just a little bit happy to get in
here and show me up as a less-than-top-notch-thinker? Aaaaaand, if I'm not
top-notch, who the fuck are you to try to rub my nose in it? Is someone
smarter than you chafing your ass and I'm the only one you can take it out on?
Do you go around besting children at trivia games or what? Your attitude
belongs on a PhD orals-exam -- not here at FFL for Christ's sake.
You seem to be attracted to bad science. If you are using 'research' to
support your contention, then certainly it is germane to the discussion. In the
manner of your reply you seem to be underlining the words 'less-than-top-notch
thinker' with a broad brush. We do have such conversations on FFL all the time.
You are just not here very often.
The video shows that research was done and that there's probably some
paperwork to back it up. Did I say I have PROOF? The video SUGGESTS that
light somehow helps water to purify. It shows actual experiments being
conducted. The guy is legit, credentialed, and what the video shows is very
interesting, and I think it needs more follow up. These are concepts that fit
into this conversation -- it doesn't matter if the concepts are being promoted
by a book-selling professor. I maintain that jyotish is tantalizingly
supported by this video in that every cell in the human body is being
irradiated constantly by a host of waves of every ilk. It seems to me that
some of the surfaces found in the body will be thereby helped to purify
themselves and keep functions at peak performance. Light matters at a very
subtle level IT SEEMS.
The video implies research was done, it doesn't mean that research is any
good, or that the scientist was able to publish his results in a journal, which
I conclude after a search, he was unable to do, and he picked a low quality
journal that does not appear to have any kind of peer review by fellow
scientists. And there are crackpots that have credentials, but whose work is
considered useless by his/her peers. You have not specified here how water is
purified. Water by itself is pure. On Earth most water has dissolved minerals,
and various kinds of particulates, and micro-organisms. Sometimes bigger things
too, like fish. Most of this can be filtered out. Ultraviolet radiation can
kill micro-organisms, and there are various ways to filter out particulates and
chemicals such as distillation and reverse osmosis, cation and anion exchange
resins and so forth.
Having experienced jyotish failing so badly, what possible reason could you
have for wanting it to somehow work? It has a ridiculous concept, no
experimental proof, unexplained influences. It is a theory for the garbage heap
from more ignorant times. At best it is a psychological crutch for the gullible.
'The following paragraphs are reproduced from the website of the publisher
[1]. Professor Pollack takes us on a fantastic voyage through water, showing us
a hidden universe teeming with physical activity that provides answers so
simple that any curious person can understand. In conversational prose, Pollack
lays a simple foundation for understanding how changes in water’s structure
underlie most energetic transitions of form and motion on earth.'
The citation footnote [1] in the abstract did not refer to any information
either, not being a link or reference to anything else on the page.
So I'm a lousy student. I didn't use footnotes. FUCK YOU. Google this shit
yourself -- it's got to be out there. I couldn't find it, and I did 'Google
this shit'. It is evident you are a lousy student.
Not that that's a proof of astrology's main axiom, but that that indicates that
light is VERY impacting at the subtlest of levels.
There is very very much proof about instant printing. We see birds immediately
attach "that's my parent" to anything that moves when it is first born. We
know this kind of global psychological "hardening" is seen across the
biological spectrum.
Us human beings too? Why not? We know that trauma can do this. Why not the
first light that floods the newborn's eye?
I paid good bucks to eleven jyotishi-types. Nothing came true, no one "nailed
me," I was never warned about something, and no insights into what I'd been in
the past, and they all majorly disagreed with each other. And all of them were
consulted EXACTLY WHEN I NEEDED ADVICE THE MOST -- my life troubles during that
time were the WORST of my life, but no jyotish person warned or saw this.
So don't try to sell me any more jyotish, but don't toss it out with the
western astrology bathwater. I think the "light is synchronous" (not causal)
concept has traction. It's just that science is not up to examining it, and
probably won't be for another 100 years.
A good experiential observation that jyotish/astrology is hokum.
"Hokum" -- this is merely name calling. With one word you dismiss 10,000 years
of belief and practice that was so revered that father taught son for thousands
of years to MEMORIZE the ved verses about the concepts. Shame the fuck on you.
We don't know. We don't know. Why do you have such certainty in the face of
such a paucity of good research by modern science on these concepts? YOU DON'T
KNOW. All you're saying is "it's stupid, man, and so are you if you believe
it." That's your tone......don't deny it. This is the rotten core of FFL --
putting down anyone who is in the least flawed instead of advancing an argument
for clarity's sake.
Hokum is name calling, but it is also descriptive, as it is a synonym for
'nonsense'. A Population believing something that is wrong for 10,000 years
still means it's wrong. It is just is evidence that delusion is persistent and
contagious.
There is such a thing as common sense. If I told you I could throw a bowling
ball into orbit around the Earth with my right arm, and that thousands of
people believe I could do this because I wrote it in the 'Book of the Bowling
Ball' which has the status of scripture, would you believe me? Just because
somebody wrote something down, or told a story that was orally transmitted for
many generations doesn't mean a thing unless it can be demonstrated it has some
genuine effect. You can dismiss any amount of belief if you can show it is
wrong. And there may be simple reasons why something is likely to be wrong, so
it is not always necessary to engage in long precise experiments. For those
things important to oneself, you have to find out for yourself, rather than
taking someone's word for it.
Pollack has tenure at the U. of Washington. He published that ad of his in his
own journal. He is editor of the journal in which his supposed research was
supposedly published but wasn't. He was too lazy to publish a paper even in his
own journal. That alone is enough to cast suspicion. He seems to be a lonely
island in the world of science as far as his water ideas.
I do think you are stupid to believe these things. Why are they important to
you? You seem to be rather volatile; that does not help with rational thinking.
As for what I know, the only thing I know for sure is there is existence. The
details are hypotheses awaiting refutation, for basically science tries to
prove its ideas wrong. Those that survive the process get to live for another
day, at least for now.
You might do better over on the Peak, there is less rationality there, but you
probably could not get away with writing this way over there.
