RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
Speaking of magnets.. Humans can make I believe any material Magnetic. Plastics & such.. please continue. 
why don't people have fur?
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
Sandbagger
New Member
Magnetic fur attracts.
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
Humans do not grow a thick coat of fur simply because then Chuck Norris would not be able to get such killer Tans.
j4droopy
Active Member
NO SIR. I never presented the law of attraction as science, i said it was applicable to magnetism. I believe my explanation of the correlation between magnetism and the law of attraction was simple enough. I am sorry the understanding escapes you. I provided no link, i provided scientific fact. The composition of magnets and what they attract. A small, yet viable connection between hard science and what you misunderstand as "magic" or "meta-physics" or whatever.
You are mis-quoting my statements terribly. It brings our conversation to a difficult place. "Herbal Medicine/Alchemy" meaning one in the same in this instance. The blending of specific herbs and natural substances to create a natural medicine. You say this is magick? Many medicines and even Absinthe were once considered witches brew. Vinegar, Olive Oil, Almond Oil, Nut Oil, grease, dung, laurel, oxymel, oxyalme, and milk!!!!! All of these were thought to be things used in a witches brew or potion. Individual components of many modern day medicines are extracts of a natural substance.
Every single day there are breakthroughs in natural medicine proving the effectiveness of hollistics. Dont take my word for it.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVS9QIzTT7k http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/12psychedelics.html
There you go and these are considered Class 1 Substances. GET FUCKING REAL.
Are thoughts directly feed back into the physical by directly manipulating our actions, this was never the point. Our thoughts affect our mood. Should we talk about "mood"?
The pavement on the concrete was once a figment of someones imagination. Now it physically exists and is literally used as a "path" in our lives. Human Consciousness has been the biggest factor in earths history since it evolved. The non-physical directly affects the physical. FACT. Is wind physical? Is bacteria physical? Our the dreams of Joan of Arc which directly affected the outcome of the 100 years war physical?
"They dont fit facts well" This is an egotistical statement. From your point of view you might not yet see the correlations. To dismiss entirely the legitamency of centuries of practiced "art" is audacious. We dis-credit our own teachers were so freaking smart. Careful research cannot precisely measure the non-physical. I never really had a point i was just presenting a reasonable argument.
As i said before, i think we confused "shaved' AND "saved".
j4droopy
Active Member
I dont know about any material, but i know for sure plastics and ceramics, thats pretty bad ass.Speaking of magnets.. Humans can make I believe any material Magnetic. Plastics & such.. please continue.
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
I am sure if you were a top leading scientist & had unlimited funds to make.. (insert material here) magnetic. All you would need is time & the lab. <3
Public Sector Technology, the gadgets we get to shave, drive, cook with on a daily basis, are easily a couple decades behinds what technology is open to use in the private sector.
Public Sector Technology, the gadgets we get to shave, drive, cook with on a daily basis, are easily a couple decades behinds what technology is open to use in the private sector.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Yes you did. You presented the Law of Attraction and Newtonian physics as examples of, in your words, forms of accepted "high science".
All I asked for was a reference to the law of attraction being common usage in talking about magnets. I did not say anyything about magic in re magnets.
i would be interested in an unambiguous example.
I never said that. Alchemy is specific to the quest to divine/create the philosophic mercury and the philosophic sulfur ... mythical magical substances with supernatural qualities. Compounding herbal medicine has nowt to do with alchemy as the term is used by historians of science.
I admire your passion, but this is an instance of cherrypicking. In my opinion. Nobody denies the the Schedule 1s have an effect ... that's why they're scheduled, fer grief's sake.
I have never once challenged the idea that humans affect the physical world. I have however challenged the idea, which i read in your posts, that the human mind directly affects the universe. Here is the excerpt from the post that got me started on this interchange:
(j4droopy) The more our species understands the nature of the universe, reality, and nature itself, the more our physical bodies become self sufficient. To me that implies that a mental process, our understanding, feeds back into our genotype. THIS is Lamarckian, and as such I reject it. Now if that is not what you meant, all my musings are for nowt. The blame should be shared: mine for misreading; yours for expressing the thought in a manner that makes the misread likely.
But Lamarckian concepts DON"T fit facts well. What I consider "correct" you consider "egotistical". Where are there centuries of practiced art that are Lamarckian at their root?
But imo the deeper issue is that you and I might have been arguing about completely different things, leading to friction over ... nothing, really. If you were NOT suggesting that human will and intention affects our physical evolution directly, without the purely physical mediation of, for example, hospitals and farms and matchmakers ... then I've launched my argument on a misperception, and I never really had one. Only you can decide that. cn
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You might argue I have fur.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
We prefer to be called Scottish.
j4droopy
Active Member
As i said it makes this difficult when you twist what i say. In reference to "Tha Law of Attraction" this is what I SAID:
""Effectively Disproven", im sorry but in reference to the astral, this is utter non sense. One can only question the conscious factors in evoulution, not disprove them. The Law of Attraction? Newtonian Physics? All forms of accepted "high science" point to minute determining factors in all matters of progression."
-"high science" in reference to newtonian physics. i apologize for the lack of clarity.
So you know, im not like a thorough believer in the law of attraction, i find it interesting and worthy of discussion. Science fact is based in science fiction.
Reference shouldnt matter...... IM discussing the correlation between magnets and the Law of Attraction as an example of the correlation between the physical and metaphysical.
In a much more modest definition of alchemy resides reality. Maybe not in this instance, but words like "mythical" and "magical" have been confused with "rare" and "misunderstood".
Regardless of reference or "cherrypicking" no one can deny modern medicine is based in natural medicine.
"The more our species understands the nature of the universe, reality, and nature itself, the more our physical bodies become self sufficient." By your own admission (i.e.:Running when scared) involunatary reaction is an instilled mental process. (Not all involuntary reaction) Just stuff like a natural caution of heights, or going into the bathroom and looking in the mirror, then thinking of the last sweet sugary substance you ate. Remembering and savoring every detail. 5 to 1 says you looked at your teeth. This is an example the effects of a mental process have fed into the genotype.
Im under the impression that you are of an absolute knowledge of the inner workings of infinite evolution. I think this is egotistical.
As far as Lamarckian concepts not fitting what we except as facts well, i agree.
However my beliefs are a personal matter. Yet i have to say i cannot discredit the possibility that we directly affect our evolution and the universe. Now, earth in the scheme of eternity is but a grain of sand.
Human will and intention may not directly affect us immediatley evolutionary or not, but everything has a ripple. The will and intention of many has a direct affect, or the "War on Terror." Im sure the same is true for the inverse, or a more positive aspect of the will and intentions of many.
Let me just say, i truly do not know. I can only speculate and reason.
""Effectively Disproven", im sorry but in reference to the astral, this is utter non sense. One can only question the conscious factors in evoulution, not disprove them. The Law of Attraction? Newtonian Physics? All forms of accepted "high science" point to minute determining factors in all matters of progression."
-"high science" in reference to newtonian physics. i apologize for the lack of clarity.
So you know, im not like a thorough believer in the law of attraction, i find it interesting and worthy of discussion. Science fact is based in science fiction.
Reference shouldnt matter...... IM discussing the correlation between magnets and the Law of Attraction as an example of the correlation between the physical and metaphysical.
In a much more modest definition of alchemy resides reality. Maybe not in this instance, but words like "mythical" and "magical" have been confused with "rare" and "misunderstood".
Regardless of reference or "cherrypicking" no one can deny modern medicine is based in natural medicine.
"The more our species understands the nature of the universe, reality, and nature itself, the more our physical bodies become self sufficient." By your own admission (i.e.:Running when scared) involunatary reaction is an instilled mental process. (Not all involuntary reaction) Just stuff like a natural caution of heights, or going into the bathroom and looking in the mirror, then thinking of the last sweet sugary substance you ate. Remembering and savoring every detail. 5 to 1 says you looked at your teeth. This is an example the effects of a mental process have fed into the genotype.
Im under the impression that you are of an absolute knowledge of the inner workings of infinite evolution. I think this is egotistical.
As far as Lamarckian concepts not fitting what we except as facts well, i agree.
However my beliefs are a personal matter. Yet i have to say i cannot discredit the possibility that we directly affect our evolution and the universe. Now, earth in the scheme of eternity is but a grain of sand.
Human will and intention may not directly affect us immediatley evolutionary or not, but everything has a ripple. The will and intention of many has a direct affect, or the "War on Terror." Im sure the same is true for the inverse, or a more positive aspect of the will and intentions of many.
Let me just say, i truly do not know. I can only speculate and reason.
j4droopy
Active Member
I whole-heartedly agree. I just watched a man flying on a jetpack in formation with jet fighters. The good ole "Private Sector", there the ones who really practice magic. hahahaha.
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Would you look at that, fdd has gone all quiet 
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Whose reality? We're discussing science and not metaphysics ... at least I am. If you accept that, then being strict with terminology like law of (anything), alchemy and magic is necessary language hygiene. Precise use of the terminology makes or breaks an argument. Myth, magic, alchemy have accepted definitions and boundaries within their fields of study. If you are going to pull your poetic license®istration, I'll have to pull you over for failure to signal.
Since the sugar, teeth thing is about me and not about my ancestors, no genotype feedback need be invoked. It's all phenotyically explainable.
As for the running in fear example, similar instinctive responses occur throughout the animal kingdom, including classes such as Insecta, Annelida etc. that don't conform to any ordinary theory of mentation. So we have a very large corpus of instinctive actions that, ultimately, cannot have been caused by conscious feedback. While I admit that Occam's razor is suggestive rather tthan authoritative, its application here yields the result that my instinctive fear response evolved in the ordinary nonsentient animal way, and that consciousness was a passenger but not the driver. No Lamarckism necessary imo.
Now you are being ungenerous in my considered opinion. I never claimed to be an authority in biology. However, unless/until good strong evidence to the contrary comes along, I am a committed Darwinian. The elegance of Darwin's idea is that natural selection is blind, without conscious purpose, and utterly natural ... chemistry writ large. Neither intelligent nor designed. I haven't found any science yet to discredit or seriously harm the theory. I don't insist that the theory is true beyoond any concievable assault, but ... the assault will have to be good, complelling, and playing by the rules of natural philosophy. I don't see how such an attitude is arrogant/egocentric.
If I am permitted for a moment to shed my scientist's obligation to rigor ... in a way we agree. I do believe that our biotechnology will advance to the point where we will have rapid, direct feedback into every aspect of our genetic and physical fabrics. Then we will have de facto Lamarckian mechanisms, ways to override the so-far-universal Darwinian order, for changing what it means to be human. If we don't kill ourselves along the way, we might be on the springboard for the next great evolutionary free-for-all ... like the hypothetical small animal some 550 million years ago whose descendants are showcased in the evolutionary carnival that is the Burgess shale. cn
smokinheavy79
New Member
where do babies come from?
smokinheavy79
New Member
we are designed to play xbox, not kick it in the dirt...it is 40 degrees and foggy outside. my cat is sitting out in the backyard kickin' it. i'm inside on my couch, freezing.
j4droopy
Active Member
Reality transcnedent of personal perspective.
Basically were at a crossroads of "definition". Before the 19th century, burnings at the stake of witches for practicing magic, was common practice. In todays society we know the majority of these were misunderstood. You can google the definition of "alchemy" and "magic" all day long, and never experience what they mean. Crowley was viewed as a Satanist, yet he was under the impression when one experiences raw human emotions without any burdens fro an external source, one could achieve enlightenment. Yes, he practiced "sex magic" and was a bit unhinged. The reality of his practiced were prolonged periods in a specific emotional/mental state.
In essence, accepted science is always changing and evolving, the understanding of sub-atomic composition with definitive proof, is no longer "magic." I appreciate the precise academia, we however, apparently have accepted different "definitions".
Our conversation began when i mentioned a correlation between our spiritual evolution and physical evolution. You said this was "Lamarckian", i disagree.
"Do we not therefore perceive that by the action of the laws of organization . . . nature has in favorable times, places, and climates multiplied her first germs of animality, given place to developments of their organizations, . . . and increased and diversified their organs? Then. . . aided by much time and by a slow but constant diversity of circumstances, she has gradually brought about in this respect the state of things which we now observe. How grand is this consideration, and especially how remote is it from all that is generally thought on this subject!"
Text of a lecture given by Lamarck at the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, May 1803
As i said before, Lamarck is a most misunderstood mind.
I disagree, i think our "large corpus of instinctive actions" came to be directly from eons of human/animal conscious feed back/experience. Consciousness is passenger nor driver, but an equal part of a bigger engine.
Advocating Darwinism and saying the non-physical absolutely plays no role in evolution are two different things. As you said im not so sure we are necessarily disagreeing. I am by know means a typist. Im not saying with enough mental effort, i can change the pigment of my skin like a chameleon. Im also not saying invisibility is impossible.
Personally, i think it boils down to whether or not humans are more physical or spiritual..... only time will tell.
Basically were at a crossroads of "definition". Before the 19th century, burnings at the stake of witches for practicing magic, was common practice. In todays society we know the majority of these were misunderstood. You can google the definition of "alchemy" and "magic" all day long, and never experience what they mean. Crowley was viewed as a Satanist, yet he was under the impression when one experiences raw human emotions without any burdens fro an external source, one could achieve enlightenment. Yes, he practiced "sex magic" and was a bit unhinged. The reality of his practiced were prolonged periods in a specific emotional/mental state.
In essence, accepted science is always changing and evolving, the understanding of sub-atomic composition with definitive proof, is no longer "magic." I appreciate the precise academia, we however, apparently have accepted different "definitions".
Our conversation began when i mentioned a correlation between our spiritual evolution and physical evolution. You said this was "Lamarckian", i disagree.
"Do we not therefore perceive that by the action of the laws of organization . . . nature has in favorable times, places, and climates multiplied her first germs of animality, given place to developments of their organizations, . . . and increased and diversified their organs? Then. . . aided by much time and by a slow but constant diversity of circumstances, she has gradually brought about in this respect the state of things which we now observe. How grand is this consideration, and especially how remote is it from all that is generally thought on this subject!"
Text of a lecture given by Lamarck at the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, May 1803
As i said before, Lamarck is a most misunderstood mind.
I disagree, i think our "large corpus of instinctive actions" came to be directly from eons of human/animal conscious feed back/experience. Consciousness is passenger nor driver, but an equal part of a bigger engine.
Advocating Darwinism and saying the non-physical absolutely plays no role in evolution are two different things. As you said im not so sure we are necessarily disagreeing. I am by know means a typist. Im not saying with enough mental effort, i can change the pigment of my skin like a chameleon. Im also not saying invisibility is impossible.
Personally, i think it boils down to whether or not humans are more physical or spiritual..... only time will tell.
Sandbagger
New Member
If mans brain had not evolved enough to learn how to cover himself with animal fur, he would still be in the jungle or only where it is warm. Our bodies were never designed to brave the elements for long periods like the animals.
josae
Active Member
Man had no use for fur. That's how we were such successful hunters at the beginning of the human era. One of our first hunting technique's was "Patience hunting", where we literally chased our prey until it collapsed from exhaustion then slaughtering it. We were able to practice this technique because we are the only species that can run incredibly long distances opposed to any other. Standing upright and the gluteus maximus aided us in this dramatically, as well as the lack of fur which enabled us to run without overheating.
yeah, right up until we learned to make SPEARS and ride HORSES.
how does fur slow a person down?
why aren't ESKIMOS covered in fur?