Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 37 of 48 FirstFirst ... 27 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 47 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 471

Thread: 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    @Luxus

    If i wasn't leaning towards the " secret solvent " being the secret fire, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the human body or electrostatic fields generated from obelisks.
    The secret fire is an enigmatic thing it seems even between alchemists apparently successful in producing the stone.
    I think different people call it different things so it is possible that some equate the secret solvent with the secret fire...but to me the secret fire is an elemental fire, not to be confused with common fire which is an elementary fire.

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    @Dragons Tail

    Sorry fellow i should of thought of you. Yes i wonder a lot about it too.

    The actual reaction being the " Fire " so to speak
    @JDP

    That the way i am leaning, but the " Heat of a man or hand " pops up a bit and i wondered if the alchemists were being sly
    trying to conceal that the " secret solvent " only achieves the right reaction at the " Heat of a man or hand ".
    @Luxus

    If i wasn't leaning towards the " secret solvent " being the secret fire, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the human body or electrostatic fields generated from obelisks.
    The secret fire is an enigmatic thing it seems even between alchemists apparently successful in producing the stone.
    @z0 K

    So you must know this secret or you couldn't make that observation ?
    I am a little confused as to what you mean by purification of elemental fire, is it very literal ?
    I capitalized Elemental Fire to distinguish it from common fire or heat. The Elements are received from the initial putrefaction. The Elements are what you work with. In a gross sense we receive a crude water, a pungent dark oil and a sharp caustic air; all must be rendered separate from the feces which is inert matter. The Elemental Water, Fire and Air are soluble into each other. When the Water is pure it still retains Fire and Air. When the Fire is pure it has been separated from the oil and still retains some Air. It appears to be a transparent viscous ruby red oil. In the final resolution it is a red powder. When the Air is pure it retains some Water and Fire. It appears to be a translucent silvery water that evaporates very quickly unless you keep it really cold. In the final resolution it is a sparkling white powder.

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,364
    Blog Entries
    1
    From the book 'The Black Swan - The Impact of the Highly Improbable' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

    The following quoted passages are not directed at one "side" or another of the 'debate' on this thread. Bolds are mine.

    "Living on our planet, today, requires a lot more imagination than we are made to have. We lack imagination and repress it in others. Note that I am not relying in this book on the beastly method of collecting selective "corroborating evidence." For reasons I explain in Chapter 5, I call this overload of examples naÔve empiricism — successions of anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence. Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself — and no doubt his peers. The Black Swan idea is based on the structure of randomness in empirical reality."

    "To summarize: in this (personal) essay, I stick my neck out and make a claim, against many of our habits of thought, that our world is dominated by the extreme, the unknown, and the very improbable (improbable according our current knowledge) — and all the while we spend our time engaged in small talk, focusing on the known, and the repeated. This implies the need to use the extreme event as a starting point and not treat it as an exception to be pushed under the rug. I also make the bolder (and more annoying) claim that in spite of our progress and the growth in knowledge, or perhaps because of such progress and growth, the future will be increasingly less predictable, while both human nature and social "science" seem to conspire to hide the idea from us."

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,149
    Blog Entries
    2
    Some nice quotes.

    I also think the future is incomprehensible... and when it arrives whatever we used to claim a Mystery will become known... however in that knowing an even Greater Mystery will appear... and it is going to become the cause of mass hysteria. Only those that are comfortable with the unknown, and with never knowing, will be able to remain sane.... however those "sane" people will be viewed as insane... that part is predictable (hopefully not).



    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    From the book 'The Black Swan - The Impact of the Highly Improbable' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

    The following quoted passages are not directed at one "side" or another of the 'debate' on this thread. Bolds are mine.

    "Living on our planet, today, requires a lot more imagination than we are made to have. We lack imagination and repress it in others. Note that I am not relying in this book on the beastly method of collecting selective "corroborating evidence." For reasons I explain in Chapter 5, I call this overload of examples naÔve empiricism — successions of anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence. Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself — and no doubt his peers. The Black Swan idea is based on the structure of randomness in empirical reality."

    "To summarize: in this (personal) essay, I stick my neck out and make a claim, against many of our habits of thought, that our world is dominated by the extreme, the unknown, and the very improbable (improbable according our current knowledge) — and all the while we spend our time engaged in small talk, focusing on the known, and the repeated. This implies the need to use the extreme event as a starting point and not treat it as an exception to be pushed under the rug. I also make the bolder (and more annoying) claim that in spite of our progress and the growth in knowledge, or perhaps because of such progress and growth, the future will be increasingly less predictable, while both human nature and social "science" seem to conspire to hide the idea from us."
    This is a "reduction to absurdity" kind of argument. Exceptions do not make the rule and they do not invalidate previously known empirical facts either. If "improbable" things prove to be facts, then they cease to be "improbable" and are simply added to the previously known empirical facts, and the theories designed to explain those facts are either modified or discarded and a new one is proposed to try to accommodate the previously unknown facts. The problem with people with this kind of mentality is that they don't know very well how to separate/isolate theories from the actual facts those theories claim to give an explanation for. To stick to my favorite and easy to understand example: no one in his right mind will deny the empirical reality of gravity, it is a 100% INDISPUTABLE FACT, we can plainly observe it at work every single day of our lives, and always with the same results (viz. all objects fall towards the center of the planet, no exceptions have ever been found), but you can always put question marks on the various theories that have been proposed to try to explain what causes gravity.

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,364
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This is a "reduction to absurdity" kind of argument. Exceptions do not make the rule and they do not invalidate previously known empirical facts either. If "improbable" things prove to be facts, then they cease to be "improbable" and are simply added to the previously known empirical facts, and the theories designed to explain those facts are either modified or discarded and a new one is proposed to try to accommodate the previously unknown facts. The problem with people with this kind of mentality is that they don't know very well how to separate/isolate theories from the actual facts those theories claim to give an explanation for. To stick to my favorite and easy to understand example: no one in his right mind will deny the empirical reality of gravity, it is a 100% INDISPUTABLE FACT, we can plainly observe it at work every single day of our lives, and always with the same results (viz. all objects fall towards the center of the planet, no exceptions have ever been found), but you can always put question marks on the various theories that have been proposed to try to explain what causes gravity.


    From the same book:

    "I push one step beyond this philosophical-logical question into an empirical reality, and one that has obsessed me since childhood.

    What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes:

    First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.

    Second, it carries an extreme impact.

    Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

    I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability.

    A small number of Black Swans explain almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives."


    You favorite example of gravity is within the (very wide) realm of the predictable. What this book is suggesting (IMO) is to stop putting too much weight on the predictable and shift our attention more towards the extremes of the Bell Curve/Division Bell. That's where the cool stuff is happening. But as, the saying goes... "Out of sight - out of mind"... Or was it the other way around???

    Also, exceptions DO make the rules. They make the NEW rules - those that eventually replace the old ones.

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,149
    Blog Entries
    2


    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    7
    Mum ?

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post


    From the same book:

    "I push one step beyond this philosophical-logical question into an empirical reality, and one that has obsessed me since childhood.

    What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes:

    First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.

    Second, it carries an extreme impact.

    Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

    I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability.

    A small number of Black Swans explain almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives."


    You favorite example of gravity is within the (very wide) realm of the predictable. What this book is suggesting (IMO) is to stop putting too much weight on the predictable and shift our attention more towards the extremes of the Bell Curve/Division Bell. That's where the cool stuff is happening. But as, the saying goes... "Out of sight - out of mind"... Or was it the other way around???

    Also, exceptions DO make the rules. They make the NEW rules - those that eventually replace the old ones.
    Exceptions certainly do NOT make the rule. Sticking to the gravity example: if someone one day finds a substance that defies gravity, that will not invalidate the fact that all others do not. They will predictably keep on falling down to the center of the planet like they have always done, whether we knew about the bizarre exception or not is not going to alter this established fact. A new theory will have to be formulated to try to accommodate and explain the one strange exception that has been found, but it won't change the well known fact about all the other substances being affected by gravity. Facts do NOT change, theories about them do.

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    355
    Hi JDP

    To my understanding you most definitely believe in transmutation
    of base metals into gold and silver because you have seen this and
    have accomplished this yourself.

    To you this is a known fact ! I assume.

    What are your views of the Philosophers Stone ?

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts