Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 44 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 433

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Personally, when I mention "one matter", I am not referring to something that can be found in nature, readily available to collect and cook to perfection "as is". I don't deny the possibility, but such thing would most likely only be viable if ALL superfluities are transmuted in the process of "cooking", something I personally haven't encountered yet with "raw" matters . Also, all matters have their own "radical humidity" component, so if the superfluous/"accidental" humidity is removed, the "matter" can basically cook itself. Everyone interested can try it themselves. Personally, in my work so far with NATURALLY AVAILABLE matters (with no additional preparation/processing), I have only obtained either alchemically magnetic products, OR learned great lessons regarding the conditions required to condense the "matter" that is NOT naturally and readily available (antimony, for example, can be a good teacher in this regard).



    It will most likely lead nowhere?



    Edit: Separate "the pure from the impure", "the earth from the fire", "the subtle from the gross", etc...
    If you follow the full "version" of the "one matter only" claim, namely, "one matter, one vessel, one furnace, one regimen" then the only possible thing to do is to "cook" this mysterious and elusive "one matter" that no seeker ever seems to be able to find anywhere already made for his convenience, no matter how long and hard they try. There is no other choice. You can do nothing but "cook" it. If you try to distill it in order to separate something from it, for example, you would be in direct violation of the "one vessel" part of the trap. But like I keep explaining: this is all a big malicious deception. The alchemists who promote this trap want to fool you into wasting your time trying to find such a peculiar "one matter" somewhere, but since nature cannot make such a thing you will never find it, so if you swallow the bait then you are very effectively taken out of the picture, condemned to waste the rest of your life in a hopeless search for what is in fact an artificial product. It has to be made by the operator by putting the right starting substances (notice the plural) together in the right proportions and making them react. But nature will pretty much never be able to carry this out for you on her own, if for no other reason that it lacks the appropriate tools to be able to carry out the required operations.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    How many people have you studied who attempted this exact method? What empirical research have you conducted in respect to this particular technique? If you haven't conducted any research on this specific model, you are in no position to argue empiricism, let alone "predict facts". I'm not being contrarian, I'm just arguing for scientific empiricism based on actually researching the discussed model, as opposed to mere speculation, without taking into consideration the added variables. One either is or isn't an empiricist. No cutting corners and/or dismissing model-focused research just for the sake of making "easier" predictions. Many scientists actually have this "problem" - they dismiss more "fringe" models because those models contradict their own interpretation of "common sense", for which there is no place in proper scientific/empirical research.
    Do we really need any "special research" for something that we can plainly see the results of in everyday life??? Millions of people fall down and hit the ground on a daily basis. It's part of our collective daily lives. How many of them have "avoided" the collision with it? Trying to request "proof" of something so obvious is hardly necessary.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Are you me?

    No you aren't.

    You are in NO position to to place value judgement on my experience, or to classify it as "illusion", "imagination" or whatever fits your belief system.

    An open minded and genuine empiricist, rather than trolling away with mockery, would have more likely inquired about the conditions of that experience, whether there was anything different in my thought patterns or circumstances, etc... But no, mockery is of course the first (or possibly even only?) resort for a self-proclaimed "empiricist" such as yourself. Your posts sound less and less scientific and increasingly "religious". Genuine scientific curiosity and open-mindedness to less "accepted/acceptable" probable outcomes have become unwelcome strangers in these parts...

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Do we really need any "special research" for something that we can plainly see the results of in everyday life??? Millions of people fall down and hit the ground on a daily basis.
    Yes, we DO need special research, because of the added variables. New variables = new research. New variables (at least temporarily) take the "obvious" out of the equation. That's the correct EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC way, of which you don't seem to be particularly fond.

    Can you be certain that those "millions of people" have applied the technique described in that particular model? No, you can't.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Are you me?

    No you aren't.

    You are in NO position to to place value judgement on my experience, or to classify it as "illusion", "imagination" or whatever fits your belief system.

    An open minded and genuine empiricist, rather than trolling away with mockery, would have more likely inquired about the conditions of that experience, whether there was anything different in my thought patterns or circumstances, etc... But no, mockery is of course the first (or possibly even only?) resort for a self-proclaimed "empiricist" such as yourself. Your posts sound less and less scientific and increasingly "religious". Genuine scientific curiosity and open-mindedness to less "accepted/acceptable" probable outcomes have become unwelcome strangers in these parts...
    You yourself admitted that you have never been able to replicate the supposed effect. I merely provided what is the most likely answer: you imagined the event. Nothing wrong with that. Many people think they saw things that when more properly investigated turn out to have very different explanation.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I merely provided what is the most likely answer: you imagined the event.
    Mild improvement. From direct mockery to "most likely". And yet, without displaying ANY scientific drive for further inquiry, you automatically settle for the "most likely". That's NOT how progress works. We need to be curious, alert, inquisitive and especially non-dogmatic for genuine scientific breakthroughs to occur.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Yes, we DO need special research, because of the added variables. New variables = new research. New variables (at least temporarily) take the "obvious" out of the equation. That's the correct EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC way, of which you don't seem to be particularly fond.

    Can you be certain that those "millions of people" have applied the technique described in that particular model? No, you can't.
    The "variables" in this case are useless since it relies on the old & debunked "mind over matter" claim. This has been tested UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS MANY TIMES, and we know very well it does not work. Why, then, would it work in this particular case of supposedly being able to "avoid" a collision with the ground? We can easily predict it will fail just about as much as supposedly moving or bending objects with your mind, or "levitating" or "flying" by simply wanting it to be so or by flapping your arms real hard and "concentrating" on flying, for example. James Randi in fact made a second career out of investigating and challenging these kinds of suspicious claims.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    We can easily predict it will fail just about as much as supposedly moving or bending objects with your mind, or "levitating" or "flying" by simply wanting it to be so or by flapping your arms real hard and "concentrating" on flying, for example. James Randi in fact made a second career out of investigating and challenging these kinds of suspicious claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't.
    That's what's so interesting about this model. It EXCLUDES direct intention to levitate. "Wanting it to be so" (in this model) would in fact guarantee the fatal fall.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    That's what's so interesting about this model. It EXCLUDES direct intention to levitate. "Wanting it to be so" (in this model) would in fact guarantee the fatal fall.
    Then it would be a case simply impossible to investigate. You could spend 1000 years trying to test it everyday and it could just not happen. The people who defend the claim won't be able to prove it either for the same reason. It's a dead-end either way. But I think you are taking that bit of COMEDY too seriously.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,085
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The "variables" in this case are useless since it relies on the old & debunked "mind over matter" claim.
    Nothing has been debunked, and if you study history you know that many things have been debunked in the past that later turned out to be NOT debunked.

    As for the rest, especially your "knowledge" of Andro's experience, I will go back to what we talked about long ago when I told you to give me proof that you love your parents/wife/child (if you love them that is). You can't prove it, and you don't really have an obligaton to do so either.

    I knew this guy who drank too much, but now he is in AA. I told him about my interests in altered states and other realities, and he told me that when he wakes up in the morning he wants to know, with 100 % certainty, that everything around him is 100 % real and solid... because that is what keeps him both sane and safe.

    There is one aspect here that has not been adressed: fear

    The mysterious, the abyss, the unknown, infinity, God... afterlife... all of it... to face such things, to experience such things... well there is no shame in saying that it can be very scary. Even if the fear is not there at the surface, it lies within all of us. We all have it I think, some have it more, some have it less. Some overcome the fear. Some never.

    Are you afraid?



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

+ 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