So, I have an interesting topic for a thread.
I have clinic duty today, but nobody is going to be in this wing until noon. As such, I'm very bored, and don't have my I Ching book with me.
I want to hear your craziest rationalizations for occult phenomena. Your full model and philosophy, in whatever form or however long you wish to take to explain it. Your most creative solutions to the issue of occult efficacy, the goal of mysticism, and the fruits of spirituality.
Argue you if want. Normally, I'd participate, but I have to keep an eye out for walk-ins that haven't already been interviewed by the other student fags.
Take the model of the atom.
What is present there?
* Matter (the subatomic particles)
* Energy (the matter in motion)
* Laws (the forces driving the motion)
* Information (the void of possibilities the matter moves into)
Magick is not the manipulation of *energy*. It is the manipulation of *Information*.
Information = Will = Time = God
These are all aspects of the same driving force. This force is at work within each of us.
Magickal power is the ability to redefine Information around you to suit your personal Will.
Enlightenment is the ability to comprehend all Information that approaches you.
Awakening is the ability to see all Information that approaches you.
Synchronicity is a re-organization of information.
“Dimension jumping” and “casting a spell” are accomplishing the same task.
Intent -> Visualization -> Synchronicity -> Manifestion
is a process to bring about
Information -> Matter
"Dimension Jumping" is an intent/visualization, just as much as a sigil or a spell. You don't need a method, you need to think the raw thoughts that are going through your subconcious as you perform the ritual -- I mean, method.
The past is an artery. The future is a vein. You -- the Information that is you -- operate within capillaries, an interconnected network of parallel, possible dimensions that you skip between without ever noticing the change.
This happens all the time. For everyone. Every choice you make, shifts you into a new capillary, and enough choices or a big enough decision will direct you to a new, more distant vein... Then on to the next cycle of life.
You cannot change the past. You cannot dictate the future. You can only affect the here and now.
>>16979460
Well shit, that's basically the model I've been using to the letter for many, many years now.
Do I know you or some shit? This is generally the model I've seen outside of /x/, and outside of any formal Thelemite communities and such.
>>16979447
I don't think you can rationalize it. Occult phenomenon is about belief, right?
There's so little that we understand, and while science does it's job explaining the /how/, it doesn't explain the /why/. Even then, give it a few hundred years and we might discover something new that blows everything we thought we knew out of the water. Stone tools to steam engines to iPhones, you know?
Practice what feels right for you, go with the flow you make for yourself, believe no truth anyone tries to force, and when the rest of the world runs in one direction, do your best to run the opposite way.
>>16979474
We are not aquainted outside of /x/. I have developed this theory mostly on my own. Do you know of a term for it, or books about it?
>>16979490
No, I formulated much the same thing on my own. Add me on skype. marsbars93156
>>16979715
I can't. I'm a bit of a right fighter and I'm afraid I've blocked you, we butted heads one time too many ;)
>>16979744
Then you heard it from me, and you're telling people it's your idea.
Jesus fuck.
>>16979753
Liar liar pants on fire
The day I had the four part atom epiphany you were allllll about telling me how wrong I was.
Don't you recall?
>>16979753
Oh and happy birthday
>>16979830
I distinctly remember you saying that "information" is a permutable quintessence, and basically exchanging the definition of "energy" that you had before for the word "information" because it sounded more intelligent.
Your new way of describing things is okay, but nonetheless, you're still wrong about some things. With your spirit animals, superpowers and "occult books hurt my ego" shit.
>>16979903
>>16979830
Oh, and the idea of shifting capillaries is more or less what I've been describing for two years or more. You didn't come up with most of what you described above, you plagarized it and inserted your own ideologies, rationalizing that exchange and surrounding it with my ideas so that you could still worm your ego in there.
Shit, it wasn't even just myself that came up with it, it was like twenty people, all of which remember you, think you're a fag, and are willing to sit in whatever groups you're cult-leading now and tell the truth.
>>16979830
>>16979856
This is Eve, one of the people from a Skype group we have, who is not with us anymore. We basically had too high standards for her and she left. A huge liar, fraud, and charlatan. Do not believe a word she says about anything. Just stay away from any "spirit animal" garbage.
>>16979447
The vast majority of magic originates from other entities, or is based around other entities. Making deals, pacts or similar with them to gain power, or in the case of thaumaturgy being given power (or debatably, being made into a conduit for power) is the basis for just about all magic. Different sources have different natures, offer different things and demand different payments. If you want to get psuedo-scientific about it, these entities reside at least partially outside of our bubble of existance, giving them the ability to make changes to it.
>>16979922
No, I left because you guys have no sense of inspiration/energy/enjoyment for Nature, and you think this is necessary in order to be a "true occultist", and thus insult the practice of anyone who does not behave as you do.
You are wrong about that.
>>16979910
"more or less" indeed. You never explained it this clearly. You send people on wild goose chases when they ask.
Also where can I find these groups? I am ready to claim my rightful throne
>>16979967
You left because we didn't let you warp our group at the core, and it had nothing to do with nature.
You aren't posting with your normal trip because you don't want everybody to know you're attempting to claim this is your theory, because you'd prefer they think you were an energy fag.
I'm assuming there are groups, and I said "more or less" because I never put it into those exact terms.
You struggled for about two months to grasp what we were talking about because I didn't have the linguistic ability to do so, then you attempted to exhange the word "energy" for "information" without changing the concept. "Nature" was never involved; naturalist occult philosophy isn't about spirit animals and shaman frollicking, it's the assertion that all "paranormal" phenomena have a natural explanation, and is the root of our philosophy.
You left because every time you attempted to exchange the terms, simplify the model and continue being an energy fag, you expected us to agree with you and adopt that ideology, or simply not to correct you even though what the core group was doing as a unit was to develop that methodology, which, by the way, is more advanced now than what you described above.
Not that you actually make use of that model, given that you "divinate" for people. Either you're dictating the future, or you're a hypocritical liar, and need to stop following us around. We don't want anything to do with your ilk, and you need to just leave us the fuck alone.
>>16979447
>Tell me your deepest thoughts and we can share something deep and meaningful.
>>16979460
Well, I think... *this*
>>16979715
>Hey, that's great, I think *this* too, let's be buddies!
>>16979744
>Actually, no. I don't like you.
>>16979753
>BWAHHHH! I thought *this* first and you're naughty.
>>16979830
>No I'm not you are!
>>16979903
>I'm cleverer than you.
>>16979910
>And all my friends think so too.
>>16979951
>'Scuse me, can I add something interesting?
>>16979967
>No shut up we're arguing here.
>>16979994
>You are wrong. Just wrong. Sooo wrong. Very wrong. Completely wrong. W..R..O..N..G. Get it? Wrong. Plain wrong. And a liar. Go away.
"So, I have an interesting topic for a thread."
Yep, that worked. Nice one OP.
>>16980036
Yeah.... This is why I wasn't using my trip. I foresaw stupidity today.
>>16979994
>assumptions
>projections
>manipulations
>evasions
Nothing to see here folks, typical Jake stuff
Do you have the linguistic ability to describe the advancement?
Trolls trolling trolls
Its why the SKYPE groups always fold from x
Jesus Christ lay off of eve.
At least she's something. What are you but a bunch of card readers pretending to be mediums.
>you guise are the charlatans
>>16979994
Oh Jake you never change, should've known it was you.
>>16980125
That is mighty rich coming from someone who took the ideas from "him" in the first place. I think we can work together, even if you don't think exactly in those terms. You've bonded yourself to us, through using our ideas. I know for a fact that you need our help to enrich what you have, so why not work with us. I'm extending an invitation to everyone who might even be against us. We, the Darekh Tsari people. Everyone can be pardoned and allowed back and then we'll discuss terms.
>>16979447
This is the fucking gayest thread I've seen for a while. And I've seen threads involving groups of men fucking.
>>16980288
Not Eve.
I was in the group and left too. And your ideas don't really appeal to me.
Eve, I would like to talk this over if you have the time. I think you should come and negotiate, so we can find a mutually workable solution. No need to slag us off and steal ideas, because we can all benefit from this. Help us to help you.
>>16980315
>'steal ideas'
>any ideas in this thread are so important, they're worth stealing
What in the fuck is wrong with you kids? Go out drinking, partying and getting in fights like normal teenagers. Stop with this angsty pseudo-spiritual shit.
>>16980336
>get into fights
I am fighting. I'm fighting for the survival of something I helped create. No one is going to take that away from me.
>>16980347
No, no, this isn't fighting. This is fucking pettiness at its basest form. You kids 'created' fuck all. Your 'ideas' aren't special, they're shit most other people passed on the way to actually important philosophical and spiritual concepts.
Grow the fuck up.
>>16980355
Can you tell me one such concept?
>>16980371
I'm not here to spoon feed you. Go look this shit up yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophical_concepts
>>16980384
>I'm not here to spoon feed you.
Then who is?
>>16980433
No one. It's part of growing up. You do shit for yourself.
Through mystic practices or naturally, one can enter a state of mind usually deemed psychotic by psychiatry, but very unlike anything you would normally associate with schizophrenia or psychosis, meaning it's experienced as deep mystical experience.
In such a state of mind one learns about the truth of this life. It's all just a game we immortal beings play in eternity. Some stay behind and are what you might call the source coders of reality and also it's spectators, but existing in a realm outside of time and space in which neither words nor concepts exist, it's unlike anything you could imagine and could only be comprehended trough high mathematics not yet developed by humans.
Before birth we scripted parts of our life, nothing in it is coincidence, everything has meaning on a symbolic level. One can read the world like an open book in this special state of being, and one is guided to greater understanding. Words fail to describe such an experience, but I now know that I'm immortal and will enter a personal heaven, a reality I have complete control over and a shared heaven with others like me one day.
You can communicate with those source coders of reality, the masters behind all causality, on a symbolic level or trough emotions, and one can gain control over this reality to some degree at least. Ultimately you'll have to wait and be patient though, there's no easy fix for the worlds and you own problems with this kind of magick. This place has to be exactly the way it is, it's like the foundation for an eternal life, it's an overall neutral starting zone for what will happen next.
>>16979447
I don't attempt to rationalize anything. And don't spend much time worrying about why things happen. I accept my own limitations, that it would probably be impossible for me to know absolute truth. I don't worry about why something works, just if something works.
>>16979460
>Will = Time
How?
>>16980650
>>16980673
That doesn't tell me jack, homie.
>>16980681
Matter exists
Matter likes to move, thus space exists to move into
It can't be everywhere at once, so time exists
Thus the will to move directly begets time
>>16980602
What is the name of the picture?
>>16980685
>It can't be everywhere at once, so time exists
If God was omnipresent, would that mean time doesn't exist? No, not at all. One doesn't have to do with the other.
>Thus the will to move directly begets time
Are you trying to say that all matter has the will to move on its own? As in, atoms and subatomic particles are choosing to move? Kek
Even if that were true, that still isn't time.
You're doing some kind of six degrees of separation. I wanted to know how will equals time.
>>16980720
>If God was omnipresent, would that mean time doesn't exist?
>I wanted to know how will equals time.
Please see the above ouroboros and recall I did not say "Will = Time" alone
Information = Void = Will = Time = God = sentience/consciousness... probably could go on
Our language is stupid. And limiting. Littered with redundancies. Highly inefficient.
>Are you trying to say that all matter has the will to move on its own
>There are four universal forces: electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravitational force
>>16980685
That's some fucked up logic, right there.
>Matter exists.
To us, yes.
>Matter likes to move
It doesn't 'like' to do anything. Various laws happen to create movement in some form. But, if thermodynamics teaches us anything, it gradually descends into not moving at all (also known as heat death).
>thus space exists to move into
Yes, space exists.
>It can't be everywhere at once
Correct.
>so time exists
That isn't a logic conclusion for time. Time is the flow of events. If it was all about the movement of matter, light wouldn't function. Photons aren't matter.
>Thus the will to move directly begets time
Complete fucking leap, right there. 'Will' is a conscious decision. Generic matter doesn't have consciousness. So it doesn't 'will' anything. And time would exist regardless of a conscious decision. If anything, will is the result of time. So completely the opposite to your attempted logic.
Want to start again?
>>16980731
![Hemad-starwars[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xXwj1ms.jpg "Hemad-starwars[1].jpg")
>>16980740
>>16980730
>There are four universal forces: electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravitational force
>force
As in, against one's will. Completely contradictory to your previous point.
>Information = Void = Will = Time = God
Why did you leave out 'void' before? Especially if it goes directly between information and will. How does emptiness even slightly relate to information and will?
>>16979447
>Your full model and philosophy, in whatever form or however long you wish to take to explain it.
Energy fields interacting create (in a larger scale) the illusion of matter. Matter arranged in particular ways makes up the human body (and everything else).
The body has a brain.
The brain has many functions of its own.
Some are automatic and can't be made conscious.
Some are automatic and can be made conscious.
Consciousness is the recursive process of abstractive self-reference.
By making automatic processes conscious, we can change them, make them more efficient.
Magick is using the resources you have (as an organism) in the most efficient way.
>>16980125
JUST
I believe the next major revolution will be not technological but spiritual, in a way many of us can't comprehend quite yet. Sort of like understanding subtle universal laws as instinctively as we know things like facial patterns and territorial instinct.
Unrelated, I believe at least some magick in fact comes from certain waves emanating from the human brain. I won't comment on gods, spirits, etc because I don't know, yet.
Not much new here I know.
>>16979447
Each and every conscious thing experiences reality, or consciousness, very differently. There is little difference between two human experiences, except for the minute things that add up into larger variations of experience, that, from a subjective pov, our experiences are widely different.
Paranormal phenomena as I understand it, is very much a "wild spike in the path" so to speak. It is a moment where different qualities of conscious experience overlap and synchronize to imprint itself on the psyche permanently. Arguably, this is every day of our lives, so I propose that these paranormal phenomena are the result of ultra, almost spontaneous awareness of these consciousness qualities.
Pretend conscious experience is like a stream of mist, or smoke floating through the air. Everyone's individual experience is represented this way. As individual streams. When they cross cool shit happens, when they are influenced by currents, they also do cool shit.
But somewhere along the way the stream breaks. It follows a new route completely different from the others. This is what a paranormal experience looks like metaphorically. It's completely natural, but oh so hard to understand or anticipate.
If I seem pretty crackpot then that's OK. I can't seem to adequately explain the way I understand it because it involves a bit of emotional works, and a bit of uneasy intuition/eerie understanding.
>>16980355
this desu senpai
Don't try it at home
Getting into shitfights on the internet is the mark of an enlightened being, everyone.
>>16981038
You might like this book: http://cspeech.ucd.ie/Fred/docs/vonUexkuell.pdf
>>16980602
So basically life is an extremely in-depth mmorpg where we can't even see our stats
Just great, devs didn't even program a UI
That's BS, devs.
>>16979922
You, of all people, shouldn't be making such judgments.
>>16980056
>Jake
Ah. I see. Yeah, makes sense.
>>16980355
This.
>>16980602
That sounds insanely psychotic, to be fair. Also entirely wrong.
Yall infightin homos need to chill out, god frowns upon the enforcing of a single will. Instead of being all confrontational with each other, you could come together and put all the madness in this thread towards a single common goal.
>>16980911
You were going so well up until this point:
>Consciousness is the recursive process of abstractive self-reference.
Consciousness is the result of chemical reactions producing awareness (or, at least, the illusion thereof). Nothing to do with 'abstract self-reference', whatever that means.
>By making automatic processes conscious, we can change them, make them more efficient.
Not through sheer force of will, we can't. Technology, yeah. But just thinking it? No.
The most you can do is manual breathing and blinking. You can't focus your mind and suddenly make an automatic process like homeostasis more efficient. There's no mechanism that would even create this.
>Magick is using the resources you have (as an organism) in the most efficient way.
That's just a bizarre redefinition of magic. According to that logic, lifting weights is magic as it results in the body more efficiently making use of resources within it.
>>16982510
>Consciousness is the result of chemical reactions producing awareness (or, at least, the illusion thereof). Nothing to do with 'abstract self-reference', whatever that means.
It means exactly what it says. Did you miss the part where each consecutive point is a higher level of abstraction from the original "energy fields interacting"?
Chemical reactions are high-level energy fields interacting. Awareness... what would that be, in your mind?
>Not through sheer force of will, we can't. Technology, yeah. But just thinking it? No.
We hardly need technology to do that. I can change any one of your habits in ~30 minutes (more if it's more complex, like addictions, long-term abuse, etc) to your liking. You don't need any technology to do that, and it's a skill, which means that it can be learned and taught.
>The most you can do is manual breathing and blinking. You can't focus your mind and suddenly make an automatic process like homeostasis more efficient. There's no mechanism that would even create this.
Oh, absolutely. That's one of the automatic processes which can't be made conscious. You can, however, affect it by changing the processes which CAN be made conscious, such as food choice, opting to eat an apple instead of candy, having positive moods, and reducing stress in your body, which in turn balances out your hormonal and immune systems, and leads to higher efficiency.
>That's just a bizarre redefinition of magic. According to that logic, lifting weights is magic as it results in the body more efficiently making use of resources within it.
Yup. The question is... why do you think it bizarre?
Crowley's definition was even more complex, and still held the exact same point:
>Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
>>16982510
>You can't focus your mind and suddenly make an automatic process like homeostasis more efficient. There's no mechanism that would even create this.
Sure there is. Shifting the physiological activity from sympathetic to parasympathetic. For non-medfags, that from the flight-or-fight mode to the rest-and-repair mode. Most of us spend our days in an adrenalised state interacting with a crazy society. Basically, relaxation, meditation, etc, helps your homeostasis.
On a slightly more in depth level, the processes of repair can be engaged with by learning self healing techniques. Psychologically there is also a lot of subconscious stuff that can be made conscious. 'Esoteric' means hidden, as you no doubt know. Everything we are doing here, on /x/, in our daily practice, in life in general, in science and society, is about making the hidden visible and conscious.
>>16982525
>Basically, relaxation, meditation, etc, helps your homeostasis.
Indirectly. On the other hand, you can distort your sense of time directly.
>On a slightly more in depth level, the processes of repair can be engaged with by learning self healing techniques.
What do you mean by that?
I've been experimenting (rather successfully, I might add) with the Sichort state, and it's been proving remarkable in terms of recovery and healing.
>>16980691
It's a picture picturing gnosis. So I guess gnosis.jpeg is an appropriated title.
>>16982444
>mmorpg
Pretty much yes.
>>16982468
>That sounds insanely psychotic, to be fair. Also entirely wrong.
To be fair, yes this model of mine is rooted in experiences a psychiatrist would call psychotic, but at least it's rooted in real experiences.
Not saying my model is the truth, just saying I experienced very otherworldly shit once or twice and that's what stuck with me.
>>16982539
>at least it's rooted in real experiences.
What isn't?
>just saying I experienced very otherworldly shit once or twice and that's what stuck with me.
That's very cool. Storytime?
>>16982530
>>On a slightly more in depth level, the processes of repair can be engaged with by learning self healing techniques.
>What do you mean by that?
>...the Sichort state,
Interesting, a quick google later as I'm not a hypnotherapist. It sounds similar to what I work with. Techniques of going into different levels of stillness, from cranial osteopathy.
>>16982541
Sichort can be "faked" (very small differences from the actual thing) by regression into a time when one was a relaxed, limp infant.
My suspicion is that it triggers cell growth and adaptation processes, but I've no research to refer to here.
>>16982545
One of my influences is an experience I had in the only hypnotherapy session I ever had, of regression to the time just after conception and before implantation when the little ball of cells is free floating in a kind of stillness, a warm and clear perfection. Babies continue to express this if they are lucky, but from the moment of implantation of the ball of cells into the wall of the uterus are going to be picking up on mum's stress and physiology etc. Then birth happens, with adrenalin, shock, physical trauma. I work a lot with helping babies clear these effects.
Interested in the idea of 'faked' states. For me it can depend on how I am on the day, the states can vary in intensity and quality. Also, could be that if you are regressed to being an infant then you are getting some of the Stillness but also some of the early pregnancy/birth stress as well. I've never seen a 'perfect' baby, they all carry something.
>>16982558
The first one, yes, it's quite common. I recently heard of a woman remembering a time before birth where her mom (in anger) said that she should have an abortion. And then it turned out that she actually did.
Regression does go very far in helping people deal with life, and memory appears to be inherent in any living thing.
>I work a lot with helping babies clear these effects.
What kind of work do you do?
Hypnotherapist here, fwiw.
>>16982571
>What kind of work do you do?
Osteopath.
>>16982573
Nice. I've no clue about that profession.
>>16982577
Yes, we're still not widely known, and mostly people know us for treating bad backs, much like chiropractic. But the founder of osteopathy, AT Still, had something much more subtle going on, and this side of the work has been developed with the 'cranial' trainings. There's a lot of misinformation and poorly designed research out there if you google criticisms of cranial osteopathy. Some of the difficulties in research where people have looked at inter-observer reliability are due to this idea of there being different levels of activity/stillness. So I was particularly interested in reading that hypnotherapy recognises this as well. I'll have to do some reading up on it and see if there are more parallels, maybe post something in a week or two.
>>16982593
>So I was particularly interested in reading that hypnotherapy recognises this as well.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by activity/ stillness, to be entirely fair. I use a blend of Elman & Erickson approaches, which have entirely nothing to do with any of those terms as such.
Perhaps it's a different word?
>>16982593
I swear my osteopath does reiki
But he won't admit it
Every time he does cst though.... dat third eye, dem visions
>>16982540
>That's very cool. Storytime?
Story would be about months of being psychotic and rather long. But just now I got the urge to write some of it down, and I have this site that I registered back when I was psychotic, and I will and already have written down some of it. If you're interested here you go:
http://www.zarathustrablog.com/
>>16982603
Yes, I wouldn't want to get too hung up on the semantics right now, I'll read up on your names and see if I can offer anything which might be of interest.
>>16982623
Cranial osteopaths have a model of 'energy work', although we don't call it that. The experience might feel like Reiki. I sometimes get people asking me if I have done Reiki or am doing it on them, but I never have done any.
>>16982637
>Zarathustra
Sounds about right.
Like 70% of all the people who had psychotic breaks were into Nietzsche at the time.
>>16982645
Interestingly, Reiki is virtually identical with the modes of work that Esdaile used to induce trance in his patients in India. Analogue hypnosis, anyone?
>>16979447
God fucking damn you, 80% of your post is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. It's only is for you to brag on an anonymous image board... And to of course identify your special snowflake ass. You are beyond pathetic. But based in your post, you already know that. Fucking tool.
>>16982648
>Reiki is virtually identical with the modes of work that Esdaile used to induce trance in his patients in India. Analogue hypnosis, anyone?
Didn't know this, more for me to read up on. But I do expect we are accessing similar states. And I stress similar, not least because my patients might not be comfortable if they thought I was 'hypnotising' them- different context.
>>16982683
>And I stress similar, not least because my patients might not be comfortable if they thought I was 'hypnotising' them- different context.
Certainly. The core might be the same, but the direction is most certainly different.
>>16982521
>It means exactly what it says.
So non-physical pointing towards yourself... See what happens when you just use words without understanding what they mean?
>Did you miss the part where each consecutive point is a higher level of abstraction from the original "energy fields interacting"?
More gibberish, really. The body isn't 'abstract'. It's physical. It has proof.
>Chemical reactions are high-level energy fields interacting.
By 'high level', do you mean outer electron shells? Because, again, you're using words without actually showing you understand them.
>Awareness... what would that be, in your mind?
Illusion produced by various reactions in specific orders.
>We hardly need technology to do that.
Yeah, we do. They're automatic for a reason.
>I can change any one of your habits in ~30 minutes (more if it's more complex, like addictions, long-term abuse, etc) to your liking. You don't need any technology to do that, and it's a skill, which means that it can be learned and taught.
You're confusing automatic processes with habits. They aren't the same. Habits are subconscious. Automatic processes aren't even connected to consciousness, they're automatic (hence the use of the word).
>Oh, absolutely. That's one of the automatic processes which can't be made conscious. You can, however, affect it by changing the processes which CAN be made conscious, such as food choice, opting to eat an apple instead of candy, having positive moods, and reducing stress in your body, which in turn balances out your hormonal and immune systems, and leads to higher efficiency.
Which isn't making automatic process conscious at all, it's simply aiding the process that occurs anyway. You don't take over control of it, you just influence it and it remains automatic.
>Yup. The question is... why do you think it bizarre?
Because it isn't about magic at all. Magic is supernatural. Diet and exercise is entirely natural.
>>16983552
>>16982521
For the Crowley bit, as I ran out of room.
>Crowley's definition was even more complex, and still held the exact same point:
>>Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
That's clearly in reference to changing things around you simply through the force of your mind. Like making something float with your mind. No cheating using conduits like arms or legs to pick it up, saying 'well I used my mind to move my limbs, so it counts'.
This is similar to how writers like Tolkien described magic. He saw it as a form of art, free from the bounds of time that limits all of man's work. Ever able to improve. So magic for Elves was simply art crafted in such a way that it appeared to be magic. The magic of the Enemy was considered machinations of art twisted to domination.
Basically, a poetic way to describe the concept of 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. Only applied to art instead of tech.
>>16979460
>>16979474
>>16979490
>literally the plot to one of the most popular movies ever
>I thought of it myself guise!
Fuckin role play fags
>>16983628
What movie?
>>16983637
Isn't it obvious?
>>16983552
>So non-physical pointing towards yourself... See what happens when you just use words without understanding what they mean?
Yeah, I see. You clearly don't have access to a dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract
Again: Consciousness is the recursive process of abstractive self-reference.
Let's break it down for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recursive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract
Self-reference I.e. the result always refers to one's self.
>The body isn't 'abstract'. It's physical. It has proof.
The "body" only exists insofar as you're defining an abstract boundary between it and it's environment. Which, incidentally, is the exact same as ones abstracted definition of "self".
>By 'high level', do you mean outer electron shells?
High-level abstraction. You clearly aren't following.
>Illusion produced by various reactions in specific orders.
kek'd
>>We hardly need technology to do that.
>Yeah, we do. They're automatic for a reason.
You're confused.
>You're confusing automatic processes with habits.
>They aren't the same. Habits are subconscious.
So you're saying, your heartbeat, your breath, and the temperature of your body is a habit. Jesus, the delusion.
>Automatic processes aren't even connected to consciousness, they're automatic (hence the use of the word).
And some can be made conscious, while others cannot. I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with Dave Elman's "Hypnotherapy".
>Which isn't making automatic process conscious at all, it's simply aiding the process that occurs anyway. You don't take over control of it, you just influence it and it remains automatic.
Only in the case of processes which are automatic and cannot be made conscious, yes. Those can be influenced only indirectly.
>Magic is supernatural.
You're going to have to provide evidence anything supernatural exists in the first place.
>>16983565
>That's clearly in reference to changing things around you simply through the force of your mind. Like making something float with your mind.
>all this ignorance
http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/defs.html
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)
TL;DR: get with the times.
>>16983656
>Yeah, I see. You clearly don't have access to a dictionary.
Considering I just told you what it meant, that would be quite the alteration of time, don't you think?
>Again: Consciousness is the recursive process of abstractive self-reference.
Again, wrong. 'Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.'
>The "body" only exists insofar as you're defining an abstract boundary between it and it's environment.
Abstract... you keep using that word without knowing what it means. There is a clear boundary between body and environment. There's nothing abstract about it.
>Which, incidentally, is the exact same as ones abstracted definition of "self".
Self, mentally speaking, IS abstract. So you're getting closer.
>High-level abstraction. You clearly aren't following.
It's hard to follow when you aren't using English correctly. There's no 'abstraction' involved in chemical reactions.
>You're confused.
Says the guy claiming automatic = habits.
>So you're saying, your heartbeat, your breath, and the temperature of your body is a habit.
No, you fool. I'm saying the exact opposite. Your heartbeat isn't subconscious. Your breathing isn't. Your body temperature isn't. They're all automatic (well, unless you start breathing manually). Habits =! automatic.
>Jesus, the delusion.
You know you're trying to argue that magic is influencing homeostasis, right? Just checking.
>And some can be made conscious, while others cannot. I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with Dave Elman's "Hypnotherapy".
I don't deal in pseudo-scientific placebos.
>Only in the case of processes which are automatic and cannot be made conscious, yes. Those can be influenced only indirectly.
So now magic is breathing manually. What mystical wizards you lot are.
>You're going to have to provide evidence anything supernatural exists in the first place.
I don't believe it exists at all.
>>16983669
>Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
Great. Repeating it again won't change anything.
>(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)
So... this crippling autism you're plagued with... does it interfere a lot in your normal day to day life? Or does medication help?
>TL;DR: get with the times.
The times being pre-WW2? How 'new' do you think this whole Crowley thing is?
>>16983681
>Again, wrong. 'Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.'
How does one define whether one is aware or not?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awareness
>`the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge; consciousness:`
So if... I kick a rock, the rock is aware because internal processes within it (even the most minute ones) happen due to external influence.
The common definition is clearly entirely devoid of meaning.
>There is a clear boundary between body and environment. There's nothing abstract about it.
Oh wow.
>Self, mentally speaking, IS abstract. So you're getting closer.
As is everything else you perceive, dumbo. That's the whole point.
>There's no 'abstraction' involved in chemical reactions.
I never made that claim, if you didn't notice. Which you didn't.
>Says the guy claiming automatic = habits.
Your claim, not mine.
>Your heartbeat isn't subconscious. Your breathing isn't. Your body temperature isn't. They're all automatic (well, unless you start breathing manually). Habits =! automatic.
Nigger, I'm literally saying subconscious = automatic. Because that's what it is. Do you have to pay close fucking attention to how you move your fingers when you tie your shoes, or do you just decide to do it, and your hands move... automatically?
Jesus fuck you're dumb as a brick.
>You know you're trying to argue that magic is influencing homeostasis, right?
Yup. And it certainly can getting ones body relaxed and engaged in the process has shown considerable health benefits.
>I don't deal in pseudo-scientific placebos.
Ah. There we go. You're welcome to thank me for opening your mind to new avenues of study for you.
http://ijceh.com/
>>16983688
>How 'new' do you think this whole Crowley thing is?
Certainly more modern than your ignorant worldview, that's for sure.
>>16983717
>How does one define whether one is aware or not?
It's a question that results in a grey area within the animal kingdom. Also depends on levels of awareness.
>So if... I kick a rock, the rock is aware because internal processes within it (even the most minute ones) happen due to external influence.
>The common definition is clearly entirely devoid of meaning.
No. Rocks don't have awareness. The definition you gave wouldn't even suggest they do.
>Oh wow.
Glad I could teach you something.
>As is everything else you perceive, dumbo. That's the whole point.
You really don't understand what abstract means, do you? Physical things aren't abstract. Connotations to them can be. Like a statue isn't abstract, but its meaning is.
>I never made that claim, if you didn't notice. Which you didn't.
Yes you did. Right in this phrase:
>Chemical reactions are high-level energy fields interacting.
Now look at what you said about 'high-level' abstractions.
>Your claim, not mine.
No, your claim. You're the one who said that you can re-write automatic processes and then listed habits. I'm the one who disagreed with you. Keep up.
>Nigger, I'm literally saying subconscious = automatic.
Which it isn't. That's why it's called subconscious.
>Do you have to pay close fucking attention to how you move your fingers when you tie your shoes, or do you just decide to do it, and your hands move... automatically?
Conscious hand movements aren't automatic. A reflex is. One is conscious, one is automatic. Sometimes you can have subconscious movements through repetition.
>Jesus fuck you're dumb as a brick.
How does it feel to be less than a brick?
>Yup. And it certainly can getting ones body relaxed and engaged in the process has shown considerable health benefits.
Ha. 'I'm a wizard cos I learnt how to calm myself out of a tantrum'. Good one.
>Ah. There we go. You're welcome to thank me for opening your mind to new avenues of study.
Empty mind =! open mind, plebian.
>>16983681
>There is a clear boundary between body and environment. There's nothing abstract about it.
Just to take one small point from your litany of misunderstanding. The 'boundary' between the body and the environment is clearly and increasingly being shown by science to be somewhat abstract.
Your skin is in a constant process of interplay with the environment. You shed skin cells into the air creating dust. You shed bacteria into the air around you, your personal bacterial signature being detectable feet away from you.
Your body is a tube, open at both ends to the environment.
You take in food and water which build your structure, and affect your health and function.
You have colonies of bacteria on or in your skin, mouth, nasal passages, stomach, small and large intestine, and probably other places I've missed out. The bacteria in your gut affect your physical and mental health and are being considered by some scientists as analogous to another organ.
These bacteria can be passed on to others in some circumstances.
Developmentally we need contact with others to thrive. Psychologically and emotionally we need people for our individual wellbeing.
I could go on, and this is just the science before we even start to consider the esoterics and the other concepts Surgo is referring to as 'abstract'. You really are missing the point. Abstract originally meant 'drawn off' or 'taken away from'. Abstraction in the sense of 'removed from' or 'one step on from' isn't too hard a concept to follow.
>>16983915
>Just to take one small point from your litany of misunderstanding.
Gee, I'm sure you're definitely educated enough to be telling me about misunderstandings. /sarc
>The 'boundary' between the body and the environment is clearly and increasingly being shown by science to be somewhat abstract.
Nope. It's a clear line. Nothing abstract about it.
>Your skin is in a constant process of interplay with the environment. You shed skin cells into the air creating dust. You shed bacteria into the air around you, your personal bacterial signature being detectable feet away from you.
You aren't dead skin cells, dust or bacteria.
>Your body is a tube, open at both ends to the environment.
Yours, maybe, you dirty, dirty slut. Mine contains a series of sphincters.
>You take in food and water which build your structure, and affect your health and function.
Again, not abstract. You use things to build and replace parts of yourself. The boundary is still there. You aren't a potted plant now just because you ate a sandwich.
>You have colonies of bacteria on or in you. The bacteria in your gut affect your physical and mental health and are being considered by some scientists as analogous to another organ.
It's called symbiosis. But you aren't suddenly fuzzily blurred into the carpet.
>These bacteria can be passed on to others in some circumstances.
You've been swapping shits with people, haven't you? Dirty boy.
>Developmentally we need contact with others to thrive. Psychologically and emotionally we need people for our individual wellbeing.
Mind is different to body.
>I could go on,
It would likely be a waste of both of our times.
>You really are missing the point. Abstract originally meant 'drawn off' or 'taken away from'. Abstraction in the sense of 'removed from' or 'one step on from' isn't too hard a concept to follow.
Nope. Abstract is basically conceptual. Bodies are physical.
>>16983821
>The definition you gave wouldn't even suggest they do.
They hold information about being kicked, therefore they hold knowledge, therefore (by the dictionary definition above), they are aware.
Logic 101, anyone?
>Physical things aren't abstract.
You have no idea what "physical" is, as you've demonstrated over and over again.
>Like a statue isn't abstract, but its meaning is.
A statue is abstract as fuck. In fact, a statue is insanely good an example: what you call a "statue" says NOTHING about the material it's made of, about the arrangement of elements, or about it's other physical properties.
Try again.
>You're the one who said that you can re-write automatic processes and then listed habits.
Fair enough. Add to that all the rest I mentioned. Also changing perceptions, causing spontaneous amnesia, causing hallucinations (positive and negative), etc. etc. etc.
Memory retrieval IS an automatic process, as is processing sensory input. So there you go.
>Which it isn't. That's why it's called subconscious.
Except it is. That's why it's called subconscious. If you were conscious of it, it wouldn't be *sub*conscious.
>Conscious hand movements aren't automatic.
Stating the obvious.
>Sometimes you can have subconscious movements through repetition.
Yes, that's called an automatic (learned) action. Much like driving, at first, you have to pay attention to every-fucking-thing, and over time, all you have to do is choose a destination, and your body automatically gets you there. Shit, you can even have fierce arguments while texting on the phone and still drive well.
>>16984019
>It's a clear line.
Really, now? Where do "you" end?
>You aren't dead skin cells, dust or bacteria.
You aren't a stomach, liver, brain, heart, intestines, nor your skin, either.
>Mind is different to body.
Where do you draw the line?
I'm really interested in how you arrive at that (rather ancient) idea, given that we already know that we can reliably affect the mind by affecting the body.
>Abstract is basically conceptual. Bodies are physical.
Depends only on the level of abstraction you choose to operate from. You could just as well argue that the only thing that exists is molecules interacting, and everything else is conceptual because you refuse to perceive the higher order of abstraction you're being presented with.
>>16982468
How is it that people still remember Jake?? I remember him from like four years ago and stepped outside of all this stuff. I guess he stayed and dug deeper?
>>16984090
>Really, now? Where do "you" end?
Oh, I don't know. Probably 10ft around me in every direction. Maybe the River Nile is where I end. Where the fuck do you think?
>You aren't a stomach, liver, brain, heart, intestines, nor your skin, either.
Yeah, I am. Those are components of me.
>Where do you draw the line?
For mind and body? Come on, don't be a fucking idiot. Body is physical, mind is (to use your favourite misused word) abstract. And I don't mean my brain, I mean mind. Two different things.
>I'm really interested in how you arrive at that (rather ancient) idea, given that we already know that we can reliably affect the mind by affecting the body.
We can also affect a car. It doesn't make it part of the body.
>Depends only on the level of abstraction you choose to operate from.
No. Stop with this shit. Abstraction is not some esoteric word you can just keep using and hope nobody notices you're using it wrong.
> You could just as well argue that the only thing that exists is molecules interacting, and everything else is conceptual because you refuse to perceive the higher order of abstraction you're being presented with.
No. Conceptual things are ideas, thoughts, etc. Physical things are just that: physical. You're ignorance of the subject is astounding.
>>16984127
Dug deeper being code for "became a cult leader"?
>>16980288
>>16980315
Creepy af minion
>>16984144
LOL. Are you serious?! When did this happen?
I was around when he had that experimental skype group and then suddenly he came forward and was like yeah I've been bullshitting all of you. Everyone dispersed. I'd talk to him on and off but eventually deleted him.
This was a group with mostly delusional people like furkin or whatever the fuck. One of the guys in it ended up just having a normal life and is a comedian and psychologist in California now with a good ordinary life.
>>16984076
>They hold information about being kicked, therefore they hold knowledge, therefore (by the dictionary definition above), they are aware.
What in the fuck are you smoking? Stones hold no information. I'm pretty sure you made this mistake earlier, as well. Forces =! information.
>Logic 101, anyone?
Please, take the lesson.
>You have no idea what "physical" is, as you've demonstrated over and over again.
Physical is everything around you, dipshit. Apples, supermarkets, left shoes, crowbars, paper-backs, etc. That should be fucking obvious.
>A statue is abstract as fuck. In fact, a statue is insanely good an example: what you call a "statue" says NOTHING about the material it's made of, about the arrangement of elements, or about it's other physical properties.
When you were dropped on your head, did anyone worry? They probably do now, at least.
Statues aren't abstract. They're physical. The meaning behind them is abstract. Learn the fucking difference, you ass hat.
>Fair enough. Add to that all the rest I mentioned. Also changing perceptions, causing spontaneous amnesia, causing hallucinations (positive and negative), etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, more nonsense, whatever you like. It can be a big heap of nonsense, just for you.
>Memory retrieval IS an automatic process, as is processing sensory input. So there you go.
Excluding the times when you focus to bring up a memory, or alter your focus on an object or sound.
>Except it is. That's why it's called subconscious. If you were conscious of it, it wouldn't be *sub*conscious.
You're conscious of your heart beating (now you are, at least). It's not now a conscious act. You're confusing subconscious, conscious, and automatic.
>Stating the obvious.
It's required, apparently.
>Yes, that's called an automatic (learned) action.
Nope, it's subconscious. Automatic involves no consciousness. Some coma patients exhibit neither subconscious or consciousness, but automatic functions still occur.
>>16984127
Kinda. Last we talked he got mad at me because I didn't recognize his claim to a thing due to his lack of lineage.
So yeah. My guess is, he's still popping pills and having emotional breaks.
>>16984128
>Where the fuck do you think?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Are you your mind, or are you your body? Or are you something else entirely?
>Yeah, I am. Those are components of me.
If they are components of you, you can't be them. Do you see where this is going?
>For mind and body? Come on, don't be a fucking idiot. Body is physical, mind is (to use your favourite misused word) abstract. And I don't mean my brain, I mean mind. Two different things.
Mind as in? If you mean the function of the brain, the patterns and structures emerging from neurons firing and connecting, then that's a part of the body. And this, incidentally, includes all thought, perception, memory, and other mental functions.
And yes, I agree that it's abstract. Just as abstract as picking an emergent structure (the human body) as an entity separate from it's environment.
>We can also affect a car. It doesn't make it part of the body.
I wouldn't be so sure. You know how your mind creates kinaesthetic hallucinations for where "the car" is, while you drive? I would say that what "the body" is is very situation dependent, at least from a functional perspective.
>No. Stop with this shit. Abstraction is not some esoteric word you can just keep using and hope nobody notices you're using it wrong.
I'm not talking esoterics here. Literally basic philosophical concepts here. Every read Chomsky? He talks about it quite nicely.
>No. Conceptual things are ideas, thoughts, etc. Physical things are just that: physical. You're ignorance of the subject is astounding.
>you're
kek'd
Except ideas and thoughts are patterns of neural activity, which in turn makes them physical, which means you're the ignorant one.
ghost are not human souls. they never were humans. humans are organic beings. "ghost" are things that may predate physical mater in the universe and while 100000/10 its all fake urban legend shit its that one time when nobody is paying attention and shit happens but nobody had been recording anything so no shaky cam vids for youtube that prove its something
>>16984162
Woooow. That's sad because he had a grasp on some good sciences but then lost sanity to ego and went full on nuts.
Weeeird.
And sorry I meant college professor not psychologist.
It's weird and interesting to find out how people from here end up.
>>16979922
Hey I talked to you on a chat and you seem to know your shit
All these role play fags doing fan fiction of a fuckin movie
>>16984174
Well thank you!
>>16984151
I'm kidding. Kind of. Just a Skype group again -- I mean, they say it's not a cult, but... I mean, check out the language in those two posts I quoted.
>"you need us"
>"you've bonded yourself to us"
>"you can be pardoned"
gaslighting much?
>>16984152
>What in the fuck are you smoking? Stones hold no information.
Kick a stone, it moves, the molecules in it hold a particular amount of energy, are moved. That's information.
>Physical is everything around you, dipshit. Apples, supermarkets, left shoes, crowbars, paper-backs, etc. That should be fucking obvious.
Except not. When you look at an apple, your senses don't perceive an "apple". They perceive a particular shape, texture, color, perhaps scent, and then your brain, from that input, abstracts (!) that it's an apple. What you "see" is in no way even close to what is actually there.
>Statues aren't abstract.
So you're saying, if you get a hunk of rock, carve it into a statue of a smaller rock, and leave it there, people will recognize it as a statue of a rock?
Nope. You're retarded. A "statue" is only a particular arrangement of elements, those elements being basically anything, from wood through stones to rock to glue to bubble-gum. And a "statue" can depict anything. Therefore the notion of a "statue" is intensely abstract.
>Excluding the times when you focus to bring up a memory, or alter your focus on an object or sound.
So you're saying, you have perfect memory, and always remember anything you want to remember, regardless of when or where?
That would certainly explain the autism.
As for "altering your focus", that's hardly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about literally seeing shit that isn't there. Or not seeing shit that is there. You know. I used that word... hallucinations? Ring a bell?
>You're conscious of your heart beating (now you are, at least). It's not now a conscious act.
It can be, given a sufficiently altered state. You know, that's kinda the point of what I do. Alter states.
>Automatic involves no consciousness.
Do elaborate. Where do you draw the line between conscious, subconscious, and automatic, then?
Far as I can tell, there's no function of the body which can't be made conscious.
>>16984179
Since I caught you here... Is there somewhere else on the webs where a person could discuss magick, without combing through all this in-fighting and ignorance?
>>16984196
Just join their cult it will be great, rainbows and unicorns and puppy farts
I don't think there is a cult.
Someone has to claim a cult.
Otherwise isn't it just a group of friends?
>>16984202
Go away plz
>>16984208
It can be a cult, as long as being in a cult is fun. Idgaf
>>16984162
>I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Are you your mind, or are you your body? Or are you something else entirely?
Mind and body. My body ends where the skin ends.
>If they are components of you, you can't be them.
They are parts of me, so of course I am.
>Do you see where this is going?
Back to you being confused as fuck about simple concepts?
>Mind as in? If you mean the function of the brain, the patterns and structures emerging from neurons firing and connecting, then that's a part of the body. And this, incidentally, includes all thought, perception, memory, and other mental functions.
No, you moron. Mind is consciousness. Consciousness isn't the body.
>And yes, I agree that it's abstract. Just as abstract as picking an emergent structure (the human body) as an entity separate from it's environment.
You still don't get what abstract means... I seriously can't work out how you're so retarded.
>I wouldn't be so sure.
Course you wouldn't. I'm guessing you're uncertain about doorknobs, too.
>know how your mind creates kinaesthetic hallucinations for where "the car" is, while you drive? I would say that what "the body" is is very situation dependent, at least from a functional perspective.
Now you're struggling with what body means. Take a lot of sick days during English classes, did you?
>I'm not talking esoterics here. Literally basic philosophical concepts here. Every read Chomsky? He talks about it quite nicely.
And yet you keep using the word 'abstraction' in completely the wrong way.
>Except ideas and thoughts are patterns of neural activity, which in turn makes them physical, which means you're the ignorant one.
Nope. Ideas are conceptual and abstract. Brains are physical. Two different things, you rotting whale cock.
>>16984196
Well, if you have Skype then hit me up. I'm NegiSpringfieldof4ch and I'm here to help whoever needs it. I will help as I can and with what I can.
>>16984208
Are friends in the habit of gaslighting people who decide they don't want to chill any more? Then sure
>>16984192
>Kick a stone, it moves, the molecules in it hold a particular amount of energy, are moved. That's information.
Not even close to what information is.
>Except not. When you look at an apple, your senses don't perceive an "apple". They perceive a particular shape, texture, color, perhaps scent, and then your brain, from that input, abstracts (!) that it's an apple. What you "see" is in no way even close to what is actually there.
Yeah, because an apple is actually 17ft long and made of razor wire. Stop being a fucking moron for just a second.
>So you're saying, if you get a hunk of rock, carve it into a statue of a smaller rock, and leave it there, people will recognize it as a statue of a rock?
You're still fucking confusing meaning with physical form, you complete and utter waste of flesh. Abstract is meaning. Form is physical.
>Nope. You're retarded. A "statue" is only a particular arrangement of elements, those elements being basically anything, from wood through stones to rock to glue to bubble-gum. And a "statue" can depict anything. Therefore the notion of a "statue" is intensely abstract.
Statues are physical. I'd like to demonstrate that by inviting you to crush yourself under one and rid me of your stupidity, fucking dense cunt.
>So you're saying, you have perfect memory, and always remember anything you want to remember, regardless of when or where?
You fucking idiot. I'm saying you can consciously recall a memory.
>As for "altering your focus", that's hardly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about literally seeing shit that isn't there. Or not seeing shit that is there. You know. I used that word... hallucinations? Ring a bell?
Waffling on about more redundant shit.
>It can be, given a sufficiently altered state. You know, that's kinda the point of what I do. Alter states.
How about you alter your state to a corpse?
>>16984192
>Do elaborate. Where do you draw the line between conscious, subconscious, and automatic, then?
Automatic is something that happens naturally, regardless, i.e homeostasis. Subconscious is something that happens without realising but is the result of programmed behaviour, i.e. driving. Conscious are acts intentionally caused, i.e. me sticking a pen in your eye socket.
>Far as I can tell, there's no function of the body which can't be made conscious.
Enzyme production, for one. It's like you don't fucking think before you speak. Well, I know you don't.
Fuck it, I'm out. You keep on with your autistic snowflake shit and complete ignorance of basic words. Just remember to take a walk off a tall building when you're done, you pathetic slice of cunt-scabs.
>>16984019
>>16984128
You're not very well informed. And ffs go look up 'abstract' in a dictionary.
>>16984247
>My body ends where the skin ends.
That's reasonable.
>They are parts of me, so of course I am.
So you're saying, if I take say, a part of your body, one of your kidneys, and keep it "alive" in myself, am I holding you hostage?
Cause that's where your "I am the parts that make me up" train of thought concludes.
To give you another example of you being retarded, if I take a brick out of a house, I don't have a house. I have a brick.
Building-blocks do not contain the structure they make up.
>No, you moron. Mind is consciousness. Consciousness isn't the body.
It's certainly a function of the body though. As you said yourself above. It's abstract.
>You still don't get what abstract means...
I am still using the same exact dictionary definition that I linked to above.
>Take a lot of sick days during English classes, did you?
Yes actually. Ended each year with an A+ regardless. Is your brain filtering out the " " quote-marks?
>And yet you keep using the word 'abstraction' in completely the wrong way.
Entirely consistent with the dictionary definition.
>Ideas are conceptual and abstract. Brains are physical.
Brains are physical. Neural activity is physical. Patterns of neural activity are physical. Patterns of neural activity are ideas. Therefore ideas are physical.
>>16984258
>Not even close to what information is.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/information
>What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things:
So yes, that's exactly it.
>>16984258
>Yeah, because an apple is actually 17ft long and made of razor wire. Stop being a fucking moron for just a second.
So you're saying "apple" is a precise and absolute physical entity, is that it?
>Abstract is meaning. Form is physical.
Except that's entirely wrong.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#WayAbs
This should help you out.
>Statues are physical.
kek'd
Think for a second, that'll help.
>You fucking idiot. I'm saying you can consciously recall a memory.
Except you can't. You "try" to remember, and then it pops up into your awareness. You don't actually focus, reach into your huge-as-fuck-database-of-memories and find it yourself. It's an automatic process.
>>16984267
>Automatic is something that happens naturally, regardless, i.e homeostasis.
Except we can affect homeostasis via proxy, so I don't think that's entirely automatic, as it's also reliant on particular conditions being subconsciously in place.
>Subconscious is something that happens without realising but is the result of programmed behaviour, i.e. driving.
That's fair.
>Conscious are acts intentionally caused, i.e. me sticking a pen in your eye socket.
Except the whole movement would be subconscious, since you'd have a really, really hard time controlling each muscle in particular to achieve your goal. Bad example.
>Enzyme production, for one. It's like you don't fucking think before you speak. Well, I know you don't.
That's fair. Can still be affected by proxy. That said, I do hear there's experiments being done in the UK about using hypnosis to control the release and production of specific hormones, so enzymes might not be too far off.
but yeah, gg, maybe next time you'll have something of value to say.
>>16984284
>So you're saying, if I take say, a part of your body, one of your kidneys, and keep it "alive" in myself, am I holding you hostage?
No, dumbass. It would no longer be a part of me.
>Cause that's where your "I am the parts that make me up" train of thought concludes.
Only if you're completely retarded would you think that.
>To give you another example of you being retarded, if I take a brick out of a house, I don't have a house. I have a brick.
But leave the brick where it is, and you have a house. It's part of the whole.
>Building-blocks do not contain the structure they make up.
Not required.
>It's certainly a function of the body though. As you said yourself above. It's abstract.
It's not a function of the body. It's a result of the brain.
>I am still using the same exact dictionary definition that I linked to above.
Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Learn it.
>Yes actually. Ended each year with an A+ regardless. Is your brain filtering out the " " quote-marks?
Yeah, I filtered them out because they aren't necessary. We're talking about statues and you still can't wrap your head around it.
>Entirely consistent with the dictionary definition.
Not even close.
>Brains are physical. Neural activity is physical. Patterns of neural activity are physical. Patterns of neural activity are ideas. Therefore ideas are physical.
But concepts and ideas are not physical. They're abstract. That's the whole fucking point of the word. So, either you're using the word and it doesn't apply to anything, or you have no fucking clue what it means nor what it applies to.
>So yes, that's exactly it.
A kick doesn't convey or represent any fucking particular arrangement of things. It isn't information, you dense piece of shit.
>>16984300
>So you're saying "apple" is a precise and absolute physical entity, is that it?
Took you a long fucking time, didn't it? Yes, an apple is a physical thing. Whatever meaning people place on them, like fertility, knowledge, life, whatever, that's abstract.
>Except that's entirely wrong.
You linked something that only proves what I say. You can't be this retarded. I refuse to believe it.
>Think for a second, that'll help.
How the fuck aren't statues physical, you cock?
>Except you can't. You "try" to remember, and then it pops up into your awareness. You don't actually focus, reach into your huge-as-fuck-database-of-memories and find it yourself. It's an automatic process.
Except, you do. Which is why you can get memory blockages. It's because people go down the wrong route inadvertently. That feeling when something is 'on the tip of your tongue'? Conscious action restricted in its attempt.
>Except we can affect homeostasis via proxy, so I don't think that's entirely automatic, as it's also reliant on particular conditions being subconsciously in place.
It's automatic because it happens regardless. Influencing it to be stronger or weaker doesn't matter. It's entirely automatic.
>Except the whole movement would be subconscious, since you'd have a really, really hard time controlling each muscle in particular to achieve your goal. Bad example.
Clearly, it isn't difficult controlling each muscle. We do it all the time.
>That said, I do hear there's experiments being done in the UK about using hypnosis to control the release and production of specific hormones, so enzymes might not be too far off.
Hypnosis... fuck me sideways, it's like someone beat you with the retard-stick and then left it up your arse.
>>16983717
>Jesus fuck you're dumb as a brick.
>>16984152
>you ass hat.
>>16984247
>No, you moron.
>can't work out how you're so retarded.
>you rotting whale cock.
>>16984258
>Stop being a fucking moron
>You fucking idiot.
>alter your state to a corpse
>>16984267
>you pathetic slice of cunt-scabs.
Damn.
>>16984300
Surgo, you've been very patient with him, you would think he'd know when to give up.
Some interesting theories here. I wrote a few down just because they were interesting. It's really a shame you two just keep jabbing at each other and acting like little foolish girls so no one can take you seriously. Your both fucking stupid as shit. If you would like to share a magical experience with me to help further my journey then email me but seriously grow up first
>>16986141
Yea i agree i wanted to read through but kept seeing insults. Really annoying those dudes needs to reevaluated their lives.
>>16986087
>>16986140
>>16986141
>>16986171
>can't handle the bantz
>>16987098
I like how they're having this intelectual discussion and then just throw a "You're a fucking idiot" every once in a while, to add some spice i guess.
>>16986031
>It would no longer be a part of me.
And yet it's demonstrably your DNA, and therefore your kidney.
>But leave the brick where it is, and you have a house. It's part of the whole.
Except it isn't. It's part of an *arrangement*. The arrangement itself is nothing more than the sum of its elements, it isn't something separate except when you abstract the sum of elements into a single entity.
>Not required.
It is required when you omit the abstraction layer between individual building-blocks and the entity they make up.
>It's not a function of the body. It's a result of the brain.
Brain is part of the body, therefore it's a result of the body. Oh wait, consciousness is perpetual. Therefore, it's a *process*.
>Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Yup. You're still clearly missing the point.
>We're talking about statues and you still can't wrap your head around it.
Much the opposite. The notion of a "statue" is inherently abstract because the word itself doesn't point to any one particular, physical entity. It's an abstract descriptor of a category of objects that we encounter in our perception.
Dumbo.
>But concepts and ideas are not physical. They're abstract.
...except saying "I have X idea" is still simply an abstract way of saying "this particular pattern of neural activity is occurring in my nervous system".
>A kick doesn't convey or represent any fucking particular arrangement of things. It isn't information, you dense piece of shit.
Yes, yes it does. And yes, it is information. If I kick something, I am giving it a very specific amount of energy at a very specific angle which results in very specific changes in the location, energy, structure of the object I kick. That's information being communicated right there.
>>16986061
>Took you a long fucking time, didn't it? Yes, an apple is a physical thing. Whatever meaning people place on them, like fertility, knowledge, life, whatever, that's abstract.
And you're still missing the point. An "apple" doesn't exist because an "apple" is simply an abstraction defining a particular category that is a sub-category of a group of objects called "fruit". Which in itself is also an abstraction.
That is, unless you mean to say that the word "apple" only refers to ONE PARTICULAR VERY SPECIFIC object in the world. Then yes, I'll agree with you. But that's not the case; I have like 5 apples in my kitchen right now. Which one is the applest?
>You linked something that only proves what I say.
Reading comprehension below a 12 year olds. I am impressed.
>How the fuck aren't statues physical, you cock?
Statues don't exist. What you call a statue is simply a particular arrangement of sensory stimuli caused by a specific arrangement of matter that you've learned to abstract and communicate about using that word.
See above. There is not one particular thing which you can call a statue.
>Except, you do. Which is why you can get memory blockages. It's because people go down the wrong route inadvertently. That feeling when something is 'on the tip of your tongue'? Conscious action restricted in its attempt.
That's interesting. And the first time I hear of memory retrieval being a conscious action. Do you have any papers on this? It'd be quite nice to expand my knowledge by being proven wrong.
>Influencing it to be stronger or weaker doesn't matter. It's entirely automatic.
If you can influence it, then it's hardly "entirely automatic". Do you even have a clue about what you want to say?
>Clearly, it isn't difficult controlling each muscle. We do it all the time.
Except you don't do it consciously. If you did, you'd have to exert your whole willpower to coordinate the act of walking.
>Hypnosis... fuck me sideways
Educate yourself.
>>16987235
>And yet it's demonstrably your DNA, and therefore your kidney.
Then your mum's tits are also mine, because of the vast amount of my DNA that I splurged on them.
>Except it isn't. It's part of an *arrangement*. The arrangement itself is nothing more than the sum of its elements, it isn't something separate except when you abstract the sum of elements into a single entity.
It's a simple concept, and you still don't get it. A brick in a house is part of the whole. If it's removed, it's no longer a part of it. If you put it back, it is again. See? Easy. You can do it!
Btw, nice incorrect use of 'abstract' again. You're really good at it.
>It is required when you omit the abstraction layer between individual building-blocks and the entity they make up.
Not if I abstract the abstractive to make the abstraction more abstractiony during the abstractification of the abstracted.
>Brain is part of the body, therefore it's a result of the body. Oh wait, consciousness is perpetual. Therefore, it's a *process*.
And yet mind is widely accepted to be separate to body, because the body is physical and the mind is abstract (see, that's how you use it).
>Yup. You're still clearly missing the point.
The point that you keep trying to reinvent what the word means? Or that you don't know what it means to begin with?
>Much the opposite. The notion of a "statue" is inherently abstract because the word itself doesn't point to any one particular, physical entity. It's an abstract descriptor of a category of objects that we encounter in our perception.
Dumbo.
Seriously, eat your own fucking eyeballs, you mong. Statue's physical form = physical. Statue's meaning = abstract. Get that in your fucking dome.
>...except saying "I have X idea" is still simply an abstract way of saying "this particular pattern of neural activity is occurring in my nervous system".
Completely missing the point that it's the idea itself that's abstract, not the firing of neurons.
>>16987235
>Yes, yes it does. And yes, it is information.
Not even slightly. Learn English.
>If I kick something, I am giving it a very specific amount of energy at a very specific angle which results in very specific changes in the location, energy, structure of the object I kick.
But you aren't communicating anything. Passing on energy doesn't mean communication. Nothing is being conveyed and a rock can't fucking take in what it would be even if you tried.
>That's information being communicated right there.
I really hope someone communicates with you sometime soon. Enthusiastically. And to the head, preferably.
>>16987295
>And yet mind is widely accepted to be separate to body,
kek'd
What is this, the middle ages? You ever hear of neuropsych?
>the body is physical and the mind is abstract
Uh, yes, the mind is abstract in relation to the body. That was never in question. The hell are you on about?
>Statue's physical form = physical. Statue's meaning = abstract.
Show me the physical form of whatever "statue" is. Prove me wrong.
Also kek'd at things inherently holding meaning. You're retarded.
>Completely missing the point that it's the idea itself that's abstract, not the firing of neurons.
Completely missing the point that the idea itself is the firing neurons.
>>16987306
>But you aren't communicating anything.
Yes, I am. Any movement it performs and any other changes are direct reactions of the rock to my giving it energy in a particular way.
>Passing on energy doesn't mean communication.
Yes, yes it does.
>Nothing is being conveyed and a rock can't fucking take in what it would be even if you tried.
Now you have me questioning whether you're more retarded than a nigger.
http://www.merriam-webster.com//dictionary/communication
Here. First. Fucking. Definition.
>>16987266
>And you're still missing the point. An "apple" doesn't exist because an "apple" is simply an abstraction defining a particular category that is a sub-category of a group of objects called "fruit". Which in itself is also an abstraction.
You have no point. Apples exist. They exist. It doesn't matter if they have no meaning to you, they still fucking exist. The abstract idea of an apple doesn't negate its existence. I really can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.
>That is, unless you mean to say that the word "apple" only refers to ONE PARTICULAR VERY SPECIFIC object in the world. Then yes, I'll agree with you.
No, it applies to all apples.
>But that's not the case; I have like 5 apples in my kitchen right now. Which one is the applest?
I didn't think you'd drop to a new level of stupid, but you did it. "Which one is the applest". Please die off.
>Reading comprehension below a 12 year olds. I am impressed.
And yet it completely refutes you. Strange, that.
>Statues don't exist. What you call a statue is simply a particular arrangement of sensory stimuli caused by a specific arrangement of matter that you've learned to abstract and communicate about using that word.
Statues fucking exist, you cleft. They're physical. Stop being a moron.
>See above. There is not one particular thing which you can call a statue.
Umm, Michelangelo's David. That's a statue.
>That's interesting. And the first time I hear of memory retrieval being a conscious action. Do you have any papers on this? It'd be quite nice to expand my knowledge by being proven wrong.
Use Google (Google scholar, not just the basic search that leads to nutjobs believing in magic).
>If you can influence it, then it's hardly "entirely automatic". Do you even have a clue about what you want to say?
Of course it's automatic. If it happens on its own, it's automatic. Your influence of it doesn't change it happens on its own.
>>16987266
>Except you don't do it consciously. If you did, you'd have to exert your whole willpower to coordinate the act of walking.
What the fuck do you think the first few months of you life were about?
>Educate yourself.
What is this, opposite day?
>>16987307
>What is this, the middle ages? You ever hear of neuropsych?
Doesn't refute separation of mind and body at all.
>Uh, yes, the mind is abstract in relation to the body. That was never in question. The hell are you on about?
What do you think I'm on about? You've been so retarded that you think mind and body are the same. But they aren't.
>Show me the physical form of whatever "statue" is. Prove me wrong.
Wait... you believe in magic but you don't believe in statues. Fuck, that's impressive stupidity. Well done.
>Also kek'd at things inherently holding meaning. You're retarded.
Nobody said things inherently hold meaning. Seeing things again, champ?
>Completely missing the point that the idea itself is the firing neurons.
But the idea is still abstract. If I think of a horse, you wouldn't be able to look in my brain and see an actual image of your mum there.
>>16987314
>Yes, I am. Any movement it performs and any other changes are direct reactions of the rock to my giving it energy in a particular way.
But you communicated nothing. Transfer of energy =! communication or information. You need a specific intended arrangement that the other consciousness you're attempting to communicate with can translate.
>Yes, yes it does.
Nope.
>Now you have me questioning whether you're more retarded than a nigger.
Trust me, you've been doing this for me since the fucking start. I've concluded you are. By a long shot, too.
