>says he loves Science
>spends all his free time on /x/

>>17151091
Nope, just came here from glorious /sci/ to instruct the /x/ plebeians.
Have no fear, peasant, I will show you the ways of Science

>>17151083

This is why I study both, faggot.

>>17151083
Yeah,but have anyone said that its bad?
There are things magic cant do,but science can.Vice versa applies here.

I mean,i know that last time the gate was opened when hadron hitted the CGD,but it was just luck.
And magic cant mqke computers


Carry on

>>17151083
>Choosing helicopters to replace broomsticks
>Not any other much more common way of flying
>Drugs
>As science
You're not even trying faggot

>>17151083
And then we discovered quantum mechanics and returned from science to magic.

File: demonpope.jpg (98 KB, 500x719) Image search: [Google]

98 KB, 500x719

>Science wins again

Never forget: scientific rationalism evolved out of philosophy which evolved out of mysticism

Philosophy is still 100% necessary, helpful, advantageous, whatever. Buddhism actually agrees with cutting edge physics breakthroughs. Modern philosophers are pondering ideas science will be confirming in the future.

(Love your quote choice btw, I used it to open an essay/article this summer)

>>17151205
Philosophy is useless "u cannot know nuffin" hogwash. It has literally been made obsolete by science.

>>17151083
> Alchemy
> Homonculus

THIS REMINDS ME OF AN ANIME I WATCHED

>>17151083
maybe its because magic was just science that also happened to relate to the psychological state of man and spiritual enlightenment.

>>17151218
don't repeat internet comics dude

This 'magic vs science' stuff is stupid because science is a method of examining things and magic is occultism in practice which is itself a science.
just like chemistry studies matter on one level, physics on another, so does occultism is concerned with studying the world in it's own level.

>>17151083
Do not forget the inverse is also true.

get back to me when science "discovers" the existence of prana

>>17151083

Chemistry isn't better or a replacement to Alchemy...

...physics maybe...

Don't be so drab to think science truly replaces great mystic arts.

Science makes up a giant piece of the puzzle, in this time there is more data in science than any mystic arts.

However, the most important data that is truly powerful and gets you ahead in areas that elevate you socially, the important data is buried in hidden occult areas.

>>17151218

You realize your opinion is considered philosophy, right?

That very post is philosophy...

...you realize that, right?

You're just trolling, right?

>>17151083
You first need to define what "magic" is.
Fun fact: there is no agreed upon definition.

>>17151083
>starts post talking about technology's achievements
>ends the post praising science
technology predates the scientific method by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years

>>17151205
>science confirming philosophical questions
those are two separate methods, science -can't- answer philosophical questions.

>>17151218
you can't know anything, though.

>>17151233
>>17151277
>>17155161
I thought magic was when will acts directly on matter rather than only on ideas.

>>17151205
> believe on those who found it
Those who THINK they found it. Are pedophiles supernatural?

>>17155405
What?

>>17155401
Magic is the manipulation of information. Through quantum entanglement, this can affect matter also.

>>17155405
>Are pedophiles supernatural?
it seems to me one of the strongest human instincts must be the one to protect children, there's probably some magical significance to going against that instinct, and the sexual libido seems to be often thought to have magical significance too.

then you have other questions like the significance of the child in terms of symbolism, the part of the macrocosm which children represent - hurting children might be a way to affect that part of the macrocosm.

not to mention that the search for power seems to be tied into magic and when you exhaust all the socially acceptable forms of dominance (which in one of its forms is "rebellion") like success in politics or the media you end up eventually with the most transgressive actions which are against the wishes of the most people (to signify your power by showing that you are able to act against or despite all those wishes) and hurting children seems like it might well be the thing the largest number of people want not to happen.

>>17155426
>through quantum entanglement
my definition of magic is the action of the will directly, not "through" anything.

if it's through quantum entanglement then that isn't the definition of magic I had in mind.

>>17151083
>Helicopters>Flying broomsticks

nigga when's the last time you cleaned your room with a helicopter.

>>17155454
>the action of the will directly
so what is your mechanism then? do you have an invisible hand that reaches out of your forehead and picks things up?

>>17155436
you're in dangerous territory there sonny boy, you finna lose your morals?

>>17155518
>what is your mechanism then?
I have the working hypothesis that the world we see around us and "consciousness" are somehow the same or translatable. If you try to separate ideas from experience you might encounter the same trouble I did.

Another way to look at it would be something like a dream scenario - with one way to achieve "magical skills" being to turn the dream lucid. In Hinduism and Christianity you have someone with "knowledge" or "realisation" that they are "one with the creator (ie. dreamer)" and then they have magical skills, the ability to command the weather etc.

Another way to approach it is this:

http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nwill.html

"The question is in the end whether we really recognize the will as efficient [...] then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of the will hypothetically as the only one. "Will," of course, can affect only "will"--and not "matter" (not "nerves," for example). In short, one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever "effects" are recognized--and whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will."

I don't agree that "of course" will has to affect will only, but the vision of the world he puts forward there is more or less the same thing I would be thinking when it comes to magic. Most people assume the will is able to affect nerves so as to electrify a muscle into action - no-one objects when you claim you lifted your arm. It's only when it comes to claiming that you made it rain that people start to object. But if you follow Nietzsche's example, you have to admit the possibility that intention affecting matter isn't restricted to one area of the brain affecting another - or you admit that it is restricted but for some other reason than physiological association of brain and the nervous system.

>>17151227
"Fullmetal alchemist: Brotherhood".

>>17155509

Just gotta open your window and that shit would be windblasted to perfection!

>>17155565
Why does it mean that will either affects will or is limited by some other thing?

It makes prefect sense that the will is a byproduct of brain activity, and thus only affects what the brain does.

I'm genuinely trying to understand so sorry if I sound ignorant

>>17154512
you know by "philosophy" he means a specific body of texts and a set of disciplinary practices you dunce, for someone keen on philosophy you seem not to have read enough of it

just because two different concepts can be expressed by the same word doesnt mean they are the same thing

>>17155824
>Why does it mean that will either affects will or is limited by some other thing?
Nietzsche thinks will has to affect will but I don't understand why he thinks that. I was saying either will is limited to the brain or it isn't, and even if it is limited to the brain in almost every example we know of that doesn't mean it has to be limited - for example if will responds to what we expect of it then changing our expectations would expand our power.

>It makes perfect sense that the will is a byproduct of brain activity, and thus only affects what the brain does
It seems to me that the will is totally different to the brain and I find it hard to believe any accumulation of nerve matter could produce something so different from itself.

It's like saying matter all around us has no will or intention, then once you combine it to make neurons in a certain formation something clicks and suddenly you have matter with will. That seems less likely to me than saying that will is all around us and the matter of the human brain only affects how it relates to itself - so for example that the human brain "traps" will into identifying with the human body. I'm not 100% on any of this though.

>>17151113
Jokes aside, I would expect such a collaboration to yield great things.

>>17151083
No one is even mentioning the fact that Magic comes from non-material sources and is thus not devouring our single planets resources to fuel and build.

>>17151144
I agree about the drugs part, but as far as widely known/accepted methods of flying go helicopters are the closest relation to broomsticks I can think of. Most other forms rely on movement, and no other form of flight which can hover is commercially (and widely) available. Looking forwards to jetpacks, though.

>>17157729
>Nietzsche thinks will has to affect will but I don't understand why he thinks that.
That is what I meant by "Magic is the manipulation of information" and "quantum entanglement"

Have you seen noosphere.princeton.edu?

>>17157729
Well, we have computers which can be programmed to have a semblance of a will. Our brains might just be more complex versions of that. Than again we can't know what a computer thinks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjlSiASsUIs

>>17151083
>Chemistry>Alchemy
>Robots>Homonculus
>Helicopters>Flying broomsticks
>Statistics>Divination
>Drugs>mystical visions
>Magnetism>Telekinesis

let me fix that for you

Chemistry>Alchemy
Robots<Homonculus
Helicopters<Flying broomsticks
Statistics<Divination
Drugs<mystical visions
Magnetism<Telekinesis