fayfreethinkers.com

Hi, I had some trouble finding where to put this post, because it isn't limited to a "subject header." However, it's most important basis comes from concrete knowledge, that we mostly obtain using this practice popularly called "science." So that is why I put it specifically in the science section of the forums. (because we are here to THINK about it, and not simply FEEL aloud) I tried to discuss some of these ideas on the facebook page, but it was met only with rash emotions, instead of rational contemplation. I was told that the conversation would be preserved and moved to this site, for which I even ended my discussion, in order to allow the thread to die and be saved. Well this never happened, and when I asked other members about it, they were either incredibly rude or simply ignored me. This has made me question what "FREETHINKING" means to you as a group. The way that I have seen your active efforts to seek out and attack the institution and ideals of religion, has proven that you don't think "freethinking" means that we can correctly think ANYTHING we want, or simply choose what is right, based on how we feel. This is the understanding that the spectrum of information NARROWS our perspective, from unsteady partial understanding, into precise, concrete, and WHOLE expressions. And that these "commonalities" between us CAN be better known by us if we try to learn about them. And that the greatest SINGLE truth between us simply referred to as our ONE shared REALITY. As you display knowledge of this "gravitation" of information towards truth, I also want to be sure that you are not also using the label of "freethinking" to justify acting and believing in things that you don't completely understand yet (exactly like practitioners of religion do, justify behavior that they don't understand; they call it "faith"). Everything I talk about will be completely based in the MOST fundamental knowledge, that we can all attain simply and easily, and that is provable again and again. I don't wish for you to "believe" what I tell you, or accept any gaps that you don't understand yet. But I do expect you to attempt to know what I am saying completely before reacting to a small piece of it, in a way that doesn't apply to the knowledge or doesn't consider the initial pieces that were required to build the coherent picture that I wish to describe further with you. I am not someone infallible. I am not perfectly self actualized, or whatever that means. Heck, this isn't even MY information. It is simply my "perspective" of how to use this information more efficiently, in order to get a more decipherable result from it. While it is something I have dedicated my life to understanding, it is also something that exists as a feeling within us all. Each of us inherently "FEELS" how this understanding works, and that gives us about a 98% grasp on our situation (and 98% is enough for most people to assume the last 2% on faith, the reason religions are so popular!) But if we are actually willing to WORK to obtain that little extra piece of information that connects our feeling with our rational thought, then we will find that the mechanisms of information become MUCH more usable, and can connect in relevant ways to ALL fields of reality. Take your time, and slowly try to understand the whole of each concept, as purely as you can imagine it, and how it is singularly being expressed in each example.

I think this is probably enough for an introduction, as we have covered the ground we wish to build upon, I will let some people comment or question the basis of it. If there are no questions and you want to try applying this idea, then start thinking about the "Greatest Truths" that are the same for everyone, that describe this experience, and can unify our understanding of it. Of course I already gave you one example, what we call "reality." But there are many other ways to consider this, and other perspectives with which to describe it. What other examples can you come up with? Because gaining the perspective to look at our world from a place that "doesn't change," is the ONLY way to build a solid understanding that can convey true working knowledge, for which we can use to better ourselves.

I'll take this opportunity to post here on the forum what happened to the original facebook conversation:
When the Fayetteville Freethinkers facebook account was created, it was created as a personal account instead of as a group account. When facebook administrators finally noticed, many years later, they decided that this wasn't cool, and they converted the account to a group account. All of the previous posts from or on the account were lost. This was neither our doing nor our wish.

Joeknows wrote:I tried to discuss some of these ideas on the facebook page, but it was met only with rash emotions, instead of rational contemplation. I was told that the conversation would be preserved and moved to this site, for which I even ended my discussion, in order to allow the thread to die and be saved. Well this never happened...

Well, there's nothing quite like starting off on the lying foot.
Joe was told by Dardedar that the conversation would be moved to the forum, but only after I had repeatedly implored Joe to just take the conversation to the forum in the first place. facebook is notoriously bad as an archive site, whereas no post here is ever hidden away as too old. Joe, obviously, chose not to do this. But that's not the lie.
The lie is that Joe says that he let the conversation die when he was told that the conversation would be moved. That's blatantly false. Joe continued the conversation until long, long, long after Dardedar had told me that he [Dardedar] changed his mind about his original intent of moving a copy to the forum. (I'll let Dardedar, if he so chooses, explain why.) In addition, Joe continued sending private facebook messages to several members who had engaged him in the original conversation for weeks after he abandoned that conversation. The notion that Joe "let it die" when he was told the conversation could continue here is ridiculous for no fewer than the two reasons of (1) we told him to put it here first and (2) he didn't let it die.

More:

Joeknows wrote:I tried to discuss some of these ideas on the facebook page, but it was met only with rash emotions, instead of rational contemplation.

When Joe says "rash emotions," he means "a thorough dismantling of the entire basis of his argument." It is only because Joe didn't like our response that he calls it rash. (We started out quite nice, but Joestrology was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Joeknows wrote:... and when I asked other members about it, they were either incredibly rude or simply ignored me.

I can't speak for other members, but I ignored your messages because they didn't include even a single thing that hadn't already been refuted by at least two people.

Joeknows wrote:Everything I talk about will be completely based in the MOST fundamental knowledge...

Well, that would certainly be a pleasant -- albeit radical -- change for you.

Joeknows wrote:... and that is provable again and again.

I won't hold my breath. You couldn't prove any component of Joestrology that we questioned.

Joeknows wrote:Of course I already gave you one example, what we call "reality."

What you call "reality" is not reality, Joe. You think that Pluto sends magical happiness waves that affect people on Earth. In reality, you need to show that this is true before we'll accept it as being true. If it were true, you should be able to demonstrate that it's true. But you don't, won't, and can't, yet you insist that it's part of reality. So no, there is no "what we call 'reality,'" because what you call reality is not what the rest of us call reality.

Does anything excuse your inability to transfer that conversation long after I stopped participating in it? " he didn't let it die." I was gone for months before facebook changed the "status" of your group. I had always intended to come here and try to talk about it without so many personal attacks littering and destroying the ground on which I am seeking to present this "integral system" that many individuals have acclaimed, not for its art, but for it's FUNCTION and completeness. You said "...the conversation would be moved to the forum, but only after I had repeatedly implored Joe to take the conversation to the forum in the first place." Are you saying that moving of the conversation was dependent upon me starting the forum page? Or are you stating that you "said you would" do it, and you trying to implore me to start a post really has no real basis in keeping you from doing what you said. You were sloppy and lazy. Look, I don't care about it. I am sloppy and lazy all the time too, it is just our human condition. But I am NOT trying to attack your group. I'm trying to find it's backbone and determine the species of the beast. I am not blaming you, I am not accusing you. So why are you trying SO hard to accuse me of being a liar. Can we not leave the personal feelings aside from our rational conversation, at least this time? Because otherwise I have no reason to be here and discuss things with people that consistently demonstrate they don't even want to listen.

"Joe continued the conversation until long, long, long after Dardedar had told me that he [Dardedar] changed his mind about his original intent of moving a copy to the forum." (I don't need to know why he didn't move it, it was pretty obvious) But the fact that you had a private conversation with someone and passed information only between the two of you, somehow makes me a liar for saying that you "[told me it would eventually be archived after the conversation had run its course]?" You are talking about actions and conversations you had with other people, as if it somehow affects me? If you didn't tell that information TO me, then I didn't know any different from what you told me the first time. Basically what you are saying, is that YOU were lying to me, by allowing me to continue to believe that the forum would be moved to this site.

" I ignored your messages because they didn't include even a single thing that hadn't already been refuted by at least two people." No, I said that I was messaging about what happened to the forum, asking why it didnt get copied to this site. And I got ignored when I asked. I hope this doesn't become a trend. Because you could only have come to a conclusion like this if you read through my post REALLY, really astoundingly FAST! I mean boss quickness, warp 9, ludicrous speed, GO! Do you often get into that habit in your daily life and have a hard time calming down and just "staring at knowledge" to let it be its own thing, and not something you forced it to? Because I don't think you CAN understand any of what I am trying to say, if you SO quickly gloss over it each time. You are going to have to slowly gather the completeness of the message that I am presenting. Otherwise there is no reason to discuss anything, as it proves again that only "a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing."

The rest of your post is just as pointless and distracting toward any relevant information. (so i wont waste more time talking about how you FEEL instead of whether you CAN CONSIDER) I had a very long conversation with krueger, of which the entirety of the conversation is available for view and discussion of opinions on it. But I can save you some time, he didn't want to try to understand it. He didn't spend any time to know it or see if it functioned as described. And eventually he gave up trying to understand it effortlessly, as you can't understand it without working to know it. I haven't talked about ANYTHING far fetched yet. But I imagine that you are already having a tough time accepting that there is such a thing as a "single unifying truth." That there is any scientific basis of information to be gained by finding hard scientific fact, to back up this idea of "Oneness" that all religious texts describe as important.

This is honestly NO different from your most fundamental scientifically accepted information. The only difference is in the "deriving" of it. Instead of memorizing a term and a definition together, it teaches you WHY that term is explained by that definition. Not only does it allow it to prove itself, but it also conveys better usefulness of the term than just memorization, which relies on the acceptance, that what someone else is telling you is true/believable. This way you don't have to "trust" anyone else in a specific area. You can understand it from a universal perspective, from the ground up, and can apply it towards any unique field to find the truth in its information.

I haven't said anything far fetched, so please keep on point this time. Don't take the conversation way off in some area that you can't establish its relevance toward this union of information. Don't credit me for things I don't say in THIS post. And please keep the emotions OUT of it. If you want to debate (or even debase) me as a person, feel free to do that...in a DIFFERENT thread. I have no qualms with a separate thread to discuss whether or not I am a "liar" as you called me several times. (lol) I could put all your errors, mistakes, examples of your distractions and misinterpretations of what I say in that OTHER forum post. Because those things AREN'T reason. Those feelings are NOT capable of rational thought. So show a little bit of class if you can, and leave them aside. Otherwise we won't continue this discussion, and I will come visit you in person to see if I get as much entertainment out of you calling me a "liar" in person, as I feel when you do it in the forum posts.

" In addition, Joe continued sending private facebook messages to several members who had engaged him in the original conversation for weeks after he abandoned that conversation" You are trying to make it sound like I am some evil stalker. You are trying to describe the outside flavor and theme of my personality, as if it is any correlation to the information I want to actually discuss with anyone willing to.

I only talked with ONE other person after I quit visiting the facebook page (while hoping it would get archived). And that ONE person WASN'T even involved in the initial conversation. And it went for MONTHS not weeks. And I will link to the site where you can read it in its entirety (very soon, as I can almost post links, apparently). All the people that viewed it or commented on it were able to gain a better insight about what I was describing. So maybe it would help you to read it as well. It is mostly a recap of the conversation, and occasional comments on what was being said. Eventually he agreed with some of what I was saying, only to change his mind and start disagreeing with it. I don't blame him at all. He just didn't give it ANY devotion. And you only get "out of it" what you are willing to put "into it." In this small part you were wrong at least THREE times! (lol, almost sounds like jesus preaching to the disciples..."the third time that the cock crows you will have betrayed me.") I'm not calling you a liar, because it doesn't matter WHAT you are considered; not NEARLY as much as the truth in the information you present. And you are "presenting" it faster than you can ground it in reality. So please slow down. Stop trying to "compete" for the best knowledge, and start trying to INTEGRATE the "best knowledge" that we can find by working TOGETHER!

So may words, Joe, and so little content. This is one of the primary ways I have learned to recognize ideas lacking merit without having to invest large amounts of time. People who have little to say tend to say a lot.

Joeknows wrote:Are you saying that moving of the conversation was dependent upon me starting the forum page?

No. I'm saying that I told you straight up, first thing, that you should post on the forum instead.

Joeknows wrote:... somehow makes me a liar for saying that you "[told me it would eventually be archived after the conversation had run its course]?"

I don't know that you were ever told that the conversation would be moved "after the conversation had run its course." Those -- to my knowledge -- are your words, your interpretation because you're just not very good at reading comprehension. And I never told you that I would archive the conversation. That was someone else, which I made clear in my opening reply here. Please try to keep up.

Joeknows wrote:You are talking about actions and conversations you had with other people, as if it somehow affects me?

Nothing I said even implies that you should have known anything about conversations that were not privy to you. What I said established the timeline showing that the notion that you "let the conversation die" upon learning that the conversation would be archived on the forums is a blatant lie.

Joeknows wrote:You are going to have to slowly gather the completeness of the message that I am presenting.

Just because you have trouble understanding that you're not saying anything doesn't mean that I do. Kevin Lyon agrees:

Kevin Lyon wrote:So may words, Joe, and so little content. This is one of the primary ways I have learned to recognize ideas lacking merit without having to invest large amounts of time. People who have little to say tend to say a lot.

Kevin's right. If you have a point, get to it.

Joeknows wrote:I imagine that you are already having a tough time accepting that there is such a thing as a "single unifying truth." That there is any scientific basis of information to be gained by finding hard scientific fact

I'd have no trouble at all accepting something for which there is indeed sufficient evidence. Your problem continues to be that you cannot provide any evidence or "hard scientific fact" that demonstrates that your view is correct.

Joeknows wrote:This is honestly NO different from your most fundamental scientifically accepted information.

I already accept, fundamentally, the existence of happiness waves from Pluto? Really? Are you delusional, Joe?

Joeknows wrote:You are trying to make it sound like I am some evil stalker.

Actually, I was just demonstrating that the "I let it die" claim is easily refuted, but now that you've planted that "evil stalker" seed and expressed wanting to "come visit [me] in person," it's not going to be my fault if people think you're creepy.

Joeknows wrote:In this small part you were wrong at least THREE times!

I was wrong zero times:

Joeknows wrote:I only talked with ONE other person after I quit visiting the facebook page

Lie. You messaged (at least) Dardedar, Doug, and me. (Remember, you mentioned messaging me above, although you conveniently didn't mention that you sent me a message with argument content.)

Joeknows wrote:And that ONE person WASN'T even involved in the initial conversation.

If you found some other guy to bother with your nonsense, it has nothing to do with my statements.

Joeknows wrote:And it went for MONTHS not weeks.

If you found some other guy to bother with your nonsense, it has nothing to do with my statements. I spoke only to your contacting other people in the initial conversation.
Jeez, Joe, you can't even accuse me of lying without being wrong. This should tell you something.

This was the image on facebook that got Joe to get his knickers in such a twist:

Joeknows wrote:Does anything excuse your inability to transfer that conversation long after I stopped participating in it?

How boring. I have copies of all the posts because I have facebook set up to send me copies. I played with the idea of posting it here but it really didn't rise to the level of being coherent enough to bother.
Doug also sent me some responses to you, with the suggestion to put them here, but again, it was just all so silly, it would really appear like we are making fun a person who is mentally ill, which is what I consider you. I used to find your type of insanity a little interesting, but now, not so much. Glad you finally had the courage to find your way here, something I recommended months ago at the very beginning. I skimmed the above and can see you are, as usual, being blatantly dishonest, as Sav has pointed out. Perhap's it's partly because your short term memory is shot, which became rather apparent in our exchanges on Facebook.

I'll just dump some of my old responses to you here from an old debate notes file. But really, it's all so boring, I haven't the slightest interest in trying to reason with you. You're clearly not well and while I have many interesting projects going on, talking to a Joestrologist who can't communicate, doesn't make the cut.

Some flashbacks to these attempts to reason with Joe Who Doesn't Know:

***
"...you do realize you are attempting to communicate with a "cold realist", that said this:

"...a planet or star that is made up of this same vibrational energy could very easily send an amount of energy in some way (light, gravity, sound?) and in some amount (regardless of how much or how little), it could have a real effect in combination with the actions, thoughts, or feelings that we are having in that moment."

That's really hard to beat. That's suitable for framing.

Joe, you've learned a bunch of words and you put them in different orders but it's pretty clear you don't understand what they mean. This happens sometimes. Most of what you write comes across as gibberish because you don't have basic, even rudimentary skills of discernment. Astrology is really a litmus test for this. If you can fall for the vapid assertions and complete lack of evidence that astrology is anything other than complete, 100% myth and superstition based upon claims that we know, with as much certainty as anything can be known (including flying donkeys), to completely false, then you really don't know how to begin.
If there is any hope to dig out of your situation, you would need to take greater care to respond directly to the questions posed to you. The uncomfortable ones that you have taken care to avoid. You do this because the answer to those questions refute what you would like to believe for emotional reasons. I know, I lived for years up to my knees in this New Age stuff. For years.

As to your:
"you are so "invested" in astrology being wrong, as you offer money to anyone who proves it otherwise.">>

That could just as easily be the exact opposite of that. It's my money, in fact, and I would love to verify the truth of astrology or any paranormal activity because it would overturn science and bring great fame, awards and money. That would be great. And if astrology or the existence of some other paranormal or extra -normal activity is confirmed it won't be by fellows like you who don't know simple basics like that sound doesn't travel through space or that the astrological signs have moved so far out of line as to be bogus (never mind that they are made up of silly arbitrary shapes the ancients pulled out of their ass) or that many of the star we see are so far away they have exploded and no longer exist.

Hell, our little star is so far away we are actually seeing it where it was 8 minutes ago. And it's right next door.

If these things are ever confirmed it will be by scientists and skeptics addressing the hard questions you are systematically ducking with boilerplate new age gibberish and assertion piling.

Why should astrology work, have an effect?
How could it possibly work, have an effect?
How would we know it is working having and effect?
If we can't know, how does this differ from being a completely vapid claim?
Why would stars correlate with having an effect on the life of a single primate?
Why would this be related to when it happened to have been pushed out of it's mother's womb?

Why is it that when we try to test the vague claims astrology does make (this star action correlates with xyz characteristic) it fails every single time. All you have to do is blind the astrology claims from the actual life characteristics and bingo, the astrology effect disappears.

Again, the claims of astrology are in most cases, really easy to test. And they have been tested, properly, hundreds of times. And it always fails. If you can't conceive of a test that could verify it's claims, then you are just talking unfalsifiable gibberish. If you can conceive of a test, then take the time to make your self aware of the extensive literature that already establishes: besides the fact that there is no reason whatsoever why astrology should work, when you test it, properly, it never, ever, does work/have an effect.

***
Joe: "I can look at the night sky and see Mars with my eyes. I can ask someone else if they can see it, and they verify they can. This is proof that energy in the form of light traveled from Mars to Earth">>

Right. Now why should it follow that something on earth is affected in any appreciable way, because a infinitesimal amount of light (or gravity) happens to bounce off of Mars and land on your retina, or something else?
These notions that the movement of planets have an effect on something were thought up in very superstitious times. And as Larry noted, we know they largely weren't even getting their charts straight for a number of reasons, yet they still managed to trick themselves into thinking they were identifying something. Humans are *really* good at tricking ours selves with imagining false causes, non sequiters and cause and effect. Shoot, we practically killed our first president. When he was sick he went to the hospital so we of course, drained a bunch of his blood. This is because we were so bad at testing our medical anecdotes we thought blood letting was the thing to do. After all, most of the time that you drained blood, the people got better. But the only way to really know if bloodletting worked better than not bloodletting, is to test it. Turns out, it doesn't work. And figuring out whether blood letting works or not, is a thousand time easier than trying to figure out if the vague correlations astrology makes are valid.
However, it remains, that the claims of astrology are exceedingly easy to test.

Joe: "Now lets contrast basing our knowledge on the belief that we can prove something doesn't exist by "testing" for it. First to know about its existence we would have to test all the conditions we could.">>

Nope. That's not right. It's far easier than that. Let me give you an example. I am a piano technician. Let's say we have four pianos and two of them are perfectly in tune and two are terribly out of tune. Then we have a person come along and say they know all about tuning pianos. So we do a little test: identify which two are in tune, and which two are not.
If the person can't do this, then we have good reason not to believe their claim that they know anything about in tune pianos. (Knowledge is specialized and you wouldn't believe how many accomplished pianists have no idea how to test for a piano being in tune, or are aware when a piano is out of tune).

Now, if we have astrologers making all sorts of claims about correlations between movements in celestial bodies and what goes on in the lives of people based upon when they were born in relation to those movements, this is very easy to test. We take our astrologer and give them four people with details of their life. Then on another pile we have their detailed astrological charts. Then we ask the astrologer to assign the correct chart to the correct person without seeing them or knowing in advance which one goes with which (of course we will typically use more than four people).

They can't do it. This has been shown over and over.

This is a very simple, basic and most rudimentary thing that astrology should be able to do, a baby step, if there is anything to the extraordinary claim that there is anything to astrology. It should be as easy to do as for me to detect two out of tune pianos out of four. If I can't do that, I'm not a very good piano tuner. Since astrologers can't do this, it suggests people are fooling themselves into thinking astrology is doing something, when it really isn't. How could this be?

Earlier I boldly claimed I knew how this trick is happening. And I do. So let me tell you the trick.

People are exceedingly good at taking information and making it fit with what they want. As is mentioned in our little tract on this:

"In a 1979 French study, Michel Gauquelin put an ad for a free horoscope reading in a Paris newspaper. Recipients were asked to rate how accurate they and their friends found the reading. Ninety-four percent said it was accurate, as did 90% of their friends and family. But all of them had received the same horoscope, which was that of Dr. Petiot, a French mass murderer. People see what they want to see."

Here's a better example. Ray Hyman, is an exceedingly accomplished psychologist and statistician who I have had the pleasure of meeting at a conference. I've read some of his article and he is in my mind brilliant. When he was a college student (in the 60's I think) he used to do some palmistry on the side. He reports that his clients said he was very good and very accurate and they kept coming back. Then a magician friend, who knows a bit about how people are fooled (that's precisely what magicians do) suggested he try an experiment. He said, say the exact opposite of what the lines in the hand happen to tell you you should say. So he did that. So he told the people the exact opposite (as exact as you can).

The result?

His clients found him to be as much or more accurate than before. He couldn't believe it, but there it was. This suggests there is something else going on with the apparent accuracy of palmistry, tarot, channeling, rumpology, astrology and all the rest. It turns out the "skill" of palmistry (and the many variations of such readings) has nothing to do with lines in the hand but rather the skill of people to fit assertions into what they think about themselves.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman

This is covered nicely in this (2000) PBS show, "Secrets of the Psychics." You can watch it, in parts, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTXmo4_LR4w

You should take a little time and watch this. You should also attempt to address the seven questions I gave you.

D.
--------------
"I've gone into thousands of [fortune teller's parlors], and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her." -- NYC detective

***
Joe did try to answer my seven "lame" questions, so I'll respond to that. Incredibly, he didn't understand them, not even close. I will take a few minutes to show this, briefly.

1) Why should astrology work, have an effect?
J - astrology should work because it is only a study of real things in our environment.">>

Astrology is a study of real things in our environment? That's hilarious. And question begging. You don't understand the question. Let me rephrase:
Why should the movement of heavenly bodies, have an effect on people and their lives starting on the day they are born? Why?

2) How could it possibly work, have an effect?
J -I think that you are trying to ask about it's effect upon a person or group.>>

No. I am asking for a mechanism by which the movement of heavenly bodies could have an effect on human primates, that doesn't fly in the face of well understood laws of physics.

J: "The direction of your question is asking me to prove to you that this "effect" exists,">>

Hell no. You're not near that. I am just asking you to postulate a mechanism that isn't ridiculous.

J: "I am not going to waste time going down that path,">>

Of course you aren't going to. Because you can't. So again we see, not only is there not any effect to explain, there isn't even a possible mechanism that could explain this imaginary effect, that can pass the laugh test.

J: "...you cannot know with 100% certainty that this effect does not exist.">>

I don't have 100% certainty that donkeys aren't flying when we aren't looking. You haven't the foggiest idea of how science works. Incidentally, I think the bit about the donkey's flying is more likely to be true than any claims I have heard about astrology.

J: 'Therefore you cannot prove that there is no such effect,">>

What effect? You think you have an effect? Do tell.

J: "must allow it's existence as a possibility.">>

But only to the degree that donkeys fly when we aren't looking. Which isn't very likely.

J: "But you don't seem to be even allowing it as a possibility,">>

Why are you so skeptical of the flying donkey claim, even though you can't disprove it Joe?

3) How would we know it is working having and effect?
J -again about the effect...">>

Yes. Trying you to actually specify what the heck you are going on about. Is there any there, there?

J: "If you are not willing to even consider it,">>

Consider, what, exactly? Do tell.

4) If we can't know, how does this differ from being a completely vapid claim?
J -"This principled method of gathering information and knowing truth from contrivance is something that applies to every field of knowledge and should be used if you want to build a foundation of information in order to be able to elevate your understanding eventually to more complex systems.

Check out that 100% pure gibberish answer. Priceless.

Oh, and that question was pointing directly to falsification. And you ducked it.

5) Why would stars correlate with having an effect on the life of a single primate?
-The stars are something real in our environment.">>

And so are the gas fumes that come off of the dung my nine pet goats drop in my backyard. But I don't pretend those fumes correlate or effect the destiny of peoples lives. Why would stars, billions of trillions of miles away, that exploded millions of years ago, "have an effect on the life of a single primate?" Do tell.

6) Why would this be related to when it happened to have been pushed out of it's mother's womb?
-Perhaps the importance of something like "birth charts" showing the position of the stars when we were born is only a symbolic representation...">>

By "symbolic representation" do you mean completely false? Cause then we agree.

J -"I can only hypothesize, about the real information that this idea conveys.">>

Notice the little question beg of "real information" snuck in there. What real information are you talking about?

7) Why is it that when we try to test the vague claims astrology does make (this star action correlates with xyz characteristic) it fails every single time?
J -Because you are testing dogmatic beliefs instead of the science at its root.">>

Beliefs? What beliefs? What do you claim astrology can actually do?

J: "Pretty lame questions,">>

Not as lame as your non-answers. Unfortunately, you didn't even understand most of them. Amazing.
***
I don't have a TV but I do have a theater with a ten foot screen and an HD system. Made it myself. 7.1 surround sound baby.

Sometimes when I'm in an intense battle I will cry out to the almighty... "Oh God!" But this doesn't mean I am an "intellectual coward," it just means I need some assistance with something important and urgent. And usually He is kind enough to take time out of his busy schedule and help me win. You know, just like he does with you and Mycent and maybe a few others.

Course, if I lose, I just assume He was either busy helping with someone else's game/battle or perhaps it is a situation that is just too difficult for him, like it was with those iron chariots spoken of in Judges 1:19:

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants
of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,
because they had chariots of iron."

I wonder if He ever gets confused if people from both sides of a game (or battle) are calling out for his assistance. I guess that would be a good question for one of those "theologians" who have the proper training and expertise know about such things.

D.
--------------
"There's religious freedom, of course, but what about sacrilegious freedom?" --anon

***
Readers will note that Joe is once again careful to duck any attempt at a substantive response while avoiding my offer to:

"...think of a test that might debunk the claim that goat berry molecules from goats in Fayetteville are causing an effect on the lives of people in Mexico."

Joe needs to avoid that type of specificity since the same test that can confirm/falsify a test of shitology can also used to be confirm/falsify Joestrology. This is because they are the exact same thing. Same poop, different pile.

Incidentally, since Fayetteville is billions of times closer to Mexico than many of the objects referred to in astrology, and since we know actual goat berry molecules from Fayetteville have traveled from Fayetteville to Mexico (I carried some on my shoes in June), it is vastly more likely that there is more substance to claims attributed to Shitology, than to Joestrology. I am being entirely serious.

Now on to this:

J: "Give what a "poke?">>

Your comment/claims. Not that you would know this but that's how science works. A claim is put forward and science, methods of critical thinking are used to step up and gives them a poke to see if it can withstand scrutiny. On the rare occasions that you do stray into an area of actually saying something slightly specific, your claims don't pass muster. Sorry about that.

J: "That obviously doesn't mean that you were going to "consider" anything I said.">>

Of course it does. I consider it, then I discard it, because it's rubbish.

J: "your constant misuse of scientific tenants...">>

I do have several rental properties but none of my "tenants" would be considered "scientific."
If this is "constant," as you say, then you won't have any trouble at all backing up your claim with specific examples of this supposed "constant misuse." Don't forget to do this. I don't make claims I can't back up with examples. You seem to never make claims you can back up with examples. You should change that habit.

J: "to uphold your unflinching belief system.">>

My belief system can easily be flinched. All that I require are good reasons. And after wasting our time with about 10,000 words of goatberry caliber, you have yet to provide any reasons for your Joestrology. It's looking like you don't have any.

J: "I don't limit where information comes to me,">>

That's the problem. You have no discernment. So you can't grasp the difference between obtaining information from a testable reliable source, and getting information from completely worthless, idiotic sources. The alignment of stars via Joestrology and where goat berries float to are not good sources of advise and we know this for very well studied reasons. One of them is that people like you can't patch together anything that can pass the laugh test.

J: "as long as it continues to be shown as an observable effect of reality.">>

When are you going to show Joestrology has anything whatsoever to do with "an observable effect of reality?" Will it take another 10,000 words of New Age boilerplate pap?

J: "I would accept someone even called a "doo-doo-ologist">>

I really believe you would. And that person wouldn't even be the most ridiculous source in your belief system pantry. This is because you have no discernment.

J: "if he was using science to describe the truths of our universe.">>

When are you going to use science to describe something true? When are you going to tell us how Joestrology can be shown to be more accurate, useful, falsifiable, make testable predictions better than Shitology? Until you can gather the courage to get off your lazy intellectual bottom and do that, it looks like Shitology has a better game than the one you're peddling.
***
This is from another thread Joe posted on the FF wall on August 31, where he pleads for assistance in defending Joestrology.

***
J: "They don't even think about discussing information, they just want somebody to "win.">>

In science, the best ideas win because they provide persuasive evidence. Your idea isn't going to win, or even get off the ground, because you apparently don't have anything resembling persuasive evidence.

J: "forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason?" -re: So your "freethinker group" is ONLY able to talk about religion?">>

Nope. Some use the definition strictly, we use it more broadly, as a skeptics group, so we address a very wide variety of topics of interest regarding skepticism, critical thinking and education. This is easy for me to verify since all of our meeting topics for the last 70 meetings (about 7 years worth) are posted on our forum here:

viewforum.php?f=11

What we do is clearly described here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml

J: "your institution has become like a religion itself in that you LIMIT yourself to only talking about religion.">>

Notice how Joe asks a question he doesn't know the answer to, and then proceeds to pretend he knows the answer even though what he believes about the answer is precisely 100% incorrect. As I've just shown above. Amazing.

J: "But you DO NOT look at it from a "basis of reason" so i don't know why you are posting another definition that you are boldly in violation of.">>

This is rich. Joe doesn't know what the word means, he can't even construct it correctly, then when two standard definitions are provided, one which we have used for 15 years (and is about 150 years old), Joe tells us that "we" are "boldly in violation," of a definition! This is good stuff.

J: "You refuse to use your will to be aware of any observations...">>

What observations? Name one. Dare ya.

J: "no attempts or ability to understand energy dynamics, how energy flows,">>

It's been pretty clear through out that you haven't the foggiest notion of anything regarding energy. But it does sound nice and sciency when you say energy. That's why you new age types like to say it.

J: "I am the one proposing a "basis of reason">>

Excellent. Then get off the pot already and give us a basis of reason for thinking Joestrology is more accurate, useful, falsifiable and can make testable predictions better than Shitology. Then you'll have something.

J: "trying... to stop me from even trying to explain other possible understandings of what astrology is.">>

Actually, we've been begging for you to do exactly that. Instead you shovel goat berries. Raise your game.
***

And let me finish with this one, since it nicely shows why attempting to communicating with Joe who doesn't know, is a complete waste of time:
***

But what you fail to see is that in reality in the information, neither is our understanding we have been born out of b/c i knowledge that it doesn't exist can hardly be perceived by our knowledge of what frequency, representence. Therefore, the qualities of our consciousness of our lives are nothings. Even if this IS a dream or not. The recognition at the qualities of any dynamic systems, to gain understanding of the even matterns to form knowledge, observation at the dynamic variation at the "laws of the information."

Now the weight of information handed to your under-standing, or created by only using like the internal system" of true internal system your belief information upon to put yourself to put you are trying to built won't "stand" structure, or else that your belief system" of grass alone; yourself to move internal strongest or created information upon to build a structure by only using to move internal and discern this information, but your belief information.

Do you understand?

Now do realize the induction and to assimilate larger systems of a complete misunderstanding "entropy science." You are not on this evidence. You are not complete in misunderstanding "entropy science as being of how to even use falsifiability. Again this is evidence and to assimilate larger systems of information. It is evidence." you can only see something of informations. It is evidence and look at them individuality. Again knowledge through individuality. You are likewise only able to gain knowledge through...

Am I being clear or am I being too vague?

Those are your words dear Joe. I find putting your exact words into the gibberish generator and using setting #5, tends to clean it up a little bit and improve what you are trying to say. Whatever the hell that is.

http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Gibber/GibGen.htm

Curious though, in all of that pile of self stroking undiscernible pap, nothing about astrology or even Joestrology. Nothing about how it could work, why it works, if it could work or what could possibly falsify it. And those are the only questions that have the slightest bearing on the question of whether the assertions of astrology, or flying donkeys, are true.

Toodles.

D.
---------------
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." --Steve Eley

************
This nonsense went on for weeks, and a few hundred posts. The above was fairly early in the game, or perhaps in the middle. Then Facebook deleted it all. Oh well.

Now on to something better...

J:

"The direction of your question is asking me to prove to you that this "effect" exists, I am not going to waste time going down that path...you cannot know with 100% certainty that this effect does not exist. Therefore you cannot prove that there is no such effect...

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Ignorance. The fallacy is that one takes advantage of the ignorance about the truth of a statement in order to falsely claim knowledge. In other words, if we don't know whether claim X is true or false, one says, "Since you can't show that X is true, I can believe that it's false and you can't show I'm wrong." The problem, of course, is that the same strategy could work the other way too: "Since you can't show that X is false, I can believe that it's true and you can't show I'm wrong."

But the lack of evidence showing that a claim is true does not prove that it's false, or vice versa. That Darrel can't know with 100% certainty that an astrological effect does not exist, that he cannot prove that there is no such effect, does absolutely nothing to advance the claim that there is such an effect.

Doug wrote: This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Ignorance.

This is a common mistake so we have a little tract on it here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/godofthegaps.shtml

It's the foundation of "Intelligent Design."

Doug wrote:J:

"The direction of your question is asking me to prove to you that this "effect" exists, I am not going to waste time going down that path...you cannot know with 100% certainty that this effect does not exist. Therefore you cannot prove that there is no such effect...

...The problem, of course, is that the same strategy could work the other way too: "Since you can't show that X is false, I can believe that it's true and you can't show I'm wrong."

And there's no end to where this absurdity can go. I can, likewise, posit that there WOULD BE an effect of those happiness waves from the dwarf planet Pluto, but that the would-be effect is EXACTLY cancelled out by invisible, undetectable gremlins called Little Joe's Little Demons. Joeknows cannot know with 100% certainty that this isn't true.

Wow Mr Faux Information himself, Dougy showed up! But you weren't willing to devote time to a system that had to be built from the basics. Why do you expect to suddenly get it now? You even try to uphold the arguments of your friends that are completely based upon ad hominem attacks. I thought you taught philosophy? Doesn't that mean you are supposed to recognize those types of things? Or do you turn a blind eye when it is someone that will do the same for you? There are very sad days ahead of us, if people like THIS are trying to teach our young anything of relevance or practical use.

Darry, I'm surprised that you actually kept some of the posts. I am quite proud of you to not trash it instantly. It says that you aren't COMPLETELY gone yet. But to actually post it and feel that it gave you credibility? Well this suggests that you are VERY out of touch still with considering any information outside of your own beliefs. Look at all your replies. They are DIRECTING the information that I am presenting into ways that I did not even intend it for. You would consistently grab small pieces and disprove them on their own, without building up to them from the fundamentals. Sure, the person who doesn't listen is always Right. But will that attitude actually take us anywhere? Does it show that we are worthy of the gift of our ability to consider information wholly and unbiasedly? This is a good opportunity for you. THIS time, you can try understanding what I SAY, and INTEND. Instead of just what you WANT it to be, or whatever is EASIEST to disprove for you.

I still disagree with the assumed "truth" derived from your silly meme. In many ways. But those are complexities you can't handle yet. Or at least, you haven't proven to me that you can. If you don't want to prove to me that you can, then that is totally fine. Just don't attack me and claim I am saying something completely opposite of what I meant it as. Don't ACT like you want to know, or like you TRIED to know. Because that hasn't happened in any real way yet. I am hoping to find someone in your group with this ability. But I might have to actually visit a meeting to find one of them.

The only real information I have stated so far is that there can be greater universal truths. And that one element of this truth, can be applied to everything in the SAME way. Regardless of the time, the person, the situation; it ALWAYS holds. (Such as gravity or magnetism, but those are examples that describe it from the outside, we have to find the common pattern in these in order to get a MORE fundamental and unifying truth between them.) I didn't exactly state this, but is understood by this first principle; disagreeing with a singular reality that we share is only a basis for relativism. And if everything is relative, or changes inherently from one situation to the next, then nothing can truly be known.

I am impressed with holding on to the past information better than I assumed you would. But that is not what we are talking about here. Unless you want to simply get nowhere again. And if you DO, then say that, and stop hiding that you are a "troll." It's not funny. Grow up and gain some sense of maturity with which to approach this material from. If you want to discuss the old posts, or attack me DO IT IN THE OTHER POST THAT I HAVE STARTED! Do not continue to put your opinions here as if it were proof of your high intelligence. You have already proved that your intelligence is the last thing you want brought into the light of consideration. You are going to have to WORK actively towards proving the opposite, and climbing back out of the hole you have dug.

Again, Relevant Information ONLY, goes HERE! Personal attacks and comments on previous posts can go under the "Complaints and Objections" section, under the header, "Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information." That is where I will be putting all my future reactions and clarifications toward your unsightly attempts at character assassination. Now lets get back to the topic!

Oh I did, mention one other question that I will discuss if you like. WHAT IS FREETHINKING to you? Just as you have done so many times, now and in the past, you are attempting to corrupt my image as a presenter, rather than the information itself. Why else would you call me a "cold realist" as if it were a bad thing? I only meant it, as in that I would ONLY use fundamental knowledge or accepted scientific principles, and not stray towards fantasizing or forcing it to something different. Do you see how this is exactly the opposite of what you are doing? You all are attacking my person, and painting my words a different color than what was intended. If you don't need me here to figure out what I would say, then go to another forum and have a hypothetical conversation with yourself. As it is no different from what you are doing here. You might as well COMPLETELY IMAGINE what I wrote, as it will lead you to the very same conclusion you are now reaching.

So if "cold realism" is bad, then what is freethinking? I would love to hear you explain this, so that I know whether or not you are in fact relativists. Thanks!

Joe, you don't make any sense. You've never made any sense. And it's really beyond boring.

Joeknows wrote:Wow Mr Faux Information himself, Dougy showed up! But you weren't willing to devote time to a system that had to be built from the basics. Why do you expect to suddenly get it now?

I don't expect to get anything substantive from you. We've been asking for evidence for months, and you steadfastly refuse to provide any, and, furthermore, you adamantly defend your decision to give no evidence for astrology at all. Instead, you want to talk about hypotheses about how astrology might work.

But no one is interested in possible explanations of a phenomenon that does not exist. Until you show evidence that astrology works, forget trying to show how it works.

Besides, don't you think you have things backwards here? How can you possibly explain how a phenomenon happens if you don't know anything about the phenomenon itself? You would need to investigate questions such as: does astrology really foretell the future? Does it do it for everyone, or only some people? If it doesn't work for everyone, what do those people have in common that it does work for, and what do those have in common that it doesn't work for? Does astrology answer some questions but not all? If so, what kinds of questions can it answer, and what kinds can it not address? How much information do you need to create an effective horoscope? Why that information and not other information? Are there degrees of accuracy with astrology, or does it just either work or not, with similar results across the board?

The answers to these questions would give you a good start as to what might be going on with astrology if it works at all. But if you don't address any of these questions with careful, scientific surveys, how could you possibly begin to explain the phenomenon in question?

An explanation needs something to explain, or it is not an explanation of anything.

Right now, you have nothing to explain, which is why people have been giving your "explanations" short shrift.

Joeknows wrote:You even try to uphold the arguments of your friends that are completely based upon ad hominem attacks. I thought you taught philosophy? Doesn't that mean you are supposed to recognize those types of things? Or do you turn a blind eye when it is someone that will do the same for you? There are very sad days ahead of us, if people like THIS are trying to teach our young anything of relevance or practical use.

I am teaching. Learn. This stuff is very important.

But know this: The Fayetteville Freethinkers is definitely an evidence-based group. If you are just going to insult everyone, as you did with this post, and expound upon the possible ways that astrology might work, then you are wasting everyone's time and you can expect few, if any, replies. You can waste your time explaining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but don't expect that the local skeptics group, with an emphasis on empiricism and science, to continue to waste time with you.

Provide evidence or be ignored.

Dougy and Darda'dar, neither one of you are talking about the initial information that I want to discuss scientifically. One says you don't like me, the other is trying to say that you are better at telling everyone what I intended. Why not let ME tell what I intend? And only discuss the topic at hand? Is that too much for you? I will reply more fully to your objections in the "objections" section. If you want to talk here, bring an intelligent viewpoint based in fact not feeling, towards the information at hand. Or by your continued distractions, this is no real forum or place to hold intelligent discussion. You say I need to learn, but you can't even grasp this fact? Really?

Joeknows wrote:Dougy and Darda'dar, neither one of you are talking about the initial information that I want to discuss scientifically. One says you don't like me, the other is trying to say that you are better at telling everyone what I intended. Why not let ME tell what I intend? And only discuss the topic at hand? Is that too much for you? I will reply more fully to your objections in the "objections" section. If you want to talk here, bring an intelligent viewpoint based in fact not feeling, towards the information at hand. Or by your continued distractions, this is no real forum or place to hold intelligent discussion. You say I need to learn, but you can't even grasp this fact? Really?

More evasion. No attempt to provide evidence. You're done.

Not more evasion. More distraction mr dougy doo. But I thank you for posting in the objections section, and even sounding rather unbiased about it. I hope to see more posts like it, instead of the one above. Please take your objections about ME to the "objections" section. (is this the 3rd time i've said it? If i have to keep repeating myself, we may not actually get to anything relevant. forewarned. So show me good behaviour, at least in this topic. You can trash me all you want in the other. This one is JUST for logic and reason. The things that your science is SUPPOSED to be made out of)

I am reposing a piece of the conversation from the "objections" section, just because I think it actually bears some relevance to the INFORMATON (omg!). Thank you savonarola for the relevant question, even though it was by accident. You are probably gonna try not to make THAT mistake again.

Savonarola wrote:

No, I am asking for evidence. Proofs are for math and alcohol. You can't even provide evidence. If you had any, you would have provided it by now.

re: HA HA HA! You are so funny. But seriously. I am almost thankful for your backhanded way of getting to something that I actually see as very important to what I am discussing, and the CRUX of the difference in our systems of understanding. My understanding DOES involve math. My understanding attempts to describe information about how the universe operates, specifically by deciphering a FORMULA that is general enough to cover every specific situation of a type. If you don't see how something can be "proven" by overwhelming evidence, then you simply haven't looked at enough of it to be sure yet. Your system is made of many pieces of information that have to be kept separate. Mine is described by an equation that can be known outside of any specific examples. My system can be taken from it's generality, to be applied towards anything specifically having to do with that variable.

This is really nothing more than the 2 principles of falsifiability, which gives us the scientific method, but from what you might call a more "math-oriented" perspective on it. Deciphering these formulas is simply what you call the first step, which is to gain information about something, and/or many somethings. The second step is to "draw a formula" that keeps all these pieces within its bounds, and use it to predict pieces that you didn't specifically gather. This is simply a more detailed explanation of what we do when we form a hypothesis. And they go back and forth, testing, hypothesizing, testing, etc...

Joeknows wrote:why are you so vehemently refusing to allow me to present it

Joe, we are imploring you to present it.

Joeknows wrote:My understanding DOES involve math.

Using valid math to support your point would be excellent.

So let's see it.

Here is a diagram I made that shows how dimensions stack on top of each other like a pyramid or a "stairway to heaven." If you go across and read each level, you will get an operational definition and some general and even human examples/expressions at that level. Having a grasp of how each level itself works will allow you to come up with thought examples that can demonstrate how the different levels interact with each other. All 7 of these dimensions have incredible significance that should be meditated upon, contemplated with, and concentrated to create the most use they can offer us. I hope understanding it will inspire you as much as it did for me to realize it.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... permPage=1

"No problem can be solved on the same level it was created." -Einstein

"Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth." -Galileo

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration." -Tesla

1st dimension

Information doesn't need anything to create it. It is like God, it simply IS. Information is just the specific frequency that describes the physical and energetic effects of the universe. We can't change information because we don't represent it. It represents itself, and we can only try to approach a complete understanding of it through rigorous honesty and devotion. Vlatko Vedral wrote a very interesting book that agrees with my description of this very first dimension that reality is built from; it is called Decoding Reality; The Universe As Quantum Information, as I've found it an enjoyable book for anyone scaling the summit of consciousness.

2nd dimension

One energy can't create anything specific, it requires two absolutes or extremes in order to send the energy back and forth between them. It is like a bunch of nails stuck to a magnet, you aren't going to get them off until you generate an opposing force; until then the system is unmoving and static/dead. It is kinda like a computer, where the "workhorse" that categorizes and fetches and queues every aspect is a binary sequence, or bit, encoded as a one or zero, plus or minus, go or no. It is the literal pathway for the information, just like how our emotional inspiration is the energy that inspires us to devote our energy towards certain actions that we envision (feeling good/happy or feeling bad/angry/sad depending upon the information we receive).

3rd dimension

Dennis Gabor won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971 when he showed that 2 dimensions can produce 3 dimensions, such as in a hologram. The reflected light at varying intervals creates an interference pattern with the absorbed light. This interference pattern is the "movement" that is created between 2 polar energies, or 2 dimensions. This 3rd dimension could be considered "mass;" as this measurement is only used to show the force that something can exert upon its physical environment. This is described by the "Trinity" to show that the "birth" of an action can only happen as the result between two polar energies (man/woman). The 3rd chakra is our stomach or "gut." It is no accident that this chakra corresponds to drive and courage, which are the most noticeable affects upon the actions we take. The number 3 is most used to describe"masculine" energy because a specified action is the most "outgoing" and "effective" operation we could represent through our humanity. The three points can only arrange themselves to form a triangle with a "sharp" edge to "cut" or push forward like an arrow.

4th dimension

"Space/time" is the way that Einstein described the fourth dimension, and many other people will call just "time" the 4th dimension. But these are only abstractions used to describe what the 4th dimension is in function. It is described appropriately by a coordinate plane system, except unlike how the 3rd dimension is a movement in a specific direction or a possible "aim" described by a line; the 4th dimension however is always bound to a specific point of reference we call "time." So it becomes narrowed down to a specific point on the line, and not the whole line itself. This is great for predicting physics, but the point that it is trying to make is that the fourth dimensional physical reality is always bound to the present moment, or the "now." Outside of a mathematical tool and a way to get places in a coordinated manner, "time" is just a term that describes the movement and precession of planetary/solar rotation. We only created the idea of "time" to conveniently describe the difference between night and day, and greater cycles such as the (four) seasons. We might be the joke of future civilizations when they look back at us and how we believed in the existence of "time" and of how important it apparently was to everyone. I think that a good description of reality at this level comes from the statement that "an object in motion will remain in motion, until a force is exerted upon it." This is like the planets revolving around at near perfect intervals, dead and unchanging from the "force" that was exerted at the 3rd dimension to set it in motion. After showing that atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons; the next step is to show how all elements are divided into four distinguished categories based upon similar reactions of how the 4 different valence electron fields that an element can have predict the reactivity of it. Copper, gold, and silver all have same valence electron configuration, and so have the similar properties such as malleability or conductivity. It is by no accident that this is sometimes referred to as the "four elements," because specifying differences between matter in our world happens at this fourth dimensional level.

5th dimension

The 5th dimensions corresponds to our "five sense reality." Things that we notice in a moment convey information that exists as "spirit" only for a brief transmission. After the moment is past, we cannot recreate that exact moment again. We can only preserve the information it was designed to carry to us. This transforming of a physical sequence into correlated information, or converting physical energy into ethereal energy, is a unique process that helps condense matter into something more useful. It is still nothing more than charged matter towards a specific frequency over a brief time; and is dependent on the 4th dimension before it. Communication is a form of "spirit." But if the wind was blowing too loud, it could interrupt that transmission. Or if the air were absent the sound waves couldn't travel to carry the message. Some might say that "love" is the 5th dimension, but love "expressed" would just be another example of "spirit" unless your definition for Love is quite extensive. Love conveyed within a message or action is again just condensed physical energy, and a 4th dimension fire could destroy a love letter before the message was ever received. The 5th dimension is a bad place to try to build information from. It is so chaotic that you only end up with innumerable pieces that you can't realize in any way but in their own unique and unconnected way. This is how most popular structures of learning are based. Not because it is right, but because it is easy; and is the first information we are given to be able to know. But we have to be willing to connect the information we receive at this level back to the more fundamental ones, both to ensure its validity and to present it in a way that connects with other fields to give us a way to use it. Spirit is usually described by an upright 5-pointed star, like on the American flag or countless other uses of it. The point facing up is depicting how spirit has to be upheld by the other 4 points, elements, or dimensions; it needs these "four walls" to establish a platform for it to exist in reality. By contrast an upside down star would represent spirit being defeated by physical reality, again no coincidence that satanic minded groups use an upside down pentagram to cherish their physical reality instead of the higher spirit that we can create.

6th dimension

The 6th dimension deals with life itself. The ability for systems to orderly arrange themselves around the 6th element Carbon, is what we call "life." It is the union of chaos and order within the systems of our bodies that creates this "centropy" or centering charge, which keeps our cells aligned towards a common cause instead of simply falling apart. As living creatures, we have to destroy part of our environment in order to have freedom to create as we choose. This can be shown most easily by how we consume food to stay alive. The "6" is representative of 3 above and 3 below. Referring back, "3" is an act or movement in a direction. Since we have two of them, they are expressing a duality or flow in both directions, up and down. Or to apply it specifically, we can generate an action of whomever and whatever we want to become, but we are not separate from the lower laws of the universe. We still have to eat food and survive like every other person, in order to be able to build and uphold our individuality. The acts that keep us alive are a combination of both internal and external directions. Some say that connecting chaos with determinism is the way to understand everything. Well it is also the way that life itself is able to manifest at all. Like all the previous levels, life is bounded and affected by its lower dimensions such as spirit and the physical world. It is easy to see how a physical event could cause life to cease taking place, but even the process of sexual reproduction is a sort of transmission of spirit that is physically required for reproduction, or the creation of life.

7th dimension

The 7th dimension correlates to the 7 chakra energy centers we have in our human bodies. Being the last of the set, this suggests a fullness orcompleteness. This "wholeness" (or holiness) is an important part of reality, because it describes an excess of energy which naturally gravitates itself to the path of least resistance that it is magnetically pulled towards. This has popularly been referred to as the Law of Attraction. It has also been referred to by religious groups by the term Wisdom. Because wisdom isn't something that you can get by bringing in more information about the world; wisdom is something that you have to "allow" yourself to find by getting out of the way of it. But once you purify yourself of the chaos that was keeping you from seeing it, you will find the answer was right in front of you the whole time. I like the description of it that states, "if you take one step towards Allah, Allah will take 2 steps towards you." This may be a result of how the universe is all connected and all made from the same stuff that is bound by the same Natural Laws. But it is an important force that has unique effects that provide connections back to the very first dimension of information, because of the magnetism it creates. Being Holy or whole is just a process of using what you are given. If we accept our human faculties and try to use them for all that they are, the universe will be there, waiting to teach us the very next step. And becoming completely aligned with the natural flow of the universe, is what religious systems would classify as "Heaven," either on a personal level or even on a grander level that we can all share. The characteristics that make humans unique from other animals, are that we have both a rational capacity to understand how the world works, and a unique desire to uplift our individual self by our choices. If we don't use both of these polar energies that we were given, we will never get to a clear point of balance to find the only safe path to follow. The number 7 is traditionally used to represent the feminine side of the dynamic of polarization. It is traditionally arranged as a "womb," a heart, or a chalice. The holy grail was a symbolic representation of this wisdom. These methods couldn't be better described than by a fulfilling and overflowing of life energy. The fountain of youth is surely another attempt at describing it that may or may not have been the colossal misunderstanding that popular history presents it as. This idea is also found within the concept of "lady" liberty, as our "liberties" are every possible (nonviolent) action that we could choose to take. Having liberty is having a fullness of choice.

Trends

These archetypes or dimensions are the most fundamental framework that all pieces of reality fit neatly into. The only thing that doesn't fit into this framework is non-reality. But fortunately non-reality has no effect upon reality, and actually has no benefit whatsoever. Simplifying any system to these guidelines will provide the most intelligent specifics to be looked for and used to condense information into its most workable format in relation to other systems. This pyramid or hierarchy of how reality functions describes the classic phrase "order out of chaos" as it is the centering or centropy force that brings about Natural Order in the universe. The information or frequency at the very heart of all things is almost like immaculate conception. Something that doesn't even exist except within the realm of thought, is responsible for the manifestation of all forms of reality?! It is almost like getting "something out of nothing." And there is no fear of these Laws changing. Once you get your foundation Right, you will never need to tear it down for a newer version. It is THE oldest system that has been recognized as long as there was a human around to notice it, regardless of the society or civilization. Every human civilization has shown knowledge of this structure, and the number of "hidden societies" that have tried to keep parts of this information occulted are just as numerous in our human history. According to translations the Aztec god Tenochtitlan is a combination of the words "tenoch" for scales of a serpent, and "titlan" for feathers of a bird. You can also gather this from symbolic depictions, but this is obviously conveying an understanding not only of polarity by showing extremes of the "lowest and highest" animals, but more specifically of the 3rd dimension by the way that they suggested combining two opposites. Many of them probably didn't know what it meant, but there may be some that took it as far as I have, into the realms of explaining how chaos and determinism function together to bring us this reality.

The most important trend to notice is that there is a flip in the direction of polarity at each successive level. The odd number dimensions all seem todescribe a masculine or deterministic focus towards order. While the even number dimensions all seem to have a feminine or random decay into chaos. This general trend could be used to describe all dimensions as a part of the sacred feminine/masculine, random/deterministic, or chaotic/orderly description of how polarity manifests. The 6th dimension is about sometimes getting an opposite result from what you intended, or that "every force exerts an equal and opposing force to itself." This means you don't always get what you are after. You might think you are aiming for the right goal only to find you chose the wrong path to get there. It may seem contradictory, but sometimes the harder you work, the longer it can take to get there. People often justify years of devotion to something makes it Right just because the intention was good. But this is just as wrong as a scientist accepting immorality just because it provides answers to some information. Wisdom(7) and Truth(1) are on opposite sides of this spectrum, and cause each other to transmit and reflect energy naturally. In order to learn enough information to get a complete picture you have to purify yourself as a human individual, to the point that you can hold enough of this relevant information to draw connections from it. I didn't mean to turn from a science basis into a religious sounding "how to live your life" manual. But the two are inextricably connected, as morality upholds liberty, and liberty determines the amount of freedom we have with which to learn anything. In order to find Truth we must be willing to find Wisdom, and vice versa. With odd numbers at the extremes, I think that the Star of David/Seal of Solomon is describing this structure of reality by its symbol of two triangles, faced in opposite directions, and crossing to form a star. The name Solomon perfectly represents this also, as its Latin derivation "sol o mon" gives us "sun or moon." the very sun/moon polarity that describes how reality works.

Higher Dimensions

Other higher dimensions quite possibly exist to teach us more. And I am sure they will continue, in some way, the trend of information that has been established so far. From my limited knowledge of numerology I can guess that 8 is something about control or even about death itself. Being the first chakra outside our body, it would be appropriate to associate it with the departure of our spirit from our life experience. And then I think 9 would be about ego; since it is predicated upon death maybe it is our selfish egoic reaction to over-consume at the reality of having to face our own death. There might be more general and better terms for describing all these dimensions, and not just the 8th or 9th. One through nine are all the digits before they start repeating in pairs, so past 9 is just about the sum and their corresponding alignment. It's almost an art sometimes, but it is something that everyone should endeavor to shine light upon. Because as opposites attract, you might have to become an artist if you ever want to find real knowledge, and you might have to find Morality before you can ever reach Truth.

"There are only two mistakes you can make on the path for Truth; not starting, and not going all the way."

OK, Joe, now show that what you're claiming is true. Start at the beginning. Let's see your evidence.