Anartaxius, you ignorant slut. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:44 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Seems to me that since a single photon of light hitting a dark-conditioned retina can trigger a change in the flow of consciousness -- a single photon could possibly be a tipping point's "final straw" and so, an infant's-personality-that's-ever-so-fragile could thereby get hard-wired into a "something or other." I think we discussed this point some weeks ago. a single photon of light likely, on the basis of experiment, can affect the retina of the eye, but it is not an event the becomes conscious because the impulse does not get any further than this in the nervous system.
I used "dark-conditioned retina" which I believe DOES send a full message to the brain about a single photon, but one or a dozen, so what? The evidence is that a very small amount of light can be registered in consciousness -- which could be a tipping point experience. EMPHASIS ON "COULD." The issue is whether such an event in consciousness could be some sort of keystone in an upside down pyramid -- we know the concept "tipping point" is valid, and we know the infant is "brand new" and ready for "imprinting like a baby bird" MAYBE. See the word "maybe" there? Of course, it's hard to imagine a research scenario that could measure such thing. But I mention this as a viable concept for this discussion, because of the research on the "dirty water that is purified by radiation" -- "purified" means anything-not-water gets separated out. I'll link below to the research, as I have done several times here at FFL, You did not link to the research, you linked to a YouTube video. That is not scientific research. Pollack supposedly published this research in a low quality on-line journal called Water, but it turns out, what was uploaded was not a scientific paper, but a page listing the table of contents of his book, purchasable elsewhere. So no published research at all, just advertising. This is the abstract for the article, which is not an abstract for research but a sales pitch: So what? Do I need to do a Steve-Martin-EXCUSE ME? for using "research?" Give me a break -- it's clear that the "error" you underline is not germane to the discussion -- do you admit this? Are you not just a little bit happy to get in here and show me up as a less-than-top-notch-thinker? Aaaaaand, if I'm not top-notch, who the fuck are you to try to rub my nose in it? Is someone smarter than you chafing your ass and I'm the only one you can take it out on? Do you go around besting children at trivia games or what? Your attitude belongs on a PhD orals-exam -- not here at FFL for Christ's sake. The video shows that research was done and that there's probably some paperwork to back it up. Did I say I have PROOF? The video SUGGESTS that light somehow helps water to purify. It shows actual experiments being conducted. The guy is legit, credentialed, and what the video shows is very interesting, and I think it needs more follow up. These are concepts that fit into this conversation -- it doesn't matter if the concepts are being promoted by a book-selling professor. I maintain that jyotish is tantalizingly supported by this video in that every cell in the human body is being irradiated constantly by a host of waves of every ilk. It seems to me that some of the surfaces found in the body will be thereby helped to purify themselves and keep functions at peak performance. Light matters at a very subtle level IT SEEMS. 'The following paragraphs are reproduced from the website of the publisher [1]. Professor Pollack takes us on a fantastic voyage through water, showing us a hidden universe teeming with physical activity that provides answers so simple that any curious person can understand. In conversational prose, Pollack lays a simple foundation for understanding how changes in water’s structure underlie most energetic transitions of form and motion on earth.' The citation footnote [1] in the abstract did not refer to any information either, not being a link or reference to anything else on the page. So I'm a lousy student. I didn't use footnotes. FUCK YOU. Google this shit yourself -- it's got to be out there. Not that that's a proof of astrology's main axiom, but that that indicates that light is VERY impacting at the subtlest of levels. There is very very much proof about instant printing. We see birds immediately attach "that's my parent" to anything that moves when it is first born. We know this kind of global psychological "hardening" is seen across the biological spectrum. Us human beings too? Why not? We know that trauma can do this. Why not the first light that floods the newborn's eye? I paid good bucks to eleven jyotishi-types. Nothing came true, no one "nailed me," I was never warned about something, and no insights into what I'd been in the past, and they all majorly disagreed with each other. And all of them were consulted EXACTLY WHEN I NEEDED ADVICE THE MOST -- my life troubles during that time were the WORST of my life, but no jyotish person warned or saw this. So don't try to sell me any more jyotish, but don't toss it out with the western astrology bathwater. I think the "light is synchronous" (not causal) concept has traction. It's just that science is not up to examining it, and probably won't be for another 100 years. A good experiential observation that jyotish/astrology is hokum. "Hokum" -- this is merely name calling. With one word you dismiss 10,000 years of belief and practice that was so revered that father taught son for thousands of years to MEMORIZE the ved verses about the concepts. Shame the fuck on you. We don't know. We don't know. Why do you have such certainty in the face of such a paucity of good research by modern science on these concepts? YOU DON'T KNOW. All you're saying is "it's stupid, man, and so are you if you believe it." That's your tone......don't deny it. This is the rotten core of FFL -- putting down anyone who is in the least flawed instead of advancing an argument for clarity's sake. Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : What possible difference can those things make? The fact that astrology and astronomy have common roots only means that eventually those who created and followed the SCIENTIFIC method and way began to require real evidence for their theories and ideas. The astrologers on the other hand continued to rely on mystical ideas that have never been validated. Isaac Newton was a scientist and an alchemist. The fact that he pursued some non-scientific mumbo jumbo does not take away from his scientific achievements nor does it validate his mystical endeavors or make alchemy as he practiced it a science. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Astrology Science? My bet is the only astrology the writers are familiar with is western or tropical astrology. They probably don't even know what jyotish is. And I bet they don't know that astronomy came as the result of astrology nor that Kepler's day job was making charts for astrologers. So he developed better methods of determining orbits. On 05/27/2015 01:31 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Astrology: Is it scientific? http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Astrology: Is it scientific? In some ways, astrology may seem scientific. It uses scientific knowledge about heavenly bodies, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts. View on undsci.berkeley.edu http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:44 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Seems to me that since a single photon of light hitting a dark-conditioned retina can trigger a change in the flow of consciousness -- a single photon could possibly be a tipping point's "final straw" and so, an infant's-personality-that's-ever-so-fragile could thereby get hard-wired into a "something or other." I think we discussed this point some weeks ago. a single photon of light likely, on the basis of experiment, can affect the retina of the eye, but it is not an event the becomes conscious because the impulse does not get any further than this in the nervous system. I used "dark-conditioned retina" which I believe DOES send a full message to the brain about a single photon, but one or a dozen, so what? The evidence is that a very small amount of light can be registered in consciousness -- which could be a tipping point experience. EMPHASIS ON "COULD." Of course, it's hard to imagine a research scenario that could measure such thing. But I mention this as a viable concept for this discussion, because of the research on the "dirty water that is purified by radiation" -- "purified" means anything-not-water gets separated out. I'll link below to the research, as I have done several times here at FFL, You did not link to the research, you linked to a YouTube video. That is not scientific research. Pollack supposedly published this research in a low quality on-line journal called Water, but it turns out, what was uploaded was not a scientific paper, but a page listing the table of contents of his book, purchasable elsewhere. So no published research at all, just advertising. This is the abstract for the article, which is not an abstract for research but a sales pitch: So what? Do I need to do a Steve-Martin-EXCUSE ME? for using "research?" Give me a break -- it's clear that you're bonking me for personal reason here in that the "error" you underline is not germane to the discussion -- do you admit this? Are you not just a little bit happy to get in here and show me up as a less-than-top-notch-thinker? If I'm not top-notch, who the fuck are you to try to rub my nose in it? Is someone smarter than you chafing your ass and I'm the only one you can take it out on? The video shows that research was done and that there's probably some paperwork to back it up. Did I say I have PROOF? The video SUGGESTS that light somehow helps water to purify. It shows actual experiments being conducted. The guy is legit, credentialed, and what the video shows is very interesting, and I think it needs more follow up. These are concepts that fit into this conversation -- it doesn't matter if the concepts are being promoted by a book-selling professor. I maintain that jyotish is tantalizingly supported by this video in that every cell in the human body is being irradiated constantly by a host of waves of every ilk. It seems to me that some of the surfaces found in the body will be thereby helped to purify themselves and keep functions at peak performance. Light matters at a very subtle level IT SEEMS. 'The following paragraphs are reproduced from the website of the publisher [1]. Professor Pollack takes us on a fantastic voyage through water, showing us a hidden universe teeming with physical activity that provides answers so simple that any curious person can understand. In conversational prose, Pollack lays a simple foundation for understanding how changes in water’s structure underlie most energetic transitions of form and motion on earth.' The citation footnote [1] in the abstract did not refer to any information either, not being a link or reference to anything else on the page. So I'm a lousy student. I didn't use footnotes. FUCK YOU. Google this shit yourself -- it's got to be out there. Not that that's a proof of astrology's main axiom, but that that indicates that light is VERY impacting at the subtlest of levels. There is very very much proof about instant printing. We see birds immediately attach "that's my parent" to anything that moves when it is first born. We know this kind of global psychological "hardening" is seen across the biological spectrum. Us human beings too? Why not? We know that trauma can do this. Why not the first light that floods the newborn's eye? I paid good bucks to eleven jyotishi-types. Nothing came true, no one "nailed me," I was never warned about something, and no insights into what I'd been in the past, and they all majorly disagreed with each other. And all of them were consulted EXACTLY WHEN I NEEDED ADVICE THE MOST -- my life troubles during that time were the WORST of my life, but no jyotish person warned or saw this. So don't try to sell me any more jyotish, but don't toss it out with the western astrology bathwater. I think the "light is synchronous" (not causal) concept has traction. It's just that science is not up to examining it, and probably won't be for another 100 years. A good experiential observation that jyotish/astrology is hokum. "Hokum" -- this is merely name calling. With one word you dismiss 10,000 years of belief and practice that was so revered that father taught son for thousands of years to MEMORIZE the ved verses about the concepts. Shame the fuck on you. We don't know. We don't know. Why do you have such certainty in the face of such a paucity of good research by modern science on these concepts? YOU DON'T KNOW. All you're saying is "it's stupid, man, and so are you if you believe it." That's your tone......don't deny it. This is the rotten core of FFL -- putting down anyone who is in the least flawed instead of advance an argument. Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : What possible difference can those things make? The fact that astrology and astronomy have common roots only means that eventually those who created and followed the SCIENTIFIC method and way began to require real evidence for their theories and ideas. The astrologers on the other hand continued to rely on mystical ideas that have never been validated. Isaac Newton was a scientist and an alchemist. The fact that he pursued some non-scientific mumbo jumbo does not take away from his scientific achievements nor does it validate his mystical endeavors or make alchemy as he practiced it a science. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Astrology Science? My bet is the only astrology the writers are familiar with is western or tropical astrology. They probably don't even know what jyotish is. And I bet they don't know that astronomy came as the result of astrology nor that Kepler's day job was making charts for astrologers. So he developed better methods of determining orbits. On 05/27/2015 01:31 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Astrology: Is it scientific? http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Astrology: Is it scientific? In some ways, astrology may seem scientific. It uses scientific knowledge about heavenly bodies, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts. View on undsci.berkeley.edu http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Preview by Yahoo
