2012 - What does it mean to you?

[SuperFemme]

[Jess]

I believe if sheit hits the proverbial fan , then I will have lived and loved my woman for the last/ next and best two years of our lives.

Make it so.

[SuperFemme]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLCQKM6O01A"]YouTube- It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)- Historical Music Video[/ame]

[Strappie]

Well if I make it that long, then 2012 will be a blast!!

[Strappie]

Oh and I'll get a shinny new check card in the mail..

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Strappie

Oh and I'll get a shinny new check card in the mail..

and if everything blows up.. your debts will be forgotten!!!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

That is a fantastic paper and I wish it was short enough to have posted it here directly. You are very good at explaining complex theories to a layperson.
That paper deserves a thread of it's own.
Just say No to New Age Fascism!
"any meaning-creation systems we deploy should be in line with science or, if that is not possible, they should stay as far away from the purview of science as is humanly possible." Indeed.

Thank you for the praise. I enjoyed writing it and my professor thought it was a lot of fun to read. I appreciate your saying that I was able to make it understandable because one of the books I would really like to write at some point is a full-bodied exploration of what a new meaning-creating system would look like that took, as a jumping-off point, the world as described by science.

One thing that has caused me to lose sleep over the last decade or so is that I have come to realize that our meaning-creating systems (read religion or spirituality) are largely out-of-date. Most of them describe a world that is actually very much contrary to the world as described by modern science. This is something that we can ill-afford any longer because there are some very big questions that are either barreling down on us or have already arrived and our meaning-creating systems do not appear to have the tools to deal with them.

I'll mention three to illustrate the kinds of problems I'm talking about:

1) Climate change. We *must* deal with this problem but it is not so simple or straight-forward as all of us getting rid of our cars and no longer using fossil fuels. Unless you have the stomach for a VERY large die-off (think half the human population) we can't just turn the clock back to the pre-agricultural era. The agricultural era (pre-Industrial revolution) can't sustain 6 billion+ people. What's more, those of us in the nations that have *already* passed to a post-industrial nation cannot ethically go to those nations that have yet to pass through the industrial phase and say "yes, granted, we chopped down our forests and paved over everything in sight but YOU can't do that because the planet can't afford it so, sorry, it's no better than subsistence agriculture for you and your descendants".

2) Advances in biology. Within our lifetimes some very interesting things are going to happen. One of which is that we are going to develop truly NEW lifeforms. By this I mean DNA patterns that have *never* existed, in any form, on this planet before. The first artificial cell has been created. A truly novel form of life is on the horizon. What's more, at this point, cloning is an engineering problem and not a scientific problem. (The difference here is this: the scientific problem is "can it be done" the engineering problem is "how do we do this efficiently, safely and economically".) When human clones exist what do we do then?

3) Sentient machines. While I think this one may be the most distant from where we sit now, at *some* point I think we're going to have to deal with a truly sentient machine. It may be a robot, it may be an AI but it will be self-aware. What rights should a self-aware artifact have? Should it own itself or can it be owned by its creator?

NONE of the religions or spiritual systems created so far appear to have any real means of dealing with these questions and they are *deep* questions. At least two of those I expect to see on our plates in my lifetime. The last one is most likely beyond the horizon of my life but will almost certainly be addressed by the time my granddaughter is an old woman. We currently don't have the tools to solve the problems. "We shouldn't play god" isn't an answer. "This or that ancient civilization was in harmony with nature" isn't an answer even if it were true (and it has never been true for any civilization). "We shouldn't build such things" isn't an answer. "The Bible forbids it" isn't an answer. All our cop-outs and short-cuts to actually truly entering into the question.

What's more most of our meaning-creating system misappropriate scientific *sounding* language to bolster their cases. The invocation of quantum mechanics is just the latest and most egregious example of this. Quantum theory doesn't say what New Agers say it does. At the same time, New Agers miss the elegance of beauty of what quantum mechanics *does* say because they are trying to make it into something it isn't. I love QM and wish I had the mathematics to read the literature on it in its native language but I don't (particle physicists take math classes that are, essentially, tuned for their field and while there is cross-over it is a different kind of mathematics than what I, as a biologist, will ever use). What I do know of QM, leaves me in awe with my head spinning because the sub-atomic world is so wonderfully wacky and weird. I wish that people who use QM as a way to give their spiritual beliefs the imprimatur of science would just sit with the subject matter, meet it on its *own* terms and try to wrap their heads around objects as small as an electron or try to imagine, really viscerally imagine, the problem of detecting the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. Once you've grasped that this is a problem that cannot be solved, ever, by anyone, under any circumstances, one gains an appreciation for just how majestic the universe is and just how puny our brains actually are.

One last thing before I close. I wish that more people truly internalized what several very eminent scientists have called the three blows to homo sapiens inflated sense of itself. Those three are this:

1) The heliocentric model. The insult here was that it took the Earth from being a special place in the Universe and made us realize that our planet is a perfectly ordinary nickel-iron rock, orbiting a completely undistinguished main-sequence star at the outer edge of a perfectly ordinary spiral galaxy.

2) Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The insult here is that it took us from being some special creation, above and beyond nature and told us that we are a large-brained African primate that is an absolute newcomer to this planet.

3) Neuroscience. The insult here is just getting warmed up. Already we are discovering that we ARE our brains. There are no thoughts you have that occur outside your brains. All your loves, all your joys are electrochemical reactions happening in your neural system. That doesn't mean that they are not *real* just that they are not *special*.

Cheers
Aj

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Thank you for the praise. I enjoyed writing it and my professor thought it was a lot of fun to read. I appreciate your saying that I was able to make it understandable because one of the books I would really like to write at some point is a full-bodied exploration of what a new meaning-creating system would look like that took, as a jumping-off point, the world as described by science.
That sounds fascinating. I can't imagine a formal merging of the two that doesn't end up in a cultic kool-aid situation- lol!


One thing that has caused me to lose sleep over the last decade or so is that I have come to realize that our meaning-creating systems (read religion or spirituality) are largely out-of-date. Most of them describe a world that is actually very much contrary to the world as described by modern science. This is something that we can ill-afford any longer because there are some very big questions that are either barreling down on us or have already arrived and our meaning-creating systems do not appear to have the tools to deal with them.

I'm not sure that religions have truly been "meaning systems" for some time now. I think they function as an ideological and cultural glue tying together human superorganisms which vie with each other for resources. Like a bacterial meme substrate. Ecstatic experiences result from abandoning the independent self into the comfort of the larger (super)organism.
I don't really see any religions embracing modernity itself, much less scientific and technological advances. Most religions seem to be concerned with creating a child-like infantilized worldview where some "great parent" cares for the believer and cradles them safely in a place of stasis.
I don't really see any religion embracing any technology or forward looking view but rather nostalgia for an era that believers feel existed when they were children, or an imagined nostalgia for an era that they feel must have existed in times past. In fact, "The Past Into The Future" might be an adequate slogan for the relationship religion has with science. Or maybe "The Past As We Fantasize It". In that context it will be ethicists, not religious folks, that "wrestle" with the future. Religion will just say "Future Bad."

I'll mention three to illustrate the kinds of problems I'm talking about:

1) Climate change. We *must* deal with this problem but it is not so simple or straight-forward as all of us getting rid of our cars and no longer using fossil fuels. Unless you have the stomach for a VERY large die-off (think half the human population) we can't just turn the clock back to the pre-agricultural era. The agricultural era (pre-Industrial revolution) can't sustain 6 billion+ people. What's more, those of us in the nations that have *already* passed to a post-industrial nation cannot ethically go to those nations that have yet to pass through the industrial phase and say "yes, granted, we chopped down our forests and paved over everything in sight but YOU can't do that because the planet can't afford it so, sorry, it's no better than subsistence agriculture for you and your descendants".

Well that would be nice. But a biological colony's prerogative is expansion in size and the allocating of increased resources for same. Therefore, only when decreased carbon emissions (etc.) increase "profit" will such changes be adopted. To do otherwise would require that a massive biological meta-organism be formed among all existing colonies, one that suddenly stopped expansion and practiced containment in response to a theoretical future threat. Both parts of that equation- that all countries/peoples/cultures would join together in agreement, and that such a uniform coalition would voluntarily cease seeking wealth, seem highly unlikely.

2) Advances in biology. Within our lifetimes some very interesting things are going to happen. One of which is that we are going to develop truly NEW lifeforms. By this I mean DNA patterns that have *never* existed, in any form, on this planet before. The first artificial cell has been created. A truly novel form of life is on the horizon. What's more, at this point, cloning is an engineering problem and not a scientific problem. (The difference here is this: the scientific problem is "can it be done" the engineering problem is "how do we do this efficiently, safely and economically".) When human clones exist what do we do then?

I agree, the age of "artificial" life is upon us. Novel lifeforms, cloning, transhumanism, total body transplants, etc. The ethicists will have their day, and taboos will be both created and discarded, and I believe it will all be quite shocking and distasteful to the backward-looking folks but human creativity is unstoppable and it will all eventually become quite rote and all of us alive now will have our DNA preserved as "heritage" DNA for our ancestors to play with. New social conventions will be adopted that are easily integrated into "meaning creation systems" as they truly exist (media/educational/cultural agreements), but not for religions which will continue to look backwards to an imaginary time.

3) Sentient machines. While I think this one may be the most distant from where we sit now, at *some* point I think we're going to have to deal with a truly sentient machine. It may be a robot, it may be an AI but it will be self-aware. What rights should a self-aware artifact have? Should it own itself or can it be owned by its creator?

It will be interesting to see how that plays out...

NONE of the religions or spiritual systems created so far appear to have any real means of dealing with these questions and they are *deep* questions. At least two of those I expect to see on our plates in my lifetime. The last one is most likely beyond the horizon of my life [You never know! ] but will almost certainly be addressed by the time my granddaughter is an old woman. We currently don't have the tools to solve the problems. "We shouldn't play god" isn't an answer. "This or that ancient civilization was in harmony with nature" isn't an answer even if it were true (and it has never been true for any civilization). "We shouldn't build such things" isn't an answer. "The Bible forbids it" isn't an answer. All our cop-outs and short-cuts to actually truly entering into the question.

What's more most of our meaning-creating system misappropriate scientific *sounding* language to bolster their cases. The invocation of quantum mechanics is just the latest and most egregious example of this. Quantum theory doesn't say what New Agers say it does. At the same time, New Agers miss the elegance of beauty of what quantum mechanics *does* say because they are trying to make it into something it isn't.[I had to bold that part!] I love QM and wish I had the mathematics to read the literature on it in its native language but I don't (particle physicists take math classes that are, essentially, tuned for their field and while there is cross-over it is a different kind of mathematics than what I, as a biologist, will ever use). What I do know of QM, leaves me in awe with my head spinning because the sub-atomic world is so wonderfully wacky and weird. I wish that people who use QM as a way to give their spiritual beliefs the imprimatur of science would just sit with the subject matter, meet it on its *own* terms and try to wrap their heads around objects as small as an electron or try to imagine, really viscerally imagine, the problem of detecting the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. Once you've grasped that this is a problem that cannot be solved, ever, by anyone, under any circumstances, one gains an appreciation for just how majestic the universe is and just how puny our brains actually are.

One last thing before I close. I wish that more people truly internalized what several very eminent scientists have called the three blows to homo sapiens inflated sense of itself. Those three are this:

1) The heliocentric model. The insult here was that it took the Earth from being a special place in the Universe and made us realize that our planet is a perfectly ordinary nickel-iron rock, orbiting a completely undistinguished main-sequence star at the outer edge of a perfectly ordinary spiral galaxy.

Good point.

2) Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The insult here is that it took us from being some special creation, above and beyond nature and told us that we are a large-brained African primate that is an absolute newcomer to this planet.

I agree, and also think there is quite a bit more to understand about Group Selection and it's relationship to evolution, and what that "blow" will mean to our sense of culture and civilization (including religion).

3) Neuroscience. The insult here is just getting warmed up. Already we are discovering that we ARE our brains. There are no thoughts you have that occur outside your brains. All your loves, all your joys are electrochemical reactions happening in your neural system. That doesn't mean that they are not *real* just that they are not *special*.

I'm not sure how this will play out. Perhaps this is what will erode the sense of "self" and ultimately allow the formation of a larger colony?


Cheers
Aj

------------------------
What fun!
I told you you should have started another thread on it!

[dreadgeek]

So I have a question for those who believe that 'something' will happen in 2012. Now, it's obvious that I don't think that anything will happen. 2012 will be a year like 2011. There will probably be a hurricane, there'll probably be an earthquake, some tornados will touch down somewhere in the midwest, there will be shootings and bombings. But since we can expect this to occur, I assume that these regular, sadly commonplace events aren't the kinds of things that the Mayans were talking about in their prophecies. So my question is this: what do you think that these prophecies actually predict?

One or two people have said that they think it will be a time of emotional transition. If you believe that my question for you is this: why on Earth would the Mayans make THAT prophecy? Let me try to put my confusion in context. Let's say you believe in fortune telling so you go to a fortune teller. She says to you, "in ten years you will be experiencing deep and profound thoughts". You pay whatever it costs for a fortune teller, walk out of her little storefront, step off the curb and are immediately struck by a bus, killing you instantly. Now, if this woman were a fortune teller and could really see the future, don't you think that the information that you were going to be struck by a bus would be a tad bit *more* important than that you were going to be experiencing deep thoughts a decade from now? (Which, of course, you aren't going to be around to be doing now.) The reason I ask is that if, in fact, the 2012 prophecy refers to some great emotional change that will take place planet-wide isn't that just a little prosaic? What's more, why is it that they could predict *that* event but couldn't predict the fall of their own civilization--an event much closer to home and far more relevant for them?

I understand the hesitancy to commit to a position but if you *actually* believe something is going to happen in 2012, what? Will the Earth be struck by an asteroid? Where? (To give you a sense of context--and the standard I'm thinking of--you'll recall yesterday that I mentioned the Apohpis meteor potentially hitting the Earth in 2035. Now, I cannot give you the precise grid coordinate but astronomers do know that IF Apophis passes through the 'keyhole' in 2029, it will hit the Earth in 2035 somewhere in the Pacific between California and Hawaii. That means that a quarter century BEFORE the hypothetical event, a prediction has been made that is actually verifiable.) I've already explained that there's nothing special about passing through the galactic plane (and we're not going to do that anytime soon at any rate) and that the SMBH at the center of the galaxy doesn't have any real effect on us. We can also rule out the Earth flipping upside down (again for reasons that, hopefully, I've explained adequately enough for our purposes here). So what is it that is supposed to happen?

While I don't believe this prophecy to be at all true, I'm asking questions of those who do believe it is true taking your belief very seriously. I presume that you are saying what you believe and believe what you are saying. I'm just curious as to how those who believe this process this information.

Thanks.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Since black holes were invoked in this thread, I thought it might be interesting to delve into these a tiny bit more because these objects are SO cool!

So to understand black holes one must understand that in the interior of all stars there is a battle raging. The mass of the star, which is what creates gravity, wants to cause the star to collapse on itself (remember that gravity is ALWAYS attractive) but the fusion process (caused by that same gravitation) generates heat that prevents the star from collapsing. For 'main sequence' stars of .4 to 1.4 solar masses (using our sun as the baseline) near the end of their lifetime, as the fuel is exhausted, heat briefly triumphs over gravity and the star expands to a red giant. This will be the end-game cycle for the Sun. It will eventually expand out to 1 AU (Earth's orbit), completely obliterating our planet and then collapse into a cooler, white dwarf star about the size of the Earth.

Larger stars > 1.4 solar masses but < 4 solar masses will expand out to red supergiants and then collapse into neutron stars.

Truly massive stars > 4 solar masses go through one of the most interesting and violent transitions in the Universe. In these stars gravity fully triumphs over heat and the core of the star becomes iron. This increases the mass of the star while not generating more heat. At some point the star collapses in a supernovae and then collapses further into itself creating a black hole. When this happens very high energy particles may be ejected in the x-ray part of the spectrum which is one way we can detect black holes.

So why are black holes 'black'? They are black because the gravitational force is so extreme that not even light can escape it. If the black hole is part of a binary system it will tend to capture its partner and begin sucking stellar mass from it, feeding itself. This is another way we can detect black holes. As mass approaches the event horizon (boundary) of a black hole, it will be accelerated to a substantial fraction of the speed of light (C) which can cause atoms to be ripped apart with photons being ejected in the x-ray band.

We cannot detect black holes directly (because no signal can escape or be reflected from it) but we can infer them by the presence of mass being accelerated to a substantial fraction of C because of the gravitational tidal forces.

One more interesting bit about black holes. As you pass the event horizon the tidal forces grow more extreme. Imagine that you pass through a black hole feet first. Since your feet will be closer to the center of mass than your head, your feet will start to accelerate faster than your head causing your body to be stretched out. As you fall deeper, your molecules will be strung out in a process that Neil Degrasse-Tyson calls "spaghettification" and then your very atoms will be ripped apart. What's really interesting about this is that, counter-intuitively, if you were to fall into a supermassive black hole this *wouldn't* happen because the tidal forces are less intense but if you were to fall into a 'normal' black hole (a stellar-mass black hole) then you would undergo that process. So, ironically, you might actually *survive* falling into a supermassive black hole long enough to appreciate what was beyond the event horizon although you would still NEVER be able to get a signal out so you wouldn't be able to report what you found.

Cheers
Aj

[NJFemmie]

What it means astrologically is ....

- A quincunx (150 degree aspect) between Jupiter and Pluto.
- A quincunx between Jupiter and Saturn.
- A central opposition (180 degree aspect) made between Jupiter and the Mercury/Venus conjunction.

The two quincunxes are almost exact, and have an orb of less than 1/2 of a degree. The quincunx between Jupiter and Pluto is exact at December 21 2012.

Pluto (The Energy of Evolution) is the planet of radical transformation, death and rebirth. (Pluto causes the disintegration of psychological blocks obstructing our evolutionary growth.)

Saturn (the Great Cosmic Teacher) is the planet of the earthly realm and of learning experiences, especially those of a more painful nature.

Jupiter (Ruler of all things philosophical) is also the planet of expansion (expanding the mind (higher mind) to superconscious realms and philosophy/expanding our physical horizons through long journeys). This is the focus of this alignment, the planet which receives the strong energy of the other planets involved. It also expands the energy of the other planets involved (especially Saturn and Pluto). This indicates transformational processes which can be emotionally painful.

Jupiter has a central place in this because it is the focal point of the energy. This indicates changes in our religious systems, beliefs, philosophical systems. These fall under Jupiter.

Also notable:

Jupiter squares (90 degree aspect) Neptune.
Neptune (The Ruler of all things "subtle") squares Venus.
Venus is in opposition to Jupiter (making this the central opposition).

Therefore Neptune, the planet of spirituality, ascension, confusion and floods is a crucial planet within this alignment. It rules all the processes of enlightenment.

What is interesting is that on that date, there will be an unusual astrological alignment combined with a rare galactic event.

Do I still think the world is coming to an end? No. But I think there are going to be some worldwide changes - and as previously mentioned - both individual and generational. Alignments like these have ushered in brand new eras, collectively changing the way humanity thinks, feels and interacts with one another.

I know I am making popcorn that day.

[NJFemmie]

So my question is this: what do you think that these prophecies actually predict? One or two people have said that they think it will be a time of emotional transition. If you believe that my question for you is this: why on Earth would the Mayans make THAT prophecy?

Well, I can speak for no one but myself, but ...

The Mayans did not make that prophecy - the astrological alignment on that date does. I know a lot of people like to look at astrology as a new age concept - but astrology is a science. The art of astrology is based in it's interpretation. It's a science with a metaphysical twist. One thing NO ONE can deny, is that the planets move in a constant around the universe. The energies associated with each planet has their own unique effect depending on how they position to each other - and are intensified during astrological alignments.

Edited to add: It is speculated that the Mayans stopped their calendar on that date because they did believe that it begins another cycle of evolution. Not necessarily of the "end of the world kind", but a more spiritual evolution, if you will.

And ... there is also speculation that they "just stopped" and didn't feel a need to go further.

Let me try to put my confusion in context. Let's say you believe in fortune telling so you go to a fortune teller. She says to you, "in ten years you will be experiencing deep and profound thoughts". You pay whatever it costs for a fortune teller, walk out of her little storefront, step off the curb and are immediately struck by a bus, killing you instantly. Now, if this woman were a fortune teller and could really see the future, don't you think that the information that you were going to be struck by a bus would be a tad bit *more* important than that you were going to be experiencing deep thoughts a decade from now? (Which, of course, you aren't going to be around to be doing now.) The reason I ask is that if, in fact, the 2012 prophecy refers to some great emotional change that will take place planet-wide isn't that just a little prosaic? What's more, why is it that they could predict *that* event but couldn't predict the fall of their own civilization--an event much closer to home and far more relevant for them?

First of all, fortune telling IS NOT a science. It doesn't fall into the category of astrology. Astrological influences and psychic ability are certainly not one and the same.

For lack of a better definition:

An astrological age is a time period in astrology which is believed by some to parallel major changes in the Earth's inhabitants' development, particularly relating to culture, society and politics. There are twelve astrological ages corresponding to the twelve zodiacal signs in astrology. At the completion of one cycle of twelve astrological ages, the cycle repeats itself. Astrological ages occur because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. One complete period of this precession is called a Great Year or Platonic Yearof about 25,860 years.

Honestly, I am not sure what will happen in 2012. To be truthful, I didn't go into "study mode" over this. But, based on the alignment itself, it does indicate (to an astrologer), that there are changes coming. (In fact, the wheels for those changes have already been placed in motion.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

Jupiter (Ruler of all things philosophical) is also the planet of expansion (expanding the mind (higher mind) to superconscious realms and philosophy/expanding our physical horizons through long journeys). This is the focus of this alignment, the planet which receives the strong energy of the other planets involved. It also expands the energy of the other planets involved (especially Saturn and Pluto). This indicates transformational processes which can be emotionally painful.

Please pardon my ignorance. How would we know this happened? What would a year where there wasn't a transformational process look like as opposed to the kind of event you're talking about? (Again, please pardon my ignorance but I'm presuming that you are talking about observable events so I'm curious as to what we should expect to observe.)

Do I still think the world is coming to an end? No. But I think there are going to be some worldwide changes - and as previously mentioned - both individual and generational. Alignments like these have ushered in brand new eras, collectively changing the way humanity thinks, feels and interacts with one another.

I know I am making popcorn that day.

Can you give me an example of this? Admittedly, astrology is FAR outside of my competency and I have some questions (which I'll spare you) about the mechanics of astrology (in other words how it's supposed to work). I mean, was the start of the European Enlightenment one of these periods? Were the planets aligned the same way when Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Condorcet, Paine and Hume were writing?

Cheers
Aj

[NJFemmie]

Please pardon my ignorance. How would we know this happened? What would a year where there wasn't a transformational process look like as opposed to the kind of event you're talking about? (Again, please pardon my ignorance but I'm presuming that you are talking about observable events so I'm curious as to what we should expect to observe.)

We wouldn't know this happened, because it hasn't yet. This in itself is a rare alignment and it is SPECULATED, based on the interpretations of the planets and their positions, that this may take place. Have others taken place? Yes, but the astrological alignments for other eras/changes are not exactly the same.

In astrology, the distant planets Uranus, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto have more of a generational effect. In other words, humanity as a whole. The inner planets have more of an individualized effect (like.. what makes a taurus a taurus, etc..)

Alignments are complex. As an example, in the early 1930's - a T-Square alignment in certain planets/signs (I think it was Saturn, Uranus and Pluto) was symbolic of an economic breakdown in Western economies (the Depression), which in fact, affected all countries. Also during this T-square, the Nazi regime flourished, and well, we all know what impact that made on societies all across the world.

The 1960's was in itself an era ushered in by Saturn opposing Uranus and Pluto.

Each "era" has their own unique signature of planetary alignments and influences that have made them what they were/are. So, it's impossible to say what will EXACTLY happen - only speculate based on gathered information that has been accumulated over the centuries.

Can you give me an example of this? Admittedly, astrology is FAR outside of my competency and I have some questions (which I'll spare you) about the mechanics of astrology (in other words how it's supposed to work). I mean, was the start of the European Enlightenment one of these periods? Were the planets aligned the same way when Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Condorcet, Paine and Hume were writing?

Astrology may be outside your realm as much as quantum physics would be outside of mine. Honestly? I have NO idea (unless I sit and extensively research this) what alignments were in place during this particular time period and what plausible astrological effects to provide.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

Please pardon my ignorance. How would we know this happened? What would a year where there wasn't a transformational process look like as opposed to the kind of event you're talking about? (Again, please pardon my ignorance but I'm presuming that you are talking about observable events so I'm curious as to what we should expect to observe.)

We wouldn't know this happened, because it hasn't yet. This in itself is a rare alignment and it is SPECULATED, based on the interpretations of the planets and their positions, that this may take place. Have others taken place? Yes, but the astrological alignments for other eras/changes are not exactly the same.

In astrology, the distant planets Uranus, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto have more of a generational effect. In other words, humanity as a whole. The inner planets have more of an individualized effect (like.. what makes a taurus a taurus, etc..)

Alignments are complex. As an example, in the early 1930's - a T-Square alignment in certain planets/signs (I think it was Saturn, Uranus and Pluto) was symbolic of an economic breakdown in Western economies (the Depression), which in fact, affected all countries. Also during this T-square, the Nazi regime flourished, and well, we all know what impact that made on societies all across the world.

The 1960's was in itself an era ushered in by Saturn opposing Uranus and Pluto.

Each "era" has their own unique signature of planetary alignments and influences that have made them what they were/are. So, it's impossible to say what will EXACTLY happen - only speculate based on gathered information that has been accumulated over the centuries.

Can you give me an example of this? Admittedly, astrology is FAR outside of my competency and I have some questions (which I'll spare you) about the mechanics of astrology (in other words how it's supposed to work). I mean, was the start of the European Enlightenment one of these periods? Were the planets aligned the same way when Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Condorcet, Paine and Hume were writing?

Astrology may be outside your realm as much as quantum physics would be outside of mine. Honestly? I have NO idea (unless I sit and extensively research this) what alignments were in place during this particular time period and what plausible astrological effects to provide.

Well I appreciate your answering my questions. Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[Cyclopea]

When people believe in totally unscientific things like astrology or tea leaves or evolution-denial how do they rationalize their belief? What do people get out of believing such things?

Who decides what attributes to give to planetary bodies? Who decided on the attributes of the planet Pluto after it was discovered in the 1930s? And what about Ceris, which we now know is a larger planet than Pluto? It all seems so random, like believing Noah kept dinosaurs on the ark.

I don't say this to insult anyone- I am genuinely curious how one makes that decision to believe. Is it just something in your "gut" that you just feel you have to go with, or how does that work?

[SuperFemme]

I'd like to take this moment to join together in an armageddon song?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo_0UXRY_rY"]YouTube- Aerosmith - I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing[/ame]

[NJFemmie]

We believe what feels right within. I think the original question was "what does it mean to you" - and those answers are not always going to be comprised of answers based on scientific fact, everyone's rationalization is going to be what feels right to them.

What do people get out of believing such things?

For me, it's illogical to think that everything is purely scientific and "logical". Because in reality, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS - they only know what they do know - and if the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities.

[SuperFemme]

I believe I thought NJ's sig line referred to the Yoruban Goddess until about one minute ago.

Ohhh. OCEAN.

I believe in lots of stuff because I choose to. Astrology being one of them.

End of the world predictions? Not so much.
I like surprises.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

We believe what feels right within. I think the original question was "what does it mean to you" - and those answers are not always going to be comprised of answers based on scientific fact, everyone's rationalization is going to be what feels right to them.

What do people get out of believing such things?

For me, it's illogical to think that everything is purely scientific and "logical". Because in reality, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS - they only know what they do know - and if the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities.

I read the question a bit differently. For instance, let's take, as a point of contrast, belief in a divine being (which I also see no reason to believe in). This can be a comforting belief. But what does one gain from believing, for instance, that a now extinct civilization (not the people but the civilization) predicted some ill-defined cataclysm? It's certainly not comforting NOR is there anything one can do about it. As another point of contrast, consider (if you're old enough) the response to fears of a nuclear war that dominated the (industrialized) world from 1948 until the early 1990's. Here there WAS something that could be done about it. Fear that Goldwater might be crazy enough to attempt to fight a nuclear war kept him from the Presidency and, quite possibly, prevented us from getting into one. Or consider the somewhat more remote possibility of a planet-killer asteroid out there. If we can spot it we MIGHT be able to divert it (it's essentially a physics/engineering problem). But if the threat is ill-defined (something will happen, who knows what) then what is the point? As I said yesterday it sells books and movie tickets but other than making Hollywood moguls and New Age gurus a little heavier in the wallet, what actual *good* does it do?

As far as everything not being scientific and logical, this depends upon what you mean. To give another illustration, I'll take something I mentioned in the paper I linked to yesterday. You are mostly empty space. Everything is. There is a non-zero probability that you could walk through a wall. However, because both you and the wall are macro-objects if you started *today* to try to walk through a wall and you attempted once every second to do so, you would have to wait until the universe were around a hundred billion years old before you had done enough attempts that it would have some probability of actually happening. We can, therefore, treat walls as solid objects that it is impossible to pass through.

What's more, there are things that are *conceivable* but so highly improbable that we save a great deal of time by treating them as impossible. For instance, there is no law of physics that prevents air from *spontaneously* re-inflating your tire when it goes flat. The process that deflates your tire is, in fact, time-reversible meaning that it is process-reversible. However, the statistical nature of the movement of molecules means that it is very *unlikely* to ever actually occur. (This, by the way, is one way of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics: e.g. entropy)

Lastly, I would have to say that the possibilities are not actually infinite nor is there any reason to take our *profound* ignorance about nature to mean that anything goes. It is simply true that, to the best of our knowledge, it is *impossible* to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light through space-time. We can safely treat any claims that someone has built a device that can achieve acceleration to the speed of light as a false claim. The same applies for perpetual motion machines (any machine where it generates its own energy without any loss: e.g. 100% of the energy used by the machine can be used for work). To say that 'no one knows because the universe is infinite' is to treat the laws of physics as nothing more than just some localized, arbitrary caprices when, in fact, they are not.

I want to tack on another question: what is WRONG with the universe having limits on us? Why is it that people balk at that? Why does the universe 'owe' us perpetual motion machines, psychic powers, or a divine being that cares for us (but, interestingly, doesn't condemn us to hell). Why is it illogical for nature to be governed by some set of rules that are discoverable by any species clever enough to hit upon the idea of the scientific method?

It seems to me that this claim is actually somewhat testable. For instance, if there are psychic powers (whatever that might mean) then we should expect that these powers would exhibit SOME kind of behavior. For instance, Einstein came up with a clever suggestion about how to determine if psychic powers existed. If they are a field then they should fall off according to the inverse square law (just like every other field does) if they don't, in other words if distance from the source has no effect on strength, then they don't exist because *every other single field we have discovered* obeys that law. Now, alternatively, if psychic powers aren't subject to the inverse square law of fields then those who argue in favor of them have the burden of proof placed on *them* to explain the nature of these powers and why they are the exception.

This is just a matter of consistent thinking and an attempt to keep the cognitive dissonance to the absolute minimum possible.

Cheers
Aj