"i hate this new age garbage so much" is not a vital counterpoint. It's whiny bitching. There's a difference.



Explain to me how I am hiding? I'm being extremely open here. If I was hiding do you think I would speak my mind knowing it would unleash such a social stigma on my character? Your point is unsupported and blatantly wrong, sorry pal.



Whenever I see your name under the Last Posted section I am filled with delight. Your incessant trolling makes me smile.

That's only one small part of what's being said, but pointing out that despite the pseudoscience, it's very much tired new-age tripe is pretty important, imo.

I'd hate for anyone to read this and think "Wow, that sounds like pretty legit science."

All jabs and flaming aside, what you've all said is nothing much past "What the hell is this? I hate this garbage. etc, etc." It's all just bitching. Seriously, go back through each of his posts in this thread. I'll quote them all for you if you can't manage the task on your own. Show me one of his posts that shows any real insight beyond senseless bitching.

I'd hate for anybody to come to jsp for political and religious insight, I see now how closed-mindedness breads like a terrible cancer here. If you examine history, all the ideologies that we, as a culture, generally adhere to now, were at one point considered ridiculous. Have you all forgotten that?

By scientifically grounded, I meant to ask whether it was actually reinforced by data and confirmed by scientists instead of just being a pet theory that some author used to sell a book.

What did you respond with? A youtube video and this:

Can you tell me what that means exactly? Can you also tell me how they calculate "novelty" ?

Yes, I don't really try to add this great insight to all of my posts. Where are we going with this? If you acknowledge that this is psuedoscience, then why are you so surprised by our reaction?

This post was edited by infinitesimal on Nov 30 2009 08:16pm

By using the term "psuedo-science" we are just toying with semantics to tickle all your little ego-centered cocks. You're just labeling it as something "outrageous" right off the bat because you don't want to have to face the fact that maybe there IS some shred of reason behind these ideas. Novelty is graphed through the algorithm. Like I said, I don't fully understand the mathematics behind it though I believe in the principle, it makes a lot of sense. If you're interested in the algorithm I would be happy to share the application with you because I admit, math is a weakness of mine.

What I mean by examining history and applying the principles in it is that these hints that point towards the possibility of a massive global event such as this, are apparent all throughout history in almost every indigenous culture of the world. Also, the basis for novelty theory was characterized primarily by the I-Ching which is still used actively in the participation of eastern philosophy. The fact that the Mayan calendar corresponds closely the date given was found after the fact and it suggested to McKenna that his calculations were slightly off so he appended them to correspond with the Mayans. (who, as said before, were masterful astrologists)

uh-huh

Has it been tested in laboratory conditions with falsifiable claims?

Nope, it just uses scientific nomenclature while finding patterns that fit the theory rather than using the theory to find the patterns. I can't see any functional difference between your claims here and, say, the claims made by proponents of the Bible Code. Fits the very definition of pseudoscience.

"Novelty is graphed through the algorithm"

What the fuck does that mean? An algorithm is just a series of steps which transform input into output. There is no "the algorithm", so I would like to know this algorithm is. Also, an algorithm isn't specific to computers. So giving me a computer application isn't actually proving anything (if that's what you meant by the bold). If not, share the application of the algorithm and actually describe what it is. (again, trying to interpret the bold)


WHAT principle(s)?


Do you not realize how dubious this sounds? Some concept x was formalized in ancient eastern philosophy, somebody noticed a similarity(which you still haven't described) between that and the Mayan calender, and then since the similarity wasn't exact, this person just did some patch work to make it correspond. That's essentially what you've told me.


You refer to principles, mathematics and abstract thought. Can you give a example of each one or not?


Do you agree that it is psuedo-science? yes or no?

This post was edited by infinitesimal on Nov 30 2009 11:25pm

Wow shut up.

Totally, I'll PM you my email address. Somehow I doubt you'll send me a copy though.... Hey, your chance to prove the big jerk wrong.




This post was edited by Azrad on Dec 1 2009 07:12am