Hi. I'm Bob Marks and I am a professional astrologer.
January 25 2004 at 10:51 PM
bobmarks (no login)
-
And I was referred to this board by David Leiter.
I thought it a good idea that we all get to know each other since I will be getting together with Eric Kreig to conduct a test of astrology. I have been on skeptics boards before. In fact, I have been a regular on the FACTS board since its inception (and on the old Skeptics baord before that) so I know the drill.
Rule One: it is not up to skeptics to disprove astrology. Since astrologers are making the assertion, they have to prove that astrology does work.
I agree with this. Skeptics usually get into a lot of trouble when they attempt to come up with reasons why astrology CAN'T work. All that has to be done is to ask astrologers for PROOF. Not anecdotal evidence but solid studies done with CONTROL GROUPS. Personally, I couldn't find any such studies, so I started one of my own. I managed to get timed birth data on serial killers. The results are reported on
www.astrologyresearchjournal.org
Please note that I explicitly stated that the results do not constitute "proof" one way or the other. My only claim is that I have found a scientifically valid way to test (verify OR falsify) astrology. The results so far are to be used for testing other samples. The journey is just begining and the work continues.
As I mentioned to Eric, there are three questions concerning astrology:
1)Is there some sort of "astrological force" that makes it work? If not, the party's over. No further work or tests are necessary. If the answer to (1) is yes, then...
2)Do the rules of astrology work? And...
3)Can astrologers use these rules to make verifiable statements?
It is possible for there to be an affirmative answer for (1) and negative answers to (2) and (3). Therefore the best procedure is to test (1) first. This is what I am attempting to do with the serial killer study.
Testing for (2) and (3) first leaves the BIG question unanswered: is there some sort of "astrological force?"
Well, I think this is enough of an introduction to get things started.
Its always good to get someone new to chat with. New meat for the grinder. Welcome!!
But perhaps you can make your case for astrology. If so don't forget the $10K from Eric, the $1,000K from James Randi, and make sure that Randi forks over the compounding interest. PLUS the untold riches monetary and intellectual to be gained worldwide.
My main offer is 10,000$ for real proof of free energy - not just perpetual motion. My terms are found at:
www.phact.org/e/freetest.html
Part of that is also, free publicity to help a real claimant stand apart from the hundreds of lunatics and crooks who have been making that claim for many decades all over the world. Also, if someone would win, I'll gladly fly them down to Florida to try to help them win Randi's test. Randi works usually on covering the even more popular end of paranormal claims including levitation, precognitian, ESP, dowsing, etc. He's very busy and I think he'd be more interested in someone claiming free energy who would first have gotten my prize. If someone has a PM device, I would be interested in having a look and would be willing to even admit if I didn't have a conventional explanation for its function - I just don't want to risk money on it. A simple PM device would not have the impact on the world that FE would.
One thing I do offer any human being, if you can read the serial number of a dollar bill I would be thinking of, I'd give you $1000. I just don't have the time and skill to offer as wide "paranormal validation services" as Randi does.
Our group, PhACT is willing to take a look at a paranormal claim. Most of the effort there would be the up front work to agree on what would be fair conditions for a test. I'm going to take a look at the astrologer postings to the board. I'd love to see us check out that.
You have asked 3 questions. What about the most important question?
January 26 2004, 6:34 AM
Hi Bob Marks, nice to get to know you!
You have asked 3 questions
1)Is there some sort of "astrological force" that makes it work? If not, the party's over. No further work or tests are necessary. If the answer to (1) is yes, then...
2)Do the rules of astrology work? And...
3)Can astrologers use these rules to make verifiable statements?
Lets assume for a moment that this force exists for real. Now, there is this force that is capable of influencing 60 people out of 6 billion to become murderers. That is one in 100 million, the probability to be effected by this force would therefore be less than winning 1 million dollars in lottery where if I am not wrong the probability is 1 in 14 million.
Do you see where I am coming from? How powerful and relevant is a "force" that is capable of so little?
Few days ago I was watching Bloomberg TV, economic TV and they interviewed the stock market astrologer. The stock market astrologer was explain the horoscope meaning for different companies and which stocks are going to go up… … … the moderator asked the stock market astrologer why he does not buy stocks himself if his predictions are right. The stock market Astrologer replied with a smile on his face that he does.
If you believe that astrology works, why not post for one year at all skeptic message boards for all the skeptics to see the stocks that one should buy according to this "astrological force" and if it works for real that the "astrological force" stocks were outperforming by far the average Dow Jones index, you would convince most skeptics that astrology works. And most definitely you would find many customers
"How powerful and relevant is a 'force' that is capable of so little?"
January 26 2004, 2:05 PM
Not the point. There shouldn't be any sort of astrological force at all. If it is proved that such a force exists (no matter how tiny) the paradims of physics will face the most major change since the introduction of quantum mechanics. It only takes the existence of one white crow to prove conclusively that all crows are not black.
From: Jasmine
Remote Name: 203.87.65.138
Date: 12/29/03
Time: 06:19:07 AM
Comments
The medievalist astrologer Robert Zoller predicted the WTC attack back as far as 1997. He got the month right too. His Newsletter Nuntius revealed hid predcitions. Go to http://www.new-library.com/zoller/features/ to see his predictive work. As as having to actually 'prove' astrology I feel no need whatsoever to do that. I'm interested in it as a tool for myself to use to guide me through life. Theres no proof required at all. Jasmine
And if this force is only capable to harm or help only one in 100 million, what is it’s justification and even more the justification of astrology itself, a science that is capable of helping only 1 in 100 million? Does Jasmine knows that the probability of the force helping her is 1 in 100 million? Is Jasmine informed about how "(no matter how tiny) and "There shouldn't be any sort of astrological force at all "? Is Jasmine and others informed that she and others take "guidance" from "a tool" in her life that helps only one in 100 million?
Why is the proof not required? Is it because by telling the people that the force is "(no matter how tiny) and "There shouldn't be any sort of astrological force at all " that the whole card house would collapse because being obsolete? How many people would follow a concept, force, science if knowing that the chance for them getting help from that force, concept, that science is 1 in 100 million?
Is Jasmine this "one white crow"?
Real curious if you will inform her and others about that? Curious like not in a long time
Brain
Ruben Blades: "I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance."
1) If astrology does not work, then there can be no astrological force whatsoever.
2) If there is an "astrological force", then there is a possibility that astrology can work.
3) According to the Gauquelin work , as confirmed by skeptic researchers, a tiny astrological effect has been noticed.
4)From this, it does not follow that the effect is tiny in all ways. It is only tiny based on the methodology that Gauquelin used. He was a statistician, not an astrologer. Further work is obviously needed. The matter is far from closed.
5) Jasmine's assertion that proof is not required removes Jasmine from any serious discussion.
1) If astrology does not work, then there can be no astrological force whatsoever.
2) If there is an "astrological force", then there is a possibility that astrology can work.
And what if your research is correct and it works for one in 100 million and not for others, and people like Jasmine or like Lady Diana believe in it, go by it, and it does not work for them because they are not the chosen one, the one in 100 million?
The names are exchangeable, be it Lady Diana or Jasmine or others who believe in something that might affect only one in 100 million.
Why should one embrace something that might work when there is psychology that if done properly, works almost always. And psychology is no voodoo miracle that in fantasy works always, it’s a technique to reprogram our biological computers.
Lady Diana believed in astrology and was guided by top astrologers. And she got killed in the car accident.
If I knew Lady Diana I would have told her that she is displaced in this Royal Buckingham soap opera and I would have told her to run, run for her life because I know that when someone is being displaced like she was it does not end good. Not because of the supernatural but for objective Super Natural reasons.
Marvel comics the same month that she actually died. In that case in wsa not the royal Lady Diana, but was Lady Diana aka Wonder Woman.
That led to all sorts of strange conspiracy theory. The cartoonist, in a radio interview, said that his cartoons seemed to predict other events over many years, but just think about how many things never came to pass.
To me it sounds logical that in fantasy cartoons mythological characters like Diana, the goddess of hunting play a key role. And the Wonder Woman being the goddess of hunting is congruent. That’s what comics are about, a fantasy world.
And about them predictions it’s always the same, after an event it’s being claimed that they knew before. If it existed for real than someone would come to the skeptic message board and make a prophecy that this or that would happen on a certain date at certain time. And if they say well it’s not possible because it would interfere with the cosmic law, then they could say only the first and the last letter of 20 major US newspapers one week ahead. Nobody would take that person seriously and therefore it would not interfere with the cosmic law until the week is over and his prophecy becomes reality. How come it is not done? Very simple, because it is not possible.
"What if your research is correct and it works for 1 in 100 million and not for the others
January 27 2004, 8:57 PM
Isn't that a little premature? Why don't we wait and see where the research leads us? It seems highly unlikely that there could be an effect that could predict who would become a serial killer but not be able to predict anything else.
"...there is psychology that, if done properly, works almost always."
January 27 2004, 9:08 PM
Now it's my turn to play skeptic. I would like to see some evidence to back up that claim. I recall a study done over a decade ago (sorry, I don't remember the particulars) that said that all of the different schools of psychology (including behaviorism, Freudian, Gestalt, etc.) had about the same results. The problem was that they are all based on different theoretical foundations that, in many cases, contradict one another.
I started and ran an alternative High School inthe early 1970's. My partner was a certified psychologist. He told me that his very first patient was a woman who threatened suicide. He quoted her as saying that she wanted to go right to his window and jump out. He was terrified. So over the next few sessions, he told her that she was "cured" and terminated her therapy. He followed up on her through people who knew her. She seemed to be acing "very cured." So much for the "science" of psychology.
Do you have to play the skeptic or did you already become one? Psycho Drama. Dr. Moreno, when one plays a certain role long enough one can easily become the one the role one is playing.
I recall a study done over a decade ago (sorry, I don't remember the particulars) that said that all of the different schools of psychology (including behaviorism, Freudian, Gestalt, etc.) had about the same results. The problem was that they are all based on different theoretical foundations that, in many cases, contradict one another.
Good point about different schools in psychology contradicting themselves!
Since there are over 200 different schools, concepts of human psyche, which one is the right one since they all believe to be the right one?
The same question asked Bandler and Grinder and the way they figured it out is to look for psychologists, psychiatrists who have the highest success rate in helping people overcome their problems. And they came to Dr Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir. They had developed a system called NLP, Neuro Linguistic Programming to replicate the techniques of the best psychologists and psychiatrists in order to make this knowledge available for everybody to be able to apply a set of tools in order to achieve the best results.
NLP was developed by modelling some remarkable communicators. Virginia Satir, for example, was a highly skilled change agent. But she confesses in her comments in the first NLP text, "The Structure of Magic" that before working with Bandler and Grinder, "...although I was aware that change was happening, I was unaware of the specific elements that went into the transaction which made change possible." In the same book, Milton Erickson says, "In reading this book, I learned a great deal about the things that I've done without knowing about them."
That is to say, Satir and Erickson were skilled, but they were, like most experts, unconsciously skilled. They did not know how they did what they did. To the extent that this was true, their ability to assist someone else to learn those skills was limited. To that extent, they could teach, but not in a way that others would easily learn.
In fact, the story goes that one day Satir was demonstrating in front of a group of student psychotherapists. She stopped talking to the couple she was working with, and asked if any of her students could carry on, using her methods. One by one, students tried to help the couple, but none of them seemed to know how Virginia chose what to say. At the back of the room, a young man was tape recording the training session. He was Richard Bandler, a computer programmer and a graduate student of linguistics at the University of California, and he had no training in psychology. Finally, after Satir's students had failed, Bandler came to the front of the room and offered to talk to the couple. Amazingly, he seemed to know exactly how Virginia was constructing her questions and suggestions to the couple. Listening to him was like listening to her. The psychotherapists were puzzled.
How had this young man learned Satir's method so precisely?
NLP is a system for enabling skills to be transmitted from experts to learners; some of whom are novices and some of whom are nearly experts themselves. In this article I want to present three simple models for understanding this teaching-learning process (McCarthy's 4MAT model, Maslow's Learning Stages model, and the Dreyfus Expertise model), and some important implications for teachers (including teachers of NLP).
And another great example is that of Dr. Milton Erickson:
Dr. Erickson describes handling an incident with his son Robert to illustrated how to deal with children in pain. Robert fell down the back stairs, split his lip, and knocked his upper tooth back into the maxilla. He was bleeding and screaming with pain and fright. His parents rushed to him and saw that it was an emergency. Dr. Erickson writes,
"No effort was made to pick him up. Instead, as he paused for breath for fresh screaming, he was told quickly, simply, sympathetically and emphatically, 'That hurts awful, Robert. That hurts terrible.'
"Right then, without any doubt, my son knew that I knew what I was talking about. He could agree with me and he knew I was agreeing with him completely. Therefore he could listen respectfully to me, because I had demonstrated that I understood the situation fully."
Rather than reassure the boy, Dr. Erickson proceeded in typical fashion:
'Then I told Robert, 'And it will keep right on hurting.' In this simple statement, I named his own fear, confirmed his own judgment of the situation, demonstrated my good intelligent grasp of the entire matter and my entire agreement with him, since right then he could foresee a lifetime of anguish and pain for himself.
"The next step for him and for me was to declare, as he took another breath, 'And you really wish it would stop hurting.' Again, we were in full agreement and he was ratified and even encouraged in this wish. And it was his wish, deriving entirely from within him and constituting his own urgent need.
'With the situation so defined, I could then offer a suggestion with some certainty of its acceptance. This suggestion was, 'Maybe it will stop hurting in a little while, in just a minute or two.'
"This was a suggestion in full accord with his own needs and wishes and, because it was qualified by 'maybe it will,' it was not in contradiction to his own understandings of the situation. Thus he could accept the idea and initiate his response to it."
Dr. Erickson then shifted to another important matter. As he puts it:
"Robert knew that he hurt, that he was a damaged person; he could see his blood upon the pavement, taste it in his mouth and see it on his hands. And yet, like all other human beings, he too could desire narcissistic distinction in his misfortune, along with the desire even more for narcissistic comfort. Nobody wants a picayune headache: since a headache must be endured, let it be so colossal that only the sufferer could endure it. Human pride is so curiously good and comforting! Therefore, Robert's attention was doubly directed to two vital issues of comprehensible importance to him by the simple statements, 'That's an awful lot of blood on the pavement. Is it good, red, strong blood? Look carefully, Mother, and see. I think it is, but I want you to be sure.' "
Examination proved it to be good strong blood, but it was necessary to verify this by examination of it against the white background of the bathroom sink. In this way the boy, who had ceased crying in pain and fright, was cleaned up. When he went to the doctor for stitches the question was whether he would get as many as his sister had once been given. The suturing was done without anesthetic on a boy who was an interested participant in the procedure.
When Anthony Robbins came in public claiming that he can help anybody with NLP, psychiatrists where making fun of him calling him fraud and liar. He told them to send him patients where they made no progress in years. After he proved to them that is possible to help people, cure them in 20 minutes what them great psychiatrists failed in years, they started to apologize to Tony.
the paradims of physics will face the most major change since the introduction of quantum mechanics. It only takes the existence of one white crow to prove conclusively that all crows are not black.
And why would that be bad? How are we going to saturate the entire universe with our intelligence if we don’t overcome the speed of light?
Science is not more or less than a tool that is going to deliver us immortality by changing our genetic code, and making us almighty by saturating the entire universe with our intelligence in case that we can overcome the speed of light.
Science is the only tool that we have that is going to deliver the mankind what it always dreamed of. Being immortal and almighty. All that what superstition and religions promised and failed to deliver.
But I didn't say it would be bad! In fact, I would like to see these paradims overthrown very much. It would make things much more interesting and exciting.
When quantum mechanics came, it did not take anything away from the theory of relativity. It added another tool to science. The unified theory, wouldn’t it be something inclusive rather than exclusive since the absolute truth consists of all partial truths?
Is the string theory, elementary particles not being elementary but only oscillations of strings, from your perspective, of any threat to science?
Brain
Friedrich Nietzsche: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.
LISA RANDALL is a professor of physics at Harvard University, where she also earned her PhD (1987). She was a President's Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley, a postdoctoral fellow at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and a junior fellow at Harvard before joining the MIT faculty in 1991. Between 1998 and 2000, she had a joint appointment at Princeton and MIT as a full professor, and she moved to Harvard as a full professor in 2001. Her research in theoretical high energy physics is primarily related to exploring the physics underlying the standard model of particle physics. This has involved studies of supersymmetry and, most recently, extra dimensions of space.
LISA RANDALL: Particle physics has contributed to our understanding of many phenomena, ranging from the inner workings of the proton to the evolution of the observed universe. Nonetheless, fundamental questions remain unresolved, motivating speculations beyond what is already known. These mysteries include the perplexing masses of elementary particles; the nature of the dark matter and dark energy that constitute the bulk of the universe; and what predictions string theory, the best candidate for a theory incorporating both quantum mechanics and general relativity, makes about our observed world. Such questions (along with basic curiosity) have prompted my excursions into theories that might underlie currently established knowledge. Some of my most recent work has been on the physics of extra dimensions of space and has proved rewarding beyond expectation…
People entertained the idea of extra dimensions before string theory came along, although such speculations were soon forgotten or ignored. It's natural to ask what would happen if there were different dimensions of space; after all, the fact that we see only three spatial dimensions doesn't necessarily mean that only three exist, and Einstein's general relativity doesn't treat a three-dimensional universe preferentially. There could be many unseen ingredients to the universe. However, it was first believed that if additional dimensions existed they would have to be very small in order to have escaped our notice. The standard supposition in string theory was that the extra dimensions were curled up into incredibly tiny scalesó10 33 centimeters, the so-called Planck length and the scale associated with quantum effects becoming relevant. In that sense, this scale is the obvious candidate: If there are extra dimensions, which are obviously important to gravitational structure, they'd be characterized by this particular distance scale. But if so, there would be very few implications for our world. Such dimensions would have no impact whatsoever on anything we see or experience…
It was thought that extra dimensions might be present but that they would be extremely small. But our expectations changed dramatically after 1995, when Joe Polchinski, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, and other theorists recognized the importance of additional objects in string theory called branes. Branes are essentially membranesólower-dimensional objects in a higher-dimensional space. (To picture this, think of a shower curtain, virtually a two-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space.) Branes are special, particularly in the context of string theory, because there's a natural mechanism to confine particles to the brane; thus not everything need travel in the extra dimensions even if those dimensions exist. Particles confined to the brane would have momentum and motion only along the brane, like water spots on the surface of your shower curtain…
Branes allow for an entirely new set of possibilities in the physics of extra dimensions, because particles confined to the brane would look more or less as they would in a three-plus-one-dimension world; they never venture beyond it. Protons, electrons, quarks, all sorts of fundamental particles could be stuck on the brane. In that case, you may wonder why we should care about extra dimensions at all, since despite their existence the particles that make up our world do not traverse them. However, although all known standard-model particles stick to the brane, this is not true of gravity. The mechanisms for confining particles and forces mediated by the photon or electrogauge proton to the brane do not apply to gravity. Gravity, according to the theory of general relativity, must necessarily exist in the full geometry of space. Furthermore, a consistent gravitational theory requires that the graviton, the particle that mediates gravity, has to couple to any source of energy, whether that source is confined to the brane or not. Therefore, the graviton would also have to be out there in the region encompassing the full geometry of higher dimensionsóa region known as the bulkóbecause there might be sources of energy there. Finally, there is a string-theory explanation of why the graviton is not stuck to any brane: The graviton is associated with the closed string, and only open strings can be anchored to a brane.
A scenario in which particles are confined to a brane and only gravity is sensitive to the additional dimensions permits extra dimensions that are considerably larger than previously thought. The reason is that gravity is not nearly as well tested as other forces, and if it is only gravity that experiences extra dimensions, the constraints are much more permissive. We haven't studied gravity as well as we've studied most other particles, because it's an extremely weak force and therefore more difficult to precisely test. Physicists have showed that even dimensions almost as big as a millimeter would be permitted, if it were only gravity out in the higher-dimensional bulk. This size is huge compared with the scales we've been talking about. It is a macroscopic, visible size! But because photons (which we see with) are stuck to the brane, too, the dimensions would not be visible to us, at least in the conventional ways.
The concentration of the graviton near the Planck brane can, however, have an entirely different implication. If we forget the hierarchy problem for the moment, the second brane is unnecessary! That is, even if there is an infinite extra dimension and we live on the Planck brane in this infinite dimension, we wouldn't know about it. In this "warped geometry," as the space with exponentially decreasing graviton amplitude is known, we would see things as if this dimension did not exist and the world were only three-dimensional… … …
I've kind of learned to be scared of groups that offer too lofty goals.
Immortality seems even better than some fun immorality. But I don't think that has to be a goal - maybe it is one day possible, but I would not wish on our future world being saddled with the likes of its current inhabitants for more than another century or two. Some progress has to wait for a generation of stuck thinkers to die off.
I for one would be happy with some of the following more simple goals for science:
move us towards a sustainable society -
damage the earth less
eventually change human nature to be more nice
reduce the scourge of disease
push back human ignorance
give us all more leisure time
help us travel, learn, communicate more efficiently
improve our standard of life (in the 3rd world too)
make us better understand the universe
I'll be happy if I can promote science to help with some of those goals between now and when I have to die.
Is heaven or hell here on earth. Depending on our actions
March 2 2004, 2:34 PM
I agree that small steps are necessary and very beneficiary because small steps lead ultimately, in time, to major inventions that change what we consider to be our life, our daily reality like throughout our entire evolution.
All nine recommendations you made
move us towards a sustainable society -
damage the earth less
eventually change human nature to be more nice
reduce the scourge of disease
push back human ignorance
give us all more leisure time
help us travel, learn, communicate more efficiently
improve our standard of life (in the 3rd world too)
make us better understand the universe
can be accomplished through science and skeptical, critical, logical thinking and acting. That’s why it is of key importance to get skepticism out of the corner into the mainstream, where people talk about skepticism, logical and rational thinking more than religions and other fantasy superstitions because nothing good in entire history came good out of it.
The earth is already damaged and even if we were to move to nuclear and hydrogen technology over night, the stratosphere is going to be damaged for the next 20 years. The only rational way of cleaning up the mess we all made is through technology like: The ultimate aim of the project, funded by the US Department of Energy, is to create microbes with special properties, such as the ability to sequester carbon dioxide or consume toxic waste.http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994383 or Nano Technology.
The diseases are going to become irrelevant when we change our genetic code, until then new more sophisticated medicine will be coming out on regular basis
Humans are ignorant because they are not educated to think skeptically, critically, logically, rationally in terms of cause and effect, action and reaction. The world where cause and effect cannot be separated opposite to the paranormal fantasy of reversed causality. To think and act as a team
More that technology advances, more free time will we have for travel, to learn and communicate. Even right now the web cams exist and the PhACT meetings could be televised through the internet with the technology that exists today
The standard of life will definitely improve in the third world as soon as people in the third world get rid of their corrupt politicians who don’t represent the interest of their people but the interests of few ultra rich in the first world. Without the resources from the third world our economy would collapse within few months. And in order for change to come, the first step toward change is realization. Again skepticism, critical and logical thinking is the key solution!
More science advances, more will we be able to understand the origin of the universe, what went on during the big bang when galaxies shrink to almost infinite small. Do the laws of physics collapse like speculated by Stephen Hawking, and if they do, is nothing possible from within or is anything possible, or maybe something in between?
This is what Ray Kurzweil wrote about the exponential growth:
"In considering the genesis of Moore's Law, I put 49 famous computing devices over the past century on an exponential graph. From this exercise, it became apparent that the acceleration of computing power did not start with integrated circuits, but has continued through multiple paradigm shifts(electromechanical calculators, relays, vacuum tubes, transistors, and finally integrated circuits).
"Moore's Law was not the first, but the fifth paradigm, to provide exponential growth in computing. The next paradigm, which will involve computing in three dimensions rather than the two manifested in today's flat chips, will lead to computing at the molecular, and ultimately the subatomic level. We can be confident that the acceleration of computing will survive the well-anticipated demise of Moore' s Law.
"There are comparable exponential trends underlying a wide variety of other technologies: communications (both wired and wireless), brain scanning speeds and resolutions, genome scanning, and miniaturization (we are currently shrinking technology at a rate of 5.6 per linear dimension per decade). Even the rate of technological progress is speeding up, now doubling each decade. The mathematical models I've developed over the past couple of decades to describe these trends, which I call the law of accelerating returns, has proven predictive of the developments we've seen during the 1990s. From these models, I believe we can be confident of continued exponential growth in these and other technologies for the foreseeable future.
"Oh, and one more thing: we'll live a long time too. The expanding human life span is another one of those exponential trends. In the eighteenth century, we added a few days every year to human longevity; during the nineteenth century we added a couple of weeks each year; and now we're adding almost a half a year every year. With the revolutions in rational drug design, genomics, therapeutic cloning of our own organs and tissues, and related developments in bio-information sciences, we will be adding more than a year every year within ten years. So take care of yourself the old-fashioned way for just a little while longer, and you may actually get to experience the remarkable century ahead." http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0450.html
Kurzweil: We're entering an age of acceleration. The models underlying society at every level, which are largely based on a linear model of change, are going to have to be redefined. Because of the explosive power of exponential growth, the 21st century will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress at today's rate of progress; organizations have to be able to redefine themselves at a faster and faster pace.
The Law of Accelerating Returns is the acceleration of technology, and the evolutionary growth of the products of an evolutionary process. And this really goes back to the roots of biological evolution.
Evolution works through indirection. You create something and then work through that to create the next stage. And for that reason, the next stage is more powerful, and happens more quickly. And that has been accelerating ever since the dawn of evolution on this planet.
The first stage of evolution took billions of years. DNA was being created and that was very significant because it was like a little computer, and an information processing method to store the results of experiments, and to build up a knowledge base from which it could then launch experiments and codify the results.
The subsequent stages of evolution happened much more quickly. The Cambrian Explosion only took a few tens of millions of years to establish the body plan to evolve animals. And we see that evolution, like certain technologies, has become mature and stopped evolving. Evolution has concentrated on other issues, specifically higher cortical functions. And that happened much more quickly than the Cambrian Explosion. Humanoids evolved over many millions of years, and Homo sapiens over only hundreds of thousands of years. And there again, evolution used the products of its evolutionary processes, which was Homo sapiens, to create the next stage, which was human-directed technology, which really is a continuation of the cutting-edge of the evolutionary process on earth, for creating more intelligent systems.
In the first stage of human-directed technology, it took tens of thousands of years, which is what you would expect for the next stage via the wheel, or stone tools, and that kept accelerating, because when we had stone tools, we could use them to build the next stage. So a thousand years ago a paradigm shift only took a century, like the printing press. And now a paradigm shift, like the World Wide Web, is measured in only a few years’ time. The first computers were built with screwdrivers and were designed with pencil and paper, and today we use computers to create computers. A CAD designer will sit down and specify a few high-level parameters, and 12 different layers of automated designs will be done automatically. The most significant acceleration is in the paradigm shift rate itself, which I think of as the rate of technical progress. And all of these are actually not exponential, but double exponentials because not only does the process accelerate because of our evolution’s ability to use each stage of evolution to build the next stage, but also, as the process, as an area gets higher price performance, more resources get drawn into that capability.
Kurzweil: The whole 20th century, because we’ve been speeding up to this point, is equivalent to 20 years of progress at today’s rate of progress, and we’ll make another 20 years of progress at today’s rate of progress equal to the whole 20th century in the next 14 years, and then we’ll do it again in seven years. And because of the explosive power of exponential growth, the 21st century will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress at today’s rate of progress, which is a thousand times greater than the 20th century, which was no slouch to change.
The first time the rate of change was really disrupted, at least one of the early harbingers of that, was with the weavers in the English textile industry, who had had a weaving guild that had been passed down for centuries through their families. The new textile machines that suddenly emerged in the first phase of the industrial revolution destroyed the weavers’ livelihood. It seemed that employment would soon be a thing of the past, and then they realized that it instead lead to prosperity, and rather than making the same number of shirts with fewer people, they could make a whole wardrobe of shirts. The common man and woman could have well-made clothing, and then the prosperity led to the different types of pursuits, and leisure time, and industries to create the machines, and so on.
But from that time on, the idea that the “times they are a changing” became evident. You no longer expect your grandchildren to live the same lives that you did, and your lives are very different from your parents’ lives.
Today there’s an axiom that the only constant is change. But what people don’t recognize is that the world itself has changed because the greater change is accelerating. So our whole concept of what it means to be human is going to be changing, and it is going to be merging with our technology.http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0563.html
With science and technology advancing, less and less will there be need for people to look for salvation from the superstition because the results of science will by far surpass all the superstitions together to the point of superstitions becoming obsolete. The whole fabric of our social, economic, human interaction is going to change drastically. Will the skeptics play a key role in the most interesting and challenging years to come or are we going to let them outnumber us again and put us in the corner where logical, rational thinking and acting cannot be of any threat to them?
The changes that are coming faster and faster are going to affect every aspect of our life dramatically like never before
Artificial Intelligence that is being developed, that is evolving through every new microprocessor that comes on the market
+
+
=
?
Brain "The credit belongs to those who are actually in the arena, who strive valiantly; who know the great enthusiasm, the great devotions, and spend themselves in a worthy cause; who at the best, know the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if they fail, fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
If one assumes that there is some sort of "astrological force", then from the fact that there are so few serial killers, it does not follow that the force producing this effect must be small. The force could be large, but dependent on a combination of factors that is rare.
The aspects (angles between planets) I am using in the research have a 10% chance of occuring in anyone's horoscope. However, when we screen for combinations of two aspects, the odds of that occuring are now 10% of 10%, or 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.01, or 1%. Screening for three aspects reduces this by another factor of 10 to a tenth of one percent. Screening for four aspects, well, you get the picture.
Furthermore, it is not being claimed that there is a one-to-one causal relationship here. The force in question is statistical in nature. I cannot claim that someone with certain aspects will have a 100% chance of becoming a serial killer, but public healh researchers cannot claim that there is a 100% chance of a smoker dying from lung cancer either. What we are looking for is a statistical correlation. Yes, I know that "correlation does not prove causation", but this is still the best first step to take.
As for that stock market test, I do not specialize in stock market astrology (yes, there are specialties in astrology too). Call Henry Weingarten or Arch Crawford, but be warned, they charge.
So you're a Cancer, eh? Watch the mood swings. Doesn't everybody have them? Not like a Cancer Sun sign!
The aspects (angles between planets) I am using in the research have a 10% chance of occuring in anyone's horoscope. However, when we screen for combinations of two aspects, the odds of that occuring are now 10% of 10%, or 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.01, or 1%. Screening for three aspects reduces this by another factor of 10 to a tenth of one percent. Screening for four aspects, well, you get the picture.
OK. How many aspects are necessary that one gets into a car accident? And dying in the car accident would it be one more aspect? Or would being injured in the car accident be one aspect and dying of that injury be another aspects? What I am trying to get at is, how many aspects constitute an event? What I am interested is in the mechanics of aspect/event connection.
but public healh researchers cannot claim that there is a 100% chance of a smoker dying from lung cancer either.
of course they cannot say that because that would be incorrect. For how much I know, by smoking one increases chances of getting cancer from smoking by factor 30.
The point here is that by smoking one increase the chances of getting other diseases as well such as hart attack, stroke, impotence, allergies… … … and when one adds up all this, I realize that it’s time for me to stop smoking.
As for that stock market test, I do not specialize in stock market astrology (yes, there are specialties in astrology too). Call Henry Weingarten or Arch Crawford, but be warned, they charge.
OK, but I did read at your message board that the terrorist attack on 11 September was predicted by some astrologer. Do you see any danger from astrological point of view ahead and not retrospective after the event happened that something within a certain time range is going to happen? Like in the first week of month X something very dramatic is going to happen?
Do you know if Henry Weingarten and Arch Crawford are outperforming the DOW Jones index significantly? The Lucent stocks went up by 70% because telephone companies are buying new equipment after three years. When one has enough economic data and experience at disposal, one can know when is the time to buy certain stocks and when to sell.
My prediction, and NOT prophecy based on historic facts and the exponential progression curve, Moore’s law, I predict that in about 10 years from now the economic system as we know today is going to start to collapse. This prediction that costs nothing is going to either be proven right or wrong with time bringing the correct answer one way or the other.
So you're a Cancer, eh?
I don’t appear typical enough Maybe you can take a look at my website?
Watch the mood swings. Doesn't everybody have them? Not like a Cancer Sun sign!
I know about the mood swings, but I also know through psychology how to break the pattern as soon as I recognize it. Still have to recover from the shock yesterday when I read the name Carl Rogers at your web site. My mentor who is Aquarius has even more mood swings than me. And I am born on the same day 2’cond July like her father.
"What I am interested in is the mechanics of the aspect/event connection."
January 27 2004, 9:17 PM
One step at a time here. First, we have to see IF there is a statistical correlation between aspects (which are objectively observable angles between planets) and objectively verifiable events here on Earth. Once that correlation has been confirmed, we will have something to explain.
I quickly read the material in the web site but I confess that I am a bit baffled by this study.
Why serial killers? Why not a data base that in some way reflects general success in life, or lack thereof, for a very large number of people, perhaps in the millions. Some categories could include achieving elective office, having a job that pays in the top 10% of the work force, excelling in a sport, etc. Or the reciprocal of those traits, being in the bottom 10% of the work force, dying young, bottom of high school class, etc.
Would not such a situation be more convincing then a data base of only 60?
Also, should there not be some high level points that show a trend and are subject to greater drill-down statistically? A study that clearly shows, for example that babies born on the evening of a full moon tend to excell in athletics by a wide margin would be quite interesting. That could be expanded upon by month, year, planetary angularity, etc.
The computer programming for such a study is trivial if a data base is available. Why not do it?
You're right Ray. However, as a practical matter...
January 28 2004, 12:57 PM
...I had to start small. Serial killers are rare. This means that (assuming astrology works) there would have to be some sort of combination (or combinations) of factors that would make the charts stand out clearly.
I originally started with a sample of 311 suicides. I did a preliminary study and presented it to the New York Area Skeptics (NYASK). They pointed out that, since I used all 311 cases at once for hypothesis hunting, I needed a new sample to verify the preliminary results. I couldn't find any, but I did get data on serial killers. It's difficult to get data on suicides these days (privacy laws are stricter). Not the same problem with serial killers. Their birthdates are a matter of public record, and birth certificates can be obtained by non-family members in every state except Louisiana.
I have another 39 cases and "confirmed" several of the factors that from the first sample. I'm writing up the paper now. It should be ready in the next two weeks.
Eventually, all of the studies you recommended can be done. One objection to astrology (voiced by Joe Nickel (sp.) of CSICOP) is that astrologers had over 2000 years to prove astrology and they haven't done it yet. But the only way to test astrology is with statistics, and that science has only been around for a couple of hundred years. On top of that, the necessary databases and (more importantly) the necessary software has only been around for a decade. Now, however, the ducks are getting lined up in a row. I intend this study to be the first of MANY.
I mentioned in a previous post, all papers will be presented to the Skeptic community for peer review. I believe I am the first astrologer to do this. Scientific accuracy demands blistering criticism, and what better critics of astrology can be found?
But are you sure that astrology has not been tested statistically? Surely your idea is not unique. Others must have done some statistical analysis of the contentions of astrology.
A good data base might be the birthdates of the congress and the past several congresses. The dates would be known and all are successful in at least the mattter of election.
Does the Time of day enter into this equation? or just the date?
Yes, there have been other statistical tests of astrology.
January 28 2004, 2:32 PM
Unfortunately, most of them have been flawed. Like that massive study done in the 1970's to see if Sun Sign correlated withcareer. They came up with a negative result. Too bad they didn't bother to talk to some actual astrologers before they made this study. If they had, they would have found out that no astrologer ever claimed that Sun Sign is the major determinent of career (it's the sign on the Mid-Heaven, planets aspecting the Mid-Heaven, and planets in the 10th house). That whole "study" was nothing more than a "strawman fallacy" and therefore invalid.
Then there is the research of Michael Gauquelin. He DID find correlations, and this was CONFIRMED by skeptic researchers. The only remaining argument against Gauquelin's results is Geoffrey Dean's assertion that the birth data was flawed because of parental tampering!
Well I intend to do right, right from the start. And skeptics are going to be involved to make sure that there are no mistakes.
Will you devise and divulge a formula to be applied against a data base the purpose being to expose success or lack thereof through astrological correlations?
A clear methodology and set of programs or formulas would go a long way toward convincing skeptics that you are on to something. Then, execution of this process against a data base should point toward some sort of conclusion. The data base, in my opinion, should be blind to you in terms of actual data. The format and data elements would, of course be known to you.
A data base would surely have the date of birth of all study subjects, but what else is required? Is time of birth or sex required? How about latitude and longitude?
Then there is the matter of assessing the persons success in life. How is that to be judged? I would argue that all high school valedictorians are successful at that point in their lives. Is that a fair data element to be studied? Or any person ever elected to a public office is considered successful. Or any student who ever was on a varsity athletic team might be considered an athlete or must only the champions be considered?
This could be a fun little programming project if there is any clarity in method.
Where do you think I got the data for my study? I used AstroDatabank, 3.01. There are over 20,000 timed births on it, with mini-biographies included. The late Lois Rodden collected timed birth data for years. She also devised a rating system based on the accuracy of the data source. You can check them out at
The astrodatabank has a "filtering" program built in.
January 30 2004, 2:18 AM
It's possible to "filter" first for a particular trait (e.g. being a serial killer) and then filter further for aspects, sign, and house position of any particular planet. Yes, it also does combinations. Unfortunately, it won't do midpoint configurations.
What the astrodatabank 3.01 program doesn't do, the Astroinvestigator and CCRS92 programs can do. The Astroinvestigator gives a readout of ALL the sign, house, and aspects in any given sample of horoscopes. Great for hypothesis hunting. Unfortunately, it won't do the four major asteroids. The CCRS92 is an old DOS program but it can search for almost ANY individual factor or combination, inculding asteroids and midpoints.
Have you checked out the astrodatabank.com website yet? You can access individual birth data there one chart at a time.
One of the criticisms of astrology was that astrologers had over 2,000 years to prove astrology, and they haven't done it yet. Well CCRS has only been around since the late 1980's, and the other two are more recent than that. Now that we have them though, we'll be making up for lost time. Stay tuned.
Congratulations! You did indeed "get their attention". I had no doubts that you would.
Per your: "Scientific accuracy demands blistering criticism, and what better critics of astrology can be found?"
While I certainly agree that "Scientific accuracy demands blistering (perhaps instead, 'thorough review and thorough') criticism...", I think you would fare much better with "Full Members" of SSE, than with "run of the mill" skeptics from the "skeptical community" at large. Most of the latter are poorly informed in such specific matters, and are simply "true disbelievers" (i.e. naysayers), to quote Bill Beaty of SSE, who posts here from time to time (see earlier threads). This is not to say that there are not highly-qualified and well-informed members of the (organized) skeptical community; there are! The problem is in separating "the wheat from the chaff", and the "chaff" can waste tremendous amounts of your time and energy.
At least, with SSE (which has plenty of healthy skeptics in its membership, I might add), "Full Members" have already passed through a rather rigorus "filter" as to their scientific qualifications. Let's talk privately about specific contacts within SSE.
Cheers, and best of luck,
Dave Leiter
PS: Study for yourself, any "flak" that this post draws. It should be informative.
Maybe you can take a look at my website? 