--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Here you are huffing and puffing, and he's chortling. > > > > > > > > My opinions are "huffing and puffing?" What an odd > > > > characterization. > > > > > > Oh, I don't think so. > > > > > > > Is that what you are doing here by communicating your > > > > opinions, huffing and puffing? > > > > > > Sometimes I huff and puff, sure. > > > > > > > Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way > > > > to diminish them? > > > > > > Just pointing out the contrast. He made a joke, and > > > you're having a tizzy *because he made a joke*. > > > > I used it as a platform to express my views. The term > > "tizzy" is another mischaractorization mean to diminish > > my post. > > Oooh, you're so *sensitive*. Sorry you don't like the term.
I call you on every personal slight just to underline your style of conversation here. > Again, my point was the *contrast*. Chopra makes a wisecrack, > and you immediately start lecturing about how his making > a joke is evidence of his duplicity. Sorry you missed my point, I have explained it enough times. > > > The intent of my post seems to have been missed by you > > but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their > > other outrageously unsupported statements seem more > > plausible. > > No, Curtis, I got your point. It wasn't that complicated. > I'm suggesting it's not well founded and just plain unfair > as applied to Chopra. If you had stated that without the obfuscation of your mischaractorizations it would have helped make this point. So far all you have demonstrated is that you misunderstood what I was saying. > > > I find those techniques fascinating as I do your inability > > to even get the point. It worked on you. > > It "worked on me" only if your point is *valid*, Curtis. > But that's just what we're disagreeing about. > > BTW, here again you're asserting *intention* on Chopra's > part, after having said in your previous post that your > point *didn't* depend on his intention. It doesn't but I can still speculate. Maybe he is just completely whacked out and doesn't know what he is saying half the time. > > <snip> > > > > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an > > > > > earthquake with his meditation. > > > > > > > > You are welcome to your opinion. I think people believing > > > > their meditation causes world peace also qualifies. > > > > > > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference > > > between somebody thinking their meditation causes > > > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating > > > together might facilitate world peace. > > > > Not at all. None in fact. > > <cackle> Interesting image you are invoking. Doesn't take the place of a reasoned response. Let's see if you can address my point... > > > A whole group of people with no effect is no more anything > > than one person with no effect. > > Circular argument. Now you're really hauling out the > sophist tricks. So you think the term "sophist trick is a catch all term that replaces actual response huh? It is not circular in any way it is a fact of nature and even math. Zero times any number is still zero. > > > This is a common mental fallacy that draws on our > > natural tendency to believe that more of something will > > produce a bigger effect. The problem here is that > > there is no proven mechanism that is being multiplied, > > it was just asserted by an authority figure. One whom > > you claim you do not take at face value, and yet here > > you have. You have fallen for his routine as > > effectively as any Purusha. > > Not sure if you're referring to MMY or Chopra. You seem > to be saying that not taking someone at face value means > one can't possibly entertain any of their ideas as > possibilities, but that's obviously not the case. > > Plus which, you got all upset because I used the words > "huffing and puffing" and "tizzy," but look at how > you're using the phrase "fallen for his routine" to > diminish my opinions. Practice what you preach! I respond with parity. I made the request and you ignored it. And you do appear to have fallen for the fallacy I don't know how to sugar coat it. > > > More of nothing is still nothing. You might want to > > write that down. > > ROTFL! So you have nothing to add, gotcha. > > As to "no proven mechanisms," see my post in response to > Hugo in this thread. > > <snip> > > > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs > > > > > to defend them from unfair attack. > > > > > > > > BREAKING NEWS: I know that. But you aren't defending > > > > any "unfair" attack here you and we both know it. > > > > > > If I hadn't thought it was unfair, I wouldn't have > > > spoken up. And if you'd known that one doesn't have to > > > share a person's beliefs to defend them from unfair > > > attack, you wouldn't have suggested I was defending > > > him because I thought he could cause an earthquake > > > with his meditation. > > > > This twist wont work. I never asked you if you believed > > he could cause an earthquake with his mind and you know it. > > I was asking yo to clarify your own position on his > > teaching about the influence of our minds on the world > > Except that you just got done insisting there was no > difference between these two. Ooopsie! Completely different levels. Things can both be different and the same on different levels of analysis. The first is more obviously bogus than the second claim, that is what makes the joke work. What makes the deception work is that we have a natural predisposition to think that more of something might have more of an effect. > > > and you dodged it. But you answered that you wouldn't rule > > it out > > How is that "dodging" it?? > > Two sophist tricks, one right after the other. (Note that > my main point wasn't addressed at all.) > > And here comes another one: > > <snip> > > It is your straw man, your pretending I don't understand > > his joke. > > Never even *vaguely* suggested you didn't understand his > joke. You just think there's something sinister behind it, > and I don't. > > Sometimes a joke is just a joke, as Freud might say. Well that may be the right summation. I can't disagree with either statement. > > <snip> > > > > BREAKING NEWS: It doesn't go into the environment. > > > > > > We don't know that. > > > > We do know that it has no measurable effect on the > > environment. > > What we know is that if it has any effect on the > environment, we haven't been able to measure it. OK you can parse all your statements of scientific facts that carefully if you need to to allow for Maharishi style speculations about how the world works if you want. I usually don't need to. We have not thoery to support such as assertion and no measurement. > > > You are buying into woo woo speculation and I am not. > > No, I'm leaving the door open a crack, not "buying > into" it. (Another loaded phrase, BTW.) > > > And framing my stating the current level of measurement > > of our personal effect on the environment as idiotic is > > just your unpleasant habit rearing its ugly head again. > > I think it's idiotic to slam the door closed on the > grounds that the current level of measurement hasn't > been able to nail down any effect. > > You might want to look at the article in Discover > I recommended to wayback about Roger Penrose's latest > hypothesis concerning gravity as the agent that > collapses the wave function: Neither of us has the background to understand such concepts in context. > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg > > Of objections to his hypothesis, Penrose says: > > "You can say we haven't seen any violation of quantum > mechanics, but that's absolutely what you'd expect, > because *no experiment has ever been performed that comes > remotely close to the level you'd need to see any > violations*. So unless you try to get to this level I'm > aiming for, it's not at all surprising that we haven't > been able to see any deviations" (emphasis added). > > You need to read the whole thing for the context, and > of course if the experiments he's having performed don't > validate his hypothesis, his point is irrelevant. But if > they confirm it, the fact that no violations were > previously seen would be a function of the level of > measurement being off, not that there were no violations. > > That's the *kind* of thing for which I'd like to leave > the door open a crack with regard to mental influences > on physical events. (I'm NOT saying Penrose's hypothesis > applies in any way to the current issue. I'm just > highlighting the question of whether we know how to > measure what we're looking for.) You can pretend to understand quantum mechanics without the required educational background if you want to. I choose not to. > > > You think you have special knowledge because you have > > read a bunch of analogies in Ken Wilbur books. > > <guffaw> Your presentation of the above quote as if you have it in context confirms my suspicions. > > Wilber (note spelling) doesn't draw the kind of > quantum-mechanical/consciousness analogies you're > referring to. In fact, he argues very strongly against > them in an essay I've often recommended, *including > to you*. Double OOOOOOPsie! OK I got the source wrong for you fantasy that you can discuss quantum mechanics meaningfully. Duly noted including the spelling. > > > I do not share that delusion that I know what quantum > > mechanics is really saying and how it might apply to > > the physical world > > Nor do I. But I'm not even arguing for that! I have no > idea what the mechanism might be. But you know that it means we need to keep the door open a crack about people's mental states creating world peace? > > > because I can follow a description of Schrodinger's Cat > > outside its proper mathematical context. > > You're trying to jam all sorts of words into my mouth. > I never made such a claim, nor would I. Yet another > sophist trick. > > <snip> > > > > So unless you are proposing that the mechanism of what > > > > affects the world is some new thing > > > > > > If it affects the world, *of course* it's some new thing. > > > > You and Chopra, masters of the innuendo. > > Huh?? Innuendo of what? Something "new." > > > So what might that be? Maharishi thinks it is the > > impersonal aspect of God. > > No clue what it might be. Then why make the speculation? > > <snip> > > > > > And I don't think you should be making accusations when > > > > > you can't tell the difference between what he believes > > > > > and what he doesn't believe. > > > > > > > > My whole post started with this distinction. > > > > > > No, your post started--and has continued--by *conflating* > > > the two. > > > > Not true. I showed how he was using an obviously absurd > > belief to make his other beliefs look more plausible. > > That's what I mean by conflating the two, your assertion > that he's doing *this* to accomplish *that*. That is causality not conflation. I am keeping the ideas separate by many concepts that distinguish them including that the first is more obviously false and the second less obviously false. > > > And you fell for it stating that a whole bunch of people > > with no effect is completely different than one person > > with no effect. > > Nope, putting words in my mouth again. The *belief* in one > effect is very different from a belief in the other effect. > And I don't assume there's no effect. Based on what? > > > You are demonstrating my point about his technique perfectly. > > I'm disputing that there's a "technique" involved. You > have no evidence for that. I presented my opinion and you didn't buy it, fair enough. > > > You say you are agnostic but you have already bought > > in to the biggest bogus jump, the fallacy that a lot > > of people will have a bigger effect of nothing than > > one person. > > Curtis, the more words you try to shovel into my mouth, > the more noticeable is the pile they make when they > fall out. And my goodness, the sophistical twisting! Unlike you who accuses that I am being deceptive without proof I will give you mine: Judy: > > > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference > > > between somebody thinking their meditation causes > > > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating > > > together might facilitate world peace. > > So what is the gigantic difference you assert then? The number of people? The assumed collective effect? What makes the second claim less woo woo speculation than the first? > > <snip> > > > > > Charlatan, maybe, in the sense of being deluded about > > > > > the validity of his claims. But not a con man. > > > > > > > > Then you would have to be able to read his mind wouldn't > > > > you? > > > > > > Very low probability. Vanishingly low probability. > > > > > > > Having seen his actions with JAMA I have a very good idea > > > > which it is. > > > > > > Oh, please. What happened with JAMA is not at all clear. > > > > It was to me. > > Quite possibly because you don't know all that much > about the twists and turns involved. Of the two of us I was the only one with direct information from JAMA at the time since I was quoted in the article and spent a lot of time following the story. > > > Plus I have the added information about his duplicitous > > statements about his first book which was written by > > Purusha. He worked their PR machine like a rented mule > > He did indeed. > > > and then skipped off when his career took off using > > reworked Maharishi terms like "field of possibilities" > > instead of "field of all possibilities." > > Right. There's more than one possible interpretation > of why he did that, though. Different discussion. > > > He is a slippery con who can't hold his own in debates > > with people wise to his moves. > > "Wise to his moves" = disagree with his beliefs. > > None of which makes a strong case that he doesn't > believe in what he teaches. Agreed. > > > One of his moves is to use statements like "my meditation > > caused an earthquake" to mask his actual belief that lots > > of people with no measurable effect on the environment > > is of of a completely different class of belief than his > > earthquake joke. > > > > It is a confusion you share. > > I disagree with your interpretation and imputation of > motives. (And to refer to my disagreement as "confusion" > is your final sophist trick in this post.) I used the term confusion to explain why until this post you continued to insist that I was saying that Chopra believed he could cause earthquakes. You finally corrected this misunderstanding in this post so now we are in a position to say you understand what I am saying and disagree. My use of the term was the opposite of sophistry I was trying to get you to think about it more so you would stop misstating my position. It worked. For now. >
