--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > I call you on every personal slight just to underline > your style of conversation here.
Oh, for pete's sake, Curtis, it's just as much your "style of conversation" as it is mine. > > 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. That was *exactly* your point, and I got it the first time. > > > 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. I neither mischaracterized nor obfuscated, Curtis. Here's what I said to start with: "Actually, I think he was mocking people like you, Curtis, right down to your propensity to make something sinister out of a self-deprecating gag." > So far all you have demonstrated is that you misunderstood > what I was saying. You've asserted that over and over, but I'm pretty sure you know it's false. > > > 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. But you don't "speculate," you *assert*, e.g.: "This is part of his game. He makes it seem as if he is mocking the idea that his meditation could cause a quake to attempt rapport with people who don't share his actual belief that in fact his meditation does effect the environment. It is a way to mask the hubris of his true beliefs." <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. And didn't. > 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 didn't replace an actual response. The actual response was "Circular argument." "Sophist trick" was a characterization of "Circular argument." > It is not circular in any way it is a fact of nature > and even math. Zero times any number is still zero. Sophist trick. As you know, the "circular" part is the assumption that there is zero effect in either case. If there were an effect with many people, but no effect with a single individual, "zero times any number is still zero" would be irrelevant. And in any case, even if there *is* no effect, there's still a big difference in the *degree of hubris* of the respective beliefs. "Zero times any number is still zero" doesn't apply at all. > > > 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. (Curtis has no response to this.) > > 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. What request? You made no request. > And you do appear to have fallen for the fallacy I don't > know how to sugar coat it. <snicker> Like you would if you could. And of course what you're calling a "fallacy" has nothing to do with anything; it's a red herring that you've thrown in to confuse the issue. A sophist trick, in other words. > > > More of nothing is still nothing. You might want to > > > write that down. > > > > ROTFL! > > So you have nothing to add, gotcha. Nothing to add to the fact that you're trying to use a circular argument that isn't even *relevant*, no. Except maybe to comment on your extreme pomposity. <snip> > > > 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. You don't *want* to. You prefer to assert the negative as if it were an absolute certainty. My formulation is actually more scientific; yours is scientistic. <snip> > > 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. Did somebody say either of us does?? Or is that another straw man sophist trick? > > 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're WAY off the rails on this one, Curtis. I've said nothing that even remotely suggests I understand quantum mechanics. > > > 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. What does "have it in context" mean?? And how does that relate to my purportedly having "special knowledge" because I've "read a bunch of analogies in Ken Wilbur [sic] books"?? > > 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. I'M NOT DISCUSSING QUANTUM MECHANICS, Curtis. I don't know where or how you went wrong here. The Penrose quote happens to be about quantum mechanics, but that fact has nothing to do with the point I was making, as I said quite explicitly in my parenthetical above. > > > 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? That *what* means?? <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." That's what *you* said, Curtis, "some new thing." I was *agreeing* with you. It would have to be a "new thing" because the "old things" don't account for it. > > > 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? WHAT speculation?? Curtis, you've descended into near-total incoherence. <snip> > > > 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 Well, there's a nice bit of deception right there. In this exchange I've identified one sophist trick after another. > 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? The issue was the respective degree of *hubris*, Curtis, in the two beliefs. <snip> > > > > > 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. And I was involved in lengthy discussions on alt.m.t with Andrew Skolnick, documenting any number of his misstatements and misleading statements about how it all came about. You believed Skolnick's version. I was skeptical because we'd seen so clearly what a liar he was on any number of other topics. There were holes in his account of the Chopra mess big enough to drive a truck through. I have my own suspicions about what happened, but I'm not going into them here. <snip> > > > 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. I never even *suggested* that, much less "insisted" on it. I can't imagine how you came up with this notion. I'm afraid the confusion is yours. (Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not just another sophist trick.)
