--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> wrote: > > > > "...Yagyas and intercessory prayer are different but they both seem to rely > > on 'action at a distance' through some kind of non-physical intervention > > via the human mind and experience. The philosophical conundrum here is how > > does something that is non-physical affect a physical entity. A physicist > > would currently have to rely on gravity, the strong interaction, the weak > > force, or the electromagnetic force to attempt to explain such a thing. > > Saying it is 'consciousness' does not help at present because scientists > > cannot agree on what consciousness is or whether it can actually do > > anything." > > > > Agreed, just as scientists have been able to extend the range of their > > senses by invention, we need finer instrumentation, and a way to filter out > > the grosser vibrations to be able to sense these other phenomena. By using > > conventional crude apparatus, there is little more to discover, imo. > > The current approach is based on taking physical phenomenon as a baseline and > continuing to discover based on that paradigm. What is needed is an approach > that assumes the presence of phenomena in higher frequency ranges (x1000), > similar to the discovery of fields in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum.
I have never quite been able to grasp what 'higher frequency ranges' in relation to psychic phenomena means. It is a scientific term, but it is being applied to what? X-rays and Gamma rays are a higher frequency range, but they are entirely physical. Also, if the universe is in a real sense a unity, there is a unified field, does this not imply that the spiritual value of life and the physical value of life are one and the same? I have always taken the arguments that there are more subtle undetectable levels or higher frequencies to mean that I will never be able to detect what is being talked about, and so, I will never be able to disconfirm what is being said because it will always be beyond me, and therefore, the speaker who is discussing this with me will always be able to be right, at least in his/her own mind. This is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, an informal logical fallacy. Scientists work the opposite way. If you can demonstrate what you say, then they will accept what you say. Otherwise you have to keep working at it to come to a positive result. The absence of a result does not demonstrate there is something more that is undetected. It does not mean something might never be there, it just means you do not know. Everything we actually know is direct experience, seeing, cognition right now. Everything else is memory, inference, belief (assuming something is true without any evidence it is so), repeating what others say they think is real and so on. What we actually know for sure is not very extensive. Enlightenment, in my view, is what shows us what we know for sure, but my saying that does not make the statement true or real for someone who has not had this experience. I would say those who do have this experience probably know a lot less than they knew before they had it. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > There have been a number of large well-designed studies > > > > > recently, such as the Templeton study, of 'intercessionary > > > > > prayer', which seem a lot like yagyas. These studies failed > > > > > to show any effect. > > > > > > > > Is intercessory prayer *enough* like yagyas to extrapolate > > > > the results of the prayer tests to yagyas? I can think of > > > > several differences that could render such extrapolation > > > > pretty weak. > > > > > > Judy, Yagyas and intercessory prayer are different but they both seem to > > > rely on 'action at a distance' through some kind of non-physical > > > intervention via the human mind and experience. The philosophical > > > conundrum here is how does something that is non-physical affect a > > > physical entity. A physicist would currently have to rely on gravity, the > > > strong interaction, the weak force, or the electromagnetic force to > > > attempt to explain such a thing. Saying it is 'consciousness' does not > > > help at present because scientists cannot agree on what consciousness is > > > or whether it can actually do anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Psychic, long-distance phenomena have been studied for years > > > > > without making a dent in the scientific community as the > > > > > results have never been clear cut, and studies have been > > > > > found to contain serious flaws which became evident when > > > > > replication attempts failed, such as the Targ-Puthoff long > > > > > distance viewing study many years ago. The result of this > > > > > study seems to have been mentioned by MMY in the Science of > > > > > Being and Art of Living as an established fact, but in fact, > > > > > the result was disproved. > > > > > > > > Or rather, the results were not confirmed, right? > > > > > > Yes, not confirmed, the null hypothesis confirmed. 'Proven' is loose > > > usage. > > > > > > > Do you have a cite for this? > > > > > > Marks, D.F. & Kammann, R. (1980). The Psychology of the Psychic. Buffalo, > > > New York: Prometheus Books.ISBN 0-87975-121-5 (cloth) > > > > > > I read this many years ago and I think there may be a second edition. It > > > went over the Targ-Puthoff remote viewing experiments. As I recall, a > > > replication of the experiment failed to confirm. Their subsequent > > > investigation showed that the replicators had removed verbal queues that > > > allowed the graders to match up locations with drawings. This had > > > something to do with how the hits and misses of remote viewing experiment > > > were categorised. When they were able to get raw data from Targ and > > > Putoff, they found such verbal information in the data. When the same > > > data was truly blinded, the remote viewing failed with the original > > > experimental data. > > > > > > The Templeton Study was done by Herbert Benson. > > > http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(05)00649-6/abstract > > > > > >
