--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
** True, but not apparent unaided by instruments. My analogy is not exact. 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? ** Yes it does, but I thought you were examining ways in which science might verify psychic phenomena. > > 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. ** You lost me. I am going on personal experience and attempting to figure out how such an experience could be detected by instruments. The reason I thought of higher frequencies is because that is what they look and sound like. As to how to achieve such sensitivities in such instruments is beyond me. > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
