--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > [...] > > This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts > > of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand > > but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! > > > > THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured > events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage > is real, etc., the theory is "waiting in the wings."
Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. > > > Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic > > awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing > > as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question > > as the answer will most likely be another step back from > > what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all > > the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are > > agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, > > at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. > > > > See above. Also, if one sees the universe as a connectionist system, then, a > localized connectionist system might be a good simulation of the whole, if > the correspondence of the various parts is close enough. > > In a sense, Unity Consciousness can be said to be a simulation of that Whole, > assuming the above. Illusion of simulation I would say. > > > > > > You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? > > > > > > > > > > Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that > > > all fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. > > > > > > > > > K, > > > > K? > > > > Typo for L. I did guess that. > L >
