--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental > > technique) is possible, but you should understand that "law of nature" in > > science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. > > > > A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be > > false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. > > > > For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is > > perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of > > light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. > > > > The "laws" of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you > > try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what > > to do. > > I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is > *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably > constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If > you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how > fast it will go.
And maybe it's worth mentioning that slowing it down with a thought aint gonna happen, just like cancelling gravity with a thought isn't going to. Physical laws happen for a reason. > It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets > are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. > You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much > as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall > *always* towards larger objects. > > In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable > due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, > where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole > body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words > spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? > > > > IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it > > will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), > > How about when doing the sutra as instructed? > > and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those > special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of > the universe, not a total rewrite, > > Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts > are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much > so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental > level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness > is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of > everything else. > > If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out > of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine > if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the > wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead > of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of > a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we > can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF > we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of > gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. > How about that! > > let's have some evidence to back these claims > up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how > things like "positivity" are transmitted through the subatomic > world to create "peace" at a distance. There isn't a theory that > even remotely explains what things like that might mean to nature > itself without dipping into the sort of drippy new age concepts > couched in vague sciencey sounding terms like "coherence in > collective conciousness" that don't actually mean a whole lot > unless you've brought into the TM belief system. And they will > require a rewrite of everything to do with society and psychology. > > If you want to rewrite human understanding get some evidence > to back up the wild ideas! Better still, step back from the TMO > belief system and see your post the way non-believers see it, > it all sounds completely barking to me... > > > > any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us > to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could > be observed in Newton's time. > > > > Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least > > not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an > > unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific > > theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it > > in any realistic way. > > > > > > Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human > > nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least > > somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. > > > > Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the > > universe that might result from practicing them is "really real" by MMY''s > > definition, is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not > > floating and so on are actually possible. > > > > > > L > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do > > > so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of > > > course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we > > > don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all > > > the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law > > > of gravity etc. are inherently somehow "anti" true laws of nature or even > > > negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and > > > all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent > > > or they are not. If "not" then they are evidently not "laws". Riddle me > > > that one Batman. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, > > > > > > experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any > > > > > > conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a > > > > > > metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a > > > > > > scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as > > > > > > different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems > > > > > > like the best approach. > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position > > > > > on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that > > > > > the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented > > > > > his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the > > > > > issue is significantly controversial. > > > > > > > > > > The "best approach" in this case is faute de mieux. > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and > > > > > > brain are psychological rather than having anything to > > > > > > do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, > > > > > > hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible > > > > > > that showed mind and brain were identical in every way > > > > > > and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? > > > > > > And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse > > > > > > was possible to prove, what would that do for you? > > > > > > > > > > "The reality of the situation" is that hypothetically, > > > > > Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but > > > > > not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by > > > > > levitation) but not falsified. > > > > > > > > I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward > > > > bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that > > > > levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique > > > > would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. > > > > > > > > But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs > > > > and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power > > > > required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the > > > > investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a > > > > demonstration of levitation in which there would be no detectable > > > > physical anomaly, such as magnetic fields etc. > > > > > > > > The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical > > > > explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the > > > > un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the > > > > giant hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial > > > > fart rays, or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one > > > > off the ground. > > > > > > > > One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more > > > > scientific knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical > > > > explanations as a result seem to have less lustre. > > > > > > > > When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally > > > > awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an > > > > electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they > > > > are different in every brain, though typically in the same general > > > > areas. Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, > > > > and interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates > > > > words. > > > > > > > > If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for > > > > each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to > > > > work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor > > > > or tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a > > > > general plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for > > > > tat correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is > > > > damaged that leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different > > > > ways of looking at the same process. > > > > > > > > For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain > > > > could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. > > > > Yet she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that > > > > consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the > > > > brain, and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored > > > > in a separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain > > > > pulls all this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is > > > > currently unknown. > > > > > > > > If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain > > > > incapacitate the mind? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if > > > > the brain is damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host? > > > > > > > > The research that shows computers analysing the electrical activity of > > > > the brain can predict what decision a brain will come to many seconds > > > > before it becomes a conscious experience is another area that make one > > > > wonder what is going on, with the mind seemingly the horse behind the > > > > cart being pulled along. > > > > > > > > All this is leading to attempts to create functional computer > > > > analogical models of the human brain, that can use input, and can be > > > > taught just like us. > > > > > > > > There is this this little robot in my home that vacuums the floor. It > > > > maps out the space and vacuums around the edge and then vacuums > > > > everything in between, avoiding obstacles along the way, and when the > > > > power gets low, it returns directly to its battery charging station. Is > > > > this the the rudiments of conscious behaviour? To do its job, the > > > > machine has to learn something, though it is far far less complex than > > > > what we do. > > > > > > > > If we say the ground of existence is consciousness, then this little > > > > machine must have some kind of consciousness. On the other hand if we > > > > say consciousness is some special kind of thing that is somehow > > > > inserted into the world via us - human life - there is the problem of > > > > the mechanics of how this would work. Is it a soul? How do souls hang > > > > out when they are not associated with a body? Are there mechanics > > > > involved in getting a soul to inhabit a body, and what are their > > > > characteristics? If there are no characteristics, how could anything > > > > happen? > > > > > > > > There are some scientists and philosophers who feel this nit picking > > > > about consciousness might be asking the wrong questions, that is, the > > > > questions that are being asked create the problem to be solved because > > > > they are red herrings. > > > > > > > > My view, at the moment, is being through having an internal structure > > > > becomes conscious, that being is pre-conscious, and so the story goes > > > > that being and consciousness are slightly different. But in this scheme > > > > mind and brain are the same, as that is the internal structure. This > > > > POV of course is really nonsense, because to say anything you have to > > > > make up concepts, or adopt ones others make up, to manipulate and > > > > arrange in relation to one another, to explain how you experience > > > > things. If you experience everything in silence without a thought, no > > > > question arises, it's all there, and that is that. > > > > > > > > Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you > > > > referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a > > > > requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and > > > > that one only recently, give that as a requirement. And Mahahishi said, > > > > for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti > > > > never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, > > > > how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, > > > > having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? If I were to > > > > speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be > > > > either he wanted people to keep at the practice, or he was just using > > > > it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps > > > > both. And writings in Maharishi's tradition (and other traditions as > > > > well) warn of following the path of special powers, if you want > > > > enlightenment. > > > > > > > > Using levitation as a requirement for enlightenment is a good way for > > > > keeping people in place, for if that were true, no one in the absence > > > > of a concrete, verifiable demonstration could ever displace the > > > > assumption that Maharishi was in unity, and that they, in the absence > > > > of that demo, could never aspire to usurp his position as a source of > > > > wisdom. That said, if no one practicing these techniques ever really > > > > levitates, it would mean the TM panoply of spiritual techniques is a > > > > demonstrable failure for achieving the sought-for end. > > > > > > > > Maharishi said that the TM-Sidhi programme would shorten the path to > > > > enlightenment by many years. I do not know if that is true, but mental > > > > techniques in this business are tools to achieve an end, not an end in > > > > themselves. To achieve an end, sometimes you have to use certain tools, > > > > and then at some point discard those tools, and pick up others. And at > > > > the end, maybe tools are not needed, having accomplished their task. > > > > > > > > > >
