"I mean unification as simply a concept to be discussed like whether or not frogs evolved before toads (and about as important) and TB's react as though I've raped Krishna's mother."
Ohh God I would love to have heard some of the conversations you have had about that when they had those kinds of reactions! ________________________________ From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 11:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's declining brain functioning ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : I think of believers as those who happen to believe something in any given moment but are just as liable to chuck that belief and move on to another belief given enough evidence. That is the nature of us humanoids and one that, no matter how much some here lament that case, will not change no matter how much some might think this is silliness or narrow-mindedness. Nothing remains static, surely you know this as a scientist of sorts. I disagree that believers change according to evidence, that isn't the nature of belief that I've seen, quite the opposite. Religious ideas are arrived out without evidence and they are hung on to because it defines who they are, often from birth. Anything rather than face the facts. The religious can be very sensitive. Luckily most religious beliefs are of the unprovable variety so you can believe what you like without fear of someone actually proving it otherwise. A scientist drops ideas when they have proved to be no longer relevant or useful as explanations, it's the price of progress. Best not to be defined by theories in particle physics though, that's a bit weird. And that's the trouble with the TMO as the theories are all testable and aren't shared by any working physicists that I come across in my readings. I'm often baffled by the hostility on here towards the idea that consciousness isn't the unified field, after all, it's one of the most fringe ideas you'll come across. Real career ending stuff. That's Marshy's dark legacy, he got people thinking a mere idea about the origin of matter is some sort of God construct rather than a way of understanding the behaviour of sub atomic particles. People get sensitive because they've been taught it's a condition of the brain, the highest human ideal, and the most important thing to aspire to. It's funny thing to get devoted to if you read a lot of physics, but it's that dichotomy that get's people's backs up. I mean unification as simply a concept to be discussed like whether or not frogs evolved before toads (and about as important) and TB's react as though I've raped Krishna's mother. That's silliness. Most of the rest of us fall between two stools and probably don't care too much either way as most beliefs don't challenge the ability to live a normal life - Unless you are a Jehova's Witness or something - The lesson surely, is not to be defined by beliefs, especially when the person you got them from turned out to be just another bozo on the bus...
