--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > Since you turned me on to this article I know you understand his
> point
> > which is made in the rest of the article. In his book Sam Harris
> > points out that irrational beliefs are different only in content.
> > They are based on ancient scriptures dictating to modern people
> > things that cannot or have not been proved.
>
> Define "irrational."
1.
1. Not endowed with reason.
2. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity;
incoherent, as from shock.
3. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment:
an irrational dislike.
2.
1. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length
does not fit the metric pattern.
2. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics. Of or relating to an irrational number.
So it is not rational to believe things for which there is no proof.
You may think something is worth testing, but
if there is no proof, reasonable people don't assert its truth.
People who believe things that have already been proved
false are afflicted with a loss of usual or normal mental clarity.
>
> Note that Harris very explicitly does *not* rule out the
> idea that the mind can have an effect on the physical
> world. Is it irrational for him not to rule it out, given
> that it hasn't been proved? He doesn't seem at all
> inclined to assert that it's "patently absurd."
He may or may not assert that hovering in the air is patently absurd.
He does not address this phenomenon. But he would see
that there is no evidence of it happening yet. So the belief in flying
is not based on anyone's experience, so it is not rational.
He is referring to things that people experience, not things they hope
to experience. He is talking about things that
can be tested, not things that cannot be tested because they have not
happened yet. His open mindedness is a nice reminder
to skeptics that we need to keep pushing the limits of testing claims.
MMY's claims have been tested and he has failed. Now
all that is left is a belief with no evidence. I agree with Sam that
we don't know if the mind can effect the physical world yet.
But Uri Geller and MMY have not advanced our understanding with their
claims of miracles.
>
> > The authority based belief systems all have this flaw.
> > If you had been given the flying sutra blind, without all the hype,
> > would you conclude that you were about to stay in the air?
>
> I didn't conclude that even *with* the hype, Curtis.
>
> However, if I'd had no idea what was "supposed" to
> happen, but had the same subjective experiences,
> there would have come a point when I suddenly
> recognized what was supposed to happen, because at
> times, at the apex of a hop, I have the sense for
> a split-second that I'm not going to come down again.
> This is a *visceral* sense, not any kind of
> intellectual notion. It's something my body knows.
>
> That split-second is only a split-second; it doesn't
> last. But it's an instant in which the potential
> becomes not just crystal clear but self-evident: If I
> were able to maintain the exact state I'm in at that
> moment, I'd stay in the air.
>
> (Note that even *with* this experience, hoping to
> fly is not why I practice the levitation sutra and
> the rest of the TM-Sidhis techniques. I practice
> them because they're enjoyable and have beneficial
> effects in activity that are well worth the time
> spent.)
I would never challenge your right to practice something that gives
you pleasure or benefit.
I'm glad you have found something that you value. My comments are
directed to MMY's
organization that promotes the idea that people can fly but have shown
no proof that even remotely suggests
that someday people will fly. Hopping is not the first stage of
flying, it is the last stage of hopping around.
It also hurts your back so I hope you are careful. What you may feel
during the experience has nothing to do with
the reality of it. When I practiced flying I would have described it
the way you have. I think you have a pretty grounded
view of its place in your life and a healthy "let's see" attitude
about the more extravagant claims. I would love to be proved
wrong about people flying but there are more obvious things to test
right now, especially in medical areas.
>
> > But "Nature Speaking English" (Domash's term for MMY) proclaimed
> > that is shall be so, despite such a dismal track record of anyone
> > actually doing it. He even uses yogic scriptures to back up his
> > claim. So there is no reason to believe, other than his word that
> > it is so, that you will someday float in the air.
>
> Plus all the (admittedly anecdotal) accounts of
> people levitating, throughout history and across
> cultures.
Most of them are in advocacy pieces whose purpose is to make a person
seem more special. The Christian tradition has a few of them.
When you read the details of those "Saints" lives you see evidence of
mental afflictions that we understand much better today. Now I know that
you read the news papers with a healthy skepticism concerning
fantastic claims, why do you switch that off when reading fantastic
stories from long ago?
Fantastic claims require more fantastic proof than "so and so said
they saw it" right?
>
> Just for the record, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are
> "scriptures" only in a generic sense. They're actually
> a practical instruction manual for development of
> consciousness.
That was unnecessary spin. A bit slippery for my taste.
>
> > As far as Sam's other point that amazing claims can and should be
> > tested...MMY has had how many years to put up or shut up with
> > flying?
>
> Harris is talking about testing claims that something
> *has* occurred, not that it *will* occur at some point.
> Obviously, you can't "test" a claim with an open-ended
> time frame.
>
> You know better than that, Curtis.
So you pick "wishful thinking then" Good choice. I choose both,
wishful thinking
for you and deception for the guys collecting the "International Money
Orders" for
a "flying" technique. Don't you see that people's bodies are getting
too old for
this nonsense to continue forever? I really meant it about your back
Judy. This
unnatural spine pounding is gunna bite you someday. Have you gotten
an X-ray of
your lower discs? You might want to check that out sometime.
>
> > When do we celebrate the 30th year of no one flying?
> >
> > "Now, scientists tend to be dogmatically opposed to
> > > looking at this kind of phenomenon -- at telepathy, for instance,
> > > because there's been so much fraud and wishful thinking."
> >
> > Take your pick.
>
> How, um, clever of you to leave out the rest of the
> paragraph, not to mention the following question and
> answer:
Yeah what a deception since your whole post was included in my post.
I chose the section that addressed the issue.
>
> H: Science generally has been eager to divest itself of the
> spookiness of this area. But I think that kind of phenomenon is
> fascinating and worth looking into. And it may be that minds have
> some effect upon the physical world that we currently can't explain.
> But the way we will explain it is scientifically.
>
> S: It sounds like you're open-minded to the possibility of telepathy -
> - things that we might classify as psychic. You're saying it's
> entirely possible that they might be true and science at some point
> will be able to prove them.
>
> H: Yeah, and there's a lot of data out there that's treated in most
> circles like intellectual pornography that attests to there being a
> real phenomenon here. I just don't know. But I've had the kinds of
> experiences that everyone has had that seem to confirm telepathy or
> the fact that minds can influence other minds.
Being open-minded about telepathy is a long way from believing in
humans flying.
But you seem to be missing his point. We need to test this stuff and
weed out the
things that don't pan out. We shouldn't just assume we know
beforehand and that
good advise applies to skeptics who discount things before they are
tested.
I gave flying a 10 year twice a day test and flew with the biggest
groups in the world,
so my opinion that no one is flying is not a pre-judgement. It is a
fact that no
one has demonstrated flying. The demos of "yogic flying" were of
people hopping
since I left the group, so as far as I can see flying has been tested
and failed. If others want
to still hold out hope, fine hop till you drop. But this theory has
had plenty of time to pan out.
Sam Harris is specifically targeting beliefs like this one that have
failed all the tests. They become
irrational beliefs when the rational testing process has failed to
prove the claim. Putting the
technique in a non-falsifiable form : > Obviously, you can't "test" a
claim with an open-ended
> time frame. doesn't get MMY off the hook for his irrational
assertion that people can fly with
no evidence. Making it seem as if Sam Harris is promoting beliefs
that have been proved false
so far is an obvious misread of his ideas.
So if you want to claim that "yogic flying" makes you happier and
mentally clearer, high five and watch your back, literally.
If MMY want to claim that you will eventually stay in the air beyond a
parabola of hopping, I am gunna need some proof.
And I'll bet Sam Harris would want some too.
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > Since you turned me on to this article I know you understand his
> point
> > which is made in the rest of the article. In his book Sam Harris
> > points out that irrational beliefs are different only in content.
> > They are based on ancient scriptures dictating to modern people
> > things that cannot or have not been proved.
>
> Define "irrational."
>
> Note that Harris very explicitly does *not* rule out the
> idea that the mind can have an effect on the physical
> world. Is it irrational for him not to rule it out, given
> that it hasn't been proved? He doesn't seem at all
> inclined to assert that it's "patently absurd."
>
> > The authority based belief systems all have this flaw.
> > If you had been given the flying sutra blind, without all the hype,
> > would you conclude that you were about to stay in the air?
>
> I didn't conclude that even *with* the hype, Curtis.
>
> However, if I'd had no idea what was "supposed" to
> happen, but had the same subjective experiences,
> there would have come a point when I suddenly
> recognized what was supposed to happen, because at
> times, at the apex of a hop, I have the sense for
> a split-second that I'm not going to come down again.
> This is a *visceral* sense, not any kind of
> intellectual notion. It's something my body knows.
>
> That split-second is only a split-second; it doesn't
> last. But it's an instant in which the potential
> becomes not just crystal clear but self-evident: If I
> were able to maintain the exact state I'm in at that
> moment, I'd stay in the air.
>
> (Note that even *with* this experience, hoping to
> fly is not why I practice the levitation sutra and
> the rest of the TM-Sidhis techniques. I practice
> them because they're enjoyable and have beneficial
> effects in activity that are well worth the time
> spent.)
>
> > But "Nature Speaking English" (Domash's term for MMY) proclaimed
> > that is shall be so, despite such a dismal track record of anyone
> > actually doing it. He even uses yogic scriptures to back up his
> > claim. So there is no reason to believe, other than his word that
> > it is so, that you will someday float in the air.
>
> Plus all the (admittedly anecdotal) accounts of
> people levitating, throughout history and across
> cultures.
>
> Just for the record, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are
> "scriptures" only in a generic sense. They're actually
> a practical instruction manual for development of
> consciousness.
>
> > As far as Sam's other point that amazing claims can and should be
> > tested...MMY has had how many years to put up or shut up with
> > flying?
>
> Harris is talking about testing claims that something
> *has* occurred, not that it *will* occur at some point.
> Obviously, you can't "test" a claim with an open-ended
> time frame.
>
> You know better than that, Curtis.
>
> > When do we celebrate the 30th year of no one flying?
> >
> > "Now, scientists tend to be dogmatically opposed to
> > > looking at this kind of phenomenon -- at telepathy, for instance,
> > > because there's been so much fraud and wishful thinking."
> >
> > Take your pick.
>
> How, um, clever of you to leave out the rest of the
> paragraph, not to mention the following question and
> answer:
>
> H: Science generally has been eager to divest itself of the
> spookiness of this area. But I think that kind of phenomenon is
> fascinating and worth looking into. And it may be that minds have
> some effect upon the physical world that we currently can't explain.
> But the way we will explain it is scientifically.
>
> S: It sounds like you're open-minded to the possibility of telepathy -
> - things that we might classify as psychic. You're saying it's
> entirely possible that they might be true and science at some point
> will be able to prove them.
>
> H: Yeah, and there's a lot of data out there that's treated in most
> circles like intellectual pornography that attests to there being a
> real phenomenon here. I just don't know. But I've had the kinds of
> experiences that everyone has had that seem to confirm telepathy or
> the fact that minds can influence other minds.
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
