--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. > > So it is not rational to believe things for which there is no proof.
In the first place, these are all circular definitions. In the second place, your conclusion doesn't follow from the definitions. > You may think something is worth testing, but > if there is no proof, reasonable people don't assert its truth. <duh> > People who believe things that have already been proved > false are afflicted with a loss of usual or normal mental clarity. <duh> However, "proof" can be a slippery term. > > 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. It's not based on anyone's experience *that you know about*. You seem to believe, without a shred of proof, that nobody has ever hovered. By your own definition, that's irrational. As to evidence, in the first place, again, there's no evidence *that you know about*. And in the second place, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you carefully avoided responding to my question. Finally, you seem able to cope with only two possibilities, believing in something and disbelieving in it. Throughout, I've been talking about a third possibility, not ruling something out. > 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. This makes no sense in the context of what I wrote above. > 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. No, they have *not* been tested. As I pointed out, you can't "test" a claim with an open-ended time frame. > Now all that is left is a belief with no evidence. That you know of. 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. Don't know about Geller, but MMY doesn't think of what he claims as "miracles." He thinks they're all perfectly natural. "Miracles" is a weasel word you're using to load your argument. > > > 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. Gosh, that's darned pink of you, Curtis. > 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. The only kind of proof there *could* be that people will fly is somebody flying, which is exactly what promoting the idea that people can fly is designed to accomplish, by having them practice techniques that are said to lead to flying. Your argument is circular. Hopping is not the first stage of > flying, it is the last stage of hopping around. Sez you, without a shred of proof. > 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. Yes, Curtis, it has to do with why I don't rule out the possibility, because that possibility is self-evident on some occasions when I use the flying sutra, as I described. <snip> > > > 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. Or possibly to report that the person *was* 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. Oh, please, like Ananda Moyi Ma's schizophrenia? 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? I beg your pardon?? What on *earth* makes you think I switch it off when reading stories from long ago? Please try to pay attention to the context. You claimed, "There is no reason to believe, other than his word that it is so, that you will someday float in the air." That was incorrect. That's what I was pointing out. > > 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. No, it's a significant distinction. > > > 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. Like a cure for AIDS, perhaps? > I choose both, wishful thinking for you and deception for the guys > collecting the "International Money Orders" for a "flying" > technique. Now you're claiming to be a mind-reader. > 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. ROTFL! Use good foam, and you shouldn't have any problems. > > > 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. While leaving out the section that showed it didn't address *your* 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. So why did you quote the part of the paragraph which, out of context, seemed to denigrate the notion of telepathy (even though the full paragraph indicated the opposite) if it didn't have anything to do with what we were talking about? And again you don't deal with the possibility of not ruling something out--being open-minded, in other words. Why is it OK to be open-minded about telepathy but not about people 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. <duh> Nobody is claiming otherwise, Curtis. > 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. The only claim that has been tested and failed is the one that said people would be flying *soon*. The possibility that people will fly *eventually* has not been tested, because it can't be, as I've already explained twice now. And the claim that people would be flying *soon* hasn't been made for some time. If others want > to still hold out hope, fine hop till you drop. But this theory has > had plenty of time to pan out. How the *hell* do you know how long it takes? > Sam Harris is specifically targeting beliefs like this one that have > failed all the tests. Except that it *hasn't* failed all the tests. They become > irrational beliefs when the rational testing process has failed to > prove the claim. There can *be* no "rational testing process" of 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. Of course it does. And you don't know what evidence he might have personally. Curtis, *you're* the one making the claims with no evidence, repeatedly. > Making it seem as if Sam Harris is promoting beliefs > that have been proved false so far is an obvious misread of his > ideas. Your debating tactis, Curtis, are incredibly sleazy. I'm not going to continue this conversation; it makes me feel like I need to go take a bath. I never suggested Harris was promoting beliefs that have been proved false so far, and you damn well know it. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
