[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject of the brain's > relationship to consciousness I have had a couple of thoughts which are not > based on scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > > Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive, having a functioning brain > and having a perceiver to perceive what is generated by certain activity of > the brain. Consciousness is also present in all forms of life that possess a > nervous system. I think it is also much more than this. > > I think consciousness is also very much a disembodied phenomenon which can > exist outside of a physical body. I believe some consciousness can be > generated by a brain but that this consciousness is energy,that also finds > its way outside of the physical that comprises a nervous system and is set > loose into the surrounding environment, consciousness continues b > (Shit, I just hit 'send' with my baby finger by mistake and off this little missive flew; just like what I was talking about above when I was so rudely interrupted by my last finger on my right hand. What just happened is a perfect example of a human exhibiting some aspect of consciousness and then, due to an errant pinky, off the message/post/result of consciousness flys these words into cyberspace as a new kind of energy that re-manifests as a post in somebody's inbox.) Anyway, what was I saying? Something about consciousness continuing on in the environment/atmosphere as a manifestation of energy. In this disembodied form consciousness no longer needs a brain to exist or effect. And I believe it could keep existing forever in this brainless/bodyless form. I certainly can not prove this but I feel it to be right. Consciousness is everywhere, it envelopes us all the time. I believe it to be an integral part of what allows the universe to function - it is intelligence. I think we are cocooned in it. We do not create it, it passes through us. We have the receptor to know it is present (a brain) but it pre-dates us, it "is" already, before we were and well after the current body is gone. Consciousness possesses structure but not physical structure that we can always perceive. But I do think the physical world is built by consciousness so there are concrete things all around us that possess the building blocks of consciousness. (I'm just working this out as I write, I never really thought about this like this before so go boil some potatoes or make the bed because I am most likely blathering here.) Still, this is an interesting topic and if I wasn't pecking away at this on my iPad I might want to come back to it later. I'll just sit and let a bit more consciousness wash over me and get back to you if I figure anything else out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
Ann: > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject > of the brain's relationship to consciousness I have > had a couple of thoughts which are not based on > scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > It is a real challenge to refute or argue against the 'consciousness only' or the idealistic point-of-view. Even Barry gets confused on this, thinking that 'free will' is something other than idealism. Go figure. In the West, you'd have to argue against Immanuel Kant, George Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer. Not an easy task. In the Upanishads, there are Shankara and his guru Gaudapada to refute and the whole host of Advaitins up to and including Ramana Maharshi. The Kashmiri Swami Laksmanjoo supported the 'Trika' system which takes 'Pure Consciousness' as the Ultimate Reality. Similarly, almost the whole of Zen Buddhism supports the consciousness only metaphysics. Not to mention Naga Arjuna's Madhyamika and the Vijnanavada Tradition of Asanga and Vasabandhu. > Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive, > having a functioning brain and having a perceiver to > perceive what is generated by certain activity of the > brain. Consciousness is also present in all forms of > life that possess a nervous system. I think it is > also much more than this. > Excerpt from Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. > I think consciousness is also very much a disembodied > phenomenon which can exist outside of a physical body. > I believe some consciousness can be generated by a > brain but that this consciousness is energy,that also > finds its way outside of the physical that comprises > a nervous system and is set loose into the surrounding > environment, consciousness continues b > Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga: "Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is Self-luminous." (XIII, 13). "Thus shaking off duality, he directly perceives the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu)." (VI, 7) Sharma, p. 112-113
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > Ann: > > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject > > of the brain's relationship to consciousness I have > > had a couple of thoughts which are not based on > > scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > > > It is a real challenge to refute or argue against the > 'consciousness only' or the idealistic point-of-view. > > Even Barry gets confused on this, thinking that 'free > will' is something other than idealism. Go figure. FWIW, "Idealism" in this context doesn't mean having high ideals. It's the philosophical theory that matter is emergent from consciousness rather than the reverse (Materialism).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > Ann: > > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject > > of the brain's relationship to consciousness I have > > had a couple of thoughts which are not based on > > scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > > > It is a real challenge to refute or argue against the > 'consciousness only' or the idealistic point-of-view. Suppose that 'consciousness only' and 'materialism only' (consciousness as an emergent property) are both wrong, and that metaphysics and science also are both wrong, and that imagination nor logic can illuminate the problem. Then what? > Even Barry gets confused on this, thinking that 'free > will' is something other than idealism. Go figure. > > In the West, you'd have to argue against Immanuel Kant, > George Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer. Not an easy task. > > In the Upanishads, there are Shankara and his guru > Gaudapada to refute and the whole host of Advaitins up > to and including Ramana Maharshi. The Kashmiri Swami > Laksmanjoo supported the 'Trika' system which takes > 'Pure Consciousness' as the Ultimate Reality. > > Similarly, almost the whole of Zen Buddhism supports > the consciousness only metaphysics. Not to mention Naga > Arjuna's Madhyamika and the Vijnanavada Tradition of > Asanga and Vasabandhu. > > > Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive, > > having a functioning brain and having a perceiver to > > perceive what is generated by certain activity of the > > brain. Consciousness is also present in all forms of > > life that possess a nervous system. I think it is > > also much more than this. > > > Excerpt from Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: > > "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real > truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing > subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness > because the distinction of subject and object is within > consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. > > > I think consciousness is also very much a disembodied > > phenomenon which can exist outside of a physical body. > > I believe some consciousness can be generated by a > > brain but that this consciousness is energy,that also > > finds its way outside of the physical that comprises > > a nervous system and is set loose into the surrounding > > environment, consciousness continues b > > > Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga: > > "Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, > it is Self-luminous." (XIII, 13). "Thus shaking off > duality, he directly perceives the Absolute which is the > unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu)." (VI, 7) > Sharma, p. 112-113 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > > Ann: > > > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject > > > of the brain's relationship to consciousness I have > > > had a couple of thoughts which are not based on > > > scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > > > > > It is a real challenge to refute or argue against the > > 'consciousness only' or the idealistic point-of-view. > > Suppose that 'consciousness only' and 'materialism only' (consciousness as an > emergent property) are both wrong, and that metaphysics and science also are > both wrong, and that imagination nor logic can illuminate the problem. Then > what? Well, the "then what" is exactly where we are now. I am not sure I am ever going to know which comes first - consciousness or the brain but my vote is for consciousness. But it can make for some mind bending exercise to try and experience what is the truth; I mean, no one is ever just going to figure it out by thinking about it all. > > > Even Barry gets confused on this, thinking that 'free > > will' is something other than idealism. Go figure. > > > > In the West, you'd have to argue against Immanuel Kant, > > George Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer. Not an easy task. > > > > In the Upanishads, there are Shankara and his guru > > Gaudapada to refute and the whole host of Advaitins up > > to and including Ramana Maharshi. The Kashmiri Swami > > Laksmanjoo supported the 'Trika' system which takes > > 'Pure Consciousness' as the Ultimate Reality. > > > > Similarly, almost the whole of Zen Buddhism supports > > the consciousness only metaphysics. Not to mention Naga > > Arjuna's Madhyamika and the Vijnanavada Tradition of > > Asanga and Vasabandhu. > > > > > Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive, > > > having a functioning brain and having a perceiver to > > > perceive what is generated by certain activity of the > > > brain. Consciousness is also present in all forms of > > > life that possess a nervous system. I think it is > > > also much more than this. > > > > > Excerpt from Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: > > > > "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real > > truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing > > subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness > > because the distinction of subject and object is within > > consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. > > > > > I think consciousness is also very much a disembodied > > > phenomenon which can exist outside of a physical body. > > > I believe some consciousness can be generated by a > > > brain but that this consciousness is energy,that also > > > finds its way outside of the physical that comprises > > > a nervous system and is set loose into the surrounding > > > environment, consciousness continues b > > > > > Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga: > > > > "Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, > > it is Self-luminous." (XIII, 13). "Thus shaking off > > duality, he directly perceives the Absolute which is the > > unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu)." (VI, 7) > > Sharma, p. 112-113 > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > Following, rather superficially, the recent subject of the brain's > relationship to consciousness I have had a couple of thoughts which are not > based on scientific evidence or objective proof of any kind. > > Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive, having a functioning brain > and having a perceiver to perceive what is generated by certain activity of > the brain. Consciousness is also present in all forms of life that possess a > nervous system. I think it is also much more than this. > > I think consciousness is also very much a disembodied phenomenon which can > exist outside of a physical body. I believe some consciousness can be > generated by a brain but that this consciousness is energy,that also finds > its way outside of the physical that comprises a nervous system and is set > loose into the surrounding environment, consciousness continues b > IMHO, consciousness is everywhere, much the same way as electricity is ubiquitous. But most of consciousness and electricity is in the state of equilibrium (there are as many electrons as protons in most atoms on this planet?), so to speak, so you can't perceive either of them... The existence of consciousness is perceivable when it flows through a nervous system with electric current as a sort of carrier wave, or stuff?? Be it as it may, we think synapses act as diodes or transistors, or stuff, either preventing or allowing the flow of consciousness??
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Communities
Its good to hear that the broader spiritual community remains vibrant / growing. Beyond the TM community, what sort of groups and interests are becoming more popular and prominent?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Communities
Trending recently in Spiritually consciousness communal FF, for instance arriving at the meditator Quaker meeting yesterday are a couple who moving from Hawaii escaping the ‘vog’ sold their house in Hawaii and just bought a house in FF, these are folks who are not ™’ers but looking for sympatico spiritually conscious place. Another person who also has come along to the meditating Friends meeting checking Fairfield, Ia. as spiritual place came to Fairfield after the recent Ammachi satsang in Chicago that so many of the Fairfield meditators were at. skymtsea comments: Its good to hear that the broader spiritual community remains vibrant / growing. Beyond the TM community, what sort of groups and interests are becoming more popular and prominent? Feste37 writes: That's a very interesting post. Much of what you write is spot-on, even though you don't live here; for example, "Perhaps FF is the world's lowest cost, friendliest, increasingly sustainable, most walkable, highest intensity consciousness community." You may well be right about that. The advantage of FF is that it is small, not like Boulder or Santa Monica, so the sense of spiritual community is more palpable and always close at hand. Some people may be leaving, but others are moving here. I do not think there is an overall decline (and overall, the population of Fairfield has risen slightly over the last few years). The new people are far less "TM-centric" (to use your phrase) but they are certainly spiritually minded in a more general sense. They also know that Fairfield has managed to achieve over the years a genuine feeling of spiritual community, and that is what draws them here. In my experience, the broader spiritual community in Fairfield remains vibrant and is likely to continue in that vein for the foreseeable future. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Some months ago Doug wrote: "Earlier this year I had a list gathering of more than a dozen friends of the TM community here who have recently sold their homes and left. People who have retirement means. This is unsettling in that to have a viable community there needs to be critical mass available in people. Studies by ISU of small towns shows that towns need at least 800 to have a viable sustaining local economy. One could worry for the Fairfield meditating community seeing the holes in the local economy when people with money resource move away. " After seeing Doug's post on the (perceived) exodus from Fairfield, I came across the following article http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ 30 Top Cities and Towns for Meditation in America Fairfield is at the top of the list (not sure that's random or meant to convey its the premier meditating community.) The reasons why people are leaving FF is of interest, though I can speculate -- at least in broad categories. Others on the list may be able to fill in more specific details. Broadly speaking, peoples needs and aspirations change, as do the attributes of their communities. Migration in and out of the community is natural over time. For those remaining in FF, and those who are contemplating returning (such as myself), understanding and exploring FF's current community attributes -- and more importantly -- those that could flourish over the coming decades is an intriguing and important undertaking. 30 years ago someone may have moved to FF because it was highly TM-centric: the domes, Super Radiance, MUM, many teachers and old friends from TTC, ATR, the teaching in the field, TM-businesses, etc. Those attributes have changed over time. As are their relative importance to some in different stages of their life, employment, experience, knowledge, etc. Clearly, people view FF in different ways, depending on the attributes that they value. For some, it is a TM centric town and that is at the core of what makes FF attractive to them. From my reading of the Phoenix Rising posts, it seems that effort seeks to make FF a better TM centric town for TM centric residents. And all of those efforts sound good and I wish the best in success towards realizing those visions. However, FF has many other possible, and broader attributes, beyond TM specifically and its programs and institutions, that may be attractive to many exploring new locales. FF appears to be a community that is more yoga, meditation, non-dual, consciousness, vegetarian, sustainability friendly and focused than other "consciousness communities" -- at least on a population intensity level. One of a number of possible examples -- not many towns have 5% of their population leave for the weekend to see a traveling saint. Other possible consciousness communities, such as Santa Monica or Boulder may have more meditators or yoga enthusiasts in total, but not as many on each
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Communities
Arrival of another person of the old TM movement in moving back to FF. came to the silent Quaker meeting last weekend. Then at the Harmony singing last nite another old TM movement community person returning to FF, moving back from craziness of silicon valley cities. . These are retired age people coming to the community. Also a trend of b-boomer aged TM.org and David Lynch field TM teachers buying these inexpensive houses that are being built up north of the TM university campus. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Trending recently in Spiritually consciousness communal FF, for instance arriving at the meditator Quaker meeting yesterday are a couple who moving from Hawaii escaping the ‘vog’ sold their house in Hawaii and just bought a house in FF, these are folks who are not ™’ers but looking for sympatico spiritually conscious place. Another person (non-TM) who also has come along to the meditating Friends meeting checking in to Fairfield, Ia. as spiritual place, came to Fairfield after the recent Ammachi satsang in Chicago that so many of the Fairfield meditators were at. skymtsea comments: Its good to hear that the broader spiritual community remains vibrant / growing. Beyond the TM community, what sort of groups and interests are becoming more popular and prominent? Feste37 writes: That's a very interesting post. Much of what you write is spot-on, even though you don't live here; for example, "Perhaps FF is the world's lowest cost, friendliest, increasingly sustainable, most walkable, highest intensity consciousness community." You may well be right about that. The advantage of FF is that it is small, not like Boulder or Santa Monica, so the sense of spiritual community is more palpable and always close at hand. Some people may be leaving, but others are moving here. I do not think there is an overall decline (and overall, the population of Fairfield has risen slightly over the last few years). The new people are far less "TM-centric" (to use your phrase) but they are certainly spiritually minded in a more general sense. They also know that Fairfield has managed to achieve over the years a genuine feeling of spiritual community, and that is what draws them here. In my experience, the broader spiritual community in Fairfield remains vibrant and is likely to continue in that vein for the foreseeable future. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Some months ago Doug wrote: "Earlier this year I had a list gathering of more than a dozen friends of the TM community here who have recently sold their homes and left. People who have retirement means. This is unsettling in that to have a viable community there needs to be critical mass available in people. Studies by ISU of small towns shows that towns need at least 800 to have a viable sustaining local economy. One could worry for the Fairfield meditating community seeing the holes in the local economy when people with money resource move away. " After seeing Doug's post on the (perceived) exodus from Fairfield, I came across the following article http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ 30 Top Cities and Towns for Meditation in America Fairfield is at the top of the list (not sure that's random or meant to convey its the premier meditating community.) The reasons why people are leaving FF is of interest, though I can speculate -- at least in broad categories. Others on the list may be able to fill in more specific details. Broadly speaking, peoples needs and aspirations change, as do the attributes of their communities. Migration in and out of the community is natural over time. For those remaining in FF, and those who are contemplating returning (such as myself), understanding and exploring FF's current community attributes -- and more importantly -- those that could flourish over the coming decades is an intriguing and important undertaking. 30 years ago someone may have moved to FF because it was highly TM-centric: the domes, Super Radiance, MUM, many teachers and old friends from TTC, ATR, the teaching in the field, TM-businesses, etc. Those attributes have changed over time. As are their relative importance to some in different stages of their life, employment, experience, knowledge, etc. Clearly, people view FF in different ways, depending on the attributes that they value. For some, it is a TM centric town and that is at the core of what makes FF attractive to them. From my reading of the Phoenix Rising posts, it seems that effort seeks to make FF a better TM centric town for TM centric residents. And all of those efforts sound good and I wish the best in success towards realizing those visions. However, FF has many other possible, and broader attributes, beyond TM specifically and its programs and institutio
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Communities
30 Top Cities and Towns for Meditation in America An article: http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Arrival of another person of the old TM movement in moving back to FF. came to the silent Quaker meeting last weekend. Then at the Harmony singing last nite another old TM movement community person returning to FF, moving back from craziness of silicon valley cities. . These are retired age people coming to the community. Also a trend of b-boomer aged TM.org and David Lynch field TM teachers buying these inexpensive houses that are being built up north of the TM university campus. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Trending recently in Spiritually consciousness communal FF, for instance arriving at the meditator Quaker meeting yesterday are a couple who moving from Hawaii escaping the ‘vog’ sold their house in Hawaii and just bought a house in FF, these are folks who are not ™’ers but looking for sympatico spiritually conscious place. Another person (non-TM) who also has come along to the meditating Friends meeting checking in to Fairfield, Ia. as spiritual place, came to Fairfield after the recent Ammachi satsang in Chicago that so many of the Fairfield meditators were at. skymtsea comments: Its good to hear that the broader spiritual community remains vibrant / growing. Beyond the TM community, what sort of groups and interests are becoming more popular and prominent? Feste37 writes: That's a very interesting post. Much of what you write is spot-on, even though you don't live here; for example, "Perhaps FF is the world's lowest cost, friendliest, increasingly sustainable, most walkable, highest intensity consciousness community." You may well be right about that. The advantage of FF is that it is small, not like Boulder or Santa Monica, so the sense of spiritual community is more palpable and always close at hand. Some people may be leaving, but others are moving here. I do not think there is an overall decline (and overall, the population of Fairfield has risen slightly over the last few years). The new people are far less "TM-centric" (to use your phrase) but they are certainly spiritually minded in a more general sense. They also know that Fairfield has managed to achieve over the years a genuine feeling of spiritual community, and that is what draws them here. In my experience, the broader spiritual community in Fairfield remains vibrant and is likely to continue in that vein for the foreseeable future. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Some months ago Doug wrote: "Earlier this year I had a list gathering of more than a dozen friends of the TM community here who have recently sold their homes and left. People who have retirement means. This is unsettling in that to have a viable community there needs to be critical mass available in people. Studies by ISU of small towns shows that towns need at least 800 to have a viable sustaining local economy. One could worry for the Fairfield meditating community seeing the holes in the local economy when people with money resource move away. " After seeing Doug's post on the (perceived) exodus from Fairfield, I came across the following article http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ http://www.sonima.com/meditation/top-cities-for-meditation/ 30 Top Cities and Towns for Meditation in America Fairfield is at the top of the list (not sure that's random or meant to convey its the premier meditating community.) The reasons why people are leaving FF is of interest, though I can speculate -- at least in broad categories. Others on the list may be able to fill in more specific details. Broadly speaking, peoples needs and aspirations change, as do the attributes of their communities. Migration in and out of the community is natural over time. For those remaining in FF, and those who are contemplating returning (such as myself), understanding and exploring FF's current community attributes -- and more importantly -- those that could flourish over the coming decades is an intriguing and important undertaking. 30 years ago someone may have moved to FF because it was highly TM-centric: the domes, Super Radiance, MUM, many teachers and old friends from TTC, ATR, the teaching in the field, TM-businesses, etc. Those attributes have changed over time. As are their relative importance to some in different stages of their life, employment, experience, knowledge, etc. Clearly, people view FF in different ways, depending on the attributes that they value. For some, it is a TM centric town and that is at the core of what makes FF attractive to them. From my reading of the Phoenix Rising posts, it seems that effort seeks to make FF a better TM centric town for TM cen
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Communities
Funerals and talk about the good old days. And for the lucky few, grandchildren. Sal > On Jul 6, 2018, at 7:51 PM, skymt...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] > wrote: > > > > Its good to hear that the broader spiritual community remains vibrant / > growing. > Beyond the TM community, what sort of groups and interests are becoming more > popular and prominent? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
test --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > Actually what I > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at least > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of Washington DC. > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the predicted 20%. > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > From: Shain McVay shainm307@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > >  > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > > From: Yifu yifuxero@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > >  > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > ... > " > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
i can't send a freakin message! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > test > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay shainm307@ wrote: > > > > Actually what I > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with > at least > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > Washington DC. > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > predicted 20%. > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime > rate by 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the > amount of evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay shainm307@ > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > >  > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they > did the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with > them making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the > study not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing the > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in > presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the > studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen everytime > - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > > > > > > From: Yifu yifuxero@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > >  > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > ... > > " > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists > call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is > nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce > crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is > foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the > Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those > who might not know any better. > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of > scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for > those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be > generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be > realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts > scientific truth (Pagels). > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
I'll try sending this message a different way, for the sixth time. Emily mentioned yesterday, that maybe her heart melted a little when she got a hug from Amma. But watching that video I was glad that I was no longer in the mindset of complete adulation and adoration I saw on many of those faces. I went on to say, that I did, at one time, work myself into such a devotional frenzy with Maharishi, that I had the actual sensation of my heart melting. And it was an absolutely exquisite sensation. I was in Courcheval France at the time, staying in the Utter Pralong Hotel, which was an annex to the Pralong Hotel. My room was at the near end of the annex where the traffic would turn up to go to the main hotel. I mention this because it often disturbed my mediation. It was also during this time that we were enouraged to do enimas as well as other purifying procedures. There were many good times duirng this period. But if someone asked if a "melting heart" was just a metaphor, I would say it is not just a metaphor. Whether anyone would believe me, is a another story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > i can't send a freakin message! > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > test > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay shainm307@ wrote: > > > > > > Actually what I > > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people > with > > at least > > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > > Washington DC. > > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > > predicted 20%. > > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime > > rate by 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the > > amount of evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay shainm307@ > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they > > did the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in > with > > them making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the > > study not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study > was > > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing > the > > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in > > presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the > > studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen > everytime > > - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Yifu yifuxero@ > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > >  > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > ... > > > " > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists > > call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is > > nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps > reduce > > crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is > > foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > > physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the > > Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive > those > > who might not know any better. > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > distress > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of > > scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion > for > > those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be > > generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > > peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly > be > > realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully > distorts > > scientific truth (Pagels). > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Thanks. Looking back I guess I had what is sometimes referred to in TM lingo as "celestial" experiences. But I don't think I've had anything along those lines in probably 25 years. That's not to say that I don't have what I might consider to be "spiritual" experiences, but nothing to do with refined perception. I guess the closest thing I have now are synchronicity type events. But I find those to be self validating in their own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > Steve, interesting story.  I was using the term as a metaphor in the case with Amma, but I believe you. > > > > From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:53 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > >  > I'll try sending this message a different way, for the sixth time. Emily mentioned yesterday, that maybe her heart melted a little when she got a hug from Amma. But watching that video I was glad that  I was no longer in the mindset of complete adulation and adoration I saw on many of those faces. > I went on to say, that I did, at one time, work myself into such a devotional frenzy with Maharishi, that I had the actual sensation of my heart melting. And it was an absolutely exquisite sensation. > I was in Courcheval France at the time, staying in the Utter Pralong Hotel, which was an annex to the Pralong Hotel. My room was at the near end of the annex where the traffic would turn up to go to the main hotel. I mention this because it often disturbed my mediation. > It was also during this time that we were enouraged to do enimas as well as other purifying procedures. > There were many good times duirng this period. > But if someone asked if a "melting heart" was just a metaphor, I would say it is not just a metaphor. Whether anyone would believe me, is a another story. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > i can't send a freakin message! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > > wrote: > > > > > > test > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay shainm307@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually what I > > > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people > > with > > > at least > > > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > > > Washington DC. > > > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > > > predicted 20%. > > > > However,à after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime > > > rate by 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the > > > amount of evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay shainm307@ > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > à > > > > > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they > > > did the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in > > with > > > them making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the > > > study not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study > > was > > > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > > > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzingà > > the > > > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in > > > presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the > > > studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen > > everytime > > > - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Yifu yifuxero@ > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > > à > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > ... > > > > " > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anythin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only did > all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but also they > agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't the only > one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just this one study > are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've > done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen > everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much use! And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! If this effect travels via a field the effect would be dramatically reduced by the time got to lebanon - it wasn't so it makes me wonder what they think they were testing. My memory of the war isn't one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you can't tell they are there. How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do something different at a distance without them realising? At the very best the washington study is like tossing a coin and getting five heads in a row, impressive but if you do it 100 times it evens itself out. All paranormal research has done this the IA course has been running for years in tandem with huge groups of meditators and the yagya programme, can anyone honestly say things have got better in the last 5 years? And don't give me any "phase transition" crap, if that was a part of the theory why didn't it happen in Washington? Case not proved. > From: Yifu > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > >  > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > ... > " > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the > vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim > that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The > presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only > be intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound > ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully > perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by > these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of > these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy > that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only > > did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but > > also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't > > the only one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just this > > one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. > > Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing > > happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like > a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had > dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the > time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much > use! > > And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place > in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! If this effect > travels via a field the effect would be dramatically reduced > by the time got to lebanon - it wasn't so it makes me wonder > what they think they were testing. My memory of the war isn't > one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you > can't tell they are there. > > How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in > collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot > of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do > something different at a distance without them realising? > > At the very best the washington study is like tossing a coin > and getting five heads in a row, impressive but if you do it > 100 times it evens itself out. All paranormal research has > done this the IA course has been running for years in tandem > with huge groups of meditators and the yagya programme, can > anyone honestly say things have got better in the last 5 years? > And don't give me any "phase transition" crap, if that was a > part of the theory why didn't it happen in Washington? > > Case not proved. Personally I feel that these studies have been of great use. They've been highly effective at pinpointing the large number of "Quantum Idiots" out there in the world. All you have to do now to figure out if a person is too dumb to waste any time with is to see how they react to this "research." If they find it believable in any way, you're dealing with a Quantum Idiot, and you can safely write them off as not worth your time. Science is useful sometimes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Yifu and FFL readers, For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive today, he would have changed his position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > ... > " > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the > vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim > that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The > presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only > be intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound > ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully > perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by > these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of > these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy > that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > today, he would have changed his position. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > ... > > " > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call > > "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The > > claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > > creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. > > The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and > > apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure > > consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > better. > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound > > ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so > > willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be > > taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi > > and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But > > none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a > > philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > Scroll > to 41:50:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2002081722988127640# AW, you could have givn me a warning it was John Hagelin, you ruined my breakfast. Evry time I see that flake I get the heebies now, probably all those courses I went on where the TBs sat like dopey cattle never questioning a word as he ranted on and on and on.. I don't mean to be mean, but there's no way with that much statistical correlation > to be just a fluke. Everyone probably doesn't agree with it because it's way > too bizarre, spiritual and new to get any people to believe it. But as I said people *have* looked at it and not seen enough to believe it. Tell me, how did the WPA held in Holland have the same claimed effect as the once in Lebanon if the cause of the alleged effect is the presence of yogic flyers? How come the world is in a more parlous state after 5 years of "invincibility"? You need answers to these as we have enough people doing it to create the promised peace, believing it's right isn't going to convince anyone else I'm afraid. Like John says, > it may take a generation to die out, but eventually people will have to agree > with it. My guess is people's hearts probably don't agree and they don't > want to > "give in". My spiritual beliefs would probably say maybe it's not the > right time or maybe people will find something better. Maybe at this time all > we need is a small group of people doing it and the world doesn't need > everyone > to do it. Also you may be right that something is wrong with it as people may > sense, but not in terms of it dropping crime rate that has been proved. Maybe > the world showed us once, as I believe in the Washington DC study that murder > rate went up to an all-time high. That could be nature's way of telling us > something. > > > ____________ > From: salyavin808 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > >  > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only > > did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but > > also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't > > the only one's directing and analyzingàthe study. The findings of just > > this one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is > > true. Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same > > thing happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like > a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had > dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the > time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much > use! > > And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place > in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! If this effect > travels via a field the effect would be dramatically reduced > by the time got to lebanon - it wasn't so it makes me wonder > what they think they were testing. My memory of the war isn't > one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you > can't tell they are there. > > How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in > collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot > of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do > something different at a distance without them realising? > > At the very best the washington study is like tossing a coin > and getting five heads in a row, impressive but if you do it > 100 times it evens itself out. All paranormal research has > done this the IA course has been running for years in tandem > with huge groups of meditators and the yagya programme, can > anyone honestly say things have got better in the last 5 years? > And don't give me any "phase transition" crap, if that was a > part of the theory why didn't it happen in Washington? > > Case not proved. > > > > From: Yifu > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:09 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements that he made > while alive has been superceded by discoveries made in recent years in > quantum physics. If he was alive today, he would have changed his position. Of course he would! Just like everyone else has. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > JR > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > ... > > " > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call > > "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The > > claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > > creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. > > The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and > > apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure > > consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > better. > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound > > ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so > > willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be > > taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi > > and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But > > none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a > > philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > what is the mechanism that can make people do > something different at a distance without them realising? > The phenomena of 'faith-healing'. It has its physics. Sit with it some more and then you'd know. This is age old. First, git your meditation checked. Come back to meditation. Long meditation. Flow Soma for Indra, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > what is the mechanism that can make people do > > something different at a distance without them realising? > > > > The phenomena of 'faith-healing'. So it's a placebo? No wonder it doesn't work, the only time faith healing does anything is when the people being healed are part of the belief system and know there is a ritual being performed. Explains a lot doncha think? No physics required that I can see. PS I do meditate, just don't ascribe anything spooky to it. It has its physics. Sit with it some more and then you'd know. This is age old. First, git your meditation checked. > Come back to meditation. > Long meditation. > Flow Soma for Indra, > -Buck in the Dome >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > Case not proved. > turquoiseb: > They've been highly effective at pinpointing > the large number of "Quantum Idiots" out there > in the world... > Speaking of 'Quantum Idiots', Barry seems unaware that Heinz Pagels was married to Elaine Pagels, the author of several scholarly books on the Gnostics. Barry claims to have read over 200 books on the Cathars, but not a single book on the Gostics. Everyone knows that the Cathars are derived from Bogumils; Bogomils are derived from Paulicans; Paulicans from Manicheans; Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus the Cathars are derived from Gnostics. So, I guess we can assume Barry hasn't read one of the most well-known books on the new physics, Heinz Pagels! LoL! "...what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed ... It is written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe." - Heinz Pagels 'The Cosmic Code' Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz Pagels Dover, 2012 Read more: Subject: Bogomils and the Concubine of Christ From: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.gnostic Date: February 6, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/36l9zjx
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
John jr_esq: > Any statements that he made while alive has been > superceded by discoveries made in recent years in > quantum physics. If he was alive today, he would > have changed his position... > Barry wants to style himself as a 'Buddhist' and expert on science but in fact, he is very uninformed. Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels, have suggested that Gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions. Once on , Barry tried to make fun of me about posting a message on the South Asian origins of 'Gnosis', and he got his ass whipped by Moggin and Judy very good! LoL! Edward Conze believed that Hindu or Buddhist tradition may well have influenced Gnosticism. He points out that Buddhists were in contact with the Thomas Christians via the Silk Road. Work cited: 'Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas' by Elaine Pagels Vintage Books, 2004 "Edward Conze, a leading expositor of Buddhism to the twentieth-century western world, has pointed to a number of similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and the Gnosticism of the early Christian centuries..." Read more: Subject: Gnosis on the Silk Road Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.gnostic Date: March 18, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/6lz2kh2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > ... > " > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > "field of consciousness" is false. Which ofcourse could have been written by the "Vaj". Who cares about what someone representing the old order thinks on his academic deathbed ? Who cares what the old order in the arabic countries of yesterday thinks today ? Likewise, who will care what the lighthouses of capitalism in the prestigious universities of the world think when capitalism has been placed in the dustbin of history, which is happening as we speak ? These fellows are all on their way out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > Actually what I > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at least > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of Washington DC. > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the predicted > 20%. > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by > 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of evidence > behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > From: Shain McVay > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > >  > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only did > all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but also they > agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't the only > one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just this one study > are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've > done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen > everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days are numbered and the future will laugh at his insistence of holding on to old belifs and structures.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > ... > > " > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > > "field of consciousness" is false. > > > > Which ofcourse could have been written by the "Vaj". > > Who cares about what someone representing the old order thinks on his > academic deathbed ? Who cares what the old order in the arabic countries of > yesterday thinks today ? Likewise, who will care what the lighthouses of > capitalism in the prestigious universities of the world think when capitalism > has been placed in the dustbin of history, which is happening as we speak ? WTF? This "old order" is the very same branch of physics that John Hagelin claims to be something his peers strongly disagree with. Don't you think the genuine "old order" might just be the 1600 year old Hindu belief system Mr Hagelin is trying to sneak into the language of science? > These fellows are all on their way out. At least they've been "in"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > Actually what I > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at > > least > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of Washington > > DC. > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the predicted > > 20%. > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by > > 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of > > evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > >  > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only > > did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but > > also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't > > the only one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just > > this one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is > > true. Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same > > thing happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days are > numbered Apparently, Heinz is already a has bean. and the future will laugh at his insistence of holding on to old belifs and structures.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > > > Actually what I > > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at > > > least > > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > > > Washington DC. > > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > > > predicted 20%. > > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by > > > 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of > > > evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did > > > the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them > > > making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study > > > not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was > > > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > > > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing the > > > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in presenting > > > that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the studies over 90 > > > times and they've found the same thing happen everytime - the crime rate > > > goes down.\ > > > > > > Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days are > > numbered > > Apparently, Heinz is already a has bean. Just like his "ideas". > > and the future will laugh at his insistence of holding on to old belifs and > structures. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > These fellows are all on their way out. > > At least they've been "in" Yes, their shallowness ruled the world for a few years, and will soon be forgotten.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually what I > > > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with > > > > at least > > > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > > > > Washington DC. > > > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > > > > predicted 20%. > > > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate > > > > by 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of > > > > evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did > > > > the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with > > > > them making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the > > > > study not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was > > > > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > > > > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing the > > > > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in > > > > presenting that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the > > > > studies over 90 times and they've found the same thing happen everytime > > > > - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > > > > > > > Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days > > > are numbered > > > > > > Apparently, Heinz is already a has bean. > > > Just like his "ideas". > Joke. Heinz - bean. Oh well
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > today, he would have changed his position. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. Barry, You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > ... > > > " > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > > > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call > > > "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The > > > claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war > > > by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high > > > order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and > > > apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure > > > consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know > > > any better. > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > > > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, > > > so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who > > > might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to > > > the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world peace and other > > > high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within > > > the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth > > > (Pagels). > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > Actually what I > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at > > least > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of Washington > > DC. > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the predicted > > 20%. > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by > > 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of > > evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > >  > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only > > did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but > > also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't > > the only one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just > > this one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is > > true. Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same > > thing happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > > Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days are > numbered and the future will laugh at his insistence of holding on to old > belifs and structures. > Didn't read all of this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM-Sidhi_program ...but seems to me it should be rectified ASAP! Looks like some "Randi-freaks" keep "editing" it ever so often! :(
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: >>> >>> Yifu and FFL readers, >>> >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive >>> today, he would have changed his position. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels >> >> I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > Barry, > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: ... " The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better. Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." >>> >> > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not know what Domash's view would be today. I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual nomenclature and physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did the > > Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them making > > sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study not only > > did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was conducted, but > > also they agreed to the findings of the study. The Maharishi people weren't > > the only one's directing and analyzing the study. The findings of just > > this one study are overwhelming in presenting that the Maharishi Effect is > > true. Now they've done the studies over 90 times and they've found the same > > thing happen everytime - the crime rate goes down.\ > > If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like > a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had > dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the > time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much > use! If you think about it a moment, you'll realize your claim doesn't make much sense. Non-TM-related crime rate studies are published all the time, so obviously there are ways to distinguish normal fluctuations from changes that are the result of specific factors (reduced crime due to higher numbers of police, e.g.). "Looks like a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me" seems to me roughly equivalent in its rigor to the dismissal of Heinz Pagels's statements about consciousness and QM on the grounds that a lot of discoveries in QM have been made since he made the statements. > And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place > in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! If you're referring to the study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, I believe you're mistaken. There was only one extended WPA involved, and it took place in Jerusalem. If this effect > travels via a field the effect would be dramatically reduced > by the time got to lebanon - it wasn't so it makes me wonder > what they think they were testing. Again, this is incorrect. All the meditators were in Jerusalem. My memory of the war isn't > one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you > can't tell they are there. Another statement not exactly distinguished by its rigor. You might want to take a look at the abstract of the study: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/174032?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56192438703 http://tinyurl.com/d4xxcqv It was not predicted that the WPA would result in salyavin remembering that there were periods of conflict alternating with periods of calm in Lebanon during the study period (August and September 1983). > How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in > collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot > of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do > something different at a distance without them realising? This is a reasonable question. But the study results seemed to indicate there must be such a mechanism, even if we don't know what it is yet. > At the very best the washington study is like tossing a coin > and getting five heads in a row, impressive but if you do it > 100 times it evens itself out. I forget what the p-values for the DC study were, but they were calculated on the basis of the results to be much less than a 1-in-100 chance of the same results occurring. > All paranormal research has > done this the IA course has been running for years in tandem > with huge groups of meditators and the yagya programme, can > anyone honestly say things have got better in the last 5 years? > And don't give me any "phase transition" crap, if that was a > part of the theory why didn't it happen in Washington? Over eight weeks?? The fact is that the ME theory is fundamentally unfalsifiable. It can in principle be shown to exist (as the DC and Lebanon results suggested) but not *not* to exist. For example, with the Iowa course, we cannot know whether things would have been far worse if the course were not taking place. (You can always postulate that things would have been *better* rather than worse without the course, but then you'd have to acknowledge that there *is an effect*, just the reverse of the one the TM folks claim.) > Case not proved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like > > a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had > > dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the > > time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much > > use! > > If you think about it a moment, you'll realize your claim > doesn't make much sense. Non-TM-related crime rate studies > are published all the time, so obviously there are ways to > distinguish normal fluctuations from changes that are the > result of specific factors (reduced crime due to higher > numbers of police, e.g.). So what you need to do is explain why it drops and rises without apparent cause and why the IA course hasn't had the expected result. Coin tossing, I'm tellin' ya! > "Looks like a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me" > seems to me roughly equivalent in its rigor to the > dismissal of Heinz Pagels's statements about consciousness > and QM on the grounds that a lot of discoveries in QM have > been made since he made the statements. Depends if you take into account the flippant nature of net communication, I'm not writing a thesis here just offering an opinion on what I've read of the ME and my experience of paranormal research in general. > > > And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place > > in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! > > If you're referring to the study published in the Journal > of Conflict Resolution, I believe you're mistaken. There > was only one extended WPA involved, and it took place in > Jerusalem. Could be mistaken, I shall check but it's a common criticism, maybe a different course was involved. > > My memory of the war isn't > > one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you > > can't tell they are there. > > Another statement not exactly distinguished by its > rigor. But you can't. And as they use this study to try and get third world countries to sign up to TM programmes it's a rather important point. > You might want to take a look at the abstract of the > study: > > http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/174032?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56192438703 > > http://tinyurl.com/d4xxcqv > > It was not predicted that the WPA would result in > salyavin remembering that there were periods of > conflict alternating with periods of calm in > Lebanon during the study period (August and September > 1983). > > > How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in > > collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot > > of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do > > something different at a distance without them realising? > > This is a reasonable question. But the study results > seemed to indicate there must be such a mechanism, even > if we don't know what it is yet. A mechanism that overturns everything we think we know about pretty much everything? Good luck with that, thing is Pagel simply echoes other physicists - the subatomic world doesn't work like that, it isn't like you could discover new stuff now that overturns what he knew. What we are talking about is people in one state of mind affecting other people at a distance and causing their behaviour to radically alter - kill less people, have less accidents, be happier even. And all by way of some sort of subatomic field effect that the best physicist can't fit in to their picture of the world, and not just fit it in they dismiss it outright. Most times I've raised the subject with physicist I know they just seem embarrassed but I did manage to get a conversation going with one guy about some of Hagelins lectures about yogic flying and he just said "he's either lying or he's delusional" it seems there is no way the idea about cosmic consciousness can be fitted in. Which doesn't mean it's impossible of course, I don't know enough about it to give you an expanation I'm afraid. BTW I don't disbelieve the ME or dislkike John Hagelin vecause of my friends say so, I went of TM physics a long time ago, due simply to the large amount of drivel I heard when still in the movement. > > At the very best the washington study is like tossing a coin > > and getting five heads in a row, impressive but if you do it > > 100 times it evens itself out. > > I forget what the p-values for the DC study were, but > they were calculated on the basis of the results to > be much less than a 1-in-100 chance of the same results > occurring. > > > All paranormal research has > > done this the IA course has been running for years in tandem > > with huge groups of meditators and the yagya programme, can > > anyone honestly say things have got better in the last 5 years? > > And don't give me any "phase transition" crap, if that was a > > part of the theory why didn't it happen in Washington? > > Over eight weeks?? Of co
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Eh, I'd say its as neutral an article on the topic as you're going to get. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay wrote: > > > > > > Actually what I > > > should say is there was at least a whole bunch of neutral people with at > > > least > > > one skeptic, which was either the police chief of fire chief of > > > Washington DC. > > > He said it would take a foot of snow to reduce crime rate by the > > > predicted 20%. > > > However, after the study was done, they didn't reduce the crime rate by > > > 20%, they reduced it by 25%. So this just goes to show the amount of > > > evidence behind the Maharishi Effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shain McVay > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:07 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Whoever wrote that never truly did their research. I mean when they did > > > the Washington DC study, they had a whole bunch of skeptics in with them > > > making sure the study was conducted correctly. When they did the study > > > not only did all the skeptics agree to all the ways the study was > > > conducted, but also they agreed to the findings of the study. The > > > Maharishi people weren't the only one's directing and analyzing the > > > study. The findings of just this one study are overwhelming in presenting > > > that the Maharishi Effect is true. Now they've done the studies over 90 > > > times and they've found the same thing happen everytime - the crime rate > > > goes down.\ > > > > > > Bingo. This Dr Pagels is just representing age-old ignorance. His days are > > numbered and the future will laugh at his insistence of holding on to old > > belifs and structures. > > > > Didn't read all of this... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM-Sidhi_program > > ...but seems to me it should be rectified ASAP! > > Looks like some "Randi-freaks" keep "editing" it > ever so often! :( >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > If it's overwhelming how come no-one believes it? It looks like > > > a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me, and even if it had > > > dropped by 20% the crime rates fluctuate by that much all the > > > time, if you can't tell if they're there or not it isn't of much > > > use! > > > > If you think about it a moment, you'll realize your claim > > doesn't make much sense. Non-TM-related crime rate studies > > are published all the time, so obviously there are ways to > > distinguish normal fluctuations from changes that are the > > result of specific factors (reduced crime due to higher > > numbers of police, e.g.). > > So what you need to do is explain why it drops and rises > without apparent cause and why the IA course hasn't had > the expected result. Coin tossing, I'm tellin' ya! Different issue. > > "Looks like a bunch of unconvincing statistics to me" > > seems to me roughly equivalent in its rigor to the > > dismissal of Heinz Pagels's statements about consciousness > > and QM on the grounds that a lot of discoveries in QM have > > been made since he made the statements. > > Depends if you take into account the flippant nature of > net communication, I'm not writing a thesis here just > offering an opinion on what I've read of the ME and my > experience of paranormal research in general. Net communication doesn't have to be flippant. It's entirely possible to engage in rigorous debate in this medium. > > > And the Lebanon study was worse as one of the WPAs took place > > > in Holland and they still claimed it as proof! > > > > If you're referring to the study published in the Journal > > of Conflict Resolution, I believe you're mistaken. There > > was only one extended WPA involved, and it took place in > > Jerusalem. > > Could be mistaken, I shall check but it's a common criticism, > maybe a different course was involved. I think it must have been. > > My memory of the war isn't > > > one of conflict seperated by periods of calm so again, if you > > > can't tell they are there. > > > > Another statement not exactly distinguished by its > > rigor. > > But you can't. "You" who? If you were to study the statistics rather than consulting your memory as to whether you had perceived periods of calm amid the conflict, you could tell they were there by periods in which there was a decrease in the number of war deaths and a reduction in war intensity. These wouldn't necessarily have registered in your mind as "periods of calm amid the conflict," but if they were strongly correlated with the number of TMers taking part in the WPA, with other variables controlled for, it would constitute evidence for the effect. And as they use this study to try and get > third world countries to sign up to TM programmes it's a > rather important point. Yes, it is. Why would a reduction in the number of war deaths and in war intensity not be a valid inducement to sign up? > > You might want to take a look at the abstract of the > > study: > > > > http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/174032?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56192438703 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/d4xxcqv > > > > It was not predicted that the WPA would result in > > salyavin remembering that there were periods of > > conflict alternating with periods of calm in > > Lebanon during the study period (August and September > > 1983). > > > > > How would it work anyway? Terms like "creating coherence in > > > collective consciousness" don't actually make a whole lot > > > of sense, what is the mechanism that can make people do > > > something different at a distance without them realising? > > > > This is a reasonable question. But the study results > > seemed to indicate there must be such a mechanism, even > > if we don't know what it is yet. > > A mechanism that overturns everything we think we know about > pretty much everything? Yup. Horrors! Good luck with that, thing is Pagel > simply echoes other physicists - the subatomic world doesn't > work like that, it isn't like you could discover new stuff > now that overturns what he knew. Well, sure it is. Don't know if the ME is an instance, but new stuff overturns what we know all the time. What we are talking about > is people in one state of mind affecting other people > at a distance and causing their behaviour to radically > alter - kill less people, have less accidents, be happier > even. And all by way of some sort of subatomic field effect > that the best physicist can't fit in to their picture of > the world, and not just fit it in they dismiss it outright. But it's not very scienific to dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit with one's picture of the world, is it? > Most times I've raised the subject with physicist I know they > just seem embar
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
what are the discoveries,that God landed on the Whitehouse Lawn? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > Barry, > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > ... > > > > " > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > > > > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists > > > > call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is > > > > nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps > > > > reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is > > > > foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > > > > physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the > > > > Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive > > > > those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > > > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > > > > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of > > > > scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for > > > > those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be > > > > generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > > > > peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be > > > > realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully > > > > distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is true > Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on things > Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of > quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use > an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon and > Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of > how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or > how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see > today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not > know what Domash's view would be today. > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean Houston > that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any more, he > does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including the TMO, make > their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot > coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about this debate was > it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood > up and offered Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out > his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical > physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). > Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that > made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense > whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > nomenclature and physics. > Science is based on materialism. All scientific theories are likewise based on materialism.Obviously that would include quantum mechanics. Materialism proposes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and has no existence independent of matter( i.e. consciousness is an emergent property of matter e.g the human nervous system). Given the latter it would seem illogical to assert that "pure consciousness" is the same as the vacuum state.The real question is whether consciousness is of a completely different order of reality then matter/energy. IMHO that question can't be answered by science which is grounded in materialism.Chopra et al are making a fundamental error in attempting to describe the nature of consciousness using constructs taken from a materialistic/scientific framework.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
No. Please, read up on quantum entanglement, superstring theory, and dark energy among others. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > what are the discoveries,that God landed on the Whitehouse Lawn? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > Barry, > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > ... > > > > > " > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > > > > > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of > > > > > consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the > > > > > ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, > > > > > the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be > > > > > intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling > > > > > of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I > > > > > would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because > > > > > it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of these > > > > > ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a > > > > > philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
I have. Nothing dicovered since 1988 bolsters, or lends credibility to the claims made by MMY, Hagelin, and Chopra. If anything, such claims have been undermined even more, from a scientific pov. ... Of course, one can gather evidence on other (not completely scientific) levels. The results would/might point to a speculative hypothesis with a more "Spiritual" foundation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > No. Please, read up on quantum entanglement, superstring theory, and dark > energy among others. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > what are the discoveries,that God landed on the Whitehouse Lawn? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > > > > For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > " > > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > > > with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field > > > > > > of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation > > > > > > of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > > > > > > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > > > can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > > > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But > > > > > > none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > > > framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific > > > > > > truth (Pagels). > > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > >>> > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > >>> > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > >> > >> I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > Barry, > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > ... > " > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the > "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call > "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. > The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and > war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a > high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by > side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about > pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not > know any better. > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of > scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for > those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be > generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be > realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts > scientific truth (Pagels). > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > >>> > >> > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is true > Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on things > Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of > quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use > an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon and > Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of > how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or > how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see > today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not > know what Domash's view would be today. > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean Houston > that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any more, he > does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including the TMO, make > their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot > coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about this debate was > it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood > up and offered Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out > his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical > physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). > Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that > made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense > whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > nomenclature and physics. > Xeno, It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions of space and time. Without your presence, how is it possible for the universe to exist?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Set James Randi on it, he'll design the study to end them all > > but he's looked at it and concluded it isn't worth the effort. > > Oh, that's impressive. You sneer? At least someone has spent their life trying to show paranormal beliefs are just that, beliefs. And showed it rather convincingly I might add. > No matter how elaborate a study he designed, he couldn't > falsify the ME. Not to you I would say, for the rest of us he could show, like he has for all types of woo-woo that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. > > It would be down to the TMO to prove it and I think they've > > tried with the IA course and the yagya programme and all the > > many thousands of new meditators and sidhas. The coin has been > > tossed a great many times now. > > But there are still a bunch of those apparently black > swans (switching metaphors on you). Maybe they only appear black if you have rose-tinted spectacles on? > What's this about "many thousands of new meditators and > sidhas"? That will come as a surprise to some of the other > TM critics here. So what? According to the TMO it's a new dawn in numbers of TM practintioners. Fairly sure we would see something by now, unless..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Set James Randi on it, he'll design the study to end them all > > > but he's looked at it and concluded it isn't worth the effort. > > > > Oh, that's impressive. > > You sneer? At least someone has spent their life trying to show > paranormal beliefs are just that, beliefs. And showed it rather > convincingly I might add. > > > > No matter how elaborate a study he designed, he couldn't > > falsify the ME. > > Not to you I would say, for the rest of us he could show, like > he has for all types of woo-woo that it doesn't stand up to > scrutiny. > > > > It would be down to the TMO to prove it and I think they've > > > tried with the IA course and the yagya programme and all the > > > many thousands of new meditators and sidhas. The coin has been > > > tossed a great many times now. > > > > But there are still a bunch of those apparently black > > swans (switching metaphors on you). > > Maybe they only appear black if you have rose-tinted > spectacles on? > > > > What's this about "many thousands of new meditators and > > sidhas"? That will come as a surprise to some of the other > > TM critics here. > > So what? According to the TMO it's a new dawn in numbers of > TM practintioners. Fairly sure we would see something by now, > unless.. > Eh, MMY's original rhetoric was "through the window of science, we can see the dawn." He was very careful to point out that proclaiming down once the Sun was fully visible, wasn't a big deal and that he was proclaiming it based on the faintest glimmering of light, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Set James Randi on it, he'll design the study to end them all > > > but he's looked at it and concluded it isn't worth the effort. > > > > Oh, that's impressive. > > You sneer? At least someone has spent their life trying to show > paranormal beliefs are just that, beliefs. And showed it rather > convincingly I might add. You certainly would think so from how he touts himself. I could tell you a few things, but it's too much trouble. > > No matter how elaborate a study he designed, he couldn't > > falsify the ME. > > Not to you I would say, for the rest of us he could show, like > he has for all types of woo-woo that it doesn't stand up to > scrutiny. I could have sworn I gave you a link to the Wikipedia entry on falsification so you could inform yourself about it. > > > It would be down to the TMO to prove it and I think they've > > > tried with the IA course and the yagya programme and all the > > > many thousands of new meditators and sidhas. The coin has been > > > tossed a great many times now. > > > > But there are still a bunch of those apparently black > > swans (switching metaphors on you). > > Maybe they only appear black if you have rose-tinted > spectacles on? I really had thought you might be up for a good debate, but I see you aren't, so this is it for me. > > What's this about "many thousands of new meditators and > > sidhas"? That will come as a surprise to some of the other > > TM critics here. > > So what? According to the TMO it's a new dawn in numbers of > TM practintioners. Fairly sure we would see something by now, > unless.. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > >> --- "John" wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > >>> > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > >>> > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > >> > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > >> > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > ... > > " > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists > > call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is > > nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps > > reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is > > foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > > physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the > > Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive > > those who might not know any better. > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress > > because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and > > profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of > > scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion > > for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to > > be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports > > world peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could > > possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy that so > > willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is > > true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on > > things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state > > of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might > > use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon > > and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware > > of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, > > or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we > > see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I > > do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any > > more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including the > > TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra > > over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about > > this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in > > the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short course of quantum > > mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose > > field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking > > (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of > > consciousness that made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the > > correlations between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was > > presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > nomenclature and physics. > > > Xeno, > --- "John" wrote: > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me present > you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient being in a > given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? The answer is > NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? Because you are the > only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions of space and time. > Without your presence, how is it possible for the universe to exist? > For the first 30 or 40 million years after the big-bang there was no life, not even bacteria in the universe. The first generation stars made of pure hydrogen had to create other elements and explode. Most of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 21, 2012, at 8:16 PM, shanti2218411 wrote: > > > IMHO that > > question can't be answered by science which is grounded in > > materialism.Chopra et al are making a fundamental error in > > attempting to describe the nature of consciousness using constructs > > taken from a materialistic/scientific framework. > > > Yeah, it would be much better if they used fairy tales from the Vedic > soma cult than this crazy science stuff! > There is a lot of truth in that cult! I'll be learning from them soon! And yes I know, it is a cult. But that's okay once they, hopefully, support individualistic thinking, it will all come together.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > >>> > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > >>> > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > >> > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > >> > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > ... > > > " > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with > > > the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of > > > consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of > > > the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive > > > of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be > > > intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling > > > of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. > > > I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement > > > because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of > > > these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a > > > philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is > > > true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on > > > things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum > > > state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way > > > one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing > > > how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not > > > acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the > > > quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field > > > equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course > > > talking about this. I do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any > > > more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including > > > the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked > > > Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really > > > interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist > > > Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short > > > course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum > > > notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a > > > book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never > > > come across a definition of consciousness that made any sense. It was > > > clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between consciouness and quantum > > > mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, > > > it was nonsense. > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > Xeno, > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me > > present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient > > being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? > > The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? > > Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions > > of space and time. Without your presence, how is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" wrote: > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is > > true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on > > things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state > > of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might > > use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon > > and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware > > of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, > > or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we > > see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I > > do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any > > more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including the > > TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra > > over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about > > this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in > > the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short course of quantum > > mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose > > field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking > > (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of > > consciousness that made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the > > correlations between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was > > presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > Science is based on materialism. All scientific theories are likewise based > on materialism.Obviously that would include quantum mechanics. > Materialism proposes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and has no > existence independent of matter( i.e. consciousness is an emergent property > of matter e.g the human nervous system). Given the latter it would seem > illogical to assert that "pure consciousness" is the same as the vacuum > state.The real question is whether consciousness is of a completely different > order of reality then matter/energy. IMHO that > question can't be answered by science which is grounded in materialism.Chopra > et al are making a fundamental error in attempting to describe the nature of > consciousness using constructs taken from a materialistic/scientific > framework. > Shanti, Based on MMY's teachings, Hagelin is stating that there is a grand unification between consciousness and matter. He believes that this can be done through the superstring theory. If he is right, he might have found the formula for the Grand Unification, which has been the holy grail since Einstein's theories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > >> > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > >> > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > ... > > > > " > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field > > > > of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation > > > > of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > > > > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > > > better. > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. > > > > But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific > > > > truth (Pagels). > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the > > > > vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in > > > > the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy > > > > describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of > > > > gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy > > > > morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently > > > > morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today under > > > > Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not know > > > > what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was > > > > really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse > > > > of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, > > > > recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that made > > > > any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > > > > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no > > > > sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > Xeno, > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > > > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me > > > present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > >> > > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > ... > > > > > " > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > > with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of > > > > > people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a > > > > > unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. > > > > > The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, > > > > > and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about > > > > > pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who > > > > > might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and > > > > > his movement because it supports world peace and other high > > > > > ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized > > > > > within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts > > > > > scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used > > > > > the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, > > > > > much in the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an > > > > > analogy describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common > > > > > centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum > > > > > analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this > > > > > subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see > > > > > today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I > > > > > do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What > > > > > was really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his > > > > > misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical > > > > > physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand > > > > > Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of > > > > > consciousness that made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the > > > > > correlations between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra > > > > > was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > > > Xeno, > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > > > > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me > > > > present you a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > " > > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to > > > > > > do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that > > > > > > what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do > > > > > > with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers > > > > > > of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a > > > > > > unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. > > > > > > The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, > > > > > > and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about > > > > > > pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who > > > > > > might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and > > > > > > his movement because it supports world peace and other high > > > > > > ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized > > > > > > within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully > > > > > > distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? > > > > > > It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This > > > > > > was based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash > > > > > > used the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain > > > > > > TM, much in the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to > > > > > > create an analogy describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a > > > > > > common centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the > > > > > > quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or > > > > > > how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency > > > > > > that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking > > > > > > about this. I do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar > > > > > > Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the > > > > > > movement any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that > > > > > > many, including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, > > > > > > the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. > > > > > > What was really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal > > > > > > Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up > > > > > > and offered Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to > > > > > > straighten out his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose > > > > > > field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen > > > > > > Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across > > > > > > a definition of consciousness that made any sense. It was clear > > > > > > that for Mlodinaw the correlations between consciouness and quantum > > > > > > mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that > > > > > > is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of > > > > > > spiritual nomenclature and physic
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > " > > > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to > > > > > > > do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion > > > > > > > that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to > > > > > > > do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large > > > > > > > numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > > > > > > > creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of > > > > > > > a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > > > > > > > physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the > > > > > > > ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be > > > > > > > intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes > > > > > > > me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see > > > > > > > the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the > > > > > > > labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted > > > > > > > provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be > > > > > > > taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous > > > > > > > to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > > > > > > > peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could > > > > > > > possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy > > > > > > > that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his > > > > > > > opinion? It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum > > > > > > > mechanics. This was based on things Larry Domash had written. As > > > > > > > I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an > > > > > > > analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use an orange > > > > > > > and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon and > > > > > > > Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally > > > > > > > aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the > > > > > > > quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified > > > > > > > Field equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is > > > > > > > still of course talking about this. I do not know what Domash's > > > > > > > view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak > > > > > > > Chopra, neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and > > > > > > > scholar Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is > > > > > > > not in the movement any more, he does hew to the new age quantum > > > > > > > nonsense that many, including the TMO, make their stock in trade. > > > > > > > In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals > > > > > > > repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about this > > > > > > > debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was > > > > > > > in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short course of > > > > > > > quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum > > > > > > > notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently > > > > > > > wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that > > > > > > > made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations > > > > > > > between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was > > > > > > > presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any > > > > > > > > >>> statements > > > > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > " > > > > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything > > > > > > > > to do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The > > > > > > > > notion that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has > > > > > > > > anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim > > > > > > > > that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime > > > > > > > > and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is > > > > > > > > foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas > > > > > > > > of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive > > > > > > > > of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > > > > > can only be intended to deceive those who might not know > > > > > > > > any better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes > > > > > > > > me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To > > > > > > > > see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, > > > > > > > > the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully > > > > > > > > perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who > > > > > > > > might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be > > > > > > > > generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it > > > > > > > > supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of > > > > > > > > these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > > > > > framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts > > > > > > > > scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his > > > > > > > > opinion? It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum > > > > > > > > mechanics. This was based on things Larry Domash had written. > > > > > > > > As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use an > > > > > > > > orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the > > > > > > > > Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am > > > > > > > > not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed > > > > > > > > into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently > > > > > > > > morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today > > > > > > > > under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I > > > > > > > > do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak > > > > > > > > Chopra, neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and > > > > > > > > scholar Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is > > > > > > > > not in the movement any more, he does hew to the new age > > > > > > > > quantum nonsense that many, including the TMO, make their stock > > > > > > > > in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the > > > > > > > > hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really interesting > > > > > > > > about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard > > > > > > > > Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a > > > > > > > > short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse > > > > > > > > of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical > > > > > > > > physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand > > > > > > > > Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of > > > > > > > > conscious
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any > > > > > > > > > >>> statements > > > > > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by > > > > > > > > > >>> discoveries > > > > > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > " > > > > > > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have > > > > > > > > > anything to do with the "field of consciousness" is > > > > > > > > > false. The notion that what physicists call "the vacuum > > > > > > > > > state" has anything to do with consciousness is > > > > > > > > > nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > > > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a > > > > > > > > > unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high > > > > > > > > > order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics > > > > > > > > > side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of > > > > > > > > > the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be > > > > > > > > > intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi > > > > > > > > > causes me distress because I am a man who values the > > > > > > > > > truth. To see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern > > > > > > > > > physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so > > > > > > > > > willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for > > > > > > > > > those who might be taken in by these distortions. I > > > > > > > > > would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > > > > > > movement because it supports world peace and other high > > > > > > > > > ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be > > > > > > > > > realized within the framework of a philosophy that so > > > > > > > > > willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his > > > > > > > > > opinion? It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum > > > > > > > > > mechanics. This was based on things Larry Domash had written. > > > > > > > > > As I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of quantum > > > > > > > > > mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way one > > > > > > > > > might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy > > > > > > > > > describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common > > > > > > > > > centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum > > > > > > > > > vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or > > > > > > > > > how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field > > > > > > > > > equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still > > > > > > > > > of course talking about this. I do not know what Domash's > > > > > > > > > view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak > > > > > > > > > Chopra, neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, > > > > > > > > > and scholar Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though > > > > > > > > > Chopra is not in the movement any more, he does hew to the > > > > > > > > > new age quantum nonsense that many, including the TMO, make > > > > > > > > > their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked > > > > > > > > > Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was > > > > > > > > > really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, > > > > > > > > > and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up > > > > > > > > > and offered Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to > > > > > > > > > straighten out his misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, > > > > > > > > > whose field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a bo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot > > http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html > > > Thanks, very interesting. Who would've thought just a few years ago we'd have this sort of view of creation. Amazing really
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > >> > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > >> > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > ... > > > > " > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field > > > > of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation > > > > of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > > > > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > > > better. > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. > > > > But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific > > > > truth (Pagels). > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the > > > > vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in > > > > the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy > > > > describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of > > > > gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy > > > > morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently > > > > morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today under > > > > Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not know > > > > what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was > > > > really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse > > > > of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, > > > > recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that made > > > > any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > > > > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no > > > > sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > Well, at least for me, a lot of stuff in QM, or stuff, seems like nonsense. For instance, it's impossible for me to grasp that an elementary particle can *literally* be in two places simultaneously! :o "Nobody [not even Mlodi? -- card] knows how it can be like that." -- Richard Feynman
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > Well, at least for me, a lot of stuff in QM, or stuff, seems > like nonsense. For instance, it's impossible for me to grasp > that an elementary particle can *literally* be in two places > simultaneously! :o > > "Nobody [not even Mlodi? -- card] knows how it can be like that." > -- Richard Feynman > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einstein-was-right-you-can-be-in-two-places-at-once-2162648.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
There's no evidence of anything "outside the Universe"if the Universe is defined as the class of all sets, both relative and Absolute. This definition can be used with reference to the Multiverse hypothesis, a model not at all dependent on consciousness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > >> > > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > >> > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > ... > > > > " > > > > The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field > > > > of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation > > > > of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > > > > supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > > > better. > > > > > > > > Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. > > > > But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific > > > > truth (Pagels). > > > > What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the > > > > vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in > > > > the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy > > > > describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of > > > > gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy > > > > morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently > > > > morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today under > > > > Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not know > > > > what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was > > > > really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse > > > > of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, > > > > recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that made > > > > any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > > > > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no > > > > sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > Xeno, > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
There's no scientific evidence for the existence of Consciousness, or consciousness (relative). There are circumstantial inferences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" wrote: > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is > > > true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on > > > things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum > > > state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way > > > one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing > > > how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not > > > acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the > > > quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field > > > equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course > > > talking about this. I do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any > > > more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including > > > the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked > > > Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really > > > interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist > > > Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short > > > course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum > > > notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a > > > book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never > > > come across a definition of consciousness that made any sense. It was > > > clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between consciouness and quantum > > > mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, > > > it was nonsense. > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > > > Science is based on materialism. All scientific theories are likewise based > > on materialism.Obviously that would include quantum mechanics. > > Materialism proposes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and has no > > existence independent of matter( i.e. consciousness is an emergent property > > of matter e.g the human nervous system). Given the latter it would seem > > illogical to assert that "pure consciousness" is the same as the vacuum > > state.The real question is whether consciousness is of a completely > > different order of reality then matter/energy. IMHO that > > question can't be answered by science which is grounded in > > materialism.Chopra et al are making a fundamental error in attempting to > > describe the nature of consciousness using constructs taken from a > > materialistic/scientific framework. > > > Shanti, > > Based on MMY's teachings, Hagelin is stating that there is a grand > unification between consciousness and matter. He believes that this can be > done through the superstring theory. If he is right, he might have found the > formula for the Grand Unification, which has been the holy grail since > Einstein's theories. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: [...] > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could > > be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own universe, as well as an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as an infinite number of radically different universes, all existing simultaneously *somewhere* in THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" has two distinct meanings in the above sentence: our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which we believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in which all "local" universes happen to exist. And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, as do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these observers throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own consciousness, but what that is like is impossible to say. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: >[...] > > Well, at least for me, a lot of stuff in QM, or stuff, seems > like nonsense. For instance, it's impossible for me to grasp > that an elementary particle can *literally* be in two places > simultaneously! :o > > "Nobody [not even Mlodi? -- card] knows how it can be like that." > -- Richard Feynman > Leonard Susskind has a whole series of series's of lectures on modern physics, including several on Quantum Mechanics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI&feature=relmfu Even the first lecture or two (out of the many dozens) will give you some good ideas. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > [...] > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could be > > > the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite universe, > there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own universe, as well as > an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as an infinite number of > radically different universes, all existing simultaneously *somewhere* in > THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" has two distinct meanings in > the above sentence: > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our standards) > conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which we believe > came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in which all > "local" universes happen to exist. > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, as do I, > that there is an emergent property of the totality of these observers throughout > any and all of the metaverses that has its own consciousness, but what that is > like is impossible to say. While I commend sparaig for his measured response, I will stay out of this and all discussions of pure theory because they're...uh...pure theory, and as such have a limited value to those of a more pragmatic nature, such as myself. However, as I have done lately when John Hagelin has been cited as some kind of authority -- or even referred to as if he were a legitimate scientist -- I feel it is worth pointing out who we're talking about: For those who may be lurking here, and impressed with this "scientist's" theories, I point out that the costume this gentleman is wearing is the garb of a TM Raja (a "king" of an imaginary country invented by Maha- rishi called the "Global Country of the Age of Enlightenment"). Most who are allowed to wear this costume paid Maharishi (no shit) one million dollars for the privilege. Mr. Hagelin, not being rich, seems to have gotten his costume for free, in exchange for proposing theories that seem to support Maharishi's "Vedic fundamentalist" view of the universe and how it all works. Dressed in costumes like this, John Hagelin Ph.D. is widely regarded in the TM cul...uh, I mean movement as an official Big Deal. People flock to him and regard him with a kind of groupie status that approaches awe, and devout TM followers invoke his name in discussions as if he were a real scientist. In addition, his "discoveries" in the world of "science" have landed him a cushy salary for life from the TM movement, for which he serves as one of its major shills...uh, I mean spokespersons. I suggest that you bear this in mind when assessing the quality or validity of his "research," the same way you might have some reservations about accepting the research of a tobacco researcher whose salary and entire life is paid for by the tobacco industry. I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. Carry on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: [...] > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > Carry on. > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > [...] > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > Carry on. > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, he > was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included much of > his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > L. > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, which does not negate his brilliance as a scientist. And if he is carrying some of that glory into the TMO, well that is the nature of how thing work. We do respect top people in their fields. It is pretty certain that John is not objective about TM and the whole Vedic belief system and I think that is what is annoying you and creates a potential for peoples being misled. For some, his words carry the weight of science, when they are only beliefs. I assume most people know that, but maybe not.and he should be careful to qualify his remarks. I am guessing that John is a real devotee, that he met Maharishi and that was it for him. In fact, he gave up his career to follow his heart. I hope he is well compensated, because - just guessing here - he spends a Lot of time doing TM stuff. My wish is that the TM teachers who have generated all this income for the TMO are and were well compensated, too. My guess is that John would be in favor of that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > [...] > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > Carry on. > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, he > was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included much of > his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > L. > I conducted my own science experiment recently. I went to see Karunamayi for a spiritual blessing and got a physical result. As a science experiment I told her that I had trouble with my well-being from a chakra in my left frontal brain area that turns on and then decays off intermittently from a brain injury. That is my experience and I know that. She sat there, went inside and then put her hand on the problem area, meditated deeply for a while and it fluoresced and came on and has stayed on. Was quite some real physics. Hard to deny the cause and effect in that I am palpably better in the grey-matter of the brain. The electro-chemistry works now, the chakra is lit and holding. I'll take the quantum reality thank-you. Based on the science I'd say the quantum idiots are the spiritual deniers here. Shame on them. -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > [...] > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could > > > be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THEM! > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, I don't give a shit about Hagelin's cosmology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > [...] > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, > > he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included > > much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > L. > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, which does > not negate his brilliance as a scientist. That he is the greatest physicist since Einstein is HIS designation and no one elses. What negates his "brilliance" is the amount of complete bollocks he talks about just about everything. Have you ever seen "the physics of yogic flying"? Nuff said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are doing on Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging anonymously on a public forum someone who is doing some very high-minded good work who happens to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a bunch of mean-spirited braying sophist ignorant asses. This list could use some firm moderation. -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, > > > he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included > > > much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, which > > does not negate his brilliance as a scientist. > > That he is the greatest physicist since Einstein is HIS designation and no > one elses. What negates his "brilliance" is the amount of > complete bollocks he talks about just about everything. Have you > ever seen "the physics of yogic flying"? Nuff said. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are doing on > Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging anonymously on a > public forum someone who is doing some very high-minded good work who happens > to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a bunch of mean-spirited > braying sophist ignorant asses. This list could use some firm moderation. Sinful! What do you want Buck? Turn it into a pro-TM only site? Plenty of those about if you don't like this one. High minded good work eh? I think fraud is fraud and claiming you can predict and prevent earthquakes for only $100,000 counts as fraud. That's what I hate, seeing people get ripped off. His physics is insane, quantum entanglement isn't the mechanism behind astrology. Your mind doesn't affect gravity when you are "flying", it doesn't go beyond the level of grand unification to affect the quantum outcome of the macro universe. I think you've been had by a shameless fundamentalist tub-thumper. And he hasn't finished Einsteins work no matter how much he claims otherwise. The arrogance of the man astonishes me. Why doesn't it annoy you Buck? > -Buck in the Dome > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from > > > > > the > > > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he > > > > > shills > > > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, > > > > > and > > > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this > > > > included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, which > > > does not negate his brilliance as a scientist. > > > > That he is the greatest physicist since Einstein is HIS designation and no > > one elses. What negates his "brilliance" is the amount of > > complete bollocks he talks about just about everything. Have you > > ever seen "the physics of yogic flying"? Nuff said. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Hegelin is an adulterous womanizer. He's ruined marriage after marriage. FUCK THAT BASTARD even if he does have a handle on subtle physics. Better that the world doesn't get to know what he knows then that he's honored by society when he's doing his sick and evil sex tripping. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are doing > > on Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging anonymously on a > > public forum someone who is doing some very high-minded good work who > > happens to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a bunch of > > mean-spirited braying sophist ignorant asses. This list could use some > > firm moderation. > > Sinful! What do you want Buck? Turn it into a pro-TM only > site? Plenty of those about if you don't like this one. > > > High minded good work eh? I think fraud is fraud and claiming > you can predict and prevent earthquakes for only $100,000 > counts as fraud. That's what I hate, seeing people get ripped > off. > > His physics is insane, quantum entanglement isn't the mechanism > behind astrology. Your mind doesn't affect gravity when you are > "flying", it doesn't go beyond the level of grand unification > to affect the quantum outcome of the macro universe. I think > you've been had by a shameless fundamentalist tub-thumper. And > he hasn't finished Einsteins work no matter how much he claims otherwise. The > arrogance of the man astonishes me. Why doesn't > it annoy you Buck? > > > > -Buck in the Dome > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from > > > > > > the > > > > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > > > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he > > > > > > shills > > > > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > > > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually > > > > > > credible, and > > > > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this > > > > > included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, which > > > > does not negate his brilliance as a scientist. > > > > > > That he is the greatest physicist since Einstein is HIS designation and > > > no one elses. What negates his "brilliance" is the amount of > > > complete bollocks he talks about just about everything. Have you > > > ever seen "the physics of yogic flying"? Nuff said. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and > detractors are doing on Hagelin here. He's a good guy and > you are sandbagging anonymously on a public forum someone > who is doing some very high-minded good work who happens > to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a bunch of > mean-spirited braying sophist ignorant asses. This list > could use some firm moderation. > -Buck in the Dome I've always been fascinated by a phenomenon that seems counter-intuitive -- the Abused-Abuser Flip-Flop. You know, the way kids who grow up the victims of child abuse frighteningly often grow up to be adults who abuse their own children. On one level, it just does not compute. On another, more compassionate level, I understand that on unconscious levels, humans are still just monkeys, emulating the behaviors they see around them. What I see as a similar flip-flop is how people who have themselves been victims of narrow-minded bias, discrimination and/or persecution, and attempts to censor them often then turn around and do the same thing to others. As often happens to me when reading FFL, Buck's post reminded me of a song by Bruce Cockburn. It's as insightful and relevant today as it was when he first wrote it in 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9uBiXTlIMg What's been done in the name of Jesus? What's been done in the name of Buddha? What's been done in the name of Islam? What's been done in the name of man? What's been done in the name of liberation? And in the name of civilization? And in the name of race? And in the name of peace? Everybody Loves to see Justice done On somebody else Can you tell me how much bleeding It takes to fill a word with meaning? And how much, how much death It takes to give a slogan breath? And how much, how much, how much flame Gives light to a name For the hollow darkness In which nations dress? Everybody Loves to see Justice done On somebody else Everybody's seen the things they've seen We all have to live with what we've been When they say charity begins at home They're not just talking about a toilet and a telephone Got to search the silence of the soul's wild places For a voice that can cross the spaces These definitions that we love -- create -- These names for heaven, hero, tribe and state Everybody Loves to see Justice done On somebody else
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > >[...] > > > > Well, at least for me, a lot of stuff in QM, or stuff, seems > > like nonsense. For instance, it's impossible for me to grasp > > that an elementary particle can *literally* be in two places > > simultaneously! :o > > > > "Nobody [not even Mlodi? -- card] knows how it can be like that." > > -- Richard Feynman > > > > Leonard Susskind has a whole series of series's of lectures on modern > physics, including several on Quantum Mechanics. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI&feature=relmfu > > Even the first lecture or two (out of the many dozens) will give you some > good ideas. > > > L. > Yes, Leonard Susskind is an excellent teacher. I completed one of his video series on cosmology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > [...] > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. > > > > Carry on. > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, he > was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included much of > his time at MIU (before the name change). Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists When even Brian May from Queen does! L. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" wrote: > [...] > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could > > > be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > --- "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > --- "sparaig" wrote: > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite universe, > there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own universe, as well as > an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as an infinite number of > radically different universes, all existing simultaneously *somewhere* in > THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" has two distinct meanings in > the above sentence: > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our > standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which we > believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in which > all "local" universes happen to exist. > > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, as > do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these observers > throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own consciousness, but > what that is like is impossible to say. > > L. > It cannot be an infinite expanse of space-time because we know the local universe was tiny at the start of the big-bang and is still inflating. The expansion might eventually rip and disintegrate the local universe. The local universe itself probably behaves like a quantum particle that is existing in many states simultaneously. Some scientists say 'dark matter' is particles hidden in the fourth spatial dimension and is excerting some influence in our 3-d space. There has to be a regression of observers going all the way back to this cosmic-uber entity. If you are an onserver, then who is observing you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > What I see as a similar flip-flop is how people > who have themselves been victims of narrow-minded > bias, discrimination and/or persecution, and > attempts to censor them often then turn around > and do the same thing to others. Shall we look at all the ways Barry has tried to censor the TMers here? For him, it's an ongoing (if pathetically unsuccessful) project. > As often happens to me when reading FFL, Buck's > post reminded me of a song by Bruce Cockburn. > It's as insightful and relevant today as it was > when he first wrote it in 1981: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9uBiXTlIMg > > Everybody > Loves to see > Justice done > On somebody else Everybody including Barry. *Especially* including Barry. See his earlier post today--he was thrilled that Ravi was thrown off, purportedly for attacking TM critics. In fact, he was thrown off (and Barry knows this) for having revealed one poster's real name. The poster was a TMer. Barry routinely attacks TMers at least as viciously as Ravi ever did. And much more consistently dishonestly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are doing on > Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging anonymously on a > public forum someone who is doing some very high-minded good work who happens > to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a bunch of mean-spirited > braying sophist ignorant asses. This list could use some firm moderation. > -Buck in the Dome Well said. Ever wondered why the Turq writes so much about spiritual wampires ? It's because it's a theme he knows a lot about. Turq et al are spiritual wampires living on (trying) to suck energy from the only spiritual movement with real content they ever knew.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > Xeno, > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me present > you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient being in a > given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? The answer is > NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? Because you are the > only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions of space and time. > Without your presence, how is it possible for the universe to exist? > According to Chopra, he and Mlodinaw have been communicating after the debate, and even seem to have become friends, but just what they have discussed subsequently is unknown to me. They appear to be planning debates. Mlodinaw clearly had, as of the debate I posted a link for, not really considered the *hard problem* of consciousness, that is, how can something at seems immaterial be found in conjunction with that which is material, the universe? It seems they have participated in conferences. http://www.saybrook.edu/node/7690 Your thought experiment is a great situation, but I do not see how the answer could be known. If, for example, the current physical view of the beginning of our universe is 'real', then there were no sentient beings then, but they evolved later on. If this reasoning is valid, then upon the death of the last sentient being, awareness of that universe would end, but the universe would not end. If I were that being, my universe and perception of it would end. Maybe this is not the right question. If you were to die, your world would end, but mine would not, if I remained living. The question I have for myself is, if the most abstract value of existence is called 'being', is this value conscious or not? If it is not conscious, does it have the possibility of becoming conscious, and how would that happen? This has to do with whether the basic value of existence is dualistic or not. Another way to view this - if the most abstract value of existence is 'x', is it the seed value for unconsciousness *and* consciousness, or is it just consciousness, or is it just unconscious? Is it something neither conscious nor unconscious but the potential for both? This seems both a logical problem and a semantic problem. My own sense of this is the material universe and consciousness are identical, they are not separate entities, and that *being* is the potential for these. This would mean that spirituality and materialism are not in opposition and not distinct realms of experience. Therefore, you could explain the problem in either language (materialist or spiritual), but because of the bifurcating value of language and intellect, when you mix the two realms of thought you end up with logical impossibilities. This is because language of materialism connects with perceived entities and attempts to describe them, while *metaphysical* is essentially not descriptive of anything, but represents emotional states, and abstract states of experience in a kind of poetic way. When you listen to music (without words) the music seems only to represent itself, it does not depict the world. That is, we can use language to depict spiritual states but it is not factual like science depicts materialist states. If we use scientific language to describe consciousness, we will always come up with an evolutionary emergent property of matter when it is organised in a particular way. When we mix the two modes of language, it is like taking apples for oranges, but it does become apparent that as far as apples an oranges we can have the concept of fruit. We could image that a language that can encompass science and spiritual language would have to be something that neither currently can navigate separately or together.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
An additional link regarding the conference with Mlodinaw and Chopra and Blackmore http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/consciousness-conference-hits-all-the-stops-230502.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > Xeno, > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me > > present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient > > being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? > > The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? > > Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions > > of space and time. Without your presence, how is it possible for the > > universe to exist? > > > According to Chopra, he and Mlodinaw have been communicating after the > debate, and even seem to have become friends, but just what they have > discussed subsequently is unknown to me. They appear to be planning debates. > Mlodinaw clearly had, as of the debate I posted a link for, not really > considered the *hard problem* of consciousness, that is, how can something at > seems immaterial be found in conjunction with that which is material, the > universe? > > It seems they have participated in conferences. > http://www.saybrook.edu/node/7690 > > Your thought experiment is a great situation, but I do not see how the answer > could be known. If, for example, the current physical view of the beginning > of our universe is 'real', then there were no sentient beings then, but they > evolved later on. If this reasoning is valid, then upon the death of the last > sentient being, awareness of that universe would end, but the universe would > not end. If I were that being, my universe and perception of it would end. > Maybe this is not the right question. If you were to die, your world would > end, but mine would not, if I remained living. The question I have for myself > is, if the most abstract value of existence is called 'being', is this value > conscious or not? If it is not conscious, does it have the possibility of > becoming conscious, and how would that happen? This has to do with whether > the basic value of existence is dualistic or not. Another way to view this - > if the most abstract value of existence is 'x', is it the seed value for > unconsciousness *and* consciousness, or is it just consciousness, or is it > just unconscious? Is it something neither conscious nor unconscious but the > potential for both? This seems both a logical problem and a semantic problem. > > My own sense of this is the material universe and consciousness are > identical, they are not separate entities, and that *being* is the potential > for these. This would mean that spirituality and materialism are not in > opposition and not distinct realms of experience. Therefore, you could > explain the problem in either language (materialist or spiritual), but > because of the bifurcating value of language and intellect, when you mix the > two realms of thought you end up with logical impossibilities. This is > because language of materialism connects with perceived entities and attempts > to describe them, while *metaphysical* is essentially not descriptive of > anything, but represents emotional states, and abstract states of experience > in a kind of poetic way. When you listen to music (without words) the music > seems only to represent itself, it does not depict the world. That is, we can > use language to depict spiritual states but it is not factual like science > depicts materialist states. If we use scientific language to describe > consciousness, we will always come up with an evolutionary emergent property > of matter when it is organised in a particular way. > > When we mix the two modes of language, it is like taking apples for oranges, > but it does become apparent that as far as apples an oranges we can have the > concept of fruit. We could image that a language that can encompass science > and spiritual language would have to be something that neither currently can > navigate separately or together. > The fruit and music analogies are good and helpful. Do you recall the post number where you used the equations, x,y, and z to prove nothingness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: [...] > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, > > he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included > > much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > No-one bothered to add him (until now). Check again. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This > > > > could be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > --- "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > > > --- "sparaig" wrote: > > > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite > > universe, there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own > > universe, as well as an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as > > an infinite number of radically different universes, all existing > > simultaneously *somewhere* in THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" > > has two distinct meanings in the above sentence: > > > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our > > standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which > > we believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in > > which all "local" universes happen to exist. > > > > > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, > > as do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these > > observers throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own > > consciousness, but what that is like is impossible to say. > > > > L. > > > > It cannot be an infinite expanse of space-time because we > know the local universe was tiny at the start of the > big-bang and is still inflating. The expansion might > eventually rip and disintegrate the local universe. > Doesn't matter. The local universe is thought, assuming that space-time is flat in the large, to be part of a larger entity that is infinite. > The local universe itself probably behaves like a quantum > particle that is existing in many states simultaneously. > > Some scientists say 'dark matter' is particles hidden in the > fourth spatial dimension and is excerting some influence in > our 3-d space. > > There has to be a regression of observers going all the way > back to this cosmic-uber entity. If you are an onserver, > then who is observing you? > Every electron and other elementary particle in existence. ANd they all observe each other as information is exchanged -that is what "information exchange means" in this context. At the "unified field level," assuming that such exists, the information exchange is constant, and works for all entities at this level. Even at levels like electromagnetism, every charged particle is exchanging information with every other charged particle, constantly. This isn't controversial. The only controversial aspect is the interpretation of information exchange between two entities as "consciousness." L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: >> >>> Xeno, >>> >>> It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the >>> importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me >>> present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient >>> being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? >>> The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? >>> Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions >>> of space and time. Without your presence, how is it possible for the >>> universe to exist? >>> >> According to Chopra, he and Mlodinaw have been communicating after the >> debate, and even seem to have become friends, but just what they have >> discussed subsequently is unknown to me. They appear to be planning debates. >> Mlodinaw clearly had, as of the debate I posted a link for, not really >> considered the *hard problem* of consciousness, that is, how can something >> at seems immaterial be found in conjunction with that which is material, the >> universe? >> >> It seems they have participated in conferences. >> http://www.saybrook.edu/node/7690 >> >> Your thought experiment is a great situation, but I do not see how the >> answer could be known. If, for example, the current physical view of the >> beginning of our universe is 'real', then there were no sentient beings >> then, but they evolved later on. If this reasoning is valid, then upon the >> death of the last sentient being, awareness of that universe would end, but >> the universe would not end. If I were that being, my universe and perception >> of it would end. Maybe this is not the right question. If you were to die, >> your world would end, but mine would not, if I remained living. The question >> I have for myself is, if the most abstract value of existence is called >> 'being', is this value conscious or not? If it is not conscious, does it >> have the possibility of becoming conscious, and how would that happen? This >> has to do with whether the basic value of existence is dualistic or not. >> Another way to view this - if the most abstract value of existence is 'x', >> is it the seed value for unconsciousness *and* consciousness, or is it just >> consciousness, or is it just unconscious? Is it something neither conscious >> nor unconscious but the potential for both? This seems both a logical >> problem and a semantic problem. >> >> My own sense of this is the material universe and consciousness are >> identical, they are not separate entities, and that *being* is the potential >> for these. This would mean that spirituality and materialism are not in >> opposition and not distinct realms of experience. Therefore, you could >> explain the problem in either language (materialist or spiritual), but >> because of the bifurcating value of language and intellect, when you mix the >> two realms of thought you end up with logical impossibilities. This is >> because language of materialism connects with perceived entities and >> attempts to describe them, while *metaphysical* is essentially not >> descriptive of anything, but represents emotional states, and abstract >> states of experience in a kind of poetic way. When you listen to music >> (without words) the music seems only to represent itself, it does not depict >> the world. That is, we can use language to depict spiritual states but it is >> not factual like science depicts materialist states. If we use scientific >> language to describe consciousness, we will always come up with an >> evolutionary emergent property of matter when it is organised in a >> particular way. >> >> When we mix the two modes of language, it is like taking apples for oranges, >> but it does become apparent that as far as apples an oranges we can have the >> concept of fruit. We could image that a language that can encompass science >> and spiritual language would have to be something that neither currently can >> navigate separately or together. >> > > The fruit and music analogies are good and helpful. > > Do you recall the post number where you used the equations, x,y, and z to > prove nothingness > No, I do not recall the post number, but I can look it up and the answer is: #310242
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > No, I do not recall the post number, but I can look it up and the answer is: > #310242 > 42 is ALWAYS the answer... L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > No, I do not recall the post number, but I can look it up and the answer > > is: #310242 > > > > 42 is ALWAYS the answer... > 2 x 21 = 42 and 2 + 1 = 3 and 2 + 3 = 5 Thereby proving it. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
You know, I'm just a conservative and old meditator here. A practitioner. I know my own experience with it and I'm having great experiences, thank-you very much. Now I wish them all the best in facilitating things here for me and the community. Has there been some bad behavior on their parts? You bet, heck the FairfieldLife archive is a chronicle to that. Could it be better? Of course. But it is not all bad and still there are a lot of good people in there doing good work. With that there is always hope. Take courage, -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Hegelin is an adulterous womanizer. He's ruined marriage after marriage. > FUCK THAT BASTARD even if he does have a handle on subtle physics. Better > that the world doesn't get to know what he knows then that he's honored by > society when he's doing his sick and evil sex tripping. > > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are > > > doing on Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging > > > anonymously on a public forum someone who is doing some very high-minded > > > good work who happens to be modern, spiritual and a scientist. What a > > > bunch of mean-spirited braying sophist ignorant asses. This list could > > > use some firm moderation. > > > > Sinful! What do you want Buck? Turn it into a pro-TM only > > site? Plenty of those about if you don't like this one. > > > > > > High minded good work eh? I think fraud is fraud and claiming > > you can predict and prevent earthquakes for only $100,000 > > counts as fraud. That's what I hate, seeing people get ripped > > off. > > > > His physics is insane, quantum entanglement isn't the mechanism > > behind astrology. Your mind doesn't affect gravity when you are > > "flying", it doesn't go beyond the level of grand unification > > to affect the quantum outcome of the macro universe. I think > > you've been had by a shameless fundamentalist tub-thumper. And > > he hasn't finished Einsteins work no matter how much he claims otherwise. > > The arrogance of the man astonishes me. Why doesn't > > it annoy you Buck? > > > > > > > -Buck in the Dome > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away > > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He > > > > > > > owes > > > > > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he > > > > > > > shills > > > > > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > > > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually > > > > > > > credible, and > > > > > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his > > > > > > > credibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and > > > > > > this included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, > > > > > which does not negate his brilliance as a scientist. > > > > > > > > That he is the greatest physicist since Einstein is HIS designation and > > > > no one elses. What negates his "brilliance" is the amount of > > > > complete bollocks he talks about just about everything. Have you > > > > ever seen "the physics of yogic flying"? Nuff said. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > You know, I'm just a conservative and old meditator here. A practitioner. I > know my own experience with it and I'm having great experiences, thank-you > very much. Now I wish them all the best in facilitating things here for me > and the community. Has there been some bad behavior on their parts? You bet, > heck the FairfieldLife archive is a chronicle to that. Could it be better? > Of course. But it is not all bad and still there are a lot of good people in > there doing good work. With that there is always hope. > Take courage, > -Buck in the Dome > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Hegelin is an adulterous womanizer. He's ruined marriage after marriage. > > FUCK THAT BASTARD even if he does have a handle on subtle physics. Better > > that the world doesn't get to know what he knows then that he's honored by > > society when he's doing his sick and evil sex tripping. > > > > Edg > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > I think it is sinful, the carping that you haters and detractors are > > > > doing on Hagelin here. He's a good guy and you are sandbagging > > > > anonymously on a public forum someone who is doing some very > > > > high-minded good work who happens to be modern, spiritual and a > > > > scientist. What a bunch of mean-spirited braying sophist ignorant > > > > asses. This list could use some firm moderation. > > > > > > Sinful! What do you want Buck? Turn it into a pro-TM only > > > site? Plenty of those about if you don't like this one. > > > > > > > > > High minded good work eh? I think fraud is fraud and claiming > > > you can predict and prevent earthquakes for only $100,000 > > > counts as fraud. That's what I hate, seeing people get ripped > > > off. > > > > > > His physics is insane, quantum entanglement isn't the mechanism > > > behind astrology. Your mind doesn't affect gravity when you are > > > "flying", it doesn't go beyond the level of grand unification > > > to affect the quantum outcome of the macro universe. I think > > > you've been had by a shameless fundamentalist tub-thumper. And > > > he hasn't finished Einsteins work no matter how much he claims otherwise. > > > The arrogance of the man astonishes me. Why doesn't > > > it annoy you Buck? > > > Yep, and everything you guys may say here may be true. And people also do change in life. It's hardly fair to judge people later in life by what they were like earlier or in school. There's two Domes still full of folks with it here too by larger life experience. I'm sorry you don't got more to show for it now, quitters. However Hagelin, he's a changed man now out of the shadows. Hagelin now is hitting long balls over the fence. Evidently you're just so out of the game and park you can't see this. He's had his eye on the big game a long time and he's moved up to the plate with it now. It's interesting and exciting to watch if you have eyes to watch with. -Buck in the Dome > > > > > > > -Buck in the Dome > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away > > > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > > TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He > > > > > > > > owes > > > > > > > > his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement > > > > > > > > he shills > > > > > > > > for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with > > > > > > > > increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually > > > > > > > > credible, and > > > > > > > > thus be able to better form their own judgments of his > > > > > > > > credibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carry on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his > > > > > > > early days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist > > > > > > > and this included much of his time at MIU (before the name > > > > > > > change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, Lawson has a point here. John H changed careers long ago, > > > > > > which does not negate his brilliance
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > [...] > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early days, > > > he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this included > > > much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > Check again. Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > L >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > [...] > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this > > > > included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > Check again. > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. Ha ha, you have him down as "not active" I'm going to find a link to some of his lectures abusing physics in the name of selling mystical gibberish like earthquake prevention and "flying" I bet he removes himself from the list before it gets too embarrassing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > [...] > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could > > > be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite universe, > there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own universe, as well as > an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as an infinite number of > radically different universes, all existing simultaneously *somewhere* in > THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" has two distinct meanings in > the above sentence: > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our > standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which we > believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in which > all "local" universes happen to exist. > > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, as > do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these observers > throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own consciousness, but > what that is like is impossible to say. > > L. > Lawson, Your understanding of the multiverse is different from what Michio Kaku is telling. He states that the multiverse is a conglomeration of separate universe bubbles floating in an ocean of nothing. In MMY speak, the ocean of nothing is equivalent to the Unified Field. It appears that your model of the universe is similar to what Alan Guth is theorizing (Eternal Inflation Theory). Nonetheless, here's an interesting lecture by Leonard Susskind entitled, "The World as a Hologram": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY Based on my understanding of this lecture, it would be possible to see other galaxies, perhaps even universes, that are beyond our observable horizon. Also, it could be possible to decipher the information from the microwave background. In other words, scientists could decipher what happened at the instant of the Big Bang, and maybe even what happened before the Bang. You guys should watch the clip. You may have other insights about Susskind's proposal. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
> > > > > > > > --- "Jason" wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This > > > > could be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > > > > > > > --- "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > > --- "sparaig" wrote: > > > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite > > universe, there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own > > universe, as well as an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as > > an infinite number of radically different universes, all existing > > simultaneously *somewhere* in THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" > > has two distinct meanings in the above sentence: > > > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our > > standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which > > we believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in > > which all "local" universes happen to exist. > > > > > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, > > as do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these > > observers throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own > > consciousness, but what that is like is impossible to say. > > > > L. > > > > --- "John" wrote: > > Lawson, > > Your understanding of the multiverse is different from what Michio Kaku is > telling. He states that the multiverse is a conglomeration of separate > universe bubbles floating in an ocean of nothing. In MMY speak, the ocean of > nothing is equivalent to the Unified Field. > > It appears that your model of the universe is similar to what Alan Guth is > theorizing (Eternal Inflation Theory). > > Nonetheless, here's an interesting lecture by Leonard Susskind entitled, "The > World as a Hologram": > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY > > Based on my understanding of this lecture, it would be possible to see other > galaxies, perhaps even universes, that are beyond our observable horizon. > > Also, it could be possible to decipher the information from the microwave > background. In other words, scientists could decipher what happened at the > instant of the Big Bang, and maybe even what happened before the Bang. > > You guys should watch the clip. You may have other insights about Susskind's > proposal. > > JR > If the Fourth spatial dimension exists, our "gross local universe" could be floating inside a higher subtle universe made of subtle particles. The "dark matter" could be astral particles inside "Level 2 higher parallel universe". So the gravity of the dark matter seeps through to evolve galaxies in our local universe? If true, the higher subtle universe could be floating in an ocean of nothing. Not too much deviation from MMY speak? There might even be a "Level 3 Causal universe" aka Paramahansa Yogananda.?!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > Yep, and everything you guys may say here may be true. And people also do > change in life. It's hardly fair to judge people later in life by what they > were like earlier or in school. > There's two Domes still full of folks with it here too by larger life > experience. I'm sorry you don't got more to show for it now, quitters. Well said. It's very strange that someone, the majority here, who stopped the practise decades ago still go on and on about some negativity they find within themselves. Why not simply focus on what they do today ? It seems Maharishi made a far stronger impression on these people than they will ever admit. > > However Hagelin, he's a changed man now out of the shadows. Hagelin now is > hitting long balls over the fence. Evidently you're just so out of the game > and park you can't see this. He's had his eye on the big game a long time > and he's moved up to the plate with it now. It's interesting and exciting to > watch if you have eyes to watch with. > -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this > > > > > included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > > > Check again. > > > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > > > Ha ha, you have him down as "not active" I'm going to find a link > to some of his lectures abusing physics in the name of selling > mystical gibberish like earthquake prevention and "flying" I bet > he removes himself from the list before it gets too embarrassing. The more I think about this the stranger it seems. "Not active" obviously means you don't believe his later work for the TMO is relevant to his previous but you state yourself that insights from mysticism helped form his theories and it isn't like his CasUF paper doesn't rely on the ME for evidence. And as we're talking about the alleged home of all the laws of nature it isn't even remotely stretching it to include all sorts of phenomena like earthquakes as "stress" that meditation and prayer can remove from the environment. In fact Hagelin him- self does this very thing, and a few others like "explain" levitation, in his newer lectures. Same theory, same language. So why not give the man some credit and just inform the wiki crowd that he has expanded understanding to Total Knowledge of Everything and that all scientific problems have been explained by the synthesis of modern science with vedic science? I think I know the reason why, you're worried that if the people who complied the rest of the list got wind that Hagelin was claiming to be the greatest physicist since Einstein (exactly how he is introduced in lectures) and then saw him claim QP as an explanation for astrology and yogic "flying" your own stock as an independent contributor to wiki might be calld into question. Not to mention the inevitable "do you really believe this stuff?" jibes. Thus, as far as the casual reader of wiki knows, John Hagelin is not active. Most ingenious. Am I right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Amazing - echolocation (a tongue clicking process) by humans helps those who are blind to navigate and walk around! The link below has an article and video. I know a young woman who is going blind due to a genetic condition and this is something I will suggest she explore. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > An additional link regarding the conference with Mlodinaw and Chopra and > Blackmore > > http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/consciousness-conference-hits-all-the-stops-230502.html >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
The thing is, criteria for being in the list of physicists you pointed to is so ill-defined that any physicist with a wikipedia entry pretty much automatically qualifies. In the case of John Hagelin, both of his main co-authors are included in that list and their wikipedia pages mention those papers that he co-wrote. It would be hard to argue that they should be included and John shouldn't be. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > [...] > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and this > > > > included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > Check again. > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > > > > L > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
Er, you didn't read his wikipedia page, did you. Click on his name in that list. It automatically takes you to the John Hagelin page. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his early > > > > > > days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist and > > > > > > this included much of his time at MIU (before the name change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > > > > > Check again. > > > > > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > > > > > > Ha ha, you have him down as "not active" I'm going to find a link > > to some of his lectures abusing physics in the name of selling > > mystical gibberish like earthquake prevention and "flying" I bet > > he removes himself from the list before it gets too embarrassing. > > The more I think about this the stranger it seems. "Not > active" obviously means you don't believe his later work for > the TMO is relevant to his previous but you state yourself > that insights from mysticism helped form his theories and it > isn't like his CasUF paper doesn't rely on the ME for evidence. > > And as we're talking about the alleged home of all the laws of > nature it isn't even remotely stretching it to include all sorts > of phenomena like earthquakes as "stress" that meditation and > prayer can remove from the environment. In fact Hagelin him- > self does this very thing, and a few others like "explain" > levitation, in his newer lectures. Same theory, same language. > > So why not give the man some credit and just inform the wiki > crowd that he has expanded understanding to Total Knowledge > of Everything and that all scientific problems have been > explained by the synthesis of modern science with vedic > science? > > I think I know the reason why, you're worried that if the > people who complied the rest of the list got wind that > Hagelin was claiming to be the greatest physicist since > Einstein (exactly how he is introduced in lectures) and > then saw him claim QP as an explanation for astrology > and yogic "flying" your own stock as an independent > contributor to wiki might be calld into question. Not to > mention the inevitable "do you really believe this stuff?" > jibes. Thus, as far as the casual reader of wiki knows, > John Hagelin is not active. Most ingenious. > > Am I right? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Er, you didn't read his wikipedia page, did you. Click on his name in that > list. It automatically takes you to the John Hagelin page. > Nope, but I've read it before. Does it say "Not active"? > L. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his > > > > > > > early days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist > > > > > > > and this included much of his time at MIU (before the name > > > > > > > change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > > > > > > > Check again. > > > > > > > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > > > > > > > > > Ha ha, you have him down as "not active" I'm going to find a link > > > to some of his lectures abusing physics in the name of selling > > > mystical gibberish like earthquake prevention and "flying" I bet > > > he removes himself from the list before it gets too embarrassing. > > > > The more I think about this the stranger it seems. "Not > > active" obviously means you don't believe his later work for > > the TMO is relevant to his previous but you state yourself > > that insights from mysticism helped form his theories and it > > isn't like his CasUF paper doesn't rely on the ME for evidence. > > > > And as we're talking about the alleged home of all the laws of > > nature it isn't even remotely stretching it to include all sorts > > of phenomena like earthquakes as "stress" that meditation and > > prayer can remove from the environment. In fact Hagelin him- > > self does this very thing, and a few others like "explain" > > levitation, in his newer lectures. Same theory, same language. > > > > So why not give the man some credit and just inform the wiki > > crowd that he has expanded understanding to Total Knowledge > > of Everything and that all scientific problems have been > > explained by the synthesis of modern science with vedic > > science? > > > > I think I know the reason why, you're worried that if the > > people who complied the rest of the list got wind that > > Hagelin was claiming to be the greatest physicist since > > Einstein (exactly how he is introduced in lectures) and > > then saw him claim QP as an explanation for astrology > > and yogic "flying" your own stock as an independent > > contributor to wiki might be calld into question. Not to > > mention the inevitable "do you really believe this stuff?" > > jibes. Thus, as far as the casual reader of wiki knows, > > John Hagelin is not active. Most ingenious. > > > > Am I right? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Gibberish
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Er, you didn't read his wikipedia page, did you. Click on his name in that > list. It automatically takes you to the John Hagelin page. Just went to have a look and it seems he's been removed, what happened, your doing? > L. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > John's career THESE days involves the TM organization. In his > > > > > > > early days, he was very well respected as a theoretical physicist > > > > > > > and this included much of his time at MIU (before the name > > > > > > > change). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you never see this world renowned physicists name anywhere > > > > > > outside of TM publications. Nor does he appear here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists > > > > > > > > > > > > When even Brian May from Queen does! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-one bothered to add him (until now). > > > > > > > > > > Check again. > > > > > > > > Proof. It aint what you know, it's who you know. > > > > > > > > > Ha ha, you have him down as "not active" I'm going to find a link > > > to some of his lectures abusing physics in the name of selling > > > mystical gibberish like earthquake prevention and "flying" I bet > > > he removes himself from the list before it gets too embarrassing. > > > > The more I think about this the stranger it seems. "Not > > active" obviously means you don't believe his later work for > > the TMO is relevant to his previous but you state yourself > > that insights from mysticism helped form his theories and it > > isn't like his CasUF paper doesn't rely on the ME for evidence. > > > > And as we're talking about the alleged home of all the laws of > > nature it isn't even remotely stretching it to include all sorts > > of phenomena like earthquakes as "stress" that meditation and > > prayer can remove from the environment. In fact Hagelin him- > > self does this very thing, and a few others like "explain" > > levitation, in his newer lectures. Same theory, same language. > > > > So why not give the man some credit and just inform the wiki > > crowd that he has expanded understanding to Total Knowledge > > of Everything and that all scientific problems have been > > explained by the synthesis of modern science with vedic > > science? > > > > I think I know the reason why, you're worried that if the > > people who complied the rest of the list got wind that > > Hagelin was claiming to be the greatest physicist since > > Einstein (exactly how he is introduced in lectures) and > > then saw him claim QP as an explanation for astrology > > and yogic "flying" your own stock as an independent > > contributor to wiki might be calld into question. Not to > > mention the inevitable "do you really believe this stuff?" > > jibes. Thus, as far as the casual reader of wiki knows, > > John Hagelin is not active. Most ingenious. > > > > Am I right? > > >
