[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that > gravity collapses the wave function and results in a > solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered if > some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow > trying to merge the info from our sense with the idea > that we create the universe in consciousness! But > gravity sounds more rational, for sure. The article was published in June 2005; the guy who is running the experiments designed to test Penrose's idea said it would be at least four years before they had any results. I'd be really curious to have an update. > Lanza's biocentrism is based on the Copernican (That's Copenhagen; Copernicus didn't know from quantum mechanics! I just looked it up--it's called the Copenhagen interpretation because it was first developed by Bohr and Heisenberg when they were working together in that city.) > understanding of quantum physics and assumes that if > you are not looking at something, it reverts to the > wave status and is no longer really there or observable. > Just so far out there. Einstein didn't much like it either. But if I had to pick between that and the "many worlds" interpretation, I'd go with Copenhagen. All the various interpretations are just screwy to the max (with the possible exception of Penrose's, but we'll have to see what happens with the experiments). Richard Feynman said of quantum mechanics: "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." I adore Feynman, but it's really hard *not* to want to try to figure how it can be like that. I wonder sometimes whether he wasn't talking to himself as much as everybody else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > > > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > > > > you not get? > > > > > > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL > > > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk > > > believes doesn't affect you in any way? > > > > TurquoiseB: > > fuck you, cunt :-) > > > So, that's the part Turq gives A SHIT about! Come on folks one more message in this thread! then there are 108!! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that gravity collapses the wave function and results in a solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered if some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow trying to merge the info from our sense with the idea that we create the universe in consciousness! But gravity sounds more rational, for sure. Lanza's biocentrism is based on the Copernican understanding of quantum physics and assumes that if you are not looking at something, it reverts to the wave status and is no longer really there or observable. Just so far out there. Thanks again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He > > cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement > > actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers > > and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque of > > the book, and also talking to a scientist friend, it turns > > out that the common New Agey notion (which I often quoted in > > the past) of human awareness having an effect on an > > experimnent is wrong - at least so far as can be measured > > now. In the classic quantum experiment, electrons shimmering > > around a nucleus in a wave form - but not yet collapsed into > > matter or really locatable - can be affected by any physical > > interference. Once that interference occurs, they collapse > > from the wave state into form. But as I understand it (and I > > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just > > having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or > > aware of it, does nothing measurable. > > Well, it never was just having someone think about the > experiment that was said to collapse the wave function; it > was specifically having someone look at the measurement > apparatus that did it (which may be what you're saying). > Supposedly, until somebody looked at it, the measurement > apparatus itself was in a superposition of states. > > There's a good layperson's explanation of the measurement > problem by theoretical physicist Shantena Sabbatini here: > > http://www.shantena.com/media/Thequantummeasurementproblem.pdf > > Sabbatini has his own interpretation, which preserves the > idea that the observer plays a role, but not because the > observer collapses the wave function. I can't paraphrase > his approach (I can barely grasp it!), but he says "the > conditions of our knowing make [the world appear classical]." > > How or if that stands up against what you're talking about, > I haven't a clue... > > Sabbatini, BTW, is a mystic, a Taoist. > > > You really have to interfere in a physical way, and so far > > human thought alone does not do that. So this misunderstanding > > of the experiment by New Agers is pretty huge, and to most > > scientists it looks like spiritual people grasping for > > confirmation of their beliefs in a domain they don't accurately > > understand. > > It's an unwarranted extension of the "Copenhagen > interpretation" of quantum mechanics, that observing the > measurement collapses the wave function, which was itself > a reasonable guess given the experimental evidence. But > it isn't entirely fair to blame the New Agers, because > there have been a number of physicists (not just Hagelin!) > who have extended it in this manner as well. > > > The experiment about splitting an electron and having each > > "aware" of (respionding to) the behavior of the other across > > huge distances, instantaneously, is true and still puzzling > > to physicists, from what I have heard. > > It's part of the same problem, actually. > > Here's another interesting angle, from Roger Penrose (who > argues that neurons in the brain are affected by quantum > mechanical processes, incidentally): > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg > > He incorporates gravity into quantum mechanics and suggests > that gravity is what collapses the wave function. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
carde: > So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series > of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D > Or, parallel planes of existence, simultaneously. Maybe what you experience as moving objects are just momentary thought-instants. I mean, why should we be able to affect the future and not be able to affect the past? Does that make any sense? How far down the rabbit hole do yo want to go? Other questions: Do we really move forward in time? Do things really move around and change from one thing to another thing? So, how do we know if acts are right or not? Is there a moral reciprocity or not?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:20 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > > > So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series > > of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D > > It's more likely an artifact of rapid pranayama, which > then one trains in to "jerk". Ah, the bubbling bliss! I suspect card is talking about actual hovering or flying-through-the-air, not hopping. And I suspect Vaj knows this. In any case, it isn't clear what "rapid pranayama" Vaj could be talking about. As he knows, the only "rapid pranayama" that's part of TM-Sidhi practice is done for a very short time, before meditation, long before one begins the sutras, let alone gets to the Yogic Flying portion. > The relationship between hyperventilation and muscle > tetany has been known for a long time--so much so that > it's reported in Hindu yogic texts. Here he appears to be referring to "bellows breathing," which (as Vaj knows) is *not* part of the Yogic Flying practice (although it may occasionally occur spontaneously for some practitioners; it happens to me once in a while, but by no means before each sequence of hops). In other words: Vaj is attempting to mislead--again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:20 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series > of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D It's more likely an artifact of rapid pranayama, which then one trains in to "jerk". Ah, the bubbling bliss! The relationship between hyperventilation and muscle tetany has been known for a long time--so much so that it's reported in Hindu yogic texts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Thanks for the references Tex. Strip away the deaming parts, and it's nearly a perfect post! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one, > > > if if all fades to black at the end... > > > > TurquoiseB: > > Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective > > memories of past lives and the transit through > > the Bardo... > > > So, Turq is a 'TB' (True Believer). > > Upon death, the individual soul-monad rests in the > Tibetan Heaven, the Bardo state, and then after a > little while, gets re-born in another human body. > > The purpose of life is to unite the self with the > Self, and to attain Unity Consciousness, a state > of enlightened awareness, which gives life meaning. > > In Turq's religion, God is Karma, a religion Turq > read about in a book and/or a spiritual cult guy > told him about it. > > Just speaking for myself, I'm glad Turq finally > came out of denial and defined his own spiritual > path! > > Read more: > > 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' > The Great Liberation by Hearing in the Intermediate States > By Guru Padmasambhava > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism > > 'Surfing the Himalayas' > A Spiritual Adventure > By Frederick Lenz > St. Martin's Griffin, 1996 > http://tinyurl.com/y9c6c8n > > 'A Separate Reality' > Further Teachings of Don Juan > by Carlos Casteneda > Pocket Books, 1973 > http://tinyurl.com/ybfh4ym > > > As I suggested earlier, I don't worry about it > > terribly much. If "fade to black" turns out to > > be the reality, what will be there left of "me" > > to notice? My belief in reincarnation and the > > Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective > > memories of past lives and the transit through > > the Bardo in previous life-death-rebirth cycles, > > but that could just be imagination AFAIK. > > > > The issue in the Tibetan forms of Buddhism that > > I admire -- as, interestingly, the issue in forms > > of shamanism or occultism such as those popularized > > by Carlos Castaneda -- is remarkably pragmatic and > > liberating IMO. They don't believe that much, if > > any, thought needs to be given to "future lives" > > or what happens after we did. The only thing that > > "matters" is this life and what happens *before* > > we die -- right here, right Now. > > > > The only "measure" of one's "evolution" or "score" > > in terms of karma is (in their view) one's state > > of attention right here, right Now. "How am I > > doing karmically" is literally the same question > > as "What is my current state of attention?" > > > > In the Tibetan model, based on a belief in rein- > > carnation, "what matters" is how much awareness > > and clarity and compassion one can bring to the > > moment of one's death. In their view, the more > > clarity of awareness one brings "with them" to the > > Bardo can determine the easiness or uneasiness of > > that transition, and help determine the nature of > > the next birth, and how much awareness one gets to > > "start with" in it. > > > > Interestingly enough, in Yaqui shamanic traditions > > some of the teachers I've met admit that there > > might be such a thing as reincarnation, but they > > choose to never dwell on it or consider it because > > in their system it is irrelevant. Their idea of a > > "goal" in life is the cultivation of awareness (or > > in their model, "personal power") to as great a > > level as possible, given the length of one's life- > > time. What happens after that is in their view not > > relevant; it's a Here And Now kinda study. > > > > I resonate with this. While I accept the likelihood > > of the multi-lifetime model, I don't particularly > > "count on it." Like the Tibetans and like the shamans, > > my "score" in this life depends on the state of atten- > > tion I can "wear" during my life, not on anything > > that happens after it. I think this is a preferable > > 'tude to kicking back and assuming that one "has time" > > to work things out in future incarnations if one does > > not get them handled in this one. > > > > With that 'tude, I somehow suspect that I'll approach > > the moment of my own death more easily than some who > > are beset with guilt over all the things they "did > > wrong," or who are concerned with going to Hell or > > looking forward to going to Heaven. *Or* looking for- > > ward to the next incarnation. All of those concerns > > are either past or future, and the business of > > spiritual development seems to me to be all about > > Here And Now. > > > > Thanks for all the great raps, Lurk. It's been a real > > pleasure, and a real change from the normal level of > > discussion here. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Judy: > FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because > many of the early (and some of the current) quantum > physicists were into mysticism, they must have > connected quantum physics and mysticism... > "One thing is certain: if the human mind has an effect on even so much as a single particle, the entire ecology of the material universe is affected." When this happens we will be in the first sluggish pangs of a radical change..." Read more: Subject: Beyond Quantum - TM Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: December 19, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ya9sree Titles of interest: 'Quantum Physics For Dummies' By Steven Holzner For Dummies, 2009 'Quantum Enigma' Physics Encounters Consciousness Bt Bruce Rosenblum Oxford University Press, 2008 'Dr. Quantum's Little Book Of Big Ideas' Where Science Meets Spirit By Fred A. Wolf Moment Point Press, 2005
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
TurquoiseB: > One of the points I was trying to make about quantum > physicists talking about God or astrophysicists merely > *assuming* that the universe had a starting point or a > moment of "creation" is what I'd term "the persistence > of early conditioning..." > "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation..." Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
> > It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one, > > if if all fades to black at the end... > > TurquoiseB: > Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective > memories of past lives and the transit through > the Bardo... > So, Turq is a 'TB' (True Believer). Upon death, the individual soul-monad rests in the Tibetan Heaven, the Bardo state, and then after a little while, gets re-born in another human body. The purpose of life is to unite the self with the Self, and to attain Unity Consciousness, a state of enlightened awareness, which gives life meaning. In Turq's religion, God is Karma, a religion Turq read about in a book and/or a spiritual cult guy told him about it. Just speaking for myself, I'm glad Turq finally came out of denial and defined his own spiritual path! Read more: 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' The Great Liberation by Hearing in the Intermediate States By Guru Padmasambhava http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism 'Surfing the Himalayas' A Spiritual Adventure By Frederick Lenz St. Martin's Griffin, 1996 http://tinyurl.com/y9c6c8n 'A Separate Reality' Further Teachings of Don Juan by Carlos Casteneda Pocket Books, 1973 http://tinyurl.com/ybfh4ym > As I suggested earlier, I don't worry about it > terribly much. If "fade to black" turns out to > be the reality, what will be there left of "me" > to notice? My belief in reincarnation and the > Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective > memories of past lives and the transit through > the Bardo in previous life-death-rebirth cycles, > but that could just be imagination AFAIK. > > The issue in the Tibetan forms of Buddhism that > I admire -- as, interestingly, the issue in forms > of shamanism or occultism such as those popularized > by Carlos Castaneda -- is remarkably pragmatic and > liberating IMO. They don't believe that much, if > any, thought needs to be given to "future lives" > or what happens after we did. The only thing that > "matters" is this life and what happens *before* > we die -- right here, right Now. > > The only "measure" of one's "evolution" or "score" > in terms of karma is (in their view) one's state > of attention right here, right Now. "How am I > doing karmically" is literally the same question > as "What is my current state of attention?" > > In the Tibetan model, based on a belief in rein- > carnation, "what matters" is how much awareness > and clarity and compassion one can bring to the > moment of one's death. In their view, the more > clarity of awareness one brings "with them" to the > Bardo can determine the easiness or uneasiness of > that transition, and help determine the nature of > the next birth, and how much awareness one gets to > "start with" in it. > > Interestingly enough, in Yaqui shamanic traditions > some of the teachers I've met admit that there > might be such a thing as reincarnation, but they > choose to never dwell on it or consider it because > in their system it is irrelevant. Their idea of a > "goal" in life is the cultivation of awareness (or > in their model, "personal power") to as great a > level as possible, given the length of one's life- > time. What happens after that is in their view not > relevant; it's a Here And Now kinda study. > > I resonate with this. While I accept the likelihood > of the multi-lifetime model, I don't particularly > "count on it." Like the Tibetans and like the shamans, > my "score" in this life depends on the state of atten- > tion I can "wear" during my life, not on anything > that happens after it. I think this is a preferable > 'tude to kicking back and assuming that one "has time" > to work things out in future incarnations if one does > not get them handled in this one. > > With that 'tude, I somehow suspect that I'll approach > the moment of my own death more easily than some who > are beset with guilt over all the things they "did > wrong," or who are concerned with going to Hell or > looking forward to going to Heaven. *Or* looking for- > ward to the next incarnation. All of those concerns > are either past or future, and the business of > spiritual development seems to me to be all about > Here And Now. > > Thanks for all the great raps, Lurk. It's been a real > pleasure, and a real change from the normal level of > discussion here. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Thanks. I've enjoyed it very much as well. Just for the record, I also find it of little benefit to dwell on the possiblity of past or future lifetimes. It's nothing I think about except when I try to make sense of the big picture. Otherwise it's just the here and now that I keep my attention. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > With that 'tude, I somehow suspect that I'll approach > the moment of my own death more easily than some who > are beset with guilt over all the things they "did > wrong," or who are concerned with going to Hell or > looking forward to going to Heaven. *Or* looking for- > ward to the next incarnation. All of those concerns > are either past or future, and the business of > spiritual development seems to me to be all about > Here And Now. > > Thanks for all the great raps, Lurk. It's been a real > pleasure, and a real change from the normal level of > discussion here. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D > > http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg > > He incorporates gravity into quantum mechanics and suggests > that gravity is what collapses the wave function. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I'm hoping I get to surf the Bardo and play the game > > again. If I'm wrong and the world just goes black > > along with any self or self-identity, big deal. I > > won't even be there to know about it, much less be > > there to be disappointed. :-) > > It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one, if if all > fades to black at the end. Somehow, I don't see that happening. > Even if I don't have any concrete experience of it, I just KNOW > there's a subtle, or astral body in there somewhere. As I suggested earlier, I don't worry about it terribly much. If "fade to black" turns out to be the reality, what will be there left of "me" to notice? My belief in reincarnation and the Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective memories of past lives and the transit through the Bardo in previous life-death-rebirth cycles, but that could just be imagination AFAIK. The issue in the Tibetan forms of Buddhism that I admire -- as, interestingly, the issue in forms of shamanism or occultism such as those popularized by Carlos Castaneda -- is remarkably pragmatic and liberating IMO. They don't believe that much, if any, thought needs to be given to "future lives" or what happens after we did. The only thing that "matters" is this life and what happens *before* we die -- right here, right Now. The only "measure" of one's "evolution" or "score" in terms of karma is (in their view) one's state of attention right here, right Now. "How am I doing karmically" is literally the same question as "What is my current state of attention?" In the Tibetan model, based on a belief in rein- carnation, "what matters" is how much awareness and clarity and compassion one can bring to the moment of one's death. In their view, the more clarity of awareness one brings "with them" to the Bardo can determine the easiness or uneasiness of that transition, and help determine the nature of the next birth, and how much awareness one gets to "start with" in it. Interestingly enough, in Yaqui shamanic traditions some of the teachers I've met admit that there might be such a thing as reincarnation, but they choose to never dwell on it or consider it because in their system it is irrelevant. Their idea of a "goal" in life is the cultivation of awareness (or in their model, "personal power") to as great a level as possible, given the length of one's life- time. What happens after that is in their view not relevant; it's a Here And Now kinda study. I resonate with this. While I accept the likelihood of the multi-lifetime model, I don't particularly "count on it." Like the Tibetans and like the shamans, my "score" in this life depends on the state of atten- tion I can "wear" during my life, not on anything that happens after it. I think this is a preferable 'tude to kicking back and assuming that one "has time" to work things out in future incarnations if one does not get them handled in this one. With that 'tude, I somehow suspect that I'll approach the moment of my own death more easily than some who are beset with guilt over all the things they "did wrong," or who are concerned with going to Hell or looking forward to going to Heaven. *Or* looking for- ward to the next incarnation. All of those concerns are either past or future, and the business of spiritual development seems to me to be all about Here And Now. Thanks for all the great raps, Lurk. It's been a real pleasure, and a real change from the normal level of discussion here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > But as I understand it (and I > > > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just > > > having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or > > > aware of it, does nothing measurable. > > > > Well, it never was just having someone think about the > > experiment that was said to collapse the wave function; it > > was specifically having someone look at the measurement > > apparatus that did it (which may be what you're saying). > > Supposedly, until somebody looked at it, the measurement > > apparatus itself was in a superposition of states. > > My understanding is that looking at the apparatus did not > collapse the wave function, you have to interfere physically > in some obvious manner. But hey, I am no quantum physicist. I just wanted to clarify the original idea, not contest the newer one you were talking about. > Thanks Judy for all the links. I appreciate the time you > spent. I will read them all, but it will take me some > time... Only if you're so moved! I'd come across them recently and figured I'd toss them in the pot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He > > cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement > > actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers > > and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque of > > the book, and also talking to a scientist friend, it turns > > out that the common New Agey notion (which I often quoted in > > the past) of human awareness having an effect on an > > experimnent is wrong - at least so far as can be measured > > now. In the classic quantum experiment, electrons shimmering > > around a nucleus in a wave form - but not yet collapsed into > > matter or really locatable - can be affected by any physical > > interference. Once that interference occurs, they collapse > > from the wave state into form. But as I understand it (and I > > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just > > having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or > > aware of it, does nothing measurable. > > Well, it never was just having someone think about the > experiment that was said to collapse the wave function; it > was specifically having someone look at the measurement > apparatus that did it (which may be what you're saying). > Supposedly, until somebody looked at it, the measurement > apparatus itself was in a superposition of states. My understanding is that looking at the apparatus did not collapse the wave function, you have to interfere physically in some obvious manner. But hey, I am no quantum physicist. > > There's a good layperson's explanation of the measurement > problem by theoretical physicist Shantena Sabbatini here: > > http://www.shantena.com/media/Thequantummeasurementproblem.pdf > > Sabbatini has his own interpretation, which preserves the > idea that the observer plays a role, but not because the > observer collapses the wave function. I can't paraphrase > his approach (I can barely grasp it!), but he says "the > conditions of our knowing make [the world appear classical]." > > How or if that stands up against what you're talking about, > I haven't a clue... > > Sabbatini, BTW, is a mystic, a Taoist. > > > You really have to interfere in a physical way, and so far > > human thought alone does not do that. So this misunderstanding > > of the experiment by New Agers is pretty huge, and to most > > scientists it looks like spiritual people grasping for > > confirmation of their beliefs in a domain they don't accurately > > understand. > > It's an unwarranted extension of the "Copenhagen > interpretation" of quantum mechanics, that observing the > measurement collapses the wave function, which was itself > a reasonable guess given the experimental evidence. But > it isn't entirely fair to blame the New Agers, because > there have been a number of physicists (not just Hagelin!) > who have extended it in this manner as well. > > > The experiment about splitting an electron and having each > > "aware" of (respionding to) the behavior of the other across > > huge distances, instantaneously, is true and still puzzling > > to physicists, from what I have heard. > > It's part of the same problem, actually. > > Here's another interesting angle, from Roger Penrose (who > argues that neurons in the brain are affected by quantum > mechanical processes, incidentally): > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg > > He incorporates gravity into quantum mechanics and suggests > that gravity is what collapses the wave function. Thanks Judy for all the links. I appreciate the time you spent. I will read them all, but it will take me some time... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > I'm hoping I get to surf the Bardo and play the game > again. If I'm wrong and the world just goes black > along with any self or self-identity, big deal. I > won't even be there to know about it, much less be > there to be disappointed. :-) It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one, if if all fades to black at the end. Somehow, I don't see that happening. Even if I don't have any concrete experience of it, I just KNOW there's a subtle, or atral body in there somewhere.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He > cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement > actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers > and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque of > the book, and also talking to a scientist friend, it turns > out that the common New Agey notion (which I often quoted in > the past) of human awareness having an effect on an > experimnent is wrong - at least so far as can be measured > now. In the classic quantum experiment, electrons shimmering > around a nucleus in a wave form - but not yet collapsed into > matter or really locatable - can be affected by any physical > interference. Once that interference occurs, they collapse > from the wave state into form. But as I understand it (and I > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just > having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or > aware of it, does nothing measurable. Well, it never was just having someone think about the experiment that was said to collapse the wave function; it was specifically having someone look at the measurement apparatus that did it (which may be what you're saying). Supposedly, until somebody looked at it, the measurement apparatus itself was in a superposition of states. There's a good layperson's explanation of the measurement problem by theoretical physicist Shantena Sabbatini here: http://www.shantena.com/media/Thequantummeasurementproblem.pdf Sabbatini has his own interpretation, which preserves the idea that the observer plays a role, but not because the observer collapses the wave function. I can't paraphrase his approach (I can barely grasp it!), but he says "the conditions of our knowing make [the world appear classical]." How or if that stands up against what you're talking about, I haven't a clue... Sabbatini, BTW, is a mystic, a Taoist. > You really have to interfere in a physical way, and so far > human thought alone does not do that. So this misunderstanding > of the experiment by New Agers is pretty huge, and to most > scientists it looks like spiritual people grasping for > confirmation of their beliefs in a domain they don't accurately > understand. It's an unwarranted extension of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics, that observing the measurement collapses the wave function, which was itself a reasonable guess given the experimental evidence. But it isn't entirely fair to blame the New Agers, because there have been a number of physicists (not just Hagelin!) who have extended it in this manner as well. > The experiment about splitting an electron and having each > "aware" of (respionding to) the behavior of the other across > huge distances, instantaneously, is true and still puzzling > to physicists, from what I have heard. It's part of the same problem, actually. Here's another interesting angle, from Roger Penrose (who argues that neurons in the brain are affected by quantum mechanical processes, incidentally): http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg He incorporates gravity into quantum mechanics and suggests that gravity is what collapses the wave function.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > "Intervention" would obviate and invalidate the whole > > idea of karma, which IMO is that *you* are supposed to > > learn from the results of your own actions. You steal. > > Something happens to your state of attention as a > > result; it sinks "lower." You steal again, it happens > > again. Sooner or later you figure this out and stop > > stealing. There is no "intervention" involved with > > this, merely individual responsibility. > > I don't really see this. Seems to me it can take a good long > time for us to learn certain lessons, and usually our body > gives out before we do. I view this as a pretty practical > matter. It seems obvious to me that a lot of good actions go > unrewarded, and a lot of bad actions go unpunished in the span > of one lifetime. The only way I can make sense of this is > through this idea of reincarnation. I think you're seeing the issue of "reward" or "punishment" in physical terms. The Tibetan school of thought (which I subscribe to) does not see karma as purely physical. Physical repercussions of one's actions may take some time, as you say. But there is an aspect of karma that is immediate. Your state of attention drops *instantly* if you perform an action that is not life-supporting, and rises *instantly* if you perform an action that is. If you are sensitive to the fluctuations of attention, you can notice these drops and rises even at the *thought* of an action, before you perform it. Those in an already-low state of attention may not notice this, but someone who is more aware of the fluctuations of attention and how to interpret them notices immediately. Over time, someone wise gravi- tates towards those actions that result in a higher state of attention. What enables them *to* do this is free will. If the karma -- the samskaras or tend- encies generated by past actions -- were the *only* factor, you'd be in a "closed loop." There would be no way to ever escape from it. Free will means that it is possible to more quickly discern these drops in attention and thus "avoid the problem before it comes." This works just as well given the one lifetime model as it does given the multiple lifetime model. > > I think people get all fucked up by associating the > > very simple, clear concept of karma with the very > > murky, unclear concept of reincarnation. I am talk- > > ing about karma in its sense as simple actions and > > the results of those action. I said, nor implied, > > anything about reincarnation in my previous posts. > > Fine, of course. But aside from all this theoretical stuff. > Do you believe in reincarantion? Yes. Based on personal experiences (memories) that indicate to me that the Tibetan model for life, death, and the rebirth cycle are accurate. I don't *know* that these memories are correct, of course, but I have enough faith in them to put more trust in the reincarnation model than in the one life model. > What's all this "surfing the bardo" all about, if I have > the correct term. I don't quite see the case you are > making about how karmic accounts get settled in the span > of one lifetime, and would like to know, as a practical > matter if you really do as well. I think some samskaras can be resolved in an instant, much less within one lifetime. The Buddhist buzzphrase is "Recognition is liberation." Perceive the onset of a samskara early and use your intent to stop it in its tracks, and in their model that samskara is *much* less likely to never arise again. I have certainly had this experience many times in my life. As for the idea of "settling accounts," I have nothing to say because I don't believe in such a concept. There is nothing out there "keeping score" in my opinion. Your "account" is your current state of attention. *It* is all that "keeps score," and all that needs to. > Fine to say, "could be this", or "could be that", but what do > you believe. I believe that the Tibetan model of death being a transition much like falling asleep and the Bardo being a state similar to dreams is accurate. I won't know for sure until I bite the big one myself, but I'm hoping I get to surf the Bardo and play the game again. If I'm wrong and the world just goes black along with any self or self-identity, big deal. I won't even be there to know about it, much less be there to be disappointed. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > ne of the points I was trying to make about > > quantum physicists talking about God > > FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because > many of the early (and some of the current) quantum > physicists were into mysticism, they must have > connected quantum physics and mysticism. They didn't. > > Rather, they were into mysticism because quantum > mechanics had conclusively demonstrated the > limitations of science. They had to accept this, > but not being able to give up on the search for > knowledge, they turned away from the dead end and > decided to take a different route they believed > had more possibilities. > > (Not that they gave up science; there was plenty > to work on in terms of the details.) > > or astrophys- > > icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a > > starting point or a moment of "creation" is what > > I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." > > > > LONG before any of these people were taught math > > and the tents of science, they were taught that an > > all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. > > Is there any question that they would hold to such > > beliefs while developing theories about the nature > > of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously > > "color" their theories with such beliefs? > > > > They were also taught just by dealing with birth and > > death in humans and other life forms that such > > things seem inevitable. Is there any question that > > they would then think "As below, so above," and > > believe that the universe had a starting point > > (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? > > > > I think it would be interesting to see what a > > scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure > > to teachings about a sentient God or about the > > *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) > > was "born" and thus someday must "die" would > > come up with. > > It's not the teaching about a sentient God or even > the assumption that the universe must have had a > beginning. It's the constant observation of human > beings that everything changes. There's no way your > hypothetical scientist could avoid those observations. > > Nor would it be necessary to avoid any of this > "conditioning." The steady-state theory of the > universe--that it was never born and would never die-- > was developed by Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold in full > knowledge of, and in fact as a rebuttal to, the Big > Bang theory. > > (Of course, their theory was subsequently disproved. > But they weren't precluded by "conditioning" from > dreaming it up.) I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque of the book, and also talking to a scientist friend, it turns out that the common New Agey notion (which I often quoted in the past) of human awareness having an effect on an experimnent is wrong - at least so far as can be measured now. In the classic quantum experiment, electrons shimmering around a nucleus in a wave form - but not yet collapsed into matter or really locatable - can be affected by any physical interference. Once that interference occurs, they collapse from the wave state into form. But as I understand it (and I could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or aware of it, does nothing measurable. You really have to interfere in a physical way, and so far human thought alone does not do that. So this misunderstanding of the experiment by New Agers is pretty huge, and to most scientists it looks like spiritual people grasping for confirmation of their beliefs in a domain they don't accurately understand. The experiment about splitting an electron and having each "aware" of (respionding to) the behavior of the other across huge distances, instantaneously, is true and still puzzling to physicists, from what I have heard. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
I was a little rushed in my initial reply, and did not intend to bring in reincarnation as a forgone conclusion. But, I must say that in my system of belief, I cannot make sense of the idea of karma without reincarnation. A few other comments below In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > "Intervention" would obviate and invalidate the whole > idea of karma, which IMO is that *you* are supposed to > learn from the results of your own actions. You steal. > Something happens to your state of attention as a > result; it sinks "lower." You steal again, it happens > again. Sooner or later you figure this out and stop > stealing. There is no "intervention" involved with > this, merely individual responsibility. I don't really see this. Seems to me it can take a good long time for us to learn certain lessons, and usually our body gives out before we do. I view this as a pretty practical matter. It seems obvious to me that a lot of good actions go unrewarded, and a lot of bad actions go unpunished in the span of one lifetime. The only way I can make sense of this is through this idea of reincarnation. > > I think people get all fucked up by associating the > very simple, clear concept of karma with the very > murky, unclear concept of reincarnation. I am talk- > ing about karma in its sense as simple actions and > the results of those action. I said, nor implied, > anything about reincarnation in my previous posts. Fine, of course. But aside from all this theoretical stuff. Do you believe in reincarantion? What's all this "surfing the bardo" all about, if I have the correct term. I don't quite see the case you are making about how karmic accounts get settled in the span of one lifetime, and would like to know, as a practical matter if you really do as well. Fine to say, "could be this", or "could be that", but what do you believe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: But before you get all excited and start pointing your puja in her direction Hold it right there. Just got my minimum daily requirement of LOL. I gotta warn you, one night and you'll be getting drunk-texts in the middle of the night for the rest of the Yuga.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I follow along pretty > well, and see the point you are trying to make. Apart from > this consideration, however, when you introduce "karma" into > the equation, then I think things get more personal. Like, > you die. You are reborn. You have a period of reflection in > between. (my notion only) You have your good and bad actions > which now need to be balanced back on the earthly plane. Just as a point, a belief in karma does *not* imply a belief in reincarnation. My original example of "thief samskaras" created by getting away with being a thief in the past works just as well if you don't believe in reincarnation at all. > From some of things I've read, mostly from Rudolf Steiner, > there is a pretty elaborate, yet straight forward protocal. For what? I am unfamiliar with Steiner, and thus don't know what you are referring to. > ...(and by the way, he does not bring up the idea of God in > describing this work out) But I am not sure how the notion > of karma, and the resolution of our karma gets balanced without > the intervention of some kind of higher organzizing power, > divine or otherwise. "Intervention" would obviate and invalidate the whole idea of karma, which IMO is that *you* are supposed to learn from the results of your own actions. You steal. Something happens to your state of attention as a result; it sinks "lower." You steal again, it happens again. Sooner or later you figure this out and stop stealing. There is no "intervention" involved with this, merely individual responsibility. I think people get all fucked up by associating the very simple, clear concept of karma with the very murky, unclear concept of reincarnation. I am talk- ing about karma in its sense as simple actions and the results of those action. I said, nor implied, anything about reincarnation in my previous posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I follow along pretty well, and see the point you are trying to make. Apart from this consideration, however, when you introduce "karma" into the equation, then I think things get more personal. Like, you die. You are reborn. You have a period of reflection in between. (my notion only) You have your good and bad actions which now need to be balanced back on the earthly plane. >From some of things I 've read, mostly from Rudolf Steiner, there is a pretty elaborate, yet straight forward protocal. (and by the way, he does not bring up the idea of God in describing this work out) But I am not sure how the notion of karma, and the resolution of our karma gets balanced without the intervention of some kind of higher organzizing power, divine or otherwise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > Thanks for the feedback > > Thanks for perceiving it *as* feedback, and nothing > more. One of the points I was trying to make about > quantum physicists talking about God or astrophys- > icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a > starting point or a moment of "creation" is what > I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." > > LONG before any of these people were taught math > and the tents of science, they were taught that an > all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. > Is there any question that they would hold to such > beliefs while developing theories about the nature > of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously > "color" their theories with such beliefs? > > They were also taught just by dealing with birth and > death in humans and other life forms that such > things seem inevitable. Is there any question that > they would then think "As below, so above," and > believe that the universe had a starting point > (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? > > I think it would be interesting to see what a > scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure > to teachings about a sentient God or about the > *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) > was "born" and thus someday must "die" would > come up with. > > But that is not easily accomplished. Einstein > made comments about God during his lifetime, even > though his newly-discovered letters indicate that > he was more consistently in the atheist camp than > in the God camp. Nevertheless, God freaks continue > to portray the man who said in a letter to philosopher > Erik Gutkind, "The word God is for me nothing more > than the expression and product of human weakness, > the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely > primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty > childish" as a fellow believer in God. > > My grandfather, who worked with Einstein, described > him to my father as someone who was willing to chuck > *any* idea out the window the moment its usefulness > ended. Even his own. Being a thoughtful man, I am > sure that he examined both sides of the "Is there a > God" question all his life. But he seems to have > settled firmly in the "No" camp. *Especially* with > regard to the idea that God, if one existed, could > "interfere with" or "affect" the world. He stated > several times that he did not believe this. IMO that > may have freed him to come up with concepts that a > person who could never get *past* early conditioning > that taught him that *of course* there is a God, and > *of course* He can do whatever he wants could not. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > > > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > > > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > > > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > > > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > > > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > > > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > > > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > > > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > > > > interfering with it and running it. > > > > > > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > > > > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > > > > spring up on its own? > > > > > > The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned > > > before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." > > > > > > Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > ne of the points I was trying to make about > quantum physicists talking about God FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because many of the early (and some of the current) quantum physicists were into mysticism, they must have connected quantum physics and mysticism. They didn't. Rather, they were into mysticism because quantum mechanics had conclusively demonstrated the limitations of science. They had to accept this, but not being able to give up on the search for knowledge, they turned away from the dead end and decided to take a different route they believed had more possibilities. (Not that they gave up science; there was plenty to work on in terms of the details.) or astrophys- > icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a > starting point or a moment of "creation" is what > I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." > > LONG before any of these people were taught math > and the tents of science, they were taught that an > all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. > Is there any question that they would hold to such > beliefs while developing theories about the nature > of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously > "color" their theories with such beliefs? > > They were also taught just by dealing with birth and > death in humans and other life forms that such > things seem inevitable. Is there any question that > they would then think "As below, so above," and > believe that the universe had a starting point > (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? > > I think it would be interesting to see what a > scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure > to teachings about a sentient God or about the > *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) > was "born" and thus someday must "die" would > come up with. It's not the teaching about a sentient God or even the assumption that the universe must have had a beginning. It's the constant observation of human beings that everything changes. There's no way your hypothetical scientist could avoid those observations. Nor would it be necessary to avoid any of this "conditioning." The steady-state theory of the universe--that it was never born and would never die-- was developed by Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold in full knowledge of, and in fact as a rebuttal to, the Big Bang theory. (Of course, their theory was subsequently disproved. But they weren't precluded by "conditioning" from dreaming it up.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > Yes, pitiable indeed. > Om, 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing'. Identifying with Jesus are you? I saw this on the Simpsons when they visited Jerusalem and Homer got Jerusalem Syndrome and thought he was the messiah. I hope in your case hilarity ensues just as it did for Homer. Actually worse. Experienced in "spiritual" experiences and consciously rejecting them as a valid source of knowledge. < they are lost in their contending mentation.> Use your spell check, that is spelled masturbation and if God didn't want me to do it he wouldn't have made my arms so long. < An one, he even traded his immortal soul for a guitar. > Actually it is a vena and a souvenir from my night together with Saraswati. Not one to kiss and tell but let me put it to you this way, she referred to the Kama Sutras as the beginner manual. But before you get all excited and start pointing your puja in her direction I gotta warn you, one night and you'll be getting drunk-texts in the middle of the night for the rest of the Yuga. < Consider the source.> I sense a religiously inspirited putdown... < These people are like modern day pharisee. Is an apt metaphor & is pitiable for their manifest lack of deeper spiritual experience, as an old story. Dim bulbs, absent of light to see by. And all because I deny that YOU among all the people of the world and through history have discovered the deepest secret of life. Seriously Doug at this point not buying into your grandiosity and hubris about your state of "knowledge" is a mental health kindness. It would be irresponsible to react otherwise and enable you. > > Have a Good Friday, It will be better than Jesus had I can assure you. But I was the first to tell him that doing what he called "involuntary jello shots" off of a strangers rack was a piss poor idea, even for Spring Break with the MTV cameras rolling. I sure hope the zombie Jesus gives you a big high five for your sanctimoniousness on his behalf, but do him a favor and keep your voice down because he will have emerged from partying for 3 days in hell with me. > -Buck > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, > > > Sam Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots > > > of opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. > > > They wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. > > > > Well if being condescending makes you feel better about yourself... > > > > You seem to have a pretty strong opinion yourself about my subjective > > experience. And you are denying my insights about knowledge and doubting > > my POV just as I am yours. I have no need for your pity, I love my life and > > enjoy questioning statements like this: > > > > "Yep unitary is my experience." > > > > In what sense? There are ways of understanding that which match my > > experience of my individual life's connection to the rest of life. I have > > my share of mystical union with everything awareness. We may just be > > interpreting this experience differently since I don't view guys like > > Maharishi as experts in what this means. > > > > You are proposing this insight as if you are on a superior level. Why do > > you make such an assumption? Perhaps you are describing a state of mind > > with religious terms that I find quite ordinary in my own experience. > > Perhaps what you are making such a big fuss about and trying to use as a > > put-down is just another way to express being human, no more or less than > > the ways I choose. > > > > Maybe the specialness you are grasping at with such expressions is really > > an insecurity about just being another human on the same level as all other > > humans. In your idea of experiencing unity you behave like a sorority > > debutant trying to create artificial distinctions between you and me. Your > > pride in your beliefs reminds me of every other super religious person I > > have talked to. The terms change but the "I am special and superior" > > surety remains the same. > > > > I don't pity you Doug. I just disagree with your claim of special insight > > into how life works. I don't believe you, or Maharishi for that matter, > > has life all figured out. > > > > If you are enjoying your POV, fine. But you don't have to be a dick about > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback Thanks for perceiving it *as* feedback, and nothing more. One of the points I was trying to make about quantum physicists talking about God or astrophys- icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a starting point or a moment of "creation" is what I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." LONG before any of these people were taught math and the tents of science, they were taught that an all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. Is there any question that they would hold to such beliefs while developing theories about the nature of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously "color" their theories with such beliefs? They were also taught just by dealing with birth and death in humans and other life forms that such things seem inevitable. Is there any question that they would then think "As below, so above," and believe that the universe had a starting point (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? I think it would be interesting to see what a scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure to teachings about a sentient God or about the *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) was "born" and thus someday must "die" would come up with. But that is not easily accomplished. Einstein made comments about God during his lifetime, even though his newly-discovered letters indicate that he was more consistently in the atheist camp than in the God camp. Nevertheless, God freaks continue to portray the man who said in a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" as a fellow believer in God. My grandfather, who worked with Einstein, described him to my father as someone who was willing to chuck *any* idea out the window the moment its usefulness ended. Even his own. Being a thoughtful man, I am sure that he examined both sides of the "Is there a God" question all his life. But he seems to have settled firmly in the "No" camp. *Especially* with regard to the idea that God, if one existed, could "interfere with" or "affect" the world. He stated several times that he did not believe this. IMO that may have freed him to come up with concepts that a person who could never get *past* early conditioning that taught him that *of course* there is a God, and *of course* He can do whatever he wants could not. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > > > interfering with it and running it. > > > > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > > > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > > > spring up on its own? > > > > The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned > > before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." > > > > Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Thanks for the feedback --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > > interfering with it and running it. > > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > > spring up on its own? > > The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned > before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." > > Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > Well if being condescending makes you feel better about > > yourself... > > > > You seem to have a pretty strong opinion yourself about my > > subjective experience. And you are denying my insights about > > knowledge and doubting my POV just as I am yours. I have no > > need for your pity, I love my life and enjoy questioning > > statements like this: > > . . . > > I don't pity you Doug. I just disagree with your claim of > > special insight into how life works. I don't believe you, > > or Maharishi for that matter, has life all figured out. > > > > If you are enjoying your POV, fine. But you don't have to be > > a dick about it. Au contraire...he seems very *much* to have to be a dick about it. To wit: > Yes, pitiable indeed. [ I, from my highly elevated position > of superiority, can only feel pity for someone not as cool > and full of knowledge as myself. ] > > Om, 'Forgive them father [ whom I can speak to as if He > were a relative because I am so "special" ] , for they [ those > lesser and less evolved than I ] know not what they are > doing'. [ unlike me, who "knows" these things perfectly ] > Ignorant in spiritual experience [ unlike me and those who > think like me ] they are lost in their contending mentation. > [ whereas I don't have to think any more because I just > repeat what I was told to believe...only losers have to think... > we truly evolved souls "know" ] An one, he even traded his > immortal soul for a guitar. [ says the person who has shown > no indication in recent months of possessing a soul, much less > knowing the difference between Curtis and Robert Johnson :-) ] > Consider the source. [ someone who makes his living light- > ening other people's days, as opposed to someone who can only > feel good about himself by considering himself superior to those > he looks down on ] > > These people are like modern day pharisee. [ said by someone > who seems unaware that the Pharisees were those who kept > repeating dogma told to them by others and ragging on (or > attempting to crucify) those who thought for themselves...it > seems to me that the Pharisee in this picture is Buck ] Is an > apt metaphor & is pitiable for their manifest lack of deeper > spiritual experience, as an old story. [ the old story of humans > lost in ego declaring that *their* ideas (however borrowed and > completely unoriginal they are) and *their* experiences are > "spiritual" or "deep,' whereas those of others are not ] Dim > bulbs, absent of light to see by. [ as opposed to "darkness > emitters," who seem to get off on creating the *essence* of > duality -- us vs. them -- while presenting themselves as > "deeper" and "more spiritual" ] Doug, get real. Your whole act here -- whether parody or serious -- is an attempt to pretend that a few hundred "hangers on" to a dead spiritual movement in a backwater town in Iowa that no one has ever heard of are somehow "special" and "more spiritual" than others. Curtis blows more spirituality in every note of his harmonica playing than you will ever blow out of your ass with elitist rants like this one. He, after all, is playing for his equals, with no intent but to entertain and uplift. You are seeking to "lift yourself" by claiming that someone is "beneath you." This act is really getting old. *It* -- not Curtis -- is beneath you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
> > > Yes, pitiable indeed. > Om, 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing'. Ignorant > in spiritual experience they are lost in their contending mentation. An one, > he even traded his immortal soul for a guitar. Consider the source. These > people are like modern day pharisee. Is an apt metaphor & is pitiable for > their manifest lack of deeper spiritual experience, as an old story. Dim > bulbs, absent of light to see by. > > Have a Good Friday, > -Buck > Yep, Good Friday has come around again this week. As a narrative we are spiritually reminded that Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty. Whether you believe the story or not. The passover story of slavery and exodus stands that way this week as well. In coming around, Good Friday stands holding a monumental reminder to the tyranny of pharisaical consequent in the like of a Sam Harris and these other sophists, a people dangerous to the welfare of us all contending and promoting their commotion. Their mental commotion is pitiable and yet is a good lesson in spirituality. Jai Adi Shankara, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam > > Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of > > opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They > > wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. > > Well if being condescending makes you feel better about yourself... > > You seem to have a pretty strong opinion yourself about my subjective > experience. And you are denying my insights about knowledge and doubting my > POV just as I am yours. I have no need for your pity, I love my life and > enjoy questioning statements like this: > > "Yep unitary is my experience." > > In what sense? There are ways of understanding that which match my > experience of my individual life's connection to the rest of life. I have my > share of mystical union with everything awareness. We may just be > interpreting this experience differently since I don't view guys like > Maharishi as experts in what this means. > > You are proposing this insight as if you are on a superior level. Why do you > make such an assumption? Perhaps you are describing a state of mind with > religious terms that I find quite ordinary in my own experience. Perhaps > what you are making such a big fuss about and trying to use as a put-down is > just another way to express being human, no more or less than the ways I > choose. > > Maybe the specialness you are grasping at with such expressions is really an > insecurity about just being another human on the same level as all other > humans. In your idea of experiencing unity you behave like a sorority > debutant trying to create artificial distinctions between you and me. Your > pride in your beliefs reminds me of every other super religious person I have > talked to. The terms change but the "I am special and superior" surety > remains the same. > > I don't pity you Doug. I just disagree with your claim of special insight > into how life works. I don't believe you, or Maharishi for that matter, has > life all figured out. > > If you are enjoying your POV, fine. But you don't have to be a dick about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > Wiki: > > > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. (snip for brevity) > > > He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which > > > influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the > > > possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > > > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > > > > > > > > A 'possibility'. Offered like a tru scientist to the end. That is funny. > > > > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam > > Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of > > opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They > > wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. > > > > Have a nice day, > > > > -Buck > > > Yes, pitiable indeed. Om, 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing'. Ignorant in spiritual experience they are lost in their contending mentation. An one, he even traded his immortal soul for a guitar. Consider the source. These people are like modern day pharisee. Is an apt metaphor & is pitiable for their manifest lack of deeper spiritual experience, as an old story. Dim bulbs, absent of light to see by. Have a Good Friday, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > interfering with it and running it. > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > spring up on its own? The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > A mystery then. What It Is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > necessary to describe its actions*. > > It seems to me that people have been trying to make sense of > this operating systems, and have been fairly successful over > time. As they were with the earth-centric universe? As they were with Newtonian physics? Get my point? These were *guesses*, not facts. Quantum mechanics is Just Another Guess, and in all likelihood as far from the mark as the other two. > And the more they figure it out, the more advances they make, > at least on the material plane. There is a mineral used to create computer chips, the mining of which has caused the genocide of tens of thousands of people in the areas of Africa in which it is found. Do you think that they would agree with your assessment of "advances on the material plane?" "Progress" is relative. > > They would carry on > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > interfering with it and running it. > > Not sure one has to make anything up. One can look at the > world around them, and postulate, that there must be some > intelligence at work, often with a lot predictability. That is exactly what *I* am doing, and finding no need to postulate any interfering "intelligence" at work. Predict- ability is not dependent on having some "intelligence" behind it. In fact, postulating a God who can *interfere* with predictability by creating *exceptions* to it (miracles) is the *opposite* of predictability. > It seems to me that an operating system has a lot of intelligence > behind it, and which designed it. Other than that it can pretty > much remain behind the scenes. Here you fall back on anthropomorphic projection. "Because *we* as beings have a start and an end, so much the universe. Thus it must have been "created" at some point." If the universe is eternal, there was no creation. Lose the notion of "creation," and you lose the need for a "creator." > > I suspect that the operating system is structured around > > an interplay between karma and the free will of sentient > > beings. Both are essential, and both are the very nature > > of the operating system. To postulate an "intelligence" > > "running things" is to disallow free will, and it seems > > obvious that free will exists. > > Sure seems like once you introduct Karma, you introduce the > notion of "rules", and "laws". Not sure how you can have karma > without some real detailed cause and effect. That is why free will is there. Karma is an *influence*, not a "rule." You have stolen in the past and gotten away with it. Therefore there is a tendency -- a samskara if you prefer buzzwords -- to believe you can steal in the future. But you *don't have to*. At any moment you can *feel* the influence of the samskara tempting you to steal again, but you have the ability to not do it. Karma is not a set of "rules." It's a set of opportunities. > I do like that ideal of drawing bullsyes around arrows. I'm > going to keep that in my repatroire. It's hardly original. I'm pretty sure I picked the phrase up here, because it so accurately describes much "TM research." You start with the belief, and then find "facts" that support the belief. Good rappin' with you, Lurk. Please don't consider my comments in these threads criticisms of you per se. They are merely a different way of seeing things.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Evolution is such a powerful mechanism and framework that explains incredible complexity through trial an error, through adaptation. I speculate (worth a spatoon contents of value) that something could plausible unfolded on the physical, geological, and cosmological level -- awesome mind bending universe all on its own. Think the fact that we all descend from one black mother in Africa. Out of like 10 million of mothers whose offspring did not make it for the long haul. Totally opposite from a Creator creating the one perfect Mother. The former is so much more awesome and mind bending beautiful than some slick god creator figure. (or maybe a totally ganja smoking teen Shiva said "dude, look what happens when is kick start this evolution thing. Its like infinite fractals. It is so awesome man." and he kicked back, and enjoyed the view for the next 1,000,000 yugas.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > interfering with it and running it. > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > spring up on its own? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > functioning of the operating system because *none is > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > interfering with it and running it. This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just spring up on its own?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. A mystery then. > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > functioning of the operating system because *none is > necessary to describe its actions*. It seems to me that people have been trying to make sense of this operating systems, and have been fairly successful over time. And the more they figure it out, the more advances they make, at least on the material plane. They would carry on > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > interfering with it and running it. Not sure one has to make anything up. One can look at the world around them, and postulate, that there must be some intelligence at work, often with a lot predictability. It seems to me that an operating system has a lot of intelligence behind it, and which designed it. Other than that it can pretty much remain behind the scenes. > I suspect that the operating system is structured around > an interplay between karma and the free will of sentient > beings. Both are essential, and both are the very nature > of the operating system. To postulate an "intelligence" > "running things" is to disallow free will, and it seems > obvious that free will exists. Sure seems like once you introduct Karma, you introduce the notion of "rules", and "laws". Not sure how you can have karma without some real detailed cause and effect. I do like that ideal of drawing bullsyes around arrows. I'm going to keep that in my repatroire. Thanks
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > [snip] > > > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > > > mysticism isn't at all surprising. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > But luckily there are many new ways of interpreting it > > without any of that mystic weirdness: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics > > > > I took a quick peep. Which ones are light on mystic weirdness? All except the mystic ones. All the rest only seem weird (but not mystical) because we have evolved to perceive a macro-Newtonian reality. Quantum stuff just *seems* weird. There's a big difference between the multiverse and, say, Hagelins ideas which involve untestable consiousness/god involvement. The mysticism is introduced in the usual way god is always introduced to explain these things. > The "many worlds"? That's as if to say "the cat in the > proverbial quantum mechanical box is BOTH dead AND alive > at the same time", no? No. The many worlds does away with the idea of things being both dead and alive (or electrons in more than one place) by both (or all) states being present on a kind of 'line of sight' slice through all possible realities. The measurement problem that started the whole mystic physics thing is, according to the theory, due to electrons being present in all possible universes, rather than just ours. They are interfering with themselves rather than our consciousness or experiments interfering with *them*. Clever eh? > Is that any better than "it's neither one nor t'other till > we stick our nose in the box"? Does the one *explanation* > dispel our metaphysical fog any better than the other? You bet. Either we live in a world where we (or god or consciousness) somehow create the reality we perceive in a literal sense or we don't. The multiverse idea (amongst most others) puts us firmly in the latter. And it's provable, apparently. Quantum computers are the key, getting the bits that make up reality tell us what they are doing when we aren't looking. The trick is to get a bunch of atoms and stop them interfering with each other to make a stupendously powerful 'use once and discard' computer. All way beyond my meagre ken of course but undeniably fascinating. They have actually built a quantum computer, not very powerful but by any accounts a major achievement. Some Nobel prizes heading their way soon I should think. Anyway if anyone wants a good read and some new mindblowing ways to think about the world try the book: http://tinyurl.com/yz9avmc I'm sure you'll enjoy the philosophical discussions. I've struggled through it twice and it still makes my head hurt. > You might say that in the one case the state of the cat > "dwells in the field of all (unmanifest) possibilities". In > the other, the state of the cat "dwells in the field of all > (manifest) possibilities"? A difference that makes not such > a big difference? It's a huge difference if the cat is actually real in all manifest possibilities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > Hoo boy. I've been away from the conversation till now, so I am > sorry if my comments don't quite fit in, but First > thanks for your reply. Some comments below: And thanks for yours. I don't have time to deal with all your comments today, and will riff only on the ones that I have time for and am interested in, if you don't mind. I think I made my position clear in earlier posts. That is, I am underwhelmed by people trying to associate quantum mechanics with consciousness. It strikes me as similar to a bunch of ants trying to figure out the Space Shuttle. I see it as an exercise in drawing bulls- eyes around arrows -- the theorists *start* with a premise, and try to find something -- anything -- to justify the premise. In this case they've glommed onto what they laughingly call "the frontiers of science" as "explaining" their premise. Me, I suspect that if we were to map "science" to the United States in the 1700s, what they call the "frontier" is located some- where in New Jersey. California is still a long way away. :-) > I really don't see many people trying to promote some agenda along > these lines. Well maybe Hagelin. And many of the New Agers out there. > But I think most are willing to revel in the > mystery of it. But certainly over time the mechanics of these > experienes are likely to become clear. And there has to be some > mechanics for any phenomena. I don't think this is a judgemental > statement, but you may feel otherwise. I stand on my "ants trying to figure out the Space Shuttle" metaphor. I think that the notion of humans being able to "understand" or "figure out" the universe and How It All Works is laughable in its hubris. > Now that did make me laugh out loud for a good minute, and > appreciate that. But I think it is pretty much boiler plate, > that you find quotes among some of the early quantum physicists > making a connection between God and science. Drawing bulls-eyes around arrows. What you are describing is the simple inability to think beyond one's early conditioning. The "existence of God" was taught to them before math was. > > > I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed > > > for this. > > > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > > to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe > > "allowed for?" > > There are certain physical laws in operation. I do not believe that "laws" is an accurate word for how humans perceive the universe as working. "Guesses" is a better word. When something happens that doesn't fit into one of their guesses, *then* they start to realize that that's all they ever were. > > > Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his > > > infinite wisdom". > > > > Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, > > I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for > > how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly > > sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing > > to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if > > one does, certainly isn't male. :-) > > Thank you for bring this up. I would like to ask you a question. > Do you belive there is an intelligence at work in the universe? Badly phrased question. You are trying to ask if I believe in the existence of a sentient God. I do not. Of course there are "intelligences" *in* the universe, as many of them as there are sentient beings. But is there one super-intelligence that creates the universe and runs it according to some plan? No, I do not believe that there is. My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the functioning of the operating system because *none is necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" interfering with it and running it. I suspect that the operating system is structured around an interplay between karma and the free will of sentient beings. Both are essential, and both are the very nature of the operating system. To postulate an "intelligence" "running things" is to disallow free will, and it seems obvious that free will exists. On a personal level, I think that God is for people who emotionally want to believe that there is some kind of "plan" or "meaning" to life in general and their lives in particular. I have no need for such a belief. > I don't really need an explanation. I think it is a neat > phenomena. I'll take it at face value, but recognize that > if it happened on the physical level, then the everyday > laws of nature we are accostomed to, but have been over > ridden some how. Yo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Thanks Curtis, Those are some nice compliments. You know I do feel fortunate that I can sometimes discuss things without feeling that someone has to buy into my viewpoint. And I'd like to think that I am also fortunate when someone pushes my buttons. I remember Turq one time admonishing Rudra Joe, (Kirk Bernhardt, a fellow buddhist) to quit lashing out at someone when being challenged, and be happy that one's buttons are being pushed. Seems Turq has developed a little bit of hair trigger along these lines. Not sure why I am mentioning this, but I guess this was the jumping off point for the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > That was a great rap Lurk. I consider the fact that you are willing to take a position and then start a discussion with zero defensiveness a model for discussions here. > > I don't know if anyone has performed sidhis and I certainly wouldn't say I know that no one has. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof on one hand, while realizing that plenty of amazing cool stuff might happen privately. For me we have so far to go to understand how we shape experience and belief I think we all suck as direct witnesses of amazing events. We even suck in reporting ordinary ones. I don't believe that the spiritual advocacy pieces from the past are very credible. Sometimes I wonder if some of the authors of them would be surprised to hear we were taking them literally. And sometimes I think the reports of miracles are a con. I put Sai Baba's "miracles" in that camp among others. I'm glad Maharishi just used innuendo and hope for the future mostly in the miracles department. I would be seriously pissed at myself if I had fallen for slight of hand vibhuti manifestations! It is hard enough to live with having believed I would fly by foam hopping! > > I wasn't thinking that you were using quantum mechanic's terms to lend creditability to your argument the way Maharishi did. And I get that you aren't pushing a belief agenda of any kind. > > I accept your quantum mechanics musings the way I hope you accept my attempts to express my POV here. This is a great place to work out our thinking on these topics and I appreciate your starting and continuing the discussion. > > Me:> > For me, we more effectively communicate these concepts through the > > arts if we want others to feel what we feel. I would much rather read > > Rumi or Kabir than listen to Hagelin if I want to appreciate someone's > > subtle appreciation of life's mystery and the shear beauty of being > > alive. > > Lurk: That's a nice point to end on. > > Thanks Lurk, I figured I might as well end on it twice! > > > > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound > > analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in > > science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience > > without the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of > > technical terms at best and misleading at worst. > > > > I have heard different mystery schools refer to this notion of the > > higher development of consciousness in different ways. QM doesn't seem > > such a bad way to compare the two things. I am not trying to be super > > rigourous in my terms. Perhaps that is weak on my part, but I am not > > trying hard to make any one believe what I am saying either. > > > > > > > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human > > kind, > > > > > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so > > many claims that have not panned out. > > > > > > Fine, but do you believe there has never been a case, even a single > > case of a siddhi being performed? It is fine to say, that "I haven't > > seen one", or "I can't prove it", but are you saying that it is > > impossible, that it has never happened. And then what in the hell do > > you do, it it has happened even once? > > > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > > > > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely > > different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight > > into how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas > > together in poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in > > their own language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. > > Boy, am I agreement with you on this point. > > > > > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being > > displayed? > > > > > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and > > mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We > > don't know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level > > because they I > > > > I cer
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: That was a great rap Lurk. I consider the fact that you are willing to take a position and then start a discussion with zero defensiveness a model for discussions here. I don't know if anyone has performed sidhis and I certainly wouldn't say I know that no one has. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof on one hand, while realizing that plenty of amazing cool stuff might happen privately. For me we have so far to go to understand how we shape experience and belief I think we all suck as direct witnesses of amazing events. We even suck in reporting ordinary ones. I don't believe that the spiritual advocacy pieces from the past are very credible. Sometimes I wonder if some of the authors of them would be surprised to hear we were taking them literally. And sometimes I think the reports of miracles are a con. I put Sai Baba's "miracles" in that camp among others. I'm glad Maharishi just used innuendo and hope for the future mostly in the miracles department. I would be seriously pissed at myself if I had fallen for slight of hand vibhuti manifestations! It is hard enough to live with having believed I would fly by foam hopping! I wasn't thinking that you were using quantum mechanic's terms to lend creditability to your argument the way Maharishi did. And I get that you aren't pushing a belief agenda of any kind. I accept your quantum mechanics musings the way I hope you accept my attempts to express my POV here. This is a great place to work out our thinking on these topics and I appreciate your starting and continuing the discussion. Me:> > For me, we more effectively communicate these concepts through the > arts if we want others to feel what we feel. I would much rather read > Rumi or Kabir than listen to Hagelin if I want to appreciate someone's > subtle appreciation of life's mystery and the shear beauty of being > alive. Lurk: That's a nice point to end on. Thanks Lurk, I figured I might as well end on it twice! > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound > analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in > science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience > without the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of > technical terms at best and misleading at worst. > > I have heard different mystery schools refer to this notion of the > higher development of consciousness in different ways. QM doesn't seem > such a bad way to compare the two things. I am not trying to be super > rigourous in my terms. Perhaps that is weak on my part, but I am not > trying hard to make any one believe what I am saying either. > > > > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human > kind, > > > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so > many claims that have not panned out. > > > Fine, but do you believe there has never been a case, even a single > case of a siddhi being performed? It is fine to say, that "I haven't > seen one", or "I can't prove it", but are you saying that it is > impossible, that it has never happened. And then what in the hell do > you do, it it has happened even once? > > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely > different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight > into how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas > together in poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in > their own language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. > Boy, am I agreement with you on this point. > > > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being > displayed? > > > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and > mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We > don't know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level > because they I > > I certainly can't make a positive connection I just happen to believe > that at some point we will find an intimate connection. But I am > willing to wait until something more definitive comes out. > > > > they do, where might that point be?> > > > > This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands > full with sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I > don't believe we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how > they relate. > > > > < What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between > these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in > doing so? > > > > It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms > as poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience without the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of technical terms at best and misleading at worst. I have heard different mystery schools refer to this notion of the higher development of consciousness in different ways. QM doesn't seem such a bad way to compare the two things. I am not trying to be super rigourous in my terms. Perhaps that is weak on my part, but I am not trying hard to make any one believe what I am saying either. > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so many claims that have not panned out. Fine, but do you believe there has never been a case, even a single case of a siddhi being performed? It is fine to say, that "I haven't seen one", or "I can't prove it", but are you saying that it is impossible, that it has never happened. And then what in the hell do you do, it it has happened even once? > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight into how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas together in poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in their own language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. Boy, am I agreement with you on this point. > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We don't know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level because they I I certainly can't make a positive connection I just happen to believe that at some point we will find an intimate connection. But I am willing to wait until something more definitive comes out. > > > > This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands full with sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I don't believe we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how they relate. > > < What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms as poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast. If you are trying to actually understand quantum mechanics itself before comparing them you need specific training or you might as well be calling human consciousness a fuel injected carburetor. Actually that comparison would be more legit because we have the possibility of direct experience with that unlike subatomic levels. I try to stick close to just what I experience. Most of my experiences are pretty mundane. Every once in a while something unique pops up. Probably just like most of us. > > Of course if the goal is to make it sound as if you understand human consciousness with the same precision of the hard sciences by comparing them as Maharishi did, you would be indulging in flim-flamery. Presenting a field of knowledge which was really traditional assertions as if they were connected to the knowledge gained in science is slippery at best. They are not connected either in methods or criteria for confidence in the knowledge. I'll have to go back and see if I was doing this. Don't think I was > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > I've seen many people levitate through hidden mechanical means. Especially in a setting where people where not expecting a magic show this would be my first assumption. Now if he did it at a magic convention and blew everyone's mind I would be more impressed because they have the training to spot the possible techniques. But in any case we have no evidence of the mechanism at all so why go to a field that we really don't understand and use it outside its range of description, the subatomic world? We jump to those terms because we got used to hearing guys like Maharishi use them casually as if he understood them. > > > > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe them as operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. > > I don't know your physics background so I don't know how much you understand these terms. Not a lot of people really do understand it the way it is intended because it takes specialized training. Part of that training is to separate our intuitions about reality from the level being discussed be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > That many things are a mystery does not make mysterious explanations for > everything valid. > Isn't this how science started?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: > > > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws? > > Why out of 10,000 hypotheses would QM be the key and sole driver? I don't quite think that I am, but please put forth another theory that would explain extrodinary phenomena such as the performance of siddhi. I experienced a remarkable siddhi one time. I can't explain it. But it sure seemed that my awareness was operating from a level where greater possibilities were possible. > Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? > > I think its remarkable that I wake up in the morning, that the sun "rises", that my truck works, and that one doesn't totally fall flat on their face when walking. Therefore it must be proof that vedanta is true and QM mechanics is behind it. (which is silly, because everyone knows its the lepricans.) Well what phenomena is quantum mechanics not behind? > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, and if they do, where might that point be? > > 5000 peer referenced journals have now proven that the subjective meets the objective when you open your eyes. Though sometimes, the S hits the O (sequel to The OC?) when the forehead hits the ground due to the walking hypothesis not working, the earth spinning faster than we thought, the lepricans, or a tad bit too much Bushmills. > > > > > > > > > Do you really believe all that, lurk? You really > > believe that there's some alternate reality going > > on that you can't see (and that nobody > > else can either) but can feel or tap into > > every now and then, kind of like beyond the > > looking-glass type of thing? > > Of course. Lepricans. Need I say more? > > > > > > > > > What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > Proof perfect. Now pass the Bushmills. > > > If he did, yes. No reason to believe he didn't? > > Oh, boy. OK, lurk, I just flew all around the > > world in 40 minutes. Believe that too? > > > > Sal > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Tart, do you happen to belive the twain will ever meet, or are the subjective world, and the objective world two seperate realities? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic tenet of his > religious beliefs and speculations -- and that proves consciousness is a > quantum phenomenon. May I suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much > Bushmills? > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > Wiki: > > > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he > > > remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with students > > > occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish > > > women[citation needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta > > > philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of > > > What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is > > > only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > > > > > > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Sal Sunshine wrote: > Do you really believe all that, lurk? You really > believe that there's some alternate reality going > on that you can't see (and that nobody > else can either) but can feel or tap into > every now and then, kind of like beyond the > looking-glass type of thing? But there is an alternate reality going on Sal. Most definitely. And that is just what quantum mechanics is all about. Particles are not just particles, and waves are not just waves, and by understanding this, and working with this we have all the technological advances, right? I do believe that there are sublter levels of awareness and that by operating at these levels, we can affect outcomes. This has been my experience. But it is no looking glass type experience. I think most people have this experience to one degree or another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Hoo boy. I've been away from the conversation till now, so I am sorry if my comments don't quite fit in, but First thanks for your reply. Some comments below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > > > mechanical laws? > > > > > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. > > > > So, you have no idea of the mechanics of extrodinary experiences? > > None whatsoever. I have suspicions, or theories, > or speculations, but I am also clear that that's > *all* that they are, so I keep them to myself or > discuss them only with people who have shared the > same experience. I am suggesting that theories and > speculations are all they are for everyone else, > too. I'm just more honest about it than they are. :-) I really don't see many people trying to promote some agenda along these lines. Well maybe Hagelin. But I think most are willing to revel in the mystery of it. But certainly over time the mechanics of these experienes are likely to become clear. And there has to be some mechanics for any phenomena. I don't think this is a judgemental statement, but you may feel otherwise. > > > You just chalk it up to "Hey this is cool, but let's be clear > > on one thing, this is a subjective experience, and likely has > > no connection with any physical laws... > > *May* have no connection with any physical laws. > > > ...or I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to make this > > connection" > > I certainly am not. Others may if they want. They > are free to do that. I am free to laugh at them. :-) > > > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > > > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > > > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such > > > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > > > > You've got history on your side for his one. > > I know that you're just using a euphemism or a > common phrase here, Lurk, but to be clear I don't > actually *have* a "side." *I* am not trying to sell > anything, even a theory about How It All Works; others > are. *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with > my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached > to people agreeing with them. I'm just discussing this > with you because I enjoy jackpotting ideas around, for > fun. I have no aardvark in this race. :-) I have no particular desire to link quantum mechanics to experiences of developing consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, but it may be that they are linked. I think they probably are, but that is just my opinion. I don't feel any particular need to share it, except under general discussion as we are doing now. > > > We've had a lot of insane individuals with their insane parallels. > > How bout the earth as not being the center of the universe. Some > > real insanity there. > > Exactly. The earth-centric universe *made sense*. It > matched people's subjective experience. It just had > nothing whatsoever to do with reality, that's all. > My suspicion is that "quantum consciousness" is going > to be regarded as just as silly in 50 years. > > > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > > > > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? Doesn't really matter to me. I think they are destined to meet. But if they don't, I am okay with that. > > > > I personally don't care if they do, but you stand in oppostion > > to many quantum pioneers if you suggest they don't. > > I stand in opposition to no one and nothing. I didn't > make a claim either way. I asked *you* a question. You > answered it. End of story. > > I am curious, though, about what a "quantum pioneer" is. > I have images of Einstein sitting in the seat of a covered > wagon cracking his whip and shouting, "Move along little > quarkies." :-) Now that did make me laugh out loud for a good minute, and I appreciate that. But I think it is pretty much boiler plate, that you find quotes among some of the early quantum physicists making a connection between God and science. Don't ask me for particulars, but I have often come across them. > > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. So, he just fucking levitated.? Well likely he did something to levitate, if he did indeed levitate, then he did something that allowed his body to defy gravity. That would not be a common occurance > > > > I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed > > for this. > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > to be. What is the "this" that your personif
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: [snip] > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > > mysticism isn't at all surprising. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > But luckily there are many new ways of interpreting it > without any of that mystic weirdness: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics > I took a quick peep. Which ones are light on mystic weirdness? The "many worlds"? That's as if to say "the cat in the proverbial quantum mechanical box is BOTH dead AND alive at the same time", no? Is that any better than "it's neither one nor t'other till we stick our nose in the box"? Does the one *explanation* dispel our metaphysical fog any better than the other? You might say that in the one case the state of the cat "dwells in the field of all (unmanifest) possibilities". In the other, the state of the cat "dwells in the field of all (manifest) possibilities"? A difference that makes not such a big difference?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB: > > I have *no earthly idea* how or why these things occurred. > > > Well, that pretty much sums it up: Turq has no idea > what 'quantum mechanics' is, or even the general laws > of physics! > > But, Turq sure does seem fond of those metaphysical > terms like 'selves', 'spiritual', and 'enlightenment'. > > LOL! HaHa :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > > > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > > > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? > > > > Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the > > limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as > > a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything > > science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. > > > > In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that > > made the limitations of science to tell us about How It > > All Works unequivocally clear for the first time. > > > > If you're a theoretical physicist who suddenly rams into > > a blank wall *thrown up by the laws of physics themselves*, > > if the scientific understanding of Life, the Universe, and > > Everything that it has been your life's work to pursue > > tells you *in its own terms* "So far, and no further," > > what do you do? Sit back and say, "Well, OK, never mind > > then"? Do you just give up your quest? > > > > Or do you look around for another route to understanding, > > one that isn't subject to those limitations? > > > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > > mysticism isn't at all surprising. > > But luckily there are many new ways of interpreting it > without any of that mystic weirdness: Nonono. Read what I wrote, please! These guys were *not* interpreting quantum mechanics from a mystical perspective. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics > > > Some of which are even testable, like: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > > > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > > > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? > > > > Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the > > limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as > > a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything > > science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. > > > > In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that > > made the limitations of science to tell us about How It > > All Works unequivocally clear for the first time. > > It was certainly a big shock. > > IMO there is another side to this: the limitations of > science that surface when we try to do meta-science > (epistemology). Starting with Hume's scepticism thru > Kant on the limits of Reason, then the failure of > positivism in the early 20th century to show that > knowledge was well-founded on the evidence > of the senses and simple logical statements. Then we have the > failure of Russell and Frege to demonstrate that Maths > is built on a solid logical foundation. And then we get > Popper... - anti "scientism", true, but ultimately his > "falsifiability" criterion is infected with mystery > to the core! > > Woo-woo sneerers are skating on thin ice... Yupper. > I would add that I think Tart's "that proves consciousness > is a quantum phenomenon!" comment misses the point I tried > to make about the difference between *consistency with > science" and *proved by science*. And an excellent point it is. (Is that really what Tart said??) I suspect Josephson, > Planck, Schrödinger might (if pushed after a few drinks) > spout their fair share of woo-woo. I think that as a rider > to that, they would go with the former, not the latter > (consistent with, not proved by). I don't know about Hagelin? I'd guess it would depend on who he was talking to (and possibly how many beers he'd had).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? > > Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the > limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as > a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything > science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. > > In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that > made the limitations of science to tell us about How It > All Works unequivocally clear for the first time. > > If you're a theoretical physicist who suddenly rams into > a blank wall *thrown up by the laws of physics themselves*, > if the scientific understanding of Life, the Universe, and > Everything that it has been your life's work to pursue > tells you *in its own terms* "So far, and no further," > what do you do? Sit back and say, "Well, OK, never mind > then"? Do you just give up your quest? > > Or do you look around for another route to understanding, > one that isn't subject to those limitations? > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > mysticism isn't at all surprising. But luckily there are many new ways of interpreting it without any of that mystic weirdness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics Some of which are even testable, like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? > > Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the > limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as > a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything > science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. > > In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that > made the limitations of science to tell us about How It > All Works unequivocally clear for the first time. It was certainly a big shock. IMO there is another side to this: the limitations of science that surface when we try to do meta-science (epistemology). Starting with Hume's scepticism thru Kant on the limits of Reason, then the failure of positivism in the early 20th century to show that knowledge was well-founded on the evidence of the senses and simple logical statements. Then we have the failure of Russell and Frege to demonstrate that Maths is built on a solid logical foundation. And then we get Popper... - anti "scientism", true, but ultimately his "falsifiability" criterion is infected with mystery to the core! Woo-woo sneerers are skating on thin ice... I would add that I think Tart's "that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon!" comment misses the point I tried to make about the difference between *consistency with science" and *proved by science*. I suspect Josephson, Planck, Schrödinger might (if pushed after a few drinks) spout their fair share of woo-woo. I think that as a rider to that, they would go with the former, not the latter (consistent with, not proved by). I don't know about Hagelin? > If you're a theoretical physicist who suddenly rams into > a blank wall *thrown up by the laws of physics themselves*, > if the scientific understanding of Life, the Universe, and > Everything that it has been your life's work to pursue > tells you *in its own terms* "So far, and no further," > what do you do? Sit back and say, "Well, OK, never mind > then"? Do you just give up your quest? > > Or do you look around for another route to understanding, > one that isn't subject to those limitations? > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > mysticism isn't at all surprising. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > > > Wiki: > > > > > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time > > > > he remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with > > > > students occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish > > > > women[citation needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta > > > > philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close > > > > of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness > > > > is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the > > > > universe.[7] > > > > > > > > > > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam > Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of > opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They > wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. Well if being condescending makes you feel better about yourself... You seem to have a pretty strong opinion yourself about my subjective experience. And you are denying my insights about knowledge and doubting my POV just as I am yours. I have no need for your pity, I love my life and enjoy questioning statements like this: "Yep unitary is my experience." In what sense? There are ways of understanding that which match my experience of my individual life's connection to the rest of life. I have my share of mystical union with everything awareness. We may just be interpreting this experience differently since I don't view guys like Maharishi as experts in what this means. You are proposing this insight as if you are on a superior level. Why do you make such an assumption? Perhaps you are describing a state of mind with religious terms that I find quite ordinary in my own experience. Perhaps what you are making such a big fuss about and trying to use as a put-down is just another way to express being human, no more or less than the ways I choose. Maybe the specialness you are grasping at with such expressions is really an insecurity about just being another human on the same level as all other humans. In your idea of experiencing unity you behave like a sorority debutant trying to create artificial distinctions between you and me. Your pride in your beliefs reminds me of every other super religious person I have talked to. The terms change but the "I am special and superior" surety remains the same. I don't pity you Doug. I just disagree with your claim of special insight into how life works. I don't believe you, or Maharishi for that matter, has life all figured out. If you are enjoying your POV, fine. But you don't have to be a dick about it. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > Wiki: > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. (snip for brevity) He > > had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which > > influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the > > possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > > > > A 'possibility'. Offered like a tru scientist to the end. That is funny. > > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam > Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of > opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They > wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. > > Have a nice day, > > -Buck >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > It seems to me that there are three options available > to someone who has in the past plunked his or her money > down to learn the TM siddhis: > > 1. Assume that they work (or will eventually, Real Soon > Now), and that there is no "reason" or "explanation" for > HOW or WHY they work that could be understood by humans. > > 2. Assume that they work (or will eventually), and that > the "explanation" for HOW and WHY they work is this dumb > borrowing of terminology from a field not even remotely > associated with the supposed (but imaginary) phenomenon > of levitation. > > 3. Assume that the "levitation" siddhi taught by MMY and > the TMO doesn't "work" and never did, and that thus no > "explanation" is necessary. 4. I don't know which, if any, of the above is correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
> > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > > > you not get? > > > > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL > > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk > > believes doesn't affect you in any way? > > TurquoiseB: > fuck you, cunt :-) > So, that's the part Turq gives A SHIT about!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama > > > > levitated, (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), > > > > would this not be due to manipulating laws at a > > > > quantum level. > > > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. "Absolutely not"? Not a chance? > > I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery > > allowed for this. > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe > "allowed for?" > > It was a subjective event, shared by me and hundreds of > other people. We saw him levitate. That does *NOT* imply > that he actually levitated, only that we saw it. For all > I know, because no cameras were present, it could have > been a *purely* subjective experience. So, am I supposed > to get all hinky trying to think up an "explanation" for > something that might have been purely subjective? I think > not. In that case, the universe apparently allowed for hundreds of people to have the same subjective experience of something that is objectively impossible. That's pretty mysterious in and of itself. > > Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his > > infinite wisdom". > > Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, > I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for > how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly > sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing > to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if > one does, certainly isn't male. :-) Whether it was physical or purely subjective, the inclination to declare it a mystery beyond human understanding rather than struggling to find an explanation is the same in both cases, just as Lurk suggests. With religionists, we say they're taking the easy way out. With nonreligionists, why don't we get to say the same thing?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
TurquoiseB: > I have *no earthly idea* how or why these things occurred. > Well, that pretty much sums it up: Turq has no idea what 'quantum mechanics' is, or even the general laws of physics! But, Turq sure does seem fond of those metaphysical terms like 'selves', 'spiritual', and 'enlightenment'. LOL! But, the real *mystery* is why Turq would even attempt to chime in on the topic of quantum physics. Now that is a mystery! > None whatsoever. I have suspicions, or theories, > or speculations, but I am also clear that that's > *all* that they are, so I keep them to myself or > discuss them only with people who have shared the > same experience. I am suggesting that theories and > speculations are all they are for everyone else, > too. I'm just more honest about it than they are. :-) > > *May* have no connection with any physical laws. > > I certainly am not. Others may if they want. They > are free to do that. I am free to laugh at them. :-) > > I know that you're just using a euphemism or a > common phrase here, Lurk, but to be clear I don't > actually *have* a "side." *I* am not trying to sell > anything, even a theory about How It All Works; others > are. *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with > my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached > to people agreeing with them. I'm just discussing this > with you because I enjoy jackpotting ideas around, for > fun. I have no aardvark in this race. :-) > > Exactly. The earth-centric universe *made sense*. It > matched people's subjective experience. It just had > nothing whatsoever to do with reality, that's all. > My suspicion is that "quantum consciousness" is going > to be regarded as just as silly in 50 years. > > I stand in opposition to no one and nothing. I didn't > make a claim either way. I asked *you* a question. You > answered it. End of story. > > I am curious, though, about what a "quantum pioneer" is. > I have images of Einstein sitting in the seat of a covered > wagon cracking his whip and shouting, "Move along little > quarkies." :-) > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe > "allowed for?" > > It was a subjective event, shared by me and hundreds of > other people. We saw him levitate. That does *NOT* imply > that he actually levitated, only that we saw it. For all > I know, because no cameras were present, it could have > been a *purely* subjective experience. So, am I supposed > to get all hinky trying to think up an "explanation" for > something that might have been purely subjective? I think > not. > > Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, > I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for > how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly > sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing > to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if > one does, certainly isn't male. :-) > > For whom? For you? I owe you nothing. For anyone else? > I owe them nothing. I am selling nothing, not even a > theory about why or how what I and hundreds of others > witnessed. I am merely telling you what we witnessed. > > If you have a problem with this without an accompanying > "why" or "how," that is YOUR problem, not mine. > > WHY would that be "better?" Because YOU would be more > comfortable with it? > > As far as I could tell, it was physical levitation. As > far as anyone else in the room or out in the desert with > Rama could tell, it was physical levitation. I am open to > that *not* being the case because there is no way I could > prove that it was physical levitation. It certainly looked > like it was physical to me. > > You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in "physical > laws" and in their predictability. I do not share this. If > you find yourself threatened by the idea that this really > happened on a physical level, I suggest that this is YOUR > problem, not mine. > > What is lame, dude, is that you don't seem to be able to > understand plain English. I *provided* no "explanations." > I will *never* provide any "explanations" of the many > things I have experienced and/or witnessed. > > There are two reasons for this. The first, and most > important, is that I have *no earthly idea* how or why > these things occurred. I'm certainly not going to make > one up just to make YOU feel more comfortable or less > threatened. > > The second is that *I am not trying to sell you anything*. > I DON'T GIVE A SHIT what you believe. Never > have, never will. What you believe doth not affect me in > any way. > > If you're looking for someone who will "defend" his or her > perceptions of extraordinary phenomena or "explain" them > to you, continue looking. I am not that person. And I won't > become that person no matter how many times you ask. > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > you not ge
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin > > thought so? > > > > Wiki: > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. (snip > > for brevity) He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta > > philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations > > at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that > > individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > A 'possibility'. Offered like a tru scientist to the end. > That is funny. > > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way > for Shirmer, Sam Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting > Thomas' full with lots of opinion, and denial, that It is not > more of their experience too. They wrestle working so & bad > at denial, they are pitiable. > > Have a nice day, Classic Doug/Buck. "The only possible explanation I can think of for someone not sharing my experience or my 'explanation' of that experience is that they are less evolved than I am and are 'denying' the 'truth' that I not only perceive but *know* because I *am* so much more evolved than they are. One can only pity them." Shades of Nabby. Here's what I think is going on with all of this knee-jerk attachment to bogus "explanations" for how the *imaginary* levitation siddhi (it has never once been demonstrated by the TMO) could "work," based on quantum mechanics and things that happen *only* at a subatomic level. It seems to me that there are three options available to someone who has in the past plunked his or her money down to learn the TM siddhis: 1. Assume that they work (or will eventually, Real Soon Now), and that there is no "reason" or "explanation" for HOW or WHY they work that could be understood by humans. 2. Assume that they work (or will eventually), and that the "explanation" for HOW and WHY they work is this dumb borrowing of terminology from a field not even remotely associated with the supposed (but imaginary) phenomenon of levitation. 3. Assume that the "levitation" siddhi taught by MMY and the TMO doesn't "work" and never did, and that thus no "explanation" is necessary. To the TB, or to someone whose ego will not allow them to admit that they were taken to the cleaners by their belief in Woo Woo, Door #3 is unacceptable, even though it is the most logical. To accept that, one would have to be willing to admit that one was a fuckin' fool in the past, and that one might be still. Door #1 is problematic for the TB or long-term TM sucker, because they've paid so much money over the years to an organization that pretended that not only is there was an answer to *everything* in the universe but they (the TMO) have it that they could never admit to having been *that* kind of fuckin' fool. Thus Door #2 is the one that they cling to desperately. "It *must* be true," they think, because that's the only thing that justifies me being a fuckin' fool all these decades.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that made the limitations of science to tell us about How It All Works unequivocally clear for the first time. If you're a theoretical physicist who suddenly rams into a blank wall *thrown up by the laws of physics themselves*, if the scientific understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything that it has been your life's work to pursue tells you *in its own terms* "So far, and no further," what do you do? Sit back and say, "Well, OK, never mind then"? Do you just give up your quest? Or do you look around for another route to understanding, one that isn't subject to those limitations? The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in mysticism isn't at all surprising. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > Wiki: > > > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he > > > remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with students > > > occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish > > > women[citation needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta > > > philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of > > > What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is > > > only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > > > > > > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
TurquoiseB: > It makes more sense to me to spend more of my time being > open to *more* such mysteries than sitting around trying > to ponder the old ones and come up with some bogus > "explanation" for them... > This post of Turq's is a classic case of metaphysical obsfucation! I wonder if Turq told the scientist on the flight that he was a 'TM Teacher' or that he once observed the Zen Master Rama 'levitate' and fill a whole room full of 'golden' light? LOL! Turq sure likes to give himself a lot of wiggle room to explain his own metaphysical notions! Now that's fun to watch! > I am *absolutely* saying that. I have had any > number of profound experiences, but I describe > them *as they were*, not in terms of some made-up > association with a little-understood but often- > ripped-off branch of science. > > If thought stops but awareness does not, that is > "best described" as "thought stopping without > awareness stopping," NOT by "I merged with the > quantum field of all possibilities" or some other > such guff. I am surprised you would even suggest > such a thing. > > Jargon is jargon, whether it's traditional spiri- > tual jargon derived from Sanskrit or other lang- > uages or modern jargon ripped off from science. > > It's very purpose is to *obfuscate* direct exper- > ience, not "explain" it. I prefer real words, used > to describe real experiences. > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of > *something*. > > Something not completely understood, or not under- > stood at all. Dressing it up in language ripped off > from science does not make it one whit more under- > standable, it just puts a pretty name on the mystery. > > So fucking what? Many of my experiences are more > similar in their effects and in their subjective > experience to the Harry Potter books than to quantum > physics. Should I then refer to them using terminology > from the Harry Potter books. That *IS* the case you > seem to be making. > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that > such parallels exist are more often call insane than > wise. > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > > Done for FUN, and *knowing* that it's meaningless and > has *no relation* to reality on any level? No harm, > no foul. Done as if the speculation "means" something? > Harm. Foul. It's as meaningless an exercise in my > opinion as making the connection between one's > subjective experience and the Harry Potter books, and > less entertaining. > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a > physical level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a > physical level. > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't > have been recorded by video cameras or instruments > (which is very possible), it was a mystery happening > on a subtle level. End of story. > > No matter how much I or anyone else dresses up the > mystery with pretty words from either science or Harry > Potter, a mystery it was and a mystery it remains. > > In terms of *marketing* (which is what we are really > talking about), there is a world of difference between > dressing such an experience up in the language of > quantum physics vs. dressing it up in the language of > Harry Potter. > The former is a *sales technique*, designed to try to > give some "legit-imacy" to someone's interpretation of > what is going on, while conferring not an ounce of that > legitimacy in real life. The latter -- using Harry Potter > language -- would at least be more honest, because people > in the audience would *know* that you were making it up > and that the only thing involved was an appeal to magic. > > Co-opting the language of a science that is irrelevant > to phenomena that do not take place at a quantum level > is essentially *dishonest*. And everyone who does it > *knows* that it's dishonest; that's why they get so > uptight when you call them on their ripped-off jargon > jive. > > I think the issue here is in the language you use in > your last sentence above. You would like your experiences > to "make sense." What leads you to believe that they do, > or even should? > > Some people get off on trying to come up with > "explanations" for life's mysteries that seem to "make > sense." Cool, I guess, if that gets them off. Less cool, > I think, if they attempt to claim that their "explanations" > are actually true. > > Me, I'm just happy with the baseline mystery. I don't need > to dress it up in the language of quantum mechanics or in > the language of Harry Potter to make it "better" or > "understandable" or pretend that it "made sense." It was > a mystery when it happened, it's a mystery now, and a > mystery it will remain, no matter how long I ponder it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > Wiki: > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. (snip for brevity) He > had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which > influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the > possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > A 'possibility'. Offered like a tru scientist to the end. That is funny. Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They wrestle working so & bad at denial, they are pitiable. Have a nice day, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: ME Using the language of a non sensory world to sensory ones is a good way to conflate terms that shouldn't be together. > Tart> Sex and Love? Excellent! IMO these words should not be separated! But the difficulties that arise between these concepts when they are found together or apart does illustrate the problems of language levels doesn't it? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I specifically asked her what she and her > > > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best > > > described as operating at a subtler, > > > > The term "subtler" requires definition. In what sense? The Maharishi > > sense was just an assertion whose proposed evidence was that the mantra > > changes in different ways during meditation. We were taught to believe > > that the subjective experience of meditation was "subtler" using the proof > > by analogy of the bubble diagram. > > What!? WHAT??!! Are you suggesting the bubbles are actually not getting > smaller??!! > > But if you meditate without those presuppositions you might not experience > it as "subtler", I don't. For me I wouldn't use that to explain what I > experience in meditation. > > > > > > > > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound > > analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in > > science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience without > > the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of technical > > terms at best and misleading at worst. Using the language of a non sensory > > world to sensory ones is a good way to conflate terms that shouldn't be > > together. > > Sex and Love? > > Using subatomic terms in the world of our senses leads us to the false > conclusion that our intuitions could work with these terms. They do not. We > are really bad at thinking about things outside our range of sensory > experiences. And when physicists to it, they use math as the appropriate > language. > > Like the pole I just ran into. I could not see the damn thing. I did not > think about it. Wham! The Big O meets the Big S. > > > > > > > > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, > > > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so many > > claims that have not panned out. > > > > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely > > different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight into > > how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas together in > > poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in their own > > language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. > > Maybe they just sucked a lot of helium. > > But its a well known fact that when we marched on the Pentagon in 1967, it > levitated because of LOVE. LOVE from its infinite Subjective state bubbled > and overwhelmed the physical Objective. Big S, five, Big O, zero. > > > > > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being > > displayed? > > > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and > > mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We > > don't know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level > > because they are not in our everyday sensory experience. And it is that > > experience that guides our intuitions and feelings about things. > > > > > do, where might that point be?> > > > > This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands full > > with sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I don't > > believe we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how they > > relate. > > > > < What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these > > two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > > > It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms as > > poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast. If you are > > trying to actually understand quantum mechanics itself before comparing > > them you need specific training or you might as well be calling human > > consciousness a fuel injected carburetor. Actually that comparison would > > be more legit because we have the possibility of direct experience with > > that unlike subatomic levels. > > > > Of cour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I specifically asked her what she and her > > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would > > be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level > > of awareness? > > I am *absolutely* saying that. I have had any > number of profound experiences, but I describe > them *as they were*, not in terms of some made-up > association with a little-understood but often- > ripped-off branch of science. > > If thought stops but awareness does not, that is > "best described" as "thought stopping without > awareness stopping," NOT by "I merged with the > quantum field of all possibilities" or some other > such guff. I am surprised you would even suggest > such a thing. > > Jargon is jargon, whether it's traditional spiri- > tual jargon derived from Sanskrit or other lang- > uages or modern jargon ripped off from science. > It's very purpose is to *obfuscate* direct exper- > ience, not "explain" it. I prefer real words, used > to describe real experiences. > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > mechanical laws? > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. > Something not completely understood, or not under- > stood at all. Dressing it up in language ripped off > from science does not make it one whit more under- > standable, it just puts a pretty name on the mystery. > > > Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena > > being displayed? > > So fucking what? Many of my experiences are more similar > in their effects and in their subjective experience to > the Harry Potter books than to quantum physics. Should I > then refer to them using terminology from the Harry Potter > books. That *IS* the case you seem to be making. > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > parallels exist. Unless its ALL One, man. And besides. She SAID the earth moved! And I am going with that. > Those who attempt to declare that such > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > > > ...and if they do, where might that point be? What is the hang > > up between trying to make a connection between these two, and > > using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > Done for FUN, and *knowing* that it's meaningless and > has *no relation* to reality on any level? No harm, no > foul. Done as if the speculation "means" something? Harm. > Foul. It's as meaningless an exercise in my opinion as > making the connection between one's subjective experience > and the Harry Potter books, and less entertaining. > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical > level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have > been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very > possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End > of story. > > No matter how much I or anyone else dresses up the mystery > with pretty words from either science or Harry Potter, a > mystery it was and a mystery it remains. > > In terms of *marketing* (which is what we are really talking > about), there is a world of difference between dressing such > an experience up in the language of quantum physics vs. > dressing it up in the language of Harry Potter. The former > is a *sales technique*, designed to try to give some "legit- > imacy" to someone's interpretation of what is going on, while > conferring not an ounce of that legitimacy in real life. The > latter -- using Harry Potter language -- would at least be > more honest, because people in the audience would *know* > that you were making it up and that the only thing involved > was an appeal to magic. Co-opting the language of a science > that is irrelevant to phenomena that do not take place at a > quantum level is essentially *dishonest*. And everyone who > does it *knows* that it's dishonest; that's why they get so > uptight when you call them on their ripped-off jargon jive. > > > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe > > them as operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I specifically asked her what she and her > > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best > > described as operating at a subtler, > > The term "subtler" requires definition. In what sense? The Maharishi sense > was just an assertion whose proposed evidence was that the mantra changes in > different ways during meditation. We were taught to believe that the > subjective experience of meditation was "subtler" using the proof by analogy > of the bubble diagram. What!? WHAT??!! Are you suggesting the bubbles are actually not getting smaller??!! But if you meditate without those presuppositions you might not experience it as "subtler", I don't. For me I wouldn't use that to explain what I experience in meditation. > > > > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound > analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in > science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience without > the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of technical terms > at best and misleading at worst. Using the language of a non sensory world > to sensory ones is a good way to conflate terms that shouldn't be together. Sex and Love? Using subatomic terms in the world of our senses leads us to the false conclusion that our intuitions could work with these terms. They do not. We are really bad at thinking about things outside our range of sensory experiences. And when physicists to it, they use math as the appropriate language. Like the pole I just ran into. I could not see the damn thing. I did not think about it. Wham! The Big O meets the Big S. > > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so many > claims that have not panned out. > > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely > different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight into > how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas together in > poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in their own > language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. Maybe they just sucked a lot of helium. But its a well known fact that when we marched on the Pentagon in 1967, it levitated because of LOVE. LOVE from its infinite Subjective state bubbled and overwhelmed the physical Objective. Big S, five, Big O, zero. > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being > displayed? > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and > mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We don't > know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level because they > are not in our everyday sensory experience. And it is that experience that > guides our intuitions and feelings about things. > > do, where might that point be?> > > This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands full with > sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I don't believe > we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how they relate. > > < What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, > and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms as > poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast. If you are > trying to actually understand quantum mechanics itself before comparing them > you need specific training or you might as well be calling human > consciousness a fuel injected carburetor. Actually that comparison would be > more legit because we have the possibility of direct experience with that > unlike subatomic levels. > > Of course if the goal is to make it sound as if you understand human > consciousness with the same precision of the hard sciences by comparing them > as Maharishi did, you would be indulging in flim-flamery. Presenting a field > of knowledge which was really traditional assertions as if they were > connected to the knowledge gained in science is slippery at best. They are > not connected either in methods or criteria for confidence in the knowledge. > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I > > have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating > > laws at a qu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > I specifically asked her what she and her > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best described > as operating at a subtler, The term "subtler" requires definition. In what sense? The Maharishi sense was just an assertion whose proposed evidence was that the mantra changes in different ways during meditation. We were taught to believe that the subjective experience of meditation was "subtler" using the proof by analogy of the bubble diagram. But if you meditate without those presuppositions you might not experience it as "subtler", I don't. For me I wouldn't use that to explain what I experience in meditation. This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience without the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of technical terms at best and misleading at worst. Using the language of a non sensory world to sensory ones is a good way to conflate terms that shouldn't be together. Using subatomic terms in the world of our senses leads us to the false conclusion that our intuitions could work with these terms. They do not. We are really bad at thinking about things outside our range of sensory experiences. And when physicists to it, they use math as the appropriate language. < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so many claims that have not panned out. < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight into how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas together in poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in their own language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We don't know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level because they are not in our everyday sensory experience. And it is that experience that guides our intuitions and feelings about things. This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands full with sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I don't believe we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how they relate. < What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms as poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast. If you are trying to actually understand quantum mechanics itself before comparing them you need specific training or you might as well be calling human consciousness a fuel injected carburetor. Actually that comparison would be more legit because we have the possibility of direct experience with that unlike subatomic levels. Of course if the goal is to make it sound as if you understand human consciousness with the same precision of the hard sciences by comparing them as Maharishi did, you would be indulging in flim-flamery. Presenting a field of knowledge which was really traditional assertions as if they were connected to the knowledge gained in science is slippery at best. They are not connected either in methods or criteria for confidence in the knowledge. > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I have > no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating laws > at a quantum level. I've seen many people levitate through hidden mechanical means. Especially in a setting where people where not expecting a magic show this would be my first assumption. Now if he did it at a magic convention and blew everyone's mind I would be more impressed because they have the training to spot the possible techniques. But in any case we have no evidence of the mechanism at all so why go to a field that we really don't understand and use it outside its range of description, the subatomic world? We jump to those terms because we got used to hearing guys like Maharishi use them casually as if he understood them. > > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe them as > operating at a quantum mechan
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > > > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. I see. > > >It's > > the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed for this. Beyond >our > > human understading". A corrollary for "God in his infinite wisdom". > > > That is good Lurk, Turq's collary "the universe in its great mystery allowed > for this", or *opinion* as Turq likes to say for lack of deeper experience > with it. That many things are a mystery does not make mysterious explanations for everything valid.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best > > described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a > > true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, would > > this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws? Why out of 10,000 hypotheses would QM be the key and sole driver? Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? I think its remarkable that I wake up in the morning, that the sun "rises", that my truck works, and that one doesn't totally fall flat on their face when walking. Therefore it must be proof that vedanta is true and QM mechanics is behind it. (which is silly, because everyone knows its the lepricans.) Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, and if they do, where might that point be? 5000 peer referenced journals have now proven that the subjective meets the objective when you open your eyes. Though sometimes, the S hits the O (sequel to The OC?) when the forehead hits the ground due to the walking hypothesis not working, the earth spinning faster than we thought, the lepricans, or a tad bit too much Bushmills. > > Do you really believe all that, lurk? You really > believe that there's some alternate reality going > on that you can't see (and that nobody > else can either) but can feel or tap into > every now and then, kind of like beyond the > looking-glass type of thing? Of course. Lepricans. Need I say more? > > > > What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, > > and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I > > have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating > > laws at a quantum level. Proof perfect. Now pass the Bushmills. > If he did, yes. No reason to believe he didn't? > Oh, boy. OK, lurk, I just flew all around the > world in 40 minutes. Believe that too? > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. I see. >It's > the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed for this. Beyond >our > human understading". A corrollary for "God in his infinite wisdom". That is good Lurk, Turq's collary "the universe in its great mystery allowed for this", or *opinion* as Turq likes to say for lack of deeper experience with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > Wiki: > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he > > remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with students > > occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish women[citation > > needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, > > which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the > > possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > > > > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > > you not get? > > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk > believes doesn't affect you in any way? fuck you, cunt :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with > my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached > to people agreeing with them. > The second is that *I am not trying to sell you anything*. > I DON'T GIVE A SHIT what you believe. Never > have, never will. What you believe doth not affect me in > any way. > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > you not get? The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk believes doesn't affect you in any way? Barry, you're just as, if not more, emotionally attached to your beliefs as/than anybody else. You're so attached to the idea that it's all a big mystery that will never be solved that you FREAK OUT when anybody questions your belief in it. And then you FREAK OUT again at the idea that you're trying to "sell" the belief. You're not only emotionally attached to your beliefs, you're emotionally attached to your belief that you aren't emotionally attached to your beliefs. Attachment to a belief is attachment to a belief, regardless of the content of the belief, even if the content is that you don't believe anything in particular, even if the content is that you aren't attached to the belief that you don't believe anything in particular.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > Wiki: > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he > remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with students > occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish women[citation > needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, > which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the > possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a > unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7] > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > > mechanical laws? > > > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. > > So, you have no idea of the mechanics of extrodinary experiences? None whatsoever. I have suspicions, or theories, or speculations, but I am also clear that that's *all* that they are, so I keep them to myself or discuss them only with people who have shared the same experience. I am suggesting that theories and speculations are all they are for everyone else, too. I'm just more honest about it than they are. :-) > You just chalk it up to "Hey this is cool, but let's be clear > on one thing, this is a subjective experience, and likely has > no connection with any physical laws... *May* have no connection with any physical laws. > ...or I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to make this > connection" I certainly am not. Others may if they want. They are free to do that. I am free to laugh at them. :-) > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such > > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > > You've got history on your side for his one. I know that you're just using a euphemism or a common phrase here, Lurk, but to be clear I don't actually *have* a "side." *I* am not trying to sell anything, even a theory about How It All Works; others are. *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached to people agreeing with them. I'm just discussing this with you because I enjoy jackpotting ideas around, for fun. I have no aardvark in this race. :-) > We've had a lot of insane individuals with their insane parallels. > How bout the earth as not being the center of the universe. Some > real insanity there. Exactly. The earth-centric universe *made sense*. It matched people's subjective experience. It just had nothing whatsoever to do with reality, that's all. My suspicion is that "quantum consciousness" is going to be regarded as just as silly in 50 years. > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > > I personally don't care if they do, but you stand in oppostion > to many quantum pioneers if you suggest they don't. I stand in opposition to no one and nothing. I didn't make a claim either way. I asked *you* a question. You answered it. End of story. I am curious, though, about what a "quantum pioneer" is. I have images of Einstein sitting in the seat of a covered wagon cracking his whip and shouting, "Move along little quarkies." :-) > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. > > I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed > for this. I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe "allowed for?" It was a subjective event, shared by me and hundreds of other people. We saw him levitate. That does *NOT* imply that he actually levitated, only that we saw it. For all I know, because no cameras were present, it could have been a *purely* subjective experience. So, am I supposed to get all hinky trying to think up an "explanation" for something that might have been purely subjective? I think not. > Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his > infinite wisdom". Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if one does, certainly isn't male. :-) > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical > > level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. > > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have > > been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very > > possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End > > of story. > > Okay good to come up with some explanation. For whom? For you? I owe you nothing. For anyone else? I owe them nothing. I am selling nothing, not even a theory about why or how what I and hundreds of others witnessed. I am merely telling you what we witnessed. If you have a problem with this without an accompanying "why" or "how," that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best described > as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a true siddhi > has ever been performed in the history of human kind, would this not be an > example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws? Are not the effects similiar in > terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? Do not the objective and > subjective world meet at some point, and if they do, where might that point > be? Do you really believe all that, lurk? You really believe that there's some alternate reality going on that you can't see (and that nobody else can either) but can feel or tap into every now and then, kind of like beyond the looking-glass type of thing? > What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, > and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I have > no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating laws > at a quantum level. If he did, yes. No reason to believe he didn't? Oh, boy. OK, lurk, I just flew all around the world in 40 minutes. Believe that too? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I specifically asked her what she and her > > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would > > be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level > > of awareness? > > I am *absolutely* saying that. I have had any > number of profound experiences, but I describe > them *as they were*, not in terms of some made-up > association with a little-understood but often- > ripped-off branch of science. > > If thought stops but awareness does not, that is > "best described" as "thought stopping without > awareness stopping," NOT by "I merged with the > quantum field of all possibilities" or some other > such guff. I am surprised you would even suggest > such a thing. > > Jargon is jargon, whether it's traditional spiri- > tual jargon derived from Sanskrit or other lang- > uages or modern jargon ripped off from science. > It's very purpose is to *obfuscate* direct exper- > ience, not "explain" it. I prefer real words, used > to describe real experiences. > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > mechanical laws? > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. So, you have no idea of the mechanics of extrodinary experiences? You just chalk it up to "Hey this is cool, but let's be clear on one thing, this is a sujective experience, and likely has no connection with any physical laws or I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to make this connection" > Something not completely understood, or not under- > stood at all. Dressing it up in language ripped off > from science does not make it one whit more under- > standable, it just puts a pretty name on the mystery. > > > Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena > > being displayed? > > So fucking what? Many of my experiences are more similar > in their effects and in their subjective experience to > the Harry Potter books than to quantum physics. Should I > then refer to them using terminology from the Harry Potter > books. That *IS* the case you seem to be making. > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. You've got history on your side for his one. We've had a lot of insane individuals with their insane parallels. How bout the earth as not being the center of the universe. Some real insanity there. > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? I personally don't care if they do, but you stand in oppostion to many quantum pioneers if you suggest they don't. > > > ...and if they do, where might that point be? What is the hang > > up between trying to make a connection between these two, and > > using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > Done for FUN, and *knowing* that it's meaningless and > has *no relation* to reality on any level? No harm, no > foul. Done as if the speculation "means" something? Harm. > Foul. It's as meaningless an exercise in my opinion as > making the connection between one's subjective experience > and the Harry Potter books, and less entertaining. > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed for this. Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his infinite wisdom". > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical > level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have > been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very > possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End > of story. Okay good to come up with some explanation. Anything would be better than saying it happened on the physical level, which was your first response until you've watered it down. Anything better than indicating an actual manipulation of physical laws. I'm going to come back to this, because I've run out of time. But I find you explanations pretty lame. But I want to elaborate on this when I have some extra time. .> > No matter how much I or anyone else dresses up the mystery > with pretty words from either science or Harry Potter, a > mystery it was and a mystery it remains. > > In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? Wiki: Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with students occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish women[citation needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[7]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between > these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics > in doing so? Yes! No, wait a minute... no? Thinking about this (and what,say Curtis bangs on about), does this distinction help? (a) Trying to see how the metaphysics of [insert woo-woo practice here] can be thought of as being CONSISTENT with modern science (particularly quantum mechanics). And more accurately here we mean the metaphysics of modern science (i.e *interpreted* as opposed to geek/mathematical quantum mechanics). (b) Believing that modern science proves that, or provides evidence for, the metaphysics of [insert woo-woo practice here] being TRUE. I don't see anything wrong with (a) at all. It's good to feel that your beliefs are not at odds with Science (as for example, we suppose to be the case with naive biblical creationists). But being *consistent* with Science is a fairly low goal for a metaphysics. It can still be completely daft. But at least would-be acolytes need not fear they are abandoning rationalism by adopting [insert woo-woo practice here] (b) is the problem surely. But who believes that? For my part I never thought that MMY and TM's scientific pretensions were anything other than (a). For that reason it was not necessarily ALL that significant or indeed interesting to me (I am not fully signed up to the Science is Truth myth). Call me naive as I expect you will...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > I specifically asked her what she and her > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would > be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level > of awareness? I am *absolutely* saying that. I have had any number of profound experiences, but I describe them *as they were*, not in terms of some made-up association with a little-understood but often- ripped-off branch of science. If thought stops but awareness does not, that is "best described" as "thought stopping without awareness stopping," NOT by "I merged with the quantum field of all possibilities" or some other such guff. I am surprised you would even suggest such a thing. Jargon is jargon, whether it's traditional spiri- tual jargon derived from Sanskrit or other lang- uages or modern jargon ripped off from science. It's very purpose is to *obfuscate* direct exper- ience, not "explain" it. I prefer real words, used to describe real experiences. > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > mechanical laws? Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. Something not completely understood, or not under- stood at all. Dressing it up in language ripped off from science does not make it one whit more under- standable, it just puts a pretty name on the mystery. > Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena > being displayed? So fucking what? Many of my experiences are more similar in their effects and in their subjective experience to the Harry Potter books than to quantum physics. Should I then refer to them using terminology from the Harry Potter books. That *IS* the case you seem to be making. "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between anything and anything; that does not mean that those parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > ...and if they do, where might that point be? What is the hang > up between trying to make a connection between these two, and > using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? Done for FUN, and *knowing* that it's meaningless and has *no relation* to reality on any level? No harm, no foul. Done as if the speculation "means" something? Harm. Foul. It's as meaningless an exercise in my opinion as making the connection between one's subjective experience and the Harry Potter books, and less entertaining. > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End of story. No matter how much I or anyone else dresses up the mystery with pretty words from either science or Harry Potter, a mystery it was and a mystery it remains. In terms of *marketing* (which is what we are really talking about), there is a world of difference between dressing such an experience up in the language of quantum physics vs. dressing it up in the language of Harry Potter. The former is a *sales technique*, designed to try to give some "legit- imacy" to someone's interpretation of what is going on, while conferring not an ounce of that legitimacy in real life. The latter -- using Harry Potter language -- would at least be more honest, because people in the audience would *know* that you were making it up and that the only thing involved was an appeal to magic. Co-opting the language of a science that is irrelevant to phenomena that do not take place at a quantum level is essentially *dishonest*. And everyone who does it *knows* that it's dishonest; that's why they get so uptight when you call them on their ripped-off jargon jive. > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe > them as operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. > > I'd love to get some feedback. This was mine. I think the issue here is in the language you use in your last sentence above. You would like your experiences to "make sense." What leads you to believe that they do, or even should? Some people get off on trying to come up with "explanations" for life's mysteries that seem to "make sense." Cool, I guess, if that ge
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: I specifically asked her what she and her > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws? Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being displayed? Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, and if they do, where might that point be? What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe them as operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. I'd love to get some feedback.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > Hagelin is not a one-off. > > As far as I know he is the only one who has tried > to justify his beliefs with a scientific paper, "Is > consciousness the unified field?" which was roundly > rejected. "Roundly rejected" by whom, in what context? Did he ever submit it to any journal other than MUM's "Modern Science and Vedic Science"? Also, he's hardly the only credentialed scientist to justify his beliefs in a scientific paper. Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon, for example, holds beliefs very similar to those of Hagelin and had several papers published in physics journals about quantum mechanics and consciousness (mostly in the '80s, I think--he's now retired and has become something of a New Age guru; he appears in "What the Bleep" and is featured in a new documentary, "The Dalai Lama Renaissance," along with Fred Alan Wolf). I'm not sure Roger Penrose has published scientific papers on the topic of quantum mechanics and consciousness, but he's written several books thereon. > > Just take Josephson for > > example (Nobel prize for quantum tunnelling). > > Interestingly quantum tunnelling is the current 'most > likely explanation given current knowledge' for explaining > the presence of the universe *without* needing to bring > god, or any sort of mystical consciousness entity into it. > See Hawking and Stenger. In the film "A Brief History of Time," Penrose says: "There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." This isn't too far from the "mystical consciousness entity" sort of thinking. He doesn't believe the known laws of physics can account for consciousness, or that human thought can be modeled computationally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
The realm of possibilities and implications of QM, relativity, string theory, cosmology, can be huge mind benders. Far more out there than new-age stuff. But non- physicists or old/not current physicists who try to establish solid parallels using cliches without understanding -- using good buzz words "quantum this" or quantum that, are not helpful in my view. And everywhere you go people will trot out Heisenburg Uncertainty in bizzare and non-applicable ways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > What if M was going on and on about the vacuum state or > > quantum field of all possibilities as PC and Max Plank appearing > > and saying, "What you say is preposterous. You know nothing of > > my work." > > Or perhaps something quite different. Plank (sic) was > very religious - who knows? > > Of course if the authority of Planck is being called > up, and Planck's equations are being misused, that's > no good. But the equations and the *interpretation* of > those equations are two quite different things. My > guess is that if pushed, Planck's ideas of *what it > all means* would have been as outlandish and as > speculative as anyone else's. Could be. Stuff is so weird at that level that they can extropolate to some very strange but plausible ideas. > > The idea that *real* quantum physicists (perhaps as you > might meet on Air France?) would have no truck with > new ageish speculation over quantum mechanics is patently > false. Hagelin is not a one-off. Just take Josephson for > example (Nobel prize for quantum tunnelling). I never saw Josephson but my impression is that he was quite eccentric and off on a number of questionable tangents. And neither he or Domash, or Hankey or Haiglin and all the other physicists over the years ever tried to publish serious work connecting QM etc to PC or ved. > That doesn't mean that a lot of new-age verbiage isn't > pseudo-science. It just means that just because some of > it is, it is unreasonable to suppose that all of it is > (and a lot of pseudo-science is not new-age). > > Who *understands* quantum mechanics? You might reply > "quantum physicists". But that's not what I mean. > > :: "Who understands numbers?" - Oh, mathematicians. > :: No I mean "What ARE numbers, what is their reality?". > > Being a mathematician won't necessarily help you there. > A nodding acquaintance with Plato might be a start. > > The same is true of speculations over quantum mechanics. > No one *owns* the meaning of it, because no one has > much of a frigging clue. Which puts into a large box that > contains a great many things. > > You might say "of that whereof we cannot speak we should > remain silent". Just do so already! > > But just because we have a a big box of untestable, > unprovable, undecidable stuff doesn't mean that we > have to ALL stop reflecting on it. Perhaps something > good can come of such speculations? Agreed. Speculation is great. Asserting some connection has been established and using science to make commercial stuff credible is not good. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > Hagelin is not a one-off. As far as I know he is the only one who has tried to justify his beliefs with a scientific paper, "Is consciousness the unified field?" which was roundly rejected. > Just take Josephson for > example (Nobel prize for quantum tunnelling). Interestingly quantum tunnelling is the current 'most likely explanation given current knowledge' for explaining the presence of the universe *without* needing to bring god, or any sort of mystical consciousness entity into it. See Hawking and Stenger. > Who *understands* quantum mechanics? You might reply > "quantum physicists". And I'd be right, but no-one as yet understands the foundational principles. But it gets a bit closer every day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/03/100330_cern_nh_sl.shtml > But just because we have a a big box of untestable, > unprovable, undecidable stuff doesn't mean that we > have to ALL stop reflecting on it. Perhaps something > good can come of such speculations? Absolutely, if no-one ever speculated we would still be sitting in caves throwing rocks at each other. There'll come a day.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > What if M was going on and on about the vacuum state or > quantum field of all possibilities as PC and Max Plank appearing > and saying, "What you say is preposterous. You know nothing of > my work." Or perhaps something quite different. Plank (sic) was very religious - who knows? Of course if the authority of Planck is being called up, and Planck's equations are being misused, that's no good. But the equations and the *interpretation* of those equations are two quite different things. My guess is that if pushed, Planck's ideas of *what it all means* would have been as outlandish and as speculative as anyone else's. The idea that *real* quantum physicists (perhaps as you might meet on Air France?) would have no truck with new ageish speculation over quantum mechanics is patently false. Hagelin is not a one-off. Just take Josephson for example (Nobel prize for quantum tunnelling). That doesn't mean that a lot of new-age verbiage isn't pseudo-science. It just means that just because some of it is, it is unreasonable to suppose that all of it is (and a lot of pseudo-science is not new-age). Who *understands* quantum mechanics? You might reply "quantum physicists". But that's not what I mean. :: "Who understands numbers?" - Oh, mathematicians. :: No I mean "What ARE numbers, what is their reality?". Being a mathematician won't necessarily help you there. A nodding acquaintance with Plato might be a start. The same is true of speculations over quantum mechanics. No one *owns* the meaning of it, because no one has much of a frigging clue. Which puts into a large box that contains a great many things. You might say "of that whereof we cannot speak we should remain silent". Just do so already! But just because we have a a big box of untestable, unprovable, undecidable stuff doesn't mean that we have to ALL stop reflecting on it. Perhaps something good can come of such speculations?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
From: tartbrain To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 30 March, 2010 9:17:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > > > > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot > > > more interesting. > > > > > > Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure > > > what I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I > > > still have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is > > > happening in the environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic > > > mind and that getting a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My > > > complaint about yagyas is about the claims of effecting the physical > > > world or demonstrating how the world really works. I can get into either perspective -- that its an inner outer reality. Or maybe just plain old delusion -- which is fine with me too -- its fascinating that the mind can make non-real things seem so real. but Emptybills description of purushas densely gathering -- I am not even sure what a group of purushas are (outside the TMO)but the image conveys a deep feeling for me of entities of pure consciousness light far intelligence and deep love gathering around flickers of light "here" when such a flicker appears. That explanation would fit well with my experience -- but also would that of the ceremony and art of it all just triggers the release of some neurochemical that makes me feel like love an light is around me. or as i say -- pure delusion is another viable hypothesis. > > > > Yes -- as you know, I am not talking about claimed far reaching effects. I > > am talking about the here and now experience of something profound which is > > not experienced in any other context. I experienced at my first puja at > > initiation. I experienced it more intensely after doing 30 pujas (teaching > > 30 people) in a day and being absorbed into that THING. I have experienced > > around some people and teachers. I have experienced it when I participate > > (not just view -- but offering rice etc) in yagyas. I have had a seemingly > > large number of experiences of it being in certain contexts, an not there > > in most others. But what it is, how I interpret it etc is a different > > thing. Maybe i should just "Enjoy". Which may have been M's most profound > > teaching. > > This in my opinion is Sam Harris's greatest contribution to skeptical > thought. His understanding that there are many states of mind experienced by > meditators or people doing traditional spiritual practices that we don't > understand and should study. I wouldn't be surprised that some form of > meditation proves to be really valuable, but I doubt it will be in the way > the traditional context claims. But for all of us who have been to the > mountain, the fact that the mind can experience amazing things is undeniable. > I still love the puja and think it is one of the most fascinating things I > learned with Maharishi. Singing a few lines never fails to blow the mind of > any Indian taxi driver I get! > > I am also a fan of Maharishi's Vedic preservation efforts with the pundits. > I believe it is a valuable part of our human history. me too. But later today, after I read this this morning I thought how to explain this to someone. And I was saying in my head -- its like he is preserving the purity and essence of biblical times. sCREEECH halt. Is he the western counterpart to Jerry Falwell or David Koresh (not necessarily comparable) trying to revive pure christianity (just noticed that rhymes with "insanity"). Or an extreme orthodox jew trying to revive pure judiasm? Yikes, Neither image strikes me with great excitement. Why would vedic revival be too much different? (unless you are a vedic fundamentalist and then it all makes sense i suppose -- but thats my point -- who wants to be or live in a vedic fundamentalist society?) And the whole activity at the jewish temple seems a lot, at 5000 feet, like yagyas. Fundamental revivalist of ancient cultures -- is that progress? Though of course parts may be quite useful and insightful. Although I might put it slig
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > > > > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot > > > more interesting. > > > > > > Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure > > > what I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I > > > still have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is > > > happening in the environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic > > > mind and that getting a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My > > > complaint about yagyas is about the claims of effecting the physical > > > world or demonstrating how the world really works. I can get into either perspective -- that its an inner outer reality. Or maybe just plain old delusion -- which is fine with me too -- its fascinating that the mind can make non-real things seem so real. but Emptybills description of purushas densely gathering -- I am not even sure what a group of purushas are (outside the TMO)but the image conveys a deep feeling for me of entities of pure consciousness light far intelligence and deep love gathering around flickers of light "here" when such a flicker appears. That explanation would fit well with my experience -- but also would that of the ceremony and art of it all just triggers the release of some neurochemical that makes me feel like love an light is around me. or as i say -- pure delusion is another viable hypothesis. > > > > Yes -- as you know, I am not talking about claimed far reaching effects. I > > am talking about the here and now experience of something profound which is > > not experienced in any other context. I experienced at my first puja at > > initiation. I experienced it more intensely after doing 30 pujas (teaching > > 30 people) in a day and being absorbed into that THING. I have experienced > > around some people and teachers. I have experienced it when I participate > > (not just view -- but offering rice etc) in yagyas. I have had a seemingly > > large number of experiences of it being in certain contexts, an not there > > in most others. But what it is, how I interpret it etc is a different > > thing. Maybe i should just "Enjoy". Which may have been M's most profound > > teaching. > > This in my opinion is Sam Harris's greatest contribution to skeptical > thought. His understanding that there are many states of mind experienced by > meditators or people doing traditional spiritual practices that we don't > understand and should study. I wouldn't be surprised that some form of > meditation proves to be really valuable, but I doubt it will be in the way > the traditional context claims. But for all of us who have been to the > mountain, the fact that the mind can experience amazing things is undeniable. > I still love the puja and think it is one of the most fascinating things I > learned with Maharishi. Singing a few lines never fails to blow the mind of > any Indian taxi driver I get! > > I am also a fan of Maharishi's Vedic preservation efforts with the pundits. > I believe it is a valuable part of our human history. me too. But later today, after I read this this morning I thought how to explain this to someone. And I was saying in my head -- its like he is preserving the purity and essence of biblical times. sCREEECH halt. Is he the western counterpart to Jerry Falwell or David Koresh (not necessarily comparable) trying to revive pure christianity (just noticed that rhymes with "insanity"). Or an extreme orthodox jew trying to revive pure judiasm? Yikes, Neither image strikes me with great excitement. Why would vedic revival be too much different? (unless you are a vedic fundamentalist and then it all makes sense i suppose -- but thats my point -- who wants to be or live in a vedic fundamentalist society?) And the whole activity at the jewish temple seems a lot, at 5000 feet, like yagyas. Fundamental revivalist of ancient cultures -- is that progress? Though of course parts may be quite useful and insightful. Although I might put it slightly behind preserving the traditional hula dance on a scale of important folk traditions to preserve for posterity, in fairness, hula dancing gives me a boner. > I sort of resonate with the ideal of temple dancers. Maybe we could start by just reviving that. > > > > > > > > > > > As a fun party that I can enjoy them. Most of them go on too long for my > > > taste however and I wouldn't pay more than a nightclub cover charge for > > > the privilege! > > > > > > ME> > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > > > > Tart> > And yet, he appears to be so much more real th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: An extreme POV like scientific materialism is an easy straw man to knock over. And characterizing POVs as insane seem a bit much. But Wilbur is a fan of using physics poetry to make his ideas sound more concrete so I really don't know what he has to complain about. He seems happy to use terms of hard science to boost the credibility of his own assertions. > > > > Curtis: > > His understanding that there are many states of mind > > experienced by meditators or people doing traditional > > spiritual practices that we don't understand and > > should study... > > > "And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages > the world over, any crazier than the scientific > materialism story, which is that the entire sequence > is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, > signifying absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: > just which of those two stories actually sounds totally > insane?" > > 'A Brief History of Everything' > By Ken Wilber > Shambhala, 2007 > Page 42-3 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Curtis: > His understanding that there are many states of mind > experienced by meditators or people doing traditional > spiritual practices that we don't understand and > should study... > "And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story, which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds totally insane?" 'A Brief History of Everything' By Ken Wilber Shambhala, 2007 Page 42-3
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
The "audience comment" by a guy who turns out to actually be a theoretical physicist (!), who's working a on a book with Stephen Hawking is another show-stopper worth seeing. Hint to Deepak: have someone scan the audience BEFOREHAND for actual physicists! Duh! On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:40 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Sorry for the link omission! http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5306 I don't find Sam as prickly as Dawkins which is one of the reason I like him more. But the underlying condescension of some of Chopra's claims for special knowledge might rub me the wrong way in person too. Although Dawkins is obviously tweeked by Chopra and shows his irritation I think the distinction he makes about where the metaphor ends is brilliant and the exact right thing to challenge Chopra on. It is not the spiritual assertions that get to me but the invocation of science terms to make the assertions sound more reasonable and scientific that gets to me. In this debate it is Chopra who gets pissed and Sam who has to ask him to ratchet it down a bit so they could continue the discussion. Of course you may come to very different conclusions...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more > > interesting. > > > > Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure > > what I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I > > still have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is > > happening in the environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic > > mind and that getting a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My > > complaint about yagyas is about the claims of effecting the physical world > > or demonstrating how the world really works. > > Yes -- as you know, I am not talking about claimed far reaching effects. I am > talking about the here and now experience of something profound which is not > experienced in any other context. I experienced at my first puja at > initiation. I experienced it more intensely after doing 30 pujas (teaching 30 > people) in a day and being absorbed into that THING. I have experienced > around some people and teachers. I have experienced it when I participate > (not just view -- but offering rice etc) in yagyas. I have had a seemingly > large number of experiences of it being in certain contexts, an not there in > most others. But what it is, how I interpret it etc is a different thing. > Maybe i should just "Enjoy". Which may have been M's most profound teaching. This in my opinion is Sam Harris's greatest contribution to skeptical thought. His understanding that there are many states of mind experienced by meditators or people doing traditional spiritual practices that we don't understand and should study. I wouldn't be surprised that some form of meditation proves to be really valuable, but I doubt it will be in the way the traditional context claims. But for all of us who have been to the mountain, the fact that the mind can experience amazing things is undeniable. I still love the puja and think it is one of the most fascinating things I learned with Maharishi. Singing a few lines never fails to blow the mind of any Indian taxi driver I get! I am also a fan of Maharishi's Vedic preservation efforts with the pundits. I believe it is a valuable part of our human history. Although I might put it slightly behind preserving the traditional hula dance on a scale of important folk traditions to preserve for posterity, in fairness, hula dancing gives me a boner. > > > > As a fun party that I can enjoy them. Most of them go on too long for my > > taste however and I wouldn't pay more than a nightclub cover charge for the > > privilege! > > > > ME> > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > > Tart> > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types > > as to M's health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > > > I believe this is also part of his adjustment to more modern skepticism and > > education. He understands the well exposed to spirituality California > > mindset. Maharishi was still running his 1960's level of gullibility in > > society till the end. Chopra modernized it and is aware of skeptical > > challenges so he qualifies his assertions more. But he gets caught being > > slippery by Sam in the debate because he doesn't have much intellectual > > integrity in his presentations. He will qualify terms into something so > > bland that no one could disagree like calling God universal energy. He > > tries to appear much more rational than he is really being with his claims > > by invoking and misusing science terms. So he sounds really sane about > > Maharishi being a normal man but then will also claim that Maharishi had an > > inner wisdom about how the world really is, a special insight that is > > enlightened. He seems to make this claim more realistic by mentioning > > Maharishi's faults but it is just as bold an assertion as when a Raja makes > > it or claims as Domash did that Maharishi is "nature speaking English." > > Talk about jumping the shark! That was Domash's moment for me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > > > > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he > > > > > nails Deepak on the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got > > > > > nailed for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumb
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
Sorry for the link omission! http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5306 I don't find Sam as prickly as Dawkins which is one of the reason I like him more. But the underlying condescension of some of Chopra's claims for special knowledge might rub me the wrong way in person too. Although Dawkins is obviously tweeked by Chopra and shows his irritation I think the distinction he makes about where the metaphor ends is brilliant and the exact right thing to challenge Chopra on. It is not the spiritual assertions that get to me but the invocation of science terms to make the assertions sound more reasonable and scientific that gets to me. In this debate it is Chopra who gets pissed and Sam who has to ask him to ratchet it down a bit so they could continue the discussion. Of course you may come to very different conclusions... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris > > where he nails Deepak on the same thing. > > Where? (No link.) > > Is Harris as hostile as Dawkins is in the clip above? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more > interesting. > > Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure what > I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I still > have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is happening in the > environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic mind and that getting > a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My complaint about yagyas is > about the claims of effecting the physical world or demonstrating how the > world really works. Yes -- as you know, I am not talking about claimed far reaching effects. I am talking about the here and now experience of something profound which is not experienced in any other context. I experienced at my first puja at initiation. I experienced it more intensely after doing 30 pujas (teaching 30 people) in a day and being absorbed into that THING. I have experienced around some people and teachers. I have experienced it when I participate (not just view -- but offering rice etc) in yagyas. I have had a seemingly large number of experiences of it being in certain contexts, an not there in most others. But what it is, how I interpret it etc is a different thing. Maybe i should just "Enjoy". Which may have been M's most profound teaching. > As a fun party that I can enjoy them. Most of them go on too long for my > taste however and I wouldn't pay more than a nightclub cover charge for the > privilege! > > ME> > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > Tart> > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types > as to M's health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > I believe this is also part of his adjustment to more modern skepticism and > education. He understands the well exposed to spirituality California > mindset. Maharishi was still running his 1960's level of gullibility in > society till the end. Chopra modernized it and is aware of skeptical > challenges so he qualifies his assertions more. But he gets caught being > slippery by Sam in the debate because he doesn't have much intellectual > integrity in his presentations. He will qualify terms into something so > bland that no one could disagree like calling God universal energy. He tries > to appear much more rational than he is really being with his claims by > invoking and misusing science terms. So he sounds really sane about Maharishi > being a normal man but then will also claim that Maharishi had an inner > wisdom about how the world really is, a special insight that is enlightened. > He seems to make this claim more realistic by mentioning Maharishi's faults > but it is just as bold an assertion as when a Raja makes it or claims as > Domash did that Maharishi is "nature speaking English." Talk about jumping > the shark! That was Domash's moment for me! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he > > > > nails Deepak on the same thing. > > > > > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got > > > > nailed for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting > > > > physicist. I forget his name. Max Planck? > > > > > > Thats AMAZING. In that Max Plank died in 1947. M was communicating with the > > soul of the father of quantum physics. > > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > > > He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum > > > state with consciousness. > > > > > > Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to > > > great nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this > > > is bogus, but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some > > > deep profound level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why > > > their lips and tongue are suddenly so purple. > > > > > > But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of > > > reality. So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern > > > mysticism and western physics. > > > > > > > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more > > > > than a metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum > > > > mechanics for his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It > > > > was the only time I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual > > > > dishonesty by a guy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris > where he nails Deepak on the same thing. Where? (No link.) Is Harris as hostile as Dawkins is in the clip above?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:06 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris. > While you knew of one time when Ole M. suffered similarly, it seems > M. learned to simply surround himself with "yes men" thereafter: end > of problem! I am conflicted between giving Chopra credit for taking it like a man and thinking that he must really be out of touch to believe he could have stood up to this challenge. It reveals great naivete on his part or great hubris. It either makes me think that he believes his own rap so much he thought he was up to it or that he really is a bit of a dope! I can't decide. I got that he's still an extremely intelligent man, but he had so consistently acquired and accepted various quantum new age beliefs without actual critical examination and objective analysis that the end result is he has merely collected a mishmash of cute sayings, devoid of any actual depth--or any basis in reality. This is an issue a lot of people involved in TMO-type quantum orgs, if they chose to separate from those belief systems, will have to deal with. I can remember reaching a point in listening to Hagelin, where it was clear to me he was BS' ing it. At that point it's little different from listening to any other fundamentalist, just a different flavor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris. > While you knew of one time when Ole M. suffered similarly, it seems > M. learned to simply surround himself with "yes men" thereafter: end > of problem! I am conflicted between giving Chopra credit for taking it like a man and thinking that he must really be out of touch to believe he could have stood up to this challenge. It reveals great naivete on his part or great hubris. It either makes me think that he believes his own rap so much he thought he was up to it or that he really is a bit of a dope! I can't decide. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > Was it Max Fliescher? Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more interesting. Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure what I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I still have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is happening in the environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic mind and that getting a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My complaint about yagyas is about the claims of effecting the physical world or demonstrating how the world really works. As a fun party that I can enjoy them. Most of them go on too long for my taste however and I wouldn't pay more than a nightclub cover charge for the privilege! ME> > > Chopra learned from the Master well. Tart> > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types as to M's health, status, personal doubt, etc. I believe this is also part of his adjustment to more modern skepticism and education. He understands the well exposed to spirituality California mindset. Maharishi was still running his 1960's level of gullibility in society till the end. Chopra modernized it and is aware of skeptical challenges so he qualifies his assertions more. But he gets caught being slippery by Sam in the debate because he doesn't have much intellectual integrity in his presentations. He will qualify terms into something so bland that no one could disagree like calling God universal energy. He tries to appear much more rational than he is really being with his claims by invoking and misusing science terms. So he sounds really sane about Maharishi being a normal man but then will also claim that Maharishi had an inner wisdom about how the world really is, a special insight that is enlightened. He seems to make this claim more realistic by mentioning Maharishi's faults but it is just as bold an assertion as when a Raja makes it or claims as Domash did that Maharishi is "nature speaking English." Talk about jumping the shark! That was Domash's moment for me! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he > > > nails Deepak on the same thing. > > > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got > > > nailed for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting > > > physicist. I forget his name. Max Planck? > > > Thats AMAZING. In that Max Plank died in 1947. M was communicating with the > soul of the father of quantum physics. > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum state > > with consciousness. > > > > Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to > > great nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this is > > bogus, but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some deep > > profound level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why their > > lips and tongue are suddenly so purple. > > > > But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of > > reality. So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern > > mysticism and western physics. > > > > > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more than > > > a metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics > > > for his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only > > > time I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy who > > > would not back down. The other time when he was called out but the guy > > > did back down was when Johnathan Sheer called him on the assertion that > > > the state of Pure Consciousness can be logically inferred from the other > > > three. "Then you must change your logic" was the effective thought > > > stopper which silenced Johnathan from trained philosopher to drooling > > > sycophant. > > > > > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of people who > > > were trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. I was a big fan > > > of it myself when I was a believer and the whole educational model of MIU > > > made much use of it. > > > > One can get so wrapped up in metaphoric-based truth -- because it FEELS so > > right - once in synch with the metaphor "feeling" - one can spin on and on > > and on -- fueled by that "ah ha" experience of light one has - (only to > > realize (years) later it was a virtual fluctuation of nothingness in a vast > > fie
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
On Mar 30, 2010, at 10:01 AM, tartbrain wrote: "How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the core of Creation)? See almost everyone" LOL, this is so right on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Chopra learned from the Master well. He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris. While you knew of one time when Ole M. suffered similarly, it seems M. learned to simply surround himself with "yes men" thereafter: end of problem!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he > > > nails Deepak on the same thing. > > > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got > > > nailed for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting > > > physicist. I forget his name. Max Planck? Reminds me of an early scene in W. Allen's "Annie Hall" -- he is in a line at a cinema, and an annoying guy is droning on about some film being Mcluhanesque. Woody says, thats bunk. the guys says, "Oh Really! I happen to teach film at SUNY and I think I know a great deal about Marshall Mcluhan and his work." And suddenly the real Marshall Mcluhan appears and says 'What you say is preposterous. You know absolutely nothing of my work." And woody looks into the camera as says " if only life were like that." What if M was going on and on about the vacuum state or quantum field of all possibilities as PC and Max Plank appearing and saying, "What you say is preposterous. You know nothing of my work." > > > Thats AMAZING. In that Max Plank died in 1947. M was communicating with the > soul of the father of quantum physics. > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum state > > with consciousness. > > > > Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to > > great nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this is > > bogus, but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some deep > > profound level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why their > > lips and tongue are suddenly so purple. > > > > But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of > > reality. So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern > > mysticism and western physics. > > > > > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more than > > > a metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics > > > for his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only > > > time I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy who > > > would not back down. The other time when he was called out but the guy > > > did back down was when Johnathan Sheer called him on the assertion that > > > the state of Pure Consciousness can be logically inferred from the other > > > three. "Then you must change your logic" was the effective thought > > > stopper which silenced Johnathan from trained philosopher to drooling > > > sycophant. > > > > > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of people who > > > were trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. I was a big fan > > > of it myself when I was a believer and the whole educational model of MIU > > > made much use of it. > > > > One can get so wrapped up in metaphoric-based truth -- because it FEELS so > > right - once in synch with the metaphor "feeling" - one can spin on and on > > and on -- fueled by that "ah ha" experience of light one has - (only to > > realize (years) later it was a virtual fluctuation of nothingness in a vast > > field of nothingness. > > > > And try to argue with someone with this mode of functioning -- its near > > impossible since their "knowledge" is so transcendental to the actual world > > and fact. > > > > But when the bubble bursts -- one wonders "what was I thinking?!" > > Nothingness. > > > > On the other hand (and I have many hands), one can experience something > > noteworthy. Real. Even profound. But interpreting that with ones own biases > > and filters can muck up the truth works with gusto. "Of course that is the > > Quantum Field -- it has to be, it was so special, I am so special, the TMO > > is so special (and elite and profound) -- on the vanguard of truth and > > righteousness" > > > > "How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the core of > > Creation)? See almost everyone" > > > > The sadness is that the experience itself may be significant -- in the > > sense of outside the norm -- some new territory. > > > > > The shame is that using metaphors to illustrate things proven by other > > > means is a great teaching technique. What erodes its educational value > > > is this attempt to blur the line between metaphor and identity and > > > especially the con artist trick of using sciency sounding terms to lend > > > creditability to baseless assertions. > > > > But the teacher needs to be on guard -- its easy to get suck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he nails > > Deepak on the same thing. > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got nailed > > for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting physicist. I > > forget his name. Max Planck? Thats AMAZING. In that Max Plank died in 1947. M was communicating with the soul of the father of quantum physics. Was it Max Fliescher? > He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum state > with consciousness. > > Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to great > nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this is bogus, > but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some deep profound > level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why their lips and > tongue are suddenly so purple. > > But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of reality. > So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern mysticism and > western physics. > > > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more than a > > metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics for > > his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only time > > I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy who would > > not back down. The other time when he was called out but the guy did back > > down was when Johnathan Sheer called him on the assertion that the state of > > Pure Consciousness can be logically inferred from the other three. "Then > > you must change your logic" was the effective thought stopper which > > silenced Johnathan from trained philosopher to drooling sycophant. > > > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of people who > > were trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. I was a big fan of > > it myself when I was a believer and the whole educational model of MIU made > > much use of it. > > One can get so wrapped up in metaphoric-based truth -- because it FEELS so > right - once in synch with the metaphor "feeling" - one can spin on and on > and on -- fueled by that "ah ha" experience of light one has - (only to > realize (years) later it was a virtual fluctuation of nothingness in a vast > field of nothingness. > > And try to argue with someone with this mode of functioning -- its near > impossible since their "knowledge" is so transcendental to the actual world > and fact. > > But when the bubble bursts -- one wonders "what was I thinking?!" Nothingness. > > On the other hand (and I have many hands), one can experience something > noteworthy. Real. Even profound. But interpreting that with ones own biases > and filters can muck up the truth works with gusto. "Of course that is the > Quantum Field -- it has to be, it was so special, I am so special, the TMO is > so special (and elite and profound) -- on the vanguard of truth and > righteousness" > > "How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the core of > Creation)? See almost everyone" > > The sadness is that the experience itself may be significant -- in the sense > of outside the norm -- some new territory. > > > The shame is that using metaphors to illustrate things proven by other > > means is a great teaching technique. What erodes its educational value is > > this attempt to blur the line between metaphor and identity and especially > > the con artist trick of using sciency sounding terms to lend creditability > > to baseless assertions. > > But the teacher needs to be on guard -- its easy to get sucked into the Truth > of that "ah ah" burst of energy and light. Turning a good teaching moment > into the pure field of suckiness. > > OTOH, though, an adjacent post From EmptyBill about the surroundings being > full of purushic type beings. In puja or in particpating in yagyas, there IS > something of significance and discernable in the surroundings -- as far as my > "senses" tell me. Its not expectation or buying into some myth. Its there. > But what is it? Even if people see such beings or structures, physically see, > that perception too can and needs to be deconstructed. Is it "out there" or > some enlivenment "in here"? > > > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types as to M's > health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Vaj > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.co
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where > he nails Deepak on the same thing. > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi > got nailed for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a > visiting physicist. I forget his name. Max Planck? He kept > calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum > state with consciousness. Once he sniffed out that Maharishi > was attempting to use it as more than a metaphor and was trying > to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics for his own pet > assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only time > I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy > who would not back down. The other time when he was called out > but the guy did back down was when Johnathan Sheer called him on > the assertion that the state of Pure Consciousness can be logically > inferred from the other three. "Then you must change your logic" > was the effective thought stopper which silenced Johnathan from > trained philosopher to drooling sycophant. > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of > people who were trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. > I was a big fan of it myself when I was a believer and the whole > educational model of MIU made much use of it. > > The shame is that using metaphors to illustrate things proven by > other means is a great teaching technique. What erodes its > educational value is this attempt to blur the line between metaphor > and identity and especially the con artist trick of using sciency > sounding terms to lend creditability to baseless assertions. On my Air France flight back from the US, I wound up sitting next to a lovely (this is an understatement... she was not just lovely, but stunningly lovely) woman whom I took the opportunity to chat up. It turned out to be delightful because she was a quantum physicist, on her way back from a conference in Galveston. >From my indoctrination in "TM physics" I was actually able to talk to her a little about her work -- which is *optical* quantum physics...trying to detect on a visible level quantum phenomena currently regarded as theoretical because no one can actually see them in action. I specifically asked her what she and her fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain and scorn I have rarely encountered before. The mention of John Hagelin's name made her spit out her wine at dinner. :-) Suffice it to say that neither she nor any of the people she works with considers him either a physicist or a scientist of any kind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he nails > Deepak on the same thing. > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got nailed > for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting physicist. I > forget his name. Max Planck? He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt > to equate of the vacuum state with consciousness. Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to great nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this is bogus, but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some deep profound level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why their lips and tongue are suddenly so purple. But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of reality. So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern mysticism and western physics. > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more than a > metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics for > his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only time I > saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy who would not > back down. The other time when he was called out but the guy did back down > was when Johnathan Sheer called him on the assertion that the state of Pure > Consciousness can be logically inferred from the other three. "Then you must > change your logic" was the effective thought stopper which silenced Johnathan > from trained philosopher to drooling sycophant. > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of people who were > trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. I was a big fan of it > myself when I was a believer and the whole educational model of MIU made much > use of it. One can get so wrapped up in metaphoric-based truth -- because it FEELS so right - once in synch with the metaphor "feeling" - one can spin on and on and on -- fueled by that "ah ha" experience of light one has - (only to realize (years) later it was a virtual fluctuation of nothingness in a vast field of nothingness. And try to argue with someone with this mode of functioning -- its near impossible since their "knowledge" is so transcendental to the actual world and fact. But when the bubble bursts -- one wonders "what was I thinking?!" Nothingness. On the other hand (and I have many hands), one can experience something noteworthy. Real. Even profound. But interpreting that with ones own biases and filters can muck up the truth works with gusto. "Of course that is the Quantum Field -- it has to be, it was so special, I am so special, the TMO is so special (and elite and profound) -- on the vanguard of truth and righteousness" "How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the core of Creation)? See almost everyone" The sadness is that the experience itself may be significant -- in the sense of outside the norm -- some new territory. > The shame is that using metaphors to illustrate things proven by other means > is a great teaching technique. What erodes its educational value is this > attempt to blur the line between metaphor and identity and especially the con > artist trick of using sciency sounding terms to lend creditability to > baseless assertions. But the teacher needs to be on guard -- its easy to get sucked into the Truth of that "ah ah" burst of energy and light. Turning a good teaching moment into the pure field of suckiness. OTOH, though, an adjacent post From EmptyBill about the surroundings being full of purushic type beings. In puja or in particpating in yagyas, there IS something of significance and discernable in the surroundings -- as far as my "senses" tell me. Its not expectation or buying into some myth. Its there. But what is it? Even if people see such beings or structures, physically see, that perception too can and needs to be deconstructed. Is it "out there" or some enlivenment "in here"? > Chopra learned from the Master well. > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types as to M's health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Vaj > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 7:38:14 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and > > Jean Houston > > > > > > From Gina over at TM-Free > > > > Many former TMers knew Deepak Chopra, his split with Maharishi, then > > Chopra's repackaging of Maharishi's programs in a slightly more mainstream > > package for his own financial gain. > > > > Deepak Chopra is now
