Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of it is an attempt to deceive readers here. I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights: Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with their wieners. (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.) It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is not directly related to that single sentence: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea? In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure. BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned.) As to Curtis's challenge, he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry, I know you're upset because your hero Curtis didn't have the decisive victory you were hoping for, C: I figured that Judy snipe at me from post to other people. My opinion piece could have inspired a discussion but you went with your typical personal attack anti-intellectualism. Of course you are not really in a position to debate anything in philosophy, but it was you who waved Feser around here as if he has made some wonderful contribution to anti-atheist posturing. snip J:All Curtis could contribute was hand-waving and a lot of ill-considered personal attacks against Feser. That doesn't say much for his mastery of philosophy, especially not his understanding of the classical theism he was making such an intellectually dishonest show of demolishing. C: But here you go too far and are entering the territory of what is known in modern linguistic philosophy as a lying sack of shit. (Epistemological speaking of course.) To sum up my opinion piece on Feser as ill-considered personal attacks is not only wrong, it demeans my objection to his use of classical philosophy to argue for denying gay rights. It is not a personal attack to object to such a thing. You seemed very upset with my comparison with Palin, but that was my opinion of his appeal. Giving sloganeering ammo to people who share opinions right wing I do not. (To say it mildly.) He could easily be a commentator for FOX news and I will have to do a check to see if he has already appeared on that scourge on the national mental landscape. But to the real teeth of your charge here, that I did not express a concise formula for seeing the problem with all of the classical proofs of a version of the god idea, I have a challenge for you: I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or invalid inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by example, you will claim, that was not the good one, you cherry picked. So you pick one. Please do not try to escape into the bogus, it is all too complicated, you can cut and paste the entire Aristotle's Metaphysics for all I care
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday!
Happy Easter Birthday for these chicks! Very appropriate timing. I looked a couple of times but haven't seen her feeding the chicks yet. For awhile there was what looked as though a whole egg had somehow rolled out from under her and was sitting at a little distance all by itself. I just looked now, and it's only a shell (half a shell, in fact). Is that what it was all along, and I was seeing it from the wrong angle? Or did the fourth chick hatch from it while I wasn't looking? Any idea how old she is? Is this her first batch of chicks, or is she more experienced? Where's Pop with the next food delivery? What has she been feeding the chicks with up till now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Just checked the Falcon cam and three chicks have hatched and mother is feeding them! One more egg to hatch! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asphttp://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Comments below... One reason I don't rule paranormal stuff out is that I'm not convinced science knows how to test for some of it. I could not possibly disagree more strongly with the notion that only what is measurable is real. Actually, measuring (in the broadest sense) is the only tool science has. Only? Find me something that can't be measured. Oh, you know, beauty, love, stuff like that, just for starters. And measuring can include things that may be invisible in every way but are necessary for something else to exist. Maybe we just haven't thought of ways to test everything? Well, that's kinda what I was saying: I'm not convinced science knows how to test for some paranormal stuff. As one philosophy blogger ;-) has noted (in the context of theism specifically, but it applies here as well): Oh no. Just as the success of metal detectors in finding metal does not entail that there are no other, non-metallic aspects of reality, so too does the success of science in capturing those aspects of nature susceptible of prediction and control give us no reason to think that there are not other aspects that are not susceptible of prediction and control -- aspects we should not expect to find by the methods of science Sounds like special pleading to me. Sounds like he's got something he wants people not to be able to find. Probably why he thinks science has no place answering metaphysical questions (if that was him). It was Feser, but gee whiz, he's far from the only person to make the same point, including some scientists and (gasp) atheists. (What would Feser not want people to find??) The point applies in many different contexts, not just theism. What he has to do to convince me is explain what this thing is and how it can be apart from the four known forces of nature. If it's real in any sense we'll find it somehow. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more Are there methods of investigation other than measurement/prediction/control that might convincingly detect paranormal events? How would you know if you had or not? Some paranormal researchers (Lawrence Le Shan in particular) have suggested potentially fruitful systematic, social-science-like approaches. See Le Shan's book A New Science of the Paranormal: the Promise of Psychical Research for details. OK, if it's orderable from my local library I'll read it. If you can get it, let me know what you think. It's been awhile since I read it. (He has a new one out, Landscapes of the Mind: The Faces of Reality, which purports to be a taxonomy of consciousness, whatever that means.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Happy Ishtar?
Hate to say it, Salyavin, but it looks like somebody messed with your gal. Here's a photo of the same British Museum sculpture from Wikipedia: She doesn't look at all disgruntled in this photo. Wha' hoppen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, why would Dawkins do that?! He probably googled it. It's hardly an uncommon belief. The web seems split down the middle I would say. I love the sculpture of Ishtar It's in the British Museum and it's one of the top five things I would take home if they let me. She is highly mysterious looking. The owls give me the creeps though, and as for those feet! I think we need to lure him into the Funny Farm Lounge (-: We'd enjoy his company I'm sure, he's quite a learned chap if a trifle uncompromising. He learned TM once but wasn't impressed so we'd have a bit of common ground at least. I imagine he'd be a bit sniffy about most of what gets discussed here though. On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:51 AM, Richard J. Williams punditster@... wrote: On 4/20/2014 9:43 AM, Share Long wrote: Richard, what a wonderful post, a beautiful picture and fascinating knowledge. Thanks, Share, but I have some bad news: Richard Dawkins was telling a big fib - there is no historical connection between Easter and Ishtar. When was the last time you heard somebody pronounce Easter as E - a - i - s - h - t - a - r? Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday!
Oh, she's feeding them, right this instant! Hubby must have brought some grub. Shame there's no microphone; it would be fun to hear their peeps. They look like they're making quite a racket. Little pure white puffballs! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp Do take a look, folks. If she's still feeding them when you do, it's a real treat. There are two cameras that switch off, so if the view in which she has her back turned shows up first, just wait 15 seconds or so and you'll get a view looking right down on top of the chicks. Still one unhatched egg, though. One of the three chicks she's feeding must have come out of the shell I saw earlier. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Happy Easter Birthday for these chicks! Very appropriate timing. I looked a couple of times but haven't seen her feeding the chicks yet. For awhile there was what looked as though a whole egg had somehow rolled out from under her and was sitting at a little distance all by itself. I just looked now, and it's only a shell (half a shell, in fact). Is that what it was all along, and I was seeing it from the wrong angle? Or did the fourth chick hatch from it while I wasn't looking? Any idea how old she is? Is this her first batch of chicks, or is she more experienced? Where's Pop with the next food delivery? What has she been feeding the chicks with up till now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Just checked the Falcon cam and three chicks have hatched and mother is feeding them! One more egg to hatch! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asphttp://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday!
Mike, a minute ago she scooted out of the nest carrying something fairly substantial in her beak that she apparently deposited outside somewhere. Couldn't see what it was; could it have been the remains of the carcass she was feeding the chicks? Was she housecleaning? Dinnertime's over; she's now settled down over the little beauties. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, she's feeding them, right this instant! Hubby must have brought some grub. Shame there's no microphone; it would be fun to hear their peeps. They look like they're making quite a racket. Little pure white puffballs! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp Do take a look, folks. If she's still feeding them when you do, it's a real treat. There are two cameras that switch off, so if the view in which she has her back turned shows up first, just wait 15 seconds or so and you'll get a view looking right down on top of the chicks. Still one unhatched egg, though. One of the three chicks she's feeding must have come out of the shell I saw earlier. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Happy Easter Birthday for these chicks! Very appropriate timing. I looked a couple of times but haven't seen her feeding the chicks yet. For awhile there was what looked as though a whole egg had somehow rolled out from under her and was sitting at a little distance all by itself. I just looked now, and it's only a shell (half a shell, in fact). Is that what it was all along, and I was seeing it from the wrong angle? Or did the fourth chick hatch from it while I wasn't looking? Any idea how old she is? Is this her first batch of chicks, or is she more experienced? Where's Pop with the next food delivery? What has she been feeding the chicks with up till now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Just checked the Falcon cam and three chicks have hatched and mother is feeding them! One more egg to hatch! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asphttp://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest argument for it. If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves on having disposed of the issue. One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's just especially good at it, in my view. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of it is an attempt to deceive readers here. I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights: Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with their wieners. (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.) It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is not directly related to that single sentence: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea? In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure. BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned.) As to Curtis's challenge, he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry, I know you're upset because your hero Curtis didn't have the decisive victory you were hoping for, C: I figured that Judy snipe at me from post to other people. My opinion piece could have inspired a discussion but you went with your typical personal attack anti-intellectualism. Of course you are not really in a position to debate anything in philosophy, but it was you who waved Feser around here as if he has made some wonderful contribution to anti-atheist posturing. snip J:All Curtis could contribute was hand-waving and a lot
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday!
So there wasn't enough left of the pigeon to make another meal? Is it usual for a raptor to do that kind of housecleaning? I thought what she was carrying looked fairly substantial. Will Pops come into the nestbox to deliver the next pigeon, or will he hand (beak?) it over to her outside? I'd love to get a look at him. Omigosh, he just arrived on the doorstep and dropped his catch right inside, then flew away immediately. She got up and grabbed it and is now feeding the chicks again. What a gas! Doesn't look nearly as big as a pigeon; a mouse, maybe? The last egg still hasn't hatched. Doesn't look good for that one... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : She was feeding them a pigeon, I presume, this morning. The rest of the times I checked, she had settled in on them to keep them warm. I'm not sure how old she is but I heard she was there last year. It's going to be fun to check in on them as they grow. Once they can maintain their body temperature, she will spend less and less time with them and we'll get better looks. Looks like she may have an early AM and mid afternoon feeding schedule for them. I imagine *pop* will be bringing in the *take-out*. On Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:36 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Mike, a minute ago she scooted out of the nest carrying something fairly substantial in her beak that she apparently deposited outside somewhere. Couldn't see what it was; could it have been the remains of the carcass she was feeding the chicks? Was she housecleaning? Dinnertime's over; she's now settled down over the little beauties. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, she's feeding them, right this instant! Hubby must have brought some grub. Shame there's no microphone; it would be fun to hear their peeps. They look like they're making quite a racket. Little pure white puffballs! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp Do take a look, folks. If she's still feeding them when you do, it's a real treat. There are two cameras that switch off, so if the view in which she has her back turned shows up first, just wait 15 seconds or so and you'll get a view looking right down on top of the chicks. Still one unhatched egg, though. One of the three chicks she's feeding must have come out of the shell I saw earlier. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Happy Easter Birthday for these chicks! Very appropriate timing. I looked a couple of times but haven't seen her feeding the chicks yet. For awhile there was what looked as though a whole egg had somehow rolled out from under her and was sitting at a little distance all by itself. I just looked now, and it's only a shell (half a shell, in fact). Is that what it was all along, and I was seeing it from the wrong angle? Or did the fourth chick hatch from it while I wasn't looking? Any idea how old she is? Is this her first batch of chicks, or is she more experienced? Where's Pop with the next food delivery? What has she been feeding the chicks with up till now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Just checked the Falcon cam and three chicks have hatched and mother is feeding them! One more egg to hatch! http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asphttp://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp
[FairfieldLife] Brain injury makes man a math genius
What are the implications? For the nature of consciousness, perhaps for reincarnation? First paragraph of an excerpt from the book Struck By Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel http://www.amazon.com/Struck-Genius-Injury-Mathematical-Marvel/dp/0544045602/?tag=saloncom08-20 at Salon.com: If you could see the world through my eyes, you would know how perfect it is, how much order runs through it, and how much structure is hidden in its tiniest parts. We’re so often victims of things—I see the violence too, the disease, the poverty stretching far and wide—but the universe itself and everything we can touch and all that we are is made of the most beautiful geometric patterns imaginable. I know because they’re right in front of me. Because of a traumatic brain injury, the result of a brutal physical attack, I’ve been able to see these patterns for over a decade. This change in my perception was really a change in my brain function, the result of the injury and the extraordinary and mostly positive way my brain healed. All of a sudden, the patterns were just . . . there, and I realize now that my injury was a rare gift. I’m lucky to have survived, but for me, the real miracle—what really saved me—was being introduced to and almost overwhelmed by the mathematical grace of the universe. Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/the_brain_injury_that_made_me_a_math_genius/ http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/the_brain_injury_that_made_me_a_math_genius/ It's an astonishing story; I have no idea what to make of it. Seems like the guy acquired OCD along with his new math abilities, but he doesn't seem to mind.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Depends on whether you say something nefarious, Curtis. Maybe you're just too entrenched in the behavior to change. Interesting that you can't acknowledge anything I wrote in this post. Doesn't bode well, but we'll see. Here's Feser's post on classical theism, the one you said was a good summary. Have at it: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : We both know this will end with you accusing me of something nefarious. It is a foregone conclusion.But I am not gunna start there so pick one, post it and I will apply the precise principles I laid out in my critique of Feser to show you the problem with the classical proofs for god. You know why it is always taught as the history of philosophy and not the guys who got it right at the beginning? Because philosophical thought evolves as people become aware of issues. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest argument for it. If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves on having disposed of the issue. One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's just especially good at it, in my view. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of it is an attempt to deceive readers here. I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights: Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with their wieners. (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.) It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is not directly related to that single sentence: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea? In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure. BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Babies about to hatch!
Oh, isn't she lovely! She looks like she knows something's about to happen. Maybe the chicks are beginning to tap on the shells? I'm done, let me out of here! Do send a post when they actually start to hatch. I'll keep checking too. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : I've been watching this falcon cam on a state building in Harrisburg Pa. since about March 20th. The mother Peregrine has been incubating four eggs since then. They are due to hatch any day now. http://www.pacast.com/players/falcon.asp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
This is a good one: Appeal to Ridicule Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Opsie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Starting the day with an Oooopsie: Barry doesn't even know what McCarthyism was: Just to point it out to those who still don't get it, highlighted below in red is another classic example of Judy's intellectual McCarthyism ploy. I have in my hand a list of detailed refutations of each of Curtis' points, but I won't show it to you unless someone asks me to. Apparently Barry doesn't realize that the problem with McCarthy saying, I have here in my hand... was that he didn't have there in his hand what he claimed to have. He couldn't have shown it to anyone, no matter who asked, because it was nonexistent. (Just out of curiosity, to whom is the pseudoquote supposed to be addressed? Who is you? Barry got tangled up in his rhetoric again, it looks like.) And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as impressed by Uncle Fester as Judy was. It's the Robin story all over again. :-) Barry never even looked at Feser, first of all. Second of all, even if he had, he wouldn't have understood enough of it to be impressed or otherwise. It's just way, way over his head. So was Robin, for that matter. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Barry is such a buffoon. This is much funnier than he can possibly imagine. Remember, I was in constant private contact with Robin; I know why he left. (Curtis does too, but he'll never admit it.) Now ask Curtis why he left shortly thereafter, Barry. No, never mind, he'll lie. It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested Robin so badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't it? She'll never get over that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
What annoys theists is the arrogant ignorance of the vocal few atheists (who have, of course, a much grander goal than watching theists react--they want to stamp out theism for good). I don't believe in the kind of God Barry imagines all theists agree on, so I can't answer his question about the benefits of such belief. I don't believe in the God of classical theism either; I just can't rule it out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
Of course, back in the day, the complaint was that the TMO overlooked People With Problems and focused on the secure and well-to-do. That fact appears to have been wiped from Barry's memory. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
One of the very few unequivocally accurate statements Barry has made in this discussion: NOTHING could fit better into the description can't really be resolved one way or another than the existence of God.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
But it's perfectly OK for atheists to try to get theists to believe what the atheists do? As I've said, people are free to believe whatever they bloody well choose to believe that helps them get through the day. As I've also said, however, they cross a line when they attempt to get me to believe the things they believe or assume them as a necessary preface to further conversation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
Er, Barry, this was one of the fallacies listed on your chart. Oopsie again. But it IS absurd, and *exactly* like believing in either Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you disagree, produce either of these supposed beings. Or the other one, for that matter. :-) From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder This is a good one: Appeal to Ridicule Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Opsie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of being a poor thinker because he didn't understand that the laws of nature would have to be around before the particles they govern. This incorrect and funnily enough it does to Hawking exactly what Ed Fess accuses everyone else of doing to theists. Paying them an injustice by not understanding their position! I'll have to dig up Hawking's quote on why philosophy is dead. BTW Judy, I will torment you no longer. Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that what you really meant to ask? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are so into?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd. Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go another round with you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons... you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both of us... then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU. Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date. Even your insults are parroted from someone else. To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. Kids were out this week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one his many pages... Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me! It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. Heh, heh.. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are so into?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts the context and claims it's a straw man (even though he had insisted on precisely what I addressed). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd. C: I already said his summation of the position was a good one. What is absurd is your attempt of making a straw man out of it. But Feser does deserve some personal attention for other reasons. The way he is using this argument for his conservative agenda. That is where I singled him out personally, not for the content of the standard classical ideas themselves. Curtis (quoted below): So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address... All of a sudden now it's not his position on classical theism as the strongest argument for theism that's absurd, but his conservative agenda. Obviously I don't agree with his conservative agenda. What I've been promoting as the strongest argument for theism has nothing to do with whether or how someone uses it to support an agenda other than theism. Of course keeping those two things straight is not in your interest is it? Looks like you who is having trouble keeping them straight. J:Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go another round with you. C: That word choice is s familiar...can't place it though. Your debating tactics haven't changed. Why should my description of them change?.. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons... you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both of us... then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU. Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date. Even your insults are parroted from someone else. To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. Kids were out this week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
It appears to be a quote from the book, Salyavin. I kind of doubt Feser would just make it up. Hmm, here's another review by a philospher that quotes the same sentence: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives Looks like they did write that sentence. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? It's appallingly inaccurate. I've read The Grand Design and I don't remember Hawking making such a fundamental error. Well, of course he wouldn't so I don't know where Mr Ed got it from. In a nutshell: The universe didn't need any laws to get it going, in fact it required the total absence of laws and indeed of everything else. It was only in a zero energy state of perfect symmetry that it could have started. Symmetry is when something is undifferentiated. Just one thing. the unified field if you like. That state can only last for a Planck length of time - which is the smallest possible measurement - before the symmetry will break. A pencil standing on it's end will rapidly fall over. That falling over is the big bang. Infinitely dense, infinitely hot but expanding rapidly. As things expand they cool and it's this cooling that brought the fields and particle and thus the laws into being. Converting the energy into mass via the Higgs boson. A law just describes what a particle or energy field does, it doesn't proscribe it. If the initial settings of the universe had been different the laws would have been different. For instance, stars may not have formed or electrons may not have bonded to atomic nuclei or it all may have just stayed a plasma. Even gravity may not have been as strong. It's the weakest anyway and was the first to separate from the single state. Can't remember what came next, I think it was electromagnetism and then the weak and strong nuclear forces. These last two pulled all the subatomic particles together after the period of rapid inflation that they proved actually happened last month. This why it was such a big deal, before that it was speculative and left people like me thinking it all sounded a bit convenient. Other aspects of it have been proved, the first big particle accelerator was built to test the last symmetry break (and therefore easiest because it took place at a lower temperature). It's a damn good theory and was first worked out from knowing the universe was expanding. If it expands it must have been smaller once, and with compression comes heat and they worked backwards to the big bang. It's all in here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1397847357sr=8-1keywords=universe+the+first+three+minutes http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1397847357sr=8-1keywords=universe+the+first+three+minutes To be fair to Ed fess, The Grand Design isn't all that good a book and is more an update on current theories like M theory, which is an improved string theory, but no one knows what the M stands for! String theory comes into it because all the hundreds of particles may be points on tiny vibrating strings instead of separate particles. That would be the penultimate unification if they could prove it and would tidy up the whole thing immensely. I'm banging on about this a bit simply because all the testing and direct hits makes it seem a much more likely explanation for the universe than any competing theories. It didn't need anything else. And the particles it creates also didn't need anything to form more complex particles. It couldn't have been designed better... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or gravity would not be nothing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : That is an incomplete quote Judy: 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point to that endpoint'. I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to give a flavour of it, not an explanation. In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one his many pages... Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me! It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. Heh, heh.. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph containing the same sentence: “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or gravity would not be nothing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : That is an incomplete quote Judy: 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point to that endpoint'. I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to give a flavour of it, not an explanation. In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one his many pages... Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
An exhibition of how Curtis twists what one says: j: Curtis is indeed very sharp, and anyone who tangles with him is in for a hassle because he knows how to twist an argument into ingenious corkscrews. As I've pointed out before, one won't be able to see what he does until one has tangled with him. C: It is this devious motive premise that you filter what I write through here that is your big crazy Judy. And the biggest tell is your claim that no one else can see it but someone in the conversation with me. Outsiders see something completely different going on. No, not completely different. They don't see the twisting part because it's not what they said that's being twisted. It's very, very clever, obviously finely honed. And of course I'm not the only person here who has had this experience. And that doesn't make you think that maybe YOU are the one reading it wrong. No, it is this devious thing that I do, magically, like a Hogwarts cloaking cape to hide my wicked agenda from the others. Hilarious and very strange.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's deja vu all over again! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph containing the same sentence: “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or gravity would not be nothing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : That is an incomplete quote Judy: 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point to that endpoint'. I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to give a flavour of it, not an explanation. In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
See below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As an example, if there is a God, and He/She/It has a PLAN for all of this, how is it that all these atheists aren't part of it? Were they created by someone/something else? What exactly is this else? And this is saying nothing about stuff like plagues, floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. If you're an atheist, you get to look at these things and say, That's a real pity, but shit happens. If you're a Believer, you have to say, That's a real pity, including the fact that God made it happen. But it's not our place to question WHY He/She/It made it happen. If you're a believer you have to say..? Why would that be? It's just as easy to say the plan was set in motion, and all bets are off. Maybe that's a distinction you don't care to make , because it might poke a hole in some stereotype you hold for believers. Bingo. Good grief, believers question God's plan all the time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Not sorted, sorry. You claimed Hawking couldn't have written what Feser quoted him as saying because it was appallingly inaccurate, but in fact Hawking did write it, twice. So why was Feser wrong to have called him on it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction Now read the bit I posted earlier about the unfolding from nothing and there you are. Sorted. Mr Ed should read more physics, maybe starting with a primer about cosmology like the first 3 minutes book I recommended earlier. That's it, I'm done with Ed Fess and his funny ideas. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's deja vu all over again! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph containing the same sentence: “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or gravity would not be nothing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : That is an incomplete quote Judy: 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point to that endpoint'. I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to give a flavour of it, not an explanation. In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but real was Salyavin's term, not mine, so obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition will just be a restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only what's measurable is real (the fundamental premise of scientism). IOW, he can't object if my definition is also metaphysical. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote (to salyavin808): 1. Remember Gould's phrase, nonoverlapping magisteria? 2. What do you mean by real? Define it, please. Perhaps you should also define 'real' and see if the definitions match up first. In science, real is defined primarily by 'show me', that is provide a demonstration of what one thinks as real, something someone else can replicate. This is the empirical path. This is done by proxy (scientific papers) where the record of the experience is detailed and those instructions can be followed to replicate it. Then there is private experience, which is like the path of enlightenment where certain things are postulated and there are various instructions for attempting to replicate the experience privately, but of course, no one else can see the result. Therefore you have either a public demonstration which all can see, or a private confirmation which no one can see. Arguments by themselves are groundless: sophistry and illusion as David Hume would say (with a Scottish twang). Things concerning gods (1 or more) as theism progressed seem to have become a more private experience matter and therefore resolution would seem to depend on the path of enlightenment. But the path of enlightenment eventually undoes the reality of verbal truth, and in addition the experience of unification undoes the concept of 'nonoverlapping magisteria' when everything is experienced as connected. So it can't be demonstrated, arguments lead nowhere except trading opinion, and what might perhaps be called the mystical resolution of the problem (enlightenment) completely undoes the premises upon which the argument is founded.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Transcendentalism,
Did you misread this, Michael? The study being criticized was a government-funded report, not a TM study. Read the first sentence again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Here is what the real world thinks of all your precious science about TM: Top researchers criticize new meditation and health study Rush PR News/July 26, 2007 Scientists stated, A controversial new government-funded report, which found that meditation does not improve health, is methodologically flawed, incomplete, and should be retracted. New York, NY (rushprnews) July 26, 2007 - This is the consensus of a growing number of researchers in the U.S. and abroad who have reviewed the report and are critical of its conclusions. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research was a health technology assessment report conducted at the University of Alberta and sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the NIH-National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The report was released earlier this month. Respected reviewer urged authors to withhold publication—Analytical strategy looked haphazard and ad hoc Professor Harald Walach of the University of Northampton and School of Social Sciences and the Samueli Institute for information Biology in England reviewed the paper before its release and strongly urged the authors to withhold publication. When I looked carefully into the details of the study, the whole analytical strategy looked rather haphazard and ad hoc, Walach said. Relevant studies excluded from AHRQ findings Robert Schneider, M.D., F.A.C.C., is one of the leading researchers on the health effects of meditation in the nation. Dr. Schneider has been the recipient of more than $22 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health over the past 20 years for his research on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique and natural medicine on cardiovascular disease. He says that relevant findings were excluded from the report, including peer-reviewed studies on the effects of this meditation technique on hypertension, cardiovascular disease, myocardial ischemia, atherosclerosis, changes to physiology, and improvements to mental and physical health. Dr. Schneider cited two studies published in the American Journal of Cardiology in 2005, which demonstrated that individuals with high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to TM groups had a 30% lower risk for mortality than controls. These studies should have been included in the AHRQ report, Dr. Schneider said, but were inexplicably excluded. In addition, 75 published studies were overlooked, even though these were sent to the authors by one of the reviewers. Dr. Schneider said the AHRQ report incorrectly analyzed studies and incorrectly rated the quality of the studies while applying statistical methods poorly, arbitrarily, and unsystematically. The report also included errors in collecting data from research studies, in recording data from papers, and in classifying studies. Several peer-reviewers pointed out major errors and inadequacies in the report prior to publication. However, these critiques by outside reviewers were largely ignored. (For critiques of the report, see http://www.mum.edu/inmp/welcome.html) http://www.mum.edu/inmp/welcome.html) Dr. Schneider also cited a study published in the American medical Association's journal Archives of Internal Medicine in 2006—one year after the AHRQ review ended in 2005—which confirmed that the Transcendental Meditation technique lowers high blood pressure in heart disease patients. The study was conducted at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was funded by a $1.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schneider directs the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, which was supported by an $8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health as a specialized center of research in complementary and alternative medicine and cardiovascular disease.
Re: [FairfieldLife] !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Maharishi used the analogy of a falling leaf. It doesn't go straight down but from side to side, so it takes longer to hit the ground than if it were, say, an acorn. If you were a leaf, presumably you'd have more time to appreciate the surrounding environment as you fell from layer to layer. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Share, I was paraphrasing Maharishi's own description of what advanced techniques do: they make the angle of the dive less, so that we can take more time to appreciate different layers of the mind on the way to the Transcendent, rather than just diving straight in. I have no idea if my physiological interpretation of what he meant is correct, but it seems highly unlikely that the kind of EEG that long-term TMers show, including those who have been taught advanced techniques, can be associated in any way with the EEG that shows up in people who have been practicing other mantra meditation practices for a long time. They're just too different. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Lawson, I'm not sure about the accuracy of your statement that because the dive is shallower, progression to samadhi takes longer. In one of Fred Travis' graduate classes, someone complained that they didn't feel deep in TM anymore. Fred explained that one way to understand the growth from CC to GC is that the depth comes up to the surface. So we might not feel deep. But that doesn't mean that we aren't deep. I'd add that in any case, trying to feel deep is counter productive. On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:29 PM, LEnglish5@... LEnglish5@... wrote: The long-term outcome of all mantras is that they lead to samadhi. Some work faster than others, which, ironically, is the point of advanced techniques: the dive is more shallow, so the progression to samadhi takes longer. So that doesn't explain the striking difference between TM and other mantra-based methods. It's not the fact that a simple, fast-working mantra was being used. If that was the case, then other practices would show the simplest state of awareness slower, but instead, they show it LESS, the longer people have been practicing. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why morality is important in reaching enlightenment.
He did indeed, Share. It's in the back matter of his Gita translation/commentary. And I suspect he made the same point elsewhere as well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : wgm4u, didn't Maharishi once explain that by doing TM one was actually practicing all 8 limbs of yoga? I'm pretty sure he did but I don't remember the details. On Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:35 PM, wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: As long as the prana (or chi) is locked in the lower chakras (spiritual centers of awakening) of lust, anger and greed, it will not release the soul to higher realms. These samskaras (deep impressions) eventually must be 'burnt' out completely to maintain that state of Self-Realization or God Realization. Though the impressions are in the sub-conscious mind their correlate is reflected in the vital/pranic body (sometimes called the health body that permeates the physical body). This is why Ayurved is pursued in TM and other organizations, by clearing the vayus (or airs, actually the pranic channels in the subtle body) of 'stress' and impurities (ie. attachments) one is finally set free to *ascend* to Samadhi. Remember MMY said in the beginning, ones tip toes through the sleeping elephants', these sleeping elephants are the doshas (in yoga AND in Ayurved) which must be removed/replaced by the virtues, hence the importance of practicing ALL of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, not just a few..
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was just about positive you wouldn't admit your assertion was metaphysical, because if it is, according to the statement itself, it's not real. You can't measure it, you can't use it to make predictions, you can't prove it, and there's no evidence for it. It's fine to believe it if it pleases you, but it isn't a scientific statement You didn't realize it was metaphysical, did you? Opsie! The rest of the post was irrelevant bullshit where classical theism is concerned. But this howler was too good to pass up, especially since your whole ignorant argument falls apart without it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=scientism http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=scientism ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Is that it? No argument whatsoever? But then you didn't have one going in to the discussion so why would you have one at the end. Business as usual. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : (snip all kinds of nonsense) You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statement, do you not? So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has really discombobulated you, has it not? You haven't the foggiest idea how to wiggle out of that one, have you? I see now that you've been deliberately misspelling Feser all along. Don't you think that's a little immature? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Hey Judy, I've been getting kinda worried that your mighty brain isn't get used enough amongst us incurious dullards. So I found a new place for you to hang out and discuss theoretic improbabilities: http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44061/29917623/Theistic_Personalism__Classical_Theism http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44061/29917623/Theistic_Personalism__Classical_Theism It looks great! There's a big quote from Ed Fess on page one and everyone is just thrilled to share their wild speculations. I had no idea there are so many varieties of theism, I counted 12 on one page! I'm positive that no one ever discusses things that are demonstrable so you won't ever be asked to justify a position with anything other than It's what I believe. What's not to like! But I'd leave the junkyard dog act here, they seem like a civilised bunch and I didn't notice any sneering, badmouthing or withering insults. Let us know how you get on! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I was just about positive you wouldn't admit your assertion was metaphysical, because if it is, according to the statement itself, it's not real. You can't measure it, you can't use it to make predictions, you can't prove it, and there's no evidence for it. It's fine to believe it if it pleases you, but it isn't a scientific statement You didn't realize it was metaphysical, did you? Opsie! The rest of the post was irrelevant bullshit where classical theism is concerned. But this howler was too good to pass up, especially since your whole ignorant argument falls apart without it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=scientism http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=scientism ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Is that it? No argument whatsoever? But then you didn't have one going in to the discussion so why would you have one at the end. Business as usual. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : (snip all kinds of nonsense) You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statement, do you not? So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh, stop saying that. Of course I have an argument, and you know it. You just don't want to even try to take it in. Heaven forfend you allow yourself to be challenged. Scary! Maybe one god less isn't quite the knockdown blow that you imagined it was. You know, you're such a smart guy; you know a lot; you're insightful; and you have a great sense of humor. But boy, you freak out when you're challenged. Say, when are you going to post that complete description of quantum mechanics I asked you for? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you have no argument. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not really such a difficult name to spell. And I notice from the Ed Fess blog
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat on metaphysics rather than science? BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as though he's ready to quit. But he does seem to be more interested in blathering than engaging, so I'd be perfectly happy if he just gave it up. Finally, imagine someone who, when called on this, has nothing to fall back on but trying to correct the person they're trying to get attention from about a nitpick.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Which question? You asked a bunch of them. All of them were irrelevant, though. You seem to believe that classical theism and science are in competition--but they aren't, couldn't be. Classical theism doesn't pretend to improve on science. That would be silly. Remember Gould's phrase, nonoverlapping magisteria? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria Remember how this started? My point has always been that if you want to defeat theism, you have to address its strongest arguments. But you need to realize that the consequences of not defeating theism are not that science will be defeated. You don't have to defeat theism to protect science, unless you're talking about, say, Creationism, which does challenge science (or aims to do so, unsuccessfully). Classical theism doesn't claim it can be observed or measured or any of what we require of science. But that doesn't mean the God of classical theism isn't real--depending on what you mean by real. What do you mean by real? Define it, please. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat on metaphysics rather than science? I was impressed, it was a damn good way of getting out of answering the question. Again. And laden with your usual insults to cover your embarrassment too perhaps. BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as though he's ready to quit. But he does seem to be more interested in blathering than engaging, so I'd be perfectly happy if he just gave it up. I bet, it's a tricky question to answer because it requires invoking things that can't be observed and that don't fit in with what can be observed. Be as metaphysical as you like! But if you want to drop it fine. I couldn't answer it. Finally, imagine someone who, when called on this, has nothing to fall back on but trying to correct the person they're trying to get attention from about a nitpick.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Are you drunk?? What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean. Sober up and stop talking gibberish. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or shut the fuck up. We're waiting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yet another atheist wannabe who simply cannot lower himself to reading enough philosophy to realize the incoherence of one of his fundamental premises, or that the purported evidentiary problems of theism as confronted by science that he blabs on about so pompously are in fact nonexistent. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous' from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about atheism. Without evidence, there is no case to be made, so arguments for and against are empty. One can argue that Sherlock Holmes smoked a Meerschaum pipe, but the evidence in the illustrations of the stories as originally published indicate he did not, but Sherlock Holmes never existed in reality as a real person, so what one is really arguing about here is not about Sherlock Holmes and his pipe, but the content of the text and illustrations in the stories about a fictional character called 'Sherlock Holmes'. So the argument concerning Mr Holmes is not about a reality but an illusion purporting to be a reality, the actual reality in this case being printed text and illustrations in The Strand Magazine (1891–1950, United Kingdom). The definition of 'divinity' (noun) from the same Google source is 'the state or quality of being divine', and 'a divinity' would then be 'something that has the state or quality of being divine', which seems to imply there could be more than one something that has those characteristics. A saint might be considered divine. Zeus could be considered divine and therefore a divinity. So could Apollo, or Jehovah. Maybe I could be divine. Maybe you could be divine, though there seems to be a preponderance of opinion here that would not likely be the case. It is not incoherent to say 'I just believe in one less divinity than you do'. That is just a statement, a proposition. Some people believe in many divinities, some in just one, some in none. A proposition by itself is not an argument, just a statement that may or may not have truth value, which cannot be affirmed or denied on the basis of the proposition itself. Coherence depends on how a particular proposition aligns logically with other propositions, and aligns with what the proposition(s) point to, if in fact they point to something outside themselves, for if they do not, it is an empty argument, much ado about nothing. In mentioning enlightenment, that particular discipline investigates subjectively the nature of sensory experience and its relationship to thought, and the interpretation by thought of the nature of experience, whether in fact thought can represent 'truth' or is simply a distortion of 'truth', or even whether there really is anything or state that could be thought of as 'truth', that is, whether the word 'truth' has any meaningful correlate that is real. A friend of mine was recently sued for delinquent payment of rent. This was not true, as my friend brought evidence of the fact to court, but the person bringing the suit came to court without any evidence whatsoever, but managed to convince the court — the judge and the person suing being white and my friend, black, to a 90 day stay, so that evidence could be brought — the argument: 'I did not think (the defendant) would show up'. The case was thrown out by a higher judge on the basis that no evidence was brought, and the lower judge showed prejudice in not dismissing the case. This is the situation between non-believers and believers of the religious kind, there are arguments but evidence is unconvincing or absent in spite of the sophistication of the pleading or polemic of the claims being made. Science takes a practical tack in such instances, no evidence, no case. This gets rid of the nutters, so one can focus on actual stuff, but occasionally there are examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water, but in time the mistake may be rectified. 'Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.' — source unknown ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Exactly what is a divinity? This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Yo, Oopsie Boy, starting out on the blooper trail pretty early this morning, ain'cha? Remember, the lurking reporters are watching. You dimwit, you can't disbelieve in an idea, dumbfuck or otherwise, when you don't know what the idea is. You aren't going to get it from Salyavin, that's for sure. Laws of physics inadequate compared to theism?? He made that up. It has nothing to do with anything I've ever said or suggested. It makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, I don't give a shit whether you or Salyavin or Xeno believe the actual idea or not. That's never been what this discussion has been about (and you, Barry, aren't intellectually capable of following it anyway, even if you tried). As for explaining it, it's kinda like demanding that Salyavin explain quantum mechanics in an FFL post. It's simply too complex. But I've already stated the core of the argument any number of times. It's that what classical theists call God is not a being but Being Itself. That shouldn't be difficult for anyone who ever listened to Maharishi's teaching to grasp as a starting point. All I want is for the atheists here to stop embarrassing themselves by beating straw men to death. As I told Salyavin, you haven't got a prayer of defeating theism unless you address its strongest argument. And if you don't know what the strongest argument is, you've lost before you start. By the way, everything you've said in your post, as usual, is false. Anyone who wants specifics, just ask. Oh, and Barry, any time you want to know what I believe, I'm happy to tell you. No need for you to guess and make yourself look even stpider. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : This is the same number she's tried to run any number of times before: I won't discuss this weighty matter with you unless you do your homework and read all the ideas I (supposedly) have read about this (idiotic) concept first. It's intellectual McCarthyism. Sorta like I have in my hand a list of all of the Communists in the State Department, she claims I have in my mind a list of all of the arguments of classical theism that prove you're an idiot and I'm smarter than you. The trick of this tactic, of course, is to never reveal the list. :-) She's done it with astrology/Jyotish and with other dumbfuck ideas, always trying to put the onus on the person she's trying to convince of the validity of the dumbfuck idea. NEWS FLASH TO JUDY: We don't believe in the dumbfuck idea. We're pretty convinced that the dumbfuck idea is SO dumb that we don't care to invest any time in reading treatises about the dumbfuck idea written by so-called experts or philosophers. If you want to argue for the dumbfuck idea you're championing, you've got to EXPLAIN IT YOURSELF. Which, of course, is the reason she doesn't ever explain. She can't. She's never been a teacher, and doesn't have either the thinking or the writing skills to adequately explain her position to someone who doesn't already share it. She has that lazy TM mindset in which one can only explain dumbfuck ideas to people who have already been conditioned to believe them. So she runs this number over and over and over again, to try to make those who don't buy the dumbfuck idea in the first place look STOOOPID for not having read volumes of purple prose defending the dumbfuck idea. Salyavin nails it. Until Judy can make her *own* case for the dumbfuck idea she wishes to promote, no one needs to pay any attention to it whatsoever. But she'll never do that, because then she'd have to reveal that she actually *believes* in the dumbfuck idea, and thus she'd lose her Get Out Of Jail Free card, the one that allows her to pretend she's only arguing on principle, not because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-) From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or shut the fuck up. We're waiting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Tell you what, I'll take a stab at it after you've made a post here giving a complete explanation of quantum mechanics. As I pointed out to Barry just now, I've already given you the core principle of the argument--many times, in fact: Classical theists hold that what they call God is not a being but Being Itself. What's too complicated to explain in an FFL post is why, and what the ramifications are. (I can tell you, though, that none of it has anything whatsoever to do with the laws of physics being inadequate compared to theism. I'd love to know how you came up with that howler. Certainly not from anything I've ever said.) And BTW, I don't believe I've ever called you stupid. Just ignorant, and happy to stay that way. And, I might add, incurious. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Yep, we've seen it all before. Come on Judy, the ball is in your court. We want an explanation and not more of this you're stupid for not having read what I don't understand either but someone else told me is good argument which does you no credit whatsoever and actually makes you look rather ridiculous. But I'm guessing you don't care about that as your prime motivation is being able to sneer down your high and mighty nose at people. Given your unwillingness to even try and articulate what you claim to understand, it must be a rather hollow victory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
What tricks?? That was your trick, buster, not mine. Came straight out of left field. You have a deeply dishonest habit of putting words in my mouth and then berating me for things I never said. What you attributed to me makes no sense. It would be like saying meteorology is inadequate compared to being a Red Sox fan. Maybe it's because you've never had an opinion contrary to hers that you don't know what a pointless exercise it is talking to her about anything when she falls back on tricks like this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Just a reminder; here's what he said: Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or shut the fuck up. Jeez, talk about a pointless exercise! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : What tricks?? That was your trick, buster, not mine. Came straight out of left field. You have a deeply dishonest habit of putting words in my mouth and then berating me for things I never said. What you attributed to me makes no sense. It would be like saying meteorology is inadequate compared to being a Red Sox fan. Maybe it's because you've never had an opinion contrary to hers that you don't know what a pointless exercise it is talking to her about anything when she falls back on tricks like this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt to make me look stupid, or your thinking has been going off in the wrong direction, at least where classical theism is concerned. There is no conflict whatsoever between classical theism and science, including the laws of physics (as I pointed out to Xeno). And as if I don't think before I write somethingduh. Like I haven't thought about how theism affects the current paradigm of western thought. Honestly.. as if. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or shut the fuck up. We're waiting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Xeno's fine in this post. I'll just respond to Barry, because what he says requires correction. (What else is new?) This reply is also specifically for Anartaxius, and is *not* to be used as a springboard for Judy Stein to use it as an opportunity to reply to him while still pretending to keep her word about never replying to Anartaxius until he apologizes for some imagined past affront. :-) It wasn't imagined. He accused me of being dishonest. I told him he'd need to withdraw that charge (I don't believe I said he had to apologize) if we were to continue the discussions we'd been having. I never said I would never reply to him again. That said -- and directed solely to Anartaxius -- well said. It's nice to see that *someone* here can actually express their thoughts about theism and post-theism, and in their own words. without relying on the Cliff Notes version of thinkers they probably have never even read. Wrong again, toots. No Cliff notes versions, and I most certainly have read the thinkers. I agree with many of his words, and don't have much to say about the few I disagree with, for the simple reason that Anartaxius merely states what he believes, as opposed to trying to make other people believe it. That's the crux of the issue IMO. Then why do you attack me, when I've never tried to make anyone believe anything? Liar. Nor have I tried to get you to argue about your beliefs. That would be foolish, because you don't have the intellect to do so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
(snip all kinds of nonsense) You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statement, do you not? So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not really such a difficult name to spell. And I notice from the Ed Fess blog
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell I do believe you've quoted this from the FFL home page approvingly a number of times here. Doesn't really seem to describe your attitude toward theism, I'm afraid. I would suggest that neither Salyavin nor myself have any interest whatsoever in defeating theism. We just like to laugh at those dumb enough to believe in it. It REALLY DOESN'T MATTER whether you call it a being or Being Itself, it's still a dumbfuck idea. And those who believe in it aren't worth wasting one's time on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
I just love it when Barry decides to deliver the opinions we all know and love about something he hasn't read being discussed in a thread he hasn't been following. In fact, of course, one of Ehrenreich's major realizations--and reasons she wrote the Times essay and the book--was that she discovered that her experience wasn't special, that very large numbers of people throughout history have had such experiences. Oooopsie! Don't ever change, Barry. It's too damn much fun to puncture the balloon of your Self-Important Specialness. People are willing to come up with so many twisted theories to explain *their* mystical experience. And as far as I can tell, all of this is driven by self-importance. They're declaring My experience was SPECIAL (and of course, silently saying And so am I), and they're desperate for any way to prove it. What such people are unable to cope with is someone hearing about their experience and saying, No, it's not special at all, and neither are you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
Well, no, that isn't my definition of his lack of integrity. Want to try again? This is what is called pre-biasing the audience. I suspect that the very *definition* of Randi's supposed lack of integrity is the fact that he thinks people who believe this shit are all mad.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
Me in blue... I'm not sure what you mean by the part highlighted in red below, but I believe the test subject did not perform in the presence of TM teachers; he was left in a room by himself hooked up to the EEG machine. In any case, he'd have had to perform (change his EEG, maybe other physiological parameters, I don't recall) according to the Amherst rounding schedule, and he presumably didn't know what that was, as I pointed out earlier. Oh, and the whole point was that he wasn't in proximity to the Amherst group. They were in Massachusetts; he was at MIU (that's 1,000 miles apart). Sheesh, But somebody would have done and you'd have to remove any influence. Somebody would have done what? that was the whole point of the study, to see whether the effect carried over distance to someone who wasn't in the group. Obviously. Well, not to you, apparently, since you were proposing proximity could have been a factor. He probably knew that the Amherst course was taking place around that time, but he may not have known that what he was being tested for had anything to do with the course. We'd have to see the actual study to know what the controls actually were. It still holds that knowing there's a course going on might affect his own performance, and consequently EEG's, if he picked up some sort of signal to subconsciously meditate deeper during the teaching process. You aren't anywhere near sceptical enough. During what teaching process? And it's by no means the case that it's only the TMO that believe this idea that all minds are connected as a unified field that also connects everything else. It's a fairly common belief among those who subscribe to the Perennial Philosophy and New Age types in general. Does anyone else claim to have evidence? And I think you've gone way beyond reasonable in the strictness of your controls. Ha! I see why it's important to have independent researchers. I don't think it makes much sense to keep discussing this study when neither of us knows the specifics of what exactly was being tested for, what the controls were, and what the results were. In any case, as I pointed out, after they'd done it apparently they decided not to pursue that line of research. As to Randi, I'll stand by what I said about the strength of his bias; and I'll just add that his professional integrity is, er, not of the highest. He undoubtably thinks you're all mad but it's up to you to prove otherwise. He will organise an experiment and you have to agree that it's within your powers before he will go ahead with it. Yes, I know that's his gimmick. Doesn't mean he does it with integrity. It would be fine with me if someone who did have integrity and was truly objective used the same approach. Randi just has too much at stake, and too long a record of being shifty. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Comments in this wishy-washy green that I've gone off already but can't be bothered to change... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, this was a long time ago; the Amherst course (the first World Peace Assembly) took place in 1979. For whatever reason, the TMO decided not to pursue this particular line of research. I don't know whether the study was ever published; do you, Salyavin? Do you remember where you read it? I can't find it in the lists of research papers. Maybe the title isn't sufficiently descriptive. I used to have the collected papers, I'm pretty sure it was in that. Don't recall if it got published. Would have to have been a journal desperate for filler IMO. Remember this was a WPA, so rounding would have been involved, and general knowledge about programme times might not have been adequate to clue the subject in (especially if he or she wasn't a Sidha--do you remember, Salyavin?). Also, just generally, sometimes explaining away a purported result involves positing circumstances and effects that are almost as unlikely--e.g., in this case, suggestion or subconsciously transmitted information being sufficient to allow the subject to significantly alter his or her EEG in specific ways at specific times. CAVEAT: I'm not claiming that the study showed anything startling, just critiquing Salyavin's critique. Sorry, but that's exactly the sort of thing that anyone trying to repeat the study would look for and subconscious cues are an obvious first step. Remember, the TMO is a closed group with a strong belief system that you only think your mind hasn't been steeped in. Suppose the subjectively stronger meditative state you report was trained into you by the way meditation is checked? You wouldn't know but you may perform in the same way when on a course or even just in the presence of a TM teacher because of expectations picked up at meetings. Self explanatory. The mind is a strange place
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't think you know what you're talking about, Buck, if you're saying philosophy is sophistry. And the idea of Curtis helping us sort this out is laughable. Might as well appeal to Richard Dawkins for assistance. I think Dawkins would be a fine person to get in on the debate. He could tell you all about brain evolution and which parts came about when and are common to which animals. This might give us an idea about which cognitive elements are responsible for mystical states and to find out what cognitive threshold is required. For instance, does a dog have mystical experiences? A fish, spider? I suspect our that temporary confusion in the extra complexity in our cerebral cortex - missing in most other animals - is responsible for these higher states. If, say, dogs get them too I would think it's our metaphorical ability and willingness to attach god labels that blows them out of proportion in a way other animals obviously can't. It's the suddenness and the unusual nature of mystic states that make them stick in the mind, LSD, meditation, it doesn't matter where it cam from. Lawson's post give us a good indication that altering brain functioning in some way is how to get them. I think there's a continuum of potential but normal consciousness, from mental illness to things we consider godly, otherwise we are left with the possibility that we have our constructed inner world that we take for granted plus a different type of consciousness that pops into our heads at certain times but is perceived internally in the same way as our normal reality is! I'm no dualist but surely there can't be both types, a mind inseperable from our brains but also a mystical world made of something else? I also think Curtis was a very clear thinker. Maybe you just disliked his conclusions?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Looks like those two pieces pushed a few buttons around here... At least Salyavin bothered to read them. But he has no more acquaintance with philosophical theology or philosophy of consciousness than the Dawkins crowd. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : For different reasons than you, I'm sure though. Ha. Time for bed over here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : I *loved* that sentence also. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : This bit made me laugh: In my experience, those who make the most theatrical display of demanding “proof” of God are also those least willing to undertake the specific kinds of mental and spiritual discipline that all the great religious traditions say are required to find God.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I'm guessing she meant assess, not access. salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it stayed with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it now? Hormonal changes as you say? I don't access it now, it happened when I was young but the memory stayed with me. It was a cool trip. I think we remember stuff like this with clarity because they are so outside the normal run of mental activity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Ooopsie. You forgot to add that we (Salyavin and I) know of. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Judy, I think Salyavin is trying to state the obvious, that there ARE no strongest arguments for Theism. There aren't even any strong ones. How can one inform oneself about that which does not exist? :-) From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh, and Curtis too, apparently. Not to mention the Dawkins crowd. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Ooopsie. You forgot to add that we (Salyavin and I) know of. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Judy, I think Salyavin is trying to state the obvious, that there ARE no strongest arguments for Theism. There aren't even any strong ones. How can one inform oneself about that which does not exist? :-) From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it? Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see one...?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I believe I've already explained why one god less is incoherent, in the process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you often do (see our exchange about Susan Blackmore for another instance). Classical theism is a complex and demanding argument, both to explain and to understand. I wouldn't attempt it on a forum like this. But I can (already have, I think) pointed you to online sources and at least one book where you could begin to educate yourself as to what you're really up against. I predict you won't bother, though. You prefer to remain ignorant because that allows you to believe you've done the job by refuting the weaker arguments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for that idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
P.S.: Here's a good place to start: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22 Note: Feser does not use the male pronoun to refer to God because he believes God has a gender; he does not. IMHO, his arguments would be clearer to the uninitiated if he used It instead of He. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I believe I've already explained why one god less is incoherent, in the process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you often do (see our exchange about Susan Blackmore for another instance). Classical theism is a complex and demanding argument, both to explain and to understand. I wouldn't attempt it on a forum like this. But I can (already have, I think) pointed you to online sources and at least one book where you could begin to educate yourself as to what you're really up against. I predict you won't bother, though. You prefer to remain ignorant because that allows you to believe you've done the job by refuting the weaker arguments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for that idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ??? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory. In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our heads where all this stuff is united as a convincing picture is a bit of a clever trick. But we never see X-rays or hear ultrasonic so in what way could it be another world? There's no extra meaningful knowledge to be gained from our senses at all. I think what we have is a breakdown in explaining mystical states, they don't mean anything really, they don't teach you anything you don't already know, you just get a feeling that they might if they become fully realised. For all his bluster Marshy never told us what the cosmological constant was or how the alleged unified field fits in with the standard model of particle physics. There was nothing new other than the promise that we could have these riches too. In fact, he only ever impressed me a few times with his day-to-day wisdom. His supreme wisdom is just rehashed Hindooism, hardly cognised as claimed, if it ever was. But his description of enlightenment is inspiring as that's how it feels to experience it, but there is no layered structure to consciousness like you see on TM posters or inside the brain. It's all a metaphor, a clever way of explaining how a breakdown (or up) of our usual deceptive model of how the world looks when you jigger about with it. Why you get the duality of the silent and the active at the same time seems rather likely to be due to Lawson's hypothalamus feedback idea, that gives us the fourth state of consciousness - characterised by stillness, becoming temporarily crosswired to the normal waking state apparatus of manufacturing consciousness. If that is indeed how transcendence is explained, and it will be something like that. There isn't anywhere else for another world to be as far as anyone knows, or anyway we could get information about it, as far as anyone knows. Wouldn't it be funny if TM researchers undermined the whole philosophical fabric of their own beliefs. That's be true science! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it? Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see one...?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Er, no. Look, I know it's difficult for you to have your ignorance exposed like this (and obviously even more difficult for Barry to watch), but lame smart cracks really don't help you out, they just make you look more desperate. (Is Susan Blackmore an ancient Greek philosopher?) Clearly I can't claim to have won the argument when you haven't made one for me to win. I pointed you to where you could learn something on which to base an argument, but you are, as I said, content with your ignorance. That's OK; you get to make that choice. But you can't claim to have won the antitheism argument if you not only haven't engaged with the strongest argument for theism but don't even know what it is (nor can Curtis nor can Dawkins and his crew). I already pointed out that I'd made a good start on showing that the one god less argument was incoherent, basically a straw-man argument because it demolishes assumptions about what God is said to be that classical theism does not propose in the first place (indeed, in most cases it makes the opposite assumptions). But again, you aren't even willing to look at the classical theist argument to see what kind of God it's arguing for. The God of classical theism is not a being, as the one god less argument assumes; it is Being Itself. That's really where you need to start, with the reasoning for the Being Itself assumption: what it means, what it implies. I've also already explained that classical theism is a complex and demanding argument both to make and to understand, and that I wasn't going to attempt it on a Web forum because I couldn't possibly do it justice. That's a perfectly reasonable position when there are plenty of sources on the Web that do do it justice. So even that smart crack just makes you look silly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have an argument against every ancient Greek or philosopher you can think of or you'll claim I've wimped out. But you aren't ever going to explain what you mean! That's funny! Sounds like you've got a perfect I win every argument clause, just what you always wanted! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I believe I've already explained why one god less is incoherent, in the process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you often do (see our exchange about Susan Blackmore for another instance). Classical theism is a complex and demanding argument, both to explain and to understand. I wouldn't attempt it on a forum like this. But I can (already have, I think) pointed you to online sources and at least one book where you could begin to educate yourself as to what you're really up against. I predict you won't bother, though. You prefer to remain ignorant because that allows you to believe you've done the job by refuting the weaker arguments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for that idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
(Feser, not Fess.) Yes, if you want a really comprehensive understanding of classical theism, you have to do a whole lot of reading (and pondering). But you could have gotten a general idea of why the one god less gambit is incoherent with regard to the God of classical theism by reading the first couple of posts on that page. This isn't about physics or Steven Hawking, so any mistakes he may have made about those are irrelevant to this discussion. And he has no problem with evolutionary theory, so that's irrelevant too. I'd be interested if you could cite the points of Aquinas that are out of date. You made one big blooper in our argument awhile back about an assumption you attributed to Aquinas that he didn't make; I can't remember what it was now. But I doubt that any of his assumptions that were out of date, if any, would have any negative impact on his argument for theism. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about physics and Steven Hawking but most of it seems based on other things you have to read, like there's some vast esoteric store of knowledge that you have to adopt. Why bother when we have easier ways, unless he thinks them inadequate? Most of what he has to say about Thomas Aquinas (I think it was) is interesting but hopelessly out of date, I'm sure TA would have been the first to admit it and would love the new developments in cosmology, I imagine any philosopher would be happy to have the most advanced knowledge. They didn't have any data gathering methods in those days, so they had to rely on what they thought about things, without scientific method they had no way of testing what they thought - if you even can. And if you can't what use is it? Maybe if you can provide a link to a critique by Ed Fess of physics or evolutionary theory showing why they are inadequate, instead of him merely complaining that atheists don't know as much about Greek philosophy as he does? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: Here's a good place to start: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22 Note: Feser does not use the male pronoun to refer to God because he believes God has a gender; he does not. IMHO, his arguments would be clearer to the uninitiated if he used It instead of He. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I believe I've already explained why one god less is incoherent, in the process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you often do (see our exchange about Susan Blackmore for another instance). Classical theism is a complex and demanding argument, both to explain and to understand. I wouldn't attempt it on a forum like this. But I can (already have, I think) pointed you to online sources and at least one book where you could begin to educate yourself as to what you're really up against. I predict you won't bother, though. You prefer to remain ignorant because that allows you to believe you've done the job by refuting the weaker arguments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for that idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the I just believe in one god less gambit thinking it was a coherent
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Third Opsie! for Barry today. He seems to have missed the fact that I've referred Salyavin to sources that do explain what I mean, but that Salyavin has refused to read. Which one of us is feeble-minded, again? Pretty funny charge coming from a person who lacks the intellect to understand those sources even if he were to read them. The last refuge of the feeble-minded. Claim to know more than other people, and refuse to ever explain what you know. The fascinating thing is that some people actually fall for this turd in the punchbowl. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Uh, what?? You're waiting on a treatise from me on why scientific methods are inadequate compared to classical theism? That's sort of like waiting for a treatise on why a pregnancy test is inadequate compared to the Pythagorean Theorem. I'm going to stay optimistic and wait for a treatise on how modern scientific methods are inadequate compared to classical theism. We might have a long wait but I'm sure she can do something other than scoff. Maybe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Like Curtis, Salyavin tends to become intellectually dishonest when he encounters any kind of conflict. If anyone wants to see why this post of Salyavin's is intellectually dishonest, here's the post of mine he was responding to: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380512 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380512 Among other things, I told him explicitly that it was OK if he chose to stick with his ignorance. IOW, there was nothing dragging him into continuing the discussion. He's made it clear he doesn't want to be bothered informing himself about the strongest arguments for theism. That's fine; he's welcome to just piddle along striking down straw men left and right and giving himself medals for doing so. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I can't be bothered to get dragged into another yet another tedious groundhog day with you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Er, no. Look, I know it's difficult for you to have your ignorance exposed like this Yawn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
BTW, I didn't start this discussion with Salyavin; he did. (There you go, Barry, I just saved you an Oopsie.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Like Curtis, Salyavin tends to become intellectually dishonest when he encounters any kind of conflict. If anyone wants to see why this post of Salyavin's is intellectually dishonest, here's the post of mine he was responding to: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380512 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380512 Among other things, I told him explicitly that it was OK if he chose to stick with his ignorance. IOW, there was nothing dragging him into continuing the discussion. He's made it clear he doesn't want to be bothered informing himself about the strongest arguments for theism. That's fine; he's welcome to just piddle along striking down straw men left and right and giving himself medals for doing so. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I can't be bothered to get dragged into another yet another tedious groundhog day with you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Er, no. Look, I know it's difficult for you to have your ignorance exposed like this Yawn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Exactly what is a divinity? This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend to get all tangled up and become incoherent, saying things like I just believe in one less divinity than you do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or suggesting the presence of a divinity. Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a divinity? If something is indicated or suggested, is that any reason to assume that something is actually there if it has not been directly seen, directly experienced. All that has to be done is demonstrate, unequivocally, what it is that one wants others to see, then you have a reason to define and investigate what that is. It is not necessary to investigate or define what does not exist, since one will never come across a concrete demonstration. One can imagine all sorts of things mentally, but never be able to show that those things exist, and as such, all such ideas are equivalent in that there is no proof, and no possibility of proof that such things have an existence independent of thought. There is reason to believe that what we call an elephant exists, even if we do not know what it is or have a name for it, it can be experienced through the senses, at some point it can be defined, observed, argued about. There is a problem when the subject matter at hand is empty, but is presumed to be real, such as invisible formless gods, or enlightenment. With gods, we have to presume they exist, and are somehow different from us. With enlightenment, there is the problem that it really does not exist, but we think it does. In this case the spiritual path shows us that the idea of enlightenment was an illusion, that what we were seeking was in fact just what we always were, not some new thing we have never experienced before. But it cannot be proved by argument, one just has to be crazy enough to attempt to resolve the issue. In the rarefied atmosphere of abstract theology, if we think that union with the god of one's imagination is the equivalent of enlightenment, then I suspect there will be a real disappointment because at the end of the road, the thing you have to give up is your idea of what that god is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Yet another atheist wannabe who simply cannot lower himself to reading enough philosophy to realize the incoherence of one of his fundamental premises, or that the purported evidentiary problems of theism as confronted by science that he blabs on about so pompously are in fact nonexistent. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous' from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about atheism. Without evidence, there is no case to be made, so arguments for and against are empty. One can argue that Sherlock Holmes smoked a Meerschaum pipe, but the evidence in the illustrations of the stories as originally published indicate he did not, but Sherlock Holmes never existed in reality as a real person, so what one is really arguing about here is not about Sherlock Holmes and his pipe, but the content of the text and illustrations in the stories about a fictional character called 'Sherlock Holmes'. So the argument concerning Mr Holmes is not about a reality but an illusion purporting to be a reality, the actual reality in this case being printed text and illustrations in The Strand Magazine (1891–1950, United Kingdom). The definition of 'divinity' (noun) from the same Google source is 'the state or quality of being divine', and 'a divinity' would then be 'something that has the state or quality of being divine', which seems to imply there could be more than one something that has those characteristics. A saint might be considered divine. Zeus could be considered divine and therefore a divinity. So could Apollo, or Jehovah. Maybe I could be divine. Maybe you could be divine, though there seems to be a preponderance of opinion here that would not likely be the case. It is not incoherent to say 'I just believe in one less divinity than you do'. That is just a statement, a proposition. Some people believe in many divinities, some in just one, some in none. A proposition by itself is not an argument, just a statement that may or may not have truth value, which cannot be affirmed or denied on the basis of the proposition itself. Coherence depends on how a particular proposition aligns logically with other propositions, and aligns with what the proposition(s) point to, if in fact they point to something outside themselves, for if they do not, it is an empty argument, much ado about nothing. In mentioning enlightenment, that particular discipline investigates subjectively the nature of sensory experience and its relationship to thought, and the interpretation by thought of the nature of experience, whether in fact thought can represent 'truth' or is simply a distortion of 'truth', or even whether there really is anything or state that could be thought of as 'truth', that is, whether the word 'truth' has any meaningful correlate that is real. A friend of mine was recently sued for delinquent payment of rent. This was not true, as my friend brought evidence of the fact to court, but the person bringing the suit came to court without any evidence whatsoever, but managed to convince the court — the judge and the person suing being white and my friend, black, to a 90 day stay, so that evidence could be brought — the argument: 'I did not think (the defendant) would show up'. The case was thrown out by a higher judge on the basis that no evidence was brought, and the lower judge showed prejudice in not dismissing the case. This is the situation between non-believers and believers of the religious kind, there are arguments but evidence is unconvincing or absent in spite of the sophistication of the pleading or polemic of the claims being made. Science takes a practical tack in such instances, no evidence, no case. This gets rid of the nutters, so one can focus on actual stuff, but occasionally there are examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water, but in time the mistake may be rectified. 'Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.' — source unknown ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Exactly what is a divinity? This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend to get all tangled up and become incoherent, saying things like I just believe in one less divinity than you do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or suggesting the presence of a divinity. Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a divinity
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jyotish
You don't read so good, do you? I said: srijau has actually made a testable prediction: If nothing much happens in summer 2019, it will be shown to have been wrong. I'll type this very slowly; take your time reading it: The testable prediction is that something RELY RELY BIG will happen in Summer 2019. Let me know if there are any words you don't understand. which can be a worldwide crisis and carnage or it could be a huge spiritual transformation instead. This is a testable prediction? If one happens, he's right, if the other happens he's right. On Sun, 4/13/14, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Jyotish To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 5:04 AM Oh, gee, sorry to tell you, Michael, but that accusation is hurled at astrology generally, not just jyotish--usually by people who know very little about astrology, in which certain particularly intense configurations can be either very positive or very negative. transformation being the principle behind both. srijau has actually made a testable prediction: If nothing much happens in summer 2019, it will be shown to have been wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Wow! That's what I love so much about jyotish and most of what the TMO espouses about the Marshy Effect - it can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean, it will fit whatever outcome actually happens. On Sun, 4/13/14, srijau@... srijau@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Jyotish To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 1:01 A Things are bad now but by July everything will be very different when Jupiter is exalted in Cancer, There is some really good muhurtas then to start something big. Then in summer 2019 there is Saturn conjunction with Ketu which can be a worldwide crisis and carnage or it could be a huge spiritual transformation instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic cherry tree mystery
Omygoodness. I'm impressed. I didn't even know about the lunar lander project; I thought you were talking about something they'd already done. But only 5-10 days' worth of air? They'll barely get germination in that amount of time, let alone actual plants. And what are they going to do about the temperature? Won't the habitat need to be heated? I read the press release-- http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/cct/office/cif/2013/lunar_plant.html#.U0qAo6hdWSp http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/cct/office/cif/2013/lunar_plant.html#.U0qAo6hdWSp --and way down toward the end it mentions temperature as one of the conditions required for growth, but not how they're going to keep the seedlings warm enough. And I'm still very curious about the results of the other tests, if you have a link to those studies. Or at least give me a clue as to what to Google or where to look on NASA's site. The plants on the moon are taking off next year: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/nasa-to-grow-plants-on-the-moon-by-2015-if-they-can-thrive-we-probably-can-too-8972642.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/nasa-to-grow-plants-on-the-moon-by-2015-if-they-can-thrive-we-probably-can-too-8972642.html The trees in space is one of many from the NASA site, I chose it coz of similarites but there are loads of experiments going on or planned. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Thanks, Salyavin. But what were the results? It sounds as though they'd have been looking for the same kinds of changes as with the cherry tree. In any case, according to that story, more than just that one monastery cherry tree whose stones were on the ISS has bloomed earlier than it was supposed to. There are several examples from different areas mentioned in the story. I'm wondering why this isn't bigger news than it apparently is, and why we haven't seen anything about the results of other such studies. Er, could you say more about the plants that were sent to the moon? That sounds, if you'll forgive me, unlikely on its face! Oh, wait, I'm guessing you mean they were sent on the spaceships and came back with them, not that they were left on the moon. (Emily Litella voice: Never mind!) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : They've grown a lot on the ISS, one of the original objectives was to see if things are better nutritionally or grow faster in space. After a quick google: Research Overview The Advanced Plant Experiment - Canadian Space Agency 2 (APEX-CSA2) provides insight into the fundamental processes by which plants produce cellulose and lignin, the two main structural materials found in plant matter. The experiment will be conducted using Canadian white spruce, Picea glauca. On Earth, various portions of a plant can have physically different compositions including different ratios of lignin and cellulose. This will affect the sensitivity of the plants to environmental conditions, to disease and infection and will have an influence on the type of industrial application plants can be used for. It is expected that growth of the trees for 30 days in microgravity will affect their growth rate, composition, tissue organization and gene expression. The results of this experiment will include improvement of the technology to grow trees in a spacecraft, enhancement of our understanding of tree physiology in the space environment and identification of genes related to specific plant characteristics. It is expected that these genes can be used as markers for plant selection in various Earth applications and to improve sustainability of the forest. This is the sort of thing they do, but they've have also sent some plants to the moon to act as a sort of canary in the coal mine, if they survive the cosmic rays we might. Maybe this cherry tree is has had a perfectly normal type of mutation like the four leafed clover? It just happened to be on the ISS at the time. Way beyond my meagre ken. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : What puzzles me a bit is that they've been taking seeds into space for a long time to see what happens to them. On the ISS, I think they even grow stuff. Have there been no other signs of accelerated maturation or other genetic mutation besides with the cherry trees? I haven't heard of any. The mysteries of nature. Could this be evolution caught in action? People have often speculated cosmic rays could have forced some of the huge leaps in life on Earth but I don't think anyone has ever documented it. Thing is, you wouldn't expect radiation to produce this much change in one go, normally radiational changes are destructive but who knows? Whereas most things get mutated too much and die, one gene in the right place gets zapped and two major differences occur. ---In FairfieldLife
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic cherry tree mystery
I fell so hard for Bruce Dern in that film. It's one of my favorites too, and I agree it's held up well. Huey, Dewey, and Louie clearly served as prototypes for R2-D2. Ah, that's one of my favourites! I remember being in tears first time I saw it. But I was only 12 so that's OK. Those little robots are so cute and with Joan Baez's soundtrack and it's good eco-message it all left quite an impression, and it gets more valid as time goes by. It was on recently actually, still very good and not as dated as you'd think, the lack of CGI improves it greatly I think, but they wouldn't make a slow film like that now. Or one without any women I bet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic cherry tree mystery The plants on the moon are taking off next year: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/nasa-to-grow-plants-on-the-moon-by-2015-if-they-can-thrive-we-probably-can-too-8972642.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/nasa-to-grow-plants-on-the-moon-by-2015-if-they-can-thrive-we-probably-can-too-8972642.html The trees in space is one of many from the NASA site, I chose it coz of similarites but there are loads of experiments going on or planned. Plants in space reminds me of one of the most underappreciated SciFi movies ever, Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running. The basic plot is that there are greenhouses in space, which now contain basically the only forests left from Earth. The astronaut running one complex of greenhouses (Bruce Dern) is ordered to destroy it all, and can't bring himself to do it. Cinematography (stunning) and special effects (minimal, given the pre-CGI times) are great, and what one would expect from the person who designed visual effects for 2001, Blade Runner and Close Encounters. The movie has been referred to as the first ecology film ever made. Very dated, given its 1972 debut, but still cool, especially because of the three robots, Huey, Dewey, and Louie. Silent Running Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0 Silent Running Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
FWIW, this was a long time ago; the Amherst course (the first World Peace Assembly) took place in 1979. For whatever reason, the TMO decided not to pursue this particular line of research. I don't know whether the study was ever published; do you, Salyavin? Do you remember where you read it? I can't find it in the lists of research papers. Maybe the title isn't sufficiently descriptive. Remember this was a WPA, so rounding would have been involved, and general knowledge about programme times might not have been adequate to clue the subject in (especially if he or she wasn't a Sidha--do you remember, Salyavin?). Also, just generally, sometimes explaining away a purported result involves positing circumstances and effects that are almost as unlikely--e.g., in this case, suggestion or subconsciously transmitted information being sufficient to allow the subject to significantly alter his or her EEG in specific ways at specific times. CAVEAT: I'm not claiming that the study showed anything startling, just critiquing Salyavin's critique. BTW, I wouldn't trust James Randi to make an honest, objective attempt to conduct any study involving TM. He's as biased as the TM researchers are, just in the opposite direction. Surely the study could be done with tighter controls, but Randi ain't the one to do it. Talk about inadequate controls! A TMer being tested by TMers. I can think of so many ways that any results could be influenced by suggestion or subconsciously transmitted information or even just general knowledge within the TMO about programme times. They are going to have to try a lot harder than that one. I read it BTW. If they think there's anything in this at all they should go the the James Randi Foundation and get an experiment done properly. And with the $1 million prize they could buy some yagya's or a new crown. But they don't take it seriously enough. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Ah, OK. I vaguely remember that. The index of research in collected papers volumes 1-xx is available online. You could see if it is there. I think both David Orme-Johnson's website and MUM have it. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : The study I had in mind (don't know if it was ever published, don't remember where I read about it, maybe in MSVS?) took the EEG of a meditator or Sidha at MIU while the big course at Amherst was going on. As I recall, the subject wasn't told when the Amherst folks were doing program, but his/her EEG showed distinct changes that appeared to be correlated.with when they began meditating and presumably additional changes when they began sutra practice. Or possibly it was just when they began the flying sutra. As I say, I can't remember the specifics. But it doesn't sound like what you're talking about. Thanks anyway. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : I believe that Fred Travis' PhD thesis involved field effect studies on the TM Sidhis. That might be the research you're thinking of. The problem is that up until now, all TM EEG research is on many-second averages of EEG coherence, and Yogic Flying and any field effects that might be associated with it, has been on 40-second averages. Microstate analysis looks at 1/10 to 1/50 of a second EEG, and sythesizes a kind of electrical field graph for the entire brain for each time-slice they analyze. Cool stuff, and has potential in all sorts of studies, like the EEG of the brain as a PC episode starts and ends, or even doing statistical analysis to see if short PC episodes increase in frequency in a nearby meditator when the hopping phase of Yogic Flying begins... http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/EEG_microstates#Event-related_microstates http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/EEG_microstates#Event-related_microstates ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : (I think you meant obviously not.) I mentioned it because I thought Bhairitu might find it of interest; he'd been talking about shakti being generated, for him, in connection with the TM-Sidhis.. It was just an experience; you're welcome to make of it what you will. I wasn't making any claims for it except that for me, the tingle in the air the flying sutra seems to generate might not be a placebo effect, because at that point (at my friend's house) I had never heard any suggestions along those lines, and I had no idea what my friend's program involved in terms of timing, i.e., at what point she would be using the flying sutra. The tingle was completely unexpected, I didn't know what might have been responsible, and it occurred to me what it likely was only in retrospect. (BTW, it wasn't 45 minutes. That was how long I waited after she'd gone into the room and closed the door before I started to meditate. The tingles toward the end of my meditation lasted only a few minutes.) I'm all
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Russia and China announce decoupling trade from Dollar
Perhaps the TMO can take credit for our not having to endure what would have been Romney's policies. Oh, really? And that is your view of Obama? I remind you that when Obama was elected there was a huge celebration in the Domes in Fairfield with the TMO taking credit for his election due to yogic flying. So that should mean that since he is in office the TMO can take credit for his policies too, eh? On Sun, 4/13/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Russia and China announce decoupling trade from Dollar To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:24 PM Perhaps you resent it but the Nordic countries have the strongest economies on this planet. Saying it doesn't work very well shows you unfortunately have no clue, or probably no interest in finding out. And you are mixing up Northern Europe with European economics in general which doesn't bid very well for a meaningful discussion. And are Northern European economy not vastly different from North American ones ?You could start by taxing the Americans at least 40% in direct taxes + huge indirect taxes on anything from gasoline (In Denmark they pay 10$ pr gallon) to food and distribute that wealth for common good as free healthcare for all, 1 year maternity leave with 100% salary for the mother, 4 months for the father, 1 year payment of 80% of your income if you're laid off work and give the rest to those who for different reasons can't work. THEN you can start comparing the systems. I certainly wish Obama good luck. But his programs are too little and too late when almost 50 million Americans go hungry, the number of people in jails the highest of any developed country and they have the highest infant mortality rate of any western country. Perhaps he is obstructing change less than previous Presidents but I'm afraid Obama will be remembered as a wonderful speaker and not much else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Nablusoss, I've also heard some prediction that the US will go through a really difficult time and then return even stronger. But my guess is that it won't return in the form that it is now. I think there will be huge upheavals and many will go through transformations. So many that the current structures simply will fall away. At least that's what I'm hoping (-: On Sunday, April 13, 2014 6:35 AM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: They will be no long term decline, the United States will enforce it's dominance over the whole world in a few short years. May God help us all.If you think capitalism will take a dip just to return even stronger than before please think again. It's understandable that the huge transformations that is coming is not yet grasped by most people who cling to the glamour of money and power.There will be no Age of Enlightenment, Golden Age, Age of Aquarius, New Age or whatever you wish to call it if the economic structures of this planet isn't completely restructured and gains a new foundation based on sharing and brotherhood. I doubt you are so foolish as to believe that the gross unbalance and injustice in the use and distribution of resources of this planet where thousands of children die every single day of hunger can go on indefinitely. Chicken or the egg again. I think the only way the world could be restructured consciously and on purpose (as opposed to this happening as a result of natural upheaval based on all sorts of other forces) would be if people were to suddenly have their eyes and hearts and minds open to come to truly respect and love others of their species. This isn't just going to happen because we change our economic structure. We can't change our economic situation until our viewpoints and world views change. And what is going to bring that about en masse? When Maharishi said capitalism will go he meant it will be replaced but didn't go into the details of what that will be. Benjamin Crème has indicated that the new system of economics that will replace the current financial system in the aftermath of the huge coming crisis (forget 1987 or 2008 think much worse than 1929) will be modeled along the social-democratic systems practiced in northern Europe. Well that is not working so well either. I would hardly call European economic systems vastly different from North American ones. And yes, it definitely incorporates some degree of socialism which will secure food, medical care and shelter for all no matter where you live on this planet. You might find it useful to get used to the idea.
[FairfieldLife] Studying the numinous
A fascinating exchange of views... Opinion piece in the NYTimes by Barbara Ehrenreich, rationalist author and political activist (and atheist), about the change in her perspective on life wrought gradually over many years by a mystical experience she had as an adolescent (note: at age 73, she's still an atheist): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html Response by NYTimes columnist Ross Douthat (not an atheist) pointing out that her call for science to investigate mystical experiences in depth is premature because science doesn't yet understand ordinary experience well enough: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
I'm not sure what you mean by the part highlighted in red below, but I believe the test subject did not perform in the presence of TM teachers; he was left in a room by himself hooked up to the EEG machine. In any case, he'd have had to perform (change his EEG, maybe other physiological parameters, I don't recall) according to the Amherst rounding schedule, and he presumably didn't know what that was, as I pointed out earlier. Oh, and the whole point was that he wasn't in proximity to the Amherst group. They were in Massachusetts; he was at MIU (that's 1,000 miles apart). Sheesh, that was the whole point of the study, to see whether the effect carried over distance to someone who wasn't in the group. He probably knew that the Amherst course was taking place around that time, but he may not have known that what he was being tested for had anything to do with the course. We'd have to see the actual study to know what the controls actually were. And it's by no means the case that it's only the TMO that believe this idea that all minds are connected as a unified field that also connects everything else. It's a fairly common belief among those who subscribe to the Perennial Philosophy and New Age types in general. And I think you've gone way beyond reasonable in the strictness of your controls. As to Randi, I'll stand by what I said about the strength of his bias; and I'll just add that his professional integrity is, er, not of the highest. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Comments in this wishy-washy green that I've gone off already but can't be bothered to change... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, this was a long time ago; the Amherst course (the first World Peace Assembly) took place in 1979. For whatever reason, the TMO decided not to pursue this particular line of research. I don't know whether the study was ever published; do you, Salyavin? Do you remember where you read it? I can't find it in the lists of research papers. Maybe the title isn't sufficiently descriptive. I used to have the collected papers, I'm pretty sure it was in that. Don't recall if it got published. Would have to have been a journal desperate for filler IMO. Remember this was a WPA, so rounding would have been involved, and general knowledge about programme times might not have been adequate to clue the subject in (especially if he or she wasn't a Sidha--do you remember, Salyavin?). Also, just generally, sometimes explaining away a purported result involves positing circumstances and effects that are almost as unlikely--e.g., in this case, suggestion or subconsciously transmitted information being sufficient to allow the subject to significantly alter his or her EEG in specific ways at specific times. CAVEAT: I'm not claiming that the study showed anything startling, just critiquing Salyavin's critique. Sorry, but that's exactly the sort of thing that anyone trying to repeat the study would look for and subconscious cues are an obvious first step. Remember, the TMO is a closed group with a strong belief system that you only think your mind hasn't been steeped in. Suppose the subjectively stronger meditative state you report was trained into you by the way meditation is checked? You wouldn't know but you may perform in the same way when on a course or even just in the presence of a TM teacher because of expectations picked up at meetings. The mind is a strange place, it may sound unlikely but group bonds and training are strong, the TMO has all the things cult watchers look for with it's secret language and rituals. You don't know what it's done to you. But a hardcore researcher will and will eliminate these potential causes with strict controls. Much stricter than they would even think necessary at MUM. Meditating deeper will affect the EEG and if it's caused by knowing that you are in the proximity of a group doing TM then it will show. If the researcher gives it away subconsciously somehow, then ditto. Remember it's only the TMO that believe this idea that all minds are connected as a unified field that also connects everything else. To add to the list of suspicions you would have to eliminate are all electromagnetic fields, pheromones, changes in breathing or auditory cues from researchers who do TM. Subconscious group conformity etc etc. There are probably many more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and eliminating the apparently mundane is the first step. BTW, I wouldn't trust James Randi to make an honest, objective attempt to conduct any study involving TM. He's as biased as the TM researchers are, just in the opposite direction. Surely the study could be done with tighter controls, but Randi ain't the one to do it. Nonsense. Granted, there's plenty of whining about Randi's experiments being set up to fail but what everyone who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Glad you enjoyed it, Emily. It certainly is an unusual pair of pieces to appear in the NYTimes! Her new book, from which she adapted her piece, has created something of a stir. From what I understand, it's completely unlike anything she's ever written and has really startled people who were familiar with her work and thought they knew who she was and what she stood for. Must have taken guts to publish it. And so odd to for her to have had that wild experience a half-century ago but not really have tried to come to terms with it until very recently. But it's great to see somebody of stature saying, WAAAIT a minute, folks, there's more going on here than you realize. You can't just shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I think Douthat nails it where scientific investigation is concerned. We are still SO far away from understanding everyday consciousness, let alone mystical, nuomenal consciousness. But boy, it's long past time for science to start taking it seriously and realizing the limits of neuroscience to figure it out. Scientists need to get some philosophy under their belts so they see what the problem is. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : Judy, wonderful post. I loved Ross Douthat's article. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : A fascinating exchange of views... Opinion piece in the NYTimes by Barbara Ehrenreich, rationalist author and political activist (and atheist), about the change in her perspective on life wrought gradually over many years by a mystical experience she had as an adolescent (note: at age 73, she's still an atheist): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html Response by NYTimes columnist Ross Douthat (not an atheist) pointing out that her call for science to investigate mystical experiences in depth is premature because science doesn't yet understand ordinary experience well enough: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh, super, Emily. That is NOT easy reading; I really had to struggle with it. It seems like one has to master a whole new conceptual vocabulary, but it's worth it. I found the ideas exhilarating once I'd caught on, and it sounds as if you do too. Both Ehrenreich and Douthat should read it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : Scientists need to get some philosophy under their belts so they see what the problem is. I'm reading that Denys Turner book you posted here awhile back. Loving it - dense as it is. I can pick it up and open it to any place and be surprised over and over at the way it affects me. It's all new to me and I find it fascinating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Glad you enjoyed it, Emily. It certainly is an unusual pair of pieces to appear in the NYTimes! Her new book, from which she adapted her piece, has created something of a stir. From what I understand, it's completely unlike anything she's ever written and has really startled people who were familiar with her work and thought they knew who she was and what she stood for. Must have taken guts to publish it. And so odd to for her to have had that wild experience a half-century ago but not really have tried to come to terms with it until very recently. But it's great to see somebody of stature saying, WAAAIT a minute, folks, there's more going on here than you realize. You can't just shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I think Douthat nails it where scientific investigation is concerned. We are still SO far away from understanding everyday consciousness, let alone mystical, nuomenal consciousness. But boy, it's long past time for science to start taking it seriously and realizing the limits of neuroscience to figure it out. Scientists need to get some philosophy under their belts so they see what the problem is. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : Judy, wonderful post. I loved Ross Douthat's article. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : A fascinating exchange of views... Opinion piece in the NYTimes by Barbara Ehrenreich, rationalist author and political activist (and atheist), about the change in her perspective on life wrought gradually over many years by a mystical experience she had as an adolescent (note: at age 73, she's still an atheist): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html Response by NYTimes columnist Ross Douthat (not an atheist) pointing out that her call for science to investigate mystical experiences in depth is premature because science doesn't yet understand ordinary experience well enough: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I don't think you know what you're talking about, Buck, if you're saying philosophy is sophistry. And the idea of Curtis helping us sort this out is laughable. Might as well appeal to Richard Dawkins for assistance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Philosophy sophistry.. ., hell. Nuomenal. Great word, I feel we all should be finding ways to use it as a new word bracket for really spiritual description around the Transcendent Unified Field experience we all have here. We proly needs CurtisDeltaBlues to come back here and sort this out as POV's and such and such philosophical mental ontological constructs of how we gain Knowledge. But of course it would need more refinement. More than just the philosophical mind it seems nuomenal consciousness is right in the middle of transcendental consciousness as we experience it. An aspect of 'Self-Referral'. I am going to sleep on it. Good nite,-Buck Wiki: The noumenon / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Englishˈ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyuː http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keym http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɨ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#cite_note-1 [Self-referral Transcendent?] The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to phenomenon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena_(philosophy), which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy) of, the senses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_senses. In Platonic philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_philosophy, the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality, known to the uneducated mind.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#cite_note-2 Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable thing-in-itself (Ding an sich, which could also be rendered as thing-as-such or thing per se), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy. Emilymae as a non-meditor here writes: Scientists need to get some philosophy under their belts so they see what the problem is. I'm reading that Denys Turner book you posted here awhile back. Loving it - dense as it is. I can pick it up and open it to any place and be surprised over and over at the way it affects me. It's all new to me and I find it fascinating. authfriend as a meditator charitably writes: Glad you enjoyed it, Emily. It certainly is an unusual pair of pieces to appear in the NYTimes! Her new book, from which she adapted her piece, has created something of a stir. From what I understand, it's completely unlike anything she's ever written and has really startled people who were familiar with her work and thought they knew who she was and what she stood for. Must have taken guts to publish it. And so odd to for her to have had that wild experience a half-century ago but not really have tried to come to terms with it until very recently. But it's great to see somebody of stature saying, WAAAIT a minute, folks, there's more going on here than you realize. You can't just shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I think Douthat nails it where scientific investigation is concerned. We are still SO far away from understanding everyday consciousness, let alone mystical, nuomenal consciousness. But boy, it's long past time for science to start taking it seriously and realizing the limits of neuroscience to figure it out. Scientists need to get some [philosophy*] under their belts so they see what the problem is. [ In this case, philosophy should=experiential-mysticism] -Buc emilymaenot writes: Judy, wonderful post. I loved Ross Douthat's article. authfriend writes: A fascinating exchange of views... Opinion piece in the NYTimes by Barbara Ehrenreich, rationalist author and political activist
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
(I think you meant obviously not.) I mentioned it because I thought Bhairitu might find it of interest; he'd been talking about shakti being generated, for him, in connection with the TM-Sidhis.. It was just an experience; you're welcome to make of it what you will. I wasn't making any claims for it except that for me, the tingle in the air the flying sutra seems to generate might not be a placebo effect, because at that point (at my friend's house) I had never heard any suggestions along those lines, and I had no idea what my friend's program involved in terms of timing, i.e., at what point she would be using the flying sutra. The tingle was completely unexpected, I didn't know what might have been responsible, and it occurred to me what it likely was only in retrospect. (BTW, it wasn't 45 minutes. That was how long I waited after she'd gone into the room and closed the door before I started to meditate. The tingles toward the end of my meditation lasted only a few minutes.) I'm all for testing for spooky stuff. You couldn't test this example using me as a subject, though, because I'm no longer innocent. But sure, it would be interesting to test for shakti-like effects. Not sure why you'd need a Faraday cage; seems to me it would be interesting either way. Maybe shakti is electromagnetic in nature (if it exists, of course). (BTW, I believe there was at least one study of the EEG of a person meditating (or not?) at MIU while a large group was doing the TM-Sidhi program at Amherst. It reported specific EEG changes in the test subject that were coordinated with what the folks were doing in Amherst. The test subject wasn't aware of the timing. Maybe Lawson remembers more details of the study. Don't think a Faraday cage was used.) I really can't understand why you'd question my reporting a personal experience possibly involving some kind of woo-woo, or what you thought I had given away by doing so. You've reported a few of your own such experiences, as I recall. Have you ever questioned Barry about his reports of Fred Lenz levitating? Or Bhairitu about his reports of shakti during TM-Sidhis practice, for that matter? Did you think I had suggested it was anything but an anecdote, Salyavin? Obviously, but you implied it was a spooky event. The 45 minute experience when you didn't know what she was doing next door and then realising it was the same when you did YF, is what gave it away. Data about spooky events would be the most important scientific discovery ever, but no one wants to take it further. Things like this would be easy to test. We have a subject (you) a method by which it could be tested (comparisons between group YF and solo YF or just meditating). all you need is a Faraday cage and some positive results and you've rewritten human history. We don't take anecdotal data as evidence though, hence my remark. And I'm sure I could think of a few alternatives to rule out first Ah, if only the plural of anecdote was data... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Thank you. How about his second question, do you have any comments on that? I mean, in theory, just about anything could be seen as potentially a siddhi, when the action is performed by a fully enlightened person. What activities would provide better stitches between relative and absolute, do you think? With regard to hopping and muscle power, I partly agree--my experience has been that I'm using my muscles, but they aren't being controlled by the usual brain pathways somehow. It's more like a sneeze or a knee-jerk reflex or a yawn. Like you, I'm no athlete, but hopping never tired me out. And it's definitely triggered by the sutra, which in my case fairly quickly became just an impulse of something like electricity, a little tingle, no discernible words. With a group that was actively hopping, that impulse seemed to be in the air from all the people who were generating it. Before I took the TM-Sidhis course, I was at the home of a friend who was a governor. We did our program before dinner; she went into another room and closed the door because she was doing the TM-Sidhis and I wasn't. I started meditating about 45 minutes later, and was surprised to suddenly feel that tingle, on and off. Had no idea what it was, it was totally unexpected. And I couldn't hear her hopping--I don't know if she actually was physically hopping, but I would have been feeling it while she was doing the flying sutra. It was only during my flying block that I realized it was the same tingle. Which question? The one about what siddhis were left out? I'm not sure the Patanjali even covered the Vamachari Siddhis which are what I learned in tantra. They are given out carefully because they can be misused. In fact the Maran siddhis are only learned to help people who have afflicted by someone misusing them (aka black
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
Now Barry is freaked because I set the record straight on his behalf as to whether he jumped or was pushed from the TMO and Lenz's group. And in front of all these lurking reporters too, introducing a blemish on his characterization of me as a PERFECT example of what the long-term practice of TM and the TM-Sidhis produces (because, of course, no such PERFECT example would ever stand up for a TM critic). Hmmm. No such PERFECT example would ever take Judith Bourque's book as evidence that Maharishi wasn't celibate, either, and yet I've been doing that ever since the book came out. I guess Barry's having one of his little memory failures. As I've pointed out before, he can't win for losing. I, for one, would like to thank Nablus for demonstrating to the press why I nominated him as one of Fairfield Life's two PERFECT examples of what the long-term practice of TM and the TM-Sidhis produces. I await the other nominee chiming in (as below, to set the record straight) to point out that the only person who ever claimed that the Turq (moi) was ever kept away from Maharishi's door was Nablus himself. Personally, I think that Nabby is just still jealous that Heretic Turk got to spend one night as the door guard at Maharishi's door, and he never got closer to the man than the cheap seats in an auditorium. He shouldn't bother...it was a boring gig, except that it provided fodder for a couple of good Clint Eastwood and Charlie Lutes stories. :-) :-) :-) From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect? We have only the Turq's word for that and they are of course very balanced and trustworthy. Kicked out or barred as Williams points out amounts to the same thing. Then we had the fellow posting here who claimed the Turq was kept outside and a good distance from Maharishi's door whenever he visited LA, apparently for reasons of safety. The Turq is many weird things but not so foolish as to not being able to read the writings on the wall. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : As we know, Barry wasn't kicked out of either group. He left of his own accord. Right. He left of his own accord rather than being kicked out. End of story. There is no evidence that Barry worked for the TMO or ever was a member of the Rama group. But, IF the Turq HAD worked for the TMO or the Rama group, he would have been kicked out. He would have been kicked out trashing MMY and Rama. He is guilty. Case closed. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Scientifically Validated
OK. Did you think I had been disagreeing with you that the TMO will use anything to promote its woo woo claims and that another example of same would convince me or prove me wrong? Because, see, I've been talking about only this particular case (the morning sunshine study). You had asked, But if it is something like this then what right have the TMO got to claim woo woo? and I suggested that we didn't know whether this particular case was an example of the TMO claiming woo-woo. I thought it might be the opposite, actually, that the study was being used as evidence that TM Vastu's insistence on morning sunlight being healthier was not a woo-woo claim but rather was in accord with what the study seemed to show. IOW, I was questioning your assumption that it was being used as evidence for woo-woo (but, again, only with regard to this particular case). I could cite all manner of anecdotes about the TMO claiming woo-woo. But as you say, the plural of anecdote is not data. That the TMO does this a lot doesn't mean every claim it makes is for woo-woo. Take Maharishi Ayur-Veda. Plenty of woo-woo claims there, but quite a bit of it is just good health advice (get plenty of sleep and exercise, eat on a regular schedule, etc.). If the TMO were to cite scientific studies showing that it's good to get plenty of sleep, as a way of validating MA-V's recommendation to that effect, would you ask what right the TMO had to claim woo-woo? If you cast your mind back, this conversation is about how the TMO will use anything to promote its woo woo claims. The forest fire was another example. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I do remember that, yes. And so...what? Were you thinking I'd have endorsed that claim? Did you think it had anything to do with what I was saying about the morning sun study? And do you remember that forest fire a few years back that didn't affect any vastu homes? What did the TMO claim about that? Invincibility that's what, nature won't allow you to be harmed if you live in vastu etc. I put it to the test and wrote to the journalist who covered the fire story in the local paper and, what a surprise, he had a rather different story to tell about rapidly shifting winds affecting some houses but not others in a seemingly random way. And the simple fact that the vastu development was too new to have foliage that could spread the fire to the houses. He was there and was highly unconvinced there was anything spooky involved. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Rubbish yourself. It's not at all obvious they were trying to make woo-woo of it. Vindication, quite possibly, but that's not at all the same thing. And it might well be relevant to whatever Vastu says about sunlight in the home. From what I've read, many Vastu principles have nothing to do with woo-woo, they're just about making one's living environment as healthy as possible. I sleep in my living room because its windows face east, and I've always felt more energized when I wake up to morning sunlight. Nothing to do with TM (or depression, bi- or monopolar, for that matter). No, never saw the stuff about the brain working better when it's facing east. I think your bipolar sleep resetting idea is something of a stretch. Sure would be interesting to see the whole study, see what the authors made of their results, whether they suggested a possible mechanism for the effect. Rubbish, it wouldn't be the first time they'd picked something irrelevant or vaguely samey sounding and held it up as vindication. And it was in a classroom studying vastu, so it's pretty obvious what sort of hay they are trying to make. Remember all the BS the TMO co-opted about the brain working better when it's facing east? It made a lot of TM brochures and broadcasts and there was a link to the Journal of Neurophysiology which, when followed, led you to a bunch of papers about how rats find their way about in the dark. There wasn't even any preference among the rat brains for any particular direction. My guess is they think people don't follow links. What did you think of my ideas about bipolar dawn sleep resetting? Rather good for a breakfast post I thought ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Salyavin, we don't know what kind of hay the TMO was trying to make with this study (the MUMOSA guy doesn't bother to tell us). For all we know, it was simply that Vastu principles are in accord with current scientific thinking, nothing woo-woo about it. Just thinking out loud because I can't afford to read every science paper I'd like to either, but if it is something like this then what right have the TMO got to claim woo woo? And it doesn't even make sense if they do because you'd have to have an east facing bedroom (and not all of them are) and it would matter
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would have happened to the rioting pandits in Pakistan
Not to mention a faiure by the Professional Writer among us to spell-check his post... Judy will probably feel the need to point out that none of the pandits were 9 months old, so this is an attempt to lie and misleed. :-) Best line: Musa Khan http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/baby-charged-with-murder_n_5110827.htmlwas accused alongside his father and grandfather of being part of a mob who threw rocks with intent to kill police. The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted Murder Is Free To Go http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted ... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk A Pakistani court has withdrawn the case against a nine-month-old baby who was accused of attempted murder alongside 12 members of his family. Musa Khan was... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would have happened to the rioting pandits in Pakistan
(grin) That would be failure, not faiure. Not to mention a faiure by the Professional Writer among us to spell-check his post... Judy will probably feel the need to point out that none of the pandits were 9 months old, so this is an attempt to lie and misleed. :-) Best line: Musa Khan http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/baby-charged-with-murder_n_5110827.htmlwas accused alongside his father and grandfather of being part of a mob who threw rocks with intent to kill police. The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted Murder Is Free To Go http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted ... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk A Pakistani court has withdrawn the case against a nine-month-old baby who was accused of attempted murder alongside 12 members of his family. Musa Khan was... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: So, you think you can dance?
This is for you, Emily: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQBUChBG98Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQBUChBG98Q Ha. It was a beautiful line from Share to Emily, I thought. No one dismisses her posts better than Share does. Well, took you long enough! I first posted this. Share's response was Thanks, Emily. I admit I've never developed an appreciation for jazz. Maybe next lifetime smile. Then, Nabby went hog wild and posted it from every country he could find. Now, you have jumped on the happy train, hopefully working up a few more dance steps. I feel kind of sorry for Share, all this happiness to deal with, even though it is a song from her favorite movie, Despicable Me 2. It's all part of her journey to full development, I guess. I wouldn't categorize this song as jazz, far from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would have happened to the rioting pandits in Pakistan
Yes, serial farthing was a classic of its kind, perhaps never to be outdone by anyone.. (grin) That would be failure, not faiure. Not to mention a faiure by the Professional Writer among us to spell-check his post... Still, it doesn't come close to outdoing his serial farthing blooper. Judy will probably feel the need to point out that none of the pandits were 9 months old, so this is an attempt to lie and misleed. :-) Best line: Musa Khan http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/baby-charged-with-murder_n_5110827.htmlwas accused alongside his father and grandfather of being part of a mob who threw rocks with intent to kill police. The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted Murder Is Free To Go http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk The 9-Month-Old Baby Charged With Attempted ... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk A Pakistani court has withdrawn the case against a nine-month-old baby who was accused of attempted murder alongside 12 members of his family. Musa Khan was... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/pakistan-baby-murder_n_5137805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Cosmic cherry tree mystery
Tokyo (AFP) - A cosmic mystery is uniting monks and scientists in Japan after a cherry tree grown from a seed that orbited the Earth for eight months bloomed years earlier than expected -- and with very surprising flowers. The four-year-old sapling -- grown from a cherry stone that spent time aboard the International Space Station (ISS) -- burst into blossom on April 1, possibly a full six years ahead of Mother Nature's normal schedule. Its early blooming baffled Buddhist brothers at the ancient temple in central Japan where the tree is growing. We are amazed to see how fast it has grown, Masahiro Kajita, chief priest at the Ganjoji temple in Gifu, told AFP by telephone. A stone from the original tree had never sprouted before. We are very happy because it will succeed the old tree, which is said to be 1,250 years old. The wonder pip was among 265 harvested from the celebrated Chujo-hime-seigan-zakura tree, selected as part of a project to gather seeds from different kinds of cherry trees at 14 locations across Japan. The stones were sent to the ISS in November 2008 and came back to Earth in July the following year with Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata, after circling the globe 4,100 times. Some were sent for laboratory tests, but most were ferried back to their places of origin, and a selection were planted at nurseries near the Ganjoji temple. By April this year, the space cherry tree had grown to around four metres (13 feet) tall, and suddenly produced nine flowers -- each with just five petals, compared with about 30 on flowers of the parent tree. It normally takes about 10 years for a cherry tree of the similar variety to bear its first buds. The Ganjoji temple sapling is not the only early-flowering space cherry tree. Of the 14 locations in which the pits were replanted, blossoms have been spotted at four places. Two years ago, a young tree bore 11 flowers in Hokuto, a mountain region 115 kilometres (70 miles) west of Tokyo, around two years after it was planted. It was of a variety that normally only comes into flower at the age of eight. Cosmic rays The seeds were sent to the ISS as part of an educational and cultural project to let children gather the stones and learn how they grow into trees and live on after returning from space, said Miho Tomioka, a spokeswoman for the project's organiser, Japan Manned Space Systems (JAMSS). We had expected the (Ganjoji) tree to blossom about 10 years after planting, when the children come of age, she added. Kaori Tomita-Yokotani, a researcher at the University of Tsukuba who took part in the project, told AFP she was stumped by the extra-terrestrial mystery. We still cannot rule out the possibility that it has been somewhat influenced by its exposure to the space environment, she said. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/cherry-tree-space-mystery-baffles-japan-085044593.html http://news.yahoo.com/cherry-tree-space-mystery-baffles-japan-085044593.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic cherry tree mystery
What puzzles me a bit is that they've been taking seeds into space for a long time to see what happens to them. On the ISS, I think they even grow stuff. Have there been no other signs of accelerated maturation or other genetic mutation besides with the cherry trees? I haven't heard of any. The mysteries of nature. Could this be evolution caught in action? People have often speculated cosmic rays could have forced some of the huge leaps in life on Earth but I don't think anyone has ever documented it. Thing is, you wouldn't expect radiation to produce this much change in one go, normally radiational changes are destructive but who knows? Whereas most things get mutated too much and die, one gene in the right place gets zapped and two major differences occur. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Tokyo (AFP) - A cosmic mystery is uniting monks and scientists in Japan after a cherry tree grown from a seed that orbited the Earth for eight months bloomed years earlier than expected -- and with very surprising flowers. The four-year-old sapling -- grown from a cherry stone that spent time aboard the International Space Station (ISS) -- burst into blossom on April 1, possibly a full six years ahead of Mother Nature's normal schedule. Its early blooming baffled Buddhist brothers at the ancient temple in central Japan where the tree is growing. We are amazed to see how fast it has grown, Masahiro Kajita, chief priest at the Ganjoji temple in Gifu, told AFP by telephone. A stone from the original tree had never sprouted before. We are very happy because it will succeed the old tree, which is said to be 1,250 years old. The wonder pip was among 265 harvested from the celebrated Chujo-hime-seigan-zakura tree, selected as part of a project to gather seeds from different kinds of cherry trees at 14 locations across Japan. The stones were sent to the ISS in November 2008 and came back to Earth in July the following year with Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata, after circling the globe 4,100 times. Some were sent for laboratory tests, but most were ferried back to their places of origin, and a selection were planted at nurseries near the Ganjoji temple. By April this year, the space cherry tree had grown to around four metres (13 feet) tall, and suddenly produced nine flowers -- each with just five petals, compared with about 30 on flowers of the parent tree. It normally takes about 10 years for a cherry tree of the similar variety to bear its first buds. The Ganjoji temple sapling is not the only early-flowering space cherry tree. Of the 14 locations in which the pits were replanted, blossoms have been spotted at four places. Two years ago, a young tree bore 11 flowers in Hokuto, a mountain region 115 kilometres (70 miles) west of Tokyo, around two years after it was planted. It was of a variety that normally only comes into flower at the age of eight. Cosmic rays The seeds were sent to the ISS as part of an educational and cultural project to let children gather the stones and learn how they grow into trees and live on after returning from space, said Miho Tomioka, a spokeswoman for the project's organiser, Japan Manned Space Systems (JAMSS). We had expected the (Ganjoji) tree to blossom about 10 years after planting, when the children come of age, she added. Kaori Tomita-Yokotani, a researcher at the University of Tsukuba who took part in the project, told AFP she was stumped by the extra-terrestrial mystery. We still cannot rule out the possibility that it has been somewhat influenced by its exposure to the space environment, she said. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/cherry-tree-space-mystery-baffles-japan-085044593.html http://news.yahoo.com/cherry-tree-space-mystery-baffles-japan-085044593.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
When and where did he give these alleged lectures, Michael? How many were there? What's your source? was that when the big reesh was giving lectures on what a great guy Adolph was?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
The study I had in mind (don't know if it was ever published, don't remember where I read about it, maybe in MSVS?) took the EEG of a meditator or Sidha at MIU while the big course at Amherst was going on. As I recall, the subject wasn't told when the Amherst folks were doing program, but his/her EEG showed distinct changes that appeared to be correlated.with when they began meditating and presumably additional changes when they began sutra practice. Or possibly it was just when they began the flying sutra. As I say, I can't remember the specifics. But it doesn't sound like what you're talking about. Thanks anyway. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : I believe that Fred Travis' PhD thesis involved field effect studies on the TM Sidhis. That might be the research you're thinking of. The problem is that up until now, all TM EEG research is on many-second averages of EEG coherence, and Yogic Flying and any field effects that might be associated with it, has been on 40-second averages. Microstate analysis looks at 1/10 to 1/50 of a second EEG, and sythesizes a kind of electrical field graph for the entire brain for each time-slice they analyze. Cool stuff, and has potential in all sorts of studies, like the EEG of the brain as a PC episode starts and ends, or even doing statistical analysis to see if short PC episodes increase in frequency in a nearby meditator when the hopping phase of Yogic Flying begins... http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/EEG_microstates#Event-related_microstates http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/EEG_microstates#Event-related_microstates ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : (I think you meant obviously not.) I mentioned it because I thought Bhairitu might find it of interest; he'd been talking about shakti being generated, for him, in connection with the TM-Sidhis.. It was just an experience; you're welcome to make of it what you will. I wasn't making any claims for it except that for me, the tingle in the air the flying sutra seems to generate might not be a placebo effect, because at that point (at my friend's house) I had never heard any suggestions along those lines, and I had no idea what my friend's program involved in terms of timing, i.e., at what point she would be using the flying sutra. The tingle was completely unexpected, I didn't know what might have been responsible, and it occurred to me what it likely was only in retrospect. (BTW, it wasn't 45 minutes. That was how long I waited after she'd gone into the room and closed the door before I started to meditate. The tingles toward the end of my meditation lasted only a few minutes.) I'm all for testing for spooky stuff. You couldn't test this example using me as a subject, though, because I'm no longer innocent. But sure, it would be interesting to test for shakti-like effects. Not sure why you'd need a Faraday cage; seems to me it would be interesting either way. Maybe shakti is electromagnetic in nature (if it exists, of course). (BTW, I believe there was at least one study of the EEG of a person meditating (or not?) at MIU while a large group was doing the TM-Sidhi program at Amherst. It reported specific EEG changes in the test subject that were coordinated with what the folks were doing in Amherst. The test subject wasn't aware of the timing. Maybe Lawson remembers more details of the study. Don't think a Faraday cage was used.) I really can't understand why you'd question my reporting a personal experience possibly involving some kind of woo-woo, or what you thought I had given away by doing so. You've reported a few of your own such experiences, as I recall. Have you ever questioned Barry about his reports of Fred Lenz levitating? Or Bhairitu about his reports of shakti during TM-Sidhis practice, for that matter?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic cherry tree mystery
Thanks, Salyavin. But what were the results? It sounds as though they'd have been looking for the same kinds of changes as with the cherry tree. In any case, according to that story, more than just that one monastery cherry tree whose stones were on the ISS has bloomed earlier than it was supposed to. There are several examples from different areas mentioned in the story. I'm wondering why this isn't bigger news than it apparently is, and why we haven't seen anything about the results of other such studies. Er, could you say more about the plants that were sent to the moon? That sounds, if you'll forgive me, unlikely on its face! Oh, wait, I'm guessing you mean they were sent on the spaceships and came back with them, not that they were left on the moon. (Emily Litella voice: Never mind!) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : They've grown a lot on the ISS, one of the original objectives was to see if things are better nutritionally or grow faster in space. After a quick google: Research Overview The Advanced Plant Experiment - Canadian Space Agency 2 (APEX-CSA2) provides insight into the fundamental processes by which plants produce cellulose and lignin, the two main structural materials found in plant matter. The experiment will be conducted using Canadian white spruce, Picea glauca. On Earth, various portions of a plant can have physically different compositions including different ratios of lignin and cellulose. This will affect the sensitivity of the plants to environmental conditions, to disease and infection and will have an influence on the type of industrial application plants can be used for. It is expected that growth of the trees for 30 days in microgravity will affect their growth rate, composition, tissue organization and gene expression. The results of this experiment will include improvement of the technology to grow trees in a spacecraft, enhancement of our understanding of tree physiology in the space environment and identification of genes related to specific plant characteristics. It is expected that these genes can be used as markers for plant selection in various Earth applications and to improve sustainability of the forest. This is the sort of thing they do, but they've have also sent some plants to the moon to act as a sort of canary in the coal mine, if they survive the cosmic rays we might. Maybe this cherry tree is has had a perfectly normal type of mutation like the four leafed clover? It just happened to be on the ISS at the time. Way beyond my meagre ken. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : What puzzles me a bit is that they've been taking seeds into space for a long time to see what happens to them. On the ISS, I think they even grow stuff. Have there been no other signs of accelerated maturation or other genetic mutation besides with the cherry trees? I haven't heard of any. The mysteries of nature. Could this be evolution caught in action? People have often speculated cosmic rays could have forced some of the huge leaps in life on Earth but I don't think anyone has ever documented it. Thing is, you wouldn't expect radiation to produce this much change in one go, normally radiational changes are destructive but who knows? Whereas most things get mutated too much and die, one gene in the right place gets zapped and two major differences occur. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Tokyo (AFP) - A cosmic mystery is uniting monks and scientists in Japan after a cherry tree grown from a seed that orbited the Earth for eight months bloomed years earlier than expected -- and with very surprising flowers. The four-year-old sapling -- grown from a cherry stone that spent time aboard the International Space Station (ISS) -- burst into blossom on April 1, possibly a full six years ahead of Mother Nature's normal schedule. Its early blooming baffled Buddhist brothers at the ancient temple in central Japan where the tree is growing. We are amazed to see how fast it has grown, Masahiro Kajita, chief priest at the Ganjoji temple in Gifu, told AFP by telephone. A stone from the original tree had never sprouted before. We are very happy because it will succeed the old tree, which is said to be 1,250 years old. The wonder pip was among 265 harvested from the celebrated Chujo-hime-seigan-zakura tree, selected as part of a project to gather seeds from different kinds of cherry trees at 14 locations across Japan. The stones were sent to the ISS in November 2008 and came back to Earth in July the following year with Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata, after circling the globe 4,100 times. Some were sent for laboratory tests, but most were ferried back to their places of origin, and a selection were planted at nurseries near the Ganjoji temple. By April this year, the space cherry tree had
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ah, mother India, home of all knowledge
I seriously doubt anyone here defends sati, on any grounds. You know, Michael, it seems as if your fantasies of some terrible breach of human decency, as here, are as real to you as an actual breach. I am sure Buck and that idiot Nabby will find something satvic in it and defend it as part of the ancient code of male dominated idiocy that still rules the land of the veda that gave birth to such huckster fraud con artists as Marshy, Sai Baba, Muktananda and Amma. Go figger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jyotish
Oh, gee, sorry to tell you, Michael, but that accusation is hurled at astrology generally, not just jyotish--usually by people who know very little about astrology, in which certain particularly intense configurations can be either very positive or very negative. transformation being the principle behind both. srijau has actually made a testable prediction: If nothing much happens in summer 2019, it will be shown to have been wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Wow! That's what I love so much about jyotish and most of what the TMO espouses about the Marshy Effect - it can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean, it will fit whatever outcome actually happens. On Sun, 4/13/14, srijau@... mailto:srijau@... srijau@... mailto:srijau@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Jyotish To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 1:01 A Things are bad now but by July everything will be very different when Jupiter is exalted in Cancer, There is some really good muhurtas then to start something big. Then in summer 2019 there is Saturn conjunction with Ketu which can be a worldwide crisis and carnage or it could be a huge spiritual transformation instead.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Are the TM-Sidhis nothing but Placebo Effect?
Please note, lurking reporters, here's another one for you: No, Barry, sorry, you're lying. You can't cite even a mistake I made about the history of the TM-Sidhi courses. I had to correct you. I don't lie; I don't have to. That's your game. What I do is find and expose your lies, as I've just done here. Steve, I suspect you might want to rethink this. Yesterday I posted a *theory*, presenting it very much *as* a theory. I only replied to my original post a few times about the theory itself -- once to Michael, twice to Share, once to Salyavin, and once (humorously) to Bhairitu. I made a couple of posts under the topic correcting Judy on inaccuracies (a polite word for lies) she was trying to spread about the history of the TM-Sidhi courses , but not arguing the Placebo Effect thang per se. At no point did I attempt to sell the theory, to you or anyone else. In contrast, *most* of the other 58 posts (so far) in the thread were from people dumping on Barry. One might suspect that something about it pushed their buttons. Another bunch of the same people -- Judy, Richard, Ann, Nablus -- also produced dozens of posts under another thread dumping on Barry. Presumably they got *their* buttons kinda pushed, too. No, that's your perennial nitwit excuse for the negative response people have to your incredible obnoxiousness. That's why you keep getting pummeled. Have you noticed that this doesn't happen to Michael or Salyavin even when we disagree with them? The fact is, your buttons are pushed when we point out that you're a liar and a creep. You think you should be able to say any damn nasty, sadistic, dishonest thing you please without any consequences. But it doesn't work that way, sorry. Oh, and another lie: It wasn't dozens of posts. Maybe a half dozen. As for the theory itself, I can think of two more pieces of supporting evidence for it. Do you remember how the flying (actually, hopping) took place in waves? Nothing would happen and nothing would happen, and then one person would start to bounce, and almost immediately a whole bunch of other people would start bouncing around as well. Might I suggest that suggestion might have had something to do with this? Other times, of course--at least with the women--a gaggle of people would start bouncing at the very same instant. FWIW, the waves experience was pretty interesting, and the specifics didn't at all match up with the placebo effect theory. The other thing is the barking and growling and shouting and moaning. I don't know if you were around back then, but it was pretty much a feature of early TM-Sidhi practice. People would start barking like dogs and shouting and flailing their arms about and moaning and all sorts of other stuff. Again, it tended to happen in waves -- one person starting it and then others picking up on the suggestion and doing it, too. That certainly speaks to the possibility of suggestion. However, something *else* speaks even more strongly of suggestion. At some point Maharishi heard about all of this ruckus, which made the domes sound like an out-of-control evangelical tent meeting, and he declared that it was inappropriate. Almost overnight, it stopped. The *same* people who had been claiming that all this noise emanating from them was not in their control suddenly found that it was. Go figure. The way I figure it, it's all explained handily by Placebo Effect -- suggestion, then effect. But again, all of this is just theory on my part, and furthermore a theory I am *not* trying to sell you. Sez Barry, having just done his best to sell it. If you somehow feel threatened by me presenting it -- as Judy, Richard, Ann, and Nablus obviously do -- Nope, wrong, not me, and I seriously doubt Ann, who hasn't even practiced the TM-Sidhis for many years and didn't think much of them when she did. And you can't possibly threaten me by suggesting a theory that doesn't jibe with my own experience. You give yourself WAAY too much credit. I would look inside for the cause of that rather than to me. No, Barry, it's you. We don't like you, and for excellent reasons that have not a thing to do with your being a TM critic per se.
Re: [FairfieldLife] An article on the Co$ for those who are interested in cult topics
One hopes you didn't tell these lurking reporters that this article reveals significant similarities between CoS and the TMO, because that wouldn't be true. The folks here who know what the TMO is really like would just laugh, but outsiders might not know enough to recognize such an attempted deception. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] An article on the Co$ for those who are interested in cult topics I know that at least a couple of lurkers are interested, because they've told me offline that they follow $cientology forums looking for story leads. For the TMers here, the story is worth a read to see the similarities -- the ways that one cult (the Co$) uses essentially the same tactics that another cult (the TMO) uses. Escape From Scientology http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/escape-scientology/ http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/escape-scientology/ Escape From Scientology http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/escape-scientology/ How one young woman risked everything to break out of the prison that is the Church of Scientology View on www.vocativ.com http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/escape-scientology/ Preview by Yahoo Just to anticipate the backlash, certainly not *everything* about the Co$ reminds me of my time in the TMO. Here are a few quotes from the article that did. YMMV. Her parents were Scientologists, as were her friends—basically everyone she knew. If she left, they’d disown her. [I've seen the shunning process many times when a former TMer -- especially if they're a famous one -- leaves the fold.] Founded in 1954, it [the Co$] is a highly insular faith rooted in ideas of American self-help and psychotherapy as well as Eastern mysticism. It maintains, as many religions do, that society needs healing, and also purports to be the only group with a cure. [The funny thing is, I'd have little problem with it if either of these groups said 'We have A cure'. It's the claiming that they have THE cure, the one and only that is odd. That's insular to the max.] Sea Org members live deeply controlled lives, working seven days a week year-round, with few, if any, days off. They earn between $8 and $50 a week, sleep in dormitory housing and have virtually no contact with the outside world. [This is pretty much what many people working for course credit told me life was like in Europe, except that they didn't get $8 a week.] Scientology’s essential pitch: that society is sick, full of dangers, and only the church can offer relief. [There's that only again.] 'They pressure you a lot to join,' she says. 'They’ll tell you how bad everything is in the world, and that they really need your help.' [Anyone remember the many You must go to this course or the world will end speeches from MMY trying to get people to come to the butt-bouncing courses?] Sea Org members are cut off entirely from current events, in part to prevent them from reading negative information about Scientology. Schlesinger had no idea Remini had departed, and now she was floored. She’d met the Reminis before and thought they were kind people. As she flipped through the pages, what she saw was a revelation: They’d broken away without fear, and remained intact. Schlesinger thought, Perhaps I can leave, too. [Haven't we heard stories here that MUM actively discourages student reading of Fairfield Life? Where such stories are told?] For those in the Sea Org, there is the inculcated belief that, should they go, they’ll live for the rest of eternity as an unhappy spec in the universe. [How many times have you heard some long-term TMer lament about someone who's left, concerned about the bad karma they accrued by leaving?]
[FairfieldLife] The Skeptic Ouroboros
Being a skeptic is hard. It’s not easy to try to weigh evidence for everything, be methodical, critical, aware of bias, and come to a conclusion that you’re willing to drop if better evidence comes along. Worse, many times the things you are being skeptical of are cherished beliefs and values held by others, and that’s a fun little path to walk down. It can provoke some pretty, um, strong reactions in people. But the absolute hardest thing of all is to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Did I miss something? Did I think of other explanations? Am I biased in some way, jumping to a conclusion because I think I know the answer? How might I be wrong? I rather blew it a few times this past week by not asking those questions. I’ve been a skeptic a long time, but this is pretty good evidence that you never perfect the technique. Being skeptical is a journey, not a destination. You just have to keep trying. --Phil Plait, from The Perils of the Skeptic Journalist http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/11/better_living_through_errors_what_i_learned_from_being_wrong_this_week.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/11/better_living_through_errors_what_i_learned_from_being_wrong_this_week.html
