--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs > > > > > to defend them from unfair attack. > > > > > > > > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own > > > > is OK. > > > > > > Maybe you'd want to review what I said to Curtis and > > > see whether it could actually be classified as an > > > "attack," as opposed to disagreement. If one is > > > defending somebody from what one considers an unfair > > > attack, it's kind of hard to avoid expressing > > > disagreement. > > > > I'm just calling it how I see it. I see Curtis has > > already resonded to that better than I could. > > Neither of you is very good at it, then.
Chortle. > <snip> > > > Curtis says that if the mind *could* affect the > > > physical world, it would have to be "some new thing," > > > because at this point we don't know of any way it > > > could happen. > > > > > > But we still haven't figured out what consciousness is > > > or how it operates, so I think we should leave a bit of > > > room for "some new thing." > > > > It would really be some "Old Thing" > > It would be "new" from the scientific perspective. Just never noticed it before, hmmm.... > Is it possible there would have been more and worse > earthquakes without people sitting around with their > eyes closed? Hey, this is in my top ten list of reasons why the "technologies of consciousness" don't appear to worth two cents along with: we're in the wrong yuga and there is too much stress in collective conciousness etc. It's a funny list this entry first came by me during the run up to Gulf War 2, on a major rounding course (one of many worldwide) designed to prevent the invasion of Iraq come the day the tanks set off there was major disappointment that we hadn't averted the shock amd awe. Ah, said the course leader, just think how much worse it might have been if we weren't here! To which I thought it would be exactly the same because all the missiles were fired, the bombs dropped and I didn't hear of any allied troops refusing to fight. You might think it's impossible to prove either way with earthquakes, I don't think so, it's getting easier to predict the next one as stress appears to move along fault lines. If we have a group of meditators where a quake is predicted and it doesn't appear... Besides, people meditating in groups is supposed to prevent problems so you'd have to predict which way it's going to fall before you start. It's all crap isn't it? > On that scale, it's unfalsifiable. And as to political > upheaval, one person's disastrous chaos is another > person's liberating revolution, so that's unfalsifiable > as well. > > We just don't know what it is we're trying to measure > or how to go about it. The trouble really is that there doesn't appear to be anything to measure other than outdated beliefs. If there really was a signal..... > <snip> > > > Yes, that's an "argument from ignorance," at least in > > > terms of whether the possibility of such a phenomenon > > > should be ruled out (as opposed to claiming it's true, > > > which I'm not doing). > > > > > > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument > > > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new > > > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even. > > > > I wouldn't say incredulity, I have given it a lot of > > thought, a chance to work in my life and observed how it > > fails to demonstrably fails to affect world as predicted. > > Yeah, but it's still personal incredulity to believe > that because you haven't seen any evidence that > convinces you (even for very sound reasons), therefore > there *can* be no such evidence. Evidence here could be something like: No earthquakes unless people are meditating or no problems once "coherence" is increased. Fact is there isn't a correlation in either direction not that having it both ways is any way to go about proving anything obviously. Be a lot easier if earthquakes *always* happened during periods of war or recession, but then thats just the sort of thing that got the omen business up and running in the first place. > > Suppose we didn't know about plate tectonics, then you > > might be able to say things are happening for reasons > > unknown and search about for mystical reasons which is > > how we got here in the first place I'll wager. > > > > The thing is if it's consciousness affecting the earths > > crust then there can't have been any earthquakes before > > man evolved and started meditating. > > Why couldn't earthquakes happen without human > participation? I'm not following you. If it's caused by consciousness then they couldn't happen without conscious beings being around to cause the fluctuations in the first place. All the old belief systems think man has always been here and not just a newcomer. Remember, it's our "stress" that causes us to operate away from natural law. when we are at one with all the laws of nature there aren't any earthquakes or problems at all. Vedic Science 101. > <snip> > > and they may well be valid--but gee, seems to me > > > there'd be quite a few potential real-world benefits if > > > we could nail down that "mental states" *can* affect > > > the physical world, and how this occurs. > > > > Like preventing earthquakes or improving the stock exchange > > and preventing war? I shall remain happy sceptic until that > > happy day. > > You're entitled, but be a *skeptic*, not a skeptopath. You mean "cynic" of course. I'm not cynical about anything, it's no skin of my nose if Marshy turns out to be right and my meditation is responsible for a world without earth- quakes. Erm....You can see where I get it from though can't you? > "There are known knowns. These are things we know that > we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there > are things that we now know we don't know. But there are > also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know > we don't know."--Donald Rumsfeld Trouble is Maharishi has introduced a new category called the unknown knowns whereby things that we don't know anything about are considered true.
