--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: <snip> > 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...
Well, when we get to the point of being able to infallibly predict earthquakes, we can talk about it again! (On the other hand, if we could predict them infallibly, they wouldn't be nearly as disastrous--to human life, at least, because folks could evacuate.) <snip> > > > 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. Oh, I see what you're saying. I've been thinking of it more in terms of *prevention*--i.e., in the absence of any influence from human consciousness, earthquakes happen according to what's going on with plate tectonics; but *with* such an influence, they could be prevented or adjusted or mitigated via manipulation of plate tectonics. (Caveat: I put a VERY low probability on this. All I'm arguing for is not ruling it out completely.) 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. Yeah, "away from natural law" is an oxymoron, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Basically, it's impossible by definition not to be at one with all the laws of nature. > > > 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 actually meant "skeptopath," pathological skepticism. Could well manifest as cynicism, but not necessarily. Often it manifests as self-righteousness. <snip> > > "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. <grin> But you see the point, right? Wikipedia actually has a page on "Unknown unknowns." I thought Rumsfeld had invented it, but it turns out it's a concept in epistemology. Back in 2003, Hart Seely of Slate.com did a wonderful piece called "The Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld," in which he laid out quotes from Rumsfeld as if they were poetry. Here's his version of the quote above (slightly different wording; I suspect Seely's is closer to verbatim): The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing Can't resist; here's another one: A Confession Once in a while, I'm standing here, doing something. And I think, "What in the world am I doing here?" It's a big surprise. May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times Oh, heck, two more: The Situation Things will not be necessarily continuous. The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous Ought not to be characterized as a pause. There will be some things that people will see. There will be some things that people won't see. And life goes on. Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing Clarity I think what you'll find, I think what you'll find is, Whatever it is we do substantively, There will be near-perfect clarity As to what it is. And it will be known, And it will be known to the Congress, And it will be known to you, Probably before we decide it, But it will be known. Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing
