I don't think this is a case of my not understanding what an analogy is.I do.I also don't think that Maharishi or anyone else in TMO was in any way consistent is making it clear that they were speaking in terms of analogy when saying things like"consciousness IS the home of all the laws of nature".I think that you are saying that at a certain state of consciousness an intention can directly affect nature(the siddhis) and in this sense consciousness is the home of all the laws of nature.For me, how consciousness,mind,intention and objective reality are related to each other is still very poorly understood.My own experience would suggest that they are related but I don't know how and I would argue neither does anyone else at least in way that can be irrefutably demonstrated.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" <kc21d@> wrote: > > > > I think the main problem with the TMO's use of unified field theory > > is ,as I think you pointed out, that there is no empirically supported > > unified field theory.In addition even if consciousness is somehow related > > to physical reality(something which the table obviously shows is far from > > being universally accepted) this does not justify notions such as > > "consciousness is the home of all the laws of nature". > > > > In any case thanks for the discussion.Kevin > > > > > > In my experience I think it is a great analogy. > > Notice the operative word that Maharishi particularly used was 'equivalent'. > > Take a look at this Britannica discussion of 'analogy'. Seems you're getting > lost in the head trying to argue absolutes. May be sit with it some more and > you might see. > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22465/analogy > > -Buck > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" <kc21d@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > anartaxius@ wrote: > > > however these weird quantum effects have also been observed or recorded > > > by machinery, which we presume is not conscious, at least not in any way > > > like us, and we only find out what the machine recorded sometime after > > > the fact, our consciousness having not been involved in the actual > > > perception of the event, until long after. > > > Actually(and I could be wrong!) I believe that the Bohr et al model (the > > > copenhagen interpretation)would assert that all the possible recordings > > > that the machine could have made are themselves in a superposition state > > > prior to someone (i.e. a conscious observer) checking what the machine > > > said no matter how long the duration of time that has passed since the > > > recording.When a conscious observer does check the probability wave > > > collapses and one possible outcome comes into existence.(most likely > > > the one that is most probable).In this analysis(at least as I understand > > > it) consciousness is considered to be in some sense separate from > > > material reality and thus not part of the probability wave(which is why > > > it collapses?).A recent proponent of this perspective is Robert Lanza in > > > the book "Biocentrism" > > > > > > I believe that the reason many physicists do not like this model is that > > > it undermines the notion of physical reality being objectively real > > > ,independent of observation .Probably the most favored model is the many > > > worlds hypothesis which preserves objective reality but does so by > > > postulating that there maybe virtually an infinite number of universes. > > > > > > > > > Fortunately I spend most of my time on very macroscopic scales and do > > > not have to deal with QM in either a technical or conceptual manner. > > > Here is the Wikipedia list of QM interpretations. See if it reproduces > > > the table on this forum (probably won't work in text-only emails) [it > > > is also interesting in this table that the Copenhagen interpretation has > > > a collapsing wave function but the observer is stated as having no role, > > > only the von Neumann interpretation has consciouness in an active role > > > in the collapse of the wave function.] [When I pasted this chart into > > > the forum software, two additional columns on the right showed that were > > > not visible in the Wikipedia; perhaps they are being edited, as they > > > seem incomplete.] > > > > > > InterpretationAuthor(s)Deterministic? </wiki/Determinism> Wavefunction > > > real?Unique > > > history?Hidden > > > variables </wiki/Hidden_variable_theory> ?Collapsing > > > wavefunctions? </wiki/Wavefunction_collapse> Observer > > > role?Local </wiki/Locality_principle> ?Counterfactual definiteness > > > </wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness> ?Ensemble interpretation > > > </wiki/Ensemble_Interpretation> Max Born </wiki/Max_Born> , > > > 1926AgnosticNoYesAgnosticNoNoneCopenhagen interpretation > > > </wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics> Niels Bohr > > > </wiki/Niels_Bohr> , Werner Heisenberg </wiki/Werner_Heisenberg> , > > > 1927NoNo1 <#endnote_note1> YesNoYes2 <#endnote_note1> NoneNoNode > > > Broglie-Bohm theory </wiki/De_Broglie-Bohm_theory> Louis de Broglie > > > </wiki/Louis_de_Broglie> , 1927, David Bohm </wiki/David_Bohm> , > > > 1952YesYes3 <#endnote_note3> Yes4 <#endnote_note4> YesNoNoneNoYesvon > > > Neumann interpretation > > > </wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpre\ > > > tation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse> von Neumann > > > </wiki/Von_Neumann> , 1932, Wheeler </wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler> , > > > Wigner </wiki/Eugene_Wigner> NoYesYesNoYesCausalNoNoQuantum logic > > > </wiki/Quantum_logic> Garrett Birkhoff </wiki/Garrett_Birkhoff> , > > > 1936AgnosticAgnosticYes5 <#endnote_note5> NoNoInterpretational6 > > > <#endnote_note6> Many-worlds interpretation > > > </wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation> Hugh Everett </wiki/Hugh_Everett> , > > > 1957YesYesNoNoNoNoneYesNoTime-symmetric theoriesYakir Aharonov > > > </wiki/Yakir_Aharonov> , 1964YesYesYesYesNoNoStochastic interpretation > > > </wiki/Stochastic_interpretation> Edward Nelson </wiki/Edward_Nelson> , > > > 1966NoNoYesNoNoNoneNoNoMany-minds interpretation > > > </wiki/Many-minds_interpretation> H. Dieter Zeh </wiki/H._Dieter_Zeh> , > > > 1970YesYesNoNoNoInterpretational7 <#endnote_note7> YesNoConsistent > > > histories </wiki/Consistent_histories> Robert B. Griffiths > > > </wiki/Robert_B._Griffiths> , 1984Agnostic8 <#endnote_note8> Agnostic8 > > > <#endnote_note8> NoNoNoInterpretational6 <#endnote_note6> YesNoObjective > > > collapse theories </wiki/Objective_collapse_theory> > > > Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber </wiki/Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber_theory> , > > > 1986NoYesYesNoYesNoneNoNoTransactional interpretation > > > </wiki/Transactional_interpretation> John G. Cramer > > > </wiki/John_G._Cramer> , 1986NoYesYesNoYes9 <#endnote_note9> > > > NoneRelational interpretation </wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics> Carlo > > > Rovelli </wiki/Carlo_Rovelli> , 1994NoYesAgnostic10 <#endnote_note10> > > > NoYes11 <#endnote_note11> Intrinsic12 <#endnote_note12> > > > So perhaps Feynman's comment to the effect that we really can't > > > understand quantum mechanics rules the day. When I meditate, I never > > > think about stuff like is on this chart, if I have thoughts that is. > > > With regard to the TMO, I think it is always wise to check alternate > > > sources of information on these subjects. > > > > > >
