---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote :
Well, they likely were "believers." Brian Josephson (I believe he's there in that group) continues to conduct research at Cambridge based on Maharishi's teachings, even 45 years after that discussion happened. Good for him, I'm all for paranormal research and judging by his wiki page he really has believed in a lot ideas that turned out to be nonsense - psychokinesis, telepathy, levitation, precognition, cold-fusion. 45 years without a positive would be enough for most people but he's still at it. I bow to his dedication, I gave up on it a long time ago but you never know your luck. There aint no harm in exploring bizarre ideas, someone's got to do it, if all avenues aren't explored we'll never be certain of what we do know. He has had some heavy duty critics though, Prof Wiseman has also done a lot of research into the paranormal. The trick with it is to stop when you haven't had a hit ever. Believing that you've found someone who can see in x-rays is just stupid though and it shows that he puts his wants before his rationale. By the way, the meeting was several days long, I believe. Different parts of it are available online. You're looking at one single question and answer as though it were the entire meeting. What, your saying that Marshy actually answered a question with knowledge that couldn't have been gained by any other way? Or maybe that he explained the parameters of difference in knowledge in other states of consciousness? It would be interesting to hear how something rigid, testable and independent of the human experience could have different origins and outcomes and even different meanings within the context of physics. You know, some sort of quantum entangled view of time as an illusion caused by supposed entropy that is really some sort of systematic unfoldment of experience and reality being both the same thing and impossible to separate from our consciousness. That'd be good, but as far as I know he never touched on any of it, I think I would have noticed if he'd said something actually interesting but I think he was winging it. Maybe someone could post a link to the rest? L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : We have different perspectives. You can't have different "perspectives" on math. 2+2=4 no matter what your EEG's are doing. Answering "not a clue, sorry" certainly would have lowered his standing as a teacher, so instead he chose to answer a different question. I can see that it would have lowered his standing amongst people who thought he knew something about physics. But yes, spiritual types will take any old drivel without supporting evidence so it doesn't matter what he says I suppose, as long as it sounds mystical they'll go home satisfied. Personally, I think saying "I don't know" is both a sign of humility and advanced behaviour. There is no shame in ignorance. I'm amazed he got away with it so long actually, but then he's got no end of otherwise intelligent people defending him... By the way, you complained about how any "real" physicist would have seen how bogus his answer was... You're aware who he was addressing, right? Not just the person asking the question, but who else was sitting in that discussion? Yeah, so what? I still didn't notice any discussion. And for that I can see only two reasons, A: they are a bunch of True Believers or B: They didn't want to embarrass him for his obvious lack of knowledge. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : He gave a higher-order answer. He didn't answer at all. Whether entropy increases or decreases requires a Y/N response. Someone's opinion of the origin of the universe is irrelevant, the answer is the same because the answer can be expressed mathematically. Does the speed of light or the charge of electrons change because someone living a few billion years later has a different point of view to the person in a different neurophysiological state sitting next to him? Of course not. Your "higher-order" get out clause is as evasive as Marshy's excuse for giving the answer he has already prepared. Q: Maharishi, I'm confused about something, A: In different states of enlightenment, having "different perspectives" means that what is confusing in one state, is irrelevant in another. Q: Marshy, I don't understand, can you clarify from your perspective? A: I'd rather not, instead I'll just say that when you are as enlightened as me it will all become clear. Q: But can't you - just this once - actually say whether the universe is going to fall apart or not? I mean it's all very well saying that your answer won't make sense to our puny minds but it's a pretty straightforward concept. Give us a glimpse of your great insight! A: No. He had no answer to give from the perspective of the questioner, so he used it as a Teaching Moment for this own agenda. Wow. What a charlatan. Not really, it's just a wasted opportunity to really teach something. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : What Would MMY say to Dawkins and Hawking? He would have said their ideas are lacking wisdom. He would undoubtably have said that. But he would have been talking bollocks, as usual. Aren't you even remotely bothered by the fact he ignored the question completely? I was. I thought he might at least have given us some Hindu cosmology to mull over but no, he gave the same old answer he gave to whatever question he was asked. The one that studiously avoids telling you anything at all. No wonder I never liked his lectures and thought the TMO was a thinly veiled religious outfit. But at least other religions have the guts to either nail their colours to the mast or admit they don't know the answer to something. BTW. Entropy only increases. There, it's that easy. But if Marshy had said that someone might have asked why that is the case, if the universe was being organised from the level of the unified field? Which would be a very fair question indeed, but judging by the usual sycophantic laughter from the audience I doubt anyone would have dared to put the big reesh on the spot with something a bunch of half-decent physicists would know he didn't have a clue about. Please, see this explanation on the origin of the universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg
