I only bring it up, because evidently they did have cameras filming 24/7 for about a week.
And if you listen to the explanation of how this could be from one of the Buddhist priests there, he does offer an explanation based on a phenomenon sometimes seen in this type of Buddhist meditation. I don't recall the exact mechanics. It is quite specific, and about half into it, IIRC. Of course, you can say it is fraud, and for all I know it is. However, at least this account is a little more air tight. As for living on fresh air based on "belief"? That would be an eye opener. . Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : As usual, you are pretty funny Michael. Of course there have been numerous references to the Akashic Records before Madame Blavatsky, they just didn't call them, the Akashic Records. Does that mean they are real? I don't hear anyone claiming they are, do you? But, with your permission, perhaps we can discuss the possibility. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : Might you be willing to entertain the idea that the akashic records are just some esoteric bullshit that well meaning new age bullshiters made up, even if they really believed in their existence? I definitely include C Lutes in the ranks of esoteric new age bullshiters -for all his connections with Marshy and his declaration of being enlightened, he was as much of a fringe guy as anyone who ever gave a lecture Doesn't seem to be any record of akashic records before Blavatsky and her theosophical kooks - they made it up. Good for psychics and other readers who purport to read them for folks, always for a fee of course. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Charlie Lutes liked to talk a lot of about it but I've read a number of others on the subject. I didn't find them varying much in the description. Scientifically, if we radiate electrical impulses those might get caught in some kind of "ether" or "celestial realms". This is something that has not been researched much. This would mean that human beings are a "terminal" to a cosmic computer. :-D On 06/28/2015 02:17 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: which akashic record you talkin' about? there are quite a few depending on which new age whacko you consult for your records From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? The intellect is binary so not that hard to model. It is yes or no. A US Berkeley student did a graduate paper which I read back in the 1990s. I had suggested this to our development team before the paper was published and one of the project leads came across it. I recall the student got some interesting and unexpected results with his model. Neural networks are a way of learning. They've been around for awhile. My books probably date back to the 1980s. But what if our brains are really nothing more than receiver/transmitters that communicate with the "akashic record"? Yeah, a bit "woo-woo" maybe but could indeed be a possibility. Might explain some things. On 06/28/2015 12:01 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Everythingis debatable. In an ironic sort of way, artificial intelligence does apply to humans. I often think of you as having artificial intelligence. Attempting to replicate human intelligence has so far failed because the human neural network of connexions is so complex. Many researchers are investigating insect intelligence, which is a simpler model to try to understand. That Google paper was interesting. Here is one of the conversations from that original paper: Human: what is the purpose of life? Machine: to serve the greater good. Human: what is the purpose of living? Machine: to live forever. Human: what is the purpose of existence? Machine: to find out what happens when we get to the planet earth. Human: where are y! ou now? Machine: i'm in the middle of nowhere. Human: what is the purpose of dying? Machine: to have a life. Human: what is the purpose of being intelligent? Machine: to find out what it is. Human: what is the purpose of emotions? Machine: i don't know. I attached the original paper, A Neural Conversational Model, to this post. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I had to take a double-take to understand what you're saying. You seem to be saying that humans are machines too. That's debatable. In this context, we're talking about artificial intelligence which does not apply to humans. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> mailto:anartaxius@... wrote : Of course we can. The query to be answered is whether it is worth the computing time and the bother of implementation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : One machine said NO...which is correct. It's database was based on movie scripts. But if the database included philosophical and ethics discussions, the machine could have gotten the correct answer from those discussions. Even if it got the correct answer, the machine still does not know what it said. ArtificialIntelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs ArtificialIntelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machineis asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't. View on blogs.wsj.com Preview by Yahoo
