--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ‹
> More cogently, we have to ask whether the research approach is 
really
> appropriate to the subject. Are brainwave measurements, no matter 
how
> sophisticated, really indicative of the operation or qualities of
> consciousness? 

Of course they are, consciousness is a quality of the brain 
therefore measuring the brainwaves gives us at least an idea of 
what's going on.

Ontologically, consciousness is a transcendental quality of a
> transcendental object: the jivatma or spirit soul.

We havn't proved this at all, this is belief and nothing else 
especially not science. nobody has found any evidence of a soul 
transcendental or otherwise.


> Material senses or their
> extensions such as scientific instruments and ordinary logic 
cannot detect,
> measure or predict the behavior of transcendental objects.

If they exist!


 The proof is that
> after so much intensive theorizing and experimentation, science is 
no closer
> to an adequate predictive theory of consciousness today than they 
were 30
> years ago.
> 

It's proof of nothing other than we have yet to develop accurate 
testing methods.


> The presentation is a classic case of using an ontologically 
inappropriate
> approach and methodology. Consciousness is transcendental, 
therefore only a
> transcendental instrument can apprehend it. Consciousness is 
subjective,
> therefore only subjective processes of measurement and analysis are
> appropriate to it.
> 

No wonder no-one ever takes TM research seriously.



> If we are to establish a truly scientific platform for the study of
> consciousness, it must itself be of the equivalent ontological 
quality as
> the object being studied. Therefore at the final conclusion, the 
original
> Vedic method of submission to the sruti-siddhanta and obediance to 
guru is
> really the best platform for consciousness study. Until the 
scientific
> community accepts this axiomatic truth, they will never make 
significant
> progress in their study of consciousness because they are not even 
able to
> observe it.
> 

Oh sure the scientific community have to accept the only way we will 
understand consciousness is by obeying a Guru, going into a trance 
and seeing what we think or believing what we are told. It's not 
going to happen guys.





> love,
> Baba
>





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to