subject:"\"\\\[FairfieldLife\\\] Re\\\: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies\""

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, that is fascinating.
> 
> " The point being here, is that Sidhis are like any other ability
> > living things develop- we learn to walk, to talk, and if fortunate,
> > to do Sidhis."
> 
> Most of the ones I remember were supernormal abilities.

Not really-- just a matter of practice. Available to anyone who 
invests the time (*caveat*: which could be considerable...).
> 
> I really appreciate your openness about your personal experiences.
> 
Great! Glad you appreciate that. I don't like to treat so called 
spiritual experiences any different than any other experiences- just 
another slice of cheese in the sandwich of life heh-heh...





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread sparaig

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks, that is fascinating.
> 
> " The point being here, is that Sidhis are like any other ability
> > living things develop- we learn to walk, to talk, and if fortunate,
> > to do Sidhis."
> 
> Most of the ones I remember were supernormal abilities.
> 
> I really appreciate your openness about your personal experiences.
> 
>

MMY calls the sidhis "normal super," not "supernormal" for a reason...

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread curtisdeltablues

Thanks, that is fascinating.

" The point being here, is that Sidhis are like any other ability
> living things develop- we learn to walk, to talk, and if fortunate,
> to do Sidhis."

Most of the ones I remember were supernormal abilities.

I really appreciate your openness about your personal experiences.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > If you don't mind me asking...do these states include performance 
> of
> > siddhis as MMY claims?
> 
> This would be a lot easier to answer if you could provide the exact 
> quote about this from Maharishi.
> 
> The thing about a lot of what Maharishi says, it is has been poorly 
> interpreted by those around him. Some of it is also open to multiple 
> interpretations.
> 
> Regarding my personal experience, I had very good results with the 
> Sidhis, especially with regard to sight, and flying, as I recall. I 
> no longer practice the sutras, but I did gain the ability for 
> example when necessary to see into my or other bodies, watching 
> muscles, connective tissue, bones, blood flow, energy patterns, etc.
> 
> What I have come to realize with regard to Sidhis, special 
> abilities, is that once we have developed such things, we can most 
> effectively use them when there is a need.
> 
> For example, my fiance and I were roller skating about three months 
> ago. She fell badly and fractured her tailbone. She was lying down 
> in a great deal of pain before we left the rink. I naturally became 
> aware of a lot of blocked, blackish-green energy near the base of 
> her spine. Also the many tears in her muscles and large amount of 
> blood plasma beneath the skin. By working at that level, I was able 
> to create a situation where she was much improved, though still in a 
> lot of pain when we reached the emergency room. She was not aware of 
> what I was doing prior to that because we weren't speaking. But 
> later, without me sharing any details of what I had done she 
> described it to me, and her description was accurate.
> 
> The point being here, is that Sidhis are like any other ability 
> living things develop- we learn to walk, to talk, and if fortunate, 
> to do Sidhis. But all of this when necessary; we don't try to walk 
> while in bed, or talk when swimming underwater, or do Sidhis just 
> because we can. (Of course we can do all of those things if we want 
> to, but it is a waste of time...).
> 
> Does that answer your question?
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> >  
> > > As I understand it, CC, GC, UC (etc.) refer to
> > > specific types of experience at certain points
> > > along a continuum of experience. I'm not sure
> > > of the distinction Vaj is making between "state"
> > > and "stage," but again in my understanding there
> > > would be points along the continuum of development
> > > of consciousness at which each of these types of
> > > experience becomes permanent.  These points would
> > > be sequential in the sense that permanent UC
> > > would not be achieved until after permanent GC had
> > > been achieved, and permanent GC would not occur
> > > until after permanent CC had been achieved.
> > > 
> > > This does *not* mean that one cannot have 
> > > experiences of UC before even permanent CC has
> > > been achieved, and so on.  So in that sense
> > > they aren't sequential; they're sequential in
> > > terms of the order in which each becomes
> > > permanent, in my understanding of what MMY
> > > teaches.
> > > 
> > Yes, that is my understanding based on my experience also. By 
> > culturing the nervous system through TM and TM-Sidhis 
alternating  
> > with activity, our physiology becomes refined to do exactly as 
you 
> > say above; each state (CC, GC, UC) becomes a permanent stepping 
> > stone to the next one above it. Also as you say, we can have 
> > intermittent experiences of advanced states before they are 
> > permanent. You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Well, good!
> 
> I still think part of the confusion about all this
> has to do with the arbitrariness of the points that
> are identified as GC and UC (CC is a different case).
> 
> In other words, MMY identifies, for example, the GC
> point as the set of experiences D, E, and F; but he
> could just as well have chosen a point a little
> farther along the continuum and defined it as the set
> of experiences E, F, and G.  My guess is he chose
> the GC point as he did simply because experiences E,
> F, and G happen to have a sort of logical coherence
> for explanatory purposes.  (Same for UC and points
> beyond.)

Its tough for me to say very much about CC, because there is nothing 
there to really grab onto or discuss; more of a binary experience, 
its either there or it isn't. And UC is similar in the experience 
itself, also either being there or not, though UC distiguishes 
itself oddly by its extent. In other words, I can be in UC 100%, up 
to this point or that point (LOL)...

So the state in which it is easiest for me personally to talk about 
is GC, because the criterion is so unambiguous; experiencing "the 
finest relative". Having grown into such an experience, I can see 
now why he has chosen the criterion he did, and why it is a concrete 
indicator of such a state. Also, why that criterion clearly 
distinguishes GC as a state unto itself.
 
> Not that any of these are really discrete "points";
> it's just a matter of focusing somewhere on the
> continuum and taking a snapshot, as it were, and
> then identifying the types of experiences that show
> up in the snapshot.  

Very definitely a continuum. uu...lol!

Not that the experiences are
> discrete, either...

Actually the experiences are unmistakably discrete.

it's sort of like taxonomy, where
> the lines between species can be quite blurred; we 
> impose the system that distinguishes them for our
> own convenience.
>
True- on the one hand it is a choice to develop the system that fits 
the best for us, and on the other hand, it is completely valid and 
instructionally helpful to do so. Much more immediately useful than 
the taxonomy of species, btw...





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you don't mind me asking...do these states include performance 
of
> siddhis as MMY claims?

This would be a lot easier to answer if you could provide the exact 
quote about this from Maharishi.

The thing about a lot of what Maharishi says, it is has been poorly 
interpreted by those around him. Some of it is also open to multiple 
interpretations.

Regarding my personal experience, I had very good results with the 
Sidhis, especially with regard to sight, and flying, as I recall. I 
no longer practice the sutras, but I did gain the ability for 
example when necessary to see into my or other bodies, watching 
muscles, connective tissue, bones, blood flow, energy patterns, etc.

What I have come to realize with regard to Sidhis, special 
abilities, is that once we have developed such things, we can most 
effectively use them when there is a need.

For example, my fiance and I were roller skating about three months 
ago. She fell badly and fractured her tailbone. She was lying down 
in a great deal of pain before we left the rink. I naturally became 
aware of a lot of blocked, blackish-green energy near the base of 
her spine. Also the many tears in her muscles and large amount of 
blood plasma beneath the skin. By working at that level, I was able 
to create a situation where she was much improved, though still in a 
lot of pain when we reached the emergency room. She was not aware of 
what I was doing prior to that because we weren't speaking. But 
later, without me sharing any details of what I had done she 
described it to me, and her description was accurate.

The point being here, is that Sidhis are like any other ability 
living things develop- we learn to walk, to talk, and if fortunate, 
to do Sidhis. But all of this when necessary; we don't try to walk 
while in bed, or talk when swimming underwater, or do Sidhis just 
because we can. (Of course we can do all of those things if we want 
to, but it is a waste of time...).

Does that answer your question? 

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread sparaig

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 
> Not that any of these are really discrete "points";
> it's just a matter of focusing somewhere on the
> continuum and taking a snapshot, as it were, and
> then identifying the types of experiences that show
> up in the snapshot.  Not that the experiences are
> discrete, either...it's sort of like taxonomy, where
> the lines between species can be quite blurred; we 
> impose the system that distinguishes them for our
> own convenience.
>

I suspect that these "points" aren't really that arbitrary from a physiological 
point of view 
(if they're really major "states of consciousness" this MUST be the case in 
some measurable 
sense). Different parts of the brain are involved with different modes of our 
life. CC 
apparently primarily involves  PC within the frontal lobes of the brain. GC, I 
would guess, 
involves furher integration with the more emotional mid-brain while UC/BC 
involves 
integration with the perceptual centers at the back.

This also explains the "order" thing. Integration of the front and back 
[probably] can't 
happen without the middle being integrated first or at least, simultaneously.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
>  
> > As I understand it, CC, GC, UC (etc.) refer to
> > specific types of experience at certain points
> > along a continuum of experience. I'm not sure
> > of the distinction Vaj is making between "state"
> > and "stage," but again in my understanding there
> > would be points along the continuum of development
> > of consciousness at which each of these types of
> > experience becomes permanent.  These points would
> > be sequential in the sense that permanent UC
> > would not be achieved until after permanent GC had
> > been achieved, and permanent GC would not occur
> > until after permanent CC had been achieved.
> > 
> > This does *not* mean that one cannot have 
> > experiences of UC before even permanent CC has
> > been achieved, and so on.  So in that sense
> > they aren't sequential; they're sequential in
> > terms of the order in which each becomes
> > permanent, in my understanding of what MMY
> > teaches.
> > 
> Yes, that is my understanding based on my experience also. By 
> culturing the nervous system through TM and TM-Sidhis alternating  
> with activity, our physiology becomes refined to do exactly as you 
> say above; each state (CC, GC, UC) becomes a permanent stepping 
> stone to the next one above it. Also as you say, we can have 
> intermittent experiences of advanced states before they are 
> permanent. You are absolutely correct.

Well, good!

I still think part of the confusion about all this
has to do with the arbitrariness of the points that
are identified as GC and UC (CC is a different case).

In other words, MMY identifies, for example, the GC
point as the set of experiences D, E, and F; but he
could just as well have chosen a point a little
farther along the continuum and defined it as the set
of experiences E, F, and G.  My guess is he chose
the GC point as he did simply because experiences E,
F, and G happen to have a sort of logical coherence
for explanatory purposes.  (Same for UC and points
beyond.)

Not that any of these are really discrete "points";
it's just a matter of focusing somewhere on the
continuum and taking a snapshot, as it were, and
then identifying the types of experiences that show
up in the snapshot.  Not that the experiences are
discrete, either...it's sort of like taxonomy, where
the lines between species can be quite blurred; we 
impose the system that distinguishes them for our
own convenience.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread Vaj



On Jun 11, 2006, at 3:36 AM, cardemaister wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana,   jJAna).   Vaj, the HK -transliteration for the palatal nasal as 'J' is rather misleading.I agree. Personally I prefer diacritical Sanskrit, but usually won't take the time to do the key combinations. HK's kinda funky. I'd prefer 'ñ' instead, because I gather quite a many people are familiar with the Spanish pronunciation. So in this case, 'jñAna' or 'jñaana'.  I believe the pronunciation of the combination 'jñ' varies according to what region of India the pronunciator comes from. I think the pronunciation 'gy(a)' is typical in northern India. 
__._,_.___





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

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








   






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Religion and spirituality
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread curtisdeltablues

If you don't mind me asking...do these states include performance of
siddhis as MMY claims?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
>  
> > As I understand it, CC, GC, UC (etc.) refer to
> > specific types of experience at certain points
> > along a continuum of experience. I'm not sure
> > of the distinction Vaj is making between "state"
> > and "stage," but again in my understanding there
> > would be points along the continuum of development
> > of consciousness at which each of these types of
> > experience becomes permanent.  These points would
> > be sequential in the sense that permanent UC
> > would not be achieved until after permanent GC had
> > been achieved, and permanent GC would not occur
> > until after permanent CC had been achieved.
> > 
> > This does *not* mean that one cannot have 
> > experiences of UC before even permanent CC has
> > been achieved, and so on.  So in that sense
> > they aren't sequential; they're sequential in
> > terms of the order in which each becomes
> > permanent, in my understanding of what MMY
> > teaches.
> > 
> Yes, that is my understanding based on my experience also. By 
> culturing the nervous system through TM and TM-Sidhis alternating  
> with activity, our physiology becomes refined to do exactly as you 
> say above; each state (CC, GC, UC) becomes a permanent stepping 
> stone to the next one above it. Also as you say, we can have 
> intermittent experiences of advanced states before they are 
> permanent. You are absolutely correct.
> 
> I was confused by this sequencing at first, and posted here awhile 
> back that I didn't think any of these states were permanent, but 
> instead, accessible at any time. 
> 
> However this perception was due to my normal experience of just 
> continuing to function in the 'here and now', even once CC, GC and 
> UC had fully ripened. For example if I want to see angels, I can see 
> angels. However there are very few circumstances where this is of 
> practical value, or even desirable for me, so I tend not to 'turn 
> on' or use this ability very often. And yet it is now a permanent 
> fixture of my physiological functioning.
> 
> More often, my desires are those of everyday life, and so the 
> hallmarks or guideposts of CC, GC, and UC go unnoticed. It should 
> also be said, that although this is the case, the culturing of CC, 
> GC and UC as permanently accessible states greatly enhances the 
> ability for my everyday desires to be nearly effortlessly fulfilled. 
> 
> Obviously none of this is new to us, or unique to me. It is just a 
> wonderful experience to have been taught something for so many 
> years, and then be able to verify it experientially. As I often 
> say, 'what a trip!'.
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread Vaj

On Jun 11, 2006, at 1:25 AM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:20 PM, sparaig wrote:In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research. Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on Buddhist meditation. No, I don't think that's it. It seems to have more to do with perceived credibility, i.e 'how seriously you take the research of someone who's selling you something'. It seems he was a little behind on the negative aspect of TM research simply because he was so happy to hear what they had to say (and he didn't realize it was really *what they were selling*). He did not take into account the inherent bias. Of course not. Chuckle. Unlike the highly-touted study that recently came out on Buddhist meditation? Guffaw.If you're referring to the recent study I'm thinking about, it came out years after KW's book.KW is in touch with the leader of the Shamatha studies meditative instruction ans has done a couple of long interviews on Integral Naked. I emailed him a month or so ago and told him It'd really be cool to see this research and continuum of practice featured at the Integral Institute. I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as [Buddhist term goes here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are practicing are NOT the same physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the same. Well, let's be clear, all that "Buddhism" is, is an enlightenment school (yes, there are some who distort that into a *religion*). There are many methods available in this enlightenment school. Since TM is essentially manasika-japa (mental mantric repetition) of the ishta-devata (personal deity) practice--if you want to see something similar, you should compare that to ishata-devata (or "yidam" practice as they call it in Tibetan) practice. It's considered a useful side-practice in these traditions. Interestingly, the practice KW uses in his anecdotal "here's how to change your brain waves by doing different types of sama-dhi" videotape is--you guessed it-- Yidam practice. Uh-hu. And we can tell this with a 2-channel EEG as he used? But really there are numerous practices which should produce this dualistic "witness" eeg artifact. I was able to produce the same effect on a 24 channel eeg, just by doing my ishta practice. And you had access to this 24-channel EEG machine where? Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to involve an immature emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual side. The Buddhist state appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an overdeveloped intellectual side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On. Well, there are no easy answers. My observation would be that different styles of Buddhist meditation produce different styles of brain output. That's all. You might want to consider that we've been conditioned (through our exposure to TM literature and PR) to believe that certain physiological correlates are "good" when they're really merely representational of the method of meditation being used! That might be.TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of the various parts of the brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a background state of attention-switching. Since TM-style ishta practice is based on "peaceful ishtas" (who are generally understood in meditative traditions to induce transcendence), it would be interesting to see research done also on other types of ishata-devatas. Heh.?? Personally, for me, I'll use an ishta that is appropriate for my own state of mind or my own situtation. Confusion? Balance and evenness.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>

> As I understand it, CC, GC, UC (etc.) refer to
> specific types of experience at certain points
> along a continuum of experience. I'm not sure
> of the distinction Vaj is making between "state"
> and "stage," but again in my understanding there
> would be points along the continuum of development
> of consciousness at which each of these types of
> experience becomes permanent.  These points would
> be sequential in the sense that permanent UC
> would not be achieved until after permanent GC had
> been achieved, and permanent GC would not occur
> until after permanent CC had been achieved.
> 
> This does *not* mean that one cannot have 
> experiences of UC before even permanent CC has
> been achieved, and so on.  So in that sense
> they aren't sequential; they're sequential in
> terms of the order in which each becomes
> permanent, in my understanding of what MMY
> teaches.
> 
Yes, that is my understanding based on my experience also. By 
culturing the nervous system through TM and TM-Sidhis alternating  
with activity, our physiology becomes refined to do exactly as you 
say above; each state (CC, GC, UC) becomes a permanent stepping 
stone to the next one above it. Also as you say, we can have 
intermittent experiences of advanced states before they are 
permanent. You are absolutely correct.

I was confused by this sequencing at first, and posted here awhile 
back that I didn't think any of these states were permanent, but 
instead, accessible at any time. 

However this perception was due to my normal experience of just 
continuing to function in the 'here and now', even once CC, GC and 
UC had fully ripened. For example if I want to see angels, I can see 
angels. However there are very few circumstances where this is of 
practical value, or even desirable for me, so I tend not to 'turn 
on' or use this ability very often. And yet it is now a permanent 
fixture of my physiological functioning.

More often, my desires are those of everyday life, and so the 
hallmarks or guideposts of CC, GC, and UC go unnoticed. It should 
also be said, that although this is the case, the culturing of CC, 
GC and UC as permanently accessible states greatly enhances the 
ability for my everyday desires to be nearly effortlessly fulfilled. 

Obviously none of this is new to us, or unique to me. It is just a 
wonderful experience to have been taught something for so many 
years, and then be able to verify it experientially. As I often 
say, 'what a trip!'.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:30 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > 
> [...]
> > > Wilber seems to like Skip's work, BTW.
> > 
> > Actually him and Skip were in intimate communication up to his  
> > untimely death.
> > 
> > His work "The Eye of Spirit : An Integral Vision for a World Gone  
> > Slightly Mad" (Wilber talks of different "eyes": the eye of flesh,  
> > the eye of contemplation (our meditational "eye") and the eye of  
> > spirit, the "eye" of pervasive unity) has sections which talk of  
> > Skip's work. Interestingly KW also shares my own opinion that GC in  
> > Skip's/MMY's model of "higher states of consciousness" is not
truly a  
> > "state", but a "stage". In fact, in the source texts that the "7  
> > states of consciosness" derive from, it is not seen as a sequence...
> 
> 
> I don't think MMY ever presented it as a strict sequence, either.
Its more like one can't 
> have an episode of GC without some element of CC present. Likewise
with UC depending 
> on the presence of GC amd therefore on CC as well.

As I understand it, CC, GC, UC (etc.) refer to
specific types of experience at certain points
along a continuum of experience. I'm not sure
of the distinction Vaj is making between "state"
and "stage," but again in my understanding there
would be points along the continuum of development
of consciousness at which each of these types of
experience becomes permanent.  These points would
be sequential in the sense that permanent UC
would not be achieved until after permanent GC had
been achieved, and permanent GC would not occur
until after permanent CC had been achieved.

This does *not* mean that one cannot have 
experiences of UC before even permanent CC has
been achieved, and so on.  So in that sense
they aren't sequential; they're sequential in
terms of the order in which each becomes
permanent, in my understanding of what MMY
teaches.

It has also seemed to me that the points along
the continuum MMY refers to as GC and UC may
have been more or less arbitrarily chosen.

> 
> It's not as obvious with GC/UC but it seems impossible that one
could have an experience 
> of seeing the Self in perceptual reality without being aware of the
Self internally as well.
> 
> Seeing the outside as the inside without seeing the inside seems,
well, silly.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:

[I wrote:]
> > > The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that
> > > his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such
> > > endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good*
> > > astrology looks like.  In effect, at least partly, he's
> > > dismissing a straw man.
> > 
> > That wouldn't surprise me.  I think it is up to astrology to present a
> > better case or show an interest in good studies.  The arrogance of the
> > position that "we already know it is true so we don't have to prove it
> > to you" is a problem in many fields, some claiming to be scientific. 
> > Paul may be placing the burden of proof on others to present claims in
> > a way that is falsifiable. 
> 
> Why should Paul accept astrology if no strong and valid studies have
> been presented?

Just very quickly, while my sister is giving me a
chnce to use her computer--I wasn't suggesting he
should *accept* it; I wouldn't expect him ever to
do that.

I meant that if he were looking at *good* astrology,
he'd need to make a more sophisticated case for
dismissing it.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread cardemaister

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 4:04 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think of intuition as in the woo woo category.  
Premonition
> >> crosses that line for me.  Or the claim that one's intuitions are
> >> always right.  Intuition for me includes pattern recognition but 
it
> >> includes other unconscious process that are not too well 
understood,
> >> although commonly experienced.  They give a non-verbal sense 
about
> >> something before the conscious mind catches up.  With so much 
sensory
> >> information going in, and only a small fraction consciously  
> >> processed,
> >> it doesn't surprise me that we can feel something before we can
> >> clearly articulate it.  This is more than pattern recognition 
but a
> >> long way from woo woo!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If woo woo has anything to do with Pure Consciousness, there's a  
> > definite connection
> > between woo woo and intuition. PC entails creating a LOT of new,  
> > global connections in the
> > brain. Intuion entails making use of novel connections in the  
> > brain, according to most
> > neurological theories about it.
> 
> 
> And the Sanskrit word for intutition, Pratibha (prAtibha), 

The verb /pratibhaa/ from which the noun /praatibha/ is 
derived, means primarily 'to shine[bhaa] upon[prati]'. 
And /praatibha/ as such or together with /jñaanam/ means 'intuitive 
knowledge' (praatibhaM jñaanam).



does bear  
> this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana,  
> jJAna). Interestingly in Kashmir Shaivite literature they see  
> Pratibha as synonymous with Paravac--transcendental, non-dual   
> telepathic speech. This is interesting because it shows that 
everyone  
> has the natural experience of the transcendent (vac).
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-11 Thread cardemaister

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana,  
> jJAna). 

Vaj, the HK -transliteration for the palatal nasal as
'J' is rather misleading. I'd prefer 'ñ' instead, because
I gather quite a many people are familiar with the
Spanish pronunciation.
So in this case, 'jñAna' or 'jñaana'.  I believe the pronunciation
of the combination 'jñ' varies according to what
region of India the pronunciator comes from. I think
the pronunciation 'gy(a)' is typical in northern India.

Interestingly in Kashmir Shaivite literature they see  
> Pratibha as synonymous with Paravac--transcendental, non-dual   
> telepathic speech. This is interesting because it shows that 
everyone  
> has the natural experience of the transcendent (vac).
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:20 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> >
> >>
> >> In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM
> >> research.
> >>
> >
> > Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on  
> > Buddhist meditation.
> 
> No, I don't think that's it. It seems to have more to do with  
> perceived credibility, i.e 'how seriously you take the research of  
> someone who's selling you something'. It seems he was a little behind  
> on the negative aspect of TM research simply because he was so happy  
> to hear what they had to say (and he didn't realize it was really  
> *what they were selling*). He did not take into account the inherent  
> bias.
> 

Of course not. Chuckle. Unlike the highly-touted study that recently came out 
on Buddhist 
meditation? Guffaw.

> > I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as  
> > [Buddhist term goes
> > here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are  
> > practicing are NOT the same
> > physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the  
> > same.
> 
> Well, let's be clear, all that "Buddhism" is, is an enlightenment  
> school (yes, there are some who distort that into a *religion*).  
> There are many methods available in this enlightenment school. Since  
> TM is essentially manasika-japa (mental mantric repetition) of the  
> ishta-devata (personal deity) practice--if you want to see something  
> similar, you should compare that to ishata-devata (or "yidam"  
> practice as they call it in Tibetan) practice. It's considered a  
> useful side-practice in these traditions. Interestingly, the practice  
> KW uses in his anecdotal "here's how to change your brain waves by  
> doing different types of sama-dhi" videotape is--you guessed it-- 
> Yidam practice.


Uh-hu. And we can tell this with a 2-channel EEG as he used?

> 
> But really there are numerous practices which should produce this  
> dualistic "witness" eeg artifact.
> 
> I was able to produce the same effect on a 24 channel eeg, just by  
> doing my ishta practice.


And you had access to this 24-channel EEG machine where?

> 
> >
> >
> > Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to  
> > involve an immature
> > emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual  
> > side. The Buddhist state
> > appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an  
> > overdeveloped intellectual
> > side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On.
> 
> Well, there are no easy answers. My observation would be that  
> different styles of Buddhist meditation produce different styles of  
> brain output. That's all. You might want to consider that we've been  
> conditioned (through our exposure to TM literature and PR) to believe  
> that certain physiological correlates are "good" when they're really  
> merely representational of the method of meditation being used!

That might be.


> 
> > TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of  
> > the various parts of the
> > brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a  
> > background state of
> > attention-switching.
> 
> Since TM-style ishta practice is based on "peaceful ishtas" (who are  
> generally understood in meditative traditions to induce  
> transcendence), it would be interesting to see research done also on  
> other types of ishata-devatas.

Heh.

> 
> Personally, for me, I'll use an ishta that is appropriate for my own  
> state of mind or my own situtation.
>

Confusion?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:20 PM, sparaig wrote: In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research. Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on Buddhist meditation.No, I don't think that's it. It seems to have more to do with perceived credibility, i.e 'how seriously you take the research of someone who's selling you something'. It seems he was a little behind on the negative aspect of TM research simply because he was so happy to hear what they had to say (and he didn't realize it was really *what they were selling*). He did not take into account the inherent bias. I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as [Buddhist term goes here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are practicing are NOT the same physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the same.Well, let's be clear, all that "Buddhism" is, is an enlightenment school (yes, there are some who distort that into a *religion*). There are many methods available in this enlightenment school. Since TM is essentially manasika-japa (mental mantric repetition) of the ishta-devata (personal deity) practice--if you want to see something similar, you should compare that to ishata-devata (or "yidam" practice as they call it in Tibetan) practice. It's considered a useful side-practice in these traditions. Interestingly, the practice KW uses in his anecdotal "here's how to change your brain waves by doing different types of sama-dhi" videotape is--you guessed it--Yidam practice.But really there are numerous practices which should produce this dualistic "witness" eeg artifact.I was able to produce the same effect on a 24 channel eeg, just by doing my ishta practice. Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to involve an immature emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual side. The Buddhist state appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an overdeveloped intellectual side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On.Well, there are no easy answers. My observation would be that different styles of Buddhist meditation produce different styles of brain output. That's all. You might want to consider that we've been conditioned (through our exposure to TM literature and PR) to believe that certain physiological correlates are "good" when they're really merely representational of the method of meditation being used! TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of the various parts of the brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a background state of attention-switching. Since TM-style ishta practice is based on "peaceful ishtas" (who are generally understood in meditative traditions to induce transcendence), it would be interesting to see research done also on other types of ishata-devatas.Personally, for me, I'll use an ishta that is appropriate for my own state of mind or my own situtation.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:30 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
[...]
> > Wilber seems to like Skip's work, BTW.
> 
> Actually him and Skip were in intimate communication up to his  
> untimely death.
> 
> His work "The Eye of Spirit : An Integral Vision for a World Gone  
> Slightly Mad" (Wilber talks of different "eyes": the eye of flesh,  
> the eye of contemplation (our meditational "eye") and the eye of  
> spirit, the "eye" of pervasive unity) has sections which talk of  
> Skip's work. Interestingly KW also shares my own opinion that GC in  
> Skip's/MMY's model of "higher states of consciousness" is not truly a  
> "state", but a "stage". In fact, in the source texts that the "7  
> states of consciosness" derive from, it is not seen as a sequence...

I don't think MMY ever presented it as a strict sequence, either. Its more like 
one can't 
have an episode of GC without some element of CC present. Likewise with UC 
depending 
on the presence of GC amd therefore on CC as well.

It's not as obvious with GC/UC but it seems impossible that one could have an 
experience 
of seeing the Self in perceptual reality without being aware of the Self 
internally as well.

Seeing the outside as the inside without seeing the inside seems, well, silly.

> 
> In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM  
> research.
>

Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on Buddhist 
meditation.

I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as [Buddhist 
term goes 
here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are practicing are NOT 
the same 
physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the same.

Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to involve an 
immature 
emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual side. The 
Buddhist state 
appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an overdeveloped 
intellectual 
side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On.

TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of the various 
parts of the 
brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a background state 
of 
attention-switching.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:30 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: [...] Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a more advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and no amount of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will adequaely explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage reasoning -- the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen. You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two different sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did. Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the same time pointing out his limitations. Wilber seems to like Skip's work, BTW. Actually him and Skip were in intimate communication up to his untimely death.His work "The Eye of Spirit : An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad" (Wilber talks of different "eyes": the eye of flesh, the eye of contemplation (our meditational "eye") and the eye of spirit, the "eye" of pervasive unity) has sections which talk of Skip's work. Interestingly KW also shares my own opinion that GC in Skip's/MMY's model of "higher states of consciousness" is not truly a "state", but a "stage". In fact, in the source texts that the "7 states of consciosness" derive from, it is not seen as a sequence... In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
[...]
> >> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also
> >> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example
> >> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to
> >> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar
> >> (etc., etc.).
> >>
> >
> > Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems  
> > logical in a more
> > advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior  
> > stage and no amount
> > of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage  
> > person will adequaely
> > explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the  
> > advanced stage reasoning --
> > the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen.
> >
> > You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too  
> > young to
> > understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid  
> > using two different
> > sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I  
> > did.
> 
> Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur  
> are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the  
> same time pointing out his limitations.
>

Wilber seems to like Skip's work, BTW.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies


On Jun 10, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Vaj wrote:

> I guess to state it plainly I'd have to restate one of Arthur C.  
> Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from  
> magic."
>
> I would modify that slightly and say:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced State of Consciousness is  
> indistinguishable from magic (or magical thinking, depending on  
> what is being "distinguished") to people of conventional states of  
> consciousness."

and I should add a precautionary cult-think corollary:

"but "drink the kool-aid" at your own peril."


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:18 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least. My points on magical thinking should stand on their own. It does. In mid air. You have using it in a quite different way as the discussion (without clarification --or apparently even understanding that.) Not a path for clear communications. But it seemed Lawson got it right on, so that (to me) is a good sign. But OTOH Lawson is a pretty deep thinker, so some might not get it.I tend to assume a fairly high caliber of discussion here and people with some above average understanding, above and beyond any particular paradigm. I'd bet most people got it. It might be less so for you because you were deeply interested in Kurtz's unique presentation from the *inside*, while someone like me who has little interest in him or his book, sees it from the *outside*.I guess to state it plainly I'd have to restate one of Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."I would modify that slightly and say:"Any sufficiently advanced State of Consciousness is indistinguishable from magic (or magical thinking, depending on what is being "distinguished") to people of conventional states of consciousness."
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:14 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality by perception or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state if they don't want it to. Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a fundamental level. In this case "laws" are relative. However even to "ordinary" individuals physical laws are impermanent. Lets bring a couple hundred, even ten, of these guys to the lab, hook them up, and test your hypotheses. Until then ... Ever read the results of Swami Rama when they did just that to him at the Menninger Foundation in KS?Most of what we're talking about here is not really conducive to scientific materialistic approaches, however I think many people, esp. those from a TM background, would be surpised at how detailed and how specific these full paths are. They even have their own inherent vocabularies for their inner topographies. They have detailed signs and stages that are clearly discernable. Yet most will never hear of these paths simply because they require secrecy. For the same reason you will never see research on them.As someone who has long had connections to extremely relevant spiritual research which saw great persecution--imprisonment, burning of books, etc.--I also question the readiness of the world for truly groundbreaking consciousness research.Really all we are doing now is looking at "consciousness hardware", the brain. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because modern psychiatry has taken a path of physicality and forsaken the "couch approach". It's all about chemical imbalances in the brain. So what are funding sources supporting? Research into consciousness hardware: the brain and it's chemistry. And if they find something they might just find the latest Zoloft or a new broadspectrum neurotransmitter drug that let's you have sex and lose weight and not have an anxiety disrder. And that's megabucks. It's all driven by drug companies and money.I always thought M. should've laid his cards on the table and strapped up.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> 
> > You have quite missed the point about magical thinking.  And about
> > subjective science.
> 
> I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other  
> stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least.
> 
> My points on magical thinking should stand on their own.

It does. In mid air. You have using it in a quite different way as the
discussion (without clarification --or apparently even understanding
that.) Not a path for clear communications.

...
> > Per Kurtz's use of the term, "Magical thinking, whether involved with
> > supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The
> > first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in
> > question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an
> > obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause.
> 
> Unfortunately I have little interest in Kurtz or what he has to say.  
> Perhaps others do.

Then perhaps use terms other than his for your concept, or clarify
your new meaning, in a discussion explicitly using his term.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate  
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change  the  
> >> chemistry
> >> and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch
> >> knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law.
> >>
> >
> > By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can  
> > *create* reality by perception
> > or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in  
> > such a state if they don't
> > want it to.
> 
> Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in  
> Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of  
> their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in  
> this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their  
> environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a  
> fundamental level. In this case "laws" are relative. However even to  
> "ordinary" individuals physical laws are impermanent. 

Lets bring a couple hundred, even ten, of these guys to the lab, hook
them up, and test your hypotheses.  Until then ... 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 4:04 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think of intuition as in the woo woo category. Premonition crosses that line for me. Or the claim that one's intuitions are always right. Intuition for me includes pattern recognition but it includes other unconscious process that are not too well understood, although commonly experienced. They give a non-verbal sense about something before the conscious mind catches up. With so much sensory information going in, and only a small fraction consciously processed, it doesn't surprise me that we can feel something before we can clearly articulate it. This is more than pattern recognition but a long way from woo woo!If woo woo has anything to do with Pure Consciousness, there's a definite connection between woo woo and intuition. PC entails creating a LOT of new, global connections in the brain. Intuion entails making use of novel connections in the brain, according to most neurological theories about it. And the Sanskrit word for intutition, Pratibha (prAtibha), does bear this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana, jJAna). Interestingly in Kashmir Shaivite literature they see Pratibha as synonymous with Paravac--transcendental, non-dual telepathic speech. This is interesting because it shows that everyone has the natural experience of the transcendent (vac).
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread Nelson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "> 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> > unknown and un-natural cause
> > +++ In the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> unknown and natural cause otherwise what you see isn't happening.
> Like the rest of us, Mr. Kurtz can make observations that
> reflect his opinion and don't have great merit. N."
> 
> 
> If i understand your point correctly, the difference is between one
> person saying "I heard a sound last night", and another saying "It
> must be a ghost". 
> 
+++ It's more like I wondered if something had a cause that couldn't
be seen as scientific, would Mr Kurtz deny it happened.
Maybe it's a case of "believing is seeing" as Yoda said.  N.
   


 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis,
> > >I agree with the general point that using words in
discussions with
> > > others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
> > > usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion.
Often
> > > this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
> > > Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
> > > definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
> > > they read it), it has for others
> > > 
> > > And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when
understood.
> > > Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
> > > simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one
> who has 
> > > "an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in
question,
> > > ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
> > > there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
> > > in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations,
often
> > > relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
> > > ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
> > > deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
> > > evidence and without regard for logical coherence or
consistency. ...
> > > but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The
explanation is
> > > twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
> > > seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
> > > (Kurtz)
> > > 
> > > There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
> > > strong belief in via, their writings that:
> > > 
> > > 1) correlation demonstrates causation
> > > 
> > > 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> > > unknown and un-natural cause
> > > +++ In the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> >   unknown and natural cause otherwise what you see isn't happening.
> >   Like the rest of us, Mr. Kurtz can make observations that
> > reflect his opinion and don't have great merit.  N.
> >
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: "Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a more advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and no amount of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will adequaely explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage reasoning -- the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen. You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two different sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did. Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the same time pointing out his limitations.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least.My points on magical thinking should stand on their own. In this discussion no one is suggesting that they or others don't or can't have experiences that are not currently measured or modeled by objective science -- a such as your "conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality" -- which while not well defined,They are actually well defined if we wanted to go there, but there's probably little interest here since the emphasis seems on academic philosophical opinions. in total carves out a sense of what your point is. Nor is it suggested that the experience and "description" of such is magical thinking. Per Kurtz's use of the term, "Magical thinking, whether involved with supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. Unfortunately I have little interest in Kurtz or what he has to say. Perhaps others do.
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality by perception or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state if they don't want it to. Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a fundamental level. In this case "laws" are relative. However even to "ordinary" individuals physical laws are impermanent. Even the speed of light is probably merely a very persistent memory in nature, and therefore slowly changing (to echo Sheldrake's idea on memory in nature). God is the inverse of this: with God, unless God perceives it, it doesn't happen. Of course, God is the meta-observer of every meta-universe, so everything that happens is because God is watching, and everything DOES happen, some "where."
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of
> intuition
> > > > as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> > > > perceived parts.  
> > > 
> > > Then why not "recognize" it as "pattern recognition" -- on which there
> > > have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and
> > > mystical connotation, "mystical"?
> > >
> > 
> > Because the "pattern" isn't logically recognizable, at least at the
> time of the intuition.
> 
> Nor did say or mean to imply it always is. I am referring to deep
> processes that are usually not conscious. I was playing with the word
> recognition. To be clearer, I could have said, "Then why not
> appreiciate that it may very well be some deep sub-conscious processes
> of "pattern recognition" -- on which there have been a lot of studies
> -- and not fall back on some some term of nebulous and mystical
> connotation to explain the phenomenon?"
>

As i pointed out, PC entails creating/using global connections in the brain. 
Most theories 
about intuition also assume this is what is going on with intuition. Insomuch 
as "Pure 
Consciousness" is a mystical/woo-woo state, intuition might be seen as one as 
well, or at 
least, PC could be seen as a meta-intuitive state.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of
intuition
> > > as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> > > perceived parts.  
> > 
> > Then why not "recognize" it as "pattern recognition" -- on which there
> > have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and
> > mystical connotation, "mystical"?
> >
> 
> Because the "pattern" isn't logically recognizable, at least at the
time of the intuition.

Nor did say or mean to imply it always is. I am referring to deep
processes that are usually not conscious. I was playing with the word
recognition. To be clearer, I could have said, "Then why not
appreiciate that it may very well be some deep sub-conscious processes
of "pattern recognition" -- on which there have been a lot of studies
-- and not fall back on some some term of nebulous and mystical
connotation to explain the phenomenon?" 










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I don't think of intuition as in the woo woo category.  Premonition
> crosses that line for me.  Or the claim that one's intuitions are
> always right.  Intuition for me includes pattern recognition but it
> includes other unconscious process that are not too well understood,
> although commonly experienced.  They give a non-verbal sense about
> something before the conscious mind catches up.  With so much sensory
> information going in, and only a small fraction consciously processed,
> it doesn't surprise me that we can feel something before we can
> clearly articulate it.  This is more than pattern recognition but a
> long way from woo woo!
> 
> 

If woo woo has anything to do with Pure Consciousness, there's a definite 
connection 
between woo woo and intuition. PC entails creating a LOT of new, global 
connections in the 
brain. Intuion entails making use of novel connections in the brain, according 
to most 
neurological theories about it.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
> > as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> > perceived parts.  
> 
> Then why not "recognize" it as "pattern recognition" -- on which there
> have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and
> mystical connotation, "mystical"?
>

Because the "pattern" isn't logically recognizable, at least at the time of the 
intuition.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >  "I think we may be saying something roughly similar,
> > except that I don't know whether you put much stock
> > in intuition."
> > 
> > I definitely do, although I may or may not have more limits on how far
> > that can go.  In the field of psychology and human behavior, intuition
> > seems to be a critical tool.  I don't believe that they intuit the
> > future exactly,  but I'll bet they can detect trends in behavior that
> > have a good chance of leading somewhere predictable.  If a person goes
> > to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
> > abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
> > get shot. 
> 
> Or common sense. Which is subject to a lot of cognitive biases. But
> this is not an area devoid of scientific inquiry. Qualified
> psychologists / psychiatrists could tell you the same andmuch more.
> With higher statistical reliability.
> 

I think you've inflated the ability of qualified psychologists/psychiatrists, 
unless you're 
talking about extremely limited situations like dealing with psychotics and 
other people 
with predictably unpredictable behavior patterns.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change  the chemistry
> and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch
> knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. 
> 

By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality 
by perception 
or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state 
if they don't 
want it to. 

God is the inverse of this: with God, unless God perceives it, it doesn't 
happen.

Of course, God is the meta-observer of every meta-universe, so everything that 
happens is 
because God is watching, and everything DOES happen, some "where."

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
> as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> perceived parts.  It may not be verbal at first.  I accept the idea
> that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
> you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
> in a car crash next week.   I think the accuracy of intuition can be
> improved through practice.

I would say that intuition is the ability to create NEW wholes out of perceived 
parts without 
being able to "explain" how you arrived at your conclusion.

A mechanic who hears a knock and says "Oh, that's probably a problem with X" 
isn't intuiting  
anything. A mechanic who listen to an engine and says "I think we better check 
your oil 
pressure, though I'm not sure why" is showing some level of intuition.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> 
> > "Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are
> > great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a
> > more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models,
> > explanations and remedies / technologies.
> >
> > We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has
> > its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet
> > engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the
> > poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love.
> 
> 
> One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that  
> each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- 
> seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one  
> another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the  
> relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream  
> state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming  
> state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- 
> seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All  
> these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- 
> seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one  
> another.
> 
> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also  
> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example  
> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to  
> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar  
> (etc., etc.).
>

Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a 
more 
advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and 
no amount 
of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will 
adequaely 
explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage 
reasoning --
the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen.

You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to 
understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two 
different 
sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:34 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that
> >> each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of-
> >> seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one
> >> another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the
> >> relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream
> >> state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming
> >> state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of-
> >> seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All
> >> these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of-
> >> seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one
> >> another.
> >>
> >> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also
> >> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example
> >> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to
> >> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar
> >> (etc., etc.).
> >
> > The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change  the chemistry
> > and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch
> > knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law.
> 
> These are part of conventional reality which are part of impure  
> (samsaric) perception. It should be considered 'conventional valid  
> cognition of limited impure perception'. In other words it the style  
> of perception that can be seen by ordinary people. It explains  
> reality based on concepts of cause and effect.
> 
> Ordinary people can perceive conventional logical constructs, like  
> physical laws, etc. They cannot perceive 'conventional valid  
> cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual*  
> ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate  
> reality. These pramanas (logical approaches) are beyond cause and  
> effect and do not necessarily adhere to the the style of cognition  
> used by ordinary beings who perceive limited impure perception.
> 
> Enlightened or sublime beings do not require objects of  
> conceptutalization to understand, explain or manipulate deceptive  
> reality (impure or samsraic vision).
> 
> Of course to ordinary persons the description of *nonconceptual*  
> ultimate reality seems like magical thinking and the performance of  
> action from the level of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like  
> magic.

You have quite missed the point about magical thinking.  And about
subjective science. 

In this discussion no one is suggesting that they or others don't or
can't have experiences that are not currently measured or modeled by
objective science -- a such as your "conventional valid  cognition of
pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual*  ultimate
reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate  reality"
-- which while not well defined, in total carves out a sense of what
your point is. Nor is it suggested that the experience and
"description" of such is magical thinking.  

Per Kurtz's use of the term, "Magical thinking, whether involved with
supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The
first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in
question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an
obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause.

These two factors in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc
explanations, often relying upon an  assumption that correlation
demonstrates causation. For example, praying just before something
good happens leads one to the belief that the positive event was
caused by the prayer."

While the phenomenon of experiences beyond those currently measured or
modeled / predicted by science is clearly there, interpreteation of
such expoeriences are open to question. "actual ignorance of the
natural causes of events in question" Kurtz's phrase, may be in play
in some cases. In the absence of an obvious natural cause, some appar
to be led to explanations that soothe them, calm them, make them feel
good. Other explanations, which are less comforting appear to be
rejected or not even seiously considered. That does not mean that the
experiences are not valid, or that they are unworthy of inquiry, nor
that they are magical. 

The discussion on subjective science revolved around a system of
inquiry, validation and research that could assist in clarifying and
supporting communication of experiences that are not well addressed by
objective sciences. Although cognitive science, well within the
domains of objective science, is already doing a lot of this. 

There is no reason your "conventional valid  cognition of pure sublime
vision, valid cognition

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:34 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. These are part of conventional reality which are part of impure (samsaric) perception. It should be considered 'conventional valid cognition of limited impure perception'. In other words it the style of perception that can be seen by ordinary people. It explains reality based on concepts of cause and effect.Ordinary people can perceive conventional logical constructs, like physical laws, etc. They cannot perceive 'conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality. These pramanas (logical approaches) are beyond cause and effect and do not necessarily adhere to the the style of cognition used by ordinary beings who perceive limited impure perception.Enlightened or sublime beings do not require objects of conceptutalization to understand, explain or manipulate deceptive reality (impure or samsraic vision). Of course to ordinary persons the description of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magical thinking and the performance of action from the level of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magic.But it's just different. (Except on Trans-Love Airlines -- which gets you THERE on time" as Donovan and Jefferson Airplane sang.) I thought they went out of business in the 60's ;-)
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread jim_flanegin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Actually, I should have said that the latter is more like a 
premonition 
> than intuition, and I'm not quite sure of the overlap.  As for the 
> former, if that's the case I intuit that you and your girlfriend 
need 
> to sit down and have a long talk. :)
> 
> Sal
> 
I heard that intuition is based on the refined use of the senses. 
Makes sense to me, intuitively. 

Like when I pick up the phone and sometimes know who it is on the 
other end before they speak...which begs other questions, like how 
can we hear that far away? or maybe see that far away? Which if 
accepted, brings about a new set of questions about the limits of 
our senses, and by extension, our bodies. Down the rabbit hole with 
us...

Contrasting premonitions with intuitions, premonitions feel as if 
they are sensed from the inside out, whereas intuitions come from 
the outside in. At least that is the way I experience them.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

OK, I had never been interested in moving to FF most of the time I was in DC, it had just always seemed like kind of a dump. :)  Then I found myself on a residence course during the early spring of 91 and it was during a speech by Bevan, of all people, that the thought just hit me, "You're moving to FF."  Just like that...and within a few months it had all fallen into place, and I've been here and very happy ever since.  

Much earlier, in middle school, there was a clique of very popular girls, who got a lot of attention and had their pick of the boys (not that the pickings were all that great at that point. :) ) While I had been friends with one of them in grade school, by 7th grade it was obvious things had changed quite a bit.
But anyway,  a lot of other girls wanted to be part of that group, and logically, I should have too...but to me  they frequently had an air of desperation, were way too loud, and supposedly would put out in order to stay in the group. IOW, I had a bad feeling about what they were doing and what went on with them.  Almost to a person, in HS they ended up in some kind of serious trouble--drug problems, police records, etc--in a place where that was not the norm. I was very glad I had trusted my own feelings.

I doubt I can explain it any better than that, really.  To me that pretty much sums up what intuition is all about.

Sal

On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:55 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

Hey Sal,

I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition.  For me, years of
noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to
have better intuition about people's future behavior.  I think some
therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they
do develop a more highly refined ability.

But I may be missing your perspective on what intuitions are.  Can you
give an example so I can  understand how you use the term?  (hopefully
it will not include girlfriends cheating on me or shooting me!)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
perceived parts.

It's not really an ability, though--more like a characteristic.  It's 
not something that you can really develop, at least not in my 
experience. It's something that you begin to recognize has pretty much 
always been there.

It may not be verbal at first.  I accept the idea
that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
in a car crash next week.

You *can* intuit that, but it may or may not be accurate.  Intuition 
usually is about things that are not quite so concrete and specific. 
And it doesn't always have to be about bad stuff either!

I think the accuracy of intuition can be
improved through practice.

Not really.  What can be improved is the trust you develop in your own 
experience and feelings, but  there is really no  way to practice that, 
IMO. It just sort of comes when you're ready for it.

Sal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that
annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a
feeling..."
about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the 
time,
but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later.  That's
intuition.

Sal


On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

If a person goes
to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday,
someone may
get shot.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 
> > > 
> > > I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the 
> > > cornorstones to "magical thinking". (I appreciate your 
> > > recent cites and posts on such.) And magical interpretations
> > > -- whether of experiences, "scriptures" or current events.
> > > 
> > > Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of 
> > > What Is. MT may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, 
> > > and be the fuel for dreamers, but ultimately its illusion 
> > > and delusion. 
> > 
> > Sorry, dude, I know you like to swing your intellectual
> > dick and all, and I guess that's fun if you get off on 
> > that sort of thing, but all of this is starting to sound 
> > a lot like "sour grapes" to me. 
> > 
> > That is, "I'm a little pissed off that others have had
> > experiences I haven't, experiences that seem to push the 
> > envelope of 'rational thinking' and defy description in
> > normal terms, so I'm going to declare anyone who can't
> > describe his experiences in neat little boxes the way I 
> > like things described a 'dreamer' and lost in 'illusion.'"
> > 
> > Uptight people have been doing this to mystics as long 
> > as there have been mystics. Mystics have been laughing 
> > at the uptight people for pretty much the same length
> > of time. :-)
> >
> +++  Bingo
>

The real mystics smile reassuringly at both and recount the tale of the blind 
men and the 
elephant.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

I don't think of intuition as in the woo woo category.  Premonition
crosses that line for me.  Or the claim that one's intuitions are
always right.  Intuition for me includes pattern recognition but it
includes other unconscious process that are not too well understood,
although commonly experienced.  They give a non-verbal sense about
something before the conscious mind catches up.  With so much sensory
information going in, and only a small fraction consciously processed,
it doesn't surprise me that we can feel something before we can
clearly articulate it.  This is more than pattern recognition but a
long way from woo woo!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Sal,
> > 
> > I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition.  For me, years of
> > noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to
> > have better intuition about people's future behavior.
> 
> Pattern recognition. A fundamental ability of the brain. Much knowne
> about it. Much more to know. Why wrap it in mystical woo woo languange?
> 
> 
>   I think some
> > therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they
> > do develop a more highly refined ability.
> 
> A more highly refined ability of pattern recognition. As do
> practicioners in every field. An experienced doctor "gets", recognizes
> patterns interns don't because he  has seen many 1000's more cases.
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey Sal,
> 
> I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition.  For me, years of
> noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to
> have better intuition about people's future behavior.

Pattern recognition. A fundamental ability of the brain. Much knowne
about it. Much more to know. Why wrap it in mystical woo woo languange?

  I think some
> therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they
> do develop a more highly refined ability.

A more highly refined ability of pattern recognition. As do
practicioners in every field. An experienced doctor "gets", recognizes
patterns interns don't because he  has seen many 1000's more cases. 

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
> as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> perceived parts.  

Then why not "recognize" it as "pattern recognition" -- on which there
have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and
mystical connotation, "mystical"?

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

Comments in [brackets].

> That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that 
> annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a feeling..." 
> about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, 
> but turns out [20% of the time ] 
to be fairly accurate at some point later. 
[And 80% of the time turns out to nothing.]
 That's 
> intuition. [:)]
> 
> Sal

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 
> > > 
> > > I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the 
> > > cornorstones to "magical thinking". (I appreciate your 
> > > recent cites and posts on such.) And magical interpretations
> > > -- whether of experiences, "scriptures" or current events.
> > > 
> > > Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of 
> > > What Is. MT may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, 
> > > and be the fuel for dreamers, but ultimately its illusion 
> > > and delusion. 
> > 
> > Sorry, dude, I know you like to swing your intellectual
> > dick and all, and I guess that's fun if you get off on 
> > that sort of thing, but all of this is starting to sound 
> > a lot like "sour grapes" to me. 
> > 
> > That is, "I'm a little pissed off that others have had
> > experiences I haven't, experiences that seem to push the 
> > envelope of 'rational thinking' and defy description in
> > normal terms, so I'm going to declare anyone who can't
> > describe his experiences in neat little boxes the way I 
> > like things described a 'dreamer' and lost in 'illusion.'"
> > 
> > Uptight people have been doing this to mystics as long 
> > as there have been mystics. Mystics have been laughing 
> > at the uptight people for pretty much the same length
> > of time. :-)
>
> +++  Bingo

"Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the 
other person to die."  -- Malachy McCourt







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>  "I think we may be saying something roughly similar,
> except that I don't know whether you put much stock
> in intuition."
> 
> I definitely do, although I may or may not have more limits on how far
> that can go.  In the field of psychology and human behavior, intuition
> seems to be a critical tool.  I don't believe that they intuit the
> future exactly,  but I'll bet they can detect trends in behavior that
> have a good chance of leading somewhere predictable.  If a person goes
> to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
> abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
> get shot. 

Or common sense. Which is subject to a lot of cognitive biases. But
this is not an area devoid of scientific inquiry. Qualified
psychologists / psychiatrists could tell you the same andmuch more.
With higher statistical reliability.

> There are many more subtle character trends I think highly
> empathetic people can detect no matter what their field.
> 
> > The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that
> > his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such
> > endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good*
> > astrology looks like.  In effect, at least partly, he's
> > dismissing a straw man.
> 
> That wouldn't surprise me.  I think it is up to astrology to present a
> better case or show an interest in good studies.  The arrogance of the
> position that "we already know it is true so we don't have to prove it
> to you" is a problem in many fields, some claiming to be scientific. 
> Paul may be placing the burden of proof on others to present claims in
> a way that is falsifiable. 

Why should Paul accept astrology if no strong and valid studies have
been presented? I think the rational view is to be skeptical of
unsubstantiated claims and hypotheses, but not to reject them outright
until valid studies have indicated such. From what I have viewed, in
the domain of jyotish, there are no good studies rejecting the null
hypotheses, not any that fail to. Its an area good science has not
touched. Frankly, I am open to it -- from "subjective experience" --
but would never try to convince a Kurtz that it has value. To me it
has value, outside its predicitive ability (or lack there of). Like a
cross-word or other puzzle, it exercises the mind in odd and different
ways. Opening up new synapes.

> If they are not willing to present it in
> this manor then their sincerity is automatically questioned by many
> skeptics.

Of course. If one  wants scientific validation then let science
validate it in its proven ways. (The mistake of the TMO)

>  Some good therapist seem to blur the line with their use of
> intuition.  I think the trick is to make sure there is a test loop to
> verify those intuitions and strong feelings.  They might be a
> fantastic insight into the patient or they might be something else. I
> think good, experienced therapists have this down, and bad ones don't.  

Astrology and jyotish present some interesting, untested, but testable
hypotheses. If a therapist uses such today as "given", he is a
charlatan. But he needs to conduct the rigorous testing and finds some
if any jyotish hypotheses hold up.

> Good astrologers might make good therapists if they had the interest
> in looking at it with the constraints ethical therapists impose. They
> are making claims that could be tested, unlike some other areas of
> human experience where they have a more legitimate case about
> scientific testing being unsuitable. I also think a lot of therapy
> systems are vulnerable to this same criticism.
> 
> Sam Harris likes to point out that many fields of belief like to use
> an appearance of science when it suits them, because the scientific
> method is part of our deepest intuition about what is credible. But if
> you live by that sword...

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Hey Sal,

I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition.  For me, years of
noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to
have better intuition about people's future behavior.  I think some
therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they
do develop a more highly refined ability.

But I may be missing your perspective on what intuitions are.  Can you
give an example so I can  understand how you use the term?  (hopefully
it will not include girlfriends cheating on me or shooting me!)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
> > as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> > perceived parts.
> 
> It's not really an ability, though--more like a characteristic.  It's 
> not something that you can really develop, at least not in my 
> experience. It's something that you begin to recognize has pretty much 
> always been there.
> 
> >  It may not be verbal at first.  I accept the idea
> > that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
> > you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
> > in a car crash next week.
> 
> You *can* intuit that, but it may or may not be accurate.  Intuition 
> usually is about things that are not quite so concrete and specific. 
> And it doesn't always have to be about bad stuff either!
> 
> >  I think the accuracy of intuition can be
> > improved through practice.
> 
> Not really.  What can be improved is the trust you develop in your own 
> experience and feelings, but  there is really no  way to practice that, 
> IMO. It just sort of comes when you're ready for it.
> 
> Sal
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that
> >> annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a
feeling..."
> >> about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the 
> >> time,
> >> but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later.  That's
> >> intuition.
> >>
> >> Sal
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> >>
> >>> If a person goes
> >>> to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
> >>> abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday,
someone may
> >>> get shot.
> >>
> >
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Actually, I should have said that the latter is more like a premonition than intuition, and I'm not quite sure of the overlap.  As for the former, if that's the case I intuit that you and your girlfriend need to sit down and have a long talk. :)

Sal


On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

I accept the idea
that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
in a car crash next week.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

> You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
> as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
> perceived parts.

It's not really an ability, though--more like a characteristic.  It's 
not something that you can really develop, at least not in my 
experience. It's something that you begin to recognize has pretty much 
always been there.

>  It may not be verbal at first.  I accept the idea
> that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
> you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
> in a car crash next week.

You *can* intuit that, but it may or may not be accurate.  Intuition 
usually is about things that are not quite so concrete and specific. 
And it doesn't always have to be about bad stuff either!

>  I think the accuracy of intuition can be
> improved through practice.

Not really.  What can be improved is the trust you develop in your own 
experience and feelings, but  there is really no  way to practice that, 
IMO. It just sort of comes when you're ready for it.

Sal
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that
>> annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a feeling..."
>> about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the 
>> time,
>> but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later.  That's
>> intuition.
>>
>> Sal
>>
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>>
>>> If a person goes
>>> to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
>>> abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
>>> get shot.
>>
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> 
> > "Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are
> > great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a
> > more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models,
> > explanations and remedies / technologies.
> >
> > We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has
> > its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet
> > engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the
> > poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love.
> 
> 
> One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that  
> each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- 
> seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one  
> another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the  
> relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream  
> state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming  
> state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- 
> seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All  
> these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- 
> seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one  
> another.
> 
> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also  
> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example  
> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to  
> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar  
> (etc., etc.).

The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change  the chemistry
and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch
knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. 

(Except on Trans-Love Airlines -- which gets you THERE on time" as
Donovan and Jefferson Airplane sang.)








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

We can pick this one up anytime Judy.  Have a great trip!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > One more point about Astrology.  It is making a scientific claim 
> about
> > the relationship between the chart systems and their predictive
> > ability.  It is bound by the system it mimics, but had not yet 
> passed
> > the test.  If it claimed a mystical, un-measurable connection, it
> > would be better off in my opinion.
> > 
> > Last time I read the New Testament, I was surprised by the extensive
> > proof system employed.  The divinity of Jesus is demonstrated by a
> > series of miracles which are meant as a kind of scientific evidence
> > that he was extra ordinary.  I had forgotten how much of the text is
> > taken up by this "evidence".  The second case is made on the basis 
> of
> > his fitting the poetic words of the Old Testament predictions for 
> the
> > messiah.  It is only when it is pointed out to a Christian that the
> > evidence is poor that they resort to the tactic of claiming that 
> faith
> > is the important aspect.  The Bible is a whole series of poor 
> evidence
> > presentations meant to prove his divinity in an evidence-based 
> method
> > that would be scientific if they followed any of the rules of 
> evidence
> > in the scientific method. (which they do not).
> 
> That's a very interesting point.  I wish I had time to
> get into it, but I have to get ready to go out of town.
> 
> I'll have limited access to the Internet for about a
> week, damn it, just as a really fascinating discussion
> is getting started.
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

You may have two good terms for the same thing!  I think of intuition
as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of
perceived parts.  It may not be verbal at first.  I accept the idea
that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after
you talk with her.  I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be
in a car crash next week.   I think the accuracy of intuition can be
improved through practice.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that 
> annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a feeling..." 
> about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, 
> but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later.  That's 
> intuition.
> 
> Sal
> 
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > If a person goes
> > to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
> > abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
> > get shot.
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > I don't think he's thought these points through
> > > very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
> > > clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
> > > the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
> > > by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
> > > motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
> > > "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
> > > very detailed and precise observation of that
> > > regularity.
> > 
> > His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to
> > fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult
> > explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is 
> > a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research 
> > that show strong efficacy.
> 
> Sure.  I'm just taking issue with the examples he
> uses.  On the other hand, scientific explanations
> and research don't *necessarily* always take the
> place of mystical and occult ones; in many cases
> they can c o-exist.  It depends on the specific
> example.

Examples? It seems to me if science is "weak" in a particular area,
then myth and supernatural explanations will fill the vacuum. When
science is strong. the latter diminish. 

But the mix also has to do with what level one is viewing, first
causes, and whys. For example, science knows a lot about the first few
seconds of the universe -- the what's and how's. That doesn't preclude
the possibility of a deeper level of say a Shiva stirring, or an
emergence from the navel  of Brahma. If the latter serves some
purpose, perhaps to define for some the "why's" of theuniverse, then
fine. It doesn't contradict science. They are on different levels,
looking at different questions.

 
> > To me he is not attempting to negate the notion
> > that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons
> > behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that
> > there is no body of research that indicates these are credible
> > explanations.
> 
> But as you go on to suggest, in at least some areas,
> objective scientific research is the wrong tool for
> the job.  I doubt he sees it that way; my impression
> is he believes if it can't be proved by science, it's
> essentially meaningless and not worth considering.

I have not gotten that from him (yet?). If thats his view, I disagree. 
Some strict logical postitivists seem to hold that view. Thats a very
"dry" view IMO.

 
> > He should have used a different example than astrology, or said
> > something along the lines of
> > "> >"Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens 
> > > > and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and
> > substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational,
> > social and economic research."
> 
> Yes, there are plenty of other better examples, or
> he could have used the astrology example as you
> suggest, which would have made a lot more sense.
> Of course, there's more to astrology than that, but
> in those areas, at least, he'd have had a point.
> 
> That he used astrology so sloppily is, to me, a sign
> that he really doesn't take subjective stuff
> seriously enough to make a good case for dismissing
> it.
> 
> 
> > I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily
> > authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited 
> knowledge
> > or experience.  I said / implied that rigorous methods of 
> naturalistic
> > inquiry should be applied to "subjective science." Let me refine 
> that.
> > 
> > "Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative
> > and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific 
> and
> > statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective
> > experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested
> > scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested
> > hypotheses' can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"."
> > 
> > This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI
> > taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive
> > science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At 
> > least it would be a good discussion.
> 
> I'm dubious that he'd be that interested, but it sure
> would be interesting if he'd take it on.

I am more optimistic. But I have not read that much of him. At least
if he go engaged in it, it wold be an interesting discussion. I like
discussions with sharp knowledgable people with a different POV. They
point out holes in ones own thinking.









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search rig

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread Nelson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
>  wrote:
> >
> > No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 
> > 
> > I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the 
> > cornorstones to "magical thinking". (I appreciate your 
> > recent cites and posts on such.) And magical interpretations
> > -- whether of experiences, "scriptures" or current events.
> > 
> > Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of 
> > What Is. MT may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, 
> > and be the fuel for dreamers, but ultimately its illusion 
> > and delusion. 
> 
> Sorry, dude, I know you like to swing your intellectual
> dick and all, and I guess that's fun if you get off on 
> that sort of thing, but all of this is starting to sound 
> a lot like "sour grapes" to me. 
> 
> That is, "I'm a little pissed off that others have had
> experiences I haven't, experiences that seem to push the 
> envelope of 'rational thinking' and defy description in
> normal terms, so I'm going to declare anyone who can't
> describe his experiences in neat little boxes the way I 
> like things described a 'dreamer' and lost in 'illusion.'"
> 
> Uptight people have been doing this to mystics as long 
> as there have been mystics. Mystics have been laughing 
> at the uptight people for pretty much the same length
> of time. :-)
>
+++  Bingo






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

"> 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> unknown and un-natural cause
> +++ In the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
unknown and natural cause otherwise what you see isn't happening.
Like the rest of us, Mr. Kurtz can make observations that
reflect his opinion and don't have great merit. N."


If i understand your point correctly, the difference is between one
person saying "I heard a sound last night", and another saying "It
must be a ghost". 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
>  wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> >I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with
> > others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
> > usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often
> > this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
> > Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
> > definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
> > they read it), it has for others
> > 
> > And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood.
> > Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
> > simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one
who has 
> > "an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question,
> > ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
> > there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
> > in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often
> > relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
> > ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
> > deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
> > evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ...
> > but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is
> > twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
> > seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
> > (Kurtz)
> > 
> > There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
> > strong belief in via, their writings that:
> > 
> > 1) correlation demonstrates causation
> > 
> > 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> > unknown and un-natural cause
> > +++ In the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
>   unknown and natural cause otherwise what you see isn't happening.
>   Like the rest of us, Mr. Kurtz can make observations that
> reflect his opinion and don't have great merit.  N.
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that annoying thing :) you often hear women say, "I just have a feeling..." about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later.  That's intuition.

Sal


On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

If a person goes
to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
get shot.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

 "I think we may be saying something roughly similar,
except that I don't know whether you put much stock
in intuition."

I definitely do, although I may or may not have more limits on how far
that can go.  In the field of psychology and human behavior, intuition
seems to be a critical tool.  I don't believe that they intuit the
future exactly,  but I'll bet they can detect trends in behavior that
have a good chance of leading somewhere predictable.  If a person goes
to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an
abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may
get shot.  There are many more subtle character trends I think highly
empathetic people can detect no matter what their field.

> The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that
> his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such
> endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good*
> astrology looks like.  In effect, at least partly, he's
> dismissing a straw man.

That wouldn't surprise me.  I think it is up to astrology to present a
better case or show an interest in good studies.  The arrogance of the
position that "we already know it is true so we don't have to prove it
to you" is a problem in many fields, some claiming to be scientific. 
Paul may be placing the burden of proof on others to present claims in
a way that is falsifiable.  If they are not willing to present it in
this manor then their sincerity is automatically questioned by many
skeptics.

Astrologers are the ones framing their field as a precise science
rather than a  more subjective, internal vision, so applying
scientific standards to them seems appropriate.  If they want the
benefit of the enhanced credibility of having a system, which is more
than intuition, then they can be judged by scientific criteria.  Many
systems would be a lot more honest if they would just admit what they
are really basing the system on.

My sense of astrology (and any system of divination)
> is that the system is a tool for focusing the
> intuition of the astrologer.  I don't have time to
> get into it, but it's the *system* that's important,
> the way it's structured and organized, not the
> supposed correlations with the actual physical
> motions of the planets.  With a skilled astrologer
> with highly developed intuition, the system would work
> even if it existed in a vacuum.

I think of it almost the same way.  Although I might be more cynical
about the appearance of a system being used to build credibility and
trust with their customer base.

In the area of psychology, and predicting life trends and likely
consequences, it is more up to the development of their people wisdom.
 Some good therapist seem to blur the line with their use of
intuition.  I think the trick is to make sure there is a test loop to
verify those intuitions and strong feelings.  They might be a
fantastic insight into the patient or they might be something else. I
think good, experienced therapists have this down, and bad ones don't.  

With Western astrology I think you almost have to make this shift of
emphasis, because the constellations they are referring to are
actually not in the places claimed.  By the premise of their own
system, it is not consistent.

Good astrologers might make good therapists if they had the interest
in looking at it with the constraints ethical therapists impose. They
are making claims that could be tested, unlike some other areas of
human experience where they have a more legitimate case about
scientific testing being unsuitable. I also think a lot of therapy
systems are vulnerable to this same criticism.

Sam Harris likes to point out that many fields of belief like to use
an appearance of science when it suits them, because the scientific
method is part of our deepest intuition about what is credible. But if
you live by that sword...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
> > science" in his book "Eye to Eye."
> > 
> > Thanks, I put it on hold at the library.  (I love free books and
> > internet access!)
> > 
> >  Why is the
> > > shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
> > > Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?
> > 
> > If there is a connection between the planets, as Vedic astrology
> > claims, it could be tested with all the rigor science can muster. 
> > Western astrology seems to rely on a language form.  One that 
> > allows a person to see their own personality traits in the vague, 
> > subjective language.
> 
> It can be.  It can also, in the hands of a serious
> astrologer, be as specific as any analysis by a
> trained psychologist.  (There's a trend in Western
> astrology, in fact, for astrologers to take
> intensive professional-level training in psychology.)
> 
> > It is a science of linguistics more than a 
> > statement about

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread Nelson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis,
>I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with
> others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
> usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often
> this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
> Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
> definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
> they read it), it has for others
> 
> And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood.
> Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
> simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has 
> "an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question,
> ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
> there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
> in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often
> relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
> ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
> deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
> evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ...
> but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is
> twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
> seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
> (Kurtz)
> 
> There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
> strong belief in via, their writings that:
> 
> 1) correlation demonstrates causation
> 
> 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> unknown and un-natural cause
> +++ In the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
  unknown and natural cause otherwise what you see isn't happening.
  Like the rest of us, Mr. Kurtz can make observations that
reflect his opinion and don't have great merit.  N.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread wayback71

I found this entire thread very interesting.Thanks for all of it.  I have 
similar (not so erudite 
from my side) conversations with a close friend who is 70 and an 
engineer/scientist.  He is 
very anti-religion, never had a "mystical experience" in his life,but is 
intrigued by the idea, 
altho I think a bit nervous about how he would interpret it if it did happen.  
MOre than 
anything, he wishes he could live another 200 years and see what science comes 
up with 
about the human brain.  From a "religious" or meditaion perspective, it seems 
that all of 
life, for everyone, involves magical thinking of one sort or another.  Everyone 
 constructs 
their own reality all day long, based on all sorts of variables.  The ultimate 
delusion, of 
course, being identification of the Self with the body and mind. I look forward 
to what 
science finds,because I have in the last 10 years doubted at times whether 
mystical 
experiences mean anything more than a different style of brain function. It 
comforts me 
think that it does.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > I don't think he's thought these points through
> > > very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
> > > clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
> > > the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
> > > by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
> > > motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
> > > "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
> > > very detailed and precise observation of that
> > > regularity.
> > 
> > His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to
> > fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult
> > explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is 
> > a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research 
> > that show strong efficacy.
> 
> Sure.  I'm just taking issue with the examples he
> uses.  On the other hand, scientific explanations
> and research don't *necessarily* always take the
> place of mystical and occult ones; in many cases
> they can co-exist.  It depends on the specific
> example.
> 
> > To me he is not attempting to negate the notion
> > that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons
> > behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that
> > there is no body of research that indicates these are credible
> > explanations.
> 
> But as you go on to suggest, in at least some areas,
> objective scientific research is the wrong tool for
> the job.  I doubt he sees it that way; my impression
> is he believes if it can't be proved by science, it's
> essentially meaningless and not worth considering.
> 
> > He should have used a different example than astrology, or said
> > something along the lines of
> > "> >"Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens 
> > > > and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and
> > substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational,
> > social and economic research."
> 
> Yes, there are plenty of other better examples, or
> he could have used the astrology example as you
> suggest, which would have made a lot more sense.
> Of course, there's more to astrology than that, but
> in those areas, at least, he'd have had a point.
> 
> That he used astrology so sloppily is, to me, a sign
> that he really doesn't take subjective stuff
> seriously enough to make a good case for dismissing
> it.
> 
> 
> > I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily
> > authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited 
> knowledge
> > or experience.  I said / implied that rigorous methods of 
> naturalistic
> > inquiry should be applied to "subjective science." Let me refine 
> that.
> > 
> > "Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative
> > and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific 
> and
> > statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective
> > experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested
> > scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested
> > hypotheses' can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"."
> > 
> > This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI
> > taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive
> > science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At 
> > least it would be a good discussion.
> 
> I'm dubious that he'd be that interested, but it sure
> would be interesting if he'd take it on.
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arr

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One more point about Astrology.  It is making a scientific claim 
about
> the relationship between the chart systems and their predictive
> ability.  It is bound by the system it mimics, but had not yet 
passed
> the test.  If it claimed a mystical, un-measurable connection, it
> would be better off in my opinion.
> 
> Last time I read the New Testament, I was surprised by the extensive
> proof system employed.  The divinity of Jesus is demonstrated by a
> series of miracles which are meant as a kind of scientific evidence
> that he was extra ordinary.  I had forgotten how much of the text is
> taken up by this "evidence".  The second case is made on the basis 
of
> his fitting the poetic words of the Old Testament predictions for 
the
> messiah.  It is only when it is pointed out to a Christian that the
> evidence is poor that they resort to the tactic of claiming that 
faith
> is the important aspect.  The Bible is a whole series of poor 
evidence
> presentations meant to prove his divinity in an evidence-based 
method
> that would be scientific if they followed any of the rules of 
evidence
> in the scientific method. (which they do not).

That's a very interesting point.  I wish I had time to
get into it, but I have to get ready to go out of town.

I'll have limited access to the Internet for about a
week, damn it, just as a really fascinating discussion
is getting started.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:"Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of-seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of-seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of-seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another.Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.).
__._,_.___

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS

Religion and spirituality

Maharishi mahesh yogi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
> science" in his book "Eye to Eye."
> 
> Thanks, I put it on hold at the library.  (I love free books and
> internet access!)
> 
>  Why is the
> > shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
> > Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?
> 
> If there is a connection between the planets, as Vedic astrology
> claims, it could be tested with all the rigor science can muster. 
> Western astrology seems to rely on a language form.  One that 
> allows a person to see their own personality traits in the vague, 
> subjective language.

It can be.  It can also, in the hands of a serious
astrologer, be as specific as any analysis by a
trained psychologist.  (There's a trend in Western
astrology, in fact, for astrologers to take
intensive professional-level training in psychology.)

> It is a science of linguistics more than a 
> statement about the relationship between the planetary positions 
> and man.  The same technique used by many psychics.

My sense of astrology (and any system of divination)
is that the system is a tool for focusing the
intuition of the astrologer.  I don't have time to
get into it, but it's the *system* that's important,
the way it's structured and organized, not the
supposed correlations with the actual physical
motions of the planets.  With a skilled astrologer
with highly developed intuition, the system would work
even if it existed in a vacuum.

I think we may be saying something roughly similar,
except that I don't know whether you put much stock
in intuition.

> But in principle I agree with your point.  Values was a poor choice
> of words on my part.  Values are not so subject to measurement nor
> probably should they be.  That is where your point about the value
> of subjective experience makes sense to me.  The world is bigger 
> than what we are measuring.  But many claims (western astrology) 
> are not bigger, they are just winging it mascaraing as a system.  
> That hurts the cause of legitimate areas of thought not yet being 
> measured and being missed.

I agree, when astrology is poorly done.  But I do
think that serious and dedicated astrologers have
more to offer than that.

The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that
his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such
endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good*
astrology looks like.  In effect, at least partly, he's
dismissing a straw man.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-10 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
> >  wrote:
> 
> I don't think he's thought these points through
> > very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
> > clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
> > the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
> > by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
> > motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
> > "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
> > very detailed and precise observation of that
> > regularity.
> 
> His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to
> fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult
> explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is 
> a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research 
> that show strong efficacy.

Sure.  I'm just taking issue with the examples he
uses.  On the other hand, scientific explanations
and research don't *necessarily* always take the
place of mystical and occult ones; in many cases
they can co-exist.  It depends on the specific
example.

> To me he is not attempting to negate the notion
> that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons
> behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that
> there is no body of research that indicates these are credible
> explanations.

But as you go on to suggest, in at least some areas,
objective scientific research is the wrong tool for
the job.  I doubt he sees it that way; my impression
is he believes if it can't be proved by science, it's
essentially meaningless and not worth considering.

> He should have used a different example than astrology, or said
> something along the lines of
> "> >"Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens 
> > > and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and
> substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational,
> social and economic research."

Yes, there are plenty of other better examples, or
he could have used the astrology example as you
suggest, which would have made a lot more sense.
Of course, there's more to astrology than that, but
in those areas, at least, he'd have had a point.

That he used astrology so sloppily is, to me, a sign
that he really doesn't take subjective stuff
seriously enough to make a good case for dismissing
it.

> I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily
> authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited 
knowledge
> or experience.  I said / implied that rigorous methods of 
naturalistic
> inquiry should be applied to "subjective science." Let me refine 
that.
> 
> "Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative
> and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific 
and
> statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective
> experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested
> scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested
> hypotheses' can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"."
> 
> This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI
> taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive
> science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At 
> least it would be a good discussion.

I'm dubious that he'd be that interested, but it sure
would be interesting if he'd take it on.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-09 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 
> 
> I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the 
> cornorstones to "magical thinking". (I appreciate your 
> recent cites and posts on such.) And magical interpretations
> -- whether of experiences, "scriptures" or current events.
> 
> Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of 
> What Is. MT may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, 
> and be the fuel for dreamers, but ultimately its illusion 
> and delusion. 

Sorry, dude, I know you like to swing your intellectual
dick and all, and I guess that's fun if you get off on 
that sort of thing, but all of this is starting to sound 
a lot like "sour grapes" to me. 

That is, "I'm a little pissed off that others have had
experiences I haven't, experiences that seem to push the 
envelope of 'rational thinking' and defy description in
normal terms, so I'm going to declare anyone who can't
describe his experiences in neat little boxes the way I 
like things described a 'dreamer' and lost in 'illusion.'"

Uptight people have been doing this to mystics as long 
as there have been mystics. Mystics have been laughing 
at the uptight people for pretty much the same length
of time. :-)

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

One more point about Astrology.  It is making a scientific claim about
the relationship between the chart systems and their predictive
ability.  It is bound by the system it mimics, but had not yet passed
the test.  If it claimed a mystical, un-measurable connection, it
would be better off in my opinion.

Last time I read the New Testament, I was surprised by the extensive
proof system employed.  The divinity of Jesus is demonstrated by a
series of miracles which are meant as a kind of scientific evidence
that he was extra ordinary.  I had forgotten how much of the text is
taken up by this "evidence".  The second case is made on the basis of
his fitting the poetic words of the Old Testament predictions for the
messiah.  It is only when it is pointed out to a Christian that the
evidence is poor that they resort to the tactic of claiming that faith
is the important aspect.  The Bible is a whole series of poor evidence
presentations meant to prove his divinity in an evidence-based method
that would be scientific if they followed any of the rules of evidence
in the scientific method. (which they do not). 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology.
> > 
> >  Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by
> > > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science
> > > > abandons occult for material causes."
> > 
> > His other examples seem clearer.  He may mean that the focus on
> > planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of
> > the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions
> > focus of modern astronomy.
> 
> Perhaps; the way you put it makes more sense, but I'm
> not sure how significant a point it is.  Why is the
> shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
> Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?
> 
> > But I think he makes this point poorly for
> > Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well 
> > as they could with the tools they had.  The case for western 
> > astrology seems better.  In western astrology the 30 degree arch 
> > system is a complete fabrication and does not relate to the 
> > physical positions of the stars and planets.  Here the focus is on
> > the convenience of a simple consistent system and abandons the 
> > regularities discernible by physics and astronomy.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say it's a "complete fabrication";
> it's just based on a different frame of reference.
> It is a more human-centered one, though, so in that
> sense you could say it was less scientific.
>  
> > Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any?
> 
> Heh...
> 
> > I'll give your other points some more thought.
> > 
> > I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I 
> think yet:
> > 
> >  And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> > > 
> > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
> science" in his book "Eye to Eye."  (It's one of his
> older works, but it holds up very well, I think.)  He
> makes the case for the basic principles of the
> scientific method being applicable to the exploration
> of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring
> physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a
> subjective level.  He's quite rigorous about it.
> 
> I'd love to hear Kurtz's response.
> 
> > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> > > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> > > limited
> 
> I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and
> I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze
> it.  It's in the general area of his apparent feeling
> that science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that
> the two can't coexist, and I just think that's
> incorrect.
> 
> Be interested to hear anything you come up with.
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
science" in his book "Eye to Eye."

Thanks, I put it on hold at the library.  (I love free books and
internet access!)

 Why is the
> shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
> Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?
>

If there is a connection between the planets, as Vedic astrology
claims, it could be tested with all the rigor science can muster. 
Western astrology seems to rely on a language form.  One that allows a
person to see their own personality traits in the vague, subjective
language.  It is a science of linguistics more than a statement about
the relationship between the planetary positions and man.  The same
technique used by many psychics.

But in principle I agree with your point.  Values was a poor choice of
words on my part.  Values are not so subject to measurement nor
probably should they be.  That is where your point about the value of
subjective experience makes sense to me.  The world is bigger than
what we are measuring.  But many claims (western astrology) are not
bigger, they are just winging it mascaraing as a system.  That hurts
the cause of legitimate areas of thought not yet being measured and
being missed.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology.
> > 
> >  Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by
> > > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science
> > > > abandons occult for material causes."
> > 
> > His other examples seem clearer.  He may mean that the focus on
> > planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of
> > the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions
> > focus of modern astronomy.
> 
> Perhaps; the way you put it makes more sense, but I'm
> not sure how significant a point it is.  Why is the
> shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
> Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?
> 
> > But I think he makes this point poorly for
> > Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well 
> > as they could with the tools they had.  The case for western 
> > astrology seems better.  In western astrology the 30 degree arch 
> > system is a complete fabrication and does not relate to the 
> > physical positions of the stars and planets.  Here the focus is on
> > the convenience of a simple consistent system and abandons the 
> > regularities discernible by physics and astronomy.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say it's a "complete fabrication";
> it's just based on a different frame of reference.
> It is a more human-centered one, though, so in that
> sense you could say it was less scientific.
>  
> > Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any?
> 
> Heh...
> 
> > I'll give your other points some more thought.
> > 
> > I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I 
> think yet:
> > 
> >  And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> > > 
> > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
> science" in his book "Eye to Eye."  (It's one of his
> older works, but it holds up very well, I think.)  He
> makes the case for the basic principles of the
> scientific method being applicable to the exploration
> of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring
> physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a
> subjective level.  He's quite rigorous about it.
> 
> I'd love to hear Kurtz's response.
> 
> > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> > > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> > > limited
> 
> I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and
> I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze
> it.  It's in the general area of his apparent feeling
> that science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that
> the two can't coexist, and I just think that's
> incorrect.
> 
> Be interested to hear anything you come up with.
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I 
> think yet:
> > 
> >  And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> > > 
> > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
> science" in his book "Eye to Eye."  (It's one of his
> older works, but it holds up very well, I think.)  He
> makes the case for the basic principles of the
> scientific method being applicable to the exploration
> of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring
> physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a
> subjective level.  He's quite rigorous about it.
> 
> I'd love to hear Kurtz's response.
> 
> > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> > > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> > > limited
> 
> I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and
> I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze
> it.  It's in the general area of his apparent feeling
> that science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that
> the two can't coexist, and I just think that's
> incorrect.
> 
> Be interested to hear anything you come up with.

"Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are
great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a
more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models,
explanations and remedies / technologies. 

We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has
its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet
engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the
poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love.

I science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that
the two can't coexist, and I just think that's
incorrect.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
>  wrote:

I don't think he's thought these points through
> very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
> clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
> the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
> by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
> motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
> "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
> very detailed and precise observation of that
> regularity.
> 

His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to
fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult
explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is a
lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research that
show strong efficacy. 

To me he is not attempting to negate the notion
that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons
behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that
there is no body of research that indicates these are credible
explanations.

The astrology example is off as you noted. 
> > What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in
> > terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic 
> > origins, but
> > natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, 
> > not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological 
> > terms. 
> > Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes 
> > of phenomena. 

He should have used a different example than astrology, or said
something along the lines of
"> >"Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens 
> > and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and
substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational,
social and economic research." 

>  
 > Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical
> > thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods 
> > of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were 
> > extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues 
> > to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry."
> > 
> > And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> 
> I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> limited.

I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily
authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited knowledge
or experience.  I said / implied that rigorous methods of naturalistic
inquiry should be applied to "subjective science." Let me refine that.

"Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative
and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific and
statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective
experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested
scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested
hypotheses' can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"."

This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI
taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive
science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At least
it would be a good discussion.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-09 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology.
> 
>  Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by
> > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science
> > > abandons occult for material causes."
> 
> His other examples seem clearer.  He may mean that the focus on
> planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of
> the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions
> focus of modern astronomy.

Perhaps; the way you put it makes more sense, but I'm
not sure how significant a point it is.  Why is the
shift away from values and toward measurement a Good
Thing, necessarily?  Why can't there be both?

> But I think he makes this point poorly for
> Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well 
> as they could with the tools they had.  The case for western 
> astrology seems better.  In western astrology the 30 degree arch 
> system is a complete fabrication and does not relate to the 
> physical positions of the stars and planets.  Here the focus is on
> the convenience of a simple consistent system and abandons the 
> regularities discernible by physics and astronomy.

I'm not sure I'd say it's a "complete fabrication";
it's just based on a different frame of reference.
It is a more human-centered one, though, so in that
sense you could say it was less scientific.

> Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any?

Heh...

> I'll give your other points some more thought.
> 
> I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I 
think yet:
> 
>  And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> > 
> > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.

You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective
science" in his book "Eye to Eye."  (It's one of his
older works, but it holds up very well, I think.)  He
makes the case for the basic principles of the
scientific method being applicable to the exploration
of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring
physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a
subjective level.  He's quite rigorous about it.

I'd love to hear Kurtz's response.

> > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> > limited

I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and
I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze
it.  It's in the general area of his apparent feeling
that science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that
the two can't coexist, and I just think that's
incorrect.

Be interested to hear anything you come up with.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology.

 Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by
> > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science
> > abandons occult for material causes."

His other examples seem clearer.  He may mean that the focus on
planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of
the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions
focus of modern astronomy.  But I think he makes this point poorly for
Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well as
they could with the tools they had.  The case for western astrology
seems better.  In western astrology the 30 degree arch system is a
complete fabrication and does not relate to the physical positions of
the stars and planets.  Here the focus is on the convenience of a
simple consistent system and abandons the regularities discernible by
physics and astronomy.

Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any?

I'll give your other points some more thought.

I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I think yet:

 And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> 
> I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> limited






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species
> > has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations.
> > Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the
> > world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern
> > science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful
> > cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical
> > inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in
> > terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but
> > natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, 
> > not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological 
> > terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes 
> > of phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by 
> > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science 
> > abandons occult for material causes."
> 
> I don't think he's thought these points through
> very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
> clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
> the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
> by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
> motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
> "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
> very detailed and precise observation of that
> regularity.
> 
> Kurtz appears to believe that astrology could exist
> only as long as folks thought the movements were
> random, when in fact it exists *because* their
> regularity had been observed and detailed records
> of it kept.
> 
> Moreover, the still more detailed and precise
> knowledge made possible by science doesn't *obviate*
> astrology, it just gives astrology more precise and
> detailed tools to make its predictions and identify
> its omens and signs.
> 
> Likewise, weather can be interpreted in meteorological
> terms, but that doesn't somehow negate the notion
> that there are divine forces behind it.  Similarly
> with disease.
> 
> "Magical thinking" of the type he's talking about
> can easily adapt to greater scientific knowledge
> of the phenomena it's concerned with.  Science
> doesn't wipe it out or make it make it untenable.
> If magical thinking is untenable, it isn't because
> of science.
> 
> > All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and
> > errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and
> > reasoning.
> 
> Not the three examples he mentions.
> 
> > Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical
> > thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods 
> > of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were 
> > extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues 
> > to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry."
> > 
> > And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"
> 
> I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.
> 
> I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
> Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
> limited.
> 
> 
>  -- the
> > realms of personal experience, where among other things, logic, the
> > rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, can
> > lead to a much truer interpretation of subjective experience.
> 
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

2006-06-09 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species
> has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations.
> Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the
> world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern
> science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful
> cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical
> inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in
> terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but
> natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, 
> not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological 
> terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes 
> of phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by 
> the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science 
> abandons occult for material causes."

I don't think he's thought these points through
very well, or at least he isn't explaining them
clearly.  He seems to be saying, for example, that
the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced
by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the
motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the
"omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in
very detailed and precise observation of that
regularity.

Kurtz appears to believe that astrology could exist
only as long as folks thought the movements were
random, when in fact it exists *because* their
regularity had been observed and detailed records
of it kept.

Moreover, the still more detailed and precise
knowledge made possible by science doesn't *obviate*
astrology, it just gives astrology more precise and
detailed tools to make its predictions and identify
its omens and signs.

Likewise, weather can be interpreted in meteorological
terms, but that doesn't somehow negate the notion
that there are divine forces behind it.  Similarly
with disease.

"Magical thinking" of the type he's talking about
can easily adapt to greater scientific knowledge
of the phenomena it's concerned with.  Science
doesn't wipe it out or make it make it untenable.
If magical thinking is untenable, it isn't because
of science.

> All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and
> errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and
> reasoning.

Not the three examples he mentions.

> Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical
> thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods 
> of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were 
> extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues 
> to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry."
> 
> And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"

I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would.

I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that
Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly
limited.

 -- the
> realms of personal experience, where among other things, logic, the
> rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, can
> lead to a much truer interpretation of subjective experience.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Thanks for the well thought-out post.  I dig Paul Kurtz ,and as I
posted before, his books helped me sort out my perspective options
when I changed my view on what the epistemological implications of
transcendent experiences.  I'm glad you got my point about
communication.  I can't imagine anyone relating to the term as applied
to themselves.  I can apply it to stuff I used to believe quite
comfortably.  But I don't think you can get around the pejorative
implications.  It connotes false belief anyway we slice it. 

Anyway you got my point.  We all have our own goals here.  I don't
assume I know what yours are.  But I do enjoy the material you are
presenting.  I also dig that here I get versions of beliefs that I do
not necessarily share, but which remind me that thoughtful people are
putting their world view together with different tools, and it
stretches me to hear it.

So do we know each other from the old days?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis,
>I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with
> others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
> usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often
> this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
> Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
> definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
> they read it), it has for others
> 
> And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood.
> Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
> simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has 
> "an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question,
> ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
> there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
> in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often
> relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
> ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
> deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
> evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ...
> but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is
> twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
> seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
> (Kurtz)
> 
> There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
> strong belief in via, their writings that:
> 
> 1) correlation demonstrates causation
> 
> 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
> unknown and un-natural cause
> 
> 3) personal experience is the highest knowledge and should be left
> pure, unexamined and undiluted with issues such as multiple possible
> interpretations of personal experience, scientific testing of relvant
> paramters associated with the experience, examination of potential
> perceptual and cognitive biases in recalling, describing the
> experience, logical inconsistencies in experiential attributes,
> actions, etc.
> 
> 4) being immersed in biased cognition and logical traps are useful in
> discerning what is Real and what is Unreal -- and an aid to Being Here
> Now. 
> 
> 5) Paradox is in everything, thus logical consistency in any realm is
> impossible
> 
> 6) stangers' inner states and motives can be clearly discerned from
> some select sample of their writing,
> 
> 7) Scripture is literally true, regardless of logic, scientific
> evidence, and alternative views of interpretation (e.g., allegorical
> vs literal)
> 
> 8) etc.
> 
> All of these are characteristics of "magical thinking" and magical
> belief systems, IMO. 
> 
> Perhaps, if some object to the name "magical thinking", we can call it
> Type A thinking.  And rational, logical, conistent, fact-based,
> causal, bias-minimized inquiry, thinking, belief systems and findings
> -- in domains where they are applicable -- as Type B thinking. But
> regardless of names, people tend to cluser around  these two poles --
> with some variations of course.
> 
> 
> I made the point earlier that cognitve biases and logical fallacies
> are a cornorstone of magical thinking, or as I have termed it, Type A
> thinking. This idea needs more development, but seems resonate with
> John Schumaker, as quoted by Kurtz, " Humans tend to corrupt their
> visions of reality, in order to survive in a world that they cannot
> fully comprehend."  That is Type A's may be quite happy with cognitve
> biases and logical fallacies if it is more soothing and comfortable
> than facing What IS, Now.
> 
> 
> Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species
> has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations.
> Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the
> world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern
> scien

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Curtis,
   I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with
others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often
this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
they read it), it has for others

And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood.
Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has 
"an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question,
... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often
relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ...
but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is
twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
(Kurtz)

There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
strong belief in via, their writings that:

1) correlation demonstrates causation

2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
unknown and un-natural cause

3) personal experience is the highest knowledge and should be left
pure, unexamined and undiluted with issues such as multiple possible
interpretations of personal experience, scientific testing of relvant
paramters associated with the experience, examination of potential
perceptual and cognitive biases in recalling, describing the
experience, logical inconsistencies in experiential attributes,
actions, etc.

4) being immersed in biased cognition and logical traps are useful in
discerning what is Real and what is Unreal -- and an aid to Being Here
Now. 

5) Paradox is in everything, thus logical consistency in any realm is
impossible

6) stangers' inner states and motives can be clearly discerned from
some select sample of their writing,

7) Scripture is literally true, regardless of logic, scientific
evidence, and alternative views of interpretation (e.g., allegorical
vs literal)

8) etc.

All of these are characteristics of "magical thinking" and magical
belief systems, IMO. 

Perhaps, if some object to the name "magical thinking", we can call it
Type A thinking.  And rational, logical, conistent, fact-based,
causal, bias-minimized inquiry, thinking, belief systems and findings
-- in domains where they are applicable -- as Type B thinking. But
regardless of names, people tend to cluser around  these two poles --
with some variations of course.


I made the point earlier that cognitve biases and logical fallacies
are a cornorstone of magical thinking, or as I have termed it, Type A
thinking. This idea needs more development, but seems resonate with
John Schumaker, as quoted by Kurtz, " Humans tend to corrupt their
visions of reality, in order to survive in a world that they cannot
fully comprehend."  That is Type A's may be quite happy with cognitve
biases and logical fallacies if it is more soothing and comfortable
than facing What IS, Now.


Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species
has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations.
Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the
world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern
science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful
cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical
inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in
terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but
natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not
as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms.
Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of
phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by the
regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science abandons
occult for material causes. " 

All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and
errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and
reasoning.

Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical
thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods of
inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to
biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make
progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry."

And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" -- the
realms o

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

 
American cognitve biases : 

http://www.3imghost.com.ar/files/36-23694117227090520060746.jpg 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Thanks, I have enjoyed many of your posts.

The term "magical thinking" seems to be a moving target for me in
relationship with communicating with others.  I know where I draw this
line, but I think everyone has there own line to draw here.  It seems
more useful as a concept of self discovery, but in the context of
communicating with people with different beliefs it seems harsh.  This
is coming from a guy who has used this term often and freely in the
past!  I don't think it works as well in a group like this where
people are thoughtfully choosing this line for themselves.  What do
you think?





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 
> 
> I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the cornorstones to
> "magical thinking". (I appreciate your recent cites and posts on
> such.) And magical interpretations -- whether of experiences,
> "scriptures" or current events.
> 
> Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of What Is. MT
> may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, and be the fuel for
> dreamers, but ultimately its illusion and delusion. 
> 
> In my reading / interpretation (we all make interpretations) of
> various hindu-related  scriptures, a sharp intellect and the ability
> to finely discriminate are cited valuable tools in uncovering what is
> real and what is unreal. Discrimination of what is Real and Unreal.
> Discrimination between Buddhi and Purusha and all. Knowing the
> existence and structure of cognitve biases and logical fallacies,
> being able to readily indentify  them and avoid them are part of that
> sharpening process.
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Excellent post.  Are you hip to Gilovitch's book: How We Know What
> > isn't So, The fallibility of human reason in everyday life? He studies
> > human cognitive error at Cornell.
> > 
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029117062/sr=8-1/qid=1149893839/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4458199-6191348?%5Fencoding=UTF8
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their existence
> > > and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal reasoning,
and in
> > > communications. 
> > > 
> > > Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
> > > 
> > > Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see
also
> > > cognitive distortion).
> > > 
> > > Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of
> > > psychology, others are considered general categories of bias.
> > > 
> > > This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy
> > > certain standards for completeness. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Decision making and behavioral biases
> > > 
> > > Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief
formation
> > > and business decisions and scientific research
> > > 
> > > * Bandwagon effect - the tendency to do (or believe) things
> > > because many other people do (or believe) the same.
> > > * Bias blind spot - the tendency not to compensate for one's own
> > > cognitive biases.
> > > * Choice-supportive bias - the tendency to remember one's
choices
> > > as better than they actually were.
> > > * Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret
> > > information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
> > > * Congruence bias - the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively
> > > through direct testing
> > > * Contrast effect - the enhancement or diminishment of a
weight or
> > > other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting
> > object.
> > > * Disconfirmation bias - the tendency for people to extend
> > > critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior
beliefs
> > > and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their
prior
> > > beliefs.
> > > * Endowment effect - the tendency for people to value something
> > > more as soon as they own it.
> > > * Focusing effect - prediction bias occurring when people place
> > > too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in
> > > accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
> > > * Hyperbolic discounting - the tendency for people to have a
> > > stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later
> > > payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.
> > > * Illusion of control - the tendency for human beings to believe
> > > they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly
> > cannot.
> > > * Impact bias - the tendency for people to overestimate the
length
> > > or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
> > > * Information bias - the tendency to seek information even
when it
> > > cannot affect action
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

No, I have not read that one. It looks good. 

I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the cornorstones to
"magical thinking". (I appreciate your recent cites and posts on
such.) And magical interpretations -- whether of experiences,
"scriptures" or current events.

Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of What Is. MT
may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, and be the fuel for
dreamers, but ultimately its illusion and delusion. 

In my reading / interpretation (we all make interpretations) of
various hindu-related  scriptures, a sharp intellect and the ability
to finely discriminate are cited valuable tools in uncovering what is
real and what is unreal. Discrimination of what is Real and Unreal.
Discrimination between Buddhi and Purusha and all. Knowing the
existence and structure of cognitve biases and logical fallacies,
being able to readily indentify  them and avoid them are part of that
sharpening process.
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Excellent post.  Are you hip to Gilovitch's book: How We Know What
> isn't So, The fallibility of human reason in everyday life? He studies
> human cognitive error at Cornell.
> 
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029117062/sr=8-1/qid=1149893839/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4458199-6191348?%5Fencoding=UTF8
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
>  wrote:
> >
> > We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their existence
> > and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal reasoning, and in
> > communications. 
> > 
> > Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice.
> > 
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
> > 
> > Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see also
> > cognitive distortion).
> > 
> > Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of
> > psychology, others are considered general categories of bias.
> > 
> > This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy
> > certain standards for completeness. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Decision making and behavioral biases
> > 
> > Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief formation
> > and business decisions and scientific research
> > 
> > * Bandwagon effect - the tendency to do (or believe) things
> > because many other people do (or believe) the same.
> > * Bias blind spot - the tendency not to compensate for one's own
> > cognitive biases.
> > * Choice-supportive bias - the tendency to remember one's choices
> > as better than they actually were.
> > * Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret
> > information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
> > * Congruence bias - the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively
> > through direct testing
> > * Contrast effect - the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or
> > other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting
> object.
> > * Disconfirmation bias - the tendency for people to extend
> > critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs
> > and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior
> > beliefs.
> > * Endowment effect - the tendency for people to value something
> > more as soon as they own it.
> > * Focusing effect - prediction bias occurring when people place
> > too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in
> > accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
> > * Hyperbolic discounting - the tendency for people to have a
> > stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later
> > payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.
> > * Illusion of control - the tendency for human beings to believe
> > they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly
> cannot.
> > * Impact bias - the tendency for people to overestimate the length
> > or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
> > * Information bias - the tendency to seek information even when it
> > cannot affect action
> > * Loss aversion - the tendency for people to strongly prefer
> > avoiding losses over acquiring gains (see also sunk cost effects)
> > * Neglect of Probability - the tendency to completely disregard
> > probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
> > * Mere exposure effect - the tendency for people to express undue
> > liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
> > * Color psychology - the tendency for cultural symbolism of
> > certain colors to affect affective reasoning.
> > * Omission Bias - The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse,
> > or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions.)
> > * Outcome Bias - the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual
> > outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it
> > was made.
> > * Planning fallacy - the tendency

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

Did your insight occur to you before you read the post -- or after
actually reading it? Hoping its the latter, perhaps you can provide
some examples of specific cognitive biases and logical fallacies that
that you have found in your own personal experience that have helped
you to  validate your perceptions and the interpretations of your
subjective experiences -- and thus allowing you to deal even more
effectively with the reality of Here And Now.

I have found just the opposite in my life. I find cognitive biases and
logical fallacies to dim and distort what IS. By becoming aware of the
existence and structure of cognitive biases and logical fallacies I
find I appreicate and live what IS more fully, right NOW.

And I want to thank you for your writings. They are a virtual paradise
of examples of cognitive biases and logical fallacies -- a playground
to sharpen anybody's wits. That such keep you grounded in what IS,
right now -- well only attests to the glory of creation -- that
opposite practices can result in the same fruit. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
>  wrote:
> >
> > We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their 
> > existence and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal 
> > reasoning, and in communications. 
> > 
> > Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice.
> 
> Just as a question, has it never occurred to you
> that each of these 'categories' below is just the
> rational mind's way of refusing to believe its
> own subjective experience, and thus its way of
> refusing to deal with the reality of Here And Now?
> 
> 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
> > 
> > Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see also
> > cognitive distortion).
> > 
> > Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of
> > psychology, others are considered general categories of bias.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

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/

<*> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies