[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote [March 8]: My take on what MMY meant when he talked about being in tune with the laws of nature and therefore not suffering any more is this: when you reach enlightenment and are therefore in tune with the L's of N, you really no longer have desires other than what is happening at the moment. So, you always feel as if what is happening is what you are enjoying, or experiencing. You feel in tune with what is because you have no individual desires left to bother you. You eliminated your own personal stuff, and all that is left is what is going to happen anyway. I think this is a good an explanation as any. But even when we are a persona and seem to be bollixing up our life, making mistakes etc., it would still seem that the laws of nature are functioning. Eliminating the individual self would seem to be something like cleaning out a drain pipe. Either way the laws function, but in one, with the pipe clogged, the water flows not, and when cleaned out, flows on. I too have wondered, however, just what, specifically, these Laws of Nature are and if they can be spelled out. If you cannot spell out even one, it would seem one cannot know there are any. We can spell out laws in physics to some extent, but spiritual laws seem to be in principle unverifiable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. With the introduction of digital photography I thought for a long while that the new medium was not able to capture them as on film. I was wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. With the introduction of digital photography I thought for a long while that the new medium was not able to capture them as on film. I was wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look? Certainly, but because you are not open to the infinite field you would see nothing. Materialists, tire-kickers and quitters never do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Go ahead and look up any picture. [of the devas during 9/11] The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look? Here's a deva standing on one of the towers just before the plane hits: Different deva, of another type, same angle. Some say this deva is related to Bevan: Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, trying to invoke Invincibility: Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, admitting his Invincibility FAIL:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. [http://stargods.org/DS_Movie.jpg] [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0sdxhoTkvek/TQSfmfSePvI/ABo/8HFDxVCiI\ -A/s320/image-upload-14-733032.jpg] [http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4927/911truth0uj.jpg] [http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg] and as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Nr 1 and 2 looks so real they could have been painted or photoshoped, but it's probably not. Didn't count them but in nr 3 there are probably several hundred. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. [http://stargods.org/DS_Movie.jpg] [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0sdxhoTkvek/TQSfmfSePvI/ABo/8HFDxVCiI\ \ -A/s320/image-upload-14-733032.jpg] [http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4927/911truth0uj.jpg] [http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg] and as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: Nr 1 and 2 looks so real they could have been painted or photoshoped, but it's probably not. Didn't count them but in nr 3 there are probably several hundred. Devas are a dime a dozen. Here is a photo of Nabby's homeboy Maitreya on toast: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. [http://stargods.org/DS_Movie.jpg] [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0sdxhoTkvek/TQSfmfSePvI/ABo/8HFDxVCiI\ \ \ -A/s320/image-upload-14-733032.jpg] [http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4927/911truth0uj.jpg] [http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg] and as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? Haha :-) That's a good one with interesting characters of different sizes and with different temperament compared to those you see at disasters; docile, friendly and curious looking fellows :-) The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look? Here's a deva standing on one of the towers just before the plane hits: Different deva, of another type, same angle. Some say this deva is related to Bevan: I think I see the face of Elvis in the cat's stomach fur, what do you see Nabby? Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, trying to invoke Invincibility: Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, admitting his Invincibility FAIL:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
HEY YOU FFL GUYS over there [http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8441581139_4798fea3ab.jpg] Now, a small study from Finland, published in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, has attempted to find out what types of people are most likely people to pick up on these visual perceptions .An ability to see faces is more common in some people than others due to differences in how our brains process information, says study author Tapani Riekki, a doctoral student in the division of cognitive psychology and neuropsychology at the University of Helsink and somehow summaries his study already in the title: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2874/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2874/abstract The study found no surprise that religious people and paranormal believers perceived more face-like areas when some were present compared to non-religious individuals and skeptics. But believers also saw more face-like patterns in pictures when none were there. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/46313867#46313867 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/46313867#46313867 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Nr 1 and 2 looks so real they could have been painted or photoshoped, but it's probably not. Didn't count them but in nr 3 there are probably several hundred. Devas are a dime a dozen. Here is a photo of Nabby's homeboy Maitreya on toast: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. [http://stargods.org/DS_Movie.jpg] [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0sdxhoTkvek/TQSfmfSePvI/ABo/8HFDxVCiI\ \ \ \ -A/s320/image-upload-14-733032.jpg] [http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4927/911truth0uj.jpg] [http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg] and as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look? For some reason I am finding all your posts related to this subject hilarious this morning. I am as curious as anybody to see these lower entities in the pictures. Maybe Nabby is thinking the poor souls falling or jumping to their deaths are devas, or that the smoke looks like beings. In the meantime, I'm thoroughly enjoying your humour today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? I thought they were mannequins, but I think I saw something like it on the news a few months back about how movie directors won't have to put up with stroppy actors once this new technology gets perfected. Looks like they are almost there! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
The old psychological principle of pareidolio at work! http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bltabloid-arch10.htm Nabbie has joined the Mexican women who see Jesus' face in their tortilla. Praise the lard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I have, couldn't see any devas. Can you post a picture and tell me exactly where to look? Here's a deva standing on one of the towers just before the plane hits: Different deva, of another type, same angle. Some say this deva is related to Bevan: I think I see the face of Elvis in the cat's stomach fur, what do you see Nabby? Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, trying to invoke Invincibility: Mark Wahlberg lookalike deva, admitting his Invincibility FAIL:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? I thought they were mannequins, but I think I saw something like it on the news a few months back about how movie directors won't have to put up with stroppy actors once this new technology gets perfected. Looks like they are almost there! Meaning of course that artificial the women I saw were animated not mannequins, but they looked very like these idealised creations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
For me the second one worked the best. I didn't buy the eyes on the first one or the teeth and eyes on the second one. Our brains are so tuned up for seeing faces and their expressions this type of art is very hard. I am currently on the last exercise in my Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain book, a mirror self-portrait. Compared to the comparison one I did at the beginning of the book I have made progress, but it is still such a bitch! Hinkiness can creep in anywhere, and getting it really right is decided by the tiniest marks. I still have such a long way to go but can appreciate the care these artists took to get a believable human face in CGI. Actually I am still blown away by quick sketches by real visual artists! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
good choice..that's Nicole Roarty,a real person, wife of Dan Roarty,a 3D artist Lead Character Artist for LucasArts Here a much more IMHO charming snapshot of both [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dan-Roarty.jpg] so because these photos are VRAY-ed within Maya , does that prove they could not meditating transcendental as so many artist do, what do you think? May be your husband could be interested in this,my dear Anuschka! http://blog.cgtrader.com/2012/08/13/making-of-the-blue-project-by-dan-ro\ arty/ http://blog.cgtrader.com/2012/08/13/making-of-the-blue-project-by-dan-r\ oarty/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvQFMvdyPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvQFMvdyPQ OTHOH Send him the very best wishes from merudanda [http://to3d.ru/components/com_datsogallery/sub_wm.php?src=/home/to3dru3\ 6/public_html/components/com_datsogallery/img_originals/Varvara1024h.jpg\ ] and tell him merudanda enjoy his lively photos MORE- they are the best!! Could that be something for FFL profiles?? http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/30-amazing-semi-photorealistic-3d-carto\ on-characters.html http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/30-amazing-semi-photorealistic-3d-cart\ oon-characters.html but be careful a elderly curmudgeon may spoil the fun http://roklywang.cgsociety.org/gallery/1051008/ http://roklywang.cgsociety.org/gallery/1051008/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? ah... the other side of the coin of illusory face perception:Tell us, how many of the images above could you not tell apart from a 3ds Max, Mudbox, Vray, Photoshop created photos? Wonder if Grandmaster nooze -FFL-guru knows that 3D technology is evolving so fast that soon digital actors may replacing the real ones before too long. When it will be? Only time will tell that it becomes so real that there would be no questioning it and how this can be used in a dictatorial system? Wonder if 3D artist Chris Nichols from Vancouver has an TM-Meditator in mind with this adapted reality? [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Chris-Nichols_3D-Ch\ aracter.jpg] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
ah... the other side of the coin of illusory face perception: the animated idealized phantasy product of an creator from earthly realm with the help of 3ds Max, Mudbox, Vray, Photoshop etc may be in future done automatied by character artist robots? Wonder if Grandmaster nooze -FFL-guru knows that 3D technology is evolving so fast that soon digital actors may replacing the real ones before too long. When it will be? Only time will tell that it becomes so real that there would be no questioning it and how this can be used in a dictatorial system? Wonder if 3D artist Chris Nichols from Vancouver has an TM-Meditator in mind with this adapted reality? [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Chris-Nichols_3D-Ch\ aracter.jpg] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Now THAT chick is stoned! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: ah... the other side of the coin of illusory face perception: the animated idealized phantasy product of an creator from earthly realm with the help of 3ds Max, Mudbox, Vray, Photoshop etc may be in future done automatied by character artist robots? Wonder if Grandmaster nooze -FFL-guru knows that 3D technology is evolving so fast that soon digital actors may replacing the real ones before too long. When it will be? Only time will tell that it becomes so real that there would be no questioning it and how this can be used in a dictatorial system? Wonder if 3D artist Chris Nichols from Vancouver has an TM-Meditator in mind with this adapted reality? [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Chris-Nichols_3D-Ch\ aracter.jpg] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, personally, I'll take number one, meditator or not and number three looks like a mannequin. Since it looks like one could potentially mouseover the photos and see the captions listed below, I'll spoil the fun and reveal that none of the three are TM meditators. None are even women. All of them were created using CGI. Pretty amazing, eh? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: Paranormal and Religious Believers Are More Prone to Illusory Face Perception than Skeptics and Non-believers! Speaking of illusory face perception, let's see how refined Nabby's seeing really is, eh? All he has to do is to tell us which of the following three women is a TM meditator. This should be a simple task for him, seeing as how he sees devas in clouds. [Straightforward and super-realistic.] [This model is based on a real person named Bernadette Vong, who is a 3D animator herself.] [This picture took the artist three weeks to make.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: good choice..that's Nicole Roarty,a real person, wife of Dan Roarty,a 3D artist Lead Character Artist for LucasArts Here a much more IMHO charming snapshot of both [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dan-Roarty.jpg] so because these photos are VRAY-ed within Maya , does that prove they could not meditating transcendental as so many out artist do, what do you think? May be your husband could be interested in this,my dear Anuschka! http://blog.cgtrader.com/2012/08/13/making-of-the-blue-project-by-dan-roarty/ Thank you for this. GREAT find. I had seen only the final portrait. It's amazing to me to see the layering process. I've watched my best friend paint in oils, and the process is exactly like that -- laying down base levels of color and then applying more, either translucent or opaque -- to finally achieve a result that does a remarkable job of capturing the nuances of a human face. I'm seeing the future here. Within a decade you won't really need human actors. Sure, they'll still be out there, and working, but a lot of them will be working on a preliminary 3D modeling, which will then be transformed into the final. That introduces a whole new world. Fascinating, that the software tool of choice is called Maya, eh? There was actually a film made about creating a fictional CGI movie star called S1mone, written and directed by Andrew Niccol, and starring Al Pacino. It was not fully realized, and not that great a movie, but its concept just rocked. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/reference
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Yes saw that too several time .Some time ago during a week long strong taiphoon after a little shake up by an earth quake. We may ask if the time is approaching when a persona in its entirety could be a mere fabrication of modern culture and technology?So keep being original persona [:x] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP7WCx6eRzo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP7WCx6eRzo --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: good choice..that's Nicole Roarty,a real person, wife of Dan Roarty,a 3D artist Lead Character Artist for LucasArts Here a much more IMHO charming snapshot of both [http://blog.cgtrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dan-Roarty.jpg] so because these photos are VRAY-ed within Maya , does that prove they could not meditating transcendental as so many out artist do, what do you think? May be your husband could be interested in this,my dear Anuschka! http://blog.cgtrader.com/2012/08/13/making-of-the-blue-project-by-dan-ro\ arty/ Thank you for this. GREAT find. I had seen only the final portrait. It's amazing to me to see the layering process. I've watched my best friend paint in oils, and the process is exactly like that -- laying down base levels of color and then applying more, either translucent or opaque -- to finally achieve a result that does a remarkable job of capturing the nuances of a human face. I'm seeing the future here. Within a decade you won't really need human actors. Sure, they'll still be out there, and working, but a lot of them will be working on a preliminary 3D modeling, which will then be transformed into the final. That introduces a whole new world. Fascinating, that the software tool of choice is called Maya, eh? There was actually a film made about creating a fictional CGI movie star called S1mone, written and directed by Andrew Niccol, and starring Al Pacino. It was not fully realized, and not that great a movie, but its concept just rocked. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/reference
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. Sorry, spelling mistake. It should be: TYRE-KICKERS [http://static3.urbandictionary.com/assets/logo-holiday-9069d42a6163cfea\ 2193546a60447f69.png] http://www.urbandictionary.com/ look up any word:word of the day http://www.urbandictionary.com/ dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=A thesaurus http://www.urbandictionary.com/thesaurus.php names http://www.urbandictionary.com/names.php media http://www.urbandictionary.com/video.list.php store http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php add http://www.urbandictionary.com/add.php edit http://www.urbandictionary.com/editor/staygo.php blog http://blog.urbandictionary.com/random http://www.urbandictionary.com/random.php A http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=A B http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=B C http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=C D http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=D E http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=E F http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=F G http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=G H http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=H I http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=I J http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=J K http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=K L http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=L M http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=M N http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=N O http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=O P http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=P Q http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=Q R http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=R S http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=S T http://www.urbandictionary.com/browse.php?word=tyre+kicker U http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=U V http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=V W http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=W X http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=X Y http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=Y Z http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=Z # http://www.urbandictionary.com/browse.php?character=%2A new http://www.urbandictionary.com/yesterday.php?date=2013-03-08 favorites http://www.urbandictionary.com/favorites.php tv http://urbandictionary.tv/ 1. http://tyre-kicker.urbanup.com/705980 tyre kicker 173 up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tyre%20kicker# , 50 down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tyre%20kicker# http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tyre%20kicker#
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: Go ahead and look up any picture. The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers. Sorry, spelling mistake. It should be: TYRE-KICKERS Thanks for clearing that up, it's much more relevant now :/ 1. http://tyre-kicker.urbanup.com/705980 tyre kicker 173 up (n.) A person who appears interested in buying your car, but on the day displays any of the following traits. Does not show up Does not bring money Kicks the tyres and complains about even the most minor faults Seems to know barely anything about the car Offers stupid money (a large amount either side of what you expected) Keeps asking if he can part exchange his rusty old Ford http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ford for your car, not wondering why anyone wouldn't want it Assumes the car is in fine working condition just by kicking the tyres Tries to drive a restoration project dozens of miles home with him. Asks questions repeatedly, specifically ones mentioned in adevertising the car Gets the manufacturers' name wrong Asks if you are willing to transport the car without charge. Makes a bid for a car placed on ebay http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ebay or similar without any positive feedback Dresses up as, or asserts that they are a priest or mulla in an attempt to pay less for the car Is a young driver who just passed his test looking to buy a cheap old car, rice http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rice it up, and show off to thier friends. Quite likely to wreck it in a month.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
How can two people discuss all the laws of nature , its a One thing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: Nr 1 and 2 looks so real they could have been painted or photoshoped, but it's probably not. Didn't count them but in nr 3 there are probably several hundred. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? I think that MMY was generally talking about devas when he said laws of nature. Of course, that raises the question: what is a deva? They are ofcourse everywhere and especially easy to see in the air around dramatic events. Take a closer look at the pictures from the bombing of the Twin Towers for example. Here lower representatives are gleefully present by the hundreds. Go on then, post a link to a photograph showing these devas gleefully enjoying the hideous death of thousands of people. Why, are you to lazy to look up one of the thousands of images of the event yourself ? Um, it's more a question of having seen one or two photos of the event and not noticing any supernatural entities. Maybe you know of a particular image where they stand out so we can scrutinise them? And BTW, you seem to be so dense that even if you shook hands with one of them you wouldn't believe their exsistence :-) A photo will do for now, we'll save the introductions for later. Go ahead and look up any picture. [http://stargods.org/DS_Movie.jpg] [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0sdxhoTkvek/TQSfmfSePvI/ABo/8HFDxVCiI\ \ -A/s320/image-upload-14-733032.jpg] [http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4927/911truth0uj.jpg] [http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg] and as above so below from Keyhole Nebula-ooh-1008 -nablusoss- at an estimated distance between 6,500 and 10,000 light years from Earth [http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_carina.JPG] showing a middle finger and a face screaming? The post was intended for meditators who's awareness is open to the infinite field, not quitters and tire-kickers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? From the view point of physics, we seem to have certain regularities in nature we call laws, and everything seems to run according to them. There is also a random element observed on the quantum mechanical level. It would seem the universe runs according to all the laws of nature that we think we know about, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that it runs according to all possible laws. If there are other laws that we are somehow out of accord with, what are they? Can anybody name some of them, and describe the mechanisms by which they function and tell us how we can observe how we are in accord or out of accord with them? For example if someone walks into a door and bruises their nose and experiences a lot of pain, this can reasonably be explained by the laws of physics, and less precise subsets of physics such as chemistry, biology and neurology to the extent we know them; the laws of physics provided the environment for this situation and its happening. Being in accord with the laws of nature as a spiritual phenomenon seem more psychological: 'I feel bad; I want to feel better; what do I do to feel better? That is, the desire to end psychological suffering. Why does that have anything to do with coming into accord with laws? How is becoming less of a dufus, learning to be less inept, anything more than a redistribution of the functioning of the existing laws of nature? Suppose, hypothetically, a mythological entity of great and surpassing power came to you and told you that you could live in accord with the spiritual laws of nature immediately by its fiat, except for two of those laws, and you would have to choose two of those laws with which you would not be in accord, but it would be up to you to choose which, and it would be up to you alone to come into accord with those laws by whatever means you could muster. So which two would you choose? What would they be? How would you even know what those laws might be?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Ah, Xeno, thank you for this. I see you're still on a roll. Ok, in terms of laws of nature, forget YFers for the nonce. Think about those fire walking dufuses (dufusi ?) who don't even get blisters. Would you say they are more or less in accord with the laws of nature governing fire and human skin? I'd say they are more in accord with those laws. Or maybe they are operating from the level of some laws that have a wider range of influence. Or maybe it is just as you say, a redistribution of the functioning of the existing laws of nature. But really, Xeno, what does redistribution mean in this context?! About some one walking into a door, I think you'd have to know what their purpose was before ascertaining what laws were governing the event. IOW, it might not be just laws of physics and neurology etc. that were determining the event. What if their nose as if dissolved into the door so that there was no pain, no bruise, etc? I had an experience once where it felt like my head dissolved into the wall I was leaning it against! Jeez! Which 2 laws of nature would I choose to be out of accord with?! The ones that come to mind are pretty wide reaching in influence. Ok, a cop out: which 2 would you choose? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think. Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? From the view point of physics, we seem to have certain regularities in nature we call laws, and everything seems to run according to them. There is also a random element observed on the quantum mechanical level. It would seem the universe runs according to all the laws of nature that we think we know about, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that it runs according to all possible laws. If there are other laws that we are somehow out of accord with, what are they? Can anybody name some of them, and describe the mechanisms by which they function and tell us how we can observe how we are in accord or out of accord with them? For example if someone walks into a door and bruises their nose and experiences a lot of pain, this can reasonably be explained by the laws of physics, and less precise subsets of physics such as chemistry, biology and neurology to the extent we know them; the laws of physics provided the environment for this situation and its happening. Being in accord with the laws of nature as a spiritual phenomenon seem more psychological: 'I feel bad; I want to feel better; what do I do to feel better? That is, the desire to end psychological suffering. Why does that have anything to do with coming into accord with laws? How is becoming less of a dufus, learning to be less inept, anything more than a redistribution of the functioning of the existing laws of nature? Suppose, hypothetically, a mythological entity of great and surpassing power came to you and told you that you could live in accord with the spiritual laws of nature immediately by its fiat, except for two of those laws, and you would have to choose two of those laws with which you would not be in accord, but it would be up to you to choose which, and it would be up to you alone to come into accord with those laws by whatever means you could muster. So which two would you choose? What would they be? How would you even know what those laws might be?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? From the view point of physics, we seem to have certain regularities in nature we call laws, and everything seems to run according to them. There is also a random element observed on the quantum mechanical level. It would seem the universe runs according to all the laws of nature that we think we know about, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that it runs according to all possible laws. If there are other laws that we are somehow out of accord with, what are they? Can anybody name some of them, and describe the mechanisms by which they function and tell us how we can observe how we are in accord or out of accord with them? For example if someone walks into a door and bruises their nose and experiences a lot of pain, this can reasonably be explained by the laws of physics, and less precise subsets of physics such as chemistry, biology and neurology to the extent we know them; the laws of physics provided the environment for this situation and its happening. Being in accord with the laws of nature as a spiritual phenomenon seem more psychological: 'I feel bad; I want to feel better; what do I do to feel better? That is, the desire to end psychological suffering. Why does that have anything to do with coming into accord with laws? How is becoming less of a dufus, learning to be less inept, anything more than a redistribution of the functioning of the existing laws of nature? May take on what MMY meant when he talked about being in tune with the laws of nature and therefore not suffering any more is this: when you reach enlightenment and are therefore in tune with the L's of N, you really no longer have desires other than what is happening at the moment. So, you always feel as if what is happening is what you are enjoying, or experiencing. You feel in tune with what is because you have no individual desires left to bother you. You eliminated your own personal stuff, and all that is left is what is going to happen anyway. I too have wondered, however, just what, specifically, these Laws of Nature are and if they can be spelled out. Suppose, hypothetically, a mythological entity of great and surpassing power came to you and told you that you could live in accord with the spiritual laws of nature immediately by its fiat, except for two of those laws, and you would have to choose two of those laws with which you would not be in accord, but it would be up to you to choose which, and it would be up to you alone to come into accord with those laws by whatever means you could muster. So which two would you choose? What would they be? How would you even know what those laws might be?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Ah, Xeno, thank you for this. I see you're still on a roll. Ok, in terms of laws of nature, forget YFers for the nonce. Think about those fire walking dufuses (dufusi ?) who don't even get blisters. Would you say they are more or less in accord with the laws of nature governing fire and human skin? I'd say they are more in accord with those laws. Or maybe they are operating from the level of some laws that have a wider range of influence. Or maybe it is just as you say, a redistribution of the functioning of the existing laws of nature. But really, Xeno, what does redistribution mean in this context?! Fire walking has to do with transfer of heat. Hot coals are poor conductors of heat, and if the walk is quick enough, you are less likely to get burned. In the middle of last year, at a Tony Robbins seminar called 'Unleash the Power Within', a number of people fire walking got second and third degree burns. It may be the walk was not prepared properly; maybe they lingered too long. 'Coals, woodchips and similar combustibles are made up almost entirely of carbon, and it just so happens that carbon is positively miserable at conducting heat. Most metals, by comparison, are orders of magnitude more efficient at transferring heat than a smoldering coal or wood chip; if you've ever burnt your hand on a hot frying pan, you have an appreciation for just how conductive metal can be.' 'A layer of ash atop the coals serves as an additional protective barrier. Like the coals beneath it, ash is a poor conductor of thermal energy (so poor, in fact, that it has a history of use as insulation material in ice boxes). Add to this the fact that the ash is no longer producing any heat itself, and one can begin to appreciate how walking over a bed of 2000-degree coals might be possible.' If lumps of iron were used instead of coals, you would be doomed because iron is a great conductor of heat. You can get hit with a bolt of electricity from an electrostatic generator, but because it has low amperage, you are not likely to be harmed, though you certainly may feel the spark, but if you get hit with a bolt of lightning, which can have extremely high amperage, you are fried instantly. There was a Johnny MacKenzie who used to work at MIU. I was told he was on a trip and wanted to watch a thunderstorm in the Rocky Mountains. They found his body the next day. An example [Unless you are pretty well grounded, this video will be extremely disturbing - this is a sample the 'I am death, destroyer of worlds' part of the Bhagavad-Gita - photographed in India]: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80654598/ About some one walking into a door, I think you'd have to know what their purpose was before ascertaining what laws were governing the event. IOW, it might not be just laws of physics and neurology etc. that were determining the event. What if their nose as if dissolved into the door so that there was no pain, no bruise, etc? I had an experience once where it felt like my head dissolved into the wall I was leaning it against! Jeez! Which 2 laws of nature would I choose to be out of accord with?! The ones that come to mind are pretty wide reaching in influence. Ok, a cop out: which 2 would you choose? I don't know what they are, so how could I choose? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.  Regarding the phrase 'all the laws of nature'; while in science we have various equations and hypotheses that we think correspond to the way nature functions, I have never heard within the movement any meaningful discussion of what the specific laws of nature are, in the spiritual sense, that make up 'all the laws of nature'. What are those laws? From the view point of physics, we seem to have certain regularities in nature we call laws, and everything seems to run according to them. There is also a random element observed on the quantum mechanical level. It would seem the universe runs according to all the laws of nature that we think we know about, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that it runs according to all possible laws. If there are other laws that we are somehow out of accord with, what are they? Can anybody name some of them, and describe the mechanisms by which they function and tell us how we can observe how we are in accord or out of accord with them? For example if someone walks into a door and bruises their nose and experiences a lot of pain, this can reasonably be explained by the laws of physics, and less precise subsets of physics such as chemistry, biology and neurology to the extent we know them; the laws of physics provided
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
What you posit here is the skeptic PoV . That is okay if you want to stay there. Last week I got a tour of the Fermilab collider from a friend who is a career physicist there at the facility. They'll use circumstance that will suggest or describe something and they are able to then look further and check if something is there. They've found a few things that initially were just thought about. That is the process there. Fairfield is like that too. Fairfield in fact is full of clairvoyant, clairaudiant, clairsentient folks. Spiritual consciousness-based folks who are of help in consciousness to others with their abilities. It might be spiritual or physical health well-being, mending bones, or just talking with animals, stars and planets. It runs in different ways. Lot of these people do not stick their heads up for professional fear of getting their heads cut off so you won't hear much of them. But locally we know them and folks here go to them as needed. This suggests something that could be looked at. Maharishi described these things. In teaching Patanjali he taught a key to it that opens [the] universe. These folks here are sidhas that way though it is also just natural human being. Physics will catch up to it in the same way the CERN and Fermilab come to see things. Physics is getting there. You could too and also some of the other nay-sayers here too. Yours in Being, =Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the sutra as instructed? and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of everything else. If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. How about that! let's have some evidence to back these claims up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how things like positivity are transmitted through the subatomic world to create peace at a distance. There isn't a theory that even remotely explains what things like that might mean to nature itself without dipping into the sort of drippy new age concepts couched in vague sciencey sounding terms like coherence in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: What you posit here is the skeptic PoV . That is okay if you want to stay there. Last week I got a tour of the Fermilab collider from a friend who is a career physicist there at the facility. They'll use circumstance that will suggest or describe something and they are able to then look further and check if something is there. They've found a few things that initially were just thought about. That is the process there. Did you discuss the yogic flying theory of gravitation with your friend? Fairfield is like that too. Fairfield in fact is full of clairvoyant, clairaudiant, clairsentient folks. Spiritual consciousness-based folks who are of help in consciousness to others with their abilities. It might be spiritual or physical health well-being, mending bones, or just talking with animals, stars and planets. It runs in different ways. Lot of these people do not stick their heads up for professional fear of getting their heads cut off so you won't hear much of them. Let's hope for the sake of the people they take money from for their services that their skills are more convincing than those of the people who did dare to get tested. But locally we know them and folks here go to them as needed. This suggests something that could be looked at. Maharishi described these things. In teaching Patanjali he taught a key to it that opens [the] universe. These folks here are sidhas that way though it is also just natural human being. Physics will catch up to it in the same way the CERN and Fermilab come to see things. Physics is getting there. You could too and also some of the other nay-sayers here too. Yup, I have an evidence based view of the world so all that would be required is some evidence. Some way that the theory might work would be welcome to at this preliminary stage, something a bit more convincing than John Hagelin's idea that you can predict the future from tea leaves because all particles in the universe were created in the big bang. People talking to angels and clairvoyant stuff is all too easily explained in simpler non-mystical ways and has been many times, it will take more than Marshy teaching it to convince me people can fly or read minds etc. I know someone in FF who consults angels on your behalf (for $200 an hour of course) I doubt she really is communing with denizens of the nether world, more likely depersonalising an inner voice and relying on her intuition, but she has a ready audience and makes a tidy living. Maybe the reason she, and the others, can survive in FF is because there are so many who are willing to believe in the first place. PS I don't think CERN and Fermilab scientiists believe this stuff, I missed the press release and nobel prize ceremony if they did. The BBC might even have made a documentary or two out of it. Yours in Being, =Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. And maybe it's worth mentioning that slowing it down with a thought aint gonna happen, just like cancelling gravity with a thought isn't going to. Physical laws happen for a reason. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the sutra as instructed? and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of everything else. If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. How about that! let's have some evidence to back these claims up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how things like positivity are transmitted through the subatomic world to create peace at a distance. There isn't a theory that even remotely explains what things like that might mean to nature itself without dipping into the sort of drippy new age concepts couched in vague sciencey sounding terms like coherence in collective conciousness that don't actually mean a whole lot unless you've brought into the TM belief system. And they will require a rewrite of everything to do with society and psychology. If you want to rewrite human understanding get some evidence to back up the wild ideas! Better still, step back from the TMO belief system and see your post the way non-believers see it, it all sounds completely barking to me... any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could be observed in Newton's time. Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it in any realistic way. Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the universe
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Thanks Judy! great quotes - I particularly like the first one, about expanding our notions of what human beings are capable of. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. ...Yogic Flying invites us to look at human potential in an altogether new light, to expand our notions of what human beings can accomplish, to think afresh about the connection between human consciousness and the natural world. In just the last few years, quantum physics has identified the most fundamental field of Nature's intelligence, the Unified Field of all the Laws of Nature the level from where all the Laws of Nature, including the force of gravity, arise. This universal level of Natural Law underlies all forms and phenomena in the universe, including the human mind and body. The ancient Vedic understanding of Nature that Maharishi has brought to light goes further, identifying this universal field as a field of pure consciousness. In Maharishi's understanding, human consciousness has its foundation in this fundamental field of Natural Law. The human mind, Maharishi explains, can open to this most powerful level of Nature and function from here. Functioning from this fundamental level, Maharishi points out, we command the total potential of Natural Law; we can harness its power to fulfill our desires. Functioning from here, nothing is impossible for us. Our potential is unbounded. Yogic Flying provides evidence that human awareness can open to and operate from the most fundamental level of Natural Law. It enables us to access and enliven the total potential of Natural Law residing within each of us to open this infinite reservoir of energy and intelligence and harness it for all possibilities and fulfillment in daily life Regular practice of Yogic Flying leads the individual mind to enjoy control of Nature's central switchboard from where Natural Law governs the life of everyone and administers the entire universe from within the intelligence of every grain of creation. Maharishi http://www.yogicflyingclubs.org/yogic_flying.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
a key that opens the Universe!?!?!?! Buck, show me the sidhas and governors who are making the Universe accede to their whims and I will come back to the Domes From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think. What you posit here is the skeptic PoV . That is okay if you want to stay there. Last week I got a tour of the Fermilab collider from a friend who is a career physicist there at the facility. They'll use circumstance that will suggest or describe something and they are able to then look further and check if something is there. They've found a few things that initially were just thought about. That is the process there. Fairfield is like that too. Fairfield in fact is full of clairvoyant, clairaudiant, clairsentient folks. Spiritual consciousness-based folks who are of help in consciousness to others with their abilities. It might be spiritual or physical health well-being, mending bones, or just talking with animals, stars and planets. It runs in different ways. Lot of these people do not stick their heads up for professional fear of getting their heads cut off so you won't hear much of them. But locally we know them and folks here go to them as needed. This suggests something that could be looked at. Maharishi described these things. In teaching Patanjali he taught a key to it that opens [the] universe. These folks here are sidhas that way though it is also just natural human being. Physics will catch up to it in the same way the CERN and Fermilab come to see things. Physics is getting there. You could too and also some of the other nay-sayers here too. Yours in Being, =Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the sutra as instructed? and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of everything else. If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. How about that! let's have some evidence to back these claims up. Better still let's
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Thanks Buck - I enjoyed your post. Yep, it is a big world out there/in here, and getting bigger all the time! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: What you posit here is the skeptic PoV . That is okay if you want to stay there. Last week I got a tour of the Fermilab collider from a friend who is a career physicist there at the facility. They'll use circumstance that will suggest or describe something and they are able to then look further and check if something is there. They've found a few things that initially were just thought about. That is the process there. Fairfield is like that too. Fairfield in fact is full of clairvoyant, clairaudiant, clairsentient folks. Spiritual consciousness-based folks who are of help in consciousness to others with their abilities. It might be spiritual or physical health well-being, mending bones, or just talking with animals, stars and planets. It runs in different ways. Lot of these people do not stick their heads up for professional fear of getting their heads cut off so you won't hear much of them. But locally we know them and folks here go to them as needed. This suggests something that could be looked at. Maharishi described these things. In teaching Patanjali he taught a key to it that opens [the] universe. These folks here are sidhas that way though it is also just natural human being. Physics will catch up to it in the same way the CERN and Fermilab come to see things. Physics is getting there. You could too and also some of the other nay-sayers here too. Yours in Being, =Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the sutra as instructed? and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of everything else. If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. How about that! let's have some evidence to back these claims up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how things like positivity are transmitted through
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Salya wrote and I chuckled at: 5 billion years of evolving bacteria has produced some strange upright apes with a few pounds of cunningly wired lumps of mostly water and fat in their heads that come up with some really odd ideas. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 3:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: MMY said that the human brain is the microcosm of the entire universe. Can this be proved? Can it be proved that he was talking bollocks? Easy, as the old song goes: Give a monkey a brain and it'll swear it's the centre of the universe Which obviously doesn't constitute proof, for that we need a simple comparison of scale, purpose, build quality and possible functions. The universe is a cold, dark, expanding ball of mostly nothing except for a few trillion galaxies made up of several billion balls of fusing hydrogen nuclei orbiting a central black hole where everything in existence will one day end up. Around one of these doomed stars is a rocky planet where 5 billion years of evolving bacteria has produced some strange upright apes with a few pounds of cunningly wired lumps of mostly water and fat in their heads that come up with some really odd ideas. Undeniable though is the fact that the human brain is by far, the most complex thing known (at the moment). Physics can be said to be the complex study of simple things whereas biology is the simple study of complex things. The two ideas meet at the level of brains which are difficult to understand and complicated to build. The whole subject is made harder by the fact that brains cannot intuitively understand themselves, in fact they can hold completely nonsensical ideas about what they are and where they came from as MMY and his vedic cosmology demonstrate. We have ideas that what goes on in our heads has a parallel at the large scale structure of the universe but it doesn't really. The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, such as magnetic fields etc. The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the giant hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial fart rays, or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one off the ground. One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more scientific knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical explanations as a result seem to have less lustre. When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they are different in every brain, though typically in the same general areas. Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, and interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates words. If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor or tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a general plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for tat correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is damaged that leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different ways of looking at the same process. For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. Yet she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the brain, and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored in a separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain pulls all this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is currently unknown. If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain incapacitate the mind? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if the brain is damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host? The research that shows computers analysing the electrical activity of the brain can predict what decision a brain will come to many seconds before it becomes a conscious experience is another area that make one wonder what is going on, with the mind seemingly the horse behind the cart being pulled along. All this is leading to attempts to create functional computer analogical models of the human brain, that can use input, and can be taught just like us. There is this this little robot in my home that vacuums the floor. It maps out the space and vacuums around the edge and then vacuums everything in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. As did Maharishi *himself* in the early days of his teaching. At Squaw Valley he explicitly warned against trying to learn siddhis in any way, calling them dangerous and a distraction along the path to enlightenment. TBs these days, devoid of long-term memory, don't want to remember (or are incapable of remembering) that he completely flip-flopped on this position as soon as he invented his completely made up TM sidhi program. Once he realized that he could MAKE MONEY selling siddhis, all of what he had said before went right out the window. And the sheep -- even the ones who could remember what he had once taught -- ignored the flip-flop completely and pretended things had always been the way he was presenting them now. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? TBs similarly have a blind spot when it comes to Maharishi contradicting himself. :-) If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the practice, or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. IMO, it was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. The minute he realized that Westerners were STPID enough to pay big bucks to learn how to FLY ferchrissakes, he was willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear as long as the money kept flowing in. And then when nobody ever FLEW, he changed his tune again, and tried to present the TM sidhis as something that one does for the world (whirled peas, donchaknow?) instead of what it was originally presented as, a way to learn how to FLY. It's the same flip-flop he danced to with regard to people starting TM. Back when they were starting in droves, sheep following celebrities like the Beatles and Merv, his whole spiel was about getting as many people meditating as possible. When they stopped coming to lectures, and stopped wanting to learn, and the revenue from initiations dried up, suddenly the sheer numbers of people meditating wasn't important any more. All that was important was the number of people doing the newest, bestest techniques (read, the ones that brought in the most money, the TM sidhis), and that small group could bring about whirled peas. Yeah, right. But again, NO ONE NOTICED THE FLIP-FLOP. By then they had become so indoctrinated to just accept anything he said, no matter whether it directly contradicted what he'd said a few years ago or not, that they just put the old, out-of-date teachings out of their minds, and when asked could remember nothing but the current sales spiel. Baaah. Run, sheep, run.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. As did Maharishi *himself* in the early days of his teaching. At Squaw Valley he explicitly warned against trying to learn siddhis in any way, calling them dangerous and a distraction along the path to enlightenment. Opsie! Be careful there, Barry. You are *agreeing with Robin*. You don't want anybody to think you have slavishly adopted Robin as your cult leader, so you might want to give this a bit of a rethink. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. I know. I was addressing your hypothetical, which seems to assume that Materialism and Idealism could both be proved conclusively (albeit not at the same time). I was pointing out that Idealism can be proved but not Materialism, so nobody could ever be faced with concrete proof that mind and brain were identical and physical. So it's not such a hot way to test for psychological factors. (snip) If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain incapacitate the mind? Does it? Or does it incapacitate the mind's ability to project itself via the brain? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if the brain is damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host? Because all suitable host brains are already occupied by minds? snip There are some scientists and philosophers who feel this nit picking about consciousness might be asking the wrong questions, that is, the questions that are being asked create the problem to be solved because they are red herrings. Right. And other scientists and philosophers who very strongly disagree that it's nitpicking. They think it's *the* main question. (snip) Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. It actually doesn't make sense in the context of Maharishi's definition of Unity consciousness. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the practice, That's my guess. It would also be important, though, to have *exactly* what he said in its full context. or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. And writings in Maharishi's tradition (and other traditions as well) warn of following the path of special powers, if you want enlightenment. That last is a red herring. Using levitation as a requirement for enlightenment is a good way for keeping people in place, for if that were true, no one in the absence of a concrete, verifiable demonstration could ever displace the assumption that Maharishi was in unity, and that they, in the absence of that demo, could never aspire to usurp his position as a source of wisdom. Oh, please, you're sounding like Michael here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, such as magnetic fields etc. The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the giant hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial fart rays, or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one off the ground. One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more scientific knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical explanations as a result seem to have less lustre. When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they are different in every brain, though typically in the same general areas. Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, and interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates words. If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor or tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a general plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for tat correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is damaged that leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different ways of looking at the same process. For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. Yet she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the brain, and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored in a separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain pulls all this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. As did Maharishi *himself* in the early days of his teaching. At Squaw Valley he explicitly warned against trying to learn siddhis in any way, calling them dangerous and a distraction along the path to enlightenment. TBs these days, devoid of long-term memory, don't want to remember (or are incapable of remembering) that he completely flip-flopped on this position as soon as he invented his completely made up TM sidhi program. Once he realized that he could MAKE MONEY selling siddhis, all of what he had said before went right out the window. And the sheep -- even the ones who could remember what he had once taught -- ignored the flip-flop completely and pretended things had always been the way he was presenting them now. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? TBs similarly have a blind spot when it comes to Maharishi contradicting himself. :-) If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the practice, or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. IMO, it was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. The minute he realized that Westerners were STPID enough to pay big bucks to learn how to FLY ferchrissakes, he was willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear as long as the money kept flowing in. And then when nobody ever FLEW, he changed his tune again, and tried to present the TM sidhis as something that one does for the world (whirled peas, donchaknow?) instead of what it was originally presented as, a way to learn how to FLY. It's the same flip-flop he danced to with regard to people starting TM. Back when they were starting in droves, sheep following celebrities like the Beatles and Merv, his whole spiel was about getting as many people meditating as possible. When they stopped coming to lectures, and stopped wanting to learn, and the revenue from initiations dried up, suddenly the sheer numbers of people meditating wasn't important any more. All that was important was the number of people doing the newest, bestest techniques (read, the ones that brought in the most money, the TM sidhis), and that small group could bring about whirled peas. Yeah, right. But again, NO ONE NOTICED THE FLIP-FLOP. By then they had become so indoctrinated to just accept anything he said, no matter whether it directly contradicted what he'd said a few years ago or not, that they just put the old, out-of-date teachings out of their minds, and when asked could remember nothing but the current sales spiel. Baaah. Run, sheep, run. You are very hard on the human race Barry. You are a member of that species. You belittle and scorn so much. You act as if the rest of humanity were the equivalent of ants in one of those ant farms they used to sell to kids back in the 60's. You squint down at the little creatures scurrying about, doing their daily business of trying to make a living- store food, tend to their queen, go about their segregated duties to ensure the nest remains viable. One day, when you lay dying, as we all will, I hope you will be able to look back on your life and what you contributed to this planet and be able to say to yourself you did the best you could despite the sneering, the judgemental dismissiveness, the cynicism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. ...Yogic Flying invites us to look at human potential in an altogether new light, to expand our notions of what human beings can accomplish, to think afresh about the connection between human consciousness and the natural world. In just the last few years, quantum physics has identified the most fundamental field of Nature's intelligence, the Unified Field of all the Laws of Nature the level from where all the Laws of Nature, including the force of gravity, arise. This universal level of Natural Law underlies all forms and phenomena in the universe, including the human mind and body. The ancient Vedic understanding of Nature that Maharishi has brought to light goes further, identifying this universal field as a field of pure consciousness. In Maharishi's understanding, human consciousness has its foundation in this fundamental field of Natural Law. The human mind, Maharishi explains, can open to this most powerful level of Nature and function from here. Functioning from this fundamental level, Maharishi points out, we command the total potential of Natural Law; we can harness its power to fulfill our desires. Functioning from here, nothing is impossible for us. Our potential is unbounded. Yogic Flying provides evidence that human awareness can open to and operate from the most fundamental level of Natural Law. It enables us to access and enliven the total potential of Natural Law residing within each of us to open this infinite reservoir of energy and intelligence and harness it for all possibilities and fulfillment in daily life Regular practice of Yogic Flying leads the individual mind to enjoy control of Nature's central switchboard from where Natural Law governs the life of everyone and administers the entire universe from within the intelligence of every grain of creation. Maharishi http://www.yogicflyingclubs.org/yogic_flying.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, such as magnetic
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. As did Maharishi *himself* in the early days of his teaching. At Squaw Valley he explicitly warned against trying to learn siddhis in any way, calling them dangerous and a distraction along the path to enlightenment. TBs these days, devoid of long-term memory, don't want to remember (or are incapable of remembering) that he completely flip-flopped on this position as soon as he invented his completely made up TM sidhi program. Once he realized that he could MAKE MONEY selling siddhis, all of what he had said before went right out the window. And the sheep -- even the ones who could remember what he had once taught -- ignored the flip-flop completely and pretended things had always been the way he was presenting them now. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? TBs similarly have a blind spot when it comes to Maharishi contradicting himself. :-) If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the practice, or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. IMO, it was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. The minute he realized that Westerners were STPID enough to pay big bucks to learn how to FLY ferchrissakes, he was willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear as long as the money kept flowing in. And then when nobody ever FLEW, he changed his tune again, and tried to present the TM sidhis as something that one does for the world (whirled peas, donchaknow?) instead of what it was originally presented as, a way to learn how to FLY. It's the same flip-flop he danced to with regard to people starting TM. Back when they were starting in droves, sheep following celebrities like the Beatles and Merv, his whole spiel was about getting as many people meditating as possible. When they stopped coming to lectures, and stopped wanting to learn, and the revenue from initiations dried up, suddenly the sheer numbers of people meditating wasn't important any more. All that was important was the number of people doing the newest, bestest techniques (read, the ones that brought in the most money, the TM sidhis), and that small group could bring about whirled peas. Yeah, right. But again, NO ONE NOTICED THE FLIP-FLOP. By then they had become so indoctrinated to just accept anything he said, no matter whether it directly contradicted what he'd said a few years ago or not, that they just put the old, out-of-date teachings out of their minds, and when asked could remember nothing but the current sales spiel. Baaah. Run, sheep, run. You are very hard on the human race Barry. You are a member of that species. You belittle and scorn so much. You act as if the rest of humanity were the equivalent of ants in one of those ant farms they used to sell to kids back in the 60's. You squint down at the little creatures scurrying about, doing their daily business of trying to make a living- store food, tend to their queen, go about their segregated duties to ensure the nest remains viable. One day, when you lay dying, as we all will, I hope you will be able to look back on your life and what you contributed to this planet and be able to say to yourself you did the best you could despite the sneering, the judgemental dismissiveness, the cynicism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could be observed in Newton's time. Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it in any realistic way. Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the universe that might result from practicing them is really real by MMY''s definition, is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not floating and so on are actually possible. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the investigation of mind and levitation
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
Thanks Judy and Sparaig for both of your inputs on this subject. Both answers are worthy of a second reading and I love how they require an expansion of the mind to grasp these wonderful concepts. Isn't life great when it is unpredictable and unknown? Being ignorant like I am means I can always be surprised and my boundaries stretched and snapped. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could be observed in Newton's time. Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it in any realistic way. Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the universe that might result from practicing them is really real by MMY''s definition, is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not floating and so on are actually possible. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental technique) is possible, but you should understand that law of nature in science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what to do. I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how fast it will go. It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall *always* towards larger objects. In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), How about when doing the sutra as instructed? and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the universe, not a total rewrite, Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of everything else. If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. How about that! let's have some evidence to back these claims up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how things like positivity are transmitted through the subatomic world to create peace at a distance. There isn't a theory that even remotely explains what things like that might mean to nature itself without dipping into the sort of drippy new age concepts couched in vague sciencey sounding terms like coherence in collective conciousness that don't actually mean a whole lot unless you've brought into the TM belief system. And they will require a rewrite of everything to do with society and psychology. If you want to rewrite human understanding get some evidence to back up the wild ideas! Better still, step back from the TMO belief system and see your post the way non-believers see it, it all sounds completely barking to me... any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could be observed in Newton's time. Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it in any realistic way. Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the universe that might result from practicing them is really real by MMY''s definition, is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not floating and so on are actually possible. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. are inherently somehow anti true laws of nature or even negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If not then they are evidently not laws. Riddle me that one Batman. ...Yogic Flying invites us to look at human potential in an altogether new light, to expand our notions of what human beings can accomplish, to think afresh about the connection between human consciousness and the natural world. In just the last few years, quantum physics has identified the most fundamental field of Nature's intelligence, the Unified Field of all the Laws of Nature No it hasn't. the level from where all the Laws of Nature, including the force of gravity, arise. This universal level of Natural Law underlies all forms and phenomena in the universe, including the human mind and body. The ancient Vedic understanding of Nature that Maharishi has brought to light goes further, identifying this universal field as a field of pure consciousness. In Maharishi's understanding, human consciousness has its foundation in this fundamental field of Natural Law. The human mind, Maharishi explains, can open to this most powerful level of Nature and function from here. Functioning from this fundamental level, Maharishi points out, we command the total potential of Natural Law; we can harness its power to fulfill our desires. Functioning from here, nothing is impossible for us. Our potential is unbounded. Yogic Flying provides evidence that human awareness can open to and operate from the most fundamental level of Natural Law. It enables us to access and enliven the total potential of Natural Law residing within each of us to open this infinite reservoir of energy and intelligence and harness it for all possibilities and fulfillment in daily life Regular practice of Yogic Flying leads the individual mind to enjoy control of Nature's central switchboard from where Natural Law governs the life of everyone and administers the entire universe from within the intelligence of every grain of creation. Maharishi http://www.yogicflyingclubs.org/yogic_flying.html There's a sucker born every minute. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified. I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. You genuinely aren't aware that this is *the* most controversial proposition on this list of supposed misconceptions? The writer--a neuropsychologist-- is certainly aware of it. For him to proclaim that the mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways as if it were established fact is absurd (and possibly deliberately deceptive). He may *wish* it were established fact because he believes in it so strongly, but the relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. I see you read the Grauniad comment section ;-) Nope, I didn't, actually. I gather I'm not the only reader to have complained. Gee, more than one person having the same thought independently, will wonders never cease? But if you or anyone else has any evidence that the brain and the mind aren't the same thing, the rest of the world would love to hear it as it contradicts everything we know! Gee, I could have sworn I wrote, The relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. But not everything we believe, which is why I consider it the most important statement for US. Yeah, see, my point was that he pretended his opinion on the matter was established fact when he knew it was not. The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Did you have any comments to make that address what I wrote? Maybe you could give it another read, see if perhaps you made some unwarranted assumptions about what I actually said. BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. I doubt anyone has ever tried to suggest that the mind causes the brain. To say the brain causes the mind is more reasonable, like saying water causes wetness, but his rejection of causation either way amounts to a straw man given our lack of knowledge about the nature of the brain-mind relationship.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Did you know we can record dreams? Or that thoughts can be tracked to the merest neuron. So where is this mind that creates it all? It's not the one that lives in our heads. Obviously it's an invention but is it a necessary one? I would say not in the same way I dismiss god. In what way is it a useful explanation, what does it bring to the empirical party? My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong... This is a bit weird...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only
manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that
is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific
perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same
phenomena seems like the best approach. Evidence of a metaphysical element
could never be proved. It is hard enough to 'prove' concepts of physical
phenomena have merit, to show that our conceptualisation, our verbal and
mathematical descriptions of the world have some useful kind of correspondence.
As our internal experience versus the outside world seems to be the source of
this mind brain conundrum, what evidence do we have that our experiences in any
way are non-physical? It is interesting that spiritual concepts have to be
described using physical concepts, like space, light, because we cannot
otherwise describe that which we conceive of as being formless. We give
formlessness pretend qualities so we can talk about it, but it is always
beating around the bush trying to scare up something we cannot grasp.
Now look what happens with meditation. People experience different stages in
the way they experience the world. Different systems describe various kinds of
experience, but they tend to boil down to just a few scenarios. The experience
of activity, the experience of inactivity (stillness, pure consciousness), the
experience of activity and stillness, and the experience where that experience
of activity and stillness have merged. (I have left out visions, which are
perhaps waking dreams)
When experience of activity and stillness have merged, it is no longer possible
to say they are different from one another. Thus the physical world and what we
call consciousness no longer are distinct in any way: they are the same. This
solves the mind/brain problem experientially because it no longer makes any
sense to assume there is a physical *and* a metaphysical dimension to life;
they simply are one and the same ('the world is Brahman' in Hindu, Vedic
terminology), and speculation about the nature of reality from the experiential
perspective simply no longer is relevant because one experiences the world as
relationship, connectedness, rather than cause and effect.
From a scientific perspective though, there will always be something to
discover, but here too advanced sciences are about relationship, not cause and
effect. When the relationships are 'known' one can determine the state of the
system at any time. A successful unified field equation, should one ever be
produced, does not describe what causes what, but how all the elements of the
system fit together in all possible configurations. For example the equation 1
+ 1 = 2 does not show that adding one to one causes two, but illustrates the
relationship of the concepts '1' '+' '=' and '2. The equations of physics are
of course much more complicated, but all equations show relationships,
equivalencies.
Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological
rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose,
hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain
were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you
psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was
possible to prove, what would that do for you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Well, no, it's not clear at all. That's only one possible explanation of the evidence. Did you know we can record dreams? Not in any significant sense, and that wouldn't prove anything either. Or that thoughts can be tracked to the merest neuron. Or this. So where is this mind that creates it all? We don't know, that's the point. It's not the one that lives in our heads. Does it live in our heads? Show it to me. Obviously it's an invention It isn't obviously an invention. but is it a necessary one? Necessary for what? I would say not in the same way I dismiss god. In what way is it a useful explanation, what does it bring to the empirical party? The question is whether it's an empirical *issue*. My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong... This is a bit weird... Well, I was wrong, you did try to respond. But you didn't try to respond to what I asked (see the original question above).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Well, no, it's not clear at all. That's only one possible explanation of the evidence. Not clear to you perhaps, everyone else has realised that the ego kids itself into thinking it's this wonderful amazing thing when really it's a cobbled together bodge-up like everything else in evolution. If Kant knew what we did about the brain and cosmology do you think he would arrive at the same conclusions? Of course not, he would argue according to the data like everyone else does. Claiming primacy for the mind is a weird metaphysical luxury these days. Did you know we can record dreams? Not in any significant sense, and that wouldn't prove anything either. It proves we know more about where and how the mind operates than at any time in history and knowledge will only increase. Obviously it's an invention It isn't obviously an invention. It's obvious to me. See comment on metaphysical luxury above. but is it a necessary one? Necessary for what? Necessary to explain our experience of ourselves and the world, which is what science is trying to do, and doing quite an efficient and interesting job I think. The only way we will get to a theory of mental primacy is if we find something fundamental that we can't explain empirically and thus require a new kind of explanation. I mention recording dreams and neuroscience to indicate that mind is getting nailed down as a physical process of the brain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
MMY said that the human brain is the microcosm of the entire universe. Can this be proved? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: We've all heard them, we've all said them. But how much of popular neuroscience is actually true?FOLK NEUROSCIENCE Popular misconceptions â The left-brain is rational, the right-brain is creative The hemispheres have different specialisations (the left usually has key language areas, for example) but there is no clear rational-creative split and you need both hemispheres to be successful at either. You can no more do right-brain thinking than you can do rear-brain thinking. â Dopamine is a pleasure chemical Dopamine has many functions in the brain, from supporting concentration to regulating the production of breast milk. Even in its most closely associated functioning it is usually considered to be involved in motivation (wanting) rather than the feeling of pleasure itself. â Low serotonin causes depression A concept almost entirely promoted by pharmaceutical companies in the 1980s and 90s to sell serotonin-enhancing drugs like Prozac. No consistent evidence for it. â Video games, TV violence, porn or any other social spectre of the moment rewires the brain Everything rewires the brain as the brain works by making and remaking connections. This is often used in a contradictory fashion to suggest that the brain is both particularly susceptible to change but once changed, can't change back. â We have no control over our brain but we can control our mind The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. The whole article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/03/brain-not-simple-folk-neur\ oscience http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/03/brain-not-simple-folk-neu\ roscience
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: MMY said that the human brain is the microcosm of the entire universe. Can this be proved? Can it be proved that he was talking bollocks? Easy, as the old song goes: Give a monkey a brain and it'll swear it's the centre of the universe
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: MMY said that the human brain is the microcosm of the entire universe. Can this be proved? Can it be proved that he was talking bollocks? Easy, as the old song goes: Give a monkey a brain and it'll swear it's the centre of the universe Which obviously doesn't constitute proof, for that we need a simple comparison of scale, purpose, build quality and possible functions. The universe is a cold, dark, expanding ball of mostly nothing except for a few trillion galaxies made up of several billion balls of fusing hydrogen nuclei orbiting a central black hole where everything in existence will one day end up. Around one of these doomed stars is a rocky planet where 5 billion years of evolving bacteria has produced some strange upright apes with a few pounds of cunningly wired lumps of mostly water and fat in their heads that come up with some really odd ideas. Undeniable though is the fact that the human brain is by far, the most complex thing known (at the moment). Physics can be said to be the complex study of simple things whereas biology is the simple study of complex things. The two ideas meet at the level of brains which are difficult to understand and complicated to build. The whole subject is made harder by the fact that brains cannot intuitively understand themselves, in fact they can hold completely nonsensical ideas about what they are and where they came from as MMY and his vedic cosmology demonstrate. We have ideas that what goes on in our heads has a parallel at the large scale structure of the universe but it doesn't really. The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: snip The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. You genuinely aren't aware that this is *the* most controversial proposition on this list of supposed misconceptions? The writer--a neuropsychologist-- is certainly aware of it. For him to proclaim that the mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways as if it were established fact is absurd (and possibly deliberately deceptive). He may *wish* it were established fact because he believes in it so strongly, but the relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. I doubt anyone has ever tried to suggest that the mind causes the brain. To say the brain causes the mind is more reasonable, like saying water causes wetness, but his rejection of causation either way amounts to a straw man given our lack of knowledge about the nature of the brain-mind relationship.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. You genuinely aren't aware that this is *the* most controversial proposition on this list of supposed misconceptions? The writer--a neuropsychologist-- is certainly aware of it. For him to proclaim that the mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways as if it were established fact is absurd (and possibly deliberately deceptive). He may *wish* it were established fact because he believes in it so strongly, but the relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. I see you read the Grauniad comment section ;-) But if you or anyone else has any evidence that the brain and the mind aren't the same thing, the rest of the world would love to hear it as it contradicts everything we know! But not everything we believe, which is why I consider it the most important statement for US. The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. I doubt anyone has ever tried to suggest that the mind causes the brain. To say the brain causes the mind is more reasonable, like saying water causes wetness, but his rejection of causation either way amounts to a straw man given our lack of knowledge about the nature of the brain-mind relationship.
