[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could anyone but the most stupid being to ever live think that
somehow the observation of a human is more important than that of
say
an elephant or chimpanzee, and those are somehow more relevant
than a
mouse or a beetle, and those are more relevant than a microbe or
even
a particle that registers (observes) an energy or effect.
Cool!
\EN{M1.96a/} bhuutaanaaM ***praaNinaH shreshhThaaH*** praaNinaaM
buddhijiivinaH |
\EN{M1.96c/} ### buddhimatsu *naraaH* shreshhThaa ### nareshhu
braahmaNaaH smR^itaaH || \BC\.\SC||
\EN{M1.97a/} braahmaNeshhu cha vidvaa.nso vidvatsu kR^itabuddhayaH |
\EN{M1.97c/} kR^itabuddhishhu kartaaraH kartR^ishhu brahmavedinaH ||
\BC\.\SC||
\EN{M1.98a/} utpattireva viprasya muurtirdharmasya shaashvatii |
\EN{M1.98c/} sa hi dharmaarthamutpanno ***brahmabhuuyaaya kalpate***
|| \BC
-- MDhSh, I 96-98 (emph. add. by Maister)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
no_reply@ wrote:
How could anyone but the most stupid being to ever live think
that
somehow the observation of a human is more important than that of
say
an elephant or chimpanzee, and those are somehow more relevant
than a
mouse or a beetle, and those are more relevant than a microbe or
even
a particle that registers (observes) an energy or effect.
Cool!
\EN{M1.96a/} bhuutaanaaM ***praaNinaH shreshhThaaH*** praaNinaaM
buddhijiivinaH |
\EN{M1.96c/} ### buddhimatsu *naraaH* shreshhThaa ### nareshhu
braahmaNaaH smR^itaaH || \BC\.\SC||
\EN{M1.97a/} braahmaNeshhu cha vidvaa.nso vidvatsu kR^itabuddhayaH |
\EN{M1.97c/} kR^itabuddhishhu kartaaraH kartR^ishhu brahmavedinaH
||
\BC\.\SC||
\EN{M1.98a/} utpattireva viprasya muurtirdharmasya shaashvatii |
\EN{M1.98c/} sa hi dharmaarthamutpanno ***brahmabhuuyaaya
kalpate***
|| \BC
-- MDhSh, I 96-98 (emph. add. by Maister)
translation please.
OFfWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consciousness researcher Stuart Hameroff, on the audience reaction to his talk at the 2006 Beyond Belief meeting (a gathering of mostly atheists) at the Salk Institute in La Jolla: Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler's delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a rundown on quantum mind theories, which is a good starting point and at least gives some idea of the issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Wikipedia also has a nice brief discussion of the measurement problem and the falsifiability issue when concepts of consciousness become part of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. Still mostly philosophy and no real science on the big consciousness questions. Of course, this all could be a bunch of scientists getting way out of the realms of hard science, much like Linus Pauling and vitamin C.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consciousness researcher Stuart Hameroff, on the audience reaction to his talk at the 2006 Beyond Belief meeting (a gathering of mostly atheists) at the Salk Institute in La Jolla: Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler's delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a rundown on quantum mind theories, which is a good starting point and at least gives some idea of the issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Wikipedia also has a nice brief discussion of the measurement problem and the falsifiability issue when concepts of consciousness become part of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. Still mostly philosophy and no real science on the big consciousness questions. Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Consciousness researcher Stuart Hameroff, on the audience reaction to his talk at the 2006 Beyond Belief meeting (a gathering of mostly atheists) at the Salk Institute in La Jolla: Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler's delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a rundown on quantum mind theories, which is a good starting point and at least gives some idea of the issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Wikipedia also has a nice brief discussion of the measurement problem and the falsifiability issue when concepts of consciousness become part of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. Did you read what he wrote that I quoted?? Please go back and look at it again. If he is familiar with it, his comments were disingenuous. He suggested that the backward-in-time problem, for example, was a function of bad science on MMY/Hagelin's part, rather than an inherent--and experimentally proven, as Hameroff notes --paradox of QM. Still mostly philosophy and no real science on the big consciousness questions. Have you about read Hameroff's work, and that of Penrose? Of course, this all could be a bunch of scientists getting way out of the realms of hard science, much like Linus Pauling and vitamin C. Of course the *interpretations* of QM--Copenhagen, many worlds, etc.--are out of the realm of hard science. But that's not in any way parallel to Pauling's ventures with vitamin C. The hard science of QM comprises a bunch of mathematics and experimental data that appears to contradict everything we think we know about how reality is structured. As Bohr (I think) said, if you aren't shocked by QM, you don't understand it. The only people really qualified to even guess at what QM means are those who at least grasp the math and the data.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you about read Hameroff's work, and that of Penrose? Yes. They have theories but still no one knows anything really about the Mind, about consciousness. The hard science of QM comprises a bunch of mathematics and experimental data that appears to contradict everything we think we know about how reality is structured. As Bohr (I think) said, if you aren't shocked by QM, you don't understand it. The only people really qualified to even guess at what QM means are those who at least grasp the math and the data. No disagreement here. That is one of the wonders of science. When we begin to understand one thing, it opens the door to many new mysteries. Right now QMs is full of mysteries for science to explore. Whether what is learned will tell us anything about consciousness is subject to considerable debate and considerable doubt. I doubt any of us here of physicists. My background makes me at least a fair issue spotter. At best we are equipped to learn where there may be consensus, to determine what theories are being explored, and to have a very basic understanding of what the issues are regarding one theory or another. For us to try to draw conclusions about anything regarding QM is fun, but that is about it. Because theorists tend to get attached to their theories, we cannot even draw good conclusions about what they say is evidence in support of their theories unless there is pretty good consensus in the applicable scientific community.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. This wiki entry notes how Schroedinger was more mystical than many quantum scientists. Nevertheless, Schroedinger did not have much respect for what he called the lofty consequences people drew from quantum science. For example he knew that there was no evidence or any good theory for the proposition that consciousness influences an object being observed. It was an unsupported belief drawn from the fact that measuring devices interfere with objects under measurement. As he said: Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the world of energy. They cannot produce any change in the world of energy. . . (from My View of the World, Cambridge University Press, 1964). I especially like these quotes from the article: The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It give a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. . . .it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good and bad, God and eternity. Whence I come and whither I go? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Have you about read Hameroff's work, and that of Penrose? Yes. They have theories but still no one knows anything really about the Mind, about consciousness. They're also doing some hard science that has a great deal to do with consciousness. The hard science of QM comprises a bunch of mathematics and experimental data that appears to contradict everything we think we know about how reality is structured. As Bohr (I think) said, if you aren't shocked by QM, you don't understand it. The only people really qualified to even guess at what QM means are those who at least grasp the math and the data. No disagreement here. Then why compare the physicists doing the guessing to Linus Pauling? That is one of the wonders of science. When we begin to understand one thing, it opens the door to many new mysteries. Right now QMs is full of mysteries for science to explore. Whether what is learned will tell us anything about consciousness is subject to considerable debate and considerable doubt. I doubt any of us here of physicists. My background makes me at least a fair issue spotter. At best we are equipped to learn where there may be consensus, to determine what theories are being explored, and to have a very basic understanding of what the issues are regarding one theory or another. For us to try to draw conclusions about anything regarding QM is fun, but that is about it. Because theorists tend to get attached to their theories, we cannot even draw good conclusions about what they say is evidence in support of their theories unless there is pretty good consensus in the applicable scientific community. No argument with any of this. But some here (e.g., Vaj) are doing just that nevertheless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Have you about read Hameroff's work, and that of Penrose? Yes. They have theories but still no one knows anything really about the Mind, about consciousness. They're also doing some hard science that has a great deal to do with consciousness. Well, that is what they believe. Others disagree. They are doing hard science but whether it tells us anything at all about consciousness is doubted. Interestingly, we still have no hard facts about consciousness at all. A more mystical question is whether we ever will know anything about consciousness. The hard science of QM comprises a bunch of mathematics and experimental data that appears to contradict everything we think we know about how reality is structured. As Bohr (I think) said, if you aren't shocked by QM, you don't understand it. The only people really qualified to even guess at what QM means are those who at least grasp the math and the data. No disagreement here. Then why compare the physicists doing the guessing to Linus Pauling? Because all their theories could end up going no where. They could all be wrong because to the extent any of their experiments teaches us anything about consciousness is still doubtful. They may be better at guessing than us, but it doesn't mean that they are right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 14, 2008, at 6:15 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. This wiki entry notes how Schroedinger was more mystical than many quantum scientists. Nevertheless, Schroedinger did not have much respect for what he called the lofty consequences people drew from quantum science. For example he knew that there was no evidence or any good theory for the proposition that consciousness influences an object being observed. It was an unsupported belief drawn from the fact that measuring devices interfere with objects under measurement. As he said: Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the world of energy. They cannot produce any change in the world of energy. . . (from My View of the World, Cambridge University Press, 1964). I especially like these quotes from the article: The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It give a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. . . .it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good and bad, God and eternity. Whence I come and whither I go? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. Of course this was before Reich's rediscovery of life-energy. Once prana actually becomes measurable, it's possible--maybe even likely-- we'll finally see the possibility of a truly unified theory.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:11 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge. Be careful of Judy's Golem, a peculiar form of strawman fallacy where our Dear Editor distorts or misrepresents an others thoughts, and then based on that distorted monster attempts to show who that misleading idea is wrong. The ideas she attributes to me have actually zero to do with my personal thoughts and a certainly not even close to what I was thinking of. Hang around here long enough and you'll see this often enough. It's just a common technique she uses to lure people into arguments. When you ignore her, she'll try to beg others on to further entice with her latest Golem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge. Yes indeed. Which is where the ideas Off cited that Vaj was scoffing at as absurd come from, Vaj erroneously thinking (or, more likely, hoping he could lead others to think) they came from MMY and Hagelin. Sorry to belabor the point about Vaj, Ruth, but it's a long-term trend with him, and he needs to be called on it every time. It's like whack-a-mole.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:11 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge. Be careful of Judy's Golem, a peculiar form of strawman fallacy where our Dear Editor distorts or misrepresents an others thoughts, and then based on that distorted monster attempts to show who that misleading idea is wrong. The ideas she attributes to me have actually zero to do with my personal thoughts and a certainly not even close to what I was thinking of. Hang around here long enough and you'll see this often enough. It's just a common technique she uses to lure people into arguments. When you ignore her, she'll try to beg others on to further entice with her latest Golem. snicker Vaj's mantra when he's caught at it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 14, 2008, at 8:22 PM, authfriend wrote: snicker Vaj's mantra when he's caught at it. The wicked witches face when water is splashed on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course this was before Reich's rediscovery of life-energy. Once prana actually becomes measurable, it's possible--maybe even likely-- we'll finally see the possibility of a truly unified theory. I can't help but think of the movie Sleeper and the orgasmatron.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
---Right traveling backward in time may be an inappropriate phrase. However, the phrase backward causation is officially used; but the paradox is that there's no evidence of a signal, at least one that physicists can detect. The presence of a human observer has traditionally been a requirement in the Copenhagen viewpoint of QM, propounded by most of the 20's pioneers (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc). Einstein was the antagonist to Borh in this controversey. Other physicists OTOH believe that the environment is the observer; and downplay the necessity of a human observer. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:11 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge. Be careful of Judy's Golem, a peculiar form of strawman fallacy where our Dear Editor distorts or misrepresents an others thoughts, and then based on that distorted monster attempts to show who that misleading idea is wrong. The ideas she attributes to me have actually zero to do with my personal thoughts and a certainly not even close to what I was thinking of. Hang around here long enough and you'll see this often enough. It's just a common technique she uses to lure people into arguments. When you ignore her, she'll try to beg others on to further entice with her latest Golem. snicker Vaj's mantra when he's caught at it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course this was before Reich's rediscovery of life-energy. Once prana actually becomes measurable, it's possible--maybe even likely-- we'll finally see the possibility of a truly unified theory. I can't help but think of the movie Sleeper and the orgasmatron. Yeah, a lot of people say that. :-) Actually the rumor was his student masturbated in them. What convinced me was when I saw the video of the repeated study where they created a room (I've actually been in that room) which multiplied prana many times. Within that room they used further prana accumulators to trap the life-energy into a vacuum tube, which was then excited. If you've ever seen prana in meditation, you immediately recognize it and I was struck by the utter beauty of it. Incredible sky/cobalt blue. I had actually seen the original old 16 mm film of Reich's at his lab of this same experiment--and the repeated experiment looked remarkably the same. It's one of those experiments, once you realize it may be what it's purported to be -- you'd like to try it yourself!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? Uh...VajI really haven't kept track of this thread, but I have never proposed anything like that. It is obvious to me (but very few scientists) that the human observer is irrelavent. A microbe or a squirrel is an observer, and all things are observed by something else in an unbroken chain of connection called 'unity'. That means the totality of all those observations are more than the sum of its parts, which is called 'Brahman'..which is simply consciousness. It seems vaj makes false claims about people to make his silly arguments about which which no-one is interested. OffWorld I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Right traveling backward in time may be an inappropriate phrase. However, the phrase backward causation is officially used; but the paradox is that there's no evidence of a signal, at least one that physicists can detect. The presence of a human observer has traditionally been a requirement in the Copenhagen viewpoint of QM, propounded by most of the 20's pioneers (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc). Einstein was the antagonist to Borh in this controversey. Other physicists OTOH believe that the environment is the observer; and downplay the necessity of a human observer. True. I cannot believe it has taken 50 years for the most obvious truth to come home to these childish retards we call 'scientists'. There must be some brain damage that causes a person to seek a career in science. It is called 'the mistake of the intellect' That is why, at the age of 15, after studying astronomy and cosmology in-depth ( I used to save up all my pocket money at 13+ years old to buy big thick books on astronomy and modern cosmology and pour over them with amazement ), I essentially gave up the ignorance of the scientific journey for the more precarious and wonder-filled journey of an artist. See some of my work at www.satwagraphics.com The artist is superior to the scientist on all levels. At 15 I had forgotton more than any scientist will know in a lifetime. How could anyone but the most stupid being to ever live think that somehow the observation of a human is more important than that of say an elephant or chimpanzee, and those are somehow more relevant than a mouse or a beetle, and those are more relevant than a microbe or even a particle that registers (observes) an energy or effect. PLEASE KILL ME NOW !... ...if we are in the year 2008 and people have STILL NOT REALIZED that all things make observations (register changes), and that that is an unbroken chain of observation (reaction) throughout eternity. As such, all things are observed (even if to the smallest degree of significance) and are registered in this memory-bank we call 'the universe'. Therefore...we, the observer, have created the perception of what we percieve, and that perception changes when the perciever changes (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness - Maharishi ) OffWorld In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:11 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:23 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: snip From what I have seen Vaj write, it looks like he is familiar with this stuff. snip Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism It's a very good synopsis. Quoting Vaj from an earlier post: What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and some automatic recording machine does the observing? Does the machine travel back through time? I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his physicists-marketeers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment I don't know if Vaj knows that the delayed choice experiment does not require a human participant. However, we have to be careful when drawing conclusions like travel back in time from his experiment and other related experiments as time travel is not necessary to develop a theory to account for the experiment. Interesting stuff though. Shows how elusive answers can be when you are out there on the cutting edge. Be careful of Judy's Golem, a peculiar form of strawman fallacy where our Dear Editor distorts or misrepresents an others thoughts, and then based on that distorted monster attempts to show who that misleading idea is wrong. The ideas she attributes to me have actually zero to do with my personal thoughts and a certainly not even close to what I was thinking of. Hang around here long enough and you'll see this often enough. It's just a common technique she uses to lure people into arguments. When you ignore her, she'll try to beg others on to further entice with her latest Golem. snicker Vaj's mantra when
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Even if I do, you won't believe and that's something with what you have to deal. There are enough experiences of that type which were recorded, but they did not have YouTube. Pity! I have understood that this discussion is about are we accepting the idea of unity or not. If we are accepting then finally must be unity of concessions and matter. Today's science doesn't have enough arguments to claim that such unity either exists or not. In that case we have to relay on our philosophical and religious intuition and logic. QM theory can't give final answer but is great contribution in direction of better understanding whether nature of life is unity or not and of what kind that unity is. There are two type of people… those who believe and those who not. There is verse in Bhagvat Gita about those who are suspicious. 2008/1/10, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You ran into a quantum equation one day while meditating? Get real. If you truly can embody quantum reality then post your video proof of you levitating (not hopping) on YouTube. If you can convert yourself into light and them back into matter, I'll give you extra points (it'd be nice if you'd throw in a couple of rainbows for effect). The balls in your court dude. We'll anxiously await your evidence. On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Proofs are here and there, it depends upon whether you will except them or reject. It's the matter of personal expirience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Even if I do, you won't believe and that's something with what you have to deal. There are enough experiences of that type which were recorded, but they did not have YouTube. Pity! I have understood that this discussion is about are we accepting the idea of unity or not. If we are accepting then finally must be unity of concessions and matter. Today's science doesn't have enough arguments to claim that such unity either exists or not. You are confusing two different items: the grand unification of the basic forces of nature and unification of human awareness through meditative praxis. I hate to break it to you, but these are two entirely different realms--despite what's become popular or even common in New Age religion(s)! In that case we have to relay on our philosophical and religious intuition and logic. QM theory can't give final answer but is great contribution in direction of better understanding whether nature of life is unity or not and of what kind that unity is. There are two type of people… those who believe and those who not. There is verse in Bhagvat Gita about those who are suspicious. I don't accept the Bhagavad-gita as authoritative testimony, esp. in regards to modern science. It's an interesting war story though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Vaj: I cannot understand why you would assume unity of awareness is the same as unity of the gross material reality. If what you are implying is true, all mystics who attain some level of unity would possess and be capable of transcending the material dimension. They'd effectively be capable of tapping energies similar to a nuclear weapon. Me: Vaj, I don't see how you can either logically conclude what you are concluding or know it on the basis of any kind of experience. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Which yogic texts? 2008/1/11, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: I cannot understand why is so difficult for you to understand what unity means. Unity means unity; there are not two eternality different entities in unity unless you are strict proponent of Madhavacharya dualism. I cannot understand why you would assume unity of awareness is the same as unity of the gross material reality. If what you are implying is true, all mystics who attain some level of unity would possess and be capable of transcending the material dimension. They'd effectively be capable of tapping energies similar to a nuclear weapon. But does that routinely occur to objective observers? No, it does not. I understand unity of awareness just fine. I just don't confuse it with * material* unification as described in physics. You are confusing two different items: the grand unification of the basic forces of nature and unification of human awareness through meditative praxis. I hate to break it to you, but these are two entirely different realms--despite what's become popular or even common in New Age religion(s)! Which basic force of nature drives your mind? How do you define mind? I don't accept the Bhagavad gita as authoritative testimony, esp. in regards to modern science. It's an interesting war story though. Which authoritative testimony do you accept if we agree that there is no proof whatsoever given by modern science in regard to unity of basic forces of nature and consciousness? I'd say Wilhelm Reich touched on the subject matter and there are a number of yogic-texts I would consider authoritative. But that's my own peculiar proclivity. I don't expect others to necessarily hold the same or a similar belief. After all, it's just a belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Max Plank - regarded as one of the greatest minds of the 20th century regarded, quote: Consiousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness. Merely 'regarding' matter as derivative of consciousness tells me very little--other than he holds belief or faith in a certain idea. Is this his personal belief based on his religion, is it his belief based on his understanding of physics or is it something else? Since a number of the 'grandfathers' held mystical beliefs we need to know where the beliefs come from: are they based on their science or on some faith or some experience? And if this a magazine or newspaper article extract, what was the question he was asked? What was it's overall context? It's anecdotal at best. Yes, it would be interesting to know the context of this quote. In Wilber's book Quantum Questions he reproduces an interview with Planck. From the interview: MURPHY: You have often said that the progress of science consists in the discovery of a new mystery the moment one thinks that something fundamental has been solved. PLANCK: This is undoubtedly true. Science cannot solve the unltimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Music and art are, to an extent, also attempts to solve or at least express the mystery. But to my mind, the more we progress with either, the more we are brought into harmony with all nature itself. And that is one of the great services of science to the individual.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
I cannot understand why is so difficult for you to understand what unity means. Unity means unity; there are not two eternality different entities in unity unless you are strict proponent of Madhavacharya dualism. You are confusing two different items: the grand unification of the basic forces of nature and unification of human awareness through meditative praxis. I hate to break it to you, but these are two entirely different realms--despite what's become popular or even common in New Age religion(s)! Which basic force of nature drives your mind? I don't accept the Bhagavad gita as authoritative testimony, esp. in regards to modern science. It's an interesting war story though. Which authoritative testimony do you accept if we agree that there is no proof whatsoever given by modern science in regard to unity of basic forces of nature and consciousness?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: I cannot understand why is so difficult for you to understand what unity means. Unity means unity; there are not two eternality different entities in unity unless you are strict proponent of Madhavacharya dualism. I cannot understand why you would assume unity of awareness is the same as unity of the gross material reality. If what you are implying is true, all mystics who attain some level of unity would possess and be capable of transcending the material dimension. They'd effectively be capable of tapping energies similar to a nuclear weapon. But does that routinely occur to objective observers? No, it does not. I understand unity of awareness just fine. I just don't confuse it with material unification as described in physics. You are confusing two different items: the grand unification of the basic forces of nature and unification of human awareness through meditative praxis. I hate to break it to you, but these are two entirely different realms--despite what's become popular or even common in New Age religion(s)! Which basic force of nature drives your mind? How do you define mind? I don't accept the Bhagavad gita as authoritative testimony, esp. in regards to modern science. It's an interesting war story though. Which authoritative testimony do you accept if we agree that there is no proof whatsoever given by modern science in regard to unity of basic forces of nature and consciousness? I'd say Wilhelm Reich touched on the subject matter and there are a number of yogic-texts I would consider authoritative. But that's my own peculiar proclivity. I don't expect others to necessarily hold the same or a similar belief. After all, it's just a belief.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Which yogic texts? The Unification of the Sun and Moon tantra and various terma cycles.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
I cannot understand why you would assume unity of awareness is the same as unity of the gross material reality. If what you are implying is true, all mystics who attain some level of unity would possess and be capable of transcending the material dimension. They'd effectively be capable of tapping energies similar to a nuclear weapon. As I have said that was recorded, but not on YouTube! If you are rejecting the idea of unity of matter and consciousness I don't mind It's your belief. How do you define mind? Its primordial soup between ears. I don't accept the Bhagavad gita as authoritative testimony, esp. in regards to modern science. It's an interesting war story though. Mahabharata is war story but Bhagavat Gita isn't even do is part of it. Bhagavat Gita is small and cheap book, its worth to spend some time reading again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? I would be interested to hear what you consider proof from any angle of a your preferred version of God's existence. Or is it all a matter of faith? I am always fascinated by how people construct this belief if you wouldn't mind sharing your POV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Zoran Krneta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you must be because seems that you don't believe in idea of unity! Any theory which aims to give explanation of everything, has to correlate everything with everything. That's the reason why scientists believe in the idea of unity and finally in idea of unity of consequences and matter. Statement like: we're not interested in what a newspaper or magazine says, after all this is the 21st century: we're just interested in papers presented in respected, peer-reviewed journals . does not sound very intelligent looking from the spiritual side. Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? 2008/1/10, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 10, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Are you proponent of Madhavacharya dualism? No. Are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
That competent scientists would impose some sort of schizophrenic state upon themselves, such as being mystics on Sundays and being scientists denying any truth to the Sundays stance on weekdays seems absurd to me on the face of it. I think the term scientist can be very misleading. For example medical doctors are often quoted for scientific opinions but they have little or no training in the principles of sciencetific research. Like doctors writing diet or nutrition books when they had very little training in this are in Med school. A scientist may be a specialized expert about a specific field but as soon as they open their mouth about something outside their speciality, their opinion may be no better than anyone elses. I think it is silly for physisists to spout off about consciousness, but they are welcome to it. What they don't get is a transference of the rigorous credentials that may make them respected physisists when they talk about it. The attempt to transfer credibility or confidence from their credentialed field to their non-credentialed field is an intellectually slippery move. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Off, there is no hope of convincing Vaj if he doesn't want to be convinced, and it looks like he doesn't want to be. It seems crazy to me, since the proposition that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain seems not only attractive, but absolutely necessary if there is to be any sort of life after death. But, again, you and I are not going to make a dent unless there is some openness to a new idea or to having been wrong about some things. That competent scientists would impose some sort of schizophrenic state upon themselves, such as being mystics on Sundays and being scientists denying any truth to the Sundays stance on weekdays seems absurd to me on the face of it. - Original Message From: off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:13:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out...was/The Grandfathers of Physic --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ ... wrote: Donââ¬â¢t forget Schrà `dinger saying that the world looks to him like a great thought rather than a great machine. Yes, and please make that point to Vaj as he has already tried to ignore the quote from Max Planck stating that Consiousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness , as well as other quotes Ignoring something to create a false point is called ignorance and I hope you will help to curb that ignorance by making your point to Vaj, who is hiding in a dark hole of ignoringness. I personally cannot talk to such an ignorant man who posts a quote from Max Planck then ignores a quote from Max Planck when it goes against his ego. This is the trait of George Bush, Ruch Limbaugh and the Neocons. I have put him on the ignore option. OffWorld - Original Message From: off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] s.com To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:25:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out...was/ The Grandfathers of Physic --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj vajranatha@ ... wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:45 PM, off_world_beings wrote: Vaj...they are saying religion no, consciousness yes. The question really wasn't about religion per se Off, but instead about religious questions (in the parlance of that day). Today we might phrase it spiritual questions. Yes, 'mysticism' and the like, which, as any TM'r knows has nothing to do with 'consciousness' or Sir Roger Penrose's quantum consciousness But you never learned TM so you would not know that. And no, they are not saying consciousness yes. In fact none of your quotes are even from the aforementioned physicists! You need to read it again. There was a specific quote from Max Planck, which stated: Consiousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness . Planck is huge, and you are backed into a corner now Vaj, so you just shut the quote out of your mind. You cannot get around Planck. There was also a description of Erwin Schrödinger's theory from a legitimate source. You also have Bernard D'Espagnat quoted from the Scientific
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Proofs are here and there, it depends upon whether you will except them or reject. It's the matter of personal expirience. 2008/1/10, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? I would be interested to hear what you consider proof from any angle of a your preferred version of God's existence. Or is it all a matter of faith? I am always fascinated by how people construct this belief if you wouldn't mind sharing your POV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Zoran Krneta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you must be… because seems that you don't believe in idea of unity! Any theory which aims to give explanation of everything, has to correlate everything with everything. That's the reason why scientists believe in the idea of unity and finally in idea of unity of consequences and matter. Statement like:…we're not interested in what a newspaper or magazine says, after all this is the 21st century: we're just interested in papers presented in respected, peer-reviewed journals…. does not sound very intelligent looking from the spiritual side. Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? 2008/1/10, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 10, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Are you proponent of Madhavacharya dualism? No. Are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Angela, please, oh please, cut out the extra stuff from your posts and only post a snippet of what others say. It would make huge difference in the readability of this place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That competent scientists would impose some sort of schizophrenic state upon themselves, such as being mystics on Sundays and being scientists denying any truth to the Sundays stance on weekdays seems absurd to me on the face of it. Not schizophrenic at all! It is incredibly human. People are filled with inconsistencies and tendencies to justify long held beliefs. Like Mitt Romney holding what he calls the faith of my fathers. Not all scientists are atheists, some probably have strong faith in one religion or another. Usually the religion of their fathers. Which they, like many others, have lived a lifetime of believing. Now odds are an evolutionary biologist is not going to literally believe the creation story, but he still may justify the faith of his fathers by believing a non-literal interpretation. Others are like Einstein and simply appreciate the mystery of the underlying logic of the universe. Angela also said: It seems crazy to me, since the proposition that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain seems not only attractive, but absolutely necessary if there is to be any sort of life after death. But, again, you and I are not going to make a dent unless there is some openness to a new idea or to having been wrong about some things. Absolutely necessary? Not hardly. We don't know anything about life after death so we don't know what is or is not necessary. I love new ideas, but I like meat with my potatoes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
You ran into a quantum equation one day while meditating? Get real. If you truly can embody quantum reality then post your video proof of you levitating (not hopping) on YouTube. If you can convert yourself into light and them back into matter, I'll give you extra points (it'd be nice if you'd throw in a couple of rainbows for effect). The balls in your court dude. We'll anxiously await your evidence. On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Proofs are here and there, it depends upon whether you will except them or reject. It's the matter of personal expirience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
OK, I'll try to remember.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:57:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak
Out...was/The Grandfathers of Phy
Angela, please, oh please, cut out the extra stuff from your posts
and
only post a snippet of what others say. It would make huge difference
in the readability of this place.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
That may be true of American scientists, but in Europe anyone in the academic
community in the sciences is almost certainly an atheist. I've taught in
Germany and have talked to colleagues all over the EU. Atheism is the rule for
almost everyone except theology departments.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:13:19 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak
Out...was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ ... wrote:
That competent scientists would impose some sort of schizophrenic
state upon themselves, such as being mystics on Sundays and being
scientists denying any truth to the Sundays stance on weekdays seems
absurd to me on the face of it.
Not schizophrenic at all! It is incredibly human. People are filled
with inconsistencies and tendencies to justify long held beliefs.
Like Mitt Romney holding what he calls the faith of my fathers.
Not all scientists are atheists, some probably have strong faith in
one religion or another. Usually the religion of their fathers.
Which they, like many others, have lived a lifetime of believing. Now
odds are an evolutionary biologist is not going to literally believe
the creation story, but he still may justify the faith of his fathers
by believing a non-literal interpretation. Others are like Einstein
and simply appreciate the mystery of the underlying logic of the
universe.
Angela also said:
It seems crazy to me, since the proposition that consciousness is
not an emergent property of the brain seems not only
attractive, but absolutely necessary if there is to be any sort of
life after death. But, again, you and I are not going to make a dent
unless there is some openness to a new idea or to having been wrong
about some things.
Absolutely necessary? Not hardly. We don't know anything about life
after death so we don't know what is or is not necessary. I love new
ideas, but I like meat with my potatoes.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I'll try to remember. - Original Message Thank you, I really do appreciate it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Same Grandfathers of Physics Speak Out.......was/The Grandfathers of Phy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Zoran Krneta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proofs are here and there, it depends upon whether you will except them or reject. It's the matter of personal expirience. I was just wondering how you put it together for yourself. 2008/1/10, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? I would be interested to hear what you consider proof from any angle of a your preferred version of God's existence. Or is it all a matter of faith? I am always fascinated by how people construct this belief if you wouldn't mind sharing your POV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Zoran Krneta krneta.zoran@ wrote: But you must be because seems that you don't believe in idea of unity! Any theory which aims to give explanation of everything, has to correlate everything with everything. That's the reason why scientists believe in the idea of unity and finally in idea of unity of consequences and matter. Statement like: we're not interested in what a newspaper or magazine says, after all this is the 21st century: we're just interested in papers presented in respected, peer-reviewed journals . does not sound very intelligent looking from the spiritual side. Don't tell me that you expecting scientific proof for existence of Transcendental realty or God? 2008/1/10, Vaj vajranatha@: On Jan 10, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Zoran Krneta wrote: Are you proponent of Madhavacharya dualism? No. Are you?
