Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 11, 2006, at 1:25 AM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:20 PM, sparaig wrote:In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research. Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on Buddhist meditation. No, I don't think that's it. It seems to have more to do with perceived credibility, i.e 'how seriously you take the research of someone who's selling you something'. It seems he was a little behind on the negative aspect of TM research simply because he was so happy to hear what they had to say (and he didn't realize it was really *what they were selling*). He did not take into account the inherent bias. Of course not. Chuckle. Unlike the highly-touted study that recently came out on Buddhist meditation? Guffaw.If you're referring to the recent study I'm thinking about, it came out years after KW's book.KW is in touch with the leader of the Shamatha studies meditative instruction ans has done a couple of long interviews on Integral Naked. I emailed him a month or so ago and told him It'd really be cool to see this research and continuum of practice featured at the Integral Institute. I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as [Buddhist term goes here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are practicing are NOT the same physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the same. Well, let's be clear, all that "Buddhism" is, is an enlightenment school (yes, there are some who distort that into a *religion*). There are many methods available in this enlightenment school. Since TM is essentially manasika-japa (mental mantric repetition) of the ishta-devata (personal deity) practice--if you want to see something similar, you should compare that to ishata-devata (or "yidam" practice as they call it in Tibetan) practice. It's considered a useful side-practice in these traditions. Interestingly, the practice KW uses in his anecdotal "here's how to change your brain waves by doing different types of sama-dhi" videotape is--you guessed it-- Yidam practice. Uh-hu. And we can tell this with a 2-channel EEG as he used? But really there are numerous practices which should produce this dualistic "witness" eeg artifact. I was able to produce the same effect on a 24 channel eeg, just by doing my ishta practice. And you had access to this 24-channel EEG machine where? Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to involve an immature emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual side. The Buddhist state appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an overdeveloped intellectual side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On. Well, there are no easy answers. My observation would be that different styles of Buddhist meditation produce different styles of brain output. That's all. You might want to consider that we've been conditioned (through our exposure to TM literature and PR) to believe that certain physiological correlates are "good" when they're really merely representational of the method of meditation being used! That might be.TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of the various parts of the brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a background state of attention-switching. Since TM-style ishta practice is based on "peaceful ishtas" (who are generally understood in meditative traditions to induce transcendence), it would be interesting to see research done also on other types of ishata-devatas. Heh.?? Personally, for me, I'll use an ishta that is appropriate for my own state of mind or my own situtation. Confusion? Balance and evenness. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 11, 2006, at 3:36 AM, cardemaister wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana, jJAna). Vaj, the HK -transliteration for the palatal nasal as 'J' is rather misleading.I agree. Personally I prefer diacritical Sanskrit, but usually won't take the time to do the key combinations. HK's kinda funky. I'd prefer 'ñ' instead, because I gather quite a many people are familiar with the Spanish pronunciation. So in this case, 'jñAna' or 'jñaana'. I believe the pronunciation of the combination 'jñ' varies according to what region of India the pronunciator comes from. I think the pronunciation 'gy(a)' is typical in northern India. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:"Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of-seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of-seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of-seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another.Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that annoying thing :) you often hear women say, I just have a feeling... about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later. That's intuition. Sal On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: If a person goes to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may get shot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: You may have two good terms for the same thing! I think of intuition as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of perceived parts. It's not really an ability, though--more like a characteristic. It's not something that you can really develop, at least not in my experience. It's something that you begin to recognize has pretty much always been there. It may not be verbal at first. I accept the idea that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after you talk with her. I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be in a car crash next week. You *can* intuit that, but it may or may not be accurate. Intuition usually is about things that are not quite so concrete and specific. And it doesn't always have to be about bad stuff either! I think the accuracy of intuition can be improved through practice. Not really. What can be improved is the trust you develop in your own experience and feelings, but there is really no way to practice that, IMO. It just sort of comes when you're ready for it. Sal --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that annoying thing :) you often hear women say, I just have a feeling... about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later. That's intuition. Sal On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: If a person goes to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may get shot. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
Actually, I should have said that the latter is more like a premonition than intuition, and I'm not quite sure of the overlap. As for the former, if that's the case I intuit that you and your girlfriend need to sit down and have a long talk. :) Sal On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I accept the idea that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after you talk with her. I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be in a car crash next week.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
OK, I had never been interested in moving to FF most of the time I was in DC, it had just always seemed like kind of a dump. :) Then I found myself on a residence course during the early spring of 91 and it was during a speech by Bevan, of all people, that the thought just hit me, You're moving to FF. Just like that...and within a few months it had all fallen into place, and I've been here and very happy ever since. Much earlier, in middle school, there was a clique of very popular girls, who got a lot of attention and had their pick of the boys (not that the pickings were all that great at that point. :) ) While I had been friends with one of them in grade school, by 7th grade it was obvious things had changed quite a bit. But anyway, a lot of other girls wanted to be part of that group, and logically, I should have too...but to me they frequently had an air of desperation, were way too loud, and supposedly would put out in order to stay in the group. IOW, I had a bad feeling about what they were doing and what went on with them. Almost to a person, in HS they ended up in some kind of serious trouble--drug problems, police records, etc--in a place where that was not the norm. I was very glad I had trusted my own feelings. I doubt I can explain it any better than that, really. To me that pretty much sums up what intuition is all about. Sal On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:55 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Hey Sal, I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition. For me, years of noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to have better intuition about people's future behavior. I think some therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they do develop a more highly refined ability. But I may be missing your perspective on what intuitions are. Can you give an example so I can understand how you use the term? (hopefully it will not include girlfriends cheating on me or shooting me!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: You may have two good terms for the same thing! I think of intuition as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of perceived parts. It's not really an ability, though--more like a characteristic. It's not something that you can really develop, at least not in my experience. It's something that you begin to recognize has pretty much always been there. It may not be verbal at first. I accept the idea that you can intuit that my girlfriend will probably cheat on me after you talk with her. I don't accept that you can intuit that we will be in a car crash next week. You *can* intuit that, but it may or may not be accurate. Intuition usually is about things that are not quite so concrete and specific. And it doesn't always have to be about bad stuff either! I think the accuracy of intuition can be improved through practice. Not really. What can be improved is the trust you develop in your own experience and feelings, but there is really no way to practice that, IMO. It just sort of comes when you're ready for it. Sal --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@> wrote: That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that annoying thing :) you often hear women say, I just have a feeling... about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, but turns out to be fairly accurate at some point later. That's intuition. Sal On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:35 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: If a person goes to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may get shot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:34 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. These are part of conventional reality which are part of impure (samsaric) perception. It should be considered 'conventional valid cognition of limited impure perception'. In other words it the style of perception that can be seen by ordinary people. It explains reality based on concepts of cause and effect.Ordinary people can perceive conventional logical constructs, like physical laws, etc. They cannot perceive 'conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality. These pramanas (logical approaches) are beyond cause and effect and do not necessarily adhere to the the style of cognition used by ordinary beings who perceive limited impure perception.Enlightened or sublime beings do not require objects of conceptutalization to understand, explain or manipulate deceptive reality (impure or samsraic vision). Of course to ordinary persons the description of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magical thinking and the performance of action from the level of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magic.But it's just different. (Except on Trans-Love Airlines -- which gets you THERE on time" as Donovan and Jefferson Airplane sang.) I thought they went out of business in the 60's ;-) __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality by perception or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state if they don't want it to. Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a fundamental level. In this case "laws" are relative. However even to "ordinary" individuals physical laws are impermanent. Even the speed of light is probably merely a very persistent memory in nature, and therefore slowly changing (to echo Sheldrake's idea on memory in nature). God is the inverse of this: with God, unless God perceives it, it doesn't happen. Of course, God is the meta-observer of every meta-universe, so everything that happens is because God is watching, and everything DOES happen, some "where." __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least.My points on magical thinking should stand on their own. In this discussion no one is suggesting that they or others don't or can't have experiences that are not currently measured or modeled by objective science -- a such as your "conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality" -- which while not well defined,They are actually well defined if we wanted to go there, but there's probably little interest here since the emphasis seems on academic philosophical opinions. in total carves out a sense of what your point is. Nor is it suggested that the experience and "description" of such is magical thinking. Per Kurtz's use of the term, "Magical thinking, whether involved with supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. Unfortunately I have little interest in Kurtz or what he has to say. Perhaps others do. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: "Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a more advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and no amount of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will adequaely explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage reasoning -- the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen. You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two different sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did. Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the same time pointing out his limitations. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 4:04 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think of intuition as in the woo woo category. Premonition crosses that line for me. Or the claim that one's intuitions are always right. Intuition for me includes pattern recognition but it includes other unconscious process that are not too well understood, although commonly experienced. They give a non-verbal sense about something before the conscious mind catches up. With so much sensory information going in, and only a small fraction consciously processed, it doesn't surprise me that we can feel something before we can clearly articulate it. This is more than pattern recognition but a long way from woo woo!If woo woo has anything to do with Pure Consciousness, there's a definite connection between woo woo and intuition. PC entails creating a LOT of new, global connections in the brain. Intuion entails making use of novel connections in the brain, according to most neurological theories about it. And the Sanskrit word for intutition, Pratibha (prAtibha), does bear this out as it is synonymous with Transcendental Knowing (jnana, jJAna). Interestingly in Kashmir Shaivite literature they see Pratibha as synonymous with Paravac--transcendental, non-dual telepathic speech. This is interesting because it shows that everyone has the natural experience of the transcendent (vac). __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:14 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality by perception or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state if they don't want it to. Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a fundamental level. In this case "laws" are relative. However even to "ordinary" individuals physical laws are impermanent. Lets bring a couple hundred, even ten, of these guys to the lab, hook them up, and test your hypotheses. Until then ... Ever read the results of Swami Rama when they did just that to him at the Menninger Foundation in KS?Most of what we're talking about here is not really conducive to scientific materialistic approaches, however I think many people, esp. those from a TM background, would be surpised at how detailed and how specific these full paths are. They even have their own inherent vocabularies for their inner topographies. They have detailed signs and stages that are clearly discernable. Yet most will never hear of these paths simply because they require secrecy. For the same reason you will never see research on them.As someone who has long had connections to extremely relevant spiritual research which saw great persecution--imprisonment, burning of books, etc.--I also question the readiness of the world for truly groundbreaking consciousness research.Really all we are doing now is looking at "consciousness hardware", the brain. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because modern psychiatry has taken a path of physicality and forsaken the "couch approach". It's all about chemical imbalances in the brain. So what are funding sources supporting? Research into consciousness hardware: the brain and it's chemistry. And if they find something they might just find the latest Zoloft or a new broadspectrum neurotransmitter drug that let's you have sex and lose weight and not have an anxiety disrder. And that's megabucks. It's all driven by drug companies and money.I always thought M. should've laid his cards on the table and strapped up. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:18 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least. My points on magical thinking should stand on their own. It does. In mid air. You have using it in a quite different way as the discussion (without clarification --or apparently even understanding that.) Not a path for clear communications. But it seemed Lawson got it right on, so that (to me) is a good sign. But OTOH Lawson is a pretty deep thinker, so some might not get it.I tend to assume a fairly high caliber of discussion here and people with some above average understanding, above and beyond any particular paradigm. I'd bet most people got it. It might be less so for you because you were deeply interested in Kurtz's unique presentation from the *inside*, while someone like me who has little interest in him or his book, sees it from the *outside*.I guess to state it plainly I'd have to restate one of Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."I would modify that slightly and say:"Any sufficiently advanced State of Consciousness is indistinguishable from magic (or magical thinking, depending on what is being "distinguished") to people of conventional states of consciousness." __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Vaj wrote: I guess to state it plainly I'd have to restate one of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of prediction: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I would modify that slightly and say: Any sufficiently advanced State of Consciousness is indistinguishable from magic (or magical thinking, depending on what is being distinguished) to people of conventional states of consciousness. and I should add a precautionary cult-think corollary: but drink the kool-aid at your own peril. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:30 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: [...] Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a more advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and no amount of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will adequaely explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage reasoning -- the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen. You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two different sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did. Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the same time pointing out his limitations. Wilber seems to like Skip's work, BTW. Actually him and Skip were in intimate communication up to his untimely death.His work "The Eye of Spirit : An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad" (Wilber talks of different "eyes": the eye of flesh, the eye of contemplation (our meditational "eye") and the eye of spirit, the "eye" of pervasive unity) has sections which talk of Skip's work. Interestingly KW also shares my own opinion that GC in Skip's/MMY's model of "higher states of consciousness" is not truly a "state", but a "stage". In fact, in the source texts that the "7 states of consciosness" derive from, it is not seen as a sequence... In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:20 PM, sparaig wrote: In more recent comment, Ken is back-pedaling on his opinion of TM research. Probably because it is so at odds with the research coming out on Buddhist meditation.No, I don't think that's it. It seems to have more to do with perceived credibility, i.e 'how seriously you take the research of someone who's selling you something'. It seems he was a little behind on the negative aspect of TM research simply because he was so happy to hear what they had to say (and he didn't realize it was really *what they were selling*). He did not take into account the inherent bias. I'm of the opinion that TC ala TM and whatever state identified as [Buddhist term goes here] that is brought about by whatever most Buddhists are practicing are NOT the same physiological state, even if the superficial description sounds the same.Well, let's be clear, all that "Buddhism" is, is an enlightenment school (yes, there are some who distort that into a *religion*). There are many methods available in this enlightenment school. Since TM is essentially manasika-japa (mental mantric repetition) of the ishta-devata (personal deity) practice--if you want to see something similar, you should compare that to ishata-devata (or "yidam" practice as they call it in Tibetan) practice. It's considered a useful side-practice in these traditions. Interestingly, the practice KW uses in his anecdotal "here's how to change your brain waves by doing different types of sama-dhi" videotape is--you guessed it--Yidam practice.But really there are numerous practices which should produce this dualistic "witness" eeg artifact.I was able to produce the same effect on a 24 channel eeg, just by doing my ishta practice. Drealization due to traumatic stress in early childhood seems to involve an immature emotional side of the brain, combined with a normal intellectual side. The Buddhist state appears to involve a normal emotional side combined with an overdeveloped intellectual side. Both appear to involve intellectual witnessing of What Goes On.Well, there are no easy answers. My observation would be that different styles of Buddhist meditation produce different styles of brain output. That's all. You might want to consider that we've been conditioned (through our exposure to TM literature and PR) to believe that certain physiological correlates are "good" when they're really merely representational of the method of meditation being used! TC due to TM, on the other hand, involves holistic functioning of the various parts of the brain on both sides, as though thoughts were fluctuations of a background state of attention-switching. Since TM-style ishta practice is based on "peaceful ishtas" (who are generally understood in meditative traditions to induce transcendence), it would be interesting to see research done also on other types of ishata-devatas.Personally, for me, I'll use an ishta that is appropriate for my own state of mind or my own situtation. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
