Re: Re: meditation
Hi Bruno Marchal I don't, except to report it. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 14:24:05 Subject: Re: meditation On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon that does not need to be "integrated" into anything. ? Then, why do you integrate it in the natural phenomenon? Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43 Subject: Re: meditation On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the links of consciousness to the noise of the brain, suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain, rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain. OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than meditation or wine. Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation marks. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: meditation
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:46:02 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > It isn't that we influence the universe, > the universe IS us. > Yes! Us liberals, socialists, Jews, women, Nazis, capitalists.. The universe is all of us. > > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Jason Resch > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-27, 00:53:25 > *Subject:* Re: meditation > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes > > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal >> >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Telmo, >>> >>> >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of "oneness with the universe", "non separation", etc. Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse? Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour. >>> >>> It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates >>> with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they >>> disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its >>> complexity reduced, and that might give a "view of the multiverse" (as in >>> many salvia reports). >>> >>> The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory >>> rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming >>> trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, �ome probabilistic >>> interference has to play a role in the elimination of some infinities. >>> >>> The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in >>> logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection. >>> >> >> For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica >> sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for >> example. It's the notion that past event did not actually "happen" in the >> common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of >> equations that is restricted by current experience. >> > > Telmo, > > I am partial to these types of ideas.� I think similar ideas have been > reflected by many scientists: > > John Wheeler's participatory universe: > http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc > "To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers > and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that > the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we > contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future > but the past as well." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler > "*Wheeler:* We are participators in bringing into being not only the near > and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators > in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we > have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we > need more? > *Martin Redfern:* Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right > then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, > are the creators� or at least the minds that make the universe manifest." > > It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of > quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) > or Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a "sum over > histories" ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation). > > I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any > observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by > any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same > state.� Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but > unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense, > undecided.� It is like: "Before you finish reading the second half of this > sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible > color."� However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a > memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your > consciousness.� It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or > imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could > look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is > compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of > them).� And it is only when we "stop and think" we can for a time, lock > down that possibility. > > Jason > > -- > You received t
Re: Re: meditation
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon that does not need to be "integrated" into anything. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43 Subject: Re: meditation On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the links of consciousness to the noise of the brain, suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain, rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain. OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than meditation or wine. Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation marks. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: meditation
Hi Bruno, It isn't that we influence the universe, the universe IS us. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 00:53:25 Subject: Re: meditation On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Telmo, On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi all, I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of "oneness with the universe", "non separation", etc. Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse? Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour. It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its complexity reduced, and that might give a "view of the multiverse" (as in many salvia reports). The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, ?ome probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some infinities. The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection. For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for example. It's the notion that past event did not actually "happen" in the common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of equations that is restricted by current experience. Telmo, I am partial to these types of ideas.? I think similar ideas have been reflected by many scientists: John Wheeler's participatory universe: http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc "To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler "Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more? Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators? or at least the minds that make the universe manifest." It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) or Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a "sum over histories" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation ). I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same state.? Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense, undecided.? It is like: "Before you finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible color."? However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your consciousness.? It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of them).? And it is only when we "stop and think" we can for a time, lock down that possibility. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything Li
