[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Good, I'll fly down the shops later. That ought to save on shoe leather. Especially if I'm invisible too. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
What does one have to do with the other? At best, IF someone ever demonstrates floating, you could evoke this as the direction for research to go in to explain an already observed phenomenon, but you can't use the conclusion that the unified field fits Tononi's definition (maybe) of a conscious system to predict any specific phenomenon. Ants may fit his definition also, but we don't then conclude that ants can play chess. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Good, I'll fly down the shops later. That ought to save on shoe leather. Especially if I'm invisible too. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: What does one have to do with the other? Because John Hagelin claims we can think at the level of the unified field and influence the world at the classical level including things like levitation, invisibility, world peace, prevention of earthquakes etc. You can't have one without the other. At best, IF someone ever demonstrates floating, you could evoke this as the direction for research to go in to explain an already observed phenomenon, but you can't use the conclusion that the unified field fits Tononi's definition (maybe) of a conscious system to predict any specific phenomenon. Ants may fit his definition also, but we don't then conclude that ants can play chess. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Good, I'll fly down the shops later. That ought to save on shoe leather. Especially if I'm invisible too. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
It doesn't matter what John thinks follows automatically from consciousness = unified field. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What does one have to do with the other? Because John Hagelin claims we can think at the level of the unified field and influence the world at the classical level including things like levitation, invisibility, world peace, prevention of earthquakes etc. You can't have one without the other. At best, IF someone ever demonstrates floating, you could evoke this as the direction for research to go in to explain an already observed phenomenon, but you can't use the conclusion that the unified field fits Tononi's definition (maybe) of a conscious system to predict any specific phenomenon. Ants may fit his definition also, but we don't then conclude that ants can play chess. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Good, I'll fly down the shops later. That ought to save on shoe leather. Especially if I'm invisible too. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It doesn't matter what John thinks follows automatically from consciousness = unified field. Shhh! You'll spoil the fundraising L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What does one have to do with the other? Because John Hagelin claims we can think at the level of the unified field and influence the world at the classical level including things like levitation, invisibility, world peace, prevention of earthquakes etc. You can't have one without the other. At best, IF someone ever demonstrates floating, you could evoke this as the direction for research to go in to explain an already observed phenomenon, but you can't use the conclusion that the unified field fits Tononi's definition (maybe) of a conscious system to predict any specific phenomenon. Ants may fit his definition also, but we don't then conclude that ants can play chess. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Good, I'll fly down the shops later. That ought to save on shoe leather. Especially if I'm invisible too. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term unified field before at all. Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. And nothing to do with physics in the way the mystics intend it. Er, um, salyavin, unified field has nothing to do with neuroscience the way physicists intend it (Einstein coined the term). Neuroscience may have recently borrowed it, but that it's a physics term is not something mystics dreamed up; it's just a fact. As to your description of neuroscience's version: As PaliGap asked, Who (or what) is being fooled by this clever sleight of hand? Do your flip responses indicate that you don't have a serious response? It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater Great quote, especially given that it comes from Dennett. I wonder if his sleep is ever disturbed by that ghost wailing at him: No, you dn't!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term unified field before at all. Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. And nothing to do with physics in the way the mystics intend it. Er, um, salyavin, unified field has nothing to do with neuroscience the way physicists intend it (Einstein coined the term). I know, that was my point. Neuroscience may have recently borrowed it, but that it's a physics term is not something mystics dreamed up; it's just a fact. No kidding. As to your description of neuroscience's version: As PaliGap asked, Who (or what) is being fooled by this clever sleight of hand? Do your flip responses indicate that you don't have a serious response? It was a serious response. It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all. For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term unified field before at all. Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. And nothing to do with physics in the way the mystics intend it. Er, um, salyavin, unified field has nothing to do with neuroscience the way physicists intend it (Einstein coined the term). I know, that was my point. Neuroscience may have recently borrowed it, but that it's a physics term is not something mystics dreamed up; it's just a fact. No kidding. Unfortunately, your disclaimers here don't fit very well with your comment to Lawson quoted at the top. As to your description of neuroscience's version: As PaliGap asked, Who (or what) is being fooled by this clever sleight of hand? Do your flip responses indicate that you don't have a serious response? It was a serious response. That's too bad. It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all. For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. You're right, that's probably the $64,001 question. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder if they could possibly be related? Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains What *who* or *what* are looking at? translates into our conscious experiences. Who or what is conscious of these experiences? We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation Oh, crap, I'm not talking about paranormal. I'm talking hard-nosed philosophy. that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. As they occur *to whom* (or *to what*)? It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later. We can't deal with it until we realize the nature of the problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It was a serious response. That's too bad. Not really. It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all. For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. You're right, that's probably the $64,001 question. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder if they could possibly be related? Why are you so fucking arch all the time? What does that say about your consciousness? Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains What *who* or *what* are looking at? translates into our conscious experiences. Who or what is conscious of these experiences? We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation Oh, crap, I'm not talking about paranormal. I'm talking hard-nosed philosophy. that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. As they occur *to whom* (or *to what*)? It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later. We can't deal with it until we realize the nature of the problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It was a serious response. That's too bad. Not really. It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all. For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. You're right, that's probably the $64,001 question. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder if they could possibly be related? Why are you so fucking arch all the time? It was a serious question, actually. What does that say about your consciousness? Huh?? No responses to my other questions, I guess. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains What *who* or *what* are looking at? translates into our conscious experiences. Who or what is conscious of these experiences? We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation Oh, crap, I'm not talking about paranormal. I'm talking hard-nosed philosophy. that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. As they occur *to whom* (or *to what*)? It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later. We can't deal with it until we realize the nature of the problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
As I pointed out earlier, Guilio Tononi's phi formula, if taken to its logical conclusion, supports Hagelin's assertion about the unified field and consciousness. Tononi doesn't like it when people do that, but he has to add in all sorts of exceptions to the formula to invalidate the conclusion. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: [...] For me, the serious question is why there is anything here at all. Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to accept that what we are looking at inside our brains translates into our conscious experiences. We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because we haven't got an explanation, that's what kept our ancestors believing in god and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, especially as we can see individual thoughts as they occur. It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? Why, more wires of course! Not turtles all the way down? Could be turtles. I'm guessing gloopy stuff made out of whirly bits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Actually, Hagelin was pretty big back when he was still publishing. Yyou realize that the Director of Research at CERN asked him to tweak Flipped SU(5) originally, right? So, how does that make him world renowned? I think we apply a different value to the term. He was well-respected amongst his peers, world-wide. So really you should change the epithet to something like: John Hagelin - had some respect from other theoretical physicists but blew all credibility when he started selling prayers and claiming he knew how to fly but chose not to demonstrate it. Hmmm, that seems quite succinct and accurate. And consciousness being the unified field is kinda a tautology if you look at how Tononi defines phi in his Integrated Information Theory. To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term unified field before at all. Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. And nothing to do with physics in the way the mystics intend it. And Hagelin's point is that the behavior of the QM unified field and the behavior ascribed to consciousness in MMY's interpretation (at least) of the vedic tradition are identical in myriad ways. In fact, he claims that he used MMY''s Vedic Cosmology to guide the mathematical tweaks that Ellis asked him to perform on Flipped SU(5) and that it was due to those specific tweaks that Flipped SU(5) became a more robust superstring theory. So we really can fly and predict the future from tea leaves? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: [...] And Hagelin's point is that the behavior of the QM unified field and the behavior ascribed to consciousness in MMY's interpretation (at least) of the vedic tradition are identical in myriad ways. In fact, he claims that he used MMY''s Vedic Cosmology to guide the mathematical tweaks that Ellis asked him to perform on Flipped SU(5) and that it was due to those specific tweaks that Flipped SU(5) became a more robust superstring theory. So we really can fly and predict the future from tea leaves? Allegedly, someone in full-blown Unity (not saying that MMY or anyone else in history ever fit this definition) can do just about anything they can conceive of. As Mentor of Arisia used to say: a Truly Competent Mind could observe one artifact from a universe and determine everything there is to know about that universe. By extension, a Truly Competent Mind could manipulate any and all aspects of that universe as part of knowing everything there is to know about it. You gotta read more 1930's science fiction if you want to understand these things properly. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] And Hagelin's point is that the behavior of the QM unified field and the behavior ascribed to consciousness in MMY's interpretation (at least) of the vedic tradition are identical in myriad ways. In fact, he claims that he used MMY''s Vedic Cosmology to guide the mathematical tweaks that Ellis asked him to perform on Flipped SU(5) and that it was due to those specific tweaks that Flipped SU(5) became a more robust superstring theory. So we really can fly and predict the future from tea leaves? Allegedly, someone in full-blown Unity (not saying that MMY or anyone else in history ever fit this definition) can do just about anything they can conceive of. The fact that no one has ever reliably demonstrated any sort of super powers does lead me to suspect that the concept of Unity is a crock of shite? Or at most a sort of worthy ambition to keep people in church and donating to yagyas. Still, as ambitions go it's a harmless one. As Mentor of Arisia used to say: a Truly Competent Mind could observe one artifact from a universe and determine everything there is to know about that universe. By extension, a Truly Competent Mind could manipulate any and all aspects of that universe as part of knowing everything there is to know about it. Ah, if only that were true. You gotta read more 1930's science fiction if you want to understand these things properly. Or Douglas Adams, his Total Perspective Vortex was extrapolated in a similar way from a piece of fairy cake and destroyed the soul of anyone who entered it by showing them how insignificant they are compared to the rest of creation. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? Why, more wires of course! It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? Why, more wires of course! Not turtles all the way down? It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
Russel Brand credits TM with helping him get out of a hardcore drug abuser lifestyle. He was no doubt a brilliant comedian before TM, but he says that TM helped him survive a very rough time in his life. Youtube has a BBC special on drug abuse that he hosted. He was pretty bad off at his worst. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I freely admit to not knowing much about Russell Brand other than the fact that some here thinks he walks on water because he came out publicly as a TMer. I've never seen any of his comedy routines, and click past any mentions of him in the press. That may change in the future, because a friend sent me this article he wrote about the late, unlamented Margaret Thatcher. The guy writes like a sonofabitch, and I like his style. Although I'm pretty sure these talents are not in any way related to his practice of TM, I'll probably pay more attention to him in the future because I like snappy writers with a talent for coining witty phrases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-brand/margaret-thatcher-our-unm_b_3046390.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Russel Brand credits TM with helping him get out of a hardcore drug abuser lifestyle. He was no doubt a brilliant comedian before TM, but he says that TM helped him survive a very rough time in his life. Youtube has a BBC special on drug abuse that he hosted. He was pretty bad off at his worst. I can't stand him. He is one of the most spoilt and self centred human beings I have ever come across. He actually complained to the producers of a BBC quiz show he was on that he didn't get the respect he felt he deserved. He clearly isn't aware that respect has to be earned and his childish behaviour that night was pathetic. Maybe he'll mellow out as he gets older, I can't help thinking that, given his record, he's a dubious choice for a TM advert and he'll have one of his meltdowns and embarrass everyone. But maybe not, maybe it'll be the making of him. I feel sorry for him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgu3V6Ex_A Bit of a dupe, poor lad. But he aint the first... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I freely admit to not knowing much about Russell Brand other than the fact that some here thinks he walks on water because he came out publicly as a TMer. I've never seen any of his comedy routines, and click past any mentions of him in the press. That may change in the future, because a friend sent me this article he wrote about the late, unlamented Margaret Thatcher. The guy writes like a sonofabitch, and I like his style. Although I'm pretty sure these talents are not in any way related to his practice of TM, I'll probably pay more attention to him in the future because I like snappy writers with a talent for coining witty phrases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-brand/margaret-thatcher-our-unm_b_3046390.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Russel Brand credits TM with helping him get out of a hardcore drug abuser lifestyle. He was no doubt a brilliant comedian before TM, but he says that TM helped him survive a very rough time in his life. Youtube has a BBC special on drug abuse that he hosted. He was pretty bad off at his worst. I can't stand him. He is one of the most spoilt and self centred human beings I have ever come across. He actually complained to the producers of a BBC quiz show he was on that he didn't get the respect he felt he deserved. He clearly isn't aware that respect has to be earned and his childish behaviour that night was pathetic. Maybe he'll mellow out as he gets older, I can't help thinking that, given his record, he's a dubious choice for a TM advert and he'll have one of his meltdowns and embarrass everyone. But maybe not, maybe it'll be the making of him. I feel sorry for him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgu3V6Ex_A Bit of a dupe, poor lad. But he aint the first... Still, his piece about Maggie Thatch was good. Maybe he should stick to writing. He could be a roving reporter at her funeral next week. She's having a full military send off apparently. Says it all really. I predict a riot, just like the old days when she was in power, except the police have much more power than they did then. They'll be arresting everyone who posts a negative opinion on social media next week, just like they always do now. Even Maggie didn't give the thought police powers of pre-emptive internment. We've got her bastard offspring Blair to thank for that. Happy days.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Russel Brand credits TM with helping him get out of a hardcore drug abuser lifestyle. He was no doubt a brilliant comedian before TM, but he says that TM helped him survive a very rough time in his life. Youtube has a BBC special on drug abuse that he hosted. He was pretty bad off at his worst. I can't stand him. He is one of the most spoilt and self centred human beings I have ever come across. He actually complained to the producers of a BBC quiz show he was on that he didn't get the respect he felt he deserved. He clearly isn't aware that respect has to be earned and his childish behaviour that night was pathetic. Maybe he'll mellow out as he gets older, I can't help thinking that, given his record, he's a dubious choice for a TM advert and he'll have one of his meltdowns and embarrass everyone. But maybe not, maybe it'll be the making of him. I feel sorry for him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgu3V6Ex_A Bit of a dupe, poor lad. But he aint the first... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I freely admit to not knowing much about Russell Brand other than the fact that some here thinks he walks on water because he came out publicly as a TMer. I've never seen any of his comedy routines, and click past any mentions of him in the press. That may change in the future, because a friend sent me this article he wrote about the late, unlamented Margaret Thatcher. The guy writes like a sonofabitch, and I like his style. Although I'm pretty sure these talents are not in any way related to his practice of TM, I'll probably pay more attention to him in the future because I like snappy writers with a talent for coining witty phrases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-brand/margaret-thatcher-our-unm_b_3046390.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. Not to mention the wince-worthy physics. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Russel Brand credits TM with helping him get out of a hardcore drug abuser lifestyle. He was no doubt a brilliant comedian before TM, but he says that TM helped him survive a very rough time in his life. Youtube has a BBC special on drug abuse that he hosted. He was pretty bad off at his worst. I can't stand him. He is one of the most spoilt and self centred human beings I have ever come across. He actually complained to the producers of a BBC quiz show he was on that he didn't get the respect he felt he deserved. He clearly isn't aware that respect has to be earned and his childish behaviour that night was pathetic. Maybe he'll mellow out as he gets older, I can't help thinking that, given his record, he's a dubious choice for a TM advert and he'll have one of his meltdowns and embarrass everyone. But maybe not, maybe it'll be the making of him. I feel sorry for him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgu3V6Ex_A Bit of a dupe, poor lad. But he aint the first... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I freely admit to not knowing much about Russell Brand other than the fact that some here thinks he walks on water because he came out publicly as a TMer. I've never seen any of his comedy routines, and click past any mentions of him in the press. That may change in the future, because a friend sent me this article he wrote about the late, unlamented Margaret Thatcher. The guy writes like a sonofabitch, and I like his style. Although I'm pretty sure these talents are not in any way related to his practice of TM, I'll probably pay more attention to him in the future because I like snappy writers with a talent for coining witty phrases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-brand/margaret-thatcher-our-unm_b_3046390.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
Which parts of the physics were wince-worthy? Claiming that the Unified Field fulfills Einstein's dream? It certainly does, valid or not. And of course, no scientific theory can ever be said to be completely validated nor completely discredited anyway. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. Not to mention the wince-worthy physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Which parts of the physics were wince-worthy? Claiming that the Unified Field fulfills Einstein's dream? It certainly does, valid or not. Sigh. Claiming that you've found the unified field is a joke. Claiming that it is consciousness is a weird joke. Claiming you are a world renowned physicist and have finished Einstein's work is a dangerous joke. John Hagelin should leave the jokes to Russell. At least the average punter knows when *he's* having us on. And of course, no scientific theory can ever be said to be completely validated nor completely discredited anyway. Which means we have to accept every possibility as true I suppose, especially if it sells a few yagyas. These are Hagelin's *beliefs* not a scientific consensus. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. Not to mention the wince-worthy physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
Actually, Hagelin was pretty big back when he was still publishing. Yyou realize that the Director of Research at CERN asked him to tweak Flipped SU(5) originally, right? And consciousness being the unified field is kinda a tautology if you look at how Tononi defines phi in his Integrated Information Theory. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Which parts of the physics were wince-worthy? Claiming that the Unified Field fulfills Einstein's dream? It certainly does, valid or not. Sigh. Claiming that you've found the unified field is a joke. Claiming that it is consciousness is a weird joke. Claiming you are a world renowned physicist and have finished Einstein's work is a dangerous joke. John Hagelin should leave the jokes to Russell. At least the average punter knows when *he's* having us on. And of course, no scientific theory can ever be said to be completely validated nor completely discredited anyway. Which means we have to accept every possibility as true I suppose, especially if it sells a few yagyas. These are Hagelin's *beliefs* not a scientific consensus. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. Not to mention the wince-worthy physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Actually, Hagelin was pretty big back when he was still publishing. Yyou realize that the Director of Research at CERN asked him to tweak Flipped SU(5) originally, right? So, how does that make him world renowned? I think we apply a different value to the term. And consciousness being the unified field is kinda a tautology if you look at how Tononi defines phi in his Integrated Information Theory. To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Which parts of the physics were wince-worthy? Claiming that the Unified Field fulfills Einstein's dream? It certainly does, valid or not. Sigh. Claiming that you've found the unified field is a joke. Claiming that it is consciousness is a weird joke. Claiming you are a world renowned physicist and have finished Einstein's work is a dangerous joke. John Hagelin should leave the jokes to Russell. At least the average punter knows when *he's* having us on. And of course, no scientific theory can ever be said to be completely validated nor completely discredited anyway. Which means we have to accept every possibility as true I suppose, especially if it sells a few yagyas. These are Hagelin's *beliefs* not a scientific consensus. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I actually enjoyed that interview, despite various wince-worthy remarks by John. Not to mention the wince-worthy physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Actually, Hagelin was pretty big back when he was still publishing. Yyou realize that the Director of Research at CERN asked him to tweak Flipped SU(5) originally, right? So, how does that make him world renowned? I think we apply a different value to the term. And consciousness being the unified field is kinda a tautology if you look at how Tononi defines phi in his Integrated Information Theory. To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Consciousness ain't the *source* of matter! Matter *is* kinda double helix twisted consciousness!? :D Kapila and PJ didn't obviously believe that, but hey, it's *there* problem, now ain't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Actually, Hagelin was pretty big back when he was still publishing. Yyou realize that the Director of Research at CERN asked him to tweak Flipped SU(5) originally, right? So, how does that make him world renowned? I think we apply a different value to the term. He was well-respected amongst his peers, world-wide. And consciousness being the unified field is kinda a tautology if you look at how Tononi defines phi in his Integrated Information Theory. To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter itself. Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term unified field before at all. And Hagelin's point is that the behavior of the QM unified field and the behavior ascribed to consciousness in MMY's interpretation (at least) of the vedic tradition are identical in myriad ways. In fact, he claims that he used MMY''s Vedic Cosmology to guide the mathematical tweaks that Ellis asked him to perform on Flipped SU(5) and that it was due to those specific tweaks that Flipped SU(5) became a more robust superstring theory. L
