[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-22 Thread Alex Stanley
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley 
 j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
  tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
  
   To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold 
 to be
   true.
   
   Will. It will happen just wait.
  
  Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life
  appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, 
 a
  day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment 
 call:
  who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd 
 died 20
  years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
  perfectly:
  
  Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the
  way they happened.
 
 That just kills me.

Sounds like a deadly case of TTS... Tautological Toxicity Syndrome.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread Alex Stanley
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be
 true.
 
 Will. It will happen just wait.

Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life
appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, a
day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment call:
who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd died 20
years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
perfectly:

Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they
happened.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread new_morning_blank_slate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
 perfectly:
 
 Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they
 happened.

Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or
knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. 



Tautology has at least three distinct meanings:

* Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form.
* Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that
adds no information.
* Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a
discussion.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/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: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread Vaj


On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly:  Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened.  Though "meaningful" perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology.     Tautology has at least three distinct meanings:      * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form.     * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information.     * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Unfortunately your last post was not meant to happen. Sorry.;-)
__._,_.___





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
  
  
Buddha shakyamuni
  
  
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.



  






__,_._,___


[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
 j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
 
  In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
  perfectly:
  
  Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way
  they happened.
 
 Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or
 knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a
 tautology.

And then there's always this old chestnut:

Q:  Maharishi, if everything is perfect just as it is,
why are we working so hard to change things?

A:  That too is perfect just as it is.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread new_morning_blank_slate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
  j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
 
 
  In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
  perfectly:
 
  Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way  
  they
  happened.
 
 
  Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or
  knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a  
  tautology.
 
  
 
  Tautology has at least three distinct meanings:
 
  * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical  
  form.
  * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that
  adds no information.
  * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a
  discussion.
 
 
 Unfortunately your last post was not meant to happen. Sorry.
 
 ;-)

While I find your comment funny, it brings up a deeper point in the
free will discssion. Meant to happen, meant to be implies or are
at least parallel to assumptions revolving around:

A) a Grand or Divine Plan

B) a singular determined, fixed, static end-state for the universe --
that is, the last frame of the film has already been writtne, casted
and filmed.

C) a quite anthropormorphic view of God or Nature as an intesely
micro-managing bureaucrat, manageing against a firm, irrevocable,
unchangeable '10 Billion Year Plan'

D) a singualar correct action in any circumstance.

In contrast, MMY has described, echoing many others, the nature of
life, the nature of the universe, the characteristics of Nature, the
hard-wired rules of the universe, are:

1) to change towards more complex states (evolve)

2) to seek greater happiness

A-D are not at all necessary for 1-2.

1-2 imply everything is self-optimizing to seek greater happiness as
it defines it, and as it understands how to get there. Seeking
happiness is a self-correcting (adaptive and learning) heuristic of
everything in life -- from bugs to humans to whatever. 

Consequently: 

 To say some specific thing should or was supposed to happen in
this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything tests the
limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness.
And everything learns in the process.

To say some specific thing was against the laws of nature in
this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything  tests the
limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness.
There are limits on understanding i) what yields greater happiness in
the short vs long run, and ii) how to achieve such. But these are
limitations, progressively overcome with adaptive learning at every step.

 To say some specific thing should have happened because it
happened or more boldly something is perfect because 'it happened'
is a bit of a tautology, but consistent with the breader view that
'everything is good' because things happen, as everything tests the
limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness.
Any limitations are progressively overcome with adaptive learning at
every step.













 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread new_morning_blank_slate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
  j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
  
   In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
   perfectly:
   
   Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way
   they happened.
  
  Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or
  knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a
  tautology.
 
 And then there's always this old chestnut:
 
 Q:  Maharishi, if everything is perfect just as it is,
 why are we working so hard to change things?
 
 A:  That too is perfect just as it is.

While that too is a tautology as it stands, in a broader context it is
a valuable insight and knowledge. And if truely understood, 
explains why absolute no-free will due to all decisions being based
on past causes is no excuse for dropping responsibility for 
actions. 

Per responsibility, we all deeply learning behaviors of learning,
adaptation and optimizating values (projected outcomes) of any 
action to derive maximum happiness.  And part of learning behaviors
include learning that actions have consequences that can either
increase or decrease happiness. Taking responsibility is not so much
the issue. Responsibility takes us. The result of actions 
find us. We learn from such. Do more if action yields greater
happiness, do less if action yields less happiness. (Do nothing if 
non-action produces greatest happpiness.)

And the same reasons, per above, explain why MMY's quote, if truly
understood, clarifies why  absolute no-free will due to all decisions
being based on past causes does not cause lethargic, do nothing
nililism. The latter may be a happiness strategy being tested by
some, but over time it is learned that it is not as effective as other
strategies, and one moves one. Who would ever say Bangalore today is a
lethargic backwater due to Indian cultural beliefs that nothing can or
should be done -- one should sit and totally take it as it come, all
outcomes are all singularly and absolutely already mapped out. 

 
Related points in:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102232?l=1

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102235?l=1






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread jim_flanegin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
 tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
 
  To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold 
to be
  true.
  
  Will. It will happen just wait.
 
 Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life
 appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, 
a
 day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment 
call:
 who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd 
died 20
 years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
 perfectly:
 
 Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way 
they
 happened.

That just kills me.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-20 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
 j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
 
  In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up
  perfectly:
  
  Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they
  happened.
 
 Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or
 knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. 
 
 
 
 Tautology has at least three distinct meanings:
 
 * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form.
 * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that
 adds no information.
 * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a
 discussion.


MMY: When you are in Unity Consciousness, you see that everything happens 
exactly as it 
should.
Chopra: But Maharishi, if that is the case, why are we working so hard to 
create Heaven on 
Earth?
MMY: That's exactly as it should be also, and its a lot of fun!






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread matrixmonitor
--Thanks, I'll get back to you in about 2 hrs to copy more of the
article.  The idea that scientific inquiry could have a bearing on
free will is a new twist to me, since I thought it was solely a
philosophical question.  OTOH, Einstein and others were fascinated by
the question raised by Bishop Berkeley: is a tree there if nobody's
looking at it?  Of course, Einstein thought the whole idea was
abusurd; (the importance of an observer was emphasized a great deal by
his opponent, Neils Bohr; so Einstein brought up a new twist: is the
MOON there if nobody was looking at it?)  Einstein thought it
unnecessary to have an observer in the category of a human, for a
number of reasons. An alternative viewpoint, voiced by a recent
contributor, is that the universe Itself is the Observer; and this
proposal eliminates the need to have humans in a special favored
place in the universe (as opposed, to say...chimps, who also can
observe;, but if chimps, then why not other creatures like cockroaches?). 
 I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent
articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to
support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New
Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's.
(specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). This
attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of
science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved
themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had
only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum
pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The
original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating
some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was
rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is
strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may point
to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about
proclaiming an actual identity when none is there.  There's always the
danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble
science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994).
[EMAIL PROTECTED], authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
 matrixmonitor@ wrote:
 snip
  I 
  left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy 
  what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.
 
 I sure would love it if you could copy in more
 when you have access to the article again--at least
 if it's not too technical.
 
 Many thanks for the summary.  Somehow I doubt dueling
 mathematical formulas are going to lead to a
 definitive resolution of the issue, but the arguments
 ought to be fun!
 
 Definitive scientific proof of determinism would most
 likely be disastrous for the psyche of the human race,
 absent some larger concept along the lines of that
 advanced by Schroedinger to validate the *sense* of
 free will in the Atman = Brahman type of context.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
  I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent
 articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to
 support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New
 Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's.
 (specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). This
 attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of
 science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved
 themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had
 only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum
 pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The
 original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating
 some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was
 rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is
 strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may point
 to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about
 proclaiming an actual identity when none is there.  There's always the
 danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble
 science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994).


Dr. Hagelin's Ig Noble award came for his Maharishi Effect research, and was 
awarded 
BEFORE the research was published, BTW, so it was based on media accounts and 
not the 
actual published study (whether this would make a difference to skeptics or not 
is 
immaterial --the research wasn't published at that point and shouldn't have 
been eligible 
in the first place).

And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The Unified 
Field. You've 
read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can refute it, I 
take it?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be
true.

Will. It will happen just wait.

Tom T






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread matrixmonitor
--(below, can I refute the MMY/Hagelin/Chopra Unified Field 
theory?).  I don't have to refute what's self-evident baloney!. 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
matrixmonitor@ wrote:
 [...]
   I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent
  articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to
  support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New
  Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's.
  (specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). 
This
  attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the 
realm of
  science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved
  themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they 
had
  only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum
  pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. 
The
  original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of 
equating
  some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was
  rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far 
is
  strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles 
may point
  to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful 
about
  proclaiming an actual identity when none is there.  There's 
always the
  danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble
  science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994).
 
 
 Dr. Hagelin's Ig Noble award came for his Maharishi Effect 
research, and was awarded 
 BEFORE the research was published, BTW, so it was based on media 
accounts and not the 
 actual published study (whether this would make a difference to 
skeptics or not is 
 immaterial --the research wasn't published at that point and 
shouldn't have been eligible 
 in the first place).
 
 And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The 
Unified Field. You've 
 read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can 
refute it, I take it?








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summaries.

2006-06-19 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Kochen and Conway stress that their theorem doesn't disprove 't 
 Hooft's theory.  It simply states that if his theory is true, our 
 actions cannot be free.  And they admit that there's no way for us
 to tell. Our lives could be like the second showing of a movie -- 
 all actions play out as theough they are free, but that freedom is 
 an illusion, says Kochen.

 Since the mathematicians believe that we have free will, it 
 follows for them that 't Hooft's theory must be wrong.  We have to 
 believe in free will to do anything, says Conway.  I believe I am 
 free to drink this cup of coffee, or throw it across the room.  I 
 believe I am free in choosing to have this conversation.

 Halvorson [Hans Halvorson, philosopher of physics at Princeton] 
 says the debate really boils down to a matter of personal 
 taste.  Kochen and Conway can't tolerate the idea that our future 
 may already be settled,, he says, but people like 't Hooft and 
 Einstein find the notion that the univere can't be completely 
 described by physics just as disturbing..

 For philosophers, both arguments can be troubling.  Quantum 
 randomness as the basis fo free will doesn't really give us control 
 over our actions, says Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics at 
 Rutgers. We're either deterministic machines, or we're random 
 machines.  That's not much of a choice.

It's almost scary how closely this follows the
discussion Curtis and I were having about free
will based on the Schroedinger quote.  This is
exactly the problem Schroedeinger was addressing:
our powerful sense of free will, versus the science
that says it's just an illusion.  The one point
we didn't get into was the randomness factor.

And I think it's *remarkable* how closely it tracks
with the Upanishadic and Gita view of the realization
of higher consciousness that MMY teaches, that one is
not the author of one's actions, it's all the interplay
of the gunas.

The only thing missing from the scientists' and
mathematicians' ideas is the concept of the Self, that
one can be without the gunas.  If they were introduced
to it--intellectually and experientially--would the
mathematicians find the scientists' theories quite so
threatening?




   [last, Halvorson says]:, There are very important questions to 
be 
 asked about free will, and maybe physics can answer them..
 [end of article].








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summaries.

2006-06-19 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's the first part of the article, and then underneath, selected 
 quotes and summaries of the main points: [brackets, mine].

Meant to say, many thanks for posting this!







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread jim_flanegin
--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be
 true.
 
 Will. It will happen just wait.
 
 Tom T

The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection, 
dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed!






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summar

2006-06-19 Thread curtisdeltablues
It is the only question worth thinking about.  High five for posting this!

What the mathematicians proved is this: if you have the slightest
freedom to choose the axes [in the representative experiment
involving the spin of a particle] and order of measurement, then
particles everywhere must also have the same degree of freedom. That
means they can behave unpredictably. 

Count me in here. I choose, therefore I am.  It ain't easy but it is
worth it!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's the first part of the article, and then underneath, selected 
 quotes and summaries of the main points: [brackets, mine].
 
  Free will - you only think you have it
   04 May 2006
   Zeeya Merali
   Magazine issue 2550
   Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a
 deeper
   reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined
   WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist
 Isaac
   Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must
   believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new
 studies
   are anything to go by.
  
   Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing
 up
   his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the
   apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he
 announced
   it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has
 profound
   implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of
 quantum
   physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have
 free
   will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong.
  
   It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our
   generation pitted against two of the world's greatest
   mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at
   Princeton University.
  
   Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is full 
 of apparent paradoxes, which made Einstein deeply uncomfortable and 
 have never been resolved. For instance, you cannot ask what the spin 
 of a particle was before you made an observation of it -- QM says the 
 spin was undetermined.  And you cannot predict the outcome of an 
 experiment; you can  only estimate the probability of getting a 
 certain result..
 [next paragraph - QM works well but it's not complete; e.g. the 
 failure to unite QM with general relativity. A radical change is 
 needed, says Gerard 't Hooft.].
 [next -'Hooft has been working on studying a hidden layer of 
 reality at scales smaller than the Planck length of 10-^(-35) meters. 
 The 'states he investigates behave predictably according to 
 deterministic laws. 't Hooft has worked out a kink in his 
 calculations which gave him a negative energy . See 
 www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0604008.]
 Essentially, t'Hooft is saying that while particles in QM seem to 
 behave unpredictably, if we could track the underlying states, we can 
 predict the behavior of particles.
 As enticing as 't Hooft's theory may be to physicists, it has an 
 unexpected and potentially frightful consequence for the rest of us.  
 Mathematicians John H. Conway and Simon Kochen, both at Princeton 
 University, say that any deterministic theory underlying QM robs us 
 of our free will.
 When you choose to eat the chocolate cake or the plain one, are you 
 really free to decide? asks Conway.  In other words, could someone 
 who has been tracking all the particle interactions in the universe 
 predict with perfect accuracy the cake you will pick?  The answer, it 
 seems, depends on whether QM's inherent uncertainty is the correct 
 description of reality or 't Hooft is right in saying that beneath 
 that uncertainty there is a deterministic order. ...are your 
 choices a matter of free will, or are they predetermined?
  What the mathematicians proved is this:  if you have the slightest 
 freedom to choose the axes [in the representative experiment 
 involving the spin of a particle] and order of measurement, then 
 particles everywhere must also have the same degree of freedom.  That 
 means they can behave unpredictably.  However, if particles have no 
 freedom, as implied by 't Hooft's theory, the mathematicians proved 
 that you have no real say in the choice of axes and order of 
 measurement.  In other words, deterministic particles put an end to 
 free will (www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0604079).
  Kochen and Conway stress that their theorem doesn't disprove 't 
 Hooft's theory.  It simply states that if his theory is true, our 
 actions cannot be free.  And they admit that there's no way for us to 
 tell. Our lives could be like the second showing of a movie -- all 
 actions play out as theough they are free, but that freedom is an 
 illusion, says Kochen.
  Since the mathematicians believe that we have free will, it follows 
 for them that 't Hooft's theory must be wrong.  We have to believe 
 in free will to do anything, says Conway.  I believe I am free to 
 drink this cup of coffee, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --(below, can I refute the MMY/Hagelin/Chopra Unified Field 
 theory?).  I don't have to refute what's self-evident baloney!. 

[...]
  And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The 
 Unified Field. You've 
  read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can 
 refute it, I take it?
 


You've read it so you can refute it due to it's self-evident balaneyness...

Can you elaborate on this aspect of the paper?

And Chopra got his very poorly worded stuff by a cursory reading of Hagelin, 
who apparently 
didn't agree with Chopra on a regular basis about Chopra's take on QM as Chopra 
acknowledged in a presentation where Hagelin was sitting next to Chopra as he 
spoke.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-19 Thread curtisdeltablues
The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection,
dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed!


You have outdone yourself!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In 
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis 
 tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
 
  To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be
  true.
  
  Will. It will happen just wait.
  
  Tom T
 
 The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection, 
 dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed!








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-18 Thread matrixmonitor
---Forgot to paste in the paragraph.  Here it is:

Free will - you only think you have it
04 May 2006 
Zeeya Merali 
Magazine issue 2550 
Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper 
reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined
WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac 
Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must 
believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies 
are anything to go by. 

Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up 
his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the 
apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced 
it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound 
implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum 
physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free 
will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. 

It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our 
generation pitted against two of the world's greatest 
mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at 
Princeton University. 

Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ...

The complete article is 1310 words long.




 Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions 
 on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a 
 recent New Scientist article.  Regarding the question as to whether 
 the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from 
the 
 determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this 
 controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article.  My 
 impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro  vs 
con 
 free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely 
be 
 included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical 
 particles.  Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such 
a 
 dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist 
 is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists 
are 
 not inclined to separate mind from matter.  But let's put this 
 question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is 
 determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is 
 also determined by prior causes.  This (at this time) is an 
 unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the 
scientists 
 have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. 
I 
 left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy 
 what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.  Before 
 pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues.
  The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have it.; 
 and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism researcher, 
 Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't 
 remember how to spell his name).  On the pro-free-will (against 
 determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous 
mathematician 
 at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life cellular automaton. 
 Interestingly, these two giants of science are going at it not 
with 
 philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this 
time, 
 d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track.  Conway differs, and 
 believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate.
   However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that 
 remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will ever be 
a 
 proof pro or con.  
  At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is 
 that mind is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down 
to 
 determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will).
  Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of 
 the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus 
 the gross level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is 
 fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will.  The 
 downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, 
 RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and 
 thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random.
  So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, 
free 
 will existence exists, but at a big price: it's free but is 
 fundamentally random.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/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! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-18 Thread curtisdeltablues
Interesting, I would like to read the rest.  Can you help me with the
mind body question?
In Essence, Buddhist
 is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists
are
 not inclined to separate mind from matter.

Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph.  Here it is:
 
 Free will - you only think you have it
 04 May 2006 
 Zeeya Merali 
 Magazine issue 2550 
 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper 
 reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined
 WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac 
 Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must 
 believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies 
 are anything to go by. 
 
 Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up 
 his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the 
 apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced 
 it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound 
 implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum 
 physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free 
 will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. 
 
 It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our 
 generation pitted against two of the world's greatest 
 mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at 
 Princeton University. 
 
 Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ...
 
 The complete article is 1310 words long.
 
 
 
 
  Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions 
  on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a 
  recent New Scientist article.  Regarding the question as to whether 
  the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from 
 the 
  determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this 
  controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article.  My 
  impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro  vs 
 con 
  free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely 
 be 
  included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical 
  particles.  Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such 
 a 
  dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist 
  is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists 
 are 
  not inclined to separate mind from matter.  But let's put this 
  question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is 
  determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is 
  also determined by prior causes.  This (at this time) is an 
  unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the 
 scientists 
  have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. 
 I 
  left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy 
  what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.  Before 
  pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues.
   The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have it.; 
  and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism researcher, 
  Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't 
  remember how to spell his name).  On the pro-free-will (against 
  determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous 
 mathematician 
  at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life cellular automaton. 
  Interestingly, these two giants of science are going at it not 
 with 
  philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this 
 time, 
  d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track.  Conway differs, and 
  believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate.
However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that 
  remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will ever be 
 a 
  proof pro or con.  
   At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is 
  that mind is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down 
 to 
  determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will).
   Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of 
  the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus 
  the gross level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is 
  fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will.  The 
  downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, 
  RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and 
  thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random.
   So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, 
 free 
  will existence exists, but at a big price: it's free but is 
  fundamentally random.
 








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-18 Thread matrixmonitor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues .  Can you 
help me with the
 mind body question?
 In Essence, Buddhist
  is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists
 are
  not inclined to separate mind from matter.
 
 Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? 
Ans:  just IMHOperhaps Vaj can answer this in a more technical 
fashion; but being a Buddhist; mind = what we - ordinary folks - 
call (mind + matter); but I would imagine that in Buddhism, just as 
in Hinduism, there are elaborate treatises on the nature of the 
subtle bodies. It (philosophical and religious orientations) may 
often be a matter of emphasis.  Buddhism even more than most branches 
of Hinduism, emphasizes the continuum of existence without even 
bothering (say, when you read the works of the Dalai Lama) to mention 
a separation between Being, not-Being; mind and matter.  Toward the 
other extreme of dualism, we can get into the Greak dichotomy between 
Soul and matter (incorporated into Midieval Christianity); or, if one 
refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, 
since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms (but 
awaiting the Resurrection of the body).
  Personally, I find the continuum aspect to Buddhism refreshing: 
although I will hasten to add that I have had numerous contacts 
with dead people such as my parents, who obviously still exist 
(having subtle non-physical bodies).  But subtle or physical, bodies 
are mind along with everything else. Thus, the determinism of 
matter such as molecules would not be distinguished from the 
determinism of mind in Buddhism.  
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
 matrixmonitor@ wrote:
 
  ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph.  Here it is:
  
  Free will - you only think you have it
  04 May 2006 
  Zeeya Merali 
  Magazine issue 2550 
  Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a 
deeper 
  reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined
  WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist 
Isaac 
  Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must 
  believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new 
studies 
  are anything to go by. 
  
  Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing 
up 
  his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the 
  apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he 
announced 
  it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has 
profound 
  implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of 
quantum 
  physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have 
free 
  will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. 
  
  It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our 
  generation pitted against two of the world's greatest 
  mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at 
  Princeton University. 
  
  Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ...
  
  The complete article is 1310 words long.
  
  
  
  
   Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective 
opinions 
   on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic 
in a 
   recent New Scientist article.  Regarding the question as to 
whether 
   the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate 
from 
  the 
   determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this 
   controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article.  
My 
   impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro  
vs 
  con 
   free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would 
definitely 
  be 
   included as a subset in the supposed determinism of 
the physical 
   particles.  Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how 
such 
  a 
   dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist 
   is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but 
Buddhists 
  are 
   not inclined to separate mind from matter.  But let's put this 
   question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is 
   determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind 
is 
   also determined by prior causes.  This (at this time) is an 
   unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the 
  scientists 
   have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their 
hypotheses. 
  I 
   left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only 
copy 
   what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.  
Before 
   pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues.
The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have 
it.; 
   and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism 
researcher, 
   Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- 
can't 
   remember how to spell his name).  On the pro-free-will (against 
   determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous 
  mathematician 
   at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-18 Thread curtisdeltablues
Thanks man, that was really interesting.  

or, if one 
 refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, 
 since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms 

So now I'm Jewish above the waist too!  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues .  Can you 
 help me with the
  mind body question?
  In Essence, Buddhist
   is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists
  are
   not inclined to separate mind from matter.
  
  Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? 
 Ans:  just IMHOperhaps Vaj can answer this in a more technical 
 fashion; but being a Buddhist; mind = what we - ordinary folks - 
 call (mind + matter); but I would imagine that in Buddhism, just as 
 in Hinduism, there are elaborate treatises on the nature of the 
 subtle bodies. It (philosophical and religious orientations) may 
 often be a matter of emphasis.  Buddhism even more than most branches 
 of Hinduism, emphasizes the continuum of existence without even 
 bothering (say, when you read the works of the Dalai Lama) to mention 
 a separation between Being, not-Being; mind and matter.  Toward the 
 other extreme of dualism, we can get into the Greak dichotomy between 
 Soul and matter (incorporated into Midieval Christianity); or, if one 
 refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, 
 since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms (but 
 awaiting the Resurrection of the body).
   Personally, I find the continuum aspect to Buddhism refreshing: 
 although I will hasten to add that I have had numerous contacts 
 with dead people such as my parents, who obviously still exist 
 (having subtle non-physical bodies).  But subtle or physical, bodies 
 are mind along with everything else. Thus, the determinism of 
 matter such as molecules would not be distinguished from the 
 determinism of mind in Buddhism.  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
  matrixmonitor@ wrote:
  
   ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph.  Here it is:
   
   Free will - you only think you have it
   04 May 2006 
   Zeeya Merali 
   Magazine issue 2550 
   Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a 
 deeper 
   reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined
   WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist 
 Isaac 
   Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must 
   believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new 
 studies 
   are anything to go by. 
   
   Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing 
 up 
   his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the 
   apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he 
 announced 
   it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has 
 profound 
   implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of 
 quantum 
   physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have 
 free 
   will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. 
   
   It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our 
   generation pitted against two of the world's greatest 
   mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at 
   Princeton University. 
   
   Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ...
   
   The complete article is 1310 words long.
   
   
   
   
Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective 
 opinions 
on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic 
 in a 
recent New Scientist article.  Regarding the question as to 
 whether 
the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate 
 from 
   the 
determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this 
controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article.  
 My 
impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro  
 vs 
   con 
free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would 
 definitely 
   be 
included as a subset in the supposed determinism of 
 the physical 
particles.  Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how 
 such 
   a 
dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist 
is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but 
 Buddhists 
   are 
not inclined to separate mind from matter.  But let's put this 
question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is 
determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind 
 is 
also determined by prior causes.  This (at this time) is an 
unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the 
   scientists 
have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their 
 hypotheses. 
   I 
left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only 
 copy 
what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.  
 Before 
pasting it in, I will briefly summarize 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!

2006-06-18 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 I 
 left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy 
 what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph.

I sure would love it if you could copy in more
when you have access to the article again--at least
if it's not too technical.

Many thanks for the summary.  Somehow I doubt dueling
mathematical formulas are going to lead to a
definitive resolution of the issue, but the arguments
ought to be fun!

Definitive scientific proof of determinism would most
likely be disastrous for the psyche of the human race,
absent some larger concept along the lines of that
advanced by Schroedinger to validate the *sense* of
free will in the Atman = Brahman type of context.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/