New age quack Deepak Choprah exploits MJ's death on CNN
Cosmo Spacely
quack who claims to have a medical degree, but makes his money
promoting books on metaphysical new age crap on the Oprah show.
Chopra has decided to exploit Michael Jackson's death for
publicity and profit by claiming to have been a friend of his,
and that MJ had asked him for a prescription for painkillers
several years ago; Chopra claims to have a DEA license to
prescribe such drugs.
Even if Chopra does hold a valid U.S. license to practice
medicine, he specializes in some kind of new age crap that is
supposedly derived from Hindu Ayurvedic 'medicine,'
transcendental meditation, and aromatherapy, with some quantum
physics thrown in to make it sound scientific.
More evidence of Chopra's quackery is from my own personal
"Oprah Rule." I automatically assume that any idea, celebrity,
book, presidential candidate, etc. that is endorsed or promoted
by Oprah Winfrey is stupid, retarded, and utter bullshit.
Idiots like Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, and Deepak Chopra prove
my theory correct.
CNN not only discredits itself by allowing Deepak Chopra to
whore his metaphysical new age Oprah shit on their network, but
also by taking stories directly from Oprah.com and presenting
them as 'news.'
PeterB
>
> Last night CNN was interviewing Deepak Chopra, a famous new age
> quack who claims to have a medical degree, but makes his money
> promoting books on metaphysical new age crap on the Oprah show.
In other words, you are afraid of ideas that threaten your sense of
the universe being a solid. Well, here's news for ya...the universe
ain't solid.
> Chopra has decided to exploit Michael Jackson's death for
> publicity and profit by claiming to have been a friend of his,
> and that MJ had asked him for a prescription for painkillers
> several years ago; Chopra claims to have a DEA license to
> prescribe such drugs.
Since you have no knowledge of that relationship, your attack on
Chopra is irrational, even hateful.
> Even if Chopra does hold a valid U.S. license to practice
> medicine, he specializes in some kind of new age crap that is
> supposedly derived from Hindu Ayurvedic 'medicine,'
> transcendental meditation, and aromatherapy, with some quantum
> physics thrown in to make it sound scientific.
Science is nothing more than observation, comparison, and DEduction.
Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
energy and mass. There is no contradiction between the two. One
thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
prejudices.
> More evidence of Chopra's quackery is from my own personal
> "Oprah Rule." I automatically assume that any idea, celebrity,
> book, presidential candidate, etc. that is endorsed or promoted
> by Oprah Winfrey is stupid, retarded, and utter bullshit.
In other words, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is
stupid, retarded, and unworthy of consideration. Reductionist
thinking is rarely subtle.
> Idiots like Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, and Deepak Chopra prove
> my theory correct.
What it proves is that you don't like people who are different from
you, not that you have a theory or even a rationale for these
feelings.
> CNN not only discredits itself by allowing Deepak Chopra to
> whore his metaphysical new age Oprah shit on their network, but
> also by taking stories directly from Oprah.com and presenting
> them as 'news.'
Your rant is meaningless. I find CNN boring because it presumes to
express a populist view of the world without committing to it. It
fails to extol the gestalt principles underlying personal and social
progress. I suppose they are afraid of being branded a religion. I
like FOX because it's edgy and passionate and willing to commit to its
antithetical viewpoint, which can be summed up as "every man for
himself, but let's be nice about it." I learn a lot about myself by
watching and listening to Reductionists. They are funny to watch
because they try hard to express old ideas in new ways while evading
new ideas in old ways. Of course, most people that FOX calls
"liberals" are not gestalt thinkers and only seek to change the world
in reactionary ways, which drives Reductionists nuts. Most people
that CNN pundits might refer to as "right wingers" are indeed
Reductionists but seem fixated on social nihilsm and personal morality
at the same time, which drives "liberals" crazy. Gestalt thinkers
laugh at both of them. Deepak Chopra? He reminds me of CNN.
Peter B.
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca0700fd-7a12-4dfb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
.
Science is nothing more than observation, comparison, and DEduction.
Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
energy and mass. There is no contradiction between the two. One
thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
prejudices.
-------------------------------------------
Obviously you are not one of those people, your prejudices shows in this
paragraph. If you can't figure it out, ask. Don't go off half cocked
filled with yet another prejudice that uses the word troll or similar.
PeterB
What is it about the above paragraph you are talking about?
Alan Ford
uction.
> Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> energy and mass.
???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
> There is no contradiction between the two.
In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
景文
,,, These days sexual love or the view that man's inborn nature is
evil ,,, "
,,, The World this love" women and woman's voice Or Man male manly
male voice ,,,"
,,, This is Only" must should ,,,"
,,, as sexual love profession should ,,," as human lights and
there"s
,,, so this world be jealous of and troublesome so delicate or
doubtful there's ,,,"
,,, and Happy life there"s
,,, as one"s way of thinking point of view ,,," life is process to
bread food"
,,, To All happi life"
taxi
> quack who claims to have a medical degree, but makes his money
> promoting books on metaphysical new age crap on theOprahshow.
>
Huh? Deepak Choprah only appeared on Oprah once, and once only, and
that was over 15 years ago. She had him on because Michael Jackson
phoned her up after she interviewed him and said "You must have Deepak
Choprah on!"
> Chopra has decided to exploit Michael Jackson's death for
> publicity and profit by claiming to have been a friend of his,
> and that MJ had asked him for a prescription for painkillers
> several years ago; Chopra claims to have a DEA license to
> prescribe such drugs.
>
> Even if Chopra does hold a valid U.S. license to practice
> medicine, he specializes in some kind of new age crap that is
> supposedly derived from Hindu Ayurvedic 'medicine,'
> transcendental meditation, and aromatherapy, with some quantum
> physics thrown in to make it sound scientific.
Actually Choprah is the greatest mind in modern medicine who is
brilliantly combining the best of Eastern & Western medicine. Just
because you're not intelligent enough to understand it does not make
it any less valid. And Choprah is not exploiting Jackson's death, he
is using it as an opportunity to go after those he believes are
responsible which shows courage and integrity.
>
> More evidence of Chopra's quackery is from my own personal
> "OprahRule." I automatically assume that any idea, celebrity,
> book, presidential candidate, etc. that is endorsed or promoted
> byOprahWinfrey is stupid, retarded, and utter bullshit.
> Idiots like Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, and Deepak Chopra prove
> my theory correct.
A moron like you needs to depend on simplistic idiotic rules because
you're too dumb to evaluate ideas, celebrities and books on a case by
case basis.
PeterB
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:50:05 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Alan
>
> Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >PeterB wrote:
> >uction.
> >> Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> >> INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> >> by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> >> energy and mass.
>
> >???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
When I asked Google to define your word "newagism," it asked if I
meant "neologism" instead. Do you know what "neologism" means? You
guessed it: A newly invented word or phrase. What a coincidence,
eh?
> IT was adopted
> by so the Hinduism influence of mixing religion and science and
> calling it science.
"IT?" I'm beginning to think that you are under the influence.
> Take some time and read the non westernized astrology text for Hindu
> Science astrology. What it is really is a Method of brainwashing the
> masses and a aid in enforcing their caste system. <racism and
> bigotry> Make no Doubt about it their caste system is a form of
> racism enforce by religious belief.
Some people never make it back out of the rabbit hole.
> >> There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> >In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> >Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
>
> Exactly.
It's not just a miracle you found someone to agree with, it's a
conspiracy of imbeciles.
PeterB
> PeterB wrote:
>
> uction.
>
> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> > by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> > energy and mass.
>
> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act of
observing and quanta are analogous.
> > There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
You don't "believe" in hydrodynamics any more than you "believe" in a
waterfall -- it's a system of observation. Your filters are so strong
than you can't even keep complementary concepts grouped together.
PeterB
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:07:32 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
>
>
> PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 9:45 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:50:05 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Alan
>
> >> Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> >PeterB wrote:
> >> >uction.
> >> >> Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> >> >> INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> >> >> by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> >> >> energy and mass.
>
> >> >???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> >> Newagism, which is nonsense in the guise of science.
>
> >When I asked Google to define your word "newagism," it asked if I
> >meant "neologism" instead. Do you know what "neologism" means? You
> >guessed it: A newly invented word or phrase. What a coincidence,
> >eh?
>
Meaning your world view is correct because it's yours and you can make
up a word to prove it.
> Woo!
>
> That's a relief.
That stuff you make up is stuff you make up? Sure, whatever you
say.
> >> IT was adopted
> >> by so the Hinduism influence of mixing religion and science and
> >> calling it science.
>
> >"IT?"
>
> "New age beliefs". Newagism Like all religious beliefs, all based on
> silly religious beliefs which are a method of control the masses of
> people.
There is no such thing as "newagism." That's just *your* religious
conviction.
> >I'm beginning to think that you are under the influence.
>
> Influence of being skeptical.
Idiots don't make it that far.
> >> Take some time and read the non westernized astrology text for Hindu
> >> Science astrology. What it is really is a Method of brainwashing the
> >> masses and a aid in enforcing their caste system. <racism and
> >> bigotry> Make no Doubt about it their caste system is a form of
> >> racism enforce by religious belief.
>
> >Some people never make it back out of the rabbit hole.
>
> and some people never realize the rabbit hole they are in hiding
> inside.
I'm not the one making up words and ideas about what I make up.
> >> >> There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> >> >In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> >> >Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
>
> >> Exactly.
>
> >It's not just a miracle you found someone to agree with, it's a
> >conspiracy of imbeciles.
<rant De-Quanta-Fied>
Enkidu
> On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>
>> uction.
>>
>> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
>> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
>> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
>> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
>>
>> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act of
> observing and quanta are analogous.
We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a visually
appealing dish without any content. Specifically, quantum physics does
not "demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce by observing them".
Energy and mass do not "coalesce" in any common meaning of the word.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
PeterB
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
>
>
> PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 1:08 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:07:32 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
>
> >> PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 28, 9:45 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:50:05 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Alan
>
> >> >> Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> >> >PeterB wrote:
> >> >> >uction.
> >> >> >> Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> >> >> >> INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> >> >> >> by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> >> >> >> energy and mass.
>
> >> >> >???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> >> >> Newagism, which is nonsense in the guise of science.
>
> >> >When I asked Google to define your word "newagism," it asked if I
> >> >meant "neologism" instead. Do you know what "neologism" means? You
> >> >guessed it: A newly invented word or phrase. What a coincidence,
> >> >eh?
>
> >> So Google doesn't know everything, and you know even less?
>
> >Meaning your world view is correct because it's yours and you can make
> >up a word to prove it.
>
You're probably right, since you can't even write a complete sentence
-- meaning you stole it from the idiot who did make it up.
> >> Woo!
>
> >> That's a relief.
>
> >That stuff you make up is stuff you make up? Sure, whatever you
> >say.
>
> That would be true except I didn't make it up.
So where did you learn of this non-existant word, the back of some
comic book?
> Google is not an authority. Are you claiming otherwise?
>
> >> >> IT was adopted
> >> >> by so the Hinduism influence of mixing religion and science and
> >> >> calling it science.
>
> >> >"IT?"
>
> >> "New age beliefs". Newagism Like all religious beliefs, all based on
> >> silly religious beliefs which are a method of control the masses of
> >> people.
>
> >There is no such thing as "newagism." That's just *your* religious
> >conviction.
>
> Nope, the idiocy of the followers of the new age fades have made it a
> quasi religion. Or do you think space cooties are real?
I don't even think you are for real. What are "new age fades?"
> >> >I'm beginning to think that you are under the influence.
>
> >> Influence of being skeptical.
>
> >Idiots don't make it that far.
>
> Which is where you are located?
"Far" is an adverb, not a place. I see you are also grammatically
challenged.
> >> >> Take some time and read the non westernized astrology text for Hindu
> >> >> Science astrology. What it is really is a Method of brainwashing the
> >> >> masses and a aid in enforcing their caste system. <racism and
> >> >> bigotry> Make no Doubt about it their caste system is a form of
> >> >> racism enforce by religious belief.
>
> >> >Some people never make it back out of the rabbit hole.
>
> >> and some people never realize the rabbit hole they are in hiding
> >> inside.
>
> >I'm not the one making up words and ideas about what I make up.
>
> Neither am I. But I have seen you create your own special
> daffy-nitions.
Coming from someone who makes up words and mistakes adverbs for
places, I'm not too concerned about what you "think."
> >> >> >> There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> >> >> >In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> >> >> >Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
>
> >> >> Exactly.
>
> >> >It's not just a miracle you found someone to agree with, it's a
> >> >conspiracy of imbeciles.
>
> ><rant De-Quanta-Fied>
>
> The cowards way out?
Yes, you're off the hook...(this time)
PeterB
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0700, PeterB wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
>
> >> uction.
>
> >> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> >> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
> >> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
> >> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
>
> >> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> > It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act of
> > observing and quanta are analogous.
>
> We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a visually
> appealing dish without any content.
Dishes and their contents are notional in the world of quantum
effects. The act of measuring changes the measurement because
thoughts are energy apart from chemistry, something reductionists
don't see on their newtonian menu.
> Specifically, quantum physics does
> not "demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce by observing them".
> Energy and mass do not "coalesce" in any common meaning of the word.
There are no "common meanings" that describe quantum effects because
they are not common. If you don't get that it's because your filters
won't permit it.
Allan Matthews
@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, p...@mytrashmail.com says...
> On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0700, PeterB wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> > >> PeterB wrote:
> >
> > >> uction.
> >
> > >> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > >> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
> > >> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
> > >> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
> >
> > >> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
> >
> > > It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act of
> > > observing and quanta are analogous.
> >
> > We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a visually
> > appealing dish without any content.
>
> Dishes and their contents are notional in the world of quantum
> effects.
Um... no, unless you're using a meaning of the word 'notional' not
found in the dictionary.
> The act of measuring changes the measurement because
> thoughts are energy apart from chemistry,
Again, no. You have no actual knowledge of quantum mechanics or brain
function, do you.
> something reductionists don't see on their newtonian menu.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
> > Specifically, quantum physics does
> > not "demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce by observing them".
> > Energy and mass do not "coalesce" in any common meaning of the word.
>
> There are no "common meanings" that describe quantum effects because
> they are not common.
BZZZZZ! Wrong answer but thanks for playing.
> If you don't get that it's because your filters won't permit it.
With all this talk of filters and menus you probably work at a
Starbucks.
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
"And the moral of the story?
Don't leave things in the fridge."
=========================================
Enkidu
> On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0700, PeterB wrote:
>> > On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>> >> PeterB wrote:
>>
>> >> uction.
>>
>> >> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
>> >> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
>> >> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
>> >> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
>>
>> >> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>>
>> > It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act
>> > of observing and quanta are analogous.
>>
>> We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a
>> visually appealing dish without any content.
>
> Dishes and their contents are notional in the world of quantum effects.
> The act of measuring changes the measurement because thoughts are energy
> apart from chemistry, something reductionists don't see on their
> newtonian menu.
So you're claiming that THOUGHTS effect quantum scale events? I call
*bullshit* here, son. Put up a cite or shut up.
So you're claiming that THOUGHTS involve something other than electro-
chemical energy? Like what? Microwave? Nuclear? I call *bullshit* here
too. Put up a cite or shut up.
Enkidu
>> Specifically, quantum physics does
>> not "demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce by observing them".
>> Energy and mass do not "coalesce" in any common meaning of the word.
>
> There are no "common meanings" that describe quantum effects because
> they are not common. If you don't get that it's because your filters
> won't permit it.
If you study a field, you'll find the people in that field develope a
common vocabulary. You, who don't study quantum physics pick out words
and string them together. You think you know what the words mean it
context, but you don't. Hence the string of pretty words, but no meat, a
word salad.
PeterB
> In article <0a14abc9-c59a-43db-b63a-5f4132cc2f99
> @j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, p...@mytrashmail.com says...
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0700, PeterB wrote:
> > > > On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> > > >> PeterB wrote:
>
> > > >> uction.
>
> > > >> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > > >> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
> > > >> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
> > > >> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
>
> > > >> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> > > > It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act of
> > > > observing and quanta are analogous.
>
> > > We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a visually
> > > appealing dish without any content.
>
> > Dishes and their contents are notional in the world of quantum
> > effects.
>
> Um... no, unless you're using a meaning of the word 'notional' not
> found in the dictionary.
Um.... yes, unless you want to make your case rather than just
declaring me wrong.
> > The act of measuring changes the measurement because
> > thoughts are energy apart from chemistry,
>
> Again, no. You have no actual knowledge of quantum mechanics or brain
> function, do you.
Again, genius, referring to an opposing view doesn't make that view
known. I have no idea what you think YOU know about quantum mechanics
unless you bother to tell me.
> > something reductionists don't see on their newtonian menu.
>
> You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Is that why you aren't bothering to share your brilliant knowledge of
the topic?
> > > Specifically, quantum physics does
> > > not "demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce by observing them".
> > > Energy and mass do not "coalesce" in any common meaning of the word.
>
> > There are no "common meanings" that describe quantum effects because
> > they are not common.
>
> BZZZZZ! Wrong answer but thanks for playing.
That must be your brain on drugs resisting any effort to share your
copious knowledge.
> > If you don't get that it's because your filters won't permit it.
>
> With all this talk of filters and menus you probably work at a
> Starbucks.
I guess you're a waiter because you used the words "dish" and "salad"
as metaphors in your earlier comment. There are some fairly bright
Reductionist thinkers in the newsgroups, but I guess they took the day
off.
PeterB
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:11:40 -0700, PeterB wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0700, PeterB wrote:
> >> > On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> >> PeterB wrote:
>
> >> >> uction.
>
> >> >> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> >> >> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass
> >> >> > coalesce by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as
> >> >> > reciprocal to energy and mass.
>
> >> >> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> >> > It means that filters control what you know. It also means the act
> >> > of observing and quanta are analogous.
>
> >> We call that "Word Salad", son. You mix words together to make a
> >> visually appealing dish without any content.
>
> > Dishes and their contents are notional in the world of quantum effects.
> > The act of measuring changes the measurement because thoughts are energy
> > apart from chemistry, something reductionists don't see on their
> > newtonian menu.
>
> So you're claiming that THOUGHTS effect quantum scale events? I call
> *bullshit* here, son. Put up a cite or shut up.
The "observer's paraodox" pertains to a superposition of states that
requires observation in order to experience an outcome. Refer to
Erwin Schrödinger's 1935 "cat in a box" thought experiment for a macro
proposition that ponders what is now empirically proven to be true at
the subatomic level. One might argue that the act of observing exerts
some physical force on material objects that are in no way connected,
but that is hardly reasonable. Alternatively, one can argue that the
observer's *awareness* itself exerts some influence on outcomes at the
level of quanta, which, while not defineable in newtonian terms, is
now an accepted premise for much of quantum theory. The question you
are raising is whether the *awareness* of the observer can be
distinguished from the *thoughts* of that observer. If there is a
theory or premise for such a distinction, let's hear it.
> So you're claiming that THOUGHTS involve something other than electro-
> chemical energy? Like what? Microwave? Nuclear? I call *bullshit* here
> too. Put up a cite or shut up.
I'm not claiming anything, jackass, I'm simply describing what happens
when quanta are observed in the lab.
Enkidu
Bullshit. "Observation" does not mean what you think it means. It does
not nean a sentient observer watching, merely a forced outcome. Quantum
events do in fact happen in the universe, even when no human is looking.
The question you are
> raising is whether the *awareness* of the observer can be distinguished
> from the *thoughts* of that observer. If there is a theory or premise
> for such a distinction, let's hear it.
The observer need not think. a photographic plate works quite well.
>> So you're claiming that THOUGHTS involve something other than electro-
>> chemical energy? Like what? Microwave? Nuclear? I call *bullshit* here
>> too. Put up a cite or shut up.
>
> I'm not claiming anything, jackass, I'm simply describing what happens
> when quanta are observed in the lab.
No, you're misunderstanding modern physics, then spewing forth something
you think is modern physics.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
-- John Buchan
Enkidu
Velikovsky was wrong. You're not close to "wrong" because you haven't
said anything, your utterances have no meaning, no content, no referents
in reality.
Wrong, if you ever get there, will be a big improvement.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the
world as this good news of Atheism."
--Annie Wood Besant
Alan Ford
> Actually Choprah is the greatest mind in modern medicine who is
> brilliantly combining the best of Eastern & Western medicine.
Medicine is divided on Eastern and Western?
Mark Probert
>
> uction.
>
> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> > by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> > energy and mass.
>
> ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
Even though PeteyB said it, do not ask him what it means, since even
his does not know. You must be posting from s.c.a, or a.a, as we in
m.h.a. know better.
>
> > There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
You mean the gold is not there.??????
PeterB
Your filters are working just fine.
> Wrong, if you ever get there, will be a big improvement.
For you, a miracle.
PeterB
Don't ignore quote marks if you want to be taken seriously. It isn't
news that quanta do not distinguish between observers based on human
concepts of "awareness." You apparently agree that in the quantum
world, such effects do require observance. My point about "thought"
was that since human awareness cannot occur without it, that method of
recording is equivalent to any other, which means "awareness" and
"thoughts" are reciprocal to energy and mass. That is what I said at
the beginning and nothing you have said is a rational argument against
it.
> Quantum
> events do in fact happen in the universe, even when no human is looking.
No shit.
> The question you are
>
> > raising is whether the *awareness* of the observer can be distinguished
> > from the *thoughts* of that observer. If there is a theory or premise
> > for such a distinction, let's hear it.
>
> The observer need not think. a photographic plate works quite well.
Stop avoiding the topic, which is human awareness (thought) as a
recording device. I don't care about the photographic plate. If
human awareness is reciprocal (in any way) to energy and mass at the
level of quanta, how do you separate human thought from those
effects? Asked another way, how do you even know they are different
things? State your premise and your theory. If you don't know, just
admit it.
> >> So you're claiming that THOUGHTS involve something other than electro-
> >> chemical energy? Like what? Microwave? Nuclear? I call *bullshit* here
> >> too. Put up a cite or shut up.
>
> > I'm not claiming anything, jackass, I'm simply describing what happens
> > when quanta are observed in the lab.
>
> No, you're misunderstanding modern physics, then spewing forth something
> you think is modern physics.
You like your filters, don't you?
PeterB
> On Jun 28, 3:50 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>
> > PeterB wrote:
>
> > uction.
>
> > > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> > > by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> > > energy and mass.
>
> > ???? WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> Even though PeteyB said it, do not ask him what it means, since even
> his does not know. You must be posting from s.c.a, or a.a, as we in
> m.h.a. know better.
Markey, why do you purposely put grammatical errors into your posts?
Is someone trying to soften your image?
> > > There is no contradiction between the two.
>
> > In the same way there's no contradiction in believing in the
> > Leprechauns' gold and hydrodynamics.
>
> You mean the gold is not there.??????
Of course the gold is there -- you're even a Lepre-CON.
Peter B.
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:c62c8a9d-bc8c-46d6...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 1:57 am, "Peter B." <i...@i-brag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca0700fd-7a12-4dfb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> .
>
> Science is nothing more than observation, comparison, and DEduction.
> Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
> prejudices.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Obviously you are not one of those people, your prejudices shows in
> this
> paragraph. If you can't figure it out, ask. Don't go off half cocked
> filled with yet another prejudice that uses the word troll or similar.
What is it about the above paragraph you are talking about?
---------------------------------------------------
"One thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
prejudices."
Use of the word "he" as if only men were good scientists.
PeterB
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c62c8a9d-bc8c-46d6...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 1:57 am, "Peter B." <i...@i-brag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ca0700fd-7a12-4dfb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > .
>
> > Science is nothing more than observation, comparison, and DEduction.
> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> > by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> > energy and mass. There is no contradiction between the two. One
> > thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
> > prejudices.
> > -------------------------------------------
>
> > Obviously you are not one of those people, your prejudices shows in
> > this
> > paragraph. If you can't figure it out, ask. Don't go off half cocked
> > filled with yet another prejudice that uses the word troll or similar.
>
> What is it about the above paragraph you are talking about?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> "One thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
> prejudices."
>
> Use of the word "he" as if only men were good scientists.
Niiiiiice catch. Clearly, a woman with such interests has as much
talent for good science as any man with such interests. I will fly my
flap at half mast.
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
景文
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c62c8a9d-bc8c-46d6...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 1:57 am, "Peter B." <i...@i-brag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ca0700fd-7a12-4dfb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > .
>
> > Science is nothing more than observation, comparison, and DEduction.
> > Philosophy is nothing more than observation, comparison, and
> > INduction. Quantum physics demonstrates that energy and mass coalesce
> > by observing them. Metaphysics explores awareness as reciprocal to
> > energy and mass. There is no contradiction between the two. One
> > thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
> > prejudices.
> > -------------------------------------------
>
> > Obviously you are not one of those people, your prejudices shows in
> > this
> > paragraph. If you can't figure it out, ask. Don't go off half cocked
> > filled with yet another prejudice that uses the word troll or similar.
>
> What is it about the above paragraph you are talking about?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> "One thing you can always say about a good scientist is that he has no
> prejudices."
>
>
> - 引用テキストを表示 -
news,,, jappan ,,, It the world this is ,,, sincerely tell and
introduce ,,,"
,,, each to point of view ,,,It only this point" ,,, but think
out ,,, ?" ,,, and to strike on nice to",,,?"
,,, To you" ,,, process so point of view ,,,"
Jan Drew
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Chaplain and ordained minister
Who posts.
Weird.
Rosemary Brown
staff of a large Boston hospital..
"taxi" <striped...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a24b9299-1cba-459e...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, Cosmo Spacely <spac...@sprockets.com> wrote:
> Last night CNN was interviewing Deepak Chopra, a famous new age
> quack who claims to have a medical degree, but makes his money
> promoting books on metaphysical new age crap on theOprahshow.
>
Huh? Deepak Choprah only appeared on Oprah once, and once only, and
that was over 15 years ago. She had him on because Michael Jackson
phoned her up after she interviewed him and said "You must have Deepak
Choprah on!"
> Chopra has decided to exploit Michael Jackson's death for
> publicity and profit by claiming to have been a friend of his,
> and that MJ had asked him for a prescription for painkillers
> several years ago; Chopra claims to have a DEA license to
> prescribe such drugs.
>
> Even if Chopra does hold a valid U.S. license to practice
> medicine, he specializes in some kind of new age crap that is
> supposedly derived from Hindu Ayurvedic 'medicine,'
> transcendental meditation, and aromatherapy, with some quantum
> physics thrown in to make it sound scientific.
Actually Choprah is the greatest mind in modern medicine who is
brilliantly combining the best of Eastern & Western medicine. Just
because you're not intelligent enough to understand it does not make
it any less valid. And Choprah is not exploiting Jackson's death, he
is using it as an opportunity to go after those he believes are
responsible which shows courage and integrity.
>
> More evidence of Chopra's quackery is from my own personal
> "OprahRule." I automatically assume that any idea, celebrity,
> book, presidential candidate, etc. that is endorsed or promoted
> byOprahWinfrey is stupid, retarded, and utter bullshit.
> Idiots like Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, and Deepak Chopra prove
> my theory correct.
A moron like you needs to depend on simplistic idiotic rules because
you're too dumb to evaluate ideas, celebrities and books on a case by
case basis.
Enkidu
Yep, I *am* an ordained minister. Its a requirement to perform weddings.
Perhaps those religious title that get so much respect aren't really
worth much.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious
project."
-- graffito
Alan Ford
> Actually Choprah is the greatest mind in modern medicine who is
> brilliantly combining the best of Eastern & Western medicine
Get fucked. Chopra is a quack selling bullshit. Now, go back and see
what else Oprah is telling you to do with your life.
Rosemary Brown
please learn how to cut and paste..
the comment you attributed to me was NOT mine
btw...the guy is a licensed MD...which was my only point
"Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote in message
news:h2ant7$j5t$2...@news.motzarella.org...
PeterB
> to Alan Ford
>
> please learn how to cut and paste..
>
> the comment you attributed to me was NOT mine
He was taunting you for your view that Deepak Chopra is a brilliant
thinker not deserving of such criticisms. It's clear that many people
agree with you.
Happy Oyster
Not as weird as Jan Drew, I suppose...
--
"Die Weiber sind haupts�chlich dazu bestimmt, die Geilheit der M�nner
zu befriedigen." Johannes Chrysostomos, 349-407, gr. Kirchenlehrer
�ber das wahre Wesen der Biblischen http://www.reimbibel.de ** **
Alan Ford
> to Alan Ford
>
> please learn how to cut and paste..
>
> the comment you attributed to me was NOT mine
>
>
> btw...the guy is a licensed MD...which was my only point
> "Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote in message
> news:h2ant7$j5t$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Get fucked. Chopra is a quack selling bullshit. Now, go back and see what
>> else Oprah is telling you to do with your life.
It's not my fault you're using a retarded reader like Outlook Express
that can't even set indents properly. And you top post. Get a clue.
taxi
> Rosemary Brown wrote:
> > Actually Choprah is the greatest mind in modern medicine who is
> > brilliantly combining the best of Eastern & Western medicine
>
> Get fucked. Chopra is a quack selling bullshit. Now, go back and see
>
Rosemary didn't say that. I did. If you can't even follow a simple
thread, no wonder you lack the intelligence to follow the brilliant
wisdom of Oprah and Choprah.
Mark Probert
Another logical fallacy from *P*ontificating *B*lowhard?
PeterB
So you agree with her that Deepak Chopra is a brilliant thinker not
deserving of such criticisms? It's clear that many people feel the
same way.
Mark Probert
No, I saw Deepak Chopra on CNN. He was whining about the child
molestor's "enablers", i.e. medical doctors, who prescribed the myriad
of meds the molestor was taking. IOW, he was ghoulishly taking the
opportunity to slam real doctrs en mass, rather than waiting to see
what the investigation that LAPD is doing will find.
One of the characteristics of prescription medication abusers is that
they seek prescriptions from several doctors, and do not give a
complete history, i.e., they do not reveal where else they are getting
prescriptions.
Considering the early stories, subject to future verification, I
suspect that one or more doctors were overprescribing, to say the
least. However, I will wait for all the facts to be in.
Speaking of Ghouls, Mikey Adams at UnNaturalNews makes Deepak seem
mild.
And, no, I do not buy in to either Ghouls woo.
PeterB
> On Jun 30, 12:23 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:50 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 2:59 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 1:54 pm, "Rosemary Brown" <hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > to Alan Ford
>
> > > > > please learn how to cut and paste..
>
> > > > > the comment you attributed to me was NOT mine
>
> > > > He was taunting you for your view that Deepak Chopra is a brilliant
> > > > thinker not deserving of such criticisms. It's clear that many people
> > > > agree with you.
>
> > > Another logical fallacy from *P*ontificating *B*lowhard?
>
> > So you agree with her that Deepak Chopra is a brilliant thinker not
> > deserving of such criticisms? It's clear that many people feel the
> > same way.
>
> No, I saw Deepak Chopra on CNN. He was whining about the child
> molestor's "enablers", i.e. medical doctors, who prescribed the myriad
> of meds the molestor was taking. IOW, he was ghoulishly taking the
> opportunity to slam real doctrs en mass, rather than waiting to see
> what the investigation that LAPD is doing will find.
Pointing out that doctors often enable prescription drug addiction is
not slamming doctors "en mass," it's pointing out that doctors often
enable prescription drug addiction. Your objection to an ethical
call for courage in future risk taking by both patient and
practicioner is indefensible.
> One of the characteristics of prescription medication abusers is that
> they seek prescriptions from several doctors, and do not give a
> complete history, i.e., they do not reveal where else they are getting
> prescriptions.
Sure, it's possible for someone to conceal the *means* of their
addiction, but doctors aren't stupid, and in the case of MJ, give me a
break.
> Considering the early stories, subject to future verification, I
> suspect that one or more doctors were overprescribing, to say the
> least. However, I will wait for all the facts to be in.
>
> Speaking of Ghouls, Mikey Adams at UnNaturalNews makes Deepak seem
> mild.
What does Mike Adams have to do with it?
> And, no, I do not buy in to either Ghouls woo.
But you do buy into the smack of industry ghouls whose phoney cures
raise the rates of real diseases, and tha'ts worse.
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Nothing but name calling from the Jew.
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~dbh/parshas/acharei/99/
What is the secret of cleansing our hearts so that we may love? How can we
do it? The verses which precede and follow Vayikra 19:17 include
commandments regarding speech. Preceding is the admonishment against
gossiping and following is the commandment to reprove evil. Both these give
a clue for how to cleanse our hearts of hatred. First, we should not gossip
about a person when we are angry. It is not wrong to be angry, but when we
gossip, it only allows the anger to grow and it does absolutely nothing to
confront the situation. In fact, gossiping can be the epitome of self
justifying cowardice. Secondly, we must reprove our neighbor and confront
him/her when he or she has done something wrong to you. Clearly this takes
tremendous amount of courage and it also demands that you give people the
benefit of the doubt. When we confront them, you allow them the opportunity
to know what is going on with us. We are forced to be honest. Reproval
clearly is not meant to humiliate the person that you are angry with;
reproving someone causes us to be concerned with who they are and who they
could be. By sharing with them what has hurt you or someone else, we give
them the opportunity to grow. This, of course, is the biggest challenge that
Hashem could give to a human being who is angry. However, through fulfilling
Hashem's will we make possible a world of kedushah - holiness - and ahavah -
love.
http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/SRI/Examples/texts/matthew/matt3.html
Mark Probert
Not really. His brad brush attack was uncalled for. He should have
waited for the results of the investigation. Since he did not,his
attack was gratuitous, and not based on facts.
> > One of the characteristics of prescription medication abusers is that
> > they seek prescriptions from several doctors, and do not give a
> > complete history, i.e., they do not reveal where else they are getting
> > prescriptions.
>
> Sure, it's possible for someone to conceal the *means* of their
> addiction, but doctors aren't stupid, and in the case of MJ, give me a
> break.
Name the bone.
MJ had a lot of problems. I would not be surprised if every doctor he
saw winds up in hot water. (Jan, that is a figurative form of
writing).
> > Considering the early stories, subject to future verification, I
> > suspect that one or more doctors were overprescribing, to say the
> > least. However, I will wait for all the facts to be in.
>
> > Speaking of Ghouls, Mikey Adams at UnNaturalNews makes Deepak seem
> > mild.
>
> What does Mike Adams have to do with it?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/06/the_ghoul_returns_again_to_feast_on_the.php
> > And, no, I do not buy in to either Ghouls woo.
>
> But you do buy into the smack of industry ghouls whose phoney cures
> raise the rates of real diseases, and tha'ts worse.-
You call them phoney. Others call them miracles.
Mark Probert
> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
Yap
> Last night CNN was interviewing Deepak Chopra, a famous new age
> quack who claims to have a medical degree, but makes his money
> promoting books on metaphysical new age crap on the Oprah show.
>
> publicity and profit by claiming to have been a friend of his,
> and that MJ had asked him for a prescription for painkillers
> several years ago; Chopra claims to have a DEA license to
> prescribe such drugs.
>
> Even if Chopra does hold a valid U.S. license to practice
> medicine, he specializes in some kind of new age crap that is
> supposedly derived from Hindu Ayurvedic 'medicine,'
> transcendental meditation, and aromatherapy, with some quantum
> physics thrown in to make it sound scientific.
>
> book, presidential candidate, etc. that is endorsed or promoted
> Idiots like Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, and Deepak Chopra prove
> my theory correct.
>
> whore his metaphysical new age Oprah shit on their network, but
> also by taking stories directly from Oprah.com and presenting
> them as 'news.'
Very clear cut CNN controls, edits, manipulates, and selects news for
their audience.
A case in mind was their doctoring of news clips and stories in the
Tibetan trouble in China.
It had taken all the Americans as fools in this blatant
act .....talking about moral values and decency.
Happy Oyster
>Nothing but name calling from the Jew.
Which god does Jan Drew follow? The god of greed? The god of hatred?
Strange religion...
--
"Die Frau ist ein Mi�griff der Natur... mit ihrem Feuchtigkeits-
�berschu� und ihrer Untertemperatur k�rperlich und geistig
minderwertiger... eine Art verst�mmelter, verfehlter, mi�lungener Mann...
die volle Verwirklichung der menschlichen Art ist nur der Mann."
Thomas von Aquin, hl., Kirchenlehrer, 1225-1274
Was lehrt die Kirche? Das Enth�llungsbuch: http://www.reimbibel.de
PeterB
Whatever, but based on everything coming to light, I think he was
right to get it out there.
> > > One of the characteristics of prescription medication abusers is that
> > > they seek prescriptions from several doctors, and do not give a
> > > complete history, i.e., they do not reveal where else they are getting
> > > prescriptions.
> >
> > Sure, it's possible for someone to conceal the *means* of their
> > addiction, but doctors aren't stupid, and in the case of MJ, give me a
> > break.
>
> Name the bone.
>
> MJ had a lot of problems. I would not be surprised if every doctor he
> saw winds up in hot water. (Jan, that is a figurative form of
> writing).
>
> > > Considering the early stories, subject to future verification, I
> > > suspect that one or more doctors were overprescribing, to say the
> > > least. However, I will wait for all the facts to be in.
> >
> > > Speaking of Ghouls, Mikey Adams at UnNaturalNews makes Deepak seem
> > > mild.
> >
> > What does Mike Adams have to do with it?
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/06/the_ghoul_returns_again_to_feast_on_the.php
>
> > > And, no, I do not buy in to either Ghouls woo.
> >
> > But you do buy into the smack of industry ghouls whose phoney cures
> > raise the rates of real diseases, and tha'ts worse.-
>
> You call them phoney. Others call them miracles.
That's a very short list. And a lottery.
Mark Probert
He was not needed. MJ is the ultimate tabloid fodder, and the LA
County ME's and DA's office are always looking for a headline. They
drool when something like this comes along.
They still are feeling the stings of the OJ Effect.
> > > > One of the characteristics of prescription medication abusers is that
> > > > they seek prescriptions from several doctors, and do not give a
> > > > complete history, i.e., they do not reveal where else they are getting
> > > > prescriptions.
>
> > > Sure, it's possible for someone to conceal the *means* of their
> > > addiction, but doctors aren't stupid, and in the case of MJ, give me a
> > > break.
>
> > Name the bone.
>
> > MJ had a lot of problems. I would not be surprised if every doctor he
> > saw winds up in hot water. (Jan, that is a figurative form of
> > writing).
>
> > > > Considering the early stories, subject to future verification, I
> > > > suspect that one or more doctors were overprescribing, to say the
> > > > least. However, I will wait for all the facts to be in.
>
> > > > Speaking of Ghouls, Mikey Adams at UnNaturalNews makes Deepak seem
> > > > mild.
>
> > > What does Mike Adams have to do with it?
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/06/the_ghoul_returns_again_to_...
>
> > > > And, no, I do not buy in to either Ghouls woo.
>
> > > But you do buy into the smack of industry ghouls whose phoney cures
> > > raise the rates of real diseases, and tha'ts worse.-
>
> > You call them phoney. Others call them miracles.
>
> That's a very short list. And a lottery.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -