Damage from TM 1
Swami Truthananda
TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION(TM) AND GENERAL MEDITATION ARE ASSOCIATED
WITH ENHANCED COMPLEX PARTIAL EPILEPTIC-LIKE SIGNS: EVIDENCE FOR
"COGNITIVE" KINDLING.
M. A. Persinger
Laurentian University
Summary. - The Personal Philosophy Inventories of 221 university
students who had learned to meditate (about 65% to 70% Transcendental
Meditation(TM)) were compared to 860 nonmeditators. Meditators
displayed a significantly wider range of complex partial
epileptic-like signs. Experiences of vibrations, hearing one's name
called, paranormal phenomena, profound meaning from reading
poetry/prose, and religious phenomenology were particularly frequent
among meditators. Numbers of years of TM practice were significantly
correlated with the incidence of complex partial signs and sensed
presences but not with control, olfactory, or perseverative
experiences. The results support the hypothesis that procedures which
promote cognitive kindling enhance complex partial epileptic-like signs.
... Although experimental kindling of limbic seizures in human beings
would be unethical, there are multiple anecdotal cases where repeated
meditation was associated with increased indicators of complex partial
seizures (Persinger, 1984). For example, Young (1984) reported more
frequent and intense incidences of lights and movements in the upper
left visual field (indicateive of right temporal lobe stimulation
through Meyer's loop) as a function of meditation trials.
... The positive association between the self-reported duration of
meditation (an inference of repeated trials) and the frequency of
complex partial epileptic-like signs (but not control experiences)
suggests a specific "dose-dependence" relationship. Obviously a third
factor, that enhanced the symptoms and encouraged continuation of
meditation, could have been present. However, a causal relationship
could explain the development of frank epileptic displays over the
temporal lobe (Persinger, 1984) in subgroups of prolonged meditators
as well as the myoclonic and limbic motor disorders that have been
claimed by some experienced TM teachers who subsequently withdrew from
the organization.
Jai Guru Dev.
jst...@panix.com
Swami Truthananda wrote:
> _Perceptual and Motor Skills_, 1993, 76, 80-82.
>
> TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION(TM) AND GENERAL MEDITATION ARE ASSOCIATED
> WITH ENHANCED COMPLEX PARTIAL EPILEPTIC-LIKE SIGNS: EVIDENCE FOR
> "COGNITIVE" KINDLING.
>
> M. A. Persinger
> Laurentian University
If you do a Google Groups search for "Persinger,"
you'll find 80-some threads dealing with this study
and others of Persinger's nutty theories.
Swami, there ain't much you can post from Trancenet
or Minet that hasn't been discussed to death here
already in years past.
This study of Persinger is ridiculous for many
reasons; it's been quite thoroughly debunked.
mrle...@mycybernet.net
electrical impulses to trigger various experiences - God, alien
abductions, etc. He concludes that such experiences therefore have no
basis in reality and are merely brain phenomena. Such a simplistic
interpretation makes his work suspect in my book.
You can use electrical impulses to trigger the experience of hearing
voices or seeing colours, but it doesn't mean voices and colours don't
exist.
Come to think of it, I often hear my name called, some poetry holds
profound meaning meaning for me and I feel vibrations when a big truck
drives by. To quote Dame Edna, "Spoooooky."
Swami Truthananda
jst...@panix.com wrote:
Sorry, your alleged debunking does not help those who were damaged!
mrle...@mycybernet.net
Persinger. I haven't experienced any of the alleged problems arising
from TM practice and have therefore not had any reason to dig into this
any further. Nor have I met anyone who has reported such difficulties.
After reading things like the "German study" and Persinger, I would
have expected to hear about such things from at least a few of the many
people I've met and known who have learned and stopped doing TM (and
they range from three-month dabblers to long-time siddhas and
guv'nors).
But that's just hearsay, of course, and "proves" no more than
Persinger's "God Helment." Perhaps Judy can point us toward some of
the work to debunk the debunker.
jst...@panix.com
Er. What the debunking demonstrates is that Persinger's
study does not establish any damage.
Probably best to *read* the debunking before you comment, eh?
jst...@panix.com
mrlewi...@mycybernet.net wrote:
<snip>
> But that's just hearsay, of course, and "proves" no more than
> Persinger's "God Helment." Perhaps Judy can point us toward some of
> the work to debunk the debunker.
I already did--use Google Groups' search feature to look
for alt.m.t threads with "Persinger" in them. There are
80 or so.
mrle...@mycybernet.net
Guich made some interesting points. Here are just a few:
- Persinger used a questionnaire and no actual neurological measurement
- the basis for "epileptic-like signs" is dodgy at best
- it's uncertain how many of the survey respndents actually practiced
MMY's meditation technique
Guich is an MIU alumni, but if his assertions about methodology are
accurate, then Persinger's study is worthless.
(I googled Guich on the www and came up with about 45 references to his
work in the field and only four in reference to TM.)
jst...@panix.com
mrle...@mycybernet.net wrote:
> I did a little google through this group. A poster named Steven M.
> Guich made some interesting points. Here are just a few:
Yeah, Guich is (or was at the time; haven't seen him
around for a long while) a dedicated TMer, so you do
need to take him with a grain or two of salt, but he's
right on target with this. I know I've seen either the
study itself or a detailed rundown on it somewhere, maybe
on Trancenet itself, and Guich represented it accurately
in that post.
> - Persinger used a questionnaire and no actual neurological
measurement
> - the basis for "epileptic-like signs" is dodgy at best
"Epileptic-like signs" in his study means behaviors
and thoughts and experiences that people with epilepsy
seem to have in greater proportion than people who don't.
Most of them are perfectly normal traits that don't have
any specific relation to epilepsy; it's just that more
folks with epilepsy tend to have them, statistically.
In other words, these "epileptic-like signs" are *not*
EEG abnormalities or anything like that.
> - it's uncertain how many of the survey respndents actually practiced
> MMY's meditation technique
>
> Guich is an MIU alumni, but if his assertions about methodology are
> accurate, then Persinger's study is worthless.
>
> (I googled Guich on the www and came up with about 45 references to
his
> work in the field and only four in reference to TM.)
Guich is a professional researcher. I forget offhand
what his field is.
If you do a search on the terms "Persinger" and "California"
you'll find some interesting stuff on some other theories
of his...
jst...@panix.com
study, so we don't know whether the folks who had
the "epileptic-like signs" had them before they
began meditating. So the cause-and-effect could
go the opposite direction: their attraction to
meditation could be related to having these traits
in the first place.
Bhairitu
just TM. Lights, movements, etc. have been documented in other
disciplines. What you have is a *flatlander* researcher that doesn't
understand his data. Roughness or what the researcher calls *epileptic
displays* are just shakti pushing out blocks in the nervous system. My
only qualm with the teaching of TM is that when that gets too intense
meditation should be cut back in time or stopped until the block is
released. Some other disciplines take this approach. My experience is
that once the blockage is dissolved another quantum level of
consciousness is often achieved.
- Bhairitu
John Manning
Excellent!
>
> - Bhairitu
mrle...@mycybernet.net
when certain problems arise?
As an example, the son of a woman I know used to become very
disoriented after meditation and gave it up within a month or so. He
had a serious neuro-muscular illness that was not disclosed to the
teacher. I asked a teacher how a situation like that would be handled
and he said cutting back meditation time and lying down after
meditation were possible options.
One thing I've noted in studies on the negative effects of meditation
is that said effects are also warned against by the teachers. It
suggests the researchers are not well-versed in what they are studying
and may not understand the full context.
John Manning
> Bhairitu, aren't the TM teachers supposed to advise people to cut back
> when certain problems arise?
Bhairitu can answer for himself, but what
you are saying is correct.
mrle...@mycybernet.net
have enough in-depth knowledge to deal with everything that arises
during meditation.
Bhairitu
LawsonE
<mrle...@mycybernet.net> wrote in message
news:1116516811.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The German study [quotes optional] searched for the most negative people
willing to discuss their problems with TM, and asked for references to other
suchpeople. Out of 100,000 TMers in Germany at that time, they interviewed
10 TMers, 20 parents and 10 spouses of TMers (more or less). Not exactly a
representative sample.
LawsonE
"Bhairitu" <nooz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cU4je.3485$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
TM teachers are taught to do this also, or such has been my observation.
LawsonE
was standard by the time i learned in 1973.
John Manning
There are obviously some who learn TM that
don't reveal their pre-existing conditions
that may or may not be a problem. I suppose
that even medical professionals encounter
such cases, even with careful screening.
Screening for TM instruction is relatively
thorough. But TM teachers are not the FBI.
My experience as a TM teacher has been, that
at times, people have not been truthful
about such things - especially about drug
usage. It usually hasn't been very serious,
but in some cases having them stop
meditation for a period of time and then
re-introducing it later in shorter periods
has worked.
If it *is* serious, they should immediately
be advised to stop TM and seek medical
attention. That's what I was taught by
Maharishi and it's only common sense.
I will add that out of the very large number
of people that I have instructed, I
personally have never seen a 'serious' case
that would fit what I've described.
Bhairitu
became a topic of discussion with many teachers.
LawsonE
Aside from stopping/cutting back TM, handling problems is part of TM
checking. A conversation with a TM teacher some years ago concerning
unstressing yielded the following:
handling problems like this is always a matter of time:
more time for rest before or after TM; more time for rest at night; more
time for activity after TM; and if all else fails, less time doing TM.
Sounds Maharishi-esque to me...
Stu
> There's nothing here that isn't typical of any mantra meditation not
> just TM. Lights, movements, etc. have been documented in other
> disciplines. What you have is a *flatlander* researcher that doesn't
> understand his data. Roughness or what the researcher calls *epileptic
> displays* are just shakti pushing out blocks in the nervous system. My
> only qualm with the teaching of TM is that when that gets too intense
> meditation should be cut back in time or stopped until the block is
> released. Some other disciplines take this approach. My experience is
> that once the blockage is dissolved another quantum level of
> consciousness is often achieved.
>
> - Bhairitu
When I hear that quantum mechanics metaphor it makes me cringe. I
can't imagine what an electron hoping from one valence to another with
the resultant energy burst has to do with meditation.
--
~Stu
Stu
Over on alt.yoga I am forever warning people about the one size fits
all approach of many yoga studios and health clubs. Only rigorous
Iyengar method training (An intense 3 year course) prepares teachers
for pathologies. (actually another school called Pheonix Rising has
pretty good training as well) A good teacher learns how to modify the
asanas for each individual's level.
It should follow that TM teachers have the same sort of training. In
India there have been hundreds of meditation techniques practiced
through the ages - evidently there must be the right technique for the
right student at the right time.
This reminds me of when the Moron came to this group and somehow blamed
TM for his wife's proclivity towards mental illness. He would ramble
on about serotonin overdose as the cause. A properly prepared teacher
would have known how to modify the practice to bring peace and freedom
into the experience.
And Jesus would have one less ninny blindly following his long dead ass
to heaven.
--
~Stu
LawsonE
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005051921043316807%Nospam@towelcom...
"Quantum" means "discrete" and in the case of QM, refers to the *smallest*
change possible.
When Hagelin uses analogies (which aren't quite analogies in his own mind
given how he arrived at the revised Flipped SU(5) origins) between Quantum
Mechanics and TM/enlightenement, he's not talking about "quantum leaps,"
anyway.
LawsonE
And in fact, if you read what he said, they never tried going with TM-only
practice, but simply stopped completely.
A properly prepared teacher
> would have known how to modify the practice to bring peace and freedom
> into the experience.
And TM teachers *ARE* trained in how to modify the practice when severe
problems are encountered...
>
> And Jesus would have one less ninny blindly following his long dead ass to
> heaven.
I take it you don't like Jesus very much?
Vaj.
>
> It should follow that TM teachers have the same sort of training. In
> India there have been hundreds of meditation techniques practiced
> through the ages - evidently there must be the right technique for the
> right student at the right time.
You'd think this would be commonsense wisdom. Not in the TMO--take this
mantra--like it or lump it, was what we were taught. Vedic Catholicism.
No personalization whatsoever. The tradition Mahesh claims to be from
thinks very differently. Practices are based on the person, not the
other way around.
This is especially important for mantras. Different people have
differing mental dispositions.
LawsonE
"Vaj." <no-r...@shunyata.net> wrote in message
news:2005052008373116807%noreply@shunyatanet...
Of course, the criteria (or criterion) used for selecting mantras in the TM
tradition appears to be from a traditional source, according to what I've
heard. YMMV,of course, as to whether MMY's use of the source makes it
worthless.
Vaj.
> Of course, the criteria (or criterion) used for selecting mantras in
> the TM tradition appears to be from a traditional source, according to
> what I've heard. YMMV,of course, as to whether MMY's use of the source
> makes it worthless.
And that "traditional source" is?
Some of the TM mantras have specific pranayamas associated with their
recitation, but these are not given. This is one of the reasons there
are so many side effects ("unstressing").
The clear pattern in TM is Mahesh gets info from paid pundit -> Mahesh
dispenses and dumbs down, leaves people believe it came from him.
The old texts of the exposition on AGNI and other words in Rig Veda
most aren't even aware of. They actually believe Mahesh cognized it!
Neo-Vedic Catholicism is what ya get if that's what ya wants. And don't
forget to pay at the door.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
<snip>
> The old texts of the exposition on AGNI and other words in Rig Veda
> most aren't even aware of. They actually believe Mahesh cognized it!
Never heard anyone say MMY "cognized" this.
Vaj.
Ever read the _Journal of Vedic Science_ put out by the TMO?
jst...@panix.com
You mean Modern Science and Vedic Science? Yes, I have.
Issue and page number, please.
jst...@panix.com
And by the way, you say "most" actually believe
MMY "cognized" it. Do you think most TMers read
Modern Science and Vedic Science?
You can't even get the name of the journal right.
<snicker>
jst...@panix.com
Life analyzing the TM checking instructions in an
attempt to show where effort is involved.
I'm not posting to Fairfield Life, but I have a few
comments to make if you'd like to repost it here,
or would give me permission to do so.
Peter
"Bhairitu" <nooz...@earthlink.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:cU4je.3485$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Swami Truthananda wrote:
> > _Perceptual and Motor Skills_, 1993, 76, 80-82.
> >
> > TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION(TM) AND GENERAL MEDITATION ARE ASSOCIATED
> > WITH ENHANCED COMPLEX PARTIAL EPILEPTIC-LIKE SIGNS: EVIDENCE FOR
> > "COGNITIVE" KINDLING.
Roughness or what the researcher calls *epileptic
> displays* are just shakti pushing out blocks in the nervous system. My
> only qualm with the teaching of TM is that when that gets too intense
> meditation should be cut back in time or stopped until the block is
> released. Some other disciplines take this approach. My experience is
> that once the blockage is dissolved another quantum level of
> consciousness is often achieved.
>
> - Bhairitu
http://www.suggestibility.org/index.htm
Joe Kellett writes:
<snip>
Mahesh won't tell you about the people who experience a negative impact from
TM. He won't tell you that TM's "benefits", when they occur, can also be
obtained by other methods.
The "benefits" are just not worth the risk of exposing yourself to the TM
recruiting mechanism
Taking this risk is also unnecessary because TM (once you dispel the
marketing hype) offers nothing beneficial that cannot be attained by other
and safer means.
I recommend seeking out those "other and safer means", whether they be
secular or spiritual means, instead of beginning or continuing the practice
of TM.
<snip>
It would be stupid to expose oneselfs to unnesserary harm, from a homemade
meditation. Remember that TM is mahesh homebrew and not a meditation from
the holy tradition or a lineage of vedic masters. In the vedic tradition one
do not attain selfrealisation from a specific meditation, TM is the only
sect that has ever made such strange claims.
Bhairitu
Maharishi-esque to be in denial of problems with meditation like some of
the rest of the Indian guru community. Even my own guru had a problem
with my complaints of roughness and finally told me to use my own
intuition as when to cut back might be useful.
I see an ayurvedic reason for this: most Indians have kapha predominant
constitutions (vakriti). This makes sense because to survive a hot
desert climate would have require such a constitution. However most
westerners coming from cold, damp climate have pitta predominant
constitutions. When an Indian practices a mantra that makes the nervous
system begin to overheat their kapha constitution helps. Not so when a
pitta predominant person practices such a mantra as that constitution
does not deal well with heat. Remember that some Indian yogis put
sandalwood paste on their foreheads which is cooling.
Yogis are instructed with techniques to *tone* their nervous system
including herbs such as ashwaganda, brahmi and jatamansi. To not do
things to tone the system would be as bad working out with weights and
not doing anything to nourish the muscles. You just wind up with a
bunch of exhausted muscles.
If anyone received instruction to cut back on meditation back in the
1970s and early 80's before ayurveda became part of the program it was
mostly on the volition of a responsible teacher who would see such a
thing as common sense. I even checked a TM teacher in the mid 1970's
who claimed they could not meditate any more than 5 minutes and
requested I restrict the checking meditation to that.
Steve Ralph
"Peter" <p...@kl.com> wrote in message
news:428e1094$0$63608$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Bhairitu" <nooz...@earthlink.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:cU4je.3485$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Swami Truthananda wrote:
>> > _Perceptual and Motor Skills_, 1993, 76, 80-82.
>> >
>> > TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION(TM) AND GENERAL MEDITATION ARE ASSOCIATED
>> > WITH ENHANCED COMPLEX PARTIAL EPILEPTIC-LIKE SIGNS: EVIDENCE FOR
>> > "COGNITIVE" KINDLING.
>
> Roughness or what the researcher calls *epileptic
>> displays* are just shakti pushing out blocks in the nervous system. My
>> only qualm with the teaching of TM is that when that gets too intense
>> meditation should be cut back in time or stopped until the block is
>> released. Some other disciplines take this approach. My experience is
>> that once the blockage is dissolved another quantum level of
>> consciousness is often achieved.
>>
>> - Bhairitu
>
> http://www.suggestibility.org/index.htm
> Joe Kellett writes:
> <snip>
Peter, quoting Joe Killit is not a good idea. His pontifications on 'trance
induction'
are so laughable as to render almost anything he says about anything, let
alone TM,
highly suspect.
sR
John Manning
You apparently have no awareness of the the
actual magnificent results of TM in the
lives of the vast majority of TMers, Peter.
Why are you always so negative? Maybe your
own sadhana is defective, eh? LOL!
Vaj.
Actually it was not about checking, and no YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE
PERMISSION TO POST IT HERE OR ELSEWHERE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. This
material is copyrighted by me, for me. Any violation by publishing it
elsewhere will constitute violation of said copyright on this already
published item.
Since you are obviously a member there, you should post it there Judy. Duh.
-Vajranatha
John Manning
I also am not posting there [and still have
a hell of a time navigating the place] but I
wouldn't restrict myself to asking for his
permission in this instance. I believe the
topic itself is of greater importance -
particularly since this little worm is
openly out to trash TM at every opportunity
everywhere.
You didn't restrict yourself in posting
Barry's BS at FL. I genuinely don't think
you should do it in this case either. I for
one, would like the opportunity to see what
he wrote and perhaps respond. Checking TM is
a very delicate process and the procedure is
a magnificent example of brilliance - not to
mention, critical for assisting others in
proper practise.
John Manning
> Judy Stein:
>
> On 2005-05-20 12:25:06 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
>> Say, Vaj, yesterday you made a long post to Fairfield
>> Life analyzing the TM checking instructions in an
>> attempt to show where effort is involved.
>>
>> I'm not posting to Fairfield Life, but I have a few
>> comments to make if you'd like to repost it here,
>> or would give me permission to do so.
>
>
> Actually it was not about checking, and no YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE
> PERMISSION TO POST IT HERE OR ELSEWHERE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. This
> material is copyrighted by me, for me. Any violation by publishing it
> elsewhere will constitute violation of said copyright on this already
> published item.
Horseshit. If I can find what you posted,
I'll post it here myself.
John Manning
Judy, if you have a link to his FL post that
you can provide, I'll look at it and decide
whether or not to post it here myself.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> Judy Stein:
>
> On 2005-05-20 12:25:06 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
> > Say, Vaj, yesterday you made a long post to Fairfield
> > Life analyzing the TM checking instructions in an
> > attempt to show where effort is involved.
> >
> > I'm not posting to Fairfield Life, but I have a few
> > comments to make if you'd like to repost it here,
> > or would give me permission to do so.
>
> Actually it was not about checking
As I said, you analyzed the TM checking instructions
in an attempt to show where effort is involved.
>, and no YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE
> PERMISSION TO POST IT HERE OR ELSEWHERE IN WHOLE OR IN PART.
I asked if you would like to repost it here yourself
Would you do that, please?
> Since you are obviously a member there, you should post it there
Judy. Duh.
As I said, I'm not posting to Fairfield Life.
jst...@panix.com
John Manning wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > Say, Vaj, yesterday you made a long post to Fairfield
> > Life analyzing the TM checking instructions in an
> > attempt to show where effort is involved.
> >
> > I'm not posting to Fairfield Life, but I have a few
> > comments to make if you'd like to repost it here,
> > or would give me permission to do so.
>
> I also am not posting there [and still have
> a hell of a time navigating the place] but I
> wouldn't restrict myself to asking for his
> permission in this instance.
I didn't. I asked him if he'd post it himself.
I offered to do it if he didn't mind having it
posted here but didn't want to be bothered having
to look it up.
> I believe the
> topic itself is of greater importance -
> particularly since this little worm is
> openly out to trash TM at every opportunity
> everywhere.
>
> You didn't restrict yourself in posting
> Barry's BS at FL. I genuinely don't think
> you should do it in this case either. I for
> one, would like the opportunity to see what
> he wrote and perhaps respond.
If I do, Vaj will make a stink about it on
Fairfield Life and will misrepresent the
situation, and I'll be drawn in again. I
really do not want to get involved there at
all.
<snicker> I just went looking for the URL so
you could at least read it, but it appears Vaj
has deleted the post.
> Checking TM is
> a very delicate process and the procedure is
> a magnificent example of brilliance - not to
> mention, critical for assisting others in
> proper practise.
You betchum. And Vaj's post makes it crystal
clear he hasn't a clue what it involves. Among
other things, he misquoted it by collapsing the
algorithm. He got away with it on FFL, but I
suspect he knows he wouldn't here, which is why
he canceled it over there.
He must have run over there the second he saw
my request to get rid of the evidence.
Vaj.
> As I said, I'm not posting to Fairfield Life.
Then that is your decision. I'm sure your input will be missed.
jst...@panix.com
John Manning wrote:
<snip>
> Judy, if you have a link to his FL post that
> you can provide, I'll look at it and decide
> whether or not to post it here myself.
Too late. He doesn't want anybody here to see it,
obviously.
He canceled a bunch of his other posts to FFL too.
You would have been appalled.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
<snip>
> Since you are obviously a member there, you should post it there
Judy. Duh.
You're afraid even of having me do that, since you've
now deleted your post.
jst...@panix.com
Well, since you immediately deleted the post after
seeing my request, you're well aware I can't do that
now anyway.
Why are you so terrified to have it posted here that
you'd delete it from Fairfield Life?
jst...@panix.com
jst...@panix.com wrote:
<snip>
> You would have been appalled.
A subsequent comment of his pretty much sums
it up. He believes letting go is an effort.
John Manning
Like I said, he's a worm; not only a worm,
but a cowardly worm.
Vaj.
Actually, I would enjoy your company on FFL, and it is a much more
evolved setting.
Come to where the evolution is, can't you feel the charm? ;-)
Vaj.
I can't force you to post on a list you are already on, so this is your
choice. Why are you so scared of FFL? It seems very odd that you are
member there, but won't post. Why?
There are many more TM teachers on FFL than here.
John Manning
I'm already appalled.
John Manning
Why did you delete your posts, Vaj?
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> On 2005-05-20 13:52:18 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
> >
> > Vaj. wrote:
> >> On 2005-05-20 13:45:40 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
> >>
> >>> As I said, I'm not posting to Fairfield Life.
> >>
> >> Then that is your decision. I'm sure your input will be missed.
> >
> > Well, since you immediately deleted the post after
> > seeing my request, you're well aware I can't do that
> > now anyway.
> >
> > Why are you so terrified to have it posted here that
> > you'd delete it from Fairfield Life?
>
> I can't force you to post on a list you are already on, so this is
your
> choice.
Not any more it isn't, not since you deleted the post
I wanted to comment on.
I ask again: why are you so terrified to have it posted
here, or even have me comment on it there, that you'd
delete it from Fairfield Life?
> Why are you so scared of FFL? It seems very odd that you are
> member there, but won't post. Why?
Not that it's any of your business, but I simply
can't take the time to get involved in yet another
group. I don't normally even read it on a regular
basis.
> There are many more TM teachers on FFL than here.
Yeah, so?
jst...@panix.com
I think with that last remark he may have blown
it. Someone has already observed that that must
be why he doesn't like TM.
Talk about unclear on the concept...
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, I would enjoy your company on FFL, and it is a much more
> evolved setting.
Translation: A lot of the folks on FFL haven't
seen through Vaj yet.
Bhairitu
do you mean by vedic?
Vaj.
>> Why are you so scared of FFL? It seems very odd that you are
>> member there, but won't post. Why?
>
> Not that it's any of your business, but I simply
> can't take the time to get involved in yet another
> group. I don't normally even read it on a regular
> basis.
I'm sorry to hear that. Likewise I have little time for other
things--esp. a negative group like this one.
Bye for now. Iwill most likely not be responding to your messages
unless I see some evolution involved. The charm has waned too low on
alt.med.transce.
John Manning
The coward, Vaj runs away. They often do
when called on their lies.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> On 2005-05-20 14:09:10 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
> >> Why are you so scared of FFL? It seems very odd that you are
> >> member there, but won't post. Why?
> >
> > Not that it's any of your business, but I simply
> > can't take the time to get involved in yet another
> > group. I don't normally even read it on a regular
> > basis.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
I'm sorry to hear you're scared of having your
posts left on the record. Doesn't say much
for your confidence in your own perspective.
> Likewise I have little time for other
> things--esp. a negative group like this one.
>
> Bye for now. Iwill most likely not be responding to your messages
> unless I see some evolution involved. The charm has waned too low on
> alt.med.transce.
Good riddance. It's too bad you were so fixated
on dumping on TM, because you could have made
a contribution by sharing your knowledge of other
paths and approaches.
Unless maybe that knowledge is a little shaky too...
Michael
There is only Barry and Kirk to back him up. No one else gives a shit
about what he says. He not only deletes his own posts, he also gives no
references for his claims.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116612834....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There's a lot more people willing to attack MMY on FFL for some reason. I
think its because they feel comfortable about attacking on a pseudo-private
list rather than venting in public.
jst...@panix.com
I dunno that I'd call it even pseudo-private.
Anybody can read the posts. I think it's more
like group-gripe mode; it's the "in" thing there
to criticize MMY.
In any case, what I meant is that a lot of them
haven't figured out that Vaj doesn't know anywhere
near as much about TM as he pretends. He's wowed
some of them with his apparent knowledge of other
traditions, so they assume he knows what he's
talking about with regard to TM; but most of them
have never really "gotten" TM well enough to
realize how far off he is.
Unfortunately, the folks who *do* realize it are
either True Believer blusterers who can't muster
much more than rhetoric, or are too mild-mannered
to challenge him forcefully and articulately.
Letting go takes effort, indeed...
Sheesh.
Stu
>
> "Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
> news:2005051921181275249%Nospam@towelcom...
>> On 2005-05-19 14:20:46 -0700, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> said:
>>
>>> mrle...@mycybernet.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> One point that I didn't mention is the question of whether the teachers
>>>> have enough in-depth knowledge to deal with everything that arises
>>>> during meditation.
>>>
>>> There are obviously some who learn TM that don't reveal their
>>> pre-existing conditions that may or may not be a problem. I suppose
>>> that even medical professionals encounter such cases, even with careful
>>> screening. Screening for TM instruction is relatively thorough. But TM
>>> teachers are not the FBI.
>>>
>>> My experience as a TM teacher has been, that at times, people have not
>>> been truthful about such things - especially about drug usage. It
>>> usually hasn't been very serious, but in some cases having them stop
>>> meditation for a period of time and then re-introducing it later in
>>> shorter periods has worked.
>>>
>>> If it *is* serious, they should immediately be advised to stop TM and
>>> seek medical attention. That's what I was taught by Maharishi and it's
>>> only common sense.
>>>
>>> I will add that out of the very large number of people that I have
>>> instructed, I personally have never seen a 'serious' case that would
>>> fit what I've described.
>>
>> Over on alt.yoga I am forever warning people about the one size fits
>> all approach of many yoga studios and health clubs. Only rigorous
>> Iyengar method training (An intense 3 year course) prepares teachers
>> for pathologies. (actually another school called Pheonix Rising has
>> pretty good training as well) A good teacher learns how to modify the
>> asanas for each individual's level.
>>
>> It should follow that TM teachers have the same sort of training. In
>> India there have been hundreds of meditation techniques practiced
>> through the ages - evidently there must be the right technique for the
>> right student at the right time.
>>
>> This reminds me of when the Moron came to this group and somehow blamed
>> TM for his wife's proclivity towards mental illness. He would ramble
>> on about serotonin overdose as the cause.
>
> And in fact, if you read what he said, they never tried going with
> TM-only practice, but simply stopped completely.
>
>
> A properly prepared teacher
>> would have known how to modify the practice to bring peace and freedom
>> into the experience.
>
> And TM teachers *ARE* trained in how to modify the practice when severe
> problems are encountered...
>
>>
>> And Jesus would have one less ninny blindly following his long dead ass
>> to heaven.
>
> I take it you don't like Jesus very much?
From what I have read he seems to be a nice enough chap. I just have a
problem with those who get gobbled by the mythology. Incidentally,
before having discussions with the moron, I was quite happy to live
along side these seemingly happy souls. It was through my discussions
with him that I began to understand this particular version of self
delusion is dangerous to society, and more importantly dangerous to
those of Jewish heritage trying to live in the same society.
Indeed, until proven otherwise I reserve the right to be bitter.
--
~Stu
Stu
>
> "Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
> news:2005051921043316807%Nospam@towelcom...
>> On 2005-05-19 11:27:20 -0700, Bhairitu <nooz...@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>>> There's nothing here that isn't typical of any mantra meditation not
>>> just TM. Lights, movements, etc. have been documented in other
>>> disciplines. What you have is a *flatlander* researcher that doesn't
>>> understand his data. Roughness or what the researcher calls *epileptic
>>> displays* are just shakti pushing out blocks in the nervous system. My
>>> only qualm with the teaching of TM is that when that gets too intense
>>> meditation should be cut back in time or stopped until the block is
>>> released. Some other disciplines take this approach. My experience is
>>> that once the blockage is dissolved another quantum level of
>>> consciousness is often achieved.
>>>
>>> - Bhairitu
>>
>> When I hear that quantum mechanics metaphor it makes me cringe. I
>> can't imagine what an electron hoping from one valence to another with
>> the resultant energy burst has to do with meditation.
>
> "Quantum" means "discrete" and in the case of QM, refers to the
> *smallest* change possible.
>
> When Hagelin uses analogies (which aren't quite analogies in his own
> mind given how he arrived at the revised Flipped SU(5) origins) between
> Quantum Mechanics and TM/enlightenement, he's not talking about
> "quantum leaps," anyway.
I can't go much by Hagelin - my exposure to him is limited. I am
basing my understanding of QM as related to the mechanics of
consciousness on a terrific book edited by Ken Wilber called Quantum
Questions.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1570627681/103-4556504-6854232?v=glance
I
however did get the opportunity to see John Haglin in a few limited
clips from the New Age fairy-tale, "What the (Bleep) do we know?" It
is unfortunate that he fit in so well with the psychics and snake oil
salesmen interviewed in the film. I can only hope that these few sound
bites were taken out of context, and in fact the man has a more
coherent project.
Wiber's book gives essays written by Einstein, Heisenberg,
Eddington,Pauli, Planck, Jeans. The one common thread is their
steadfast notion quantum mechanics may describe the world of the
subatomic it does not extend to a description of consciousness. At the
same time these physicists show a great respect for metaphysics as an
important supplement to pure science.
--
~Stu
jst...@panix.com
Another of my faves. His introductory essay is
incredibly insightful, I think.
<snip>
> Wiber's book gives essays written by Einstein, Heisenberg,
> Eddington,Pauli, Planck, Jeans. The one common thread is their
> steadfast notion quantum mechanics may describe the world of the
> subatomic it does not extend to a description of consciousness. At
the
> same time these physicists show a great respect for metaphysics as
an
> important supplement to pure science.
The point Wilber makes in his essay is that these
great physicists were mystics because quantum
mechanics for the first time showed the limits of
what science could know about reality; it showed
that science provided only pictures, shadows, of
reality, not the thing itself. Quantum mechanics
turned them into mystics not because it explained
the nature of ultimate reality, as Fritjof Capra
and others have suggested, but because it could NOT
explain the nature of ultimate reality. There was
more to reality than could come within the grasp of
science, and the only way to know it was via
consciousness.
Wilber says it a *lot* better, and a lot more
thoroughly, but that's the general idea.
LawsonE
Should check out Penrose's beliefs on the subject. There's also a mailing
list out of the Center for Conciousness at the University of AZ as well as
a website for Stuart Hameroff...
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/
Steve Ralph
"Vaj." <no-r...@shunyata.net> wrote in message
news:2005052014222243658%noreply@shunyatanet...
Yeah, go on you gutless little pissant, bugger off. You wouldn't know
evolution
if it bit your ass.
sR
>
Vaj.
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Likewise I have little time for other
>> things--esp. a negative group like this one.
>>
>> Bye for now. Iwill most likely not be responding to your messages
>> unless I see some evolution involved. The charm has waned too low on
>> alt.med.transce.
>
> The coward, Vaj runs away. They often do when called on their lies.
You sound like children on a playground.
Vaj.
Quite the opposite--I have given numerous references over many months.
Keep in mind, I'm not here to do research for you or anyone else, nor
can I make up for your lack of discrimination.
I've been fortunate and made some good friend on FFL. Much deep
conversation is offline or in private invite-only groups outside FFL.
It's been a wonderful experience.
John Manning
The dishonesty and lack of personal
integrity evident in your posts, speaks for
itself. Just about everyone here can see
through your methods - and notices as well,
that you actually know very little about TM.
You're here just to bash, and you can't even
do that very well.
Stu
Enjoyed the links. The consciousness course at Arizona looks
interesting delving into cognitive psychology as well as some of the
transpersonal psychology. I find both these approaches fascinating.
My mind starts to wander though when they start to talk about quantum
mechanics.
The quantumconsciousness people come off to me as classic
Romanticists. Unable to get a foothold on the empirical sciences they
are forced to twist the findings into a form of pseudo science, which
ultimately just becomes a system of beliefs. Mythos with big words.
Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical
principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's
failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the
actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to
consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but
they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should
be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the
arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence
and self-organization. Biology envy.
Michael Shermer, Scientific American.
--
~Stu
Stu
Ultimately Wilber's point is that the workings of consciousness is the
domain of the philosopher not the scientist. Science is limited in
scope to exploring the realm of observable phenomena. Wilber likens
this realm to St Benedict's concept of the "Eye of the Flesh".
In Wilber's terms these new agers who mix quantum mechanics with
consciousness are creating a fallacy by inter mingling unrelated
realms. In this case "The Eye of Contemplation" with the "Eye of the
Flesh".
--
~Stu
LawsonE
Can't comment on any of this except to point out that many physicists
besides John Hagelin and Penrose are jumping on the QM Consciousness
bandwagon. I believe that even John Ellis, Hagelin's old co-author from his
Flipped SU(5) days, who is the Director of Research at CERN, has published
an article or two discussing the possible relationship between consciousness
and QM in a speculative way, rather than simply denouncing it as you appear
to believe all mainstream physicists do.
LawsonE
Of course, its all speculation and philosophy until such time as Siddhis are
confirmed (if they are confirmed/confirmable). THEN the claim that the
universe is mindstuff starts to become relevant to the most hardcore
scientist. Has Wilber ever addressed this issue? MMY has at least hinted
that you can't really claim even a temporary state of genuine Unity until
such time as you can perform the Siddhis at the "perfect" level (e.g.
floating during the practice of Yogic Flying). Does Wilber even acknowledge
this as part of many traditions?
Steve Ralph
"LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NtOje.306$tp.294@fed1read05...
We can explain how a universe may arise out of a quantum event, how galaxies
may form, how the universe may end - and yet that irksome 'I am' eludes
us. Our musings point to profound symmetry, the keynote of universal
structure,
yet where is conciousness in our theories?
I am really enjoying the new Dr Who. Great stuff.
SR
>
Stu
I
however
I am not denouncing it. I am calling it what it is - idle speculation.
Empiricism in the form of scientific method is limited to uncovering
facts about the physical universe. It is limited to what is measurable.
The rational mind has the ability to fathom a world transcendent the
sensory world. Though outside the domain of strict scientific method
we can deduce possible models of a psychic world. But we need to keep
in mind that rational minds deduced Witch trials, a geocentric earth,
that the earth is sitting on a giant turtle. Rationality does not
equal science.
I am skeptical of philosophers pretending to be scientists using the
theory of the moment (quantum mechanics) to explain the mechanics of
consciousness.
From my meditation practice I am convinced that the contemplative world
is trans-rational. As we enter a domain of oness/emptiness/infinite we
can experience it through expanded consciousness, but it does not
translate to the rational.
Kant pointed this out long ago. For him science was able to measure
and categorize the phenomenological. The mind experiences phenomenon
through the senses. But when the mind experiences direct contact past
the senses, he referred to this as noumenological. Any attempt to
rationalize noumenon results in contradictions.
Thus if these "researchers" were truly honest about their observations
they would not hide behind the veil of quantum mechanics, but come out
and discuss the philosophy of consciousness, in spiritual terms like
the rest of us.
--
~Stu
Michael
> > There is only Barry and Kirk to back him up. No one else gives a
shit
> > about what he says. He not only deletes his own posts, he also
gives no
> > references for his claims.
>
> Quite the opposite--I have given numerous references over many
months.
I just didn't see any.You make cloudy remarks, intersperse a sanskrit
word here and there, but give no proper quote to back up your claims.
It's just opinions and far-fetched theories said with an air of
superiority and arrogance.
> Keep in mind, I'm not here to do research for you or anyone else, nor
> can I make up for your lack of discrimination.
I can do my own research. If you have something to say, try to back it
up.
> I've been fortunate and made some good friend on FFL. Much deep
> conversation is offline or in private invite-only groups outside FFL.
> It's been a wonderful experience.
Nice for you. What regards me, I don't find you interesting, and I
don't have the time to analyse your squibble. Believe me I could do it,
but then its fruitless, you are prejudiced, so why should I talk to
somebody, who has set up his mind? Your mind is in love with its
theories, I am not.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
> Can't comment on any of this except to point out that many physicists
> besides John Hagelin and Penrose are jumping on the QM Consciousness
> bandwagon.
Yeah, but it depends on how they do it.
I believe that even John Ellis, Hagelin's old co-author from his
> Flipped SU(5) days, who is the Director of Research at CERN, has
published
> an article or two discussing the possible relationship between
consciousness
> and QM in a speculative way, rather than simply denouncing it as you
appear
> to believe all mainstream physicists do.
Well, it isn't either/or.
That there is a relationship is one of the
mainstream interpretations; others deny a
role to consciousness. The question is how
to resolve the apparent paradoxes of quantum
mechanics, the so-called "measurement problem."
Most working scientists don't worry about the
interpretations, which are all just speculative.
They just use the math, which by this time
seems as though it's unchallengeable.
Here's a piece that rejects the idea that
consciousness plays a role:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html
This chap, Stenger, is the bete noire of that very
far-out physicist who used to post on sci.skeptic
(may still, for all I know), whose name escapes me.
He was heavily into a QM-consciousness relationship,
but not at all in the same sense Chopra is, for
example; he was doing all kinds of incredibly
elaborate and utterly inscrutable math to formalize
it.
He and Stenger had some knock-down, drag-out
debates on the Web, which I'd try to locate if I
could only remember his damn name! It's not the
kind of stuff that's even vaguely comprehensible
if you're not a physicist, but it does show how
high a level they were debating on.
And here's a very basic rundown of the various
interpretations of QM:
http://members.aol.com/jmtsgibbs/Interpretation.htm
There are other approaches describing a QM-
consciousness relationship that are not at all
mainstream and verge on the fanciful, apparently
including Chopra's. Chopra really doesn't know
much about physics in general, or QM in
particular.
The problem with any "mystical" interpretation of
QM is that the person who formulates it has got to
be intimately familiar with both the nature and
mechanics of consciousness and the science of QM.
Most folks who come up with these interpretations
aren't scientists; and most scientists don't have
any familiarity with the nature and mechanics of
consciousness in any formal or experiential sense.
Science still doesn't know what consciousness *is*.
The guy who was on sci.skeptic did appear to know
more than the average scientist about consciousness;
he'd had mystical experiences, as I recall. Stenger
obviously either had not, or if he had, considered
them irrelevant.
Hagelin, obviously, has a solid grasp of both physics
and MMY's theories about the nature and mechanics of
consciousness. I don't know enough about physics to
have a clue whether his ideas about QM and
consciousness are consistent with science or whether
he's gone off the deep end, but I'd give him the
benefit of the doubt.
Anyhoo, my point was really just that interpretations
of QM that incorporate consciousness are held by
some very qualified scientists, but they are *not*
in the same class by any means as the ideas of
somebody like Chopra. The latter are what Wilber
is primarily rejecting.
Wilber includes in this category Fritjof Capra's "Tao
of Physics," but apparently Capra has subsequently
backed off his take in that book, and his later work
along those lines is much more to Wilber's liking.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
> Of course, its all speculation and philosophy until such time as
Siddhis are
> confirmed (if they are confirmed/confirmable). THEN the claim that
the
> universe is mindstuff starts to become relevant to the most hardcore
> scientist. Has Wilber ever addressed this issue? MMY has at least
hinted
> that you can't really claim even a temporary state of genuine Unity
until
> such time as you can perform the Siddhis at the "perfect" level (e.g.
> floating during the practice of Yogic Flying). Does Wilber even
acknowledge
> this as part of many traditions?
I don't know offhand, but Wilber is a thoroughgoing
mystic. He just insists on maintaining a rigorous
distinction between physics and metaphysics.
My guess is he'd say that universe-as-mindstuff, even
in the face of objective demonstrations thereof, would
never fall within the realm of science, that it could
not be understood via what he calls the "eye of flesh,"
only via the "eye of contemplation" (by which he does
*not* mean intellectual inquiry but rather mystical
experience).
jst...@panix.com
article on the current far-out speculations by
reasonably reputable scientists, from Tucson
Weekly, of all places:
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/science/001_pages/39.htm
I only skimmed it, but it talks at some length about
Hameroff and Penrose and Chalmers, among others.
Stu
This is the million dollar question isn't it? It seems to me that if
it were true it would not be so hard to prove though, people would be
breaking physical laws all the time, inadvertently sometimes. At issue
here is a notion that we "make" the universe. Which on one level is
apparent - in the way much of a person's suffering is due to their own
consciousness or lack of. This is the foundation for Buddhism as well
as cognitive psychology.
But contrary to that view is the fact that much suffering is not the
results of identification with illusionary elements of the world but
real phenomenon. Sickness, natural disasters, social upheavals. These
are forms of suffering beyond the range of ones conscious will.
Imagine explaining to an Iraqi whose legs were blown away by a carbomb
that his suffering is the result of his consciousness.
> Has Wilber ever addressed this issue?
He has. But without review I may be misrepresenting him.
> MMY has at least hinted that you can't really claim even a temporary
> state of genuine Unity until such time as you can perform the Siddhis
> at the "perfect" level (e.g. floating during the practice of Yogic
> Flying). Does Wilber even acknowledge this as part of many traditions?
Wilber does acknowledge a magical realm in many traditions, and
particularly the perennial tradition. He likens this level to a state
of consciousness that is pre-rational. He uses a fair amount of
anthropological evidence to support his notion that magical traditions
come about in a monarchic societies and before. The ruler king is
imbued with absolute power. The followers give the ruler super normal
abilities to reconcile the divinity of the king.* We can see vestiges
of this in evangelical Christian sects today and their mythology.
Wilber posits what he calls the pre/trans fallacy. That is the
romantic notion that evolution will take us back to a "heaven on
earth", a primal paradise. The pre/trans fallacy suggest that
post-rational consciousness is not the same as pre-rational
consciousness. Thus what awaits us as we expand consciousness is not
going to be the magic realm of the pre-rational consciousness, but a
ever encompassing awareness of the greater unity and integration of the
Kosmos.
That also has been an observation I have noticed in my own practice.
If this interests you at all I suggest you read the book recommended to
me by Judy, "Eye to Eye". I also really liked "A Brief History of
Everything" that I noticed is also available on CD.
--
~Stu
* This is a poor summery of the work. If you want I can reread it for
a better description.
jst...@panix.com
jst...@panix.com wrote:
<snip>
> This chap, Stenger, is the bete noire of that very
> far-out physicist who used to post on sci.skeptic
> (may still, for all I know), whose name escapes me.
Jack Sarfatti! Whew.
Here's one exchange between the two of them from
back in 1995:
http://www.nonlocal.com/quantum-d/posts/sarf_11-9.html
This one's relatively polite.
Others on this list include Brian Josephson, Fred
Allan Wolf, and Stuart Hameroff.
Here's the thread list:
http://www.nonlocal.com/quantum-d/postings2.html
Here's an excerpt of an exchange he had with a physics
student, to give you a flavor of Sarfatti:
Shanks: I have been following your posts and reading your web pages for
over a year on and off. I am a graduate student in physics at U of
Maryland. The problem is that I find most of your jargon rather thick.
What would be a good background source to help absorb you current rants
:-) Perhaps some Bohm?
Sarfatti: Yes, Undivided Universe
Shanks: Perhaps some Stapp?
Sarfatti: Yes, a soupcon of Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics.
Take of these elements all that is usable,
Wrap them all up with Penrose and Josephson
Set them to simmer, and wipe off the scum,
And the physics of consciousness is the residuum!
[This is a parody of a Gilbert and Sullivan
patter song from "Patience."--JS]
Shanks: Thanks I will probably grab the Bohm book first.
Sarfatti: My terminology is all very standard if you know the
literature in the field.
Shanks: yes...I got that feeling it took me several posts before I
understood what a beeble was.
Sarfatti: To be able, or not to be able,
That was the question, that Bohm struggled with after his fateful
meeting with Einstein on the Quad. We are not sure if God was there or
not. I allude to Bertrand Russell on Bishop Berkeley and the Einstein
Bohr debate.:-)
Shanks: I have been playing around with the M.W [Many Worlds--JS]
interpretation and the horribly ill defined "morphic field theory".
Sarfatti: What is that?
Shanks: This is the favorite theory of a guy named "Sherndake" I am
sure I spelled his name wrong.
Sarfatti: Yes, it's Sheldrake not Shmemdrek. (Professor Shmemdrek the
colleague of Doctor Chronkite).
Shanks: he is a crony of Terence McKenna, you know the mushroom guy
that thinks the universe will end in 2017.
Sarfatti: Well Terence is a solipsist. That's probably when he will
end. I recently shared a hot tub with him at Esalen with Feynman's last
girl friend.
Shanks: The point is that morphic field theory says that a "form" is
more likely to be manifest, if it is already widely manifest. --that
made a lot of sense.
Sarfatti: Not sure, but It sounds like Bohm said it better in The
Undivided Universe on "active information". See my activinf.htm when I
do it soon. Also it sounds as if forms Bose-Einstein condense wanting
to go into the same single form state so to speak because of action at
a distance.
Shanks: From a classical probability point of view the idea of a
morphic field is simply the more red chips you throw into the urn the
more likely you are to draw a red chip.
Sarfatti; No I don't think so. See Bells' essay on Bertlemann's Socks.
That's like trying to explain the quantum violation of Bell's
inequality locally. Gell-Mann tried that with many-worlds, but E J
Squires says he is wrong. But even Stapp accepts that many-worlds
without counter factual definiteness (CFD) can be local and agree with
QM which is what Gell-Mann asserts is the right stuff.
Shanks: The structure we see in reality is not so much a function of so
many laws, but a measure of the relative density of states in our
"sample space". I am not sure if this idea of sample space has a one to
one correspondence to Hilbert space.
Sarfatti: I sense you are on the wrong path here. This "sample space"
seems very mystical in the context of what Sheldrake vaguely
anticipates.
Shanks: The idea is that this sample space is composed of elements, and
representation made by sub sets of elements can have the properties of
individual elements. a trivial example would be the ordered set of
numbers corresponding to e^x. the set is not only composed of the
elements given by the definition, but the set is also populated by any
derivative of the function e^x. you might say it is not only composed
of a first level definition, but is then reinforced by an infinite
number of inter-element relations. Because of the self similar
properties of the exponential set you would say that it is more dense
in the space of function than the function x^2. In such a set of all
functions you would have an implied ordinality of the elements.
Sarfatti: Interesting math, but I fail to see the physical relevance.
Shanks: for the "real" world such a phenomena might present itself as a
dynamical system that embodies a model of itself. if the moddle is
sufficiently "close" to the real system the model contained in the
system becomes a member of the systems configuration space. the
interelement relations become elements of the set. If the internal
model is dense enough (the fractal dimension of the system is high
enough) the internal model over populates configuration space, shifting
the probabilities in favor of the state represented in the model.
Sarfatti: You may be on to something. But try to say it clearer.
Where's Crowell?
Shanks: This idea is somewhat reminiscent of what is going on in
quantum cavity electrodynamics. (I agree the idea of vacuum
polarization is more compelling in this case).
Sarfatti: What do you mean here? More detail.
Shanks: various ideas in set theory such as forcing also bring to mind
this self similarity in sets.
Sarfatti: Yes, this is interesting. Are there any review papers on this
stuff?
Shanks: As I am not a Mathematician proper I find I am ill equipped to
chew the problem properly, plus my studies have SLOOOOOWED things down.
At first I never liked Bohm's pilot wave ideas, but I must admit that
at least it is bearing intellectual fruit. Do you believe that the
pilot wave view is mutually exclusive to the many worlds view, or are
they compatible, with "pilot wave mechanics" providing a better
"calculus"
Sarfatti: MW is not compatible with Bohm because MW has no CFD and can
be local, Bohm's has CFD and must be nonlocal.
Shanks: I got this point from your web page. it seems to me that this
local/nonlocal distinction is at best semantic.
Sarfatti: No, it is very physical. The locality of the many-particle
quantum wave psi(x1,x2,x3 ..) in configuration space means it is
generally nonlocal in ordinary space if psi is entangled i.e., not a
simple product of single particle functions, but a sum of such
products. Bohm explains all this very well.
Shanks: You say MW CAN be local. I agree, but MW need not be local (I
guess you are implying this by the "can" )
Sarfatti: Yes.
(etc.; see http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/rants2.htm
for the rest.)
Sarfatti is all over the Web. He's just extraordinarily
brilliant, and an amazing personality. Way back when I
was participating on sci.skeptic, before I knew who he
was, I emailed him something or other about MMY's
"Unified Field Theory," and he actually wrote me back,
was very cordial, not at all dismissive. I still have
the message somewhere.
LawsonE
Neither you nor Kant appears to understand QM...
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116718759....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We're not talking about Henry Stapp, are we? He had a [mystical?] experience
talking to his future self on the phone when he was a kid and has been
working to create the technonlogy to make that phone call ever since (or
something like that). He's no intellectual slouch, but a lot of people are
constantly angry with him over his beliefs.
>
> Hagelin, obviously, has a solid grasp of both physics
> and MMY's theories about the nature and mechanics of
> consciousness. I don't know enough about physics to
> have a clue whether his ideas about QM and
> consciousness are consistent with science or whether
> he's gone off the deep end, but I'd give him the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
Hagelin had a buinch of discussions with MMY about what a Western theory of
everything would need to be like inorder to be compatible with "Vedic
Cosmology." According to a story he told on the old MIU Video Magazine,
IIRC, he looked at a lot of potential theories and thought that Flipped
SU(5) seemed the most promising.
Hagelin reformulated Flipped SU(5) Superstring theory to be more in-line
with what he and MMY had discussed. After he realized that this
reformulation actually made Flipped SU(5) more robust, he faxed a copy of
his scribblings to John Ellis at CERN with a note saying something like
"isn't this the sweetest little theory?" Ellis read the notes, and got in
touch with the person who had created Flipped SU(5) in the first place, and
the 3 of them published quite a few papers together on the subject.
I can't comment on whether or not Hagelin's gone off the deep end, but the
reason why Hagelin is so gung-ho about anything and everything
Maharishi-esque is quite simple:
he didn't destroy his reputation by getting involved with MMY: he made it.
> Anyhoo, my point was really just that interpretations
> of QM that incorporate consciousness are held by
> some very qualified scientists, but they are *not*
> in the same class by any means as the ideas of
> somebody like Chopra. The latter are what Wilber
> is primarily rejecting.
BTW, John apparently never liked most/all of what Chopra had to say in his
various writings about QM, but since MMY liked it, he mostly kept his mouth
shut.
>
> Wilber includes in this category Fritjof Capra's "Tao
> of Physics," but apparently Capra has subsequently
> backed off his take in that book, and his later work
> along those lines is much more to Wilber's liking.
>
What has Wilber said about Hagelin, I wonder?
LawsonE
> We're not talking about Henry Stapp, are we? He had a [mystical?]
> experience talking to his future self on the phone when he was a kid and
> has been working to create the technonlogy to make that phone call ever
> since (or something like that). He's no intellectual slouch, but a lot of
> people are constantly angry with him over his beliefs.
Eep. Jack Sarfatti, NOT Henry Stapp.
Both are involved in physics and conscioiusness. One is considered
mainstream, and the other...
jst...@panix.com
post from Fairfield Life:
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116719673.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What if the ONLY way to explain the Siddhis is to call the universe
"mind-stuff?"
I think that it would be possible to create testable theories of this
concept.
Stu
Kant was very fortunate to be around when the laws of motion were just
making the rounds. It must have been very exciting to beliving in a
time when guy who somehow connected object dropping from a tower and
the movement of the stars and planets as the same force. In its time
it was a true grand unification theory.
Kants job was to separate out the philosophers who somehow interpreted
this exquisite scientific discovery as a profound part of the human
condition. He was brilliant at understanding that science has its
limitations and that the realm of God is best left to the
non-scientists.
Unfortunately my understanding of quantum mechanics is limited to my
undergraduate physics classes.
So I will continually to be befuddled by guys who talk about quantum
leaps of consciousness as if somehow consciousness drops a valance and
releases energy. This somehow was missed in my courses on theoretical
physics. Or maybe I was sick that day.
--
~Stu
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116720020.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hammeroff is based at the U of AZ in Tucson, AZ. Sometimes the TM
researchers speak here at the Tucson Consciousness conference, but they
aren't comfortable because a lot of former TMers have co-opted MMY's
terminology and never give credit where credit is due, which gets them
annoyed and everyone else defensive. I had lunch with Barry Markowski here a
decade or so ago when he was attending, while doing research on the
sociology of networking amongst fringe science researchers (he had a
slightly nicer term for it I believe).
Chalmers was the head of the U of AZ Consciouisness Center until last year,
I believe. I've spoken with a few of the researchers on the phone and I
would occasionally lurk on their newsgroup. they didn't like John very much.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
> I can't comment on whether or not Hagelin's gone off the deep end,
but the
> reason why Hagelin is so gung-ho about anything and everything
> Maharishi-esque is quite simple:
>
> he didn't destroy his reputation by getting involved with MMY: he
made it.
Good point. Interesting chronology.
I was thinking more of his ideas about how one
can (if I understand him correctly) tweak the
probabilities of quantum events if one can
access the requisite level of consciousness.
Unless I misconstrue, that's his version of how
mind can affect matter. He then extrapolates to
levitation: levitation isn't impossible, it's just
statistically vanishingly improbable that the
elementary particles that compose your body would
behave in such a manner.
But if your mind can consciously act on the quantum
level, you can fiddle around and make the wave
function collapse in that vanishingly improbable
direction.
That's how I translated what he said into something
I could make some sense of, at any rate. (This was
from his talk on our TM-Sidhis course, yours and
mine, in 1984--or was it 1985?-- at MUM. I recall
he used a billiard ball analogy, which I had heard
before and have heard since in connection with QM
and probabilities but can't reconstruct.)
<snip>
> BTW, John apparently never liked most/all of what Chopra had to say
in his
> various writings about QM, but since MMY liked it, he mostly kept his
mouth
> shut.
I'm glad to hear that. (Not that he kept his mouth
shut, but that he didn't like it.)
> > Wilber includes in this category Fritjof Capra's "Tao
> > of Physics," but apparently Capra has subsequently
> > backed off his take in that book, and his later work
> > along those lines is much more to Wilber's liking.
> >
>
> What has Wilber said about Hagelin, I wonder?
Dunno. I haven't read his more recent stuff. Nothing
I have read has mentioned Hagelin.
Just Googled Wilber + Hagelin, didn't find anything
relevant, but did find what looked like it might be
an interesting interview with Hagelin from 2000, I
think, in which Hagelin enthusiastically assents to
an idea of Wilber's mentioned by the interviewer:
http://www.harmonia-institute.com/Interviews/Hagelin/Hagelin.htm
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
> "LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:HORje.968$tp.445@fed1read05...
>
> > We're not talking about Henry Stapp, are we? He had a [mystical?]
> > experience talking to his future self on the phone when he was a
kid and
> > has been working to create the technonlogy to make that phone call
ever
> > since (or something like that). He's no intellectual slouch, but a
lot of
> > people are constantly angry with him over his beliefs.
>
> Eep. Jack Sarfatti, NOT Henry Stapp.
Yes! I said that in my next post; didn't you see it?
I think you're referring to the Q-chip.
> Both are involved in physics and conscioiusness. One is considered
> mainstream, and the other...
Stapp is the mainstream one, right. Sarfatti is
quite wild, but he's a real honest-to-God physicist.
Mainstream physicists, even Stenger, take him
seriously--i.e., they disagree with him, often quite
vigorously, but they don't ridicule him the way they
do Chopra.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116729283.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> LawsonE wrote:
> <snip>
>> I can't comment on whether or not Hagelin's gone off the deep end,
> but the
>> reason why Hagelin is so gung-ho about anything and everything
>> Maharishi-esque is quite simple:
>>
>> he didn't destroy his reputation by getting involved with MMY: he
> made it.
>
> Good point. Interesting chronology.
>
> I was thinking more of his ideas about how one
> can (if I understand him correctly) tweak the
> probabilities of quantum events if one can
> access the requisite level of consciousness.
>
> Unless I misconstrue, that's his version of how
> mind can affect matter. He then extrapolates to
> levitation: levitation isn't impossible, it's just
> statistically vanishingly improbable that the
> elementary particles that compose your body would
> behave in such a manner.
Actually, that's a classic classroom QM problem: calculate the probability
that every particle in your body will go up at the same time.
>
> But if your mind can consciously act on the quantum
> level, you can fiddle around and make the wave
> function collapse in that vanishingly improbable
> direction.
I think it will turn out to be more fundamental then that if levitation ever
flies...
>
> That's how I translated what he said into something
> I could make some sense of, at any rate. (This was
> from his talk on our TM-Sidhis course, yours and
> mine, in 1984--or was it 1985?-- at MUM. I recall
> he used a billiard ball analogy, which I had heard
> before and have heard since in connection with QM
> and probabilities but can't reconstruct.)
>
> <snip>
[...]
> http://www.harmonia-institute.com/Interviews/Hagelin/Hagelin.htm
>
Will check that out, thanks.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1116719673.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > My guess is he'd say that universe-as-mindstuff, even
> > in the face of objective demonstrations thereof, would
> > never fall within the realm of science, that it could
> > not be understood via what he calls the "eye of flesh,"
> > only via the "eye of contemplation" (by which he does
> > *not* mean intellectual inquiry but rather mystical
> > experience).
>
> What if the ONLY way to explain the Siddhis is to call the universe
> "mind-stuff?"
That wouldn't bother Wilber. He would continue
to point out, however, that it was outside the
realm of objective science ('cause if it's mindstuff,
it's all subjective).
> I think that it would be possible to create testable theories of this
> concept.
Maybe, but like the paradoxes of QM, you still
wouldn't have an explanation in regulation
scientific terms.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1116729283.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > But if your mind can consciously act on the quantum
> > level, you can fiddle around and make the wave
> > function collapse in that vanishingly improbable
> > direction.
>
> I think it will turn out to be more fundamental then that if
levitation ever
> flies...
Well, your mind has to be operating at a more
fundamental level than the quantum level to
be able to affect it, I should think. It doesn't
get *much* more subtle than that if we're still
talking about the material realm, does it?
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116729789.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
?? What do you mean by "regulation scientific terms?"
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116730021.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not sure. Since its impossible to "see" past the QM level (that's why the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle exists), I'm not sure its relevant to talk
about it, unless you're God.
That's an interesting question: does God "see" past that level, or is He
simply existing in such a way as to be the initial observer state?
jst...@panix.com
Fascinating article on OCD in the NY Times mag:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/magazine/22OCD.html?pagewanted=all
What it discusses (OCD caused by strep infection
in kids) doesn't apply specifically to you, but
I thought you might be interested.
You said something about OCD recently that I had
meant to follow up on but forgot, having to do
with what caused it, I believe. I'd be curious to
hear more if you're inclined to expound.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1116731373.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've always had mild OCD, but it got severe after non-stop allergies for 3
years living in a moldy house. The mold may have been of the toxic variety,
which obviously wouldn't help matters.