And some people say there's no God..........

Page 3 of 7  


I understand what you think, but I am growing tired of terms like, idiotic, and crackbrain. Here is the link for Mind Science Conference. Hardly a group of new age idiots.
http://www.investigatingthemind.org /

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/Science/buddhismAndScience.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdG70779 http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html http://www.twis.org/science/science_in_society/science_and_religion/meditation_and_science.htm
These sites may still not give you any evidence of how the mind is pure energy, but I'm not trying to convince you. Nor do I get duped by chalatans easily. Naive I am not. I think a person can believe in Buddhist ideals, even be a practitioner complete with holy images of Buddha's (which, by the way means fully awake).
If Einstein was alive, he'd have finished the Theory of Everything. He was right on the cusp and possibly had the equation, but he died before he wrote it down somewhere.
I think string theory is a parallel system to the beliefs in Buddhism. Then again, I don't know your working knowledge of the philosophy of Buddhism. That would help. It's odd to me when someone poopoos something they may not have fully examined. Clearly, I have said I am not qualified in either case, but I hope to be able to stand up to any challenge the more I learn about my own mind. Maybe by then I won't bother. It's an incredible waste of energy.

Translation: You cannot prove you love anyone. We can assert you love them because you want to be good to them, but that would imply anyone you are good to is someone you love. Good will and generous conduct is what Buddhists call Bodhisattva, right view, skillful means, etc.
I offer the same evidence to you (short of proof) and when I tell you about studies being conducted using the adept meditator as the subject you say prove it. You can't prove you love someone.

Yes, I should have qualified that more clearly Our discussion has been very decent. Maybe one day there will be a universal answer to everything, as Einistein was working his entire career to prove. He got close and I am very interested in string theory as it closely looks like Buddhist conclusions regarding emptiness. There are many scientists representing both sides of string theory and the debate is ongoing. I find it all so interesting and wish I'd have paid more attention to my physics professor instead of vodka.
By the way, in case you aren't sure, I am a woman. I've seen some refer to me as him/her.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub wrote:

http://www.twis.org/science/science_in_society/science_and_religion/meditation_and_science.htm OK. This is not what I had in mind when I cautioned you about "idiotic crackbrain charlatans". These sites are arguing the case that meditation techniques can have physical and psychological benefits of various kinds and are attempting to study why. I am willing to believe that. But if the people who are studying these phenomena use the word "energy" I still insist that this is a very different usage of the word energy than the physical sense of the word. There is only, at best, an analogy between whatever mental phenomena they are studying and the physical concept of energy. I still maintain that confusion would be avoided by using a different word than energy. In your previous post you seemed to be arguing a case for reincarnation by using a principle of "conservation of energy" that I insisted and still insist it is an invalid inference based on an analogy. If there is some kind of conservation of "mind energy", that has to be independently established.

Careful, careful. Einstein was not working on the Theory of Everything when he died. He was working on cosmological ramifications of general relativity. The Theory of Everything , if and when we find it, would be a unification of quantum chromodynamics and the so called standard model with general relativity. Einstein was not working on that, though he obviously had thought about the question.

You should understand that the physics community has gotten rather sceptical about string theory. String theory seemed to have promise for a while, but work in that field has gotten bogged down and physicists are mostly trying other approaches these days. The basic issue is this: We have two theories (1. QCD and the standard model 2. general relativity) that have both been verified to extraordinary degrees of precision, but yet they can't both be exactly right because their fundamental ontologies are incompatible. General theory cannot work unless spacetime is a smooth manifold. On the other hand, quantum theory says that spacetime CAN'T be a smooth manifold due to quantum fluctuations at the Planck scale. What is needed is a theory of quantum gravity that will yield QCD and general relativity as limiting cases, but that will subsume both theories and unify them somehow. String theory is one of many attempted approaches that, as I said, seemed to show great promise but has gotten rather bogged down. It may yet be the case that the correct answer, if and when we find it, is some kind of variant of string theory, but maybe not. Maybe an entirely different approach is needed.

I did not exactly poopoo Buddhism. I have the highest respect for Buddhism as an ethical system. As for reincarnation, well, like all atheists I take the attitude "where's the evidence"? I have long ago read Buddhist scriptures and books about Buddhist philosophy. I take it that you follow the Tibetan variant of Mahayana Buddhism.

And I specifically agreed that I cannot prove that in the sense that I prove mathematical theorems. Who would ever maintain otherwise?

Of course. How can anyone seperate love from the impulse to be good to someone? Aren't they pretty much the same thing? That does not mean that my love is restricted to family and a tiny circle of friends. I am personally not a bodhisattva and I do not claim to feel enormous amounts of love for a random stranger. But the small amount of love I can spontaneously feel for a stranger is entirely adequate reason to feel regard for his/her well-being and to have occasional generous impulses.

Vodka has its merits.

Regards
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub wrote:

I just want to add a clarification about the physics here. Besides working on the cosmological implications of general relativity Einstein was, of course, working on the unified field theory and I should have realized that that is what you meant by Theory of Everything. But these are not the same. Einstein's attempts at unified field theory had a very limited goal, namely to unify general relativity and electromagnetism. He had a belief (which we now know to be mistaken) that it would be possible to unify gravity and electromagnetism into a single system and then make minor modifications so as to include the weak force and strong force. Truth be told, Einstein was not keeping up with the latest physics and he did not know much about the strong and weak nuclear forces. History turned out differently. The first unification combined electromagnetism and the weak force. After that the strong force was also incorporated. This gave rise to the so called "standard model" with its current classification of quarks. The phrase "Theory of Everything" (TOE for short) is always used to mean a unification of all four fundamental forces. That is what we are seeking now.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
from snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net (paghat) contains these words:

A part of me wonders what a stickbug is.
Janet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Energy can be dissipated and descend into an unorganized state though. In fact, for any closed system, this is inevitable according to the second law of thermodynamics.
--
***Free Your Mind***

Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2748
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prove it.

Prove it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub skrev:

Mind is not a thing; it is not energy. It is a process in the brain. When the brain ceases to exist, there is no mind.

And I have never called you an idiot.

It is sad that you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, that you have to respond with silly accusations. My original statement that reincarnation has no objective support for it and that, therefore, it is an irrational belief stands.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have no evidence of this, so how can you be so certain?

That's the difference between you and me. I USED to criticize people for their beliefs, and now I've learned everyone has their beliefs or not and at the very least the phrase one of my teachers uses is: "Hands off, mouth shut." It's even sadder you feel so compelled to criticize.
I am not always good at this, but it is an aspiration.
What the scientific community is seeing now is the extent Tibetan Buddhists know about the functions of the mind. It has nothing to do with a brain. It's a consciousness which comes from a previous moment of itself, back and back and back.
You don't have to believe it, nobody is pushing it down your throat, but to criticize something you are not familiar with is like me trying to make believe I am an expert on quantum physics and mechanics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub skrev:

I have no evidence that my furniture does not discuss politics as soon as I fall asleep. In other words, there is no evidence or objective reason to think anything else.

You still do. The first post of yours that I responded to was a criticism of other people's beliefs.

Sorry, if you present your opinions/beliefs on a public forum, there is nothing sad, wrong or offensive about others criticizing them. If you cannot stand such criticism, you should not post your beliefs here. It really is very simple.

Then you should have no problem with introducing us all to a mind, or to scientific data that would support the above assertion.

You made a claim. So far you have been unable to back it up with anything of substance. Instead you have posted a continuous stream of insults, and now you are making assertions about what unnamed scientists believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I was a wee child I worried that all the stuff in my room came alive when I fell asleep, & if any object felt mistreated or ignored, it might want to avenge itself upon me. For this reason I started reading books instead of playing with toys, as I could not otherwise disguise my favorites.
Some of us do learn to reason a bit more clearly as we mature. Others never outgrow belief in the supernatural. Perhaps if I'd convinced myself my posessions wanted to protect me, instead of worried they might want to punish me, I would've clung to the belief longer, or to some similar belief in the Invisible Friend.
If that's the case, "maturing" into rationalism is inspired by a desire to overcome irrational fears, & failure to "mature" into rationalism is a desire to cling to irrational feelings of well being. And the impetus to rational or a tendency toward belief in the impossible have similarly nutty beginnings.
-paghat the ratgirl

--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:

But it is positively criminal to NOT criticise someone who fervently believes in an unprovable fantasy, and bursts into an atheist group and lies about having proof, boldly criticising others for making rational comments, and so on. Face it, Jangchub. Loonies who blather on about reincarnation and other patent rubbish are prime targets for not only criticism, but outright derision.
As for your prostitution and distortion of what Science has to say about your delusions, (and I do claim to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics by the way), I think that you should be prosecuted for crimes against truth and reality.
Just come up with just an iota of proof that your juvenile wishings have any basis in fact, and we can talk. Until then, you are just blowing jasmine-scented hot-air up rational thinking peoples' backsides.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub skrev:

Is the above supposed to have some meaning?

Right, it is make-believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, it means there is no imperical evidence to support either the existence or non existence of reincarnation.

You think it's make believe. That doesn't mean it is. I am also not saying it's real, only that as an atheist I find I can be Buddhist. It's a lovely way to live, good moral conduct, mindfulness, benefit to others, etc. It works for me. If it doesn't mean anything to you that's fine also. It's your thing, do what you want to do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jangchub skrev:

And, since the only rational conclusion to be drawn from such a fact is that there is no objective reason to believe in reincarnation, or leprechauns or magic spirits in lamps, what possible reason would you have to make such an obvious statement?

No, the fact that there is no objective reason to believe in it makes it make-believe when somebody believes anyway.
I am also not

Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned. Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned. You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially when you present your beliefs in a public forum.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are very disrespectful. Do what you want, but to call something I believe in a fairytale is just obnoxious and of NO use to anyone. It sounds like you are a fanatic who has to prove something. You haven't shaken anything out of me. I know who I am.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why are you getting your panties in a wad? Perhaps Usenet isn't for you.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"

She/he has demonstrated clearly that 'reality' is not for them, that much is 100% sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"

Would you feel better to have them called myths? Faith is opposed to reason and if reasonable people view myths only as that, it's not necessarily disrespectful that many of us can be enriched by a poetic sacred fiction without having to give up our capacity for reason.
The disrespectful thing would be if someone otherwise fond of mythology & fairy tales disliked scripture merely because it has its believers. Your belief cannot spoil my love of myths. My unwillingness to supplant reason with faith shouldn't make you feel disrespected for your belief in the unreal, unless your faith is already shaky, in which case everything scientific or rational will seem assaultive even if it's not.
Now if I were to note what a dumbass you are that might be regarded as disrespectful. But I am perfectly capable of respecting people of faith if they're not dumbasses, & they in turn rarely seem to have trouble respecting me.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahem, just for the record - I didn't write what you're replying to.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:58:31 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net (paghat) wrote:

I wouldn't feel better because I don't feel bad to begin with. Sure, if you call Buddhism a myth, I have no argument. Buddhism is unique because it accepts all other philosophies and doesn't make a distinction of a creator. We've had this discussion before. Buddhism is a theory of philosophy.

I was called an idiot and moron because of my Buddhist beliefs of reincarnation. Does this fit your category of someone being disrespectful? You didn't say anything disrespectful, so I'm not sure why you're defending yourself. My faith in Buddhism is stronger than ever and at this point cannot be shaken.
What's your position on String Theory?

Nice way to call me a dumbass by saying IF you were to do so might be regarded as disrespectful. Oh well. We've never seen things through the same eyes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.