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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
-paghat the ratgirl
visit my temperate gardening website:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
-paghat the ratgirl
visit my temperate gardening website:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:58:31 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.