• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Metaphysical Consciousness

doronshadmi said:
You did nothing about the provided links, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This is not an assumption that supports your claim of "higher consciousness".

Just a sampling: a paper claiming that anomalous "intersubject coherence" numbers might indicate that consciousness "might be a field" is not an "advance in Physics"; an "advance in physics" would look like "consciouosness appears to be a field of "___" effect, mitigated by force "____", as indicated by manipulating field "____" under the following conditions".

Were you hoping that the phrase "papers about advances in physics" would be taken to be as content free a phrase as "higher consciousness"?

(NB: I have explained my aversion to argumentum ad yoobtoob elsewhere; suffice it to say that a "video" is not a (peer reviewed) "paper".

So, no, I did pursue a few of your links. Dry holes. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Belief has nothing to do with the discussed subject.

Some analogy:

A: "The taste of a lemon is sour"

B: "I disagree with you".

A: "Did you taste a lemon?"

B: "It does not matter, I still disagree with you"
Click to expand...

Actually, what you are trying to do is more like,

A."The taste of this cosmic lemon can only be detected by a 'higher state of tatstantivity', reachableonly through this programme".

B. "There's no such thing as 'higher state of tastantivity'. How is it, again, that you claim it works?"

A. " 'Higher states of tastantivity' can only be reached through this programme, which will focus on your interstimulatory coherence".

B. "There is no cosmic lemon; 'higher states of tastantivity' do not exist".

A. "That is why you will never be one of the ones who can taste the cosmic lemon..."
 
doronshadmi said:
Belief has nothing to do with the discussed subject.

Some analogy:

A: "The taste of a lemon is sour"

B: "I disagree with you".

A: "Did you taste a lemon?"

B: "It does not matter, I still disagree with you"
Click to expand...
That's not an analogy. This is an analogy to what you have said:

A: "The taste of a lemon is green."

B: "That makes no sense. Green is a colour, not a flavour."

A: "Did you taste a lemon?"

B: "It doesn't matter who tasted what. What you are saying is not meaningful."
Click to expand...
Though what you actually wrote was more like what Slowvehicle posted above.
 
doronshadmi said:
What you say is a direct result of simply ignoring the links that are found in the links of the posts above.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. I looked; dry holes, as Slowvehicle said. Unconvincing. Shallow. Paper-thin. Cardboard cut-out science. Diversions. Dog and pony.

How about you pick one study, the best one you can find that represents the best science discovered by TM and share it with us.
(I will try to be neutral and find both sides pro and sceptical to that study, and we'll see what others here make of it.)

How comes that Joe Kellett's site is your accepted rigorous peer-reviewed and well-duplicated science?
Click to expand...
Red herring. General criticism does not have to be such. I don't know who Kellett is and I picked that URL with bias to counter your own links.

TM, if it is practiced right, is not involved with any effort including any attempt to be relaxed, and the attempt to be relaxed is the reason of why some people increase their anxiety disorder, according to this article.
Click to expand...

The "attempt to be relaxed" is the same as trying to reduce stress:
"The National Institutes of Health have awarded over $26 million to research the effectiveness of TM for reducing stress and stress-related illness.."
From davidlynchfoundation.org

So, I'm (once again) not sure what your point was.
 
Donn said:
Yeah, no. I looked; dry holes, as Slowvehicle said. Unconvincing. Shallow. Paper-thin. Cardboard cut-out science. Diversions. Dog and pony.

How about you pick one study, the best one you can find that represents the best science discovered by TM and share it with us.
(I will try to be neutral and find both sides pro and sceptical to that study, and we'll see what others here make of it.)


Red herring. General criticism does not have to be such. I don't know who Kellett is and I picked that URL with bias to counter your own links.



The "attempt to be relaxed" is the same as trying to reduce stress:
"The National Institutes of Health have awarded over $26 million to research the effectiveness of TM for reducing stress and stress-related illness.."
From davidlynchfoundation.org

So, I'm (once again) not sure what your point was.
Click to expand...

The point is that there is knowledge beyond human ken but he has kenned it.
 
Donn said:
Yeah, no. I looked; dry holes, as Slowvehicle said. Unconvincing. Shallow. Paper-thin. Cardboard cut-out science. Diversions. Dog and pony.
Click to expand...
This is no more than hands waving reply, without any detailed example that actually demonstrate your claims. Please save from us further expressions like "as Slowvehicle said", "as GOD said" etc., and use your own clear and detailed voice about the discussed subject (something that you did not do, yet).

Donn said:
How about you pick one study, the best one you can find that represents the best science discovered by TM and share it with us.
(I will try to be neutral and find both sides pro and sceptical to that study, and we'll see what others here make of it.)
Click to expand...
How about doing some work and pick by yourself the best one you can find that represents the best science discovered by TM (http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar...+and+"quantum+physics"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5). Maybe there is a chance that you will learn something during this detailed searching, which will put you in a better position to discuss about TM, or the best you can do is no more than hands waving communication style.

Donn said:
Red herring. General criticism does not have to be such. I don't know who Kellett is and I picked that URL with bias to counter your own links.
Click to expand...
Once again you continue your hands waving reply by ignoring the detailed examples that I gave about the "quality" of Kellett site. Maybe you are not aware of the simple fact that one has to check counter examples before he\she uses them as criticism.

Donn said:
The "attempt to be relaxed" is the same as trying to reduce stress:
Click to expand...
Again, TM (if it is practiced in the right way) is an effortless mental technique, which means that no one trying to reduce stress.

As long as you miss this simple fact, you wrongly define and understand TM.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Direct experience is nice if you can get it, but you can be right without it.
Click to expand...
This is not true in case that direct experience is essential in order to actually know what one is talking about.

Awareness without thoughts is definitely such an experience, and if one (by using his\her thoughts process) claims that there is no actual state of mind as awareness without thoughts, he\she actually determines the conditions that fail to experience the state of mind of awareness without thoughts.

This is exactly PixyMisa's determination, which brings him to fail by reasoning and experience.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
A: "The taste of a lemon is green."
Click to expand...
This nonsense example has nothing to do with the face that one can be aware without thoughts.

As long as you do not do anything in order to directly experience this state of mind, you simply don't have any meaningful thing to express about it.

So the right analogy is still the following:

A: "The taste of a lemon is sour"

B: "I disagree with you".

A: "Did you taste a lemon?"

B: "It does not matter, I still disagree with you"
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This nonsense example has nothing to do with the face that one can be aware without thoughts.
Click to expand...

Awareness is thought.

As long as you do not do anything in order to directly experience this state of mind, you simply don't have any meaningful thing to express about it.
Click to expand...

Right. So I have to become a hopeless heroin addict in order to understand that heroin is bad for me? All knowledge need not be experiential.
 
crhkrebs said:
Awareness is thought.
Click to expand...
As long as you do not experience awareness without thoughts.

crhkrebs said:
All knowledge need not be experiential.
Click to expand...
You are right, but if there is a way to also experience a given knowledge, there is no reason to avoid it, especially if this knowledge is your own self in its most fundamental state.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This is not true in case that direct experience is essential in order to actually know what one is talking about.

Awareness without thoughts is definitely such an experience, and if one (by using his\her thoughts process) claims that there is no actual state of mind as awareness without thoughts, he\she actually determines the conditions that fail to experience the state of mind of awareness without thoughts.

This is exactly PixyMisa's determination, which brings him to fail by reasoning and experience.
Click to expand...
So you've redefined awareness to mean something that most vocabularies would continue to define as unawareness, asserted that it cannot be communicated and that barring a dubious event it cannot be sustained. But wow.
 
doronshadmi said:
Here it is again http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar...+and+"quantum+physics"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5.

Please demonstrate your "Dry holes" argument (in details please) according to what can be found in the link above.
Click to expand...

Here it is again:

Not one of the three papers I read at random represented a "paper about an advance in physics" related to TM.

A shaft dug where it is supposed that water can be found that does not, in fact, reach water is a "dry hole"

A list of citations where it is claimed papers about advances in physics can be found that does not, in fact, address advances in physics is a "dry hole".

Which of the papers to which you linked, in your opinion, represents an actual paper about an advance in physics?

(NB: unsubstantiable metaphysical musings do not constitute "advances" in physics...)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As long as you do not experience awareness without thoughts.
Click to expand...
Please explain how you can be aware without thoughts. I can quite understand how you can be unaware with thought, because even though I was completely unaware for at least half an hour after being nocked down I am told I was talking apparently coherently.
You are right, but if there is a way to also experience a given knowledge, there is no reason to avoid it,...
Click to expand...
I can think of plenty of reasons to avoid a great many experiences.
... especially if this knowledge is your own self in its most fundamental state.
Click to expand...
This last part I have listened to four or five times but it still does not make sense to me. What am I, in my 'most fundamental state'. This again is the kind of phrase I see on the GH forum, but which I've never seen explained. What is the difference between knowing myself as an integrated whole and trying to separate off a part that is the 'fundamental self'?
 
I can't resist confusing things by throwing this in here:

http://www.amazon.com/My-Stroke-Ins...406469901&sr=1-1&keywords=a+stroke+of+insight



According to Jill Bolte Taylor, it can at least be euphoric to lose that chatter. But a higher form of consciousness? Even she doesn't think so.



Amazon.com: Your stroke affected functions in your left brain, leaving you to what you call the "la-la land" of your right hemisphere. What was it like to live in your right brain, and then to rebuild your left?

Taylor: When the cells in my left brain became nonfunctional because they were swimming in a pool of blood, they lost their ability to inhibit the cells in my right hemisphere. In my right brain, I shifted into the consciousness of the present moment. I was in the right here, right now awareness, with no memories of my past and no perception of the future. The beauty of La-la land (my right hemisphere experience of the present moment) was that everything was an explosion of magnificent stimulation and I dwelled in a space of euphoria. This is great way to exist if you don't have to communicate with the external world or care whether or not you have the capacity to learn. I found that in order for me to be able to learn anything, however, I had to take information from the last moment and apply it to the present moment. When my left hemisphere was completely nonfunctional early on, it was impossible for me to learn, which was okay with me, but I am sure it was frustrating for those around me. A simple example of this was trying to put on my shoes and socks. I eventually became physically capable of putting my shoes and socks on, but I had no ability to understand why I would have to put my socks on before my shoes. To me they were simply independent actions that were not related and I did not have the cognitive ability to figure out the appropriate sequencing of the events. Over time, I regained the ability to weave moments back together to create an expanse of time, and with this ability came the ability to learn methodically again. Life in La-la land will always be just a thought away, but I am truly grateful for the ability to think with linearity once again.
Click to expand...


We do need to put our trousers on one leg at a time, after all -- even for Jill Bolte Taylor or Bruce Dickinson.
 
 
doronshadmi said:
As long as you do not experience awareness without thoughts.
Click to expand...

Unless you are fooled into thinking there is a difference.

When you are "aware", you are experiencing neurological activity, the same as when you are thinking, meditating, feeling, feeling sensations, reacting to reflexes, remembering, speaking, reading, performing autonomic functions, etc.

It is the same sort of neurons, the same sort of electrical activity of Chlorine and Sodium ions (Potassium and calcium too) crossing the neuronal membrane, and at the end of the neuron it is the same set of neurotransmitters performing the same chemical reactions.

It is all the same activity. Depending on a lot of other factors, such as where in the brain this activity occurs, we manifest this are thoughts, feelings, remembrances, emotions, perceptions, etc. There is no anatomical and physiological basis for holding "awareness" apart from these other activities.
 
calebprime said:
I But a higher form of consciousness? Even she doesn't think so.
Click to expand...
The first step the achieve ,as you call it, "higher form of consciousness" is simply to be aware of yourself without thoughts.

This awareness is the basis of thoughts process in your brain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom