The Metaphysical Consciousness

[asydhouse]

This of yours, in response to:


I appreciate the fine, lyrical style in which you answered my question. Your attention to the crafting of the backstory, particularly, brought a tear to my eye. A frisson thrilled my being.

Be that as it may, if you have, in fact, performed any kind of art under the instruction of a truly good director (or choreographer, or conductor, or any other kind of coach/teacher), you have had the opportunity to notice a fact of life:

When one has just been informed by one's choreographer that one's unisson fails of the ensemble by a step-and-a-half, one does not respond, "Please comment in details about the gestrual perfection of my expressive linkage of the classical and soft-shoe breakdancing," instead, one addresses the fact that one's fundamentals need remediation.

When one has just been told that one's assay of the Tuba Mirum is more suited to a death-metal thrash mob than to anything Mozart ever wrote, requiem or no, one does not respond, "Please comment in details about the quality of my liturgical Latin/rhyming slang dialectical synthesis; which I claim all true singers employ; for without such synthesis, it is not music," instead, one studies the fundamental techniques needed to deliver Mozart intelligibly.

When one has just been told that one's Lear appears to caper about the stage in a manner more suited to blackface minstrelry than the Bard, one does nor respond, "Please comment in details about my unique and personal take on the repersonalization of Lear as a Richard III clone, particularly with respect to the integration of the physical deformities and sweeping post-modern swishilly butch homosexuality," one addresses the fundamental mistaking (literally, mis-taking) of one's personification of the blasted King.

When the ship is sinking, one does not demand of the captain that she address, "in details", the unsuitable fabrics, infelicitous colors, inauspicious groupings, and general shoddiness of the deck chairs one has provided.

Unless and until you repair the basic errors of your construction: from your insistence that levers work by the "stable and the unstable edge"; through your intransigent insistence that Pythagoras' Theorem is "about" levers; on past your claim that science can only proceed through a supposed "linkage" "among[sic]" the "variant and the invariant"; right up to your infacility with the actual techniques of laboratory studies; there is no "in details" to which to respond.

Fix the fundamentals. Then and only then would it make any sense at all to address any of your other errors "in details"

See? You need to get over yourself, adopt a more humble approach, and knuckle down to doing some personal growth work to learn how to communicate: it's a two way process, but all you do is insist that your bad analogies must be accepted without alteration or clarification… you are not learning anything, and also you are not teaching anything… you are effectively dwelling in delusion and insisting it be pronounced Truth^TM.

I'm not wasting my time arguing your bogus "details"! I don't know why you spend your time and energy in this tedious and unproductive way. Your argumentative and downright rude attitude is a poor advertisement for your supposed technique of meditation.

 

[doronshadmi]

I appreciate the fine, lyrical style in which you answered my question. Your attention to the crafting of the backstory, particularly, brought a tear to my eye. A frisson thrilled my being.

If you wish more details about my coach/teacher, just ask.

Fix the fundamentals.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566 is such fundamental, and yet you are unable to reply to it.

 

[doronshadmi]

but all you do is insist that your bad analogies must be accepted without alteration or clarification…

This in not true, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

You are also invited to reply to it.

Also please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10184692&postcount=698.

 

[doronshadmi]

This figure is oddly dishonest.

If you are still talking about http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf, I wonder what you think you mean by "10,000 people".

This time really read what I wrote about Orme Johnson's work in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639.

If you do that you will find that the research was done among 6 health insurance groups which are parts of MIC, where each group has approximately 2000 members, where one (SCI insurance group) is the TM group, and the other 5 insurance groups are the control group (called Group business in this research).

So the sum of all people in this 5 years research is approximately 12,000 people. Yet in order to be more humble I reduced it to 10,000 people, and it can be reduced also to 7,000 people, without vanishing the results of this research.

So, this is not about being dishonest, you simply do not understand fundamental facts about Orme Johnson's research.

Cyril Burt's "research" was published in peer-reviewed journals.

And this is the case also about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38360/ , so?

Moreover, you did not reply to my remarks in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176820&postcount=591 about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38360/.

I notice that you continue to avoid my actual questions.

I notice that you continue to avoid http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If you wish more details about my coach/teacher, just ask.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566 is such fundamental, and yet you are unable to reply to it.

You either did not read, or did not understand, or choose to lie to yourself about, my post.

Such are the acts of your "higher consciousness".

 

[Slowvehicle]

This time really read what I wrote about Orme Johnson's work in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639.

From the report:

This field study compared 5 years of medical insurance utilization statistics of approximately
2000 regular participants in the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program with a normative
data base of approximately 600,000 members of the same insurance carrier

This field study compared 5 years of medical insurance utilization statistics of approximately
2000 regular participants in the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program with a normative
data base of approximately 600,000 members of the same insurance carrier

http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf

The blatant dishonesty of your approach makes continuing to bother with you seem less and less rewarding.

 

[doronshadmi]

... the study wherein nowhere appears any mention of, use of, alignment with, or allusion to, "the principle, which is exactly invariant AND variant linkage," as you would have it.

You simply ignore the relevant part about this subject in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639.

 

[doronshadmi]

From the report:


http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf

The blatant dishonesty of your approach makes continuing to bother with you seem less and less rewarding.

It is not a question of dishonesty, you simply do not understand how this research was actually done, and it was done as follows:

There is MIC health insurance with 600,000 to 700,000 customers over 5 years.

There are 6 health insurance groups which are parts of MIC, where each group has approximately 2000 members.

One of these 6 groups is SCI health insurance group that gets members only if they are regularly practicing TM.

The needs for medical care are compared between SCI (also called TM group in that research) and the other five health insurance groups (which are used as the control groups and are called Group business in this research) along 5 years, and by using standard statistical methods it was found (after 5 years of data collection) that SCI members (also called TM group) used less medical care than the other five health insurance groups (which are used as the control groups), according to the following parameters (taken from the report):

When compared with five other health insurance groups of similar size and professional membership, the TM group had 53.3% fewer inpatient admissions per 1000 and 44.4% fewer outpatient visits per 1000. Admissions per 1000 were lower for the TM group than the norm for all of 17 major medical treatment categories, including -55.4% for benign and malignant tumors, -87.3% for heart disease, - 30.4% for all infectious diseases, - 30.6% for all mental disorders, and - 87.3% for diseases of the nervous system. However, the TM group's admissions rates for childbirth were similar to the norm.

(http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf)

 

[Slowvehicle]

You simply ignore the relevant part about this subject in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639.

No. You dishonestly ignore that it is you, and not the study, that provides the interpretation upon which you insist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is not a question of dishonesty, you simply do not understand how this research was actually done, and it was done as follows:

From the report:

This field study compared 5 years of medical insurance utilization statistics of approximately
2000 regular participants in the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program with a normative
data base of approximately 600,000 members of the same insurance carrier

This field study compared 5 years of medical insurance utilization statistics of approximately
2000 regular participants in the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program with a normative
data base of approximately 600,000 members of the same insurance carrier

http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf

 

[doronshadmi]

From the report:


http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf

So now you ignore all of what is written (after the word "follows") in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10184793&postcount=705.

 

[doronshadmi]

No. You dishonestly ignore that it is you, and not the study, that provides the interpretation upon which you insist.

Here is the core of the relevant part, which was taken from http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf , page 494):

Subjective experiences
of a "least excited state of mind,"
also referred to as transcendental consciousness,
are highly correlated with
slowing of respiration and increased EEG
coherence over all frequencies and derivations
(11, 12)

"least excited state of mind" is exactly the invariant calm state of mind, where "increased EEG coherence over all frequencies and derivations, is exactly the impact of the invariant calm state of mind on the variant phenomena on the body.

 

[bruto]

Please this time do not ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10184081&postcount=680 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10184109&postcount=681.

Thank you.

I am not ignoring them. I am disagreeing with them. Here: I just looked at the posts again, and I disagree with them. That is all the detail I need.

Ok, a little more detail: I do not think that life and the meaning of the universe and the importance of things are sanely and usefully expressed by invoking an ancient fable. Foxes and hedgehogs and tarsiers are amusing, occasionally even metaphorically. If you get too serious about them you are crazy.

After all, in your response, you did not acknowledge the content of my post or the relevance of the poem I quoted. By your standards, I should take you to task for ignoring them.

 

[realpaladin]

Here is the core of the relevant part, which was taken from http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/007-psychosomatic_medicine_1987_OrmeJohnson.pdf , page 494):

"least excited state of mind" is exactly the invariant calm state of mind, where "increased EEG coherence over all frequencies and derivations, is exactly the impact of the invariant calm state of mind on the variant phenomena on the body.

No Doron, page 494 does not say that. Don't put quotes around it as if it came from thet page.

And the single word "least" dictates (there is no discussion possible about this) a variance.
("Least" means the lowest possible. <- notice "possible").

But it is all statistically and scientifically insignificant anyway because the sample size (self selected!) is insignificant.
And it was not done blinded or double blinded.

Again, just one (1) experiment where either the experimentor OR the subjects were not practicing TM... there exists none, does there?

Orme - Johnson et. al. are no better than Targ - Puthof.

They are the weakest link. Goodbye!

 

[doronshadmi]

I am not ignoring them. I am disagreeing with them. Here: I just looked at the posts again, and I disagree with them. That is all the detail I need.

Here are the main parts without using hedgehogs or foxes:

The invariant truth is the simplest form of truth, which enables the harmonious complex interactions among variant truths.

By using the word trivial about the invariant truth,

but in the process it becomes less particular, less useful, less relevant, and more trivial

you demonstrate that you still do not distinguish between the non useful pair (trivial,complicated) and the useful pair (simple,complex).

I claim that, so called, useful reality, is not less than the linkage among the simple AND the complex, and we have to do our best in order to develop the linkage among the simple AND the complex, in order to leave a better world for the next generations.

Please explain why you disagree with them.

 

[doronshadmi]

I do not think that life and the meaning of the universe and the importance of things are sanely and usefully expressed by invoking an ancient fable.

The beauty about real useful things is that they are not relevant only for some particular space\time.

 

[realpaladin]

Please explain why you disagree with them.

Invalid statement; trying for a Reductio ad absurdum again.

Back up your claim, don't ask others why it is not true.

 

[realpaladin]

The beauty about real useful things is that they are not relevant only for some particular space\time.

Nothing beautiful in that. The definition of useful has that property built-in.

Stating the obvious again, are we? Trying to get as many posts as possible between the highlighted large letters and the next 'page' in the thread?

 

[doronshadmi]

Quite. You may have noted that the original 'Deeper than Primes' thread had 416 pages, and the continuation had 105 pages. In post #4 of the original thread, Alkatran said:

I'm going to advise people not to respond to this thread. doronshadmi has a history of being totally incomprehensible and his threads always go for dozens of pages without any progress being made.

We were warned.

dlorde, you are the third person in this thread that using hijack methods (instead of dealing with the subjects of this thread) by using other threats ('Deeper than Primes', in this case) in order to support your personal attackes about me, in this thread.

If you have any meaningful thing to say about the considered subjects of this thread, please clearly express it.

Since you have used Alkatran quote, let's examine the validity of his "without any progress being made" argument:

I can talk only about my own progress, and in this case I'll demonstrate how I made a progress after I realized that my metaphors were wrongly addressed:

1) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169084&postcount=506

In this post I realize that I made a mistake by wrongly address my "the unchanged AND the changed" argument.

The mistake in this case was that I used local properties of The Pythagorean Theorem and The Law Of Lever, for example: the fulcrum in case of The Law Of Lever, or the biggest area (usually notated as c²) in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem.

2) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515

In this post the progress of my the unchanged AND the changed argument, was done by address it as the essential properties of mathematical formulas (whether the formula is an equation, an inequality or equation OR inequality).

In order to improve the communication about the discussion on the unchanged AND the changed argument, I tried to restart it (for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566) by using small steps, where the first step was about mathematical equations and my the unchanged AND the changed.

Until this very moment no poster in this thread replied to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566, or in other words, no poster did even a tiny step in order to improve his\her arguments by clearly address his\her criticism about my http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566 argument.

So, I am still waiting for such poster, which will clearly show what is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

The stage is open for any poster, I am really waiting for some valuable criticism

 

[Donn]

So, I am still waiting for such poster, which will clearly show what is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

The stage is open for any poster, I am really waiting for some valuable criticism

Originally Posted by doronshadmi The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.
​

Nothing is wrong with it, per se, it's just trivial to notice that equations equate.

How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
Do you know that there's nothing more under it?
How can you say it's truly invariant?