The Metaphysical Consciousness

[realpaladin]

Useful contribution?

I am still waiting for just one (1) research where either the researcher or the subjects are not practicing TM.

As it stands, none of Doron's input in this thread is better than the Targ-Puthoff disaster of which the research was done by Stanford and the results appeared in Nature.
Both a lot more reputable than MU and the Psychosomatic Journal thingy.

And we all know what frauds they turned out to be.

To be admitted as a proper research with results that count, an experiment should go a little something like this:

- The researchers only get to see double blinded data (i.e. EEC diagrams, bloodpressure diagrams).
- The subjects are randomly selected by a random number generator.
- The subjects can be just relaxing, active, reading a book, watching a movie, meditating non-TM style and meditating TM style.
- The researchers then, again double blinded, group the results into 'better results', 'average results' and 'worse results'.
- After that is done, the activities are labeled onto the subjects.

And then, and only then, we can see if TM has any worth.

All other variants of research are utterly worthless with regards to claims like Targ-Puthoff and Transcendental Meditation etc...

So, Doron, got any results like these? I am waiting!

And don't ignore this post, because as you said so pompously yourself: "ANY POSTER".

I qualify.

 

[doronshadmi]

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

Your reply did not say anything about the unchanged AND changed aspects of equations.

Do you agree that the unchanged aspect is the equality, where the changed aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides, in the case of equations?

 

[Donn]

- The subjects can be just relaxing, active, reading a book, watching a movie, meditating non-TM style and meditating TM style.

Or just watching cat videos - which apparently is also relaxing!


Oh, and in case Doron hasn't seen it:

And don't ignore this post, because as you said so pompously yourself: "ANY POSTER".

I qualify.

 

[Donn]

Your reply did not say anything about the unchanged AND changed aspects of equations.

Yes it did. I said equality is equal. Big deal Doron.

Do you agree that the unchanged aspect is the equality, where the changed aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides?

As I've already said — If a formula proves accurate it will not change. If the symbols used to write it remain the same, it will not change. If the human-race does not go extinct and all their written works do not crumble, then it will not change.

So, three ifs and I'd be happy to call the formula an unchanged aspect.

So what?

You want this unchanged idea to be all important. Also, you ignored my other questions.

 

[doronshadmi]

As I've already said — If a formula proves accurate it will not change.

I am not talking about any particular equation, but about the unchanged AND changed as two aspects of all equations, such that even if both sides are changed the equality is unchanged.

Do you agree that unchanged AND changed are aspects of all equations?

 

[Donn]

I am not talking about any particular equation, but about the unchanged AND changed as two aspects of all equations, such that even if both sides are changed the equality is unchanged.

Do you agree that unchanged AND changed are aspects of all equations?

Geez, Doron, I've said yes over and over again.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And,
So What?

 

[doronshadmi]

Geez, Doron, I've said yes over and over again.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And,
So What?

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10185953&postcount=723 your reply was not clear about that because you have mentioned only the unchanged aspect.

So, we have your yes about mathematical equations, which means that you agree that unchanged AND changed are common property of The Law Of Lever AND The Pythagorean Theorem equations.

Am I right?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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?

Wot?

These words here?

But it is all statistically and scientifically insignificant anyway because the sample size (self selected!) is insignificant.

 

[asydhouse]

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.

Reply to what? That's just you persisting with drawing false equivalences between levers and Pythagorean theorem. Rather proving my point.

You should pay attention when people point out the flaws in analogies that you yourself do not understand. Persisting in wrong concepts when others who know what you are mangling point out the fault…well, it shows an unwillingness to respect your companions in discussion, and a pig-headedness which does not show your mind in a good light.

Same with your other link. It's all just more of the same. You put an emoticon in your earlier implication that I was attacking you, when you transformed my "ribbons and garlands" into "barbed wire". That emoticon was a warrior with a club thrashing all around as if to fend off a horde of wolves. Is that how you see yourself?

You have created that situation by your failure to converse in a clear and responsive manner at the start. You've dug a pit for yourself, and nobody really cares anymore. You've become a lost cause.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's just you persisting with drawing false equivalences between levers and Pythagorean theorem.

Please support your claim.

You should pay attention when people point out the flaws in analogies

So please air your view and clearly point out the flaws in analogies of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

that you yourself do not understand.

Please support your claim.

 

[Donn]

So, we have your yes about mathematical equations, which means that you agree that unchanged AND changed are common property of The Law Of Lever AND The Pythagorean Theorem equations.

Am I right?

Heh, you are one frustrating person. Did my yes confuse you?

YES an equation, any equation, shows unchanged and changed properties.

Also, newsflash, words are spelled with unchanging letters and their meanings sometimes change.

Also, stop the press, music is noted by unchanging notation, but the sounds they represent can change.


Now, I am done playing your game. Answer some of my questions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Heh, you are one frustrating person. Did my yes confuse you?

YES an equation, any equation, shows unchanged and changed properties.

Also, newsflash, words are spelled with unchanging letters and their meanings sometimes change.

Also, stop the press, music is noted by unchanging notation, but the sounds they represent can change.


Now, I am done playing your game. Answer some of my questions.

 

[asydhouse]

<snip>

I'll demonstrate how I made a progress after I realized that my metaphors were wrongly addressed:

<snip>

"After you realised"!

How many pages did it take for you to grudgingly acknowledge what was being said from the outset about your wrong or poorly formulated analogies?


And the subsequent reformulation was no better.

Had you simply worked with your fellows in this discussion thread to make your meanings clear, you would have abandoned your faulty analogy and actually discussed the issues: the actuality of your experience, the properly sourced and grounded interpretations of those experiences, and the acknowledgement that no properly designed research into TM exists.

The fact that you don't acknowledge that last point invalidates all your pseudo-scholasticism in harping on about the links to unscientific "studies".

You've been told they aren't valid, and why, and yet you persist.

The whole thread is a charade!

And boring, so I won't bother saying anymore. I've tried to help, believe it or not, with my comments. But you are too married to arguing to communicate.

 

[doronshadmi]

The fact that you don't acknowledge that last point invalidates all your pseudo-scholasticism in harping on about the links to unscientific "studies".

Please support your claim.

You've been told they aren't valid, and why, and yet you persist.

I have been told by people who don't understand these two researches, and all they are doing is to write notes that are irrelevant of how these two researches were actually done in order to be considered as scientifically valid.

The whole thread is a charade!

And boring, so I won't bother saying anymore. I've tried to help, believe it or not, with my comments. But you are too married to arguing to communicate.

Please support your claims by really reply to the contents of my posts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Answer some of my questions.

Please write the links to these questions.

Thank you.

 

[Donn]

I will ask them and then keep posting the same questions until I'm happy they are answered. I'll grey them out as they are, but will keep them all repeated to group them.

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

 

[realpaladin]

I have been told by people who don't understand these two researches, and all they are doing is to write notes that are irrelevant of how these two researches were actually done in order to be considered as scientifically valid.

This should be nominated for a stundie... on the site of James Randi, defending experiments that were done with the exact same flaws as the Targ-Puthoff experiments.

In case you missed it; Targ and Puthoff were 'unmasked' by James Randi in the late 1970's as doing extremely bad science.
It is in the book "Flim Flam" by Randi.
And now Doron is defending experiments/research done with the exact same flaws...

How funny is that?

 

[Donn]

Oh yes, those funny muppets! Sad science.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This should be nominated for a stundie... on the site of James Randi, defending experiments that were done with the exact same flaws as the Targ-Puthoff experiments.

In case you missed it; Targ and Puthoff were 'unmasked' by James Randi in the late 1970's as doing extremely bad science.
It is in the book "Flim Flam" by Randi.
And now Doron is defending experiments/research done with the exact same flaws...

How funny is that?

It is as entertaining as explaining to a rube how three-card monte works.

BTW, I admire (and will borrow) your "in on the joke" term.

 

[realpaladin]

Ooh, I almost forgot; TM and their research is also made short work off in Flim Flam.

For those of you who want to read it (legally, as the ebook is easily to be found on them Interwebs):

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=43_151&products_id=1001

EDIT: The Kindle edition on Amazon is just shy of $9,-