I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Pixel42]

I have had the full instructions and am, as opposed to Doron, a 'certified' Yogic Flyer. (The reasons for me having had all of this education go beyond the scope of this forum).
However, I am not affiliated to nor am I still practicing TM. I do get the newsletters though...

I even have been to the MOU in Fairfield Iowa. So I know exactly what goes on there.

And I have been to Vlodrop where they still employed slaves(!) (That became a good news item on Dutch Television...)

And finally, I personally know the current Minister of Peace (i.e. the current head honcho).

Whilst they are all nice and forthcoming people, not a single one could show me anything that I could not do or think of.

The Maharishi was quite unknown and unpopular in India until the Beatles came and smoked some Ganja with him; then his movement took off.

The practices in TM are nothing special when compared to any other meditation technique, not even at the most advanced stage.

The so-called personal mantra's are just age-based and can be found on the Internet anyway (just look up your age when you are at the point that you become 'initiated' and you have your mantra).

The whole idea of TM is that the 'everything' is just a manifestation of the one single thing 'existence' and that by transcending you can become one again with all the other things (which are just manifestations of the same unified 'thing').

Transcending in TM is 'achieved' by switching off or removing all artefacts of your specific manifestation, thereby reducing yourself to the core 'existence' and leaving behind all the cumbersome interactions that your manifestation needs to have with other manifestations.

This is about as short as I can make the explanation.

Now, in *all* of my discussions, nobody could ever show me *anything* someone(!) could achieve that could not have been achieved without TM. But, and here is where the cultist aspect comes into play, most people say they achieve things they(!) themselves never could have achieved without TM.

As for science in TM. That's laughable; every single mistake and every kind of Diederik Stapel style fraud that you can think of is employed to give it some semblance of science.

But then again, cults are just like spam (there is an awesome research paper by Microsoft on spam that explains the psychology behind the spam content); they are not even trying to convince intelligent people, in fact they try to keep those away. Cults try to get people that are broken in some respect and use just enough 'sciency' talk and 'facts and figures' that nobody can or wants to verify to get their victims to confabulate themselves into supporting the cult.

Having said that, TM is a rather benign cult in that it teaches people to be happy one must work hard (and give 10% of your income to the Maharishi's family), be nice, live healthy and become wealthy (and give 10% of your savings to the Maharishi's family). So most TM practicioners I know are doing pretty well in their lives and are quite happy.

But not one (1) person, and that includes the Maharishi (and all his predecessors, because Mahesh was just a follow-up guy) have been able to demonstrate transcendence or extraordinary knowledge.

But maybe someone can repeat this to Doron, because he 'ignores' me:

Doron, if you really think TM will enable you to get to unity... why not enlist and practice it? In the whole of 7 years, you only talked *about* it, but never tried it.

A genuinely informative post; thanks.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nothing is effortless except death.

This is a typical conclusion of a person that is not aware of the effortless nature of his own thoughts process.

But it is not sourced, which makes it difficult to verify. Anyone can claim anything.

These claims are based on careful scientific researches, that were published in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 40 years.

Here are some recent examples (which are not related only to TM):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12316/pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12261/pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12187/pdf

http://skepticsontm.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/review-skeptics-dictionary.html

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/TMResearch/ComparisonofTechniques/index.cfm

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/TMResearch/index.cfm

------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation is not consistent, for example:

It starts by criticizing the quality of scientific research of all types of meditations:

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies involving five broad categories of meditation: mantra meditation, mindfulness meditation, yoga, T'ai chi, and Qigong, and included all studies on adults through September 2005, with a particular focus on research pertaining to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and substance abuse.

The report concluded, "Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." (p. 6) It noted that there is no theoretical explanation of health effects from meditation common to all meditation techniques.[1]

A version of this report subsequently published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine stated that "Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed".

Then it supports Mindfulness meditation, as follows:

Mindfulness

A 2013 metastudy of mindfulness meditation found moderately improved anxiety and depression.[16] Another study showed higher mindfulness and reduced stress correlated with the number of days meditated per week.[17]

A 2003 meta-analysis found that Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) may be broadly useful for individuals attempting to cope with clinical and nonclinical problems. Diagnoses for which MBSR was found to be helpful included chronic pain, fibromyalgia, cancer patients and coronary artery disease. Improvements were noted for both physical and mental health measures.[18]

Then it again criticizes TM but on the same time states that "other meditation techniques [techniques that are not TM, for example: mindfulness meditation] are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time", as seen here:

A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association evaluated the evidence for the effectiveness of TM as a treatment for hypertension as "unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well-established" [not supported by any citation], and stated: "Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials... other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time.

The main failure of this Wiki page, is actually derived from the failure of the 2007 research of the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta do define "a common theoretical perspective" for all types of meditation (as appears in this article):

"Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results."

Actually the poor methodological quality is the problem of this article, exactly because there is no common basis (theoretical or practical) between Focused Attention techniques (concentration meditation), Open Monitoring techniques (midfulness meditation) or Automatic Self-Transcending techniques (transcendental meditation).

So these is no wonder the meta-analysis that has been done in 2007 at the University of Alberta, actually does not provide meaningful conclusions about meditation in general, or about TM in particular.

----------------------

 

[Aepervius]

And what lies beyond the edge of vision?

Same as with normal vision :a lot of stuff blurry that your brain interpret/misinterpret, but is the same as what is centered on your vision. But because it is blurry people make up a lot of unsupported woo for it since they can get away with it.

 

[doronshadmi]

A genuinely informative post; thanks.

If a person tries some technique that does not have any effect on him\her, he\she probably stop doing it.

But there are persons that think that anything that does not work for them, does not work for the rest of the world.

As for TM, this is my view:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10404672&postcount=816

 

[Pixel42]

If a person tries some technique that does not have any effect on him\her, he\she probably stop doing it.

But there are persons that think that anything that does not work for them, does not work for the rest of the world.

That is not a fair summary of realpaladin's post.

As for TM, this is my view:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10404672&postcount=816

I have read your posts and found them to be almost entirely information free, which is why realpaladin's genuinely informative post was such a welcome change.

 

[Belz...]

This is a typical conclusion of a person that is not aware of the effortless nature of his own thoughts process.

Circular reasoning. Do you not have to calm yourself and such in order to meditate, and is this not an effort ?

Anyway, still waiting for some sort of evidence. Until then, you lose.

 

[realpaladin]

If a person tries some technique that does not have any effect on him\her, he\she probably stop doing it.

But there are persons that think that anything that does not work for them, does not work for the rest of the world.

Again, I never said such a thing. I said:

Not one (1) person, including the Maharishi was able to demonstrate(!) anything that I could not do or anyone else could do without TM.

Nothing. Nobody. *That* is what you must disprove.

And as for the articles and "science claims". Come on! We have rehashed this in the other thread to death.

Each(!) and every(!) one of those has been proven false or fraudulent by either me or JSFisher or someone else who all have taken time to show that the so-called peers were also TM advocates.

We have read through everything you now bring to bear again here and proven it false.

The fact that you just restate it does not make it suddenly true again.

There is absolutely nobody outside the TM-movement that has ever reviewed and OK-ed *any* of that work. And you already know this because that is one of the reasons you now 'ignore' me.

 

[Nonpareil]

This rationale doesn't negate a "soul" directly.

Only because there is no coherent definition given for "soul".

[aside, I have to agree, in terms of emphasis, with Belz on your use of rational and likewise coherent. I know what you mean in your useage but they may turn out to be a sledge hammer to crack a nut and I wouldn't want it to be my nut(or nuts) under the hammer, when it happens]

Yes, it was a clumsy example and my wording was probably poor. It isn't something I've tried to put into words before and I may have made some mistakes. Regardless, it isn't really relevant here.

I am not addressing qualia, I see not requirement for them(indeed I don't know what all the fuss is about). I am addressing "experience" and "subject", both requiring a me.

As I've stated previously, we don't know how this happens, but we still know it's material.

The squishy bit provides the life, the animus, the me.

There is absolutely no evidence for this. Not for the last of the three, anyway. Of course the organic matter is the source of life, but nowhere has it been shown that life (in the metabolic sense) is a requirement for a "me". "Animus" lacks a coherent definition, so I'm not going to touch on that.

Again, all that we know is that brains are a requirement for consciousness - meaning consciousness as generally understood.

Are you saying that we know other people are conscious because they exhibit intelligence?

We know other people are conscious because they behave in every way exactly as though they are.

I think you are referring here to your comments on PZ's.

Not exactly. My comments on p-zombies follow from this, but this is true independently of whether or not you agree with my summary on that subject.

This does not follow, the perfection we experience might only be a local phenomena.

Then we have the second problem of idealism, which is that it is irrational and will remain that way until evidence is put forth.

Until that time, materialism is the only rational conclusion.

I don't see the relevance.

If there is not and can never be evidence for idealism, then there is no reason to give it any consideration, any more than you would consider the idea that gravity doesn't actually exist and it's all just invisible leprechauns moving things around in such a way that it looks like gravity.

To argue otherwise is the special pleading fallacy.

There is an assumption in there, this line is irrelevant given my definition of consciousness.

Which has not been shown to be a prerequisite for consciousness as generally understood, and still isn't relevant given that one could imagine that p-zombies are alive.

Simply assuming that p-zombies are machines and therefore are automatically not conscious is circular reasoning.

Well, I am no expert on western idealism, but it strikes me as obvious that all circumstances in this world including human thinking and its results fail to negate the possibility of idealism.

They also don't negate the possibility of gravity leprechauns. But it remains true that, by any functional definition of the word "is", the universe is not idealistic in nature.

It also remains true that, even if idealism is technically coherent, it is not rational.

 

[Belz...]

But dude. Seriously. This is turning into a ridiculous derail about something that I have admitted was a clumsy example and which is not my main point. If you want to continue this, let's take it to another thread, because it is burying the actual discussion in hand here.

 

[turingtest]

In that case, why you don't reply also about Belz's diagram, you know, just for the sake of consistency about your approach to diagrams?


By "some TM" do you mean an effortless technique as very clearly introduced in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3AnD2QbIg ?

And what exactly is the meaning of "once" in your reply?


Where exactly in my diagram I define the 1-dimesional element (whether it is straight or not) as a composition of segments (in other words, you totally have missed it and also its "without loss of generality" meaning)?

Still haven't quite got a grasp on that whole "irony" concept, have you?

 

[doronshadmi]

That is not a fair summary of realpaladin's post.

For a person that calls you baboon if you disagree with his replies, this is a fair summary. Because of his aggression this person is in my ignore list.

I have read your posts and found them to be almost entirely information free, which is why realpaladin's genuinely informative post was such a welcome change.

Well you can always claim that some person's gossips, which are based on shallow analysis and lies (for example: "the Beatles came and smoked some Ganja with him" (and this is more or less the value of the rest of his post as appears in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419591&postcount=981)) is more informative than novel ideas that in order to be understood you at least have to ask some questions about them.

Another example of the value of the information that is provided by this poster: "The practices in TM are nothing special when compared to any other meditation technique" (that is based, of course, on his "professional researches" on this topic).

You can compare his "professional researches" on this topic to http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/tmresearch/comparisonoftechniques/index.cfm.

This is an example of how this person comes to conclusions without any basis: "Doron, if you really think TM will enable you to get to unity... why not enlist and practice it? In the whole of 7 years, you only talked *about* it, but never tried it."

The simple fact is this: I practice it since 1976 including TM-Sidhis (since 1979).

Moreover, I do not agree with some aspects of the TM as a movement, I am not a member of this movement and I think that the TM technique must not be a property of any movement, must be learned for free, and has to be researched and developed by rigorous scientific methods beyond its current state.

As for his claim that all the 600 researches that were done on TM for the past 40 years are wrong (just because they where conducted by scientists that also practice TM) his claim is similar to the claim that the LHC and the discovery of Higgs boson is a fraud that was done by physicists in order to support the standard model of Physics.

Furthermore, there are scientific researches that did not conducted by scientists that also practicing TM, for example:

http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf

And here is their conclusion about TM: it "supporting the previous interpretations of meditation as a fourth major state of consciousness, the restful alertness state".

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you not have to calm yourself and such in order to meditate

No, calmness is very naturally achieved during TM practice.

Fore more details, please look at the Three Types of Meditation: http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/tmresearch/comparisonoftechniques/index.cfm

 

[Belz...]

No, calmness is very naturally achieved during TM practice.

Doron, please stop talking about anything. You clearly don't know squat about any topic at all.

 

[Nonpareil]

Doron, please stop talking about anything. You clearly don't know squat about any topic at all.

I think this was pretty solidly established when he revealed his "proof" for Unity - whatever that is - consisted of slapping the words "Unity", "materialism" and "idealism" on a binary tree and claiming that it proved... something.

But I'm perfectly fine with him continuing to talk. Like ctamblyn said, it's fascinating in a weird kind of way.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, please stop talking about anything. You clearly don't know squat about any topic at all.

(reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) isn't it dear Belz...?

 

[Belz...]

(reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) isn't it dear Belz...?

Yes. What is the contradiction you see there ?



Hint: the two "100%" don't mean the same thing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes. What is the contradiction you see there ?



Hint: the two "100%" don't mean the same thing.

Hint: "Anything" means that one can't exclude materialism.

Therefore (reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) is a contradiction.

 

[LarryS]

We would then have to have a superior state to evaluate the more superior state and so on ad infinitum.

That is my point . . . so we state the world is material as a concession to our not being able to verify it.

 

[Belz...]

Hint: "Anything" means that one can't exclude materialism.

Therefore (reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) is a contradiction.

Sorry, I don't think you know what "contradiction" means.

The claim that 100% of reality is material is based on the totality of current observations. It isn't an indication of certainty, and therefore there is no contradiction.

 

[Belz...]

That is my point . . . so we state the world is material as a concession to our not being able to verify it.

In a way. It's a tentative conclusion based on current knowledge. It is irrational to reach a conclusion based on knowledge you do not and cannot have.