2 of 3
2
Science/Dawkins vs Religion   - new video—-
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

Well, I think he needs to work on some tact and of course redefine religious abuse just a bit, as well as update his idea about religion being a virus, just a bit.  What I’d like to see is him debate Spong, but Spong says they believe in the same god.  Do they really?  It would be interesting to see how that goes over with Dawkins.  I think they do have a few things to debate.  Both believe in reason and compassion, but can Dawkins get Spong to redefine his human concept of god being the ground of all being, God in Us, love etc?  Or would Dawkins concede and say, “Well if you are talking about God being love and love is God…”  It would be interesting to see what would happen between the two of them.  Would Dawkins dare say that Spong has a virus?  Or would he say Spong is a rational man, but he confuses emotions with what he calls a human concept of God?  See where I’m going with this? The two of them could still debate even if they can agree on several things.  Thus, I say, Dawkins has not totally given up on his Anglican background.  He even appreciates the music and other aspects of it.  I think he is, in some respects, deep down in agreement with those like Spong and would end up conceding any argument and I bet, if we dove into his private life, he is a lot like Robert Price and occassionally still attends the Anglican Church.

Anyone want to set a wager on any of my theories about Dawkins?

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Mriana, I did actually say that it was cruel straight off - reread my post.

Rob, I realise that there is more than one way to skin and torture a cat in buddhism and that America has it’s own weird version of an already nonsensical idea, however buddhists have always said there are no gods. 

Further, Einstein has never been respected for his beliefs in God(s) except, in recent years, by weirdoes and usually as a way of trying to convince sceptics that a belief in pixies isn’t arse.  However, it is. Clearly, it’s a fairy story.  And weirdoes claim this in the erroneous belief that it is a person’s learning of science that causes his or her atheism and that somehow the worthless, unscientific opinions of a great scientist will sway us.  They are worthless.  Anyone’s unsupported and superstitious opinion is.  And in many cases, such as myself, atheism came as soon as we heard that some invisible but also beary man created the world and exists and other such trash.  I was that grown up at six - long before I had even heard of science.  And people’s opinions, unsupported by evidence from any field of logical study (any philosophy, whether it be science, geography or whatever) on any matter, are worthless.  Einstein is respected, rightly, for his brilliant deduction of general relativity and his generalisation of Newtons second law, and his explanation of the photoelectric effect (the thing he won his nobel prize for) and the Stokes-Einstein equation and so on.  These were all evidencial paradigms.  Whereas is belief in a God was just pathetic and weak. 

As to improper physicists (as you appear to be an improper etymologist getting your in’s and im’s wrong), just look at the likes of conquer on this forum.

And I am terribly sorry, but there is no one underlying field that has been proven to exist (and there never will be, although people have been trying for way too long, despite some of them being of an ilk you would expect would have some sense).  And no, unified field theory is about on a par with brane theory, string theory, tacheons and parallel universe theory and anything else that comes out of the back end of a bull.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I don’t think that Dawkins would waste his time talking to Spong.  Spong is irrational and has his hands over his ears shouting there is a god iI’ll redefine him to the point where i’ve got a totally different noun if I have to but there is a god - even if it has to be that god and table are absolutely synonymous and both mean thing that you have in your dining room that you eat off and nothing more it will still be god to me and despite being some mythical rubbish it’ll still be supernatural and spooky to me despite the obvious fact that it’s clearly not and… well you get the picture.  Spong’s a completely closed minded stick with what you’ve been told idiot and there is no way Dawkins would stick around and talk to him for more than five minutes.  If he didn’t shoot the muppet I would praise Dawkins for his humanity and ability to suffer spongs gladly.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02
narwhol - 03 September 2007 06:33 PM

Mriana, I did actually say that it was cruel straight off - reread my post.

I know that.  I was agreeing with you and trying to get you to look at it in another way.  I figured since you said it was cruel, then maybe you could understand it.  Guess not.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
narwhol - 03 September 2007 06:33 PM

.... buddhists have always said there are no gods.

That’s quite a sweeping statement Narwhol. There are many forms of buddhism, including Zen buddhism, stretching back over thousands of years, and many interpretations of the term ‘God’  to its different members. (Buddha, for example, referred to the God Bramha as the one underlying creator of manifest reality).  But anyway, your fixation with Buddhism is misplaced. Yes there were buddhists in my video, but there were also Taoists and other religions portrayed.

Further, Einstein has never been respected for his beliefs in God(s) except, in recent years, by weirdoes and usually as a way of trying to convince sceptics that a belief in pixies isn’t arse.

First you mention “skinning cats”, now Pixies. Your starting to sound like Dawkins ranting wink  Seriously though, where in my post did I (or Einstein) mention ‘pixies’, or an invisible “beary” (sic) man in the sky? My use of the word God was used simply to refer to the underlying intelligence of the universe.  The existence of an underlying field in nature has been accepted by many leading scientists, and those with more open minds have gone further and suggested that the field is in fact consciousness.  [Hameroff, S.R. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1:1, 91. 

And I am terribly sorry, but there is no one underlying field that has been proven to exist (and there never will be…

Thats a big opinion delivered as fact. For a “scientist” you do tend to make some odd statements. Your bold claim reminds me of the “everything that can be invented, has been invented” gaff. Lets have a little more humility here.  How can you predict future events like that? How can you look forward hundreds of years and make such a statement on a public forum about scientific discoveries in the future?  Not only dont you accept numerous well-respected quantum physicists’ findings in the area of superstring theory— that the Unified Field is a purely self-interacting field underlying all matter, but you also deny all possibility of such a field EVER being proven to exist. 

Anyway, this has been an interesting chat NarWhol, and in the end, ‘time will tell’ how it all pans out.  smile

Rob

//////////////////

  “There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don’t know what it’s a plan for”.
      - Fred Hoyle
      English astronomer and mathematician (1915 - 2001)

“If we discover a complete theory, it should be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God”.
- Stephen Hawking  
A Brief History of Time
 
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom”.
- Albert Einstein

“Scientists think in straight, predictable, directable, and therefore misdirectable, lines. The only world they know is the one where everything has a logical explanation and things are what they appear to be [on the surface].  They terrify me.
- James P. Hogan

———-

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 04:49 AM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 04:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 03 September 2007 06:09 PM

Damn, you ARE going to drag me into the discussion.  I agree with a lot of Dawkin’s conclusions, but I think he’s a jerk, a very bright jerk, but still a jerk.  OK, maybe change “jerk” to “demagogue”.  Now I’m done.

Occam

LOL. Nicely put, Occam.

Now you may go wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

A couple of small quibbles:

Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 03:30 AM

Buddha, for example, referred to the God Bramha as the one underlying creator of manifest reality

I don’t think he actually did, I mean, insofar as we can reconstruct what Siddhartha Gautama really said, which is perhaps impossible. (The earliest forms of Buddhist religion appear to be atheistic, and denied the existence of a permanent soul. They followed the Buddha’s early doctrine of “anatta”). One does have to be careful with so called sayings of the Buddha, since the vast majority of them are written by people well after his death attempting to ally Buddhist religion with their own cultic practices.

Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 03:30 AM

The existence of an underlying field in nature has been accepted by many leading scientists, and those with more open minds have gone further and suggested that the field is in fact consciousness.  [Hameroff, S.R. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1:1, 91. 

This is basically pseudoscience. I suggest you watch the Beyond Belief conference of 2006 or read the thread here; Hameroff presented his views on this matter in Session 4 and was unable to respond to a number of very trenchant criticisms. In post #8 of that thread I outline some of the issues with Hameroff’s views. (My (13)).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

I don’t think Buddha actually referred to a god either.  More often than not, the very few Buddhists I know sound atheistic.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 08:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

Hi Doug.

Thanks for your thoughts on this one.

As I mentioned earlier, I think we are in danger in getting bogged down here on the topic of ‘buddhism’, when in fact my video cast a much wider net.  However, I’ll just add a few quotes in response to your points:

“Gautama eventually turned to a life of meditation. While deep in meditation under a fig tree, Gautama experienced the highest degree of God-consciousness called Nirvana (i.e. mental contact with God or the universal life force) 
.... Today there are many sects of Buddhism. Many differ in their concept of the divine and of Buddha. In general, Buddhists are pantheistic in their view of God. Many view God as an impersonal force which is made up of all living things and holds the universe together”.
Ref:  http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html

This is basically pseudoscience.

My reference to the existence of an underlying field in nature being linked to consciousness, is in fact gaining ground within the scientific community. In fact I provided a reference to a well known peer reviewed research paper on this topic *.  So I dont see how you can call it pseudoscience.
Additional links…..
http://consc.net/online3.html#physics
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/StanfordEncyclopediaarticle.htm
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html
http://net.bio.net/bionet/mm/jrnlnote/1994-August/000316.html
  * [Hameroff, S.R. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1:1, 91. 

Sumary - overview

“At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing. But the “classical” world we perceive is definite, with a flow of time. The boundary or edge (quantum state reduction, or ‘collapse of the wave function”) between the quantum and classical worlds somehow involves consciousness”.
Ref:  http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/index.html

Extract:

“We assume that pre-and sub-conscious processing corresponds with quantum coherent superposition which can perform “quantum computing”(Penrose, 1989). A number of authors (e.g. Deutsch, 1985; Deutsch and Josza 1992; Feynman 1986; Benioff, 1982) have proposed that quantum coherence can implement multiple computations simultaneously, in parallel, according to quantum linear superposition: the quantum state then “collapses"to a particular result. A state which “self-collapses”(OR) will have an element of non-computability, even though evolution of its quantum coherence had been linear and computable. A quantum superposed state collapsed by external environment or observation (SR, or R) lacks a non-computable element, and would thus be unsuitable for consciousness. Large scale quantum coherence occurring among tubulins (e.g. via electrons in hydrophobic pockets arrayed in the microtubule lattice, or ordered water within hollow MT cores) could take on aspects of a quantum computer in pre-conscious and sub-conscious modes”.
reF: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Rob

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 10:05 AM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 08:46 AM

As I mentioned earlier, I think we are in danger in getting bogged down here on the topic of ‘buddhism’, when in fact my video cast a much wider net.  However, I’ll just add a few quotes in response to your points:

“Gautama eventually turned to a life of meditation. While deep in meditation under a fig tree, Gautama experienced the highest degree of God-consciousness called Nirvana (i.e. mental contact with God or the universal life force) 
.... Today there are many sects of Buddhism. Many differ in their concept of the divine and of Buddha. In general, Buddhists are pantheistic in their view of God. Many view God as an impersonal force which is made up of all living things and holds the universe together”.
Ref:  http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html

This is not an accurate account of early Buddhism, or indeed of anything like all forms of Buddhist practice today. “God-consciousness” is just a mistranslation, and is inaccurate as to what Nirvana was in early Buddhist practice, or in Theravada Buddhism, or indeed in Tibetan Buddhism.

Buddhists do not believe in a “God” in anything like the standard western sense of the word. The notion of “Buddha nature” shared by certain forms of Mahayana Buddhism is of some form of intelligence that suffuses reality, however it is not all powerful nor perfectly good nor all knowing in the standard sense. It doesn’t judge the good and evil after death. So again, using the capitalized word “God” to refer to this entity is very misleading indeed.

And Theravadins don’t believe in it anyhow. Neither did early Buddhists. Tibetan Buddhists, insofar as they are in fact Madhyamika Buddhists (which basically they are) believe that talk of “Buddha nature” is only true conventionally, that is, not in the ultimate sense.

NB: I note that this passage you quoted was from an organization, Probe Ministries, which claims to be:

a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature.

This doesn’t surprise me, since the misuse of “God” here is precisely what you’d expect of a Christian apologist.

Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 08:46 AM

This is basically pseudoscience.

My reference to the existence of an underlying field in nature being linked to consciousness, is in fact gaining ground within the scientific community. In fact I provided a reference to a well known peer reviewed research paper on this topic *.  So I dont see how you can call it pseudoscience.
Additional links…..
http://consc.net/online3.html#physics
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html
http://net.bio.net/bionet/mm/jrnlnote/1994-August/000316.html
  * [Hameroff, S.R. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1:1, 91. 

This theory is not gaining any ground in the scientific community. Its only substantive believers are Roger Penrose and this guy Stuart Hameroff. From the reactions in that conference, I expect it won’t be gaining any ground soon, since it is a totally inaccurate theory of both consciousness and quantum mechanics. Even the Theist physicist Paul Davies wouldn’t touch it, because it’s just bad physics. I suggest looking at the conference. Both Hameroff’s talk, its Q&A and Davies’s talk are important.

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 10:08 AM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

DougSmith wrote:
Buddhists do not believe in a “God” in anything like the standard western sense of the word.

Sure, but I wasnt thinking in terms of the standard western sense of the word.  But in any case, as I mentioned earlier,
the buddhism issue is a sideline. The main reason I included it in my video was for the meditation/mind link to consciousness.

This [consciousness] theory is not gaining any ground in the scientific community. Its only substantive believers are Roger Penrose and this guy Stuart Hameroff.

It seems to have expanded somewhat since you last looked, Doug…..

Extract:

“Among the more recent followers of consciousness-causes-collapse ...one can find Fred Alan Wolf, William A. Tiller, John Hagelin, Stuart Hameroff, Bernard Baars, Amit Goswami, Russell Targ, Nick Herbert, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Menas Kafatos, and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab in New Jersey.
..., it was John von Neumann, however, who became the first person to hint that quantum theory may imply an active role for consciousness in the process of reality creation. Others, such as Walter Heitler, Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Wigner further carried von Neumann’s argument to a claimed logical conclusion that consciousness-created reality is the inevitable outcome of von Neumann’s picture of quantum theory
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Rob

///////

  “Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible.”
- Werner Heisenberg

——

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 10:54 AM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 10:23 AM

It seems to have expanded somewhat since you last looked, Doug…..

Extract:

“Among the more recent followers of consciousness-causes-collapse ...one can find Fred Alan Wolf, William A. Tiller, John Hagelin, Stuart Hameroff, Bernard Baars, Amit Goswami, Russell Targ, Nick Herbert, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Menas Kafatos, and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab in New Jersey.
..., it was John von Neumann, however, who became the first person to hint that quantum theory may imply an active role for consciousness in the process of reality creation. Others, such as Walter Heitler, Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Wigner further carried von Neumann’s argument to a claimed logical conclusion that consciousness-created reality is the inevitable outcome of von Neumann’s picture of quantum theory
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Er, excuse me, first of all you did a very sly editing of that quote, leaving out a crucial part with the ellipsis. In fact, it says “Among the more recent followers of consciousness-causes-collapse, or other consciousness-based theories, one can find ...” Now I don’t appreciate selective quoting.

So in fact we don’t know how many of these people endorse Hameroff’s stuff.

Also, I would suggest you do some wikipedia clicking on the folks on that list. Fred Alan Wolf, William Tiller, John Hagelin, Amit Goswami, Russell Targ, Nick Herbert, not to mention the Princeton Anomalies Research lab (finally shut down in Feb, 2007) are either pseudoscientists in their own right or interested in parapsychology and other nonsense. Indeed, one might say that this list confirms my claim that this stuff is pseudoscience.

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 11:17 AM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

Doug wrote…
Er, excuse me, first of all you did a very sly editing of that quote, leaving out a crucial part with the ellipsis. In fact, it says “Among the more recent followers of consciousness-causes-collapse, or other consciousness-based theories, one can find ...” Now I don’t appreciate selective quoting.

Hi again Doug.
If you look closely you’ll see that I simply removed the “or other consciousness-based theories” phrase in order to make it more concise and readable, but I then provided a link to the full article, so I clearly wasnt hiding anything.  If I had ineed done some ‘sly editing’ I would have used a comma to join the broken sentence, but instead I ran both together with full stops (...) thus clearly indicating the edit was intended.

So in fact we don’t know how many of these people endorse Hameroff’s stuff.

The very fact that these scientists are into “consciousness-based theories” is good enough for my argument, I dont feel I need to split hairs further, and I made no mention about them endorsing Hameroff’s research.

Also, I would suggest you do some wikipedia clicking on the folks on that list. Fred Alan Wolf, William Tiller, John Hagelin, Amit Goswami, Russell Targ, Nick Herbert, not to mention the Princeton Anomalies Research lab (finally shut down in Feb, 2007) are either pseudoscientists in their own right or interested in parapsychology and other nonsense. Indeed, one might say that this list confirms my claim that this stuff is pseudoscience.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think we have to be very careful here.  Its easy to label anyone not in mainstream research as ‘nonsensical’. Lets not forget Copernicus was accused of being mad for his views of an Earth in daily motion about its axis. Yet it turned out he was at the cutting edge of science at the time.
Likewise, if we start to label the likes of Dr John Hagelin as a “pseudoscientist” then I think the scientific community is in real trouble. As you may know, Hagelin is a well-respected physicist in his field. In 1992, Hagelin was honored with a Kilby International Award* for his work in particle physics leading to the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theories, and for his innovative applications of advanced principles from control systems theory and optimization theory to digital sound reproduction.

Hagelin’s Kilby award stated: 
Hagelin is “a scientist in the tradition of Einstein, Jeans, Bohr, and Eddington,  who has contributed promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory.”

Likewise, the other scientists in the list you mentioned are no doubt just as dedicated to their research, and indeed many will no doubt be more qualified than you or I to discuss these issues. 

Surely open-mindedness is a pre-requisite for scientific study and debate?  If Werner Heisenberg and others are correct about the implications of consciousness and the unified field, then it seems evident that we need to greatly expand our current ideas about what is and what isnt ‘nonsense’ in our current limited world view.

Cheers again for your valued input.

Rob

///////////////

* John Hagelin
Research and Awards

In the years 1979-1995, Hagelin published seventy papers in the fields of particle physics and cosmology.[6] This work includes the so-called “flipped SU(5), heterotic superstring theory,” which he developed in collaboration with CERN researchers John Ellis, D.V. Nanopoulus, and others. The theory is considered one of the more successful unified field theories or “theories of everything,” evoking mention of a possible Nobel Prize.[2] Hagelin’s papers include some of the most frequently cited references in the physical sciences.[7] [3] As a result of this work, in 1992 Hagelin received the Kilby Award awarded to “individuals who make extraordinary contributions to society through science, technology, innovation, invention and education.” [8] The award states Hagelin is “a scientist in the tradition of Einstein, Jeans, Bohr, and Eddington”, (award citation read May 9,1992, Dallas, Texas) who has contributed “promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory.”

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin

Ref: http://www.kilby.org/kl_past_laureates.html

——

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 12:52 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 01:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 12:28 PM

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think we have to be very careful here.  Its easy to label anyone not in mainstream research as ‘nonsensical’. Lets not forget Copernicus was accused of being mad for his views of an Earth in daily motion about its axis. Yet it turned out he was at the cutting edge of science at the time.

It’s the tactic of every crackpot to compare themselves to Copernicus and Galileo.

Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 12:28 PM

Likewise, if we start to label the likes of Dr John Hagelin as a “pseudoscientist” then I think the scientific community is in real trouble. As you may know, Hagelin is a well-respected physicist in his field. In 1992, Hagelin was honored with a Kilby International Award* for his work in particle physics leading to the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theories, and for his innovative applications of advanced principles from control systems theory and optimization theory to digital sound reproduction.

From Wikipedia, Hagelin is “Professor of Physics, Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management, and Minister of Science and Technology of the Global Country of World Peace”, the latter being a society that appears to be affiliated with the Maharishi as well, judging from its website. Hagelin is interested in “Vedic science” (that is, science according to the ancient Hindu texts) according to one of the articles posted there on him, and one of his (very few) papers listed in Wikipedia is titled: “Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington D.C.”

In other words, he appears a right loon, at least when it comes to matters of consciousness. As a straight physicist he may be a perfectly decent fellow, although he’s clearly working at a school that has no professional standing whatever.

Again, if this is the caliber of people one can scare up on this topic, I’d say it’s a dead field.

Rob2007 - 04 September 2007 12:28 PM

Surely open-mindedness is a pre-requisite for scientific study and debate? If Werner Heisenberg and others are correct about the implications of consciousness and the unified field, then it seems evident that we need to greatly expand our current ideas about what is and what isnt ‘nonsense’ in our current limited world view.

Werner Heisenberg may not have been a particularly careful philosopher, but he never believed this rot.

As for open mindedness, of course we all must have open minds—but not so open that our brains fall out.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2007 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

It’s the tactic of every crackpot to compare themselves to Copernicus and Galileo.

I was expecting a more enlightened response there, Doug. Not this old chestnut.  But in any case, I never mentioned Galileo.

From Wikipedia ...Hagelin is interested in “Vedic science” (that is, science according to the ancient Hindu texts) according to one of the articles posted there on him, and one of his (very few) papers listed in Wikipedia is titled: “Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington D.C.”
In other words, he appears a right loon, at least when it comes to matters of consciousness.

Tsk.Tsk. There you go again wink labelling scientists as ‘loons’ etc simply because they arent in the mainstream or because they dont fit in with our world view.  But think about it, wouldnt it make sense to Hagelin - being the gifted physicist that you now seem to imply he is - to use his talents in more cutting edge areas of consciousness in this way? i.e. in schools and meditation groups where theories on consciousness could be used in practice to try and improve health and the environment. 

You rightly mentioned the crime study in Washington D.C.  How fascinating that someone would want to try a scientific approach to reducing crime using group meditation (a collective group of calm minds to quell the stress). It certainly makes a change from the tired old political solutions to crime problems etc. 

In fact, I actually participated in this group experiment to reduce crime in Washington DC in 1993.  I was one of the 4,000 participants from around the world who came to DC on that groundbreaking scientific study to reduce crime.
The startling thing was, that a 27-member independent Project Review Board - consisting of sociologists and criminologists from leading universities, representatives from the police department and government of the District of Columbia, and civic leaders - approved in advance the research protocol for the project and monitored its progress throughout the 8-week crime reduction experiment. 

I also distinctly recall the chief of police saying to us via a video link, that he commended our attempts to reduce crime in this manner, but that the only way we would significantly reduce crime in the hot summer of 1993 in DC was if we could make it snow.  We laughed of course (it was a good joke), but… by the end of the 7-week experiment the crime rate in Washington DC was down allright. In fact the maximum decrease was 23.3% when the size of the group was largest during the final week of the project. The statistical probability that this result could reflect chance variation in crime levels was less than 2 in 1 billion (p < .000000002). When a longer baseline is used (1988–1993 data), the maximum decrease was 24.6% during this period (p < .00003).  Job done, and very relaxing it was too wink
Ref:  http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/

As a straight physicist he may be a perfectly decent fellow, although he’s clearly working at a school that has no professional standing whatever.

Have you visited the school then? Sounds like a great idea to have pupils settling their minds with meditation before class.
And the academic results are pretty startling too >

The International Herald Tribune *
“International Education: Meditation helps students”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/opinion/rmed.php

CBS News
Better Grades By Meditating
http://cbs2chicago.com/health/local_story_071005948.html

Again, if this is the caliber of people one can scare up on this topic, I’d say it’s a dead field.

Hmmm. Time will tell, wont it?

Out of interest. May I ask what your caliber is? i.e. what field are you in? Awards won etc?

Cheers again, Rob
—-

The International Herald Tribune *
“International Education: Meditation helps students”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/opinion/rmed.php

Extract:

NEW YORK: New research appears to be strengthening the case for teaching transcendental meditation in U.S. schools, showing it to be a means to improve the concentration of students and a way to enhance their physical and mental well-being.

Proponents say that students who meditate daily are calmer, less distracted and less stressed and less prone to violent behavior.

A study conducted at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, Georgia, which will be published in the April issue of the American Journal of Hypertension, found that transcendental meditation reduced high blood pressure in African-American teenagers. The study tracked 156 inner-city black adolescents in Augusta, Georgia, with elevated blood pressures. Those who practiced 15 minutes of transcendental meditation twice daily steadily lowered their daytime blood pressures over four months compared to non-meditating teens who participated in health education classes and experienced no significant change.

——ends———

[ Edited: 04 September 2007 02:41 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2