|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.236.226.173
In Reply to: RE: Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks posted by Tony Lauck on February 14, 2013 at 09:31:03
Does yoga improve the sound? Just curious what yoga has to do with the price of spinach.
Edits: 02/14/13Follow Ups:
coming from someone who supposedly has read through the PWB website
I'm from Missouri. Show me where yoga is mentioned anywhere on the PWB web site. I dare you.
Yoga is using the physical to enhance a particular frame of mind. Maybe what you wrote on Tweaks is true: You really can't understnd the Eastern philosophies.
But then your cognitive reasoning skills have always been in severe doubt.
with your keen insighst to PWB concepts from an Eastern point of view you need only to bring up Masaru Emoto, who has a long and distinguished career studying written messages' influence on water ice crystal formation. You know, mind-matter interaction.
That you were unable to provide any mention of yoga on the PWB web site is duly noted.
desperately looking for approval.
Check the title of the thread: biofeedback. Jeez if you can't make the connection between Yoga and biofeedback, you are totally lost....
I've read Emoto, BTW. and I would suggest you go back and read him again. He has a couple of books out, IIRC, BTW....
Also I have absolutely no desire to impress you, but I do notice you bandy about names and philosophies like you actually understand them, when the reality is that you seem to know squat:
Did you even know that Bohm at the latter part of his life was a near disciple of Khrishnamurti? I wouldn't call him a disciple because Bohm was too smart to be that, but if you think Krishnamurti's philosophy was related to Feng shui, it simply displays the depth of your ignorance.
LOL !
Better go back and read the OP again. The OP suggests biofeedback for measuring certain tweaks. You know, the kind of tweaks that always seem to give you a giant case of the ass.You've read Emoto and Bohm and the PWB website. You just didn't understand them. Isn't that really the most important part? Smiley face
Tony, who brought up yoga, thought we were talking about acoustic waves. Lol
Edits: 02/14/13
And sucks BIG time. You're just lucky most posters are way more polite than you deserve.
PWB suggests that many tweaks work upon the human organism: very much akin to biofeedback. OP suggests that using biofeedback measurements could determine the viability of certain tweaks. However, since certain practices, including yoga, can alter the biological factors of the individual, that would compromise the testing procedure.
QED.
And FWIW, May has been a strong proponent of the external influences of possible environmental factors (chemical, for example) affecting the individual perception. She has long proclaimed the information is already in the stored format and these influences (tweaks, that is) can simply clear the human perception, if I read her correctly.
Sheesh! You drop names like you actually read their writings, when the truth is your apparent knowledge isn't worth diddly. You certainly like to maintain that illusion however false that may be.
I believe Tony understands far more than you do
"I believe Tony understands far more than you do"
No comment. I don't want to become collateral damage. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, you know far more than I do about yoga.
Here you are lecturing me on PWB when you have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to accept any of the arguments presented by May over the years, choosing instead to cling to your outdated belief there MUST be some conventional explanation to what May says and what PWB says on their web site. Prime suspect - RFI/EMI. You see RFI/EMI behind every rock."If I read her correctly..." -- that's hilarious! You haven't read anything she said correctly. Let me remind you of your profound insights for Crystals and clocks: "They channel RFI." "They wick away RFI." Hahahaah!
If you are now rejecting all of your previous arguments in favor of May's explanations, let me know. But I suspect you are just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest.
Edits: 02/15/13 02/15/13
I pointed out that YOU are not being consistent with your support of PWB. That I understand what May has been saying reveals that I, at least, read and ponder about what she has to say. That I do not accept her explanations does not mean that I do not understand what she is attempting to put forth. You, on the other hand, have put forth such outlandish "explanations" that even PWB does not support them, or , at least, I have never seen any substantiation in print.The fact that you can not comprehend what is written on the Asylum further substantiates my claim. You simply have been jumping to conclusions not substantiated by the written word, avoiding any support for your outlandish claims, and simply accusing everyone else of the errors in logic that YOU commit. When cornered, you simply avoid the issue at hand and write insults, trying to provoke the OP.
That's a real mature attitude and the true reflection of a self proclaimed "rocket scientist", LOL!
I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics.
In the case of David Bohm, I have already read a biography plus the book Synchronicity by F. David Peat, a long time collaborator with Bohm. Sheldrake, incidentally occupies only a few pages in the book and is pretty much discounted by Peat.
Peat is also co editor with B. Hiley in the book titled Quantum Implications, essays in honour of David Bohm. This is a fascinating compilation and includes essays, including the mathematics, from diverse people such as Feynman ( Negative probabilities), Prigogine, Bell, Penrose and a total of 30 respected men of science.
I may not believe in Sheldrake or his theory, but it doesn't mean I avoid reading up about him and his so called collaborator Bohm (your implication, and apparently far from the actual reality).
A working knowledge of an opposing view point does not constitute support or acceptance. It merely indicates a willingness to understand what the opposition is attempting to say.
Too bad I can't say the same for you, or rather, that you can't display the same attitude.
Edits: 02/15/13
You really do think you know everything.Reminds me a little of Firesign Theater's, "How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're not Anywhere at All."
You wrote,
"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."
Our old friend the Backfire Effect rears its ugly head. It's always nice to hear from you folks out there that know all the ins and outs of modern physics. Cough, cough. I assume you're referring to such choice facets of modern physics as channeling RFI with magnets and wicking away RFI with crystals. Cough, cough
You wrote,
"In the case of David Bohm, I have already read a biography plus the book Synchronicity by F. David Peat, a long time collaborator with Bohm. Sheldrake, incidentally occupies only a few pages in the book and is pretty much discounted by Peat."
Someone discounted Sheldrake? Gee, color me shocked. You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Bohm was a judge of the panel of experts for the Contest that proved Morphic Resonce is real. You probably just blanked out temporarily.
Edits: 02/15/13
You mean the very contest that Sheldrake later refutes ? Did you miss the part where I stated that F. David Peat worked with Bohm and even collaborated on a book with Bohm? Yeah, the man has no credibility since he only worked with Bohm for many years in Ottawa.
hahahahahahahaha.....
You may, for just once, attempt reading the material your favorites write as you are a most pristine example of the backfire effect in action: not even bothering to read the view points of the opposition. If I don't know, I do research and sometimes even experimentation when possible.
Again, I never claimed I know all, just having read a bit more than you do, but then reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suite is it?
hahahahahahahaha
Let me know when Sheldrake refutes Morphic Resonance? Who cares if he refuted the contest, if that's even true? It's not like it was HIS contest.
Edits: 02/15/13
A,B,C,D,E,F, G, that's how the alphabet starts....A couple posts up you refer to the contest that Bohm judged which supposedly "proved" Morphic resonance. This is the very same experiment which Sheldrake, himself, has written about later and has stated is flawed and therefore not applicable.
The very same experiment that I pointed out has severe flaws in its base suppositions although the full details were not clearly available initally to me (I had to look it up and even then details of the exact nature of the conducting of the experiment were not very clear).
You wrote on this very forum that I was obviously wrong and that the results were perfectly fine. And then I read further on an internet paper published by Sheldrake, retracting the "proof" assumed by this very experiment. I believe I referred to the article and the chapter in which the refutation was made in the original thread.
But WOW ! What a perfect example of your backfire effect you have made, and are still making. Still refusing to abandon a "proof" that the originator of the the experiment has publically retracted because of serious flaws in its suppositions.
In addition to reading, logic does not seem to be a very strong point of your education, or perhaps its more the reasoning part that is missing.
Poor baby, this discussion, if there ever was any dialogue, is perfectly useless but primarily because you have closed your mind, again a perfect illustration of the backfire effect.
hahahahahahaha
Edits: 02/15/13
You can't even provide a link or cut and paste what the heck you're talking about. Who cares if Sheldrake objected to some procedure or even the test that won the contest. Sheldrake was not refuting his theory. You do see the difference, don't you? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer).The plain fact is that Sheldrake himself has not refuted his own theory of Morphic Resonance. Just because a theory is difficult to prove doesn't mean that it is not true. That's the whole point of his book, Presence of the Past, that Sheldrake certainly realizes the theory is difficult to prove but that there is considerable evidence to support it. Naysayers like yourself are fond of ignoring evidence and whining, "where's the proof?" You're just being superstitious.
Edits: 02/16/13 02/16/13
Sheldrake refutes the experiment you claim is proof of his theory. Note I never said his theory was incorrect, but there is sufficient writings to show that David Bohm, the noted physicist, never fully endorsed Sheldrake, no matter how much you want to claim that it is so.As such, despite your addled reasoning:
1. There is NO proof of Morphic resonance, and as a matter of fact Sheldrake himself says any such proof may not be possible.
2. To quote Bohm's name as actively supporting morphic resonance, does NOT match the information contained in Bohm's body of work.
3. Some of the examples in Sheldrake's book run contrary to, say, the work of Francis Crick. Certainly the molecular formation of the crystals mentioned falls actually in support of current thoughts of quantum theory, and has no relation to morphic resonance, since the electron quanta is what really determines the molecular formation, and which is also very predictable. If you are saying that quantum theory is a manifestation of morphic resonance, then so be it, but then with the quantum theory many things are explainabe, aren't they?
4. You desire validation so much you take an experiment put forth by Sheldrake and when later refuted by the man, you still claim that it is "proof" of his theory? Please reread your backfire effect article on wikipedia, as that seems to be your primary source of information. If that is not the backfire effect in operation, I don't know what would serve as a better example.
As for the precise quotes and such , I don't bother to memorize data which has no further use. That info was given in a previous thread on Morphic resonance on this very forum, BTw, and you were an integral part of tht particular discussion. However, it is a tribute to your reading comprehension that you retain no memory of that thread. IIR , and if you care to look it up, it was contained in a web based book on Sheldrake's website. But then why bother, if you didn't accept the refutaion back then why should you change your mind ?
BACKFIRE EFFECT.......
hahahahahaha
Edits: 02/16/13
You never said his theory is incorrect? You just did a couple of posts ago. I'm afraid your memory thing is kicking in again. Allow me to refresh your memory.You wrote,
"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."
So, which is it - his theory is correct, his theory is incorrect, or you're just confused? I know, you'll try to keep an open mind. LOL. How does it feel, being the Poster Boy for the Backfire Effect, you know, what with "instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief he is wrong." The very definition of the Backfire Effect...now you can say you learned at least one thing today.
Edits: 02/16/13 02/16/13
lack of reading comprehension skills again:
I wrote I do not agree with his theory, with the implication that no "proof" was forthcoming nor revealed. You, on the other hand, are proclaiming "proof" when in fact there is none, and that so called "proof" you proclaim was refuted by the originator of the theory himself. That is pretty pathetic, and, as I have pointed out, the backfire effect's primary example would be YOU.
Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality. I believe there are many other much more rational explanations for his supposed examples and, as a matter of fact, many of his examples are not universally true. A theory is just that, a theory, a presumed supposition. Proof is another animal entirely. I can disagree with the theory because I do not see sufficient proof. You on the other hand see proof when there is NONE. Just because you can see no other causality, does not constitute "proof", simply a refusal to open your mind.
LOL !
Einstein's theory remained simply a theory for many years, until visual confirmation was made during an eclipse. There were many doubters before the visual observation backed his prediction. The fact that there was visual and photographic confirmation which fell in the mathematically predicted range and that there were no other plausible explanations would constitute proof for me.
Sheldrake has nothing to show. Geoff Kaitt has nothing to show, but, at least, Sheldrake is MAN enough to admit the failure of his experiment. I have far more respect for Sheldrake because of the admission.
"Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality"
If you had said "in practice" instead of "in reality" then I might have agreed with you. However, the use of the word "reality" has connotations that do not consort with my epistemology. Also, "right" and "wrong" have unnecessary personal and moral connotations. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Do I detect resort to authority in your argumentation? (At least you aren't using disputatious words such as "claim" and "evidence".)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
on the same page, and, yes, I do agree I should have worded it better.
what I meant was a theory is simply that: a statement with no necessary means of proof. If there is no proof, there is no right or wrong to the theory.
I believe part of the issue is with the popular vernacular.
Einstein's theory of relativity, while it was once a theory, has moved far beyond and has been proven, and perhaps may be better stated as the laws of relativity. But the popular parlance keeps it just as the theory.
As far as theories are concerned, I really make no judgement, but some kind of proof is what I desire. If proof to the contrary is presented, fine with me. Early on, in astrophysics, my mental state was such that I prefered Hoyle's steady state theory, probably becasue of the sense of security it gave. The Hubble red shift and cosmic noise and such, rapidly changed my mind, though, as the evidence they revealed became public.
Those aspects (and others)could not be explained by the steady state theory, or, if it could, were too convoluted to really be practical.
It is when experimental evidence is presented as factual, when the actual basis for the experiment is at question and thus the results, that I get a bit upset. This is particularly true when there are other, much more simplistic explanations. It's even worse when the statistical analysis even based on the flawed supposition is very small. Couple that with no publication in any major scientific journal and you have a recipe for potential disaster.
Sheldrake himself has admitted that trying to present "proof" may be an impossibility, and yet he tries and fails, not surprisingly. As a biologist he gives anectdotal "evidence" or perhaps more accurately examples. There are other explanations and the most readily availble and more "scientific" ones are due to the quantum nature of the molecular bonding. Those are predictable and consistent.
Of course, YMMV
Stu
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: