On 28 Aug 2006 20:56:07 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

The pseudo-scientific community draws all kinds of idiotic conclusions
of this type. If you are a big fan of this kind of New Age fluff you
should check out the crackbrain theory of the ``morphogenic field" and
other such absurdities. The world is full of idiots who dabble in
quantum mechanics and other au courant fields of physics and draw
preposterous philosophical and even spiritual conclusions from what
they think they understand about physics. BE WARNED: Charlatans
abound in these areas.

I understand what you think, but I am growing tired of terms like,
idiotic, and crackbrain. Here is the link for Mind Science
Conference. Hardly a group of new age idiots.

http://www.investigatingthemind.org/

I you have a reference to any of these studies and if you think that
any of them qualify as science, let me know.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...ndScience.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4770779
http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html
http://www.twis.org/science/science_...nd_science.htm

These sites may still not give you any evidence of how the mind is
pure energy, but I'm not trying to convince you. Nor do I get duped
by chalatans easily. Naive I am not. I think a person can believe in
Buddhist ideals, even be a practitioner complete with holy images of
Buddha's (which, by the way means fully awake).

If Einstein was alive, he'd have finished the Theory of Everything.
He was right on the cusp and possibly had the equation, but he died
before he wrote it down somewhere.

I think string theory is a parallel system to the beliefs in Buddhism.
Then again, I don't know your working knowledge of the philosophy of
Buddhism. That would help. It's odd to me when someone poopoos
something they may not have fully examined. Clearly, I have said I am
not qualified in either case, but I hope to be able to stand up to any
challenge the more I learn about my own mind. Maybe by then I won't
bother. It's an incredible waste of energy.

I can give very strong evidence (short of proof) to those I love by
simply being good to them. I have a naive idea that if a person
practices good will and generous conduct to others than it is
reasonable to believe that this is a loving person. This is not the
kind of "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician but, to borrow a
lovely phrase from Anglo-Saxon law, it is "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt".

Translation: You cannot prove you love anyone. We can assert you
love them because you want to be good to them, but that would imply
anyone you are good to is someone you love. Good will and generous
conduct is what Buddhists call Bodhisattva, right view, skillful
means, etc.

I offer the same evidence to you (short of proof) and when I tell you
about studies being conducted using the adept meditator as the subject
you say prove it. You can't prove you love someone.


But friend, others on this thread have called you "idiot, moron, jerk".
Go back and read my post and you will see that I did not.

Yes, I should have qualified that more clearly Our discussion has
been very decent. Maybe one day there will be a universal answer to
everything, as Einistein was working his entire career to prove. He
got close and I am very interested in string theory as it closely
looks like Buddhist conclusions regarding emptiness. There are many
scientists representing both sides of string theory and the debate is
ongoing. I find it all so interesting and wish I'd have paid more
attention to my physics professor instead of vodka.

By the way, in case you aren't sure, I am a woman. I've seen some
refer to me as him/her.