h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello turquoise Alji! As I understand Buddhism, it does not believe in either God as such, or in a continuing self. Kind of renders the whole thing pointless, doesn't it? I mean, that takes detachment too far.
Thanks for the quote! I've written it dowen. More Anthony de Mello:
"Put this program into action, a thousand times: (a) Identify the negative feelings in you; (b) understand that they are in you, not in the world, not in external reality (c)do not see them as an essential part of 'I', (d) understand that when you change, everything changes.
p89, Awareness: The perils and opportunities of Reality. Anthony de Mello, 1992, Doubleday.

Hello turquoise Alji! As I understand Buddhism, it does not believe in either God as such, or in a continuing self. Kind of renders the whole thing pointless, doesn't it? I mean, that takes detachment too far.
Thanks for the quote! I've written it dowen. More Anthony de Mello:
"Put this program into action, a thousand times: (a) Identify the negative feelings in you; (b) understand that they are in you, not in the world, not in external reality (c)do not see them as an essential part of 'I', (d) understand that when you change, everything changes.
p89, Awareness: The perils and opportunities of Reality. Anthony de Mello, 1992, Doubleday.

Hello turquoise Alji! As I understand Buddhism, it does not believe in either God as such, or in a continuing self. Kind of renders the whole thing pointless, doesn't it? I mean, that takes detachment too far.
Thanks for the quote! I've written it dowen. More Anthony de Mello:
"Put this program into action, a thousand times: (a) Identify the negative feelings in you; (b) understand that they are in you, not in the world, not in external reality (c)do not see them as an essential part of 'I', (d) understand that when you change, everything changes.
p89, Awareness: The perils and opportunities of Reality. Anthony de Mello, 1992, Doubleday.

doesn't quantum entanglement defy the speed of light ie two entangled particles separated in space still affect each other instantaneously - has been demonstrated I believe by some Italian physicists recently. And there is nothing in the laws(?) of quantum physics that says entangled particles can't be on opposite sides of the cosmos.

And if Penrose (Emperor's New Mind) is right and consciousness or mind arises at the quantum level in the microtubules within the brain's nerve cells, that the mind is in some sense a blob of quantum probabilities that can exist outside of the physical substrate ie brain/body (see the NDE prog on BBC2 some weeks ago), then mind and thought can definitely "travel" instantaneously - it is not subject to the gross physical limitations such as the speed of an electrical signal through neurons - this is not mind as such but the way the mind interacts with the physical body. Just as if we walk/run we are limited by our physical body's abilities and physical limitations, whereas if we speak on the phone we are subject to the limitations of the electro-magnetic spectrum and the cable/satellite/radio networks we have constructed. I am not being airy fairy and all metaphysical here - we just don't know what mind (if it is a quantum phenomenon) is actually capable of.

HAs everyone heard that "Because of the war, God on the Brain has been rescheduled. It will now be broadcast on Thursday 17 May." So the Beeb know when the war is going to end? IS the BBC god?

Hi there, DJ. I don't think that a careful reading of Einstein indicates that things can't travel faster than light. It's just that they can't accelerate from sublight speeds to higher ones. If they come into existence travelling FTL, that doesn't break any rules!

DJS
Hurray
Someone on side!
Well EVERYTHING is God at the quantum level
So that would include the BBC.
Although I admit that is a puzzling conumdrum, which almost belies the conclusion.

Toxx
Whose talking about *things* ?

"Things" covers a multitude of sins, Hass. Read "The Nature of Things" by Anthony Quinton. Or maybe you would like to give me an example of a non¬thing? I won't allow mass nouns like 'snow'. OK, it ain't a thing, but a snowflake is.

Toxx
That was what I meant things is physical things !
snowflake or atom

Ok then Hass, what else is Einstein supposed to apply to if not physical things? I think I'm losing the thread now. What was the point of this? Oh yep, thought which might be dark matter but might not be a thing! Utter confusion

toxx,

<>


Who's . . . not whose.

Az. I suggest you redirect your message to Hass who wrote the line you quote. Don't try to teach your grandma to suck co ...... erm eggs.

oh okay,

Hey Hass,

That should have been 'who's' not 'whose' - okey dokey?

Though still don't know what my grandmother has to do with any of this.

az

Hi azahar

>The nuns HIT you on the head? Just because you were daydreaming? I share Math's opinion that most probably their classes weren't interesting enough to keep a young inquisitive mind like yours occupied. But there is never any excuse for physical violence.<

Haa! They used to beat the everlovin' s**t out of us. I'm 43 and in America! Everybody hit everybody for any reason when I was a kid. We used to fight for exercise when I was a kid!

When I went to high school, they had boy nuns called brothers teach us. They would pick my skinny @ss up and throw it across the room quite often. Or Have us kneel and hold out encyclopedias endlessly, or do push ups and sit ups. If nothing else, they made us tough... and we could offer it up and get time off out purgetory

Spare the rod and spoil the child?

diversity

DJS The experiments you mentioned are the Bell-Aspect experiments, which do show that information about quantum states can be transmitted FTL. Information at the macrolevel is still limited by lightspeed, however.

Even if consciousness does arise from quantum states in microtubules, these are still not consciousness, any more than neuronal activity is consciousness if that's the origin. It's a category mistake.

On missionaries - What's the difference between a Lada and a Jehovah's Witness?

You can close the door on a Jehovah's Witness.

I should like to point out, especially for Insight's benefit, should he be lurking, that on the odd occassion when I've had JWs at the door that they have been perfectly charming and reasonable.

"The world of the unhappy man is a different world to that of the happy man." Ludwig Wittgenstein

"The world the unhappy man is in is the same world as that which the happy man is in." Noggin the Nog

Both of these are true.

Noggin

hi diversity,

Very nasty stuff, honey. Have you seen this new Irish film called 'Sisters of Magdeline'? If not, I recommend it. I think you would find it kinda therapeutic.

Sorry, but in my very humble opinion, you do not EVER hit a small child. Okay, perhaps at times you might have to give a small swat on the backside if they are being hysterical - but only to snap them out of it, never to cause any sort of physical damage.

You're 43? I'm 46 1/4. I'm a bit surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't be, to think this sort of abuse still goes on in supposedly civilized cultures. I know my father went through being constantly beaten by psycho-nuns at school when he was a kid, but I somewhat naively thought this was something that had seen its day. Apparently not.

Recently in Canada many grown men have started with law-suits against various priests who had sexually abused them at school. And they are winning their cases! And receiving some money from the Holy Catholic Church in recompense. Though of course, you can never take back all that shame and fear that the small person felt and absorbed at the time.

How do you deal with all that? Do you have kids of your own? If so, I can only imagine that the last thing you would ever do would be to pass on this outrageous behaviour.

My father passed it on. And I made a very strong personal decision that - it STOPS right here with me.

Spare the rod and spoil the child?

I don't think it is ever possible to 'spoil' a child. Children are all little wonders. Yes, they need guidance. Along with so much love that they will end up feeling very secure and - we hope - will end up not ever feeling the need to hurt another person as a result.

What is that bible quote - 'blessed are the children . . . blah blah blah'. Can't remember.

Anyhow, should be quite funny come judgement day when all these hypocrital nuns and priests end up being sent to HELL - boy, won't they be surprised!

az

hi Noggin,

<<"The world of the unhappy man is a different world to that of the happy man." Ludwig Wittgenstein>>

Well, he oughtta know! I read the Ray Monk biography of LW and he seemed like such an unhappy person! But then, most geniuses are, doncha think? Comes with the territory perhaps - of not 'fitting in' anywhere on a basic personal level in society, yet KNOWING that you have an amazing gift to offer the world (which most of the time is deaf to you).

Look at Mozart, Van Gogh, ummmm, and lots of others (sorry, can't think of more names at the moment). Their personal lives were hellish, yet if they had not persevered in their own quest then all of us would be left that much more impoverished.

I also liked your quote, btw.

az

Sorry it wuz me what splet it rong.
It wuz verreeee erly tho
whose things what

My ex was regularly not spared the rod in this convent school.
More puzzling though were the gifts from sister Lolita !!!!
Lolita????

Hi Az;

Despite everything LWs last words were (roughly) "It's been a wonderful life." Perhaps a reflection of satisfaction at what he achieved despite the unhappiness, so he'd probably seen it from both sides.

My own quote was in a sense saying the same thing. The difference is in the perception, not the things perceived.

"What a trust we break, not giving our wings to our children.
O how we fail them." Roy Harper

Noggin