You Want Proof?

[Iacchus]

Too bad! :D

However, I do have an intermediary type of proof which illustrates an internal process of the mind, and the effect which is achieved through a certain meditation practice. It's a process I understand fairly well, and I may be able to illustrate it in such a way that I could get people to duplicate the results themselves, perhaps by as much as 90 per cent.

Basically it's about learning how to "be still" and focusing inwardly. Whereas once you begin to approach a certain threshold, one of the noticeable effects is essentially what's shown on my avatar to the left. Pretty strange huh?

Have gone into some detail on the Physics Forums thread, The Advent of Color (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429), as well the About the Cover (http://www.dionysus.org/x0009.html) page in my book.

Anyone care to discuss it, with any possible spiritual implications?

[MRC_Hans]

Ehr, discuss exactly what? You describe a perception you may have during meditation. What is it you claim this perception is evidence of?

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Ehr, discuss exactly what? You describe a perception you may have during meditation. What is it you claim this perception is evidence of?

Hans At the very least it's a technique used to engage a certain process of the mind, which people can apply to themselves and achieve the same effects indepently and on their own. And perhaps compare results?

From there, we can begin to discuss its spiritual implications, as this was one of my first discoveries before making the "God Connection." In the sense that it can be used to achieve a certain "mind-set."

[Ossai]

Iacchus
From there, we can begin to discuss its spiritual implications, as this was one of my first discoveries before making the "God Connection." In the sense that it can be used to achieve a certain "mind-set." Basically it's just a form of self-hypnosis. Repeat a message enough times until you start to believe it. I see no spiritual implications.

Ossai

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Basically it's about learning how to "be still" and focusing inwardly. Whereas once you begin to approach a certain threshold, one of the noticeable effects is essentially what's shown on my avatar to the left. Pretty strange huh?
Yes, if you spend sufficient time meditating, your mind will start playing tricks on you. I spent six months in Iowa and Italy meditating for hours a day. I'm not sure how much we should infer from it, though.

~~ Paul

[Dancing David]

Hmm,

I have practised stillness for a long time, I have never gotten visual effects from it. But then I have a very low ability to visualize as well.

Perhaps it is an induced effect and not an underlying effect.

There is a faster route as well, press upon your eyeball through your closed lid, then you will see patterns.

I think it helps on this board to be direct iachus: state out your case as clearly as possible. The one thing that you will find on this board is that otherwise the 'different histories' of each reader makes conversation difficult.

Like this:

to invoke Horus:
1. Create a space where you can meditate each day upon the god form, a visual construct that looks like the god Horus.
2. During the time of invokation (like 45 days), abstain from certian items and always be in contact with others to keep yourself mindful of the invokation.
3. Each day prior to the assumption of the god form bathe and annoint yourself.
3. a) each day before the invokation ritualy create the sacred space.
4. Assume the god form by standing and sitting and visualizing the god form over your physical body.
5. Chant poetry appropriate to the diety.
3. b) at the end of the invokation be sure to return to your mortal state and ground the diety form.
3. c) each day at the end of the daily invokation be sure to ritualy leave the sacred space.

6. Record all your researches.

This kind of format is the one I would use, you will use your own ,but I have found on this forum that it helps to state the whole case up front and assume that at least fifty percent of the other readers won't understand the basic language you use, so sometimes there is a lot of explanation of jargon.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, if you spend sufficient time meditating, your mind will start playing tricks on you. I spent six months in Iowa and Italy meditating for hours a day. I'm not sure how much we should infer from it, though.Hmmm. What kind of experiences did you have while meditating, if you don't mind me asking?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai
Iacchus
Basically it's just a form of self-hypnosis. Repeat a message enough times until you start to believe it. I see no spiritual implications.

Ossai There are different types of meditation though. The one you're referring to here is more like prayer and is akin to wishful thinking. Which isn't to say it doesn't work, although I think it would have more to do with one's sincerity.

There's also the transcendental form of meditation, where you begin to repeat a mantra (a specific sound or word) over and over again until it completely drowns out your thinking, and you suddenly find yourself immersed in the imagery of your mind which, I've heard is comparable to being on drugs. This became popular with its introduction by the Beatles in the late sixties, and is more a form of escapism but, without so many of the side-effects as drugs.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes, if you spend sufficient time meditating, your mind will start playing tricks on you. I spent six months in Iowa and Italy meditating for hours a day. I'm not sure how much we should infer from it, though.

~~ Paul The meditation I practice is in many ways the opposite of the transcendental meditation mentioned above. Instead of immersing myself in mind so to speak, I begin to focus on "the present," initially by focusing inwardly -- through the mind's eye -- and then becoming aware of an outer extremity such as the hands (preferably), and begin to feel the warmth (of blood) inside.

While in the process of doing so, thoughts and feelings begin to arise which, when they do, will deter you from focusing on your hands. Such is the nature of getting "caught up" in your thoughts. Whereas to the degree that you become aware of yourself doing this, you "gently" bring your attention back to focusing on your hands which, you continue to do over and over again (at least 20-30 minutes at a sitting). This is really a great "exercise" which allows you to examine your motives and past experiences and what not.

Of course this is a little bit over-simplyfied, but the key here is to learn how to relax and become aware of your "inner-self" which, is akin to being honest and being able to "let go" at the same time. Whereas once it's achieved, by means of not forcing it, that is, the state induces the type of effect which is ascribed to my avatar to the left.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
... begin to focus on "the present," initially by focusing inwardly -- through the mind's eye --


Can you please explain what ' the mind's eye ' is ?

I would like to know about it's parts, and the mechanisms by which it functions..

Don't bother if you cannot do it in a manner, similar to this very readable desription of the human eye... (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html)


' The Mind's Eye ' may leave em all goggle-eyed, some place where shoes have not been invented, the uniform of the day is a soiled sheet and 45 is a ripe old age, but it's woo-woo speak around here...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Can you please explain what ' the mind's eye ' is ?

I could not help but think of this following statement I made in another thread, yesterday, when you asked this question:-

"The languages we speak have limitations in defining abstract experience. Ask me what 'pain' is, for example, and I'll be hard pressed to define it to you in terms you'll understand if you have never experienced it for yourself.
Language struggles with concepts such as this. But the amazing thing is that we share a common abstract-existence. Even without definition, people understand the use of such terms because they have personal/intimate inner-experience of them themselves.
Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language."

Everybody on this board knows what the mind's eye is. It refers to self-awareness and what is sensed within that awareness. It is beyond language to define it, perhaps. Yet, with the above statement in mind, it is certainly not above understanding, since we all have such an eye. You included, squire.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Can you please explain what ' the mind's eye ' is ?

I would like to know about it's parts, and the mechanisms by which it functions..

Don't bother if you cannot do it in a manner, similar to this very readable desription of the human eye... (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html)


' The Mind's Eye ' may leave em all goggle-eyed, some place where shoes have not been invented, the uniform of the day is a soiled sheet and 45 is a ripe old age, but it's woo-woo speak around here... Basically it's in the center of your forehead or, just above the brow, which you direct your attention to (slightly) with your eyes closed.

Perhaps this is where they came up with the mythological notion of a cyclops way back when?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David

There is a faster route as well, press upon your eyeball through your closed lid, then you will see patterns.


I had done this as a kid, but with my eyes open (on the sides of my eyes, not *on* them. I'd see more than patterns though, I suppose similar to the way that people with actual permanent damage have blind spots "filled" in by the brain with stuff like mickey mouse. I stopped doing it though, worried that it had something to do with blood loss and was potentially damaging.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I had done this as a kid, but with my eyes open (on the sides of my eyes, not *on* them. I'd see more than patterns though, I suppose similar to the way that people with actual permanent damage have blind spots "filled" in by the brain with stuff like mickey mouse. I stopped doing it though, worried that it had something to do with blood loss and was potentially damaging. The same thing here. Has nothing to do with meditation, as it's purely a physical effect. However, if you chose to meditate on the patterns that's another story. But like you say, it's not good on your eyeballs. :D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Meditation doesn't exist!

[Upchurch]

What if the effects of meditation were nothing more than the results of self-deception and self-rationalization? Then, it wouldn't be any more special than a psychological phenomenon like false memory or traumatic blocking.

Does that count as evidence in Iacchus-land? I mean, it's a hypothetical "if-than" statement with no supporting facts presented. Shouldn't it be given as much credince?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Meditation doesn't exist! Careful now don't meditate too hard, otherwise we'll have to wipe that "transfixed glare" off your face! ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The same thing here. Has nothing to do with meditation, as it's purely a physical effect. However, if you chose to meditate on the patterns that's another story. But like you say, it's not good on your eyeballs. :D

I'm confused, why claim one type of meditation is merely a purely physical effect, while another has spiritual implications?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What if the effects of meditation were nothing more than the results of self-deception and self-rationalization? Then, it wouldn't be any more special than a psychological phenomenon like false memory or traumatic blocking.

Does that count as evidence in Iacchus-land? I mean, it's a hypothetical "if-than" statement with no supporting facts presented. Shouldn't it be given as much credince? How about bio-feedback then? That's basically a form of meditation, although scientifically induced -- initially -- with lots of documented results on its benefits.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about bio-feedback then? That's basically a form of meditation, although scientifically induced -- initially -- with lots of documented results on its benefits. Sure, bio-feedback has plenty of evidence to back up its effects and usefullness. What does that have to do with spirituality?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

However, I do have an intermediary type of proof which illustrates an internal process of the mind, and the effect which is achieved through a certain meditation practice.


Ok, then I expect you spend a good deal of effort linking it to spirituality.


It's a process I understand fairly well, and I may be able to illustrate it in such a way that I could get people to duplicate the results themselves, perhaps by as much as 90 per cent.


So...you tell them what they are supposed to see, and they spend a lot of time until they see it.


Basically it's about learning how to "be still" and focusing inwardly.


This is called, meditation.


Whereas once you begin to approach a certain threshold, one of the noticeable effects is essentially what's shown on my avatar to the left. Pretty strange huh?


You can see a myriad of things. If you are thinking that you'll see a particular thing, you'll probably see it. If you concetrate on triangles and meditate, you'll see triangles.


Have gone into some detail on the Physics Forums thread, The Advent of Color (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429), as well the About the Cover (http://www.dionysus.org/x0009.html) page in my book.


Ya, I read the cover. Its about the best example of useless numerology I've seen. With the rules you seem to be using, I could make the numbers dance topless on the table If I wanted.


Anyone care to discuss it, with any possible spiritual implications?

Wait...where was your link to spirituality?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
At the very least it's a technique used to engage a certain process of the mind, which people can apply to themselves and achieve the same effects indepently and on their own. And perhaps compare results?


Like I said, meditation is a very common thing, people use it all the time and see all kinds of different things.


From there, we can begin to discuss its spiritual implications, as this was one of my first discoveries before making the "God Connection." In the sense that it can be used to achieve a certain "mind-set."

You'll have to link the well known practice of mediation to spirituality before we talk about any spiritual implications.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There are different types of meditation though. The one you're referring to here is more like prayer and is akin to wishful thinking. Which isn't to say it doesn't work, although I think it would have more to do with one's sincerity.

There's also the transcendental form of meditation, where you begin to repeat a mantra (a specific sound or word) over and over again until it completely drowns out your thinking, and you suddenly find yourself immersed in the imagery of your mind which, I've heard is comparable to being on drugs. This became popular with its introduction by the Beatles in the late sixties, and is more a form of escapism but, without so many of the side-effects as drugs.

Actually, its been popular a lot longer than that, maybe you've heard of eastern religions before, but just because something is brought to the west, doesn't mean it's been made popular. Also, I find it interesting that you try to diminish all types of meditation other than your own.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I'm confused, why claim one type of meditation is merely a purely physical effect, while another has spiritual implications? Now I said you can choose to meditate on the effect if you want, but by pressing upon one's eyeballs is not a form of meditation.

Whereas the meditation begins when you choose a focal point and begin to "ponder." And this I would say has more of a spiritual quality -- i.e., the process of "wonder."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Sure, bio-feedback has plenty of evidence to back up its effects and usefullness. What does that have to do with spirituality? By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely?

[shecky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely?

Um, no.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Ok, then I expect you spend a good deal of effort linking it to spirituality.Expect? Is that how it works? And I suppose you would have me defecate on the spot too while I'm at it?


So...you tell them what they are supposed to see, and they spend a lot of time until they see it.You're the one who's demanding the evidence. Hey I can't help it if this is how it works.


This is called, meditation.Absolutely!


You can see a myriad of things. If you are thinking that you'll see a particular thing, you'll probably see it. If you concetrate on triangles and meditate, you'll see triangles.Except that the effect I'm talking about occurs without focusing on it. In fact if you do focus on it, it goes away. Which, is one of the things to suggest it's part of a valid process.


Ya, I read the cover. Its about the best example of useless numerology I've seen. With the rules you seem to be using, I could make the numbers dance topless on the table If I wanted.Don't be such an ass.


Wait...where was your link to spirituality? Read the book then if you can wait!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely? uh, brainwaves are generated by the brain, not received by it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Basically it's in the center of your forehead or, just above the brow, which you direct your attention to (slightly) with your eyes closed.

Perhaps this is where they came up with the mythological notion of a cyclops way back when?


Mythological would seem to be the operative word here...


Based on your description, anything I concentrate on with my eyes closed, could be ' The Minds Eye '... It serves no function other than what I imagine it to be...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
uh, brainwaves are generated by the brain, not received by it.
*The assertion police enter*

You have the right to remain silent... anything else you say may be held against....

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely?
I'm afraid you have an inaccurate understanding of "brainwaves". In neurophysiology, brainwaves are rapid fluctuations of voltage between parts of the cerebral cortex, brainwaves are detectable with an electroencephalograph.

That suggests to me that the brain is more like a machine which creates those "signals" you referred to above.



Helpful hint: The mind is the name we give to the experience of conscious cognition.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

*The assertion police enter*

You have the right to remain silent... anything else you say may be held against....
"Brainwaves are created by the brain" is not quite an unfounded assertion. It rings more along the lines of "demonstratably true", here's some helpful information on how an EEG (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/34930/267503.html?d=dmtHealthAZ) works.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Actually, its been popular a lot longer than that, maybe you've heard of eastern religions before, but just because something is brought to the west, doesn't mean it's been made popular. As if I and most other people didn't already know?


Also, I find it interesting that you try to diminish all types of meditation other than your own. Once again you're insinuating here. Hmm ... Is that anything like being guilty before proven innocent?

Now let's see ... in--"sin"--uate ... Yep, sure looks like it!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Brainwaves are created by the brain" is not quite an unfounded assertion. It rings more along the lines of "demonstratably true", here's some helpful information on how an EEG (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/34930/267503.html?d=dmtHealthAZ) works.Really? Sorry, had problems with duplication of post below.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
uh, brainwaves are generated by the brain, not received by it. And what are brainwaves if not electro-magnetic signals? Are you saying the brain is incapable of picking up its own brainwaves then?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Brainwaves are created by the brain" is not quite an unfounded assertion. It rings more along the lines of "demonstratably true", here's some helpful information on how an EEG (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/34930/267503.html?d=dmtHealthAZ) works.
"Creation" is a concept which only applies to a primal-cause... in regards the effect of a specific state. So, to assert that the physical-brain "creates" anything, by itself, is worthy of a visit by the asserion police. And apart from anything else, I like winding upchurch up.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what are brainwaves if not electro-magnetic signals? Are you saying the brain is incapable of picking up its own brainwaves then?
There, you've acknowledged that brainwaves come from the brain, however you have a wee bit of misunderstanding.

The brain does not "pickup brainwaves". Those brainwaves pass through the brain, there is no "picking up" or other secondary processes involved. Its like if I pet my kitty, the action is "petting kitty", it isnt "move my hand across kitty's back, (secondary step here), petting kitty".

Additional information:
Its quite possible to use electrodes to manipulate a person's cerebral cortex. Done properly, a doctor can induce sensations of color, "other people", feeling, etc.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Creation" is a concept which only applies to a primal-cause... in regards the effect of a specific state. So, to assert that the physical-brain "creates" anything, by itself, is worthy of a visit by the asserion police. And apart from anything else, I like winding upchurch up.
I see, just a bit of semantics.

Rather than "create", perhaps a more appropriate word would be "originate", or "generated", or a spiel of other verbs.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Additional information:
Its quite possible to use electrodes to manipulate a person's cerebral cortex. Done properly, a doctor can induce sensations of color, "other people", feeling, etc.

This might be a good time to emphasize: There is always a physical connection involved in what you describe..

And..... it's only fair to also recognize that the brain can be influenced by the presence of high energy electromagnetic waves, such as those emitted by RADAR transmitters. This influence is also known as ' cooking '..

So far, no one has applied for the JREF challenge, to demonstrate their ability to gather useful information in this manner..

[Skeptical Greg]

Later...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying the brain is incapable of picking up its own brainwaves then? Are you saying that the brain is capable of picking up its own brainwaves? Based on what?

You do know that biofeedback isn't the brain picking up its own brainwaves but rather getting feedback based on its own brainwaves through an intermediary?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

And apart from anything else, I like winding upchurch up. Where you? I didn't even notice your post until I saw Yahweh's reply to it.

:rub:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

And..... it's only fair to also recognize that the brain can be influenced by the presence of high energy electromagnetic waves, such as those emitted by RADAR transmitters. This influence is also known as ' cooking '.. Yes, I intended to say something about this, but at the time I didn't feel like dredging it up. I was also going to refer to certain types of electronic circuitry which, although they weren't designed as such, have to be shielded against electro-magnetic radiation, because they are that sensitive.


So far, no one has applied for the JREF challenge, to demonstrate their ability to gather useful information in this manner.. It's probably the wrong wavelength anyway. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes

And..... it's only fair to also recognize that the brain can be influenced by the presence of high energy electromagnetic waves, such as those emitted by RADAR transmitters. This influence is also known as ' cooking '..
But brainwaves are not high energy EM waves. If I remember correctly, they are barely detectable a few inches from the skin, if that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Are you saying that the brain is capable of picking up its own brainwaves? Based on what? If the brain generates brainwaves then it must also have a means by which to receive them, right?


You do know that biofeedback isn't the brain picking up its own brainwaves but rather getting feedback based on its own brainwaves through an intermediary? It still involves "tuning in" to a certain wavelength.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But brainwaves are not high energy EM waves. If I remember correctly, they are barely detectable a few inches from the skin, if that. If we have a spirit which, in all likelihood would be our energy field -- or aura? -- then what's to keep the brain from detecting electro-magnetic impulses from it?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Basically it's in the center of your forehead or, just above the brow, which you direct your attention to (slightly) with your eyes closed.


Thats where you imagine it, in other past cultures, people have imaging it being in the liver or heart.


Perhaps this is where they came up with the mythological notion of a cyclops way back when?

I think that when they came up with the cyclops, the seat of consciousness was not considered to be the brain, so your explaination doesn't wash.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The same thing here. Has nothing to do with meditation, as it's purely a physical effect. However, if you chose to meditate on the patterns that's another story. But like you say, it's not good on your eyeballs. :D

You could definately consider it another form of meditation. And I would argue that all medation is a purely physical effect, unless you can provide any evidence otherwise.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Now I said you can choose to meditate on the effect if you want,


I can meditate on purple unicorns, bigfoot, or square circles (I'm sure after meditating on square circles long enough, your mind would come up with some interesting stuff) but it doesn't make any of them real. So why should meditating on anything "spiritual" make it real?


but by pressing upon one's eyeballs is not a form of meditation.


What about starving onesself for serveral days? Both can cause visions, isn't having a vision a form of meditation?


Whereas the meditation begins when you choose a focal point and begin to "ponder." And this I would say has more of a spiritual quality -- i.e., the process of "wonder."

"Wonder" is a quality of humanity, its a very useful quality indeed. But what evidence is there that wonder has anything to do with spirituality?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely?

bio-feedback is not tuning into ones brainwaves. Your brain can't tune into anything, much less brainwaves. BTW, you seem to have quite a lack of understanding of the brain, I've read your links, have you read any of the links I sent you?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Expect? Is that how it works? And I suppose you would have me defecate on the spot too while I'm at it?


You said your intermediary proof of spirituality and all that was meditation. If all you do in your argument is talk about meditation, you've done nothing. If I say rice pudding proves god, and then talk about rice pudding, and prove everything about rice pudding, I've done nothing to prove god.


You're the one who's demanding the evidence. Hey I can't help it if this is how it works.


You starting the thread by saying that you had the start of a proof. Why shouldn't I be demanding evidence? You claim that everyone that you tell to see something when they meditate (except 10%) see it, I'm telling you its nothing special.


Except that the effect I'm talking about occurs without focusing on it. In fact if you do focus on it, it goes away. Which, is one of the things to suggest it's part of a valid process.


You wouldn't have to focus on triangles, you'd just think about them before meditating. Its like thinking about something before you fall asleep, and dreaming about it.


Don't be such an ass.


I'm not being an ass. Numerology is useless. The bible code is a very good example:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html


Read the book then if you can wait!

I've read stuff from your book, I see no link. I just see you talking about the way you want things to be.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

*The assertion police enter*

You have the right to remain silent... anything else you say may be held against....

Brain waves are nothing like radio waves. They are measured by measuring differences in electrical potential on the scalp, and generally function in th 30-90Hz range. Even small groups of neurons produce this response. By wave, they are not saying a transmitted wave, its more like the clock of a computer (bad, but somewhat usefull analogy). If put a wireloop near a computer, you will notice a "wave" at 133MHz (or whatever the speed happens to be). However, if you transmit a signal back at 133MHz, the computer doesn't care that its at 133MHz, it just cares that its receiving potential interference. For more reference, go to these sites:

Basic explaination:
http://brain.web-us.com/40hz/default.htm

Real world usage:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOArticle/PTO-20030724-000002.asp

Take note, for the brain, its just electrical signals traveling across neurons.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As if I and most other people didn't already know?


Once again you're insinuating here. Hmm ... Is that anything like being guilty before proven innocent?

Now let's see ... in--"sin"--uate ... Yep, sure looks like it!

ok, lets collect some quotes then:

"The one you're referring to here is more like prayer and is akin to wishful thinking."

"...and is more a form of escapism..."

" Has nothing to do with meditation, as it's purely a physical effect." (so...the brain making up patterns on its own is a merely physical effect...but isn't your meditation about seeing the pattern of your avatar?)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what are brainwaves if not electro-magnetic signals? Are you saying the brain is incapable of picking up its own brainwaves then?

Actually, thats not how neurons work. The process of neuron signaling is a lot more complicated than "electromagnetic signals". Neurons themselves don't actually respond to electromagnetic signals, but to chemical reception. So to say that neurons are receiving electromagnetic signals seems a bit silly. (if any kind of interefence did occur, it would only be destructive interference to what one neruon is already transmitting) Perhaps you'd like to study the neuron:

http://vv.carleton.ca/~neil/neural/neuron-a.html

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, I intended to say something about this, but at the time I didn't feel like dredging it up. I was also going to refer to certain types of electronic circuitry which, although they weren't designed as such, have to be shielded against electro-magnetic radiation, because they are that sensitive.


Actually, given that I do this for a living, I can make some corrections here. What your goal actually is, is to reduce the amount that it radiates, which boils down to loop area, rise time, etc. You lessen the amount of radation, you lessen the amount it will pick up too. Just using a shield won't be sufficent, because then you'd have crosstalk too. And *all* intereference and crosstalk is a very *bad* thing (if it goes beyond your thresholds).

Even if the brain could pick up any em intereference, you have to remember that with the voltages you are talking about, and the difference is distances, neurons themselves would have a much, much, huger effect on eachother than any outside radiation. (and if there was such an effect, of neuronic crosstalk, we'd notice it)


It's probably the wrong wavelength anyway. ;)

The problem is that if there was interference, random neurons would pick it up, it would destroy any signals that were sent, and would have a negative effect on your brain.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the brain generates brainwaves then it must also have a means by which to receive them, right?


Since this again, relates closely to my field, I can provide some explaination. Circuits on circuit boards have comparable length to many neuron fibers. However, the voltage and rise time in a circuit is much higher than it is in a neuron. Thus, with circuits, you have to space things at 0.005" or so, but in a brain, they can be spaced much, much closer without causing any crosstalk. Neurons can be *very* *very* close together without causing any crosstalk, which indicates they are very resistent to crosstalk. So you'd have to have a very, very powerfull signal to accomplish any interference at all, and even then, it would only be destructive. If there was such a signal that is causing such interference, it would be trivial for us to detect.


It still involves "tuning in" to a certain wavelength.

No it doesn't, perhaps you need to read up on biofeedback:

http://www.aapb.org/public/articles/details.cfm?id=4

(unless of course you think looking at a flashing light is "tuning in")

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If we have a spirit which, in all likelihood would be our energy field -- or aura? -- then what's to keep the brain from detecting electro-magnetic impulses from it?

Then what would keep us (mechanically) from detecting those impulses? Certainly that would provide validation of your beliefs, you work on that

[Dorian Gray]

Guys, guys, this is an infomercial designed to sell a book. Furthermore, if you argue with the person who started this thread, it will have precisely the same effect as if you argued with a 30 minute version of it that appeared on television.

Here is a practical and much shorter demonstration of this person's technique:

Quick! Don't think about a horse!

You are now thinking about a horse. My book is only $19.95. Check or money order only, please.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Guys, guys, this is an infomercial designed to sell a book. Furthermore, if you argue with the person who started this thread, it will have precisely the same effect as if you argued with a 30 minute version of it that appeared on television.

Here is a practical and much shorter demonstration of this person's technique:

Quick! Don't think about a horse!

You are now thinking about a horse. My book is only $19.95. Check or money order only, please.

ya, but this isn't the art bell show, and he isn't selling a book, he just posted a bunch of random thoughts online and called it a book. Given the quality of guests that have been brought on coast to coast as of late, I'm sure he would have no problem getting on. (The have that numerology lady on at least once a week it seems, boring, boring, boring)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the brain generates brainwaves then it must also have a means by which to receive them, right?See, here's the problem. You don't know the brain has the capacity to receive brainwaves, you're just guessing. Then, you're treating those guesses as facts.

You're fond of analogies. A car has the capacity to consume fuel. Does it also have the capacity to generate it, perhaps by running the engine in reverse?
It still involves "tuning in" to a certain wavelength. In the very loosest sense of the term, perhaps. The brain is still not directly receiving its own brainwaves anymore than the brain directly receives radio waves. Just as the brain needs a radio (and a working set of ears) to receive radio waves, the brain needs something, say an oscilloscope, (and a working set of eyes) to receive its own brain waves, or any brainwaves for that matter.If we have a spirit which, in all likelihood would be our energy field -- or aura? -- then what's to keep the brain from detecting electro-magnetic impulses from it?More ifs? :nope:

Our "energy field" is nothing more than an electromagnetic side-effect of the bioelectrical impulses of our neural system. There is no evidence that the human brain has any mechanism for accepting the "input" of that EM field, that I am aware of. Further, biofeedback does not occur until the subject is provided a mechanism for monitoring their own brainwaves (or heartbeat, etc.). If the brain did have a mechanism for receiving its own brainwaves, biofeedback would occur without the need for an external mechanism. Do you have any evidence that it does or are you merely assuming that it does?

Also, are you defining "spirit" to be an energy field, and thus detectable, susceptible to the laws of physics, and manipulable?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Thats where you imagine it, in other past cultures, people have imaging it being in the liver or heart.

I think that when they came up with the cyclops, the seat of consciousness was not considered to be the brain, so your explaination doesn't wash. Regardless, it's not necessary to know all these things in order practice the meditation as I've described it.

And why do they call it the "mind's eye," if it didn't have some reference to your mind or brain?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

bio-feedback is not tuning into ones brainwaves. Your brain can't tune into anything, much less brainwaves. BTW, you seem to have quite a lack of understanding of the brain, I've read your links, have you read any of the links I sent you? Then what exactly is being accomplished here? And "who" is tuning into what?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Actually, given that I do this for a living, I can make some corrections here. What your goal actually is, is to reduce the amount that it radiates, which boils down to loop area, rise time, etc. You lessen the amount of radation, you lessen the amount it will pick up too. Just using a shield won't be sufficent, because then you'd have crosstalk too. And *all* intereference and crosstalk is a very *bad* thing (if it goes beyond your thresholds).So?


Even if the brain could pick up any em intereference, you have to remember that with the voltages you are talking about, and the difference is distances, neurons themselves would have a much, much, huger effect on eachother than any outside radiation. (and if there was such an effect, of neuronic crosstalk, we'd notice it)Or, perhaps we're speaking of a different type of "circuitry" involved? (and signals received).


The problem is that if there was interference, random neurons would pick it up, it would destroy any signals that were sent, and would have a negative effect on your brain. No, the problem is that you won't acknowledge the brain is capable of picking up signals beyond itself.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

ok, lets collect some quotes then:

"The one you're referring to here is more like prayer and is akin to wishful thinking."

"...and is more a form of escapism..."

" Has nothing to do with meditation, as it's purely a physical effect." (so...the brain making up patterns on its own is a merely physical effect...but isn't your meditation about seeing the pattern of your avatar?) Of course, if it were all the same -- that's a lot like saying everybody's mother is a whore by the why -- then there would be no need to differentiate.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, the problem is that you won't acknowledge the brain is capable of picking up signals beyond itself. Actually, the problem is that you have yet to prove, or even back up, your claim that it can.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Actually, thats not how neurons work. The process of neuron signaling is a lot more complicated than "electromagnetic signals". Neurons themselves don't actually respond to electromagnetic signals, but to chemical reception. So to say that neurons are receiving electromagnetic signals seems a bit silly. (if any kind of interefence did occur, it would only be destructive interference to what one neruon is already transmitting) Perhaps you'd like to study the neuron:

http://vv.carleton.ca/~neil/neural/neuron-a.html If the brain doesn't pick up on the brainwaves, then where do they go?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the brain doesn't pick up on the brainwaves, then where do they go? Like all electromagnetic waves, they dissapate.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Actually, the problem is that you have yet to prove, or even back up, your claim that it can. No, the problem is you people base everything you say upon that which "hasn't" been built. Hey don't expect me to come up with all the answers, because I'm not the one who designed the d*** thing!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, the problem is you people base everything you say upon that which "hasn't" been built.What do you mean? I try to base everything I say on what I can show to be true. If someone challenges one of my premises, I try to provide evidence to support, or to at least justify, it. I can't always do so, but when I can't I try to own up to the fact that it is an assumption.

I don't know what you're talking about by "you people" or "that which 'hasn't' been built."
Hey don't expect me to come up with all the answers, because I'm not the one who designed the d*** thing! But you are claiming to come up with some of the answers based on nothing more than analogies, guesses, and "what if?". Why should we believe your claims if you can't support them?

And watch the language.

[Ipecac]

Iacchus,

You seem to be laboring under a complete misconception of what "brainwaves" are.

They are not thoughts. They do not transmit any information. They do not really serve any purpose.

They are a byproduct of your brain's electrochemical processes. Your brain does not use them for anything.

Therefore, there is no reason your brain needs to detect them, which is good because there is no mechanism for detecting them.

Got it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

See, here's the problem. You don't know the brain has the capacity to receive brainwaves, you're just guessing. Then, you're treating those guesses as facts.Let's just call it an educated guess.


You're fond of analogies. A car has the capacity to consume fuel. Does it also have the capacity to generate it, perhaps by running the engine in reverse?An analogy is merely a symbolic expression, not altogether different than the symbols we use in everyday math and language. Weren't they at one time analogies themselves?


In the very loosest sense of the term, perhaps. The brain is still not directly receiving its own brainwaves anymore than the brain directly receives radio waves. Just as the brain needs a radio (and a working set of ears) to receive radio waves, the brain needs something, say an oscilloscope, (and a working set of eyes) to receive its own brain waves, or any brainwaves for that matter.

More ifs? :nope:Doesn't make sense.


Our "energy field" is nothing more than an electromagnetic side-effect of the bioelectrical impulses of our neural system. There is no evidence that the human brain has any mechanism for accepting the "input" of that EM field, that I am aware of. Further, biofeedback does not occur until the subject is provided a mechanism for monitoring their own brainwaves (or heartbeat, etc.). If the brain did have a mechanism for receiving its own brainwaves, biofeedback would occur without the need for an external mechanism. Do you have any evidence that it does or are you merely assuming that it does?Nothing more? Because we have no evidence? That's dumb.

Actually, if we did have a spirit, this is precisely where it would interact, with the neural system.


Also, are you defining "spirit" to be an energy field, and thus detectable, susceptible to the laws of physics, and manipulable? Well I understand we can raise our voice to the heavens and it would have a profound impact there.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the brain generates brainwaves then it must also have a means by which to receive them, right?


It still involves "tuning in" to a certain wavelength.

Just for clarification, the brain does not use EM waves to transmit information.

When a nueron 'fores' there is a wave of chemical polarization along the cell membrane that 'switches' the polarity of the 'channels' in the cell membrane. This leads the synaptic end of the nueron to release nuero transmitter.

The polarization most likely generates a very weak signal called a brain wave, but it is comaprable to mistaking the static electricity on your slipper for walking.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let's just call it an educated guess."Educated" suggests that you have actual information to justify the guess. Do you and if so, what?
An analogy is merely a symbolic expression, not altogether different than the symbols we use in everyday math and language. Weren't they at one time analogies themselves?So, you accept analogies as proof when they agree with what you say, but disagree with them when they don't? First, do you not see that this is a dishonest double standard. Second, do you not see that "analogies as evidence" is useless?
Doesn't make sense.Which part? The human brain does not have a mechinism for receiving its own brainwaves. What don't you get?
Nothing more? Because we have no evidence? That's dumb.Why assume something when there is no evidence that it is so? That's not dumb, it's pragmatic.
Actually, if we did have a spirit, this is precisely where it would interact, with the neural system.You and your "ifs". :rolleyes: All you have is a hypothesis. Its truth value has yet to be determined. How will you prove or disprove your hypothesis?
Well I understand we can raise our voice to the heavens and it would have a profound impact there. What in the world are you talking about? How does that have any connection to the question I asked? What "profound impact" would shouting at the sky have, exactly?

[Dancing David]

Iacchus: Lets bump back to the part where you talk about the effects of meditation.

The buddha came to exactly the opposite conclusion as you. As a result of his meditation he came to the conclusion that there is no 'inner' self, there is no self period!

There is that truth again that different people looking at the samething will come to different conclusions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

What do you mean? I try to base everything I say on what I can show to be true. If someone challenges one of my premises, I try to provide evidence to support, or to at least justify, it. I can't always do so, but when I can't I try to own up to the fact that it is an assumption.It's not like I dreamt the whole thing up in a test tube you know. In fact, for the most part I was the only one there ... as an observer, and the only one making the associations. So, you can claim I made the whole thing up if you like?


I don't know what you're talking about by "you people" or "that which 'hasn't' been built."We're either speaking about something which is "real" or we're not.


But you are claiming to come up with some of the answers based on nothing more than analogies, guesses, and "what if?". Why should we believe your claims if you can't support them?

And watch the language. Yes, why should you?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, why should you? http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/cwm/cwm/eek7.gif ooooookay.

So, you agree there is no reason to believe your claim? Then why bother to claim it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

You and your "ifs". :rolleyes: All you have is a hypothesis. Its truth value has yet to be determined. How will you prove or disprove your hypothesis?Aside from what the title says, which is obviously a play on words, I'm not here to prove or disprove anything.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. What were you expecting then, when you presented unfounded ideas on what is generally considered a skeptic's board? Why are you here, then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

What were you expecting then, when you presented unfounded ideas on what is generally considered a skeptic's board? Why are you here, then? Yes, why are we here? ... The basic question of existence ...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, why are we here? Not "we" and not "here". Why did you start posting on this board?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not "we" and not "here". Why did you start posting on this board? Why do you do anything if it doesn't boil down to the fact that you exist? Yes, it is a matter of a question of existence. And it's something I ask myself all the time.

Besides, according to Dancing David above, "I" don't exist anyway. So, it's like when I leave this forum, it was like "I" was never here.

Well, it's off into the incomprehensible distance now I guess. ;)

[Upchurch]

Ah. So, just the trolling, then? Or are you also trying to advertise your website?

[Ipecac]

Man, is this guy a goofball or what?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ah. So, just the trolling, then? Or are you also trying to advertise your website? No, I do have something to say, but it seems to be neither here nor there. So ...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Regardless, it's not necessary to know all these things in order practice the meditation as I've described it.

And why do they call it the "mind's eye," if it didn't have some reference to your mind or brain?

They call it the minds eye because you can imagine imagery.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I do have something to sayAnd what sort of reaction were you expecting?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Man, is this guy a goofball or what? No, I'm an alien from outer-space or, would that be "inner-space?" :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then what exactly is being accomplished here? And "who" is tuning into what?

I just said, no one is tuning into anything.

Did you even read the link? If you did, you wouldn't ask that question. A person is hooked up, in order to monitor biorythms, such as heartbeat, body temp, eeg, etc. A light, or buzzer, or whatever, is used to signal these to the person, the person then consciously focuses on their heartbeat, or whatever we are talking about, and makes the light speed up, or slow down.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Or, perhaps we're speaking of a different type of "circuitry" involved? (and signals received).


So you would like to say there is another type of cell we are missing? After looking at millions apon millions of brain slices, and only seeing neurons, we are missing something? At this point, your desire could best be described as wishing.


No, the problem is that you won't acknowledge the brain is capable of picking up signals beyond itself.

OK, so my problem is that I won't acknowledge something that you desire to be true, with no evidence to back it up? Well jee, both you and I have a huge number of problems then.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course, if it were all the same -- that's a lot like saying everybody's mother is a whore by the why -- then there would be no need to differentiate.

Umm...ok, are all mothers different? Do you think its rational to call all other mothers but your own a whore? thats what you are doing here with meditation.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let's just call it an educated guess.


Really, and what is this education you have to back it up?


An analogy is merely a symbolic expression, not altogether different than the symbols we use in everyday math and language. Weren't they at one time analogies themselves?


um, no. The important part of an analogy is that you are pointing similarities in things that are decidedly different. Also, you are only pointing what you believe to be a similarity, it's merely an expression of your belief.


Nothing more? Because we have no evidence? That's dumb.

Actually, if we did have a spirit, this is precisely where it would interact, with the neural system.


This is like a man who sells you a chest of drawers, and tells you there are 4 very large secret drawers hiddin within it. You buy, take it home, and look for the secret drawers. As you get more and more frustrated over not finding the drawers, you completely dissamble it, not finding any secret drawers. You call up the salesman, and tell him of your findings, and demand your money back. He responds, "well, just because you can't find any evidence of any secret drawers, doesn't mean they aren't there"

We have studied the neural system with great detail. If there was electromagnetic communication from beyond with the neural system, it would be a huge hidden drawer, and it would be *very* difficult to miss.


Well I understand we can raise our voice to the heavens and it would have a profound impact there.

So, we can have a profound impact on heaven? How is that useful, and who told you it is so, and on what authority?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I just said, no one is tuning into anything.

Did you even read the link? If you did, you wouldn't ask that question. A person is hooked up, in order to monitor biorythms, such as heartbeat, body temp, eeg, etc. A light, or buzzer, or whatever, is used to signal these to the person, the person then consciously focuses on their heartbeat, or whatever we are talking about, and makes the light speed up, or slow down. Sounds like somebody is trying to tune into something here.

And don't they also do the same thing with brainwaves, you know, try to get you to produce alpha waves, theta waves and what not?

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=alpha+brain+waves&kgs=0&kls=1&avkw=aapt

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

So you would like to say there is another type of cell we are missing? After looking at millions apon millions of brain slices, and only seeing neurons, we are missing something? At this point, your desire could best be described as wishing.Evidently.


OK, so my problem is that I won't acknowledge something that you desire to be true, with no evidence to back it up? Well jee, both you and I have a huge number of problems then. Again, the fact that you say I desire it to be true is your assertion.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sounds like somebody is trying to tune into something here.


Please tell me what definition of tuning you are using here. None of the definitions I have seem to fit. If you are drummer, and playing in a band, are you tuning into the beat?


And don't they also do the same thing with brainwaves, you know, try to get you to produce alpha waves, theta waves and what not?

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=alpha+brain+waves&kgs=0&kls=1&avkw=aapt

I already gave you links to experiments and examples. However, since its something involing the brain, a lot of people misunderstand it, or look to make a profit off of other peoples misunderstanding (which the altavista links show pretty well).

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Evidently.


That implies you have evidence to show that we are missing something, what is your evidence?


Again, the fact that you say I desire it to be true is your assertion.

The only evidence you've ever provided for your beliefs are "wouldn't it be great if it were true" or "wouldn't it be depressing if it wasn't"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Umm...ok, are all mothers different? Do you think its rational to call all other mothers but your own a whore? thats what you are doing here with meditation. No, it's the principle I'm looking at here. I didn't lump everything together like you did in order to say the whole thing was worthless. Which, is just another attempt to "bastardize" the whole thing.

This, I should also say, is one of my main grievances against Science, which tends to do this in its approach.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=alpha+brain+waves&kgs=0&kls=1&avkw=aapt Web search results? Nice. A lot of effort you put in there....

Did you notice that you provided this link (http://www.skepdic.com/alphawaves.html) along with your links that advertise music CDs for sale?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I already gave you links to experiments and examples. However, since its something involing the brain, a lot of people misunderstand it, or look to make a profit off of other peoples misunderstanding (which the altavista links show pretty well). Evidently.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Web search results? Nice. A lot of effort you put in there....

Did you notice that you provided this link (http://www.skepdic.com/alphawaves.html) along with your links that advertise music CDs for sale? I just noticed there was a lot of reference material there in case anybody was interested.

And what were the key words I used: "alpha, brain, waves."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sounds like somebody is trying to tune into something here.

And don't they also do the same thing with brainwaves, you know, try to get you to produce alpha waves, theta waves and what not?

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=alpha+brain+waves&kgs=0&kls=1&avkw=aapt

This is great!!


The CD uses binaural technology to ensure your brain produces the desired frequencies. It also works directly on your higher brain through direct vibrational content.


The last part could be someone hitting you on the head with a hammer..


Are you really looking for answers or seeking any credibility??

As Russ has pointed out, millions of legitimate research hours have been spent on the brain, and it is safe to say that few of those hours were spent by the people selling this crap...

Listen to what people are telling you.. Brain ' waves ' are not ' waves '.. The only waves here, are the graphs produced by measuring/recording the electrical activity of the brain.. THis electrical activity is not comparable ( except in a remotely analogous way ) to electrical current flowing in a wire, which really does produce electromagnetic ' waves '.......

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it's the principle I'm looking at here. I didn't lump everything together like you did in order to say the whole thing was worthless. Which, is just an attempt to "bastardize" the whole thing.

No, I'm saying that you lumped everything together into your "right way", and everybody elses "wrong way"

[Ossai]

Iacchus
There are different types of meditation though. Ok, there are different types of meditation. I still see no spiritual aspect to either and you have yet to even begin your case for the spiritual. <nice attempted evasion>.

By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely? No, what it sound like is you expressing your ignorance of both psychology and physiology.

If we have a spirit which, in all likelihood would be our energy field -- or aura? -- then what's to keep the brain from detecting electro-magnetic impulses from it? Begging the question (3). You're assuming the existence of a spirit. You're assuming that the spirit would be / is an energy field. You're assuming the existence of an energy field / aura. Provide evidence of these three then continue.

Let's just call it an educated guess. What are your educational qualifications to label your assertions as such?

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Really, and what is this education you have to back it up?I live ... I experience ... I know ...


um, no. The important part of an analogy is that you are pointing similarities in things that are decidedly different. Also, you are only pointing what you believe to be a similarity, it's merely an expression of your belief.How do we know anything, if we don't have something to compare it to? Isn't this how knowledge came about in the first place?


This is like a man who sells you a chest of drawers, and tells you there are 4 very large secret drawers hiddin within it. You buy, take it home, and look for the secret drawers. As you get more and more frustrated over not finding the drawers, you completely dissamble it, not finding any secret drawers. You call up the salesman, and tell him of your findings, and demand your money back. He responds, "well, just because you can't find any evidence of any secret drawers, doesn't mean they aren't there"Can you tell me with any degree of certainty that God does or does not exist?


We have studied the neural system with great detail. If there was electromagnetic communication from beyond with the neural system, it would be a huge hidden drawer, and it would be *very* difficult to miss.Or, maybe you're just afraid to admit you don't know?


So, we can have a profound impact on heaven? How is that useful, and who told you it is so, and on what authority? Yes, "And by whose authority do you speak?" Hmm ... Seems like this question was asked a long time ago.

All you have to do is beat up a little child and it "will" have an impact on heaven.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


No, I'm saying that you lumped everything together into your "right way", and everybody elses "wrong way" No, I'm afraid all I was trying to do was make a "reasonable" distinction.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I live ... I experience ... I know ...


Yes, we all do, now answer the question instead of stating something meaningless.


How do we know anything, if we don't have something to compare it to? Isn't this how knowledge came about in the first place?


analogies are a very poor way of comparing things. They are more like telling a story than anything else. Does telling a story prove anything? Does me providing analogies that go against what you are saying in any way disprove you point?


Can you tell me with any degree of certainty that God does or does not exist?


Yes, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that no gods exist.


Or, maybe you're just afraid to admit you don't know?


What don't I know? Nice job not bothering to respond to the argument btw.


Yes, "And by whose authority do you speak?" Hmm ... Seems like this question was asked a long time ago.


Thanks for again, making no attempt whatsoever to answer any question.


All you have to do is beat up a little child and it "will" have an impact on heaven.

I have no evidence of any place called heaven. However, irregardless of heaven, it definately has an effect on that child in the real world. But beating up children was not the question, the question was about yelling loudly to a diety.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I'm afraid all I was trying to do was make a "reasonable" distinction.

you never really said why yours was better, or gave any reason to believe yours is more spiritual than others. You have made no distinction other than to say, "mine good", "others bad"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai
Iacchus
Ok, there are different types of meditation. I still see no spiritual aspect to either and you have yet to even begin your case for the spiritual.Any wonder why? Maybe in the next thread. Of course one or two of us may have a problem with the numbers but, we shall see. ;)


No, what it sound like is you expressing your ignorance of both psychology and physiology. Yes, if that's all there was.


Begging the question (3). You're assuming the existence of a spirit. You're assuming that the spirit would be / is an energy field. You're assuming the existence of an energy field / aura. Provide evidence of these three then continue.Why should I have to assume anything? Sounds plausible to me.

What are your educational qualifications to label your assertions as such?

Ossai I'm a human being, I own a piece of the original equipment.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

you never really said why yours was better, or gave any reason to believe yours is more spiritual than others. You have made no distinction other than to say, "mine good", "others bad" It's possible that I might have gotten that in there, but lots of questions posed and only so much time to respond.

And I did "distinguish" between two or three different meditations.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus

I'm a human being, I own a piece of the original equipment.

That means nothing. As a human being you also own a liver, but unless you had some degree of education I find it highly doubtful you could tell anyone what it does or how it works. Likewise merely having a brain doesn't qualify you to make assertions as to how THAT organ works either.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm a human being, I own a piece of the original equipment. Everyone on this board is a human being with a brain and so far, most everyone here disagrees with your assertions. What, then, makes you believe that your assertions are true?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Yes, we all do, now answer the question instead of stating something meaningless.What was the question? Or, are you referring to something else? ;)


analogies are a very poor way of comparing things. They are more like telling a story than anything else. Does telling a story prove anything? Does me providing analogies that go against what you are saying in any way disprove you point?Everything has to have a beginning.


Yes, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that no gods exist. Enough said ... Case dismissed.


What don't I know? Nice job not bothering to respond to the argument btw.At the very least it tells us whether we're biased or not.


Thanks for again, making no attempt whatsoever to answer any question.What, you would have me say something reasonable while I attempt to dodge all your loaded questions?


I have no evidence of any place called heaven. However, irregardless of heaven, it definately has an effect on that child in the real world. But beating up children was not the question, the question was about yelling loudly to a diety. But both have something to do with the original reply below ...


Originally posted by Upchurch

Also, are you defining "spirit" to be an energy field, and thus detectable, susceptible to the laws of physics, and manipulable?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

That means nothing. As a human being you also own a liver, but unless you had some degree of education I find it highly doubtful you could tell anyone what it does or how it works. Likewise merely having a brain doesn't qualify you to make assertions as to how THAT organ works either. Of course, we have to rely on the "experts" of the field now don't we?

So what's the difference between an expert and someone who has a vested interest in something?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What was the question? Or, are you referring to something else? ;)


You could just look back in the thread, but I suppose I'll spoon feed you.

"Really, and what is this education you have to back it up?"

which refers to:

"Let's just call it an educated guess."

which refers to Upchurch:

"See, here's the problem. You don't know the brain has the capacity to receive brainwaves, you're just guessing. Then, you're treating those guesses as facts."

So what education do you have on brainwaves by which you could make an educated guess about them?


Everything has to have a beginning.


And that has anything to do with my question because....


Enough said ... Case dismissed.


Sarcasm won't help you here.


At the very least it tells us whether we're biased or not.


And that responds to what part of "What don't I know? Nice job not bothering to respond to the argument btw."?


What, you would have me say something reasonable while I attempt to dodge all your loaded questions?


I suppose they are loaded, sorry about that, didn't mean to make you *think*.


But both have something to do with the original reply below ...


no it doesn't.

Just another reply by Iacchus full of meaningless assertions with no attempt whatsoever to answer to any arguments.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course, we have to rely on the "experts" of the field now don't we?

Yes you do. Either that or become one of the experts yourself. Either way requires study and effort which is something with a lot more to back it up than simply throwing out a lot of assertions because they sound good to you.

edited to add: And in response to your question about "what is the difference between an expert and someone with a vested interest in something. It's a false dichotomy, the two groups are unrelated, some experts have a vested interest, some don't some people with a vested interest are experts, some aren't. If you want to educate yourself on a subject in order to be able to make "educated guesses" then part of that education is learning to discriminate between the two.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course, we have to rely on the "experts" of the field now don't we?


That is the beauty of science, you don't have to rely on experts. Their provide detailed descriptions of their methods and experiments. You can see for yourself, you don't have to take anything on faith.


So what's the difference between an expert and someone who has a vested interest in something?

Well lets see....a doctor who specializes in livers and liver disease would be an expert. Someone with a liver condition would have a vested interest in their liver. Who would you go to for a liver transplant?

So the difference is that an expert makes it his buisness to know the facts, whereas someone with a vested interest may or may not have facts.

Edited for spelling

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Yes you do. Either that or become one of the experts yourself. Either way requires study and effort which is something with a lot more to back it up than simply throwing out a lot of assertions because they sound good to you. I'm afraid we live in different realms buddy. ;) The coin in one realm does not necessarily apply to the coin in the other.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm afraid we live in different realms buddy. ;) The coin in one realm does not necessarily apply to the coin in the other.

Then the "coin" of your realm basicly is throwing out a lot of wild guesses and unsupported assertions. Sounds like pretty worthless coinage to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

That is the beauty of science, you don't have to rely on experts. Their provide detailed descriptions of their methods and experiments. You can see for yourself, you don't have to take anything on faith.Oh, but in order to be scientist, don't you have to be an "expert" in your field?


Well lets see....a doctor who specializes in livers and liver disease would be an expert. Someone with a liver condition would have a vested interest in their liver. Who would you go to for a liver transplant?

So the difference is that an expert makes it his buisness to know the facts, whereas someone with a vested interest may or may not have facts.

Edited for spelling Tell it to those who don't agree with the AMA. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Then the "coin" of your realm basicly is throwing out a lot of wild guesses and unsupported assertions. Sounds like pretty worthless coinage to me. Yes, but if you understood it from my standpoint, maybe you wouldn't be saying this?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, but in order to be scientist, don't you have to be an "expert" in your field?


In order to become a scientist in a certain field, you have to understand that field. To understand that field, you have to do a good bit of studying. In the process of studying the field, and participating as a scientist in that field, you become an expert.


Tell it to those who don't agree with the AMA. ;)

Tell them what? That a liver transplant surgeon is qualified to perform a liver transplant, while someone who just has a liver is not?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but if you understood it from my standpoint, maybe you wouldn't be saying this?

We do understand your viewpoint. If there is something you think we don't understand about your viewpoint, by all means, explain it to us.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, but in order to be scientist, don't you have to be an "expert" in your field? No, of course not. You can repeat their experiments and check the information for yourself.

Granted, you can't perform experiments on human beings without following proper proceedures, which requires proving you have a certain level of expertise.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Are you saying that the brain is capable of picking up its own brainwaves? Based on what?

You do know that biofeedback isn't the brain picking up its own brainwaves but rather getting feedback based on its own brainwaves through an intermediary? Wow! "Tuning in" huh? ;)

Yes, the brain is incapable of tuning in -- or, perhaps subconsciously? -- but the "conscious mind" certainly is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the brain is incapable of tuning in -- or, perhaps subconsciously? -- but the "conscious mind" certainly is. Only by using an external mechanism, like a osciloscope. Haven't we already been through this?

How does this show spiritualism again?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Wow! "Tuning in" huh? ;)

Yes, the brain is incapable of tuning in -- or, perhaps subconsciously? -- but the "conscious mind" certainly is.

Again, define "tuning in". You can say that I'm tuned in to the TV while watching it, but then you can't use that to say we are tuned into a spiritual source of consciousness. You would be using two completely different meanings of "tuned in"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

We do understand your viewpoint. If there is something you think we don't understand about your viewpoint, by all means, explain it to us. If this is anything like what you've been explaining all this time, I would say "no."

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but if you understood it from my standpoint, maybe you wouldn't be saying this?

Well, in admitting that what you are saying is just wild gueses and unsupported assertions, I have to at least give you 100 bonus points for honesty.

What you don't seem to get is that your guesses and assertions have nothing to back them up. Zip, zilch, nada. I fail to see how you can expect ideas that have no backing to have equal footing with ideas that have some sort of evidence behind them.

Let me put it this way, if you got really sick someday, which would you have more confidence in: me (I am a computer programmer, I have no medical training) making a diagnosis by just guessing what your problem is, or a doctor who is trained in such things diagnosing you by matching your symptoms to what he has learned they usually mean. I am going to assume you would want the doctor's diagnosis because he has something on which to base it. Do you see the difference?"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Only by using an external mechanism, like a osciloscope. Haven't we already been through this?So they initially learn how to do this with an oscilloscope, and then they go off and do it own their own.


How does this show spiritualism again? How does "what" show spiritualism?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If this is anything like what you've been explaining all this time, I would say "no."

? Was I supposed to be explaining your viewpoint to you? I'm confused.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So they initially learn how to do this with an oscilloscope, and then they go off and do it own their own.


Bio-feedback doesn't work nearly as well if you don't have the feedback part. Going away and doing it on your own would be like attempting to move your ears and watching yourself in the mirror until the twitch, then going off and doing it on your own


How does "what" show spiritualism?

*Anything* in this entire discussion

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How does "what" show spiritualism? Lawdy gawd, its like talking to a child....
Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by Upchurch

Sure, bio-feedback has plenty of evidence to back up its effects and usefullness. What does that have to do with spirituality? By tuning into one's brainwaves for a start. Doesn't that suggest to you that the mind is like a receiver, which is capable of picking up signals both locally and remotely?Now, how does this show spiritualism again?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Again, define "tuning in". You can say that I'm tuned in to the TV while watching it, but then you can't use that to say we are tuned into a spiritual source of consciousness. You would be using two completely different meanings of "tuned in" There's a spiritual reality and there's a material reality, and typically very little "conscious" information is exchanged between the two. Now that isn't to say there's not a whole lot going on on the "subconscious level." In fact I think the material world may very well represent the subconscious level of the spiritual realm, and vice versa.

So I would suggest it is possible to tune in to some aspect of the spiritual world.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

? Was I supposed to be explaining your viewpoint to you? I'm confused. I'm saying this only illustrates that you don't understand where I'm coming from.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There's a spiritual reality No there isn't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lawdy gawd, its like talking to a child....

Now, how does this show spiritualism again? Yes, but we have to define what "tuning in" means before we can discuss the spiritual part.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but we have to define what "tuning in" means before we can discuss the spiritual part. Surely you must have throught this through before making such an assertion. What then did you mean by "tuning in"?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There's a spiritual reality


Over timed, people have refined their religions and come up with many spiritual realities, most of them conflicting with eachother. Now, on what merit do you claim there is a spiritual reality?


and there's a material reality, and typically very little "conscious" information is exchanged between the two.


Mind explaining the process by which such an exchange takes place, and propose an experiment to test that transfer?


Now that isn't to say there's not a whole lot going on on the "subconscious level."


Ok, how about an experiment on this "level" then.


In fact I think the material world may very well represent the subconscious level of the spiritual realm, and vice versa.


You think, but I think the earth rests upon a giant elephant. Does either idea have any more merit than the other?


So I would suggest it is possible to tune in to some aspect of the spiritual world.

By what method, by what process?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm saying this only illustrates that you don't understand where I'm coming from.

The fact that I don't explain your viewpoint to you illustrates that I don't understand where you are coming from? I had no clue I was under some obligation to explain your viewpoint to you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Bio-feedback doesn't work nearly as well if you don't have the feedback part. Going away and doing it on your own would be like attempting to move your ears and watching yourself in the mirror until the twitch, then going off and doing it on your ownOriginally posted by Upchurch

Surely you must have throught this through before making such an assertion. What then did you mean by "tuning in"? It doesn't say it's "not" possible, nor does it say they're "not" tuning in, Okay?

And there you have it folks, the 444th post! (http://www.dionysus.org) Which, suggests to me, everything is right about in sink.

Let's see ... 123 + 444 = 567.

[Suezoled]

I just popped in to say that Upchurch has put up a most handsome pic of himself. :)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It doesn't say it's "not" possible, nor does it say they're "not" tuning in, Okay? How does that even remotely address my post?

And thanks, Suezoled! :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It doesn't say it's "not" possible, nor does it say they're "not" tuning in, Okay?

And it is also possible that I am a warlock, and will turn you into a carrot. However, I'm sure you don't believe that and can say with almost absolute certainty that you will not turn into a carrot. Why though, you cannot disprove that I am a powerfull warlock, I'd sure like to believe I am. So, anyway, since we all agree I'm a powerfull warlock, send me all your money, or I'll turn you into a carrot.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And there you have it folks, the 444th post (http://www.dionysus.org). Which, suggests to me, everything is right about in sink.

Let's see ... 123 + 444 = 567.

Ok, and if absolutely nothing changes, does that indicate to you that your numerology is bunk? Have you ever looked at the moby dick version of the bible code?

did you know my phone number is magical? No matter how you add the last 4 digits, you get 8

5+9+3+9=26, 2+6=8
5+939=944,
9+4+4=17, 1+7=8,
9+44=53, 5+3=8
94+4=98, 9+8=17, 1+7=8
59+39 = 98, 9+8=17, 1+7=8
593+9 = 602
6+0+2=8
60+2=62, 6+2=8

Truly, I am a master warlock, and you should bow to me!

Edited because I wasn't done yet

[Upchurch]

It gets better and more significant in unexplained ways!!

1. 2 is the largest prime factor of 8
2. 444/2 = 222
2. 2*2*2 = 8

!!!

:eek:

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It gets better and more significant in unexplained ways!!

1. 2 is the largest prime factor of 8
2. 444/2 = 222
2. 2*2*2 = 8

!!!

:eek:

Also, its the 780th prime number, that's 7 for perfect, and 8, because 8 is its energy number. Also, 7+8+2 digts that aren't 0 = 17, 1+7=8

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill
Originally posted by Iacchus

And there you have it folks, the 444th post (http://www.dionysus.org/). Which, suggests to me, everything is right about in sink.

Let's see ... 123 + 444 = 567. Ok, and if absolutely nothing changes, does that indicate to you that your numerology is bunk? Have you ever looked at the moby dick version of the bible code?I'm glad you acknowledged that, so now I can continue ...

According to the Menorah on the Front Cover (http://www.dionysus.org), I've plotted the six "basic" colors (the three primary and three secondary) and the color white according to the following numbers ... Red (1), orange (2), yellow (3), white (4), green (5), blue (6) and violet (7).

Now I normally wouldn't have brought it up (by the way I didn't plan it this way either ;)) except, that the number 444 is central to the whole theme of the meditation and the avatar.

So, when you multiply 3 x 41 you get 123; and, when you multilply 7 x 81 you get 567. Now that doesn't seem like a big deal but, when you multiply 37 x 12 you get -- 444. So there you have it, the two basic colors of the meditation -- yellow (3) and violet (7) -- and, the color white (444), thus signifying the full spectrum or, "white light."

Just a coincidence you think?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[b]

According to the Menorah on the Front Cover (http://www.dionysus.org), I've plotted the six "basic" colors (the three primary and three secondary) and the color white according to the following numbers ... Red (1), orange (2), yellow (3), white (4), green (5), blue (6) and violet (7).

Just a coincidence you think?

Yes.

Your assigning of numbers is totally arbitrary.

Why not assign it as ROY G BV W, at and using 1-7, It would be slightly more logical.

Why did you use the additive mixing scale?

You could have used the subtractive mixing scale and then you would have had to choose different colors.

Everything about this in entirely aribitrary.

Including the fact that you apprently don't even know what the primary colors are since they are in fact:

Red Green Blue

Secondary
Mgenta Yellow and Cyan

But since you're just making up crap as you go along anyway, hey why not make up a new color system for yourself while you're at it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Just a coincidence you think?

Yes I do. If you look hard enough and play enough games with numbers, you can link just about anything to any number.

[Andonyx]

Oh and while you're busy having fantasies about the menorah, care to explain where the missing candle is on that particular menorah?

I mean I stopped practicing Judaism, but last I checked, Hannukah still had 8 days.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm glad you acknowledged that, so now I can continue ...


Sigh...I would think even you would be able to spot that parody a mile away.


According to the Menorah on the Front Cover (http://www.dionysus.org), I've plotted the six "basic" colors (the three primary and three secondary) and the color white according to the following numbers ... Red (1), orange (2), yellow (3), white (4), green (5), blue (6) and violet (7).


First, there is no reason to assign them in that order, second, you are leaving out a bunch of colors, black and grey especially.


Now I normally wouldn't have brought it up (by the way I didn't plan it this way either ;)) except, that the number 444 is central to the whole theme of the meditation and the avatar.

So, when you multiply 3 x 41 you get 123; and, when you multilply 7 x 81 you get 567. Now that doesn't seem like a big deal but, when you multiply 37 x 12 you get -- 444. So there you have it, the two basic colors of the meditation -- yellow (3) and violet (7) -- and, the color white (444), thus signifying the full spectrum or, "white light."

Just a coincidence you think?

ya, just coincidence, any other number base system, and it doesn't work, add any other colors, and it doesn't work. Change 41 to another number, and it does't work, change 81 to another number, and it doesn't work, change 12 to another number, and it doesn't work. Why is white 4, and not 1 or 7? Also, you'd consider many other numbers as hits, such as 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999, 234, 345, 456, 678, 789, 210, 321, 432, 543, 654, 765, 876, 987, 101, 202, 303, 404, 505, 606, 707, 808, 909, I could probably go on and on.

Here is your "system" in octal:

3*41=173
7*81=1067
37*12=674

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, when you multiply 3 x 41 you get 123; and, when you multilply 7 x 81 you get 567. Now that doesn't seem like a big deal but, when you multiply 37 x 12 you get -- 444. So there you have it, the two basic colors of the meditation -- yellow (3) and violet (7) -- and, the color white (444), thus signifying the full spectrum or, "white light."Okay, you explained the significance of 37 (which, as Andonyx pointed out, was arbitrarily assigned), but does 12 have to do with it? or 41? or 123?

Actually, none of this has any significance because it is totally contrived.
Just a coincidence you think? Is the numerology example that Russ and I put together above just a coincidence? Does it show a conclusive link between Russ's phone number and the color white?

Your system is arbitrary and you're shows no mathematical significance at all. It's just a haphazard juggling of numbers.

[Andonyx]

In fairness I will interject a clarification:

The numbering systems is NOT arbitrary because of the order of the numbers. In hebrew we work from right to left and the candles are also placed in the menorah in order from right to left.

That of course doesn't excuse why there are only 7, but then nothing here makes sense anyway.

However what IS aribitrary are the colors of the candles themselves. There is nothing anywhere in our traditions of Hannukah that says what colors go in which slot. So that happy little GIF image of a psuedo menorah Lachus linked to is completely arbitrary, and there is no significance to which colors get assigned which number.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Andonyx
In fairness I will interject a clarification:

The numbering systems is NOT arbitrary because of the order of the numbers. In hebrew we work from right to left and the candles are also placed in the menorah in order from right to left.

That of course doesn't excuse why there are only 7, but then nothing here makes sense anyway.

However what IS aribitrary are the colors of the candles themselves. There is nothing anywhere in our traditions of Hannukah that says what colors go in which slot. So that happy little GIF image of a psuedo menorah Lachus linked to is completely arbitrary, and there is no significance to which colors get assigned which number.

you can add to that that his system is dependant on the arabic system of counting, which afaik, the jews did not have.

[Iacchus]

Okay, started a new thread ... You Want More Proof? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33560)

Please restrict your numerology replies to this if at all possible. Thanks.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by RussDill


you can add to that that his system is dependant on the arabic system of counting, which afaik, the jews did not have.

I was in a reform synagogue....

heh heh.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Andonyx
In fairness I will interject a clarification:

The numbering systems is NOT arbitrary because of the order of the numbers. In hebrew we work from right to left and the candles are also placed in the menorah in order from right to left.Correct.


That of course doesn't excuse why there are only 7, but then nothing here makes sense anyway.Before Hannukah was instituted the original Menorah had seven.


However what IS aribitrary are the colors of the candles themselves. Why? The color spectrum exists between infra-"red" and ultra-"violet" -- i.e., begins with red and ends with violet -- while the spectrum itself is called white light which, for all intents purposes should be placed in "the center."


There is nothing anywhere in our traditions of Hannukah that says what colors go in which slot. So that happy little GIF image of a psuedo menorah Lachus linked to is completely arbitrary, and there is no significance to which colors get assigned which number. No, but it does illustrate a relationship between colors and numbers.

Now I'm going to post my reply here to the new thread, and possibly one or two others but, will address them specifically over there.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Correct.


Before Hannukah was instituted the original Menorah had seven.


According to whom? I believe this to be incorrect.

Even if it's not, why is this significant at all. You pick a seven place candle holder I pick and eight place candle holder. The one I pick even already has some mystical significance, why is the one you pick more valid than mine.

In the vienna opera hous they have 6, 12 and eighteen place candle holders.

Why are those any less important than the seven place one?

You basically just said this has nothing to do with Hannukah, so why use the candle holder at all. You're just making this crap up.



Why? The color spectrum exists between infra-"red" and ultra-"violet" -- i.e., begins with red and ends with violet -- while the spectrum itself is called white light which, for all intents purposes should be placed in "the center."

Why do you put white in the center, that makes no mathematical or physical snese, On the one hand you are assigning colors by what you cal wavelength, even though you are skipping Indigo for no reason at all, then you place white in the middle even though that doesn't make sense from a wavelength proposition.


No, but it does illustrate a relationship between colors and numbers.

No it doesn't!

It only does if you play by the same made up rules you're playing by, and your rules make no sense.

There is everything arbitrary about this. You begin by saying primary colors, which has nothing to do with wavelength, then you say it's about wavelength which doesn't explain your placement of the white candle or its inclusion at all.

Then you include a menorah even though you demonstrate no reason why a menorah or the hebrew tradition should be brought into this at all.

You leave out colors at will such as orange and yellow, you actually get wrong what you call the primary colors....

In short you are wrong about most of this stuff and the rest you're making up in your head.