Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think uraninite is your innovation, and far be it from me to knock it; but connection to "real" stuff is "standard meditation." That is what works for any generation. People here like to attribute anything to a generation, but that's just for people here to be obsessed with. Vandal and kinser are not entitled to characterize what works for their generation. They are simply missing out, period and end of story. Sorry if I'm being too serious, but I am sincere in what I say about things, generally. If people mock it, that's their loss.

Lots of people are sincere when they posit their world views and values are correct while any conflicting world views and values are wrong. One difference between science and non-science is science on has to reliably reproduce the proof. Another difference is that in religion one can declare one's self to be enlightened, which allows one to speak ex cathedra to those who believe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

For anyone. But the best music for meditation, is meditative music. It's my specialty for my radio shows.

Well, I think that gets back to what music one finds to be relaxing. I've fallen asleep with a Motley Crue CD going. Motley Crue may come off sounding like a noisy freeway to you, but not to me.

But I can guarantee that the noise/heavy metal rock from the 3T is the worst possible music to meditate by. If you are meditating to that stuff, you're not meditating.

It is if it can put me to sleep. Which it has.

Try playing it to your plants and see what happens too. They will wilt and die.

Now that's funny. Last I checked, there aren't dead zones by noisy freeways and train tracks. But OK, being the experimentally inclined person I am, I'll play it in the garden and see what happens to the plants and the mushrooms I'll be growing. I want to know what happens to 2 different things, the fungi kingdom and the plant kingdom. Honestly, I think garden plants would respond better to the presence of trace amounts of transition elements. These would be rarely heard of elements like molybdenum,chromium,manganese, nickel (a known favorite of pecans), zinc (pecans need zinc or they don't grow well).
Now, wrt humans, while I'm at it. Here's a list of trace elements from the "men over 50" vitamin pills I take.

1. Non metals.
selenium,iodine

2. Boring elements.
calcium,phosphorus,magnesium,chlorine

3. Transition elements
zinc,copper,manganese,chromium,molybdenum,nickel,a nd vanadium.

4. metalloids
boron,silicon

There is no iron because over 50 males tend to have too much of that. The best way to clean it out is to donate blood. Too much iron is bad because it makes for free radicals. No not hippie free radicals, but chemical free radicals.

I think uraninite is your innovation, and far be it from me to knock it; but connection to "real" stuff is "standard meditation." That is what works for any generation. People here like to attribute anything to a generation, but that's just for people here to be obsessed with.

Yup. The uraninite thing works because it solves a personal internal contradiction. The weak force associated with radioactive decay of uranium allows for all 4 known forces to be around me. (With the uraninite augmenting the background weak force from stuff like carbon-14.) It's just my own variant of what others have described as "psi".

Vandal and kinser are not entitled to characterize what works for their generation. They are simply missing out, period and end of story. Sorry if I'm being too serious, but I am sincere in what I say about things, generally. If people mock it, that's their loss.

I know you are. I'll try to see if I can translate what their mindset is.
1. Take the lyrics of the 10 Years After song, "I'd love to change the world": How can they possibly know what those lyrics mean? Personally, I place "I'd love to change the world" as a thematic of the awakening. I know you're old enough to place the lyrics in your personal time line. I'm barely old enough to do likewise. I'd also place 1969 as the "pivot year" of the awakening. That was when everything changed, even in grade school. There was a before and there was an after. There were shows like Johnny Quest and Captain Kangaroo before, and shows like the "Banana Splits", right at 1969. Mom got into the horoscope stuff after 1969 as well. She got me some Taurus book even for Christmas. So what I'm saying is Vandal, and let alone Kinser. They weren't there, Eric. They can't know, 1969 is not in their timeline. Yeah, I know Vandal get's his panties in a wad over this stuff. Just calm dowwwwwwwwwwwn, and say, he wasn't there. He can't know. Just play "I'd love to Change the World", and say, they weren't there, they just can know.

HTH Rags, cusper meditation/mediation esq.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

and

Could be. He thinks verbs convey "agency". I'm not a grammarian, but I fail to see how anyone could write a coherent English sentence without the use of at least 1 verb.

The verbs I used. Could, be (with an implied "it".) convey, am, fail to see, could write

The statements you are referring to implied that nature was an agent that took action. The statements implied that nature had wishes and goals. It was not the presence of verbs that was the problem. It was using those verbs in reference to that particular subject in the sentence.

Nature can not hate straight lines and nature​ can not love fractals.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

So what I'm saying is Vandal, and let alone Kinser.

I thought you said you couldn't write a sentence without a verb in it?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

I thought you said you couldn't write a sentence without a verb in it?

In reply to: "So what I'm saying is Vandal, and let alone Kinser."

There are 3 verbs. "I'm" is a contraction of "I am". "am" is verb #1. "is" is verb #2, and "let" is verb #3.

am/is are inflected forms of the verb "to be". "To be" is the English copula, which is the verb which denotes equivalency. "Let" is a typical verb. I.E. "I let the dog into the house." "I" is the subject of the sentence, "let" is the verb, "dog" is the object of "let", and "into the house" is a prepositional phrase. The above is typical 7th grade sentence diagramming.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The statements you are referring to implied that nature was an agent that took action. The statements implied that nature had wishes and goals. It was not the presence of verbs that was the problem. It was using those verbs in reference to that particular subject in the sentence.

It depends on perspective. I see humans as an integral part of nature. The location of humans is immaterial. Fractals and straight lines only exist because humans have defined what they are.

Nature can not hate straight lines and nature​ can not love fractals.

... If humans are subtracted from what nature is. Now, care to tell me why the human brain has magnetite crystals in it? I really don't think the human body would go through all the bother of doing this for nothing. Homing pigeons also have magnetite crystals in their brains. They use theirs to navigate by using the earth's magnetic field.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Perhaps for you. But not for me. I do see an obvious pattern though.

Eric = Standard meditation as specified in prior post. Boom
Rags = Non standard meditation with some connection to "real" stuff like uraninite. Umm. Go check my avatar. Rags is left handed even, like said avatar. May be Joneser, but I'd need more data points to know for sure.
Vandal-72/Kinser = meditation or whatever is bunk. Xer

I can't speak for Vandal. He can speak for himself. I will say that I don't believe meditation is bunk per sae. I believe the methods of meditation proposed by all "mystics" and the religious (prayer for example) is bunk. However when I say that meditation is not bunk what I mean is the clearing of one's mind as a technique to allow what I call "mental defraging". And what other people, men in particular call "thinking about nothing".

In short this technique is to cause your rational mind to shut the fuck up. The goal here is to reach a perfectly calm emotional state.

To put it poeticly:

Originally Posted by Zero by the Smashing Pumpkins

Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness is cleanliness
And cleanliness is godliness, and god is empty just like me

As to using music while "meditating" or performing a mental defrag...it is best to not use music at all. Sound waves hitting the ear drum and the inner ear sending signals to the brain interferes with sutting down all neural transmissions not strictly related to homeostasis of the body.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I can't speak for Vandal. He can speak for himself. I will say that I don't believe meditation is bunk per sae. I believe the methods of meditation proposed by all "mystics" and the religious (prayer for example) is bunk. However when I say that meditation is not bunk what I mean is the clearing of one's mind as a technique to allow what I call "mental defraging". And what other people, men in particular call "thinking about nothing".

In short this technique is to cause your rational mind to shut the fuck up. The goal here is to reach a perfectly calm emotional state.

As to using music while "meditating" or performing a mental defrag...it is best to not use music at all. Sound waves hitting the ear drum and the inner ear sending signals to the brain interferes with shutting down all neural transmissions not strictly related to homeostasis of the body.

I am as sure that some of what you say is true, as I am also sure you really don't know much about the subject, since you already dismiss it as bunk on no basis whatever.

And the brain cannot meditate. There has to be human free will and decision-making, which no materialist brain theory can explain.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Lots of people are sincere when they posit their world views and values are correct while any conflicting world views and values are wrong. One difference between science and non-science is science on has to reliably reproduce the proof. Another difference is that in religion one can declare one's self to be enlightened, which allows one to speak ex cathedra to those who believe.

Science is a valuable method of knowing, and the idea that it is the best method is just one among many worldviews. Its proponents are just as dogmatic; perhaps more so since they claim they can provide "proof," and also because they claim that they are less biased. So they are blind to that very bias. Science as a worldview (scientism) uses its own definitions of "proof" to validate its own worldview which posits what that very "proof" should be.

Religion is a very rich source of dogma and "value-locked" worldviews. On the mystical level however, one accesses truths that are verifiable among those who access the same truths by the same means. Those who don't practice mysticism (or give up on it before results are obtained) are no more able to get those insights, than those who don't carry out a scientific experiment in a proper way to achieve verifiable facts and theories about the scientifically-observed world.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, I think that gets back to what music one finds to be relaxing. I've fallen asleep with a Motley Crue CD going. Motley Crue may come off sounding like a noisy freeway to you, but not to me.

I think you and others choose music that you find valuable and suits your purposes.

I know you are. I'll try to see if I can translate what their mindset is.
1. Take the lyrics of the 10 Years After song, "I'd love to change the world": How can they possibly know what those lyrics mean? Personally, I place "I'd love to change the world" as a thematic of the awakening. I know you're old enough to place the lyrics in your personal time line. I'm barely old enough to do likewise. I'd also place 1969 as the "pivot year" of the awakening. That was when everything changed, even in grade school. There was a before and there was an after. There were shows like Johnny Quest and Captain Kangaroo before, and shows like the "Banana Splits", right at 1969. Mom got into the horoscope stuff after 1969 as well. She got me some Taurus book even for Christmas. So what I'm saying is Vandal, and let alone Kinser. They weren't there, Eric. They can't know, 1969 is not in their timeline. Yeah, I know Vandal get's his panties in a wad over this stuff. Just calm dowwwwwwwwwwwn, and say, he wasn't there. He can't know. Just play "I'd love to Change the World", and say, they weren't there, they just can know.

I would say 1966 was the key shift year, but that was when things got rolling; by 1969 it had mainstreamed.

But that song and others (Aquarius), and all those trends, are just events that happened to bring a lot of boomer youth into meditation and Aquarian Age type stuff. The point you miss it that this has nothing to do with the nature of meditation and prayer per se. It doesn't matter what age people are who take up these practices. As kinser stated, even he can take them up, even though he is blind to the full meaning of them. But they bring results no matter when you do them, or at what age. And there are millies who do so, and will do so.

But it's true they won't have the advantage the boom had of a cultural revolution and awakening going on to encourage them to get on a bandwagon for this stuff and join the new age. And if vandal doesn't, and chooses to knock it, it's his loss and I will just chill out and ignore him. His point of view should not be allowed to prevail among his generation though. The new age word needs to continue to be put out, and this needs to be a mega-awakening or golden age, and not the mega-unraveling that people here mistakenly think it is. So tell vandal to calm down.

And guess what?!!! Millies have a song too! Hint: look in my siggie!

(heaven tell me I can make a change!)

(my goodness I hit that one outta the park!!!!)

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

In reply to: "So what I'm saying is Vandal, and let alone Kinser."

There are 3 verbs. "I'm" is a contraction of "I am". "am" is verb #1. "is" is verb #2, and "let" is verb #3.

am/is are inflected forms of the verb "to be". "To be" is the English copula, which is the verb which denotes equivalency. "Let" is a typical verb. I.E. "I let the dog into the house." "I" is the subject of the sentence, "let" is the verb, "dog" is the object of "let", and "into the house" is a prepositional phrase. The above is typical 7th grade sentence diagramming.

Yet, what you wrote is still an incomplete sentence fragment. Might want to go back and review your diagramming skills again.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

It depends on perspective. I see humans as an integral part of nature. The location of humans is immaterial. Fractals and straight lines only exist because humans have defined what they are.

This is NOT what the sentence I objected to was saying.

... If humans are subtracted from what nature is. Now, care to tell me why the human brain has magnetite crystals in it? I really don't think the human body would go through all the bother of doing this for nothing.

What you think is true and what can be demonstrated to be true are not the same thing.

Homing pigeons also have magnetite crystals in their brains. They use theirs to navigate by using the earth's magnetic field.

No, they don't.

http://m.video.pbs.org/video/2299746925/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think you and others choose music that you find valuable and suits your purposes.

I would say 1966 was the key shift year, but that was when things got rolling; by 1969 it had mainstreamed.

But that song and others (Aquarius), and all those trends, are just events that happened to bring a lot of boomer youth into meditation and Aquarian Age type stuff. The point you miss it that this has nothing to do with the nature of meditation and prayer per se. It doesn't matter what age people are who take up these practices. As kinser stated, even he can take them up, even though he is blind to the full meaning of them. But they bring results no matter when you do them, or at what age. And there are millies who do so, and will do so.

But it's true they won't have the advantage the boom had of a cultural revolution and awakening going on to encourage them to get on a bandwagon for this stuff and join the new age. And if vandal doesn't, and chooses to knock it, it's his loss and I will just chill out and ignore him.

No, you won't. You can not help yourself. You simply can not pass up any opportunity to pompously bloviate about the most ridiculous woo, as if it had the slightest relevance to reality.

His point of view should not be allowed to prevail among his generation though. The new age word needs to continue to be put out, and this needs to be a mega-awakening or golden age, and not the mega-unraveling that people here mistakenly think it is. So tell vandal to calm down.

Nothing you say has the slightest chance of getting me excited. You are not original in the slightest. I've been dealing with your New Age nonsense for decades.

And guess what?!!! Millies have a song too! Hint: look in my siggie!

(heaven tell me I can make a change!)

(my goodness I hit that one outta the park!!!!)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Science is a valuable method of knowing, and the idea that it is the best method is just one among many worldviews. Its proponents are just as dogmatic; perhaps more so since they claim they can provide "proof," and also because they claim that they are less biased. So they are blind to that very bias. Science as a worldview (scientism) uses its own definitions of "proof" to validate its own worldview which posits what that very "proof" should be.

If only there were an objective way to determine which worldview was most useful. If only we could ask the different world-views to use their realms of knowledge to create things that can be assessed by outsiders.

Science - modern medicine.
Woo - homeopathy.
Science - micro-electronics.
Woo - crystals.
Science - genetic engineering.
Woo - plant "feelings"

Yeah, I know where I'm placing my next bet.

Religion is a very rich source of dogma and "value-locked" worldviews. On the mystical level however, one accesses truths that are verifiable among those who access the same truths by the same means. Those who don't practice mysticism (or give up on it before results are obtained) are no more able to get those insights, than those who don't carry out a scientific experiment in a proper way to achieve verifiable facts and theories about the scientifically-observed world.

Science envy.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

This is NOT what the sentence I objected to was saying.

Yes it was.

What you think is true and what can be demonstrated to be true are not the same thing.

Man, I detect some bad vibes.
Here, let me help.


Ummm... Yeah, the lyrics are a bit hard to discern, so here they are.

Originally Posted by Crosby,Stills,Nash, and Young's cover of Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock"

Well I came upon a child of God, he was walking along the road
And I asked him tell where are you going, this he told me:
(He) said, I'm going down to Yasgur's farm, going to join in a rock and roll band.
Got to get back to the land, and set my soul free.
We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Well, then can I roam beside you? I have come to lose the smog.
And I feel myself a cog in something turning.
And maybe it's the time of year, yes, said maybe it's the time of man.
And I don't know who I am but life is for learning.
We are stardust, we are golden, we are *billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

By the time we got to Woodstock, we were half a million strong,
And everywhere was song and celebration.
And I dreamed I saw the bomber jet planes riding shotgun in the sky,
Turning into butterflies above our nation.

We are stardust, we are golden, we are caught in the devil's bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Yeah, they got the actual amount of billions of year of carbon wrong, but hey the magnitude of billion seems about right.

So yes, we're stardust.
So yes, we're several billion years old carbon. (Except that short lived carbon-14)
So yes,there was a lot of smog back around 1970. A lot more than there is now.
So yes, there are a lot of folks who feel like cogs in something turning. Just ask your local Wally World employee.
So yes, I do gardening.
So yes, I do have investments in gold. Ain't nucleosynthesis grand or what? You know, it's cosmic, man.
As far as actually attending Woodstock. Nope, I was only 7. My guess is that the reference to jet planes is in regard to 'Nam.
At least we did make necklaces out of dandelion stems and stick the flowers in our hair in 1st grade. Woodstock is my time portal to first grade, more or less. So, Vandal, spark up a blunt, play Woodstock, and just enjoy life. Sheesh.

No, they don't.

Oh, OK, my bad. Beaks, not brain.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tic_birds.html. But hey, the brain has to get a sense signal from the beak so the pigeon can adjust its wings.

http://m.video.pbs.org/video/2299746925/

I was lazy. I just wanted a quick read. That's why I chose the National Geographic article. After all, Vandal, life is for learning.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Yet, what you wrote is still an incomplete sentence fragment. Might want to go back and review your diagramming skills again.

The above is a deflection of the original criticism.

And...

Plonk!

Originally Posted by Vandal

This is NOT what the sentence I objected to was saying.

Yes it was.






Man, I detect some bad vibes.
Here, let me help.


Ummm... Yeah, the lyrics are a bit hard to discern, so here they are.


Yeah, they got the actual amount of billions of year of carbon wrong, but hey the magnitude of billion seems about right.

So yes, we're stardust.
So yes, we're several billion years old carbon. (Except that short lived carbon-14)
So yes,there was a lot of smog back around 1970. A lot more than there is now.
So yes, there are a lot of folks who feel like cogs in something turning. Just ask your local Wally World employee.
So yes, I do gardening.
So yes, I do have investments in gold. Ain't nucleosynthesis grand or what? You know, it's cosmic, man.
As far as actually attending Woodstock. Nope, I was only 7. My guess is that the reference to jet planes is in regard to 'Nam.
At least we did make necklaces out of dandelion stems and stick the flowers in our hair in 1st grade. Woodstock is my time portal to first grade, more or less. So, Vandal, spark up a blunt, play Woodstock, and just enjoy life. Sheesh.


Oh, OK, my bad. Beaks, not brain.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tic_birds.html. But hey, the brain has to get a sense signal from the beak so the pigeon can adjust its wings.



I was lazy. I just wanted a quick read. That's why I chose the National Geographic article. After all, Vandal, life is for learning.

Edits:
1. The above article does state that pigeons use the earth's magnetic field for navigation.
2. Magnetite crystals located in human brain.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes it was.

No, it wasn't, and you know that.

Man, I detect some bad vibes.
Here, let me help.


Ummm... Yeah, the lyrics are a bit hard to discern, so here they are.


Yeah, they got the actual amount of billions of year of carbon wrong, but hey the magnitude of billion seems about right.

So yes, we're stardust.
So yes, we're several billion years old carbon. (Except that short lived carbon-14)
So yes,there was a lot of smog back around 1970. A lot more than there is now.
So yes, there are a lot of folks who feel like cogs in something turning. Just ask your local Wally World employee.
So yes, I do gardening.
So yes, I do have investments in gold. Ain't nucleosynthesis grand or what? You know, it's cosmic, man.
As far as actually attending Woodstock. Nope, I was only 7. My guess is that the reference to jet planes is in regard to 'Nam.
At least we did make necklaces out of dandelion stems and stick the flowers in our hair in 1st grade. Woodstock is my time portal to first grade, more or less. So, Vandal, spark up a blunt, play Woodstock, and just enjoy life. Sheesh.

Don't care. Got my own nostalgia to chill with.

Oh, OK, my bad. Beaks, not brain.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tic_birds.html. But hey, the brain has to get a sense signal from the beak so the pigeon can adjust its wings

Didn't check my source did you? Your "knowledge" is out of date. The "navigate using magnetic fields" hypothesis was tested since your 2004 article. It failed.

I was lazy. I just wanted a quick read. That's why I chose the National Geographic article. After all, Vandal, life is for learning.

Except you don't seem interested in learning anything that is counter to what you already "know".

Edits:
1. The above article does state that pigeons use the earth's magnetic field for navigation.

Subsequent testing disproved the hypothesis.

2. Magnetite crystals located in human brain.

Yeah. So what? There is currently no evidence for any biological role for the magnetite in human brains beyond the strong correlation with some degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No, it wasn't, and you know that.

We are disagreeing on the origin. Just start over on whatever I wrote that you objected to.

Don't care. Got my own nostalgia to chill with.

Yes, the lyrics do have nostalgia value. Did you even bother to read the lyrics and tie certain passages to science? Now of course the forum is interested in what your nostalgia is.

Didn't check my source did you? Your "knowledge" is out of date. The "navigate using magnetic fields" hypothesis was tested since your 2004 article. It failed.

There was nothing to check! All I got was a page with bee dances, Einstein's brain, and a bunch of other PBS episodes/etc. No info wrt pigeons. Please post URL's that present the relevant backup information to back up your assertions. I do not like a bunch of cruft to sort through.

Except you don't seem interested in learning anything that is counter to what you already "know".

Wrong. If you would have posted information on say pigeons instead of what is essentially a URL to a blank page, I would have taken a look at it. Again, there was nothing to look at for the discussion at hand.

Subsequent testing disproved the hypothesis.

OK, post the proper info then.

Yeah. So what? There is currently no evidence for any biological role for the magnetite in human brains beyond the strong correlation with some degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's.

Yes, that is correct. It's also correct the the sum of current scientific knowledge is not complete. That is why I stated that the human brain does indeed have magnetite, and a URL that did back the statement up. If magnetite is a result of a disease process, fine. If it's actually used as some part of some yet unknown purpose, then that's also fine. The point is, there's not enough knowledge to draw a definitive conclusion. I'd ask questions like: do all humans have magnetite deposits in the brain, or do they exist only in humans with some disease state? Another example is the TNF-308A allele. It's associated with sepsis and autoimmune disorders. Well, the question for that is, why hasn't it won the Darwin award and been weeded out? Is there a trade off involved? Why does it occur more often in Caucasians? I can think of a bunch of other questions about said allele.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

We are disagreeing on the origin. Just start over on whatever I wrote that you objected to.

Not worth the time on both our parts.

Yes, the lyrics do have nostalgia value. Did you even bother to read the lyrics and tie certain passages to science?

Was I supposed to learn some science from them? Was I supposed to be impressed that they included some science in their lyrics?

[quote]Now of course the forum is interested in what your nostalgia is.[/quote

REM, Erasure, Billy Idol, Guns n' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, Duran Duran . . .

There was nothing to check! All I got was a page with bee dances, Einstein's brain, and a bunch of other PBS episodes/etc. No info wrt pigeons. Please post URL's that present the relevant backup information to back up your assertions. I do not like a bunch of cruft to sort through.

There was an entire segment dedicated to homing pigeon behavior! It went through all of the different hypotheses proposed for navigation behavior through the years. There was special emphasis explaining how the magnetic field hypothesis was tested. Pigeons were fitted with special magnetic helmets that disrupted their ability to detect the Earth's magnetic field. The pigeons were still able to navigate home even without their magnetic sense.

Wrong. If you would have posted information on say pigeons instead of what is essentially a URL to a blank page, I would have taken a look at it. Again, there was nothing to look at for the discussion at hand.

OK, post the proper info then.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.B52A..01H

Yes, that is correct. It's also correct the the sum of current scientific knowledge is not complete. That is why I stated that the human brain does indeed have magnetite, and a URL that did back the statement up. If magnetite is a result of a disease process, fine. If it's actually used as some part of some yet unknown purpose, then that's also fine. The point is, there's not enough knowledge to draw a definitive conclusion. I'd ask questions like: do all humans have magnetite deposits in the brain, or do they exist only in humans with some disease state?

Everything I've found so far seems to indicate that everyone has some magnetite in their brains. But, brains suffering from certain diseases have much higher levels of magnetite.

Another example is the TNF-308A allele. It's associated with sepsis and autoimmune disorders. Well, the question for that is, why hasn't it won the Darwin award and been weeded out?

Do the diseases typically prevent someone from reproducing? If not, then natural selection will not "weed it out".

Is there a trade off involved? Why does it occur more often in Caucasians?

Shared ancestry. Founder effect. Genetic drift. There are many possible reasons.

I can think of a bunch of other questions about said allele.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am as sure that some of what you say is true, as I am also sure you really don't know much about the subject, since you already dismiss it as bunk on no basis whatever.

And the brain cannot meditate. There has to be human free will and decision-making, which no materialist brain theory can explain.

I see that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and must form a means of contradicting me out of a need to defend idealism and woo-woo.

A mental defrag does not require free will, or decision making. In fact the point of mental defraging is to not think at all, to not feel at all. The only messages your brain sending and receiving being totally and wholly related to one's own biological processes.

It literally is "thinking about nothing". Because one's brain does not require rational or emotional thought to maintain homeostasis within the body.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am as sure that some of what you say is true, as I am also sure you really don't know much about the subject, since you already dismiss it as bunk on no basis whatever.

And the brain cannot meditate. There has to be human free will and decision-making, which no materialist brain theory can explain.

That's funny, because my brain meditates for 30 minutes every morning.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

A mental defrag does not require free will, or decision making.

Well, wait a minute. A voluntary action (or inaction), which that is, surely does require free will and decision-making. I don't think that's where Eric is making his mistake. The free will question is as important and as strange as that of consciousness itself, to which it is probably related. There's nothing special about meditation in that respect; it's equally true of, say, deciding to go see a movie or picking a restaurant.

We experience ourselves subjectively as making conscious choices and exercising the ability to select option A over option B, when we could instead have selected option B over option A. This is what we call "free will." It seems to me there are two questions which arise in that regard. One, are we really free to do one or the other, or are our choices completely determined by a combination of genetic predisposition and learned behavior? And two, if the choice really is free, is it willed or is it random?

I would say the first question is easy to answer; indeterminacy is real and definitely applies to the behavior of the brain. So yes, we really are free (in some sense) to make choices.

I would say also that the second question depends on point of view. Let me construct a thought-experiment here. I have a test subject, and through some kind of wondrous magic or technology I can read all of his thoughts. Every morning, he has coffee and breakfast before going to work. Sometimes he makes his coffee and breakfast at home, and sometimes he eats out. When he makes breakfast at home, sometimes he has cold cereal, sometimes hot cereal, and sometimes boiled eggs with toast. When he eats out, sometimes he stops at a fast-food place and gets take-out, and on occasion he goes to a nicer restaurant instead and eats there. I can similarly analyze his menu choices in each case. Examining his thoughts and feelings prior to making this decision, I can predict the statistical chance that he will do any of these things, but I can't call it deterministically. So to me, it looks like he's taking a weighted random action.

From his own perspective, though, it seems like he's making a conscious choice, not for any particular reason (although there are reasons that bear on it), but just because he can. He gets up in the morning, he could make breakfast but he doesn't feel like cleaning up the mess afterwards, and he wants to get to work early (although he doesn't have to), so he stops at McDonald's on the way to work and gets an Egg McMuffin combo with coffee and eats it at his desk. But he could have made his own breakfast or gone to a nicer place. That he stops at McDonald's instead looks random from the outside, but from the inside it feels like he has to actually DO something -- will it to happen -- in order for him to eat at all.

This difference of perspective is exactly parallel to the problem of subjective experience. To say the brain is taking random actions within parameters imposed by genetic predisposition and learned behavior is as close as we can come to accounting for choice objectively, but it's something of a cop-out; it amounts to saying "shit happens and it can't be explained, it just is." Free will, like consciousness, is something for which no discrete cause can be identified.

Which is not, of course, to say that there is a discrete cause beyond what we can identify. That could be so, but we have no reason to think it is, and I am more inclined to say that will, like consciousness, is uncaused.

Brian, what I mean by a "mental defrag" requires no decision making or free will is that once one "decides" to clear their mind of all emotional thoughts and all rational thoughts there is nothing to think about. The conscious aspect of the practice begins and ends at deciding to think about nothing. After practicing this for over a decade now I can do it without really thinking about it beyond deciding to "not think".

Some "mystics" will say that one technique to reach the same state is to focus on one's breathing. However, that state of being is not the same--I've done both. In practices where one focuses on their breathing they are in fact thinking about something (although granted something that usually does not require thought).

When one uses a technique focusing even on an aspect of biological homeostasis they are in fact "distracting" themselves from "thinking about nothing". Why is this? Because they are in fact thinking about something.

If I'm being unclear perhaps it is due to the limitations of language.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Brian, what I mean by a "mental defrag" requires no decision making or free will is that once one "decides" to clear their mind of all emotional thoughts and all rational thoughts there is nothing to think about. The conscious aspect of the practice begins and ends at deciding to think about nothing. After practicing this for over a decade now I can do it without really thinking about it beyond deciding to "not think".

Sure, but you still need to make the decision in the first place, right?

I'm not disagreeing with you that meditation requires no supernatural explanation and is not a non-phenomenon or uncaused, and the process of it can be accounted for in terms of brain behavior, which is what Eric was objecting to; I was just pointing out that will and choice remain mysteries.