Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00250)

Oct 30 2002

Re Law / No Law -- Choice / No Choice. -- PROOFS ?

Dear Mic:

I hope you may allow me to widen the base of inquiry into such an
important area of discovery and experimentation. I would like to have
your observations viewed by a wide number of interested individuals.
Would you object if I offered this on some of the other "chat" groups
? I'll wait to see if this is permitted by you.


In any case here are my thoughts: --


Excellently constructed and well thought out.

Variable seems to me to be the CHOICES that are made by the potential
"cheaters."

However the selection of the active and control groups is also a
matter of consideration -- I do not see how some element of
pre-judgment (conscious nor unconscious) might taint the selection.

If this "choice" could also be made on the basis of "random numbers"
arbitrarily chosen by a computer (as in solitaire, with no bias) then
the results might be considered to be still more impartial.

Otherwise we may be measuring the nature of the individuals who choose
(or not) to "cheat." And some bias may always suspected. Where can
we obtain utter impartiality ?

-----------------

It always seemed to me that Karma, in general defined as ACTION AND
EQUAL REACTION, would be on the grandest measure a 50/50 % situation,
and of necessity, this would involve not just the human group but also
all the support groups that provide for their living -- generally
called NATURE.

That which distinguishes the human group is the faculty (used or
unused) of thought, reasoning, and inevitably an agreed on set of
MORAL NORMS.

theology speaks of virtue and vices, and a general definition might be
:--

VIRTUE = knowing and voluntarily observing Nature's Laws, already in
place.

VICE =	ignorance and obstructing or breaking Natural Laws


Every human being endowed with a mind can grasp that with a little
effort.

His power to choose exists. It is, at source, when employed, either
free or pre-biased.

His MOTIVE for making specific choices is a result of his anticipating
(or non-anticipating) the final results. In this memory and the
ability to impartially read events, record them, and results is
essential.

Here we find a wide scale of variants, from selfish isolation,
indolence, ignorance, prejudice, greed, pride, hedonism, etc., to
compassion, generosity, impartiality, honorableness, sincerity, and
brotherhood in continuous practice.

One might at this point ask: how to classify these motives, and we
find ourselves involved in moralizing. In other words we find that
our decisions will depend largely, on whether we know there are
pre-existent laws in nature, and whether the nature of those laws is
immutability and impartiality -- or whether there are NO LAWS and
CHAOS is the norm. There does not seem to be any half-way position of
indecision caused, presumably, by ignorance.

I notice that it is presumed that Nature's reaction to our choices, is
deemed to be impartial, and trustworthy -- in other words VIRTUOUS.

The modifying factor is : Knowledge -- that arises from experience; a
faithful record of experiences of all kinds to serve as a reference
base for continuous examination of LAWS / NO LAWS on the widest
possible basis. And, the ability to impartially grade all
observations.

The "control group" and the observers have to be totally impartial --
or their own bias will skew results and conclusions.

A sufficiently long period of examination, so that the results, if
ever tabulated, would show the results of thousands (not hundreds) of
incidents where ACTION is shown to be exactly tallied (or not) to the
RESULTS. I would guess that an average life-time (50 to 80 years ?)
might yield such data if spread over a random selection of not less
than 100,000 individual human selected randomly from every part of the
globe, [ Is such an experiment already in place? Where are the
records? I would suggest that if KARMA is true and already in
operations these records exist. They would have to if the system is
self moderating and able to apply correctives continuously as required
to maintain a harmonious, but dynamic balance. ]

It is plain that all physical and tangible objects are constrained
into a circular movement pattern, perhaps not exactly circular but
oblate, ovoid, spiral, etc...

The SOURCE of such movement may be required. We are only able to
observe a trans-section in time and space of this universal
ituation -- from "atom" to Galaxy.

There is no reason for the materialist who examines phenomena to
exclude the causative side of those results. In fact one might say
that the CAUSATIVE side is far more valuable (even if remote) than any
phenomena.

What do you think ?

Best wishes,

Dallas

===============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Mic Forster [mailto:micforster@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:00 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World scientific proof of karma?

Hello,

Well I've been sitting on this one for awhile now but
I thought I'd bite the bullet and finally get it out
there into the big wide world. Please be cautious and
recognise the limitations. Also recognise the
implications if such research can be taken further. I
know some of you out there will probably think that
karma, or other doctrines in the SD, need not be
proven by science. But, hey, it's always good when
they are, aren't they? All comments, public or
private, are more than welcome.

Mic


Scientific Proof of Karma?

Proof of many Eastern doctrines has been sorely
lacking in Western science due to a number of reasons.
These reasons include a lack of understanding of
Eastern doctrines among Western scientists, a belief
that spiritual doctrines cannot be proven with the
tools of a materialistic science, and, perhaps, a
notion of superiority that Westerners held or hold
over their Eastern counter-parts.

One doctrine that has received general acceptance in
the West is the universal notion of karma. Such
acceptance is often manifested in popular culture
through television, theatre, movies, literature and
music. Karma is taken to mean that for every action
there is a reaction. Therefore the good one does now
returns as an equal good in the future. It is taken to
mean the doctrine of inevitable consequence. Even
though this notion is readily accepted, scientific
proof of karma is not forthcoming either due to a lack
of will on behalf of scientists or for some of the
reasons previously outlined. But if karma is a
universal phenomena, as strongly claimed by those who
advocate karma, then scientific proof should be
readily available.

It is the purpose here to attempt to find a scientific
method that has the potential to demonstrate karma.
The results show that this is indeed possible however
the research is in an embryological stage and any
generalizations that can be generated here should be
done so with utmost caution.

Background to the most Appropriate Methodology

Science has many tools at its disposal that can be
utilized to achieve a predefined outcome. Experimental
studies are common, where one variable is controlled
while another is manipulated and any differences are
subsequently compared, and observational studies are
also commonly conducted in the name of science.
However, due to time and monetary constraints these
methods may not always be the most efficient. Recently
there has been a surge in the number of scientific
papers that have used computer modeling which often
overcome time, monetary and even practical
constraints.

Another method that is used, particularly in
evolutionary biology and ecology, is that of games.
Games can be conveniently employed to define a
universal state that is tightly constrained according
to the rules imposed by the user. These rules can be
infinite and manipulated for the most desirable
outcome. These rules are effectively the variables
that are manipulated in a traditional experiment.
Therefore control groups and treatment groups,
hypotheses and statistical analysis can be easily
established and conducted. Conclusions can thus be
readily drawn.

The methods presented here are in accord with
experimental data obtained from scientific games. The
game chosen here is that of "snakes & ladders".

Methodology

Games in science are typically conducted using
computer programs with strict mathematical formulae
that define the behaviour of all the variables
involved. As the purpose of this exercise was to
establish the validity of a scientific method that
could be applied to the proof or disproof of karma a
preliminary hand method was employed. However, the
data gathered is by no means less scientific because
it was conducted by hand and not by computer. It is
anticipated that for general acceptance of the
theory/doctrine of karma rigorous computer programming
would be the most desirable option.

Materials
A snakes & ladders board game was chosen because it is
effectively circular and has no definite end. The user
defines when the game ends. When a player reaches the
last place on the board the player is returned to the
start to go through the process once more. There are
an equal number of chances for landing on a snake and
a ladder and the amount of places one advances or
retreats having landed on either a snake or a ladder
is also equal. Four players were chosen, two control
and two treatments. A standard dice was used to
determine how far players advanced in one go.

Procedure
All players started the game at place 1. Each player
was moved in succession and the place where they moved
to was either recorded as neutral, good or bad.
Neutral was defined as a place which contained neither
a snake nor a ladder. Good was defined as landing on a
ladder and bad was defined as landing on a snake. The
control players proceeded throughout the game as
normal. The treatment players, on the other hand, had
a cheat mechanism which aimed at simulating as doing
something bad which would later return as a bad event,
hence demonstrating karma. A random number generator
determined when a cheat move could take place.
Therefore, if the random number generator showed a 6
then on the sixth move the treatment players had the
option of cheating. After this 6th move had been
conducted another random number was chosen for the
next cheat move. So the next random number generated
may have been a 3. So on the subsequent third move a
cheat could be conducted. A cheat is defined as not
accepting to land on a snake when a treatment player
happen to coincide a particular move with a cheat move
and landing on a snake. The treatment player moved one
space forward or backward depending on which was the
more favourable.

Hypothesis
The hypothesis being tested here is that the treatment
group should land on a snake more often than the
control group. Therefore the null hypothesis is the
control and treatment groups both landed on snakes as
often as the other. The alternative hypothesis is that
the treatment group landed on snakes more often than
the control group. The amount of times either group
landed on a ladder was not compared. Statistical
analysis was deemed inappropriate for this method as
it could not be guaranteed that a subsequent move was
independent of a previous move. These limitations
should be recognised and the author once again
stresses the preliminary nature of this study and the
caution that should be expressed.

Results

Overall the results supported the alternative
hypothesis in that the control had an equal amount of
good and bad hits whereas the treatment had more bad
hits than good hits.

Each player had a total of 607 moves in the game.
Control 1 landed on a ladder (good) 66 times and
landed on a snake (bad) 67 times. Control 2 landed on
a ladder 65 times and a snake 72 times. Treatment 1
landed on a ladder 64 times and a snake 97 times.
Treatment 2 landed 60 and 76 times on a ladder and a
snake respectively. These results are summarized in
Table 1.

There were 191 opportunities for the Treatment players
to cheat throughout the game. Treatment 1 cheated on
23 occasions and Treatment 2 cheated on 14 occasions.

Table 1: The number of times the Control and Treatment
players landed on a good or bad hit during the snakes
& ladders game.

Good (ladder) Bad
(snake)
Control 1 66
67
Control 2 65
72
Treatment 1 64
97
Treatment 2 60
76



Discussion

I'll save this one for the list.


__________________________________________________