Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00255)

Dear Dallas,

That is fine if you wish to share these findings with
other people, it will be the only way we can advance.
But everything you say below is correct. There are
many issues with randomisation, sample size,
influences of controls and indeed the influence of the
experimenter. How to be completely impartial on a
phenomena that is supposedly universal will be a
problem. Also the issue that Steve brought up with
definitions of karma is something that should be
considered. There are many different definitions and
interpretations of definitions that finding a common
ground may be near impossible. However my aim in
undertaking this exercise was to establish a basis
whereby karma could be scientifically "proved". I hope
you can keep me in touch with any advances that you or
your colleagues may find.

Kind regards,
Mic Forster

--- dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/