everest,

I am going to assume for the time being that the mathematician and others are correct. Do you have a degree in mathematics? Anything besides relying solely on Wikipedia?

What is your interest regarding Hawkins if you are not a student of his? You seem to understand a lot about his scale for a person who has not studied him.

On a more fundamental level, you state that the scale is measuring consciousness. This implies that AK is accurate; are you also stating this?

You addressed the logarithmic/exponential issue; however, there were other statements by the mathematician that you did not address (e.g., the "10^-35 million megawatts" gibberish).

The statements regarding tobacco and vitamin C are in [u:a38efb04f0]Power vs. Force[/u:a38efb04f0].

However, overall this is only one issue of many. Please keep this in mind.

- (I am going to assume for the time being that the mathematician and others are correct.) -

Well, they are not correct. Here's a whole list of material for you to read:

[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Of particular notice is the common logarithm link. Clearly shows negative Y graph points. The "mathematician" stated something about everything being positive - that is incorrect. Under the exponent link you can clearly see a negative set of X points on the graph.

This is from the exponential function link: "The exponential function is nearly flat (climbing slowly) for negative values of x, climbs quickly for positive values of x, and equals 1 when x is equal to 0. Its y value always equals the slope at that point."

Notice the "nearly flat (climbing slowly) for NEGATIVE VALUES of x" quote. This should lie to rest the story of always positive as the "mathematician" stated. In addition, "and equals 1 when x is equal to 0", that is a critical point.

This is from the natural logarithm link: "Graph of the natural logarithm function. The function goes to minus infinity as x approaches 0, but grows slowly as x increases in value." Clearly shows as X APPROACHES ZERO - that is a critical point. Once again the "mathematician" is incorrect.

In addition there are numerous scales that show a base 10 in them (i.e. 10 to the 12th power; 10 to the 13th power, etc.).

- (Do you have a degree in mathematics? Anything besides relying solely on Wikipedia?) -

While in college studying physics and chemistry I studied algebra, geometry, trig, calc, etc. However, with the exception of much calculus, I studied all of that in high school. This is 10th grade algebra for crying out loud and when I read the material that "clearly refuted" the "bogus math" or whatever I felt the need to clearly refute the clear refutation. You don't need a degree or college, merely a basic algebra text.

There are plenty of examples in wikipedia as I've given. Also, please review the numerous graphs and examples and read their explanations. This should suffice unless you think I'm writing all this. These two should keep you busy for hours:

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

If that doesn't suffice go to the library and pick up a basic algebra book or merely look up the definition of logarithm in a dictionary of some weight. Here's Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "the exponent of the power to which a base number must be raised to equal a given number". That's a fancy way of saying that if the given number is 100 and the base is 10 then the exponent (logarithm) is two.

Here's a great read regarding chaos theory:

[www.calresco.org]

If that doesn't work for you then you're entirely free to go on believing what you wish. After all I believe it was Ben Franklin that said, "A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS OF THE SAME OPPINION STILL."

Personally speaking, that clear refutation wasn't written by a mathematician. That was written by somebody and then they claimed they were a mathematician. Just apply Ockham's razor, here. Do you really think an author would get that past an editor?

- (What is your interest regarding Hawkins if you are not a student of his?) -

The clear mathematical refutation is a straw men argument to the definition.

I've read the books and grasped what he meant but I don't consider that being a student OF HIS. I'm more interested in non-dualism and the chicken or the egg stuff, as in “did the observer create the observed or has the observer been created by what's observed” stuff.

The books actually have little to do with AK, believe it or not. If all reference to that were taken out, along with the scale of consciousness, attractor fields, M-theory, Chaos theory, quantum physics, etc., the books would stand of their own accord preaching non-dualism; which is what they're actually about. The rest of it is splitting hairs, IMO. Any major points of contention should/would be over non-dualism.

- (You seem to understand a lot about his scale for a person who has not studied him.

On a more fundamental level, you state that the scale is measuring consciousness. This implies that AK is accurate; are you also stating this?) -

That doesn't imply anything of the sort. I can make up a logarithmic scale on the power of the HULK as the madder he gets the stronger he gets and graph it all out and assign arbitrary numbers to it and all that and it would be nice as pie and accurate but not real or factual. Doesn't make the "math" bogus or incorrect and I certainly wouldn't need somebody to explain to me how it couldn't be logarithmic when it's dealing with exponential increase or something goofy like that.

Per the definition of "truthiness" the evidence that clearly refutes Hawkins fits that definition - as does your use of these items, as you obviously haven't inspected what was said. The mere fact of "numerous people told me (therefore it must be true)" is truthiness.

- (You addressed the logarithmic/exponential issue; however, there were other statements by the mathematician that you did not address (e.g., the "10^-35 million megawatts" gibberish).) -

I don't know this quote. I'd have to read it and then evaluate it. It also needs to be contrasted against other points of reference as isolated by itself it tells me nothing. Similarly if I said 10 feet is way too deep or way too shallow you'd have to know in relation to what. I need more info.

As the saying goes "the devil is in the details". I was reading about non-dualism and didn't hang up on splitting hairs. If you wish to get me the quote as it is written exactly I'll tie into it, but you have to reciprocate and also get me the exact verbage on the healthy tobacco bit, fair enough?

- (However, overall this is only one issue of many. Please keep this in mind.) -

Well, you've made many points. Potentially they're valid. However, your argument is diminished in stature due to your use of truthiness, straw man arguments and at least 1 example of “Loading the Language”, aka “Hawkinazi”.

It could be very well that Hawkins is all crap or worse yet an actual menace. As in a court of law the evidence should be unbiased and factual. Whenever I read something scathing and skewed I figure the real story is in the middle somewhere – or completely opposite.

I even call in question the 10-point survey of a baaaaaaaaaaaad leader. Where did this come from? Here's a list of people that fail it from my estimation if I used that criteria:

· George Washington as commander
· General Patton
· Lewis and Clark
· Ray Kroc
· Bill Gates
· my college fraternity
· Donald Trump
· 3M
· any successful expedition leader up the face of Everest
· any of the fortune 500 companies I've worked for
· obviously any military or law enforcement agency/group worldwide
· virtually any national government I can think of (here's a point I can agree with)

Of course, many of these weren't guilty on all counts as in missing maybe 1 of the 10 or something.

You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so let's see the injured parties with their loss of property.

Or, let's see some viable points of weak chinks instead of "he said", "she said", "they said". Pulling up these various criteria lists while on this forum is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. For every “clear refutation” of AK in double-blind studies one could reference studies that prove it’s validity through the College of AK or whatever. Who was the arbiter of the “double-blind” studies? What studies have you conducted?

How about this for size: how can Hawkins claim to have a "past life" when he's now part of the collective godhood of all life? How could he have "been" a pirate? Wouldn't that have been an ego? A positionality? Having now become the collective Self of god wouldn't all past lives have been "his/its"? If there is no "doer of actions" or whatever and if "thoughts aren't authored by a who" or whatever then how can one claim "ownership" of a past life?

On a last note I don't know if the "Hawkinazi" post was supposed to reference me or not because pointing out errors doesn't equate me as being a cult sympathizer or marionetted by Hawkins or anything of that sort.

I don't see how this wikischolarship of everest's is even of any relevance to this thread.

The whittering serves to distract the eye from the behaviour or words of Hawkins.

I appreciate kath’s comments.

I also studied math at university as part of general education, though I did not major in it; and it has been awhile since 10th grade. (You also needed a refresher apparently). I don’t really have time to read all of your links, though I appreciate your attention to accuracy, a trait I like to think I possess as well.

I consulted with a cult expert about this, and he is going to contact a math professor at Duke University to offer an official critique on Hawkins’ math and physics. This may take up to several months.

“If that doesn't work for you then you're entirely free to go on believing what you wish.”

I certainly have no wish to believe something that is not true.

“I'm more interested in non-dualism and the chicken or the egg stuff, as in “did the observer create the observed or has the observer been created by what's observed” stuff.”

I also am interested in non-dualism. The latter part of your statement admits of a duality; in fact, all is one.

“The books actually have little to do with AK, believe it or not.”

I would basically agree for a couple of his books, but I don’t think you could make this claim with regard to [u:749001f335]Power vs. Force[/u:749001f335] and [u:749001f335]Truth vs. Falsehood[/u:749001f335]. His lectures are also riddled with AK references. Even in his response to Dr. Carroll, Hawkins states that his books are not about AK, but he still lists several calibrations, and even calibrates Dr. Carroll. Hawkins also incorrectly states that Carroll’s credentials are not listed anywhere, when in fact he is a Ph.D. Hawkins, once again speaking out of his area of expertise, states, “Although Carroll is supposedly aligned with philosophy, he exhibits no erudition about the subject at all.” In fact, Dr. Carroll is a philosophy professor and is chairman of his philosophy department.

It is Hawkins’ burden to prove that his extraordinary claims are true; it is no one else’s job to disprove them.

“If all reference to [AK] were taken out, along with the scale of consciousness, attractor fields, M-theory, Chaos theory, quantum physics, etc., the books would stand of their own accord preaching non-dualism…”

That would be great, IMO.

“The rest of it is splitting hairs, IMO.”

I disagree. I’ve made my case before, so I will not reiterate. If Hawkins believes every sentence he states is absolutely true, then it is simple to discover if his system is accurate or not. Rather than looking for confirmation (this is true, that is true), one can look for falsification (this is not true, that is not true). If you find several statements that are false (rather than looking for true statements), his system is falsified; even without that whole darn “evidence” thing that Hawkins is just so far beyond…

“Any major points of contention should/would be over non-dualism.”

I disagree. Non-dualism should have no contention. Science is certainly an area of contention, as it should be.

“[On a more fundamental level, you state that the scale is measuring consciousness. This implies that AK is accurate; are you also stating this?]

"That doesn't imply anything of the sort."

AK is the measuring tool for the scale; without AK, what is he using to measure?

“I can make up a logarithmic scale on the power of the HULK as the madder he gets the stronger he gets and graph it all out and assign arbitrary numbers to it and all that and it would be nice as pie and accurate but not real or factual.”

Kind of like Hawkins’ scale? The point is that even if you made a scale, what tool would you use to measure the Hulk’s level of anger? AK is Hawkins’ tool for “consciousness”.

“The mere fact of "numerous people told me (therefore it must be true)" is truthiness.””

You are right, if I continue to believe their statements in spite of the facts. I assumed the author’s statements, as well as those of others were factual and I did not investigate it further. I will wait a bit and see how the Duke University professor responds. But clearly if you are right, you are right. I’ve no need to delude myself if it is incorrect.

The point is that any statement that turns out to be false, contradicts Hawkins’ absolute truth. For example, as I stated before, an example from [u:749001f335]Power vs. Force[/u:749001f335] is kirlian photography; he thought is was accurate when he wrote the book, and now believe it calibrates below 200. Hawkins claims every single sentence he writes is absolutely true as revealed through AK. Another example is how he keeps refining his “science” with [i:749001f335]ad hoc[/i:749001f335] hypotheses to escape refutation, and even a very close follower of Hawkins stated that Hawkins may have over spoken regarding AK being science. No one is honestly able to make AK work. The Yahoo internet groups listed on the first page now simply do not let people see each other’s calibrations. This is because they always contradict one another (please keep in mind that the aim is to look for falsification, rather than confirmation, for it to be a science). And as has been demonstrated, Hawkins is directly behind one of these groups (though he falsely states that he is not, due to fear of litigation).

What about all of the other claims that have been made? For example, his Ph.D., his knighthood, etc.?

“[You addressed the logarithmic/exponential issue; however, there were other statements by the mathematician that you did not address (e.g., the "10^-35 million megawatts" gibberish).]

"I don't know this quote."

It is on the second and fourth pages of this thread.

Quote

This "logarithmic progression" is then completely contradicted by his chart which states how many people at one level counterbalance someone at another level. One of the statements on this chart is that "12 people at level 700 equals one avatar at 1000". On his "logarithmic"(actually exponential) scale it would take 10^300 people at level 700(that's a one with 300 zeros in front of it) to equal the power of one person at level 1000. Since when does 12= 10^300?

And

Quote

Perhaps the most blatently incompetent statement he makes is that a loving thought has the energy of " 10^-35 million megawatts"(I'm using the symbol ^ because this this font won't allow superscripts) and claims that the quantity is "so enormous as to be beyond the capacity of the human imagination to comprehend" The truth is that this quantity is so miniscule as to be beyond our capacity to comprehend. 10^35 million is a one with 35 million zeros in front of it- a huge number indeed, but 10^-35 million is 1/10^35 million -- a mind-bogglingly tiny fraction. If you were to multiply the mass of the entire galaxy by a fraction that tiny, you wouldn't even have enough mass for a single electron. If the minus sign was a typo, without it the energy level described would be great indeed -probably be along the order of the big bang and our heads would have exploded (and caused a supernova) a long time ago.

There is this claim, too:

Quote

He also states that adrenaline causes the muscles to go weak. Adrenaline is the stimulant hormone associated with the fight/flight response and its entire purpose is to give you EXTRA strength and energy in an emergency. As a doctor, he should know this

“As the saying goes "the devil is in the details". “

Actually there is also another saying which states, “God is in the details.” Examples for each context would be 1) a piece of art (God), and 2) the fine print of a contract (“devil”).

“I was reading about non-dualism and didn't hang up on splitting hairs.”

I strongly disagree with your assessment of legitimate critiques of Hawkins’ system as merely “splitting hairs.” This would also fit the definition of a straw man fallacy.

“you have to reciprocate and also get me the exact verbage on the healthy tobacco bit, fair enough?”

It is in [u:749001f335]Power vs. Force[/u:749001f335]. I do not own the book any longer; I gave all the materials in my possession to cult experts.

“Well, you've made many points. Potentially they're valid. However, your argument is diminished in stature due to your use of truthiness, straw man arguments and at least 1 example of “Loading the Language”, aka “Hawkinazi”.”

I use the word “Hawkinazi” for humor, but it does point to something. I am not the only person to observe the blatant blind faith and judgment that comes from many of Hawkins’ followers. Have you not observed some of this yourself?

As far as “truthiness”, I certainly did not intend to rely on this. As you know, I believed Hawkins' math was clearly refuted; if this is not the case, I am clearly incorrect. Again, I will wait for the Duke professors’ critique to see what he states. Assuming the previous math critique to be accurate, I did not see this as a straw man.

I disagree that my joking term “Hawkinazi” is an example of “loading the language” in that it is not a thought-terminating cliché. I actually like to use the word to stimulate, rather than stifle, critical thinking and rationality. On the other hand, Hawkins’ [i:749001f335]ad hominem[/i:749001f335] attacks against Dr. Carroll (“160”, “atheist”, “ego”, “skeptic”), serve to tell followers what to think and stifle their rationality. Note that Hawkins did not address the legitimate issues that Carroll brought up, for example that AK has been falsified in double-blind studies and that Hawkins got his Ph.D. from CPU, a diploma mill (why didn’t Hawkins AK test that school for integrity before he went?!). Instead, Hawkins dispensed existence.

“I even call in question the 10-point survey of a baaaaaaaaaaaad leader. Where did this come from?”

The author is cult expert Rick Ross. [www.culteducation.com]

The main criteria, among others, used by cult experts is psychiatrist Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s eight criteria outlined in his book, [u:749001f335]Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism[/u:749001f335]. [www.culteducation.com]

I disagree with your assessment of leaders who would fit Ross’ criteria. This is a whole interesting subject actually, and I will let you start your own thread regarding this, and/or respond and question on threads that already exist. For example, a person recently was wondering if the military would also fit the criteria for a cult.

Suffice it to say that presently several recognized cult experts view Hawkins as a cult leader, and the information will be published within several months. In the meantime, perhaps read up more and/or ask around on this site to find out more about cults and why certain groups may or may not classify while others may. Then if you wish to argue with the cult experts after the information is formally published, it will be interesting to see what you have to say. I am not particularly interested in debating this myself, but I am sure you will find people on here who will debate with you and you can see if you end up agreeing with them or not. Start a thread about the leaders you mentioned fitting as a cult, and see the interesting responses you will receive.

“For every “clear refutation” of AK in double-blind studies one could reference studies that prove it’s validity through the College of AK or whatever.”

It is true that you can find studies through ICAK, but not ones that prove AK’s validity. See for example, “A review of the research papers published by the international College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981 to 1987.” [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Quote

Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a diagnostic and therapeutic approach used by a large number of chiropractors. AK seminars are conducted worldwide; during these seminars mention is frequently made of the presence of supportive research. A review was undertaken of the type and scientific quality of 50 papers which had been published between 1981 and 1987 by the International College of Applied Kinesiology, 20 of which were classified as research papers. These were subjected to further scrutiny relating to criteria considered crucial in research methodology, namely, a clear identification of sample size, inclusion criteria, blind and naive subjects and statistical analysis. Although some papers satisfied several of these criteria, none satisfied all seven of them. As none of the papers included adequate statistical analyses, no valid conclusions could be drawn concerning their report of findings.

"Who was the arbiter of the “double-blind” studies?"

They are studies from several sources and are recognized by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. You can find them on their website at www.pubmed.com , or they are easily accessed through Dr. Carroll’s site or SpiritualTeachers.org, among others. [skepdic.com] [www.spiritualteachers.org]

"What studies have you conducted?"

Good question, I am glad you asked. I conducted the basic tests that anyone can do, and they can seem to work if you pay attention only to the “hits” (e.g., one out of 10) rather than the misses. This is how astrology appears to work, too, by the way (i.e., pay attention to the hits and discount the misses). I have also been in contact with several study groups totaling hundreds of people. Literally not one person or group is able to make it work as promised in Hawkins’ books. Originally Hawkins stated that AK was a science that is universally replicable, and now he has reduced his science to a “karmic inheritance.” It would be hilarious if it did not affect people’s lives. I have also emailed Hawkins’ Veritas Publishing and asked them to do one test that I was able to see for myself if it were true or not. For example, they could use AK to tell me my age, a personal fact. They basically responded with [i:749001f335]ad hominem[/i:749001f335] attacks, essentially saying I was not “spiritual” enough, and to keep reading Hawkins’ books. Yep, a “science” not open to evidence, and that must be accepted on blind faith. (As a side note, take string theory for example. Scientists are still presently debating whether it should be considered a science or not as it relies mainly on mathematics, rather than observable data. If Hawkins’ “science” is not open to observable data such that it is capable of falsification, it certainly is not a science if the esteemed string theory is not!)

I also offered the same test to several study groups, again consisting of hundreds of people. Not one person took up the test. And literally no one was able to make AK work.

But, if you think AK can work, I will set up one test with you. Only one. We can come up with only one fact that I can confirm that you cannot. As an example, maybe you or some AK user can tell me what my middle name is (e.g., His middle name is ten letters T/F; The first letter of his first name is in the first half of the alphabet T/F; and so on until my middle name is reached). We can use someone else as an outside observer, and I will tell the person my middle name, and you or another AK practitioner can check to see if you get it right after you reveal your results. Or something similar, this is only one example of many. But, this would clearly meet the standards of a science, as it is a [i:749001f335]risky[/i:749001f335] prediction that is [i:749001f335]capable[/i:749001f335] of [i:749001f335]falsification[/i:749001f335] (i.e., being shown to be false, rather than believing it to be true and only looking for the confirming "evidence"). Hawkins rescues his theory repeatedly from refutation, and thereby destroys its scientific status.

“How about this for size: how can Hawkins claim to have a "past life" when he's now part of the collective godhood of all life? How could he have "been" a pirate? Wouldn't that have been an ego? A positionality? Having now become the collective Self of god wouldn't all past lives have been "his/its"? If there is no "doer of actions" or whatever and if "thoughts aren't authored by a who" or whatever then how can one claim "ownership" of a past life?”

Great points. If you are into Advaita, if you haven’t already done so, I would suggest checking out Ramana Maharshi. He is the best, and has no record of scandals of any sort.

“On a last note I don't know if the "Hawkinazi" post was supposed to reference me or not because pointing out errors doesn't equate me as being a cult sympathizer or marionetted by Hawkins or anything of that sort.”

No, everest, you have shown yourself to be the antithesis of what I jokingly referred to as a “Hawkinazi” because you clearly think for yourself, which I appreciate. It looks like you are correct regarding the math; which is great. I am not interested in holding beliefs that are not true. I will still wait for the Duke professor’s official critique before I make my final concession, though ;). And as far as I know you have not “calibrated” anyone negatively for thinking differently from you, if that is the case.

But I still believe that if you are honest with yourself and others, you will admit that AK is not really accurate, and that there are clearly errors and contradictions in Hawkins’ system. On a fundamental level, if Hawkins is teaching spirituality, why are you and I arguing about math? One could attribute it to our “low level of consciousness” (lol!), or recognize that this is the fundamental attribution error, and that there are legitimate reasons for being concerned about Hawkins and his teachings.

In any case, I wish you all the best. I am signing off until the cult experts and Duke professor publish their critiques, which should be within the next several months.

All the Best,

Phoenix

Phoenix,

You don't need to sign off.

My argument was a hoax and a fraud based on sham evidence.

I anticipated a bunch of vindictive rhetoric to contrast against the cult criteria as given in this thread.

Kath's statement was even tempered as well as yours.

There's more points of question I have regarding Hawkins's philosophy but I'm late for work and can't go into detail.

Recently, I have read disturbing comments that Amway and AA are cults, etc. My theory is that there's a possible beginning to a "cult-finding" cult given some of the viscious comments on various forums, etc. I've read various posts to that degree and consider that line of reasoning as constrictive and potentially more dangerous than Amway.

Food for thought. Keep posting.

I can't remember the other major point of contention concerning Hawkins but when I do I'll write it down.

Have you read the material written by hawkins? I haven't found an instance whereas he has claimed to be God.

everest said:

Quote

My argument was a hoax and a fraud based on sham evidence.

What is your specific purpose here?

To understand and educate myself. When I read new material, I try to do research to find holes in the philosophy and on the flip side, I test it to validate as well. One of the ways I like to do that is to find someone who opposes it, and ask questions. One of the reasons so many of us get caught up in "wrong thinking" is because we are afraid someone just might challenge what it is we think. By having it challenged I am able to find holes in the philosophy. This helps me to put it into perspective. I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have and hope this makes sense and thank you for your response.
In response to your question, questioning my question it is this:

I don't know whether or not you have read the material. This is why I believe it is fair to ask you prior to commenting further.

:shock:

:? Well that was a profitable use of peoples' time :D