Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, that discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have no idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves space- time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason not to assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not be reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my next life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad.
Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. Francis On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > As to theory when it comes to things like reincarnation....theories > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers experiencing > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been answered by those > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps growing, > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of reincarnation > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new souls must be > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls exist, of > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls reincarnate? Is > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm guessing > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually die each > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? Is there some > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, 200 million > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, non-reincarnated > > > souls are generated each year? > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it decided whether > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new soul? > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of people dying > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not every new birth > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation theory think > > > about this? > > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the lifeforms in > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see how full > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your point, an Earth- > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a huge > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate (or re- > > invegetate, for that matter!). > > Although there IS the Jewish view of 'The Guph', or 'Hall of Souls' > > where souls wait for (re-)incarnation. There is also a belief that > > the Guph can be emptied and soulless individuals born. This is > > explored in the Juergen Prochnow/Demi Moore film "The Seventh > > Sign" (Great film!). > > > > On Mar 3, 10:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Slip, can you clarify what you mean by saying "Thought, as I see it, > > > > > is not physical or tangible<<<<<MB > > > > > Simply for me thought is not something that you can put in a box and > > > > ship out or place in a zip lock bag for storage. I feel thought and > > > > imagination are homologous but not identical in that thought itself > > > > may be considered more of a process, which imagination uses to create > > > > ideas, concepts, theories etc. > > > > > though it is the subject of multiple scientific experiments." ?<<<MB > > > > > I may have hastened to use the expression scientific experiments, no > > > > intended reference to "thought experiments", but more so leaning > > > > towards the nature of thought, it's use as in telekinesis, telepathy, > > > > clairvoyance, the overall power of thinking, and the law of > > > > attraction, much of which admittedly, is speculative and/or > > > > hypothetical. > > > > Discovering the physical nature of thought is aside from what I am > > > > projecting because once thought takes place it becomes independent of > > > > it's originating source as does the light emanating from a dead star. > > > > > > As I understand you, you posed that perspective in opposition to the > > > > > contention that "all thought > > > > > and consciousness dies with the death of the physical mind." Are you > > > > > arguing that when a person is alive, his thoughts are extra-physical, > > > > > or are you also arguing that consciousness / soul survives death?<<<MB > > > > > I'm not arguing as much as I am suggesting that thoughts are not > > > > confined to our physical being. As I posted early on, we do see light > > > > from stars that are physically non existent. I believe thoughts, > > > > imaginations and subconscious manifestations do continue to exist > > > > beyond the physical demise. I feel very strongly that the soul > > > > survives physical death and also retains life experiences. I believe > > > > that some people have lived past lives but not all, as some people are > > > > Old Souls, ie: child prodigies, brilliant scientists etc., while > > > > others are New Souls ie: idiots without a clue who are easily > > > > identifiable. I would not consider reincarnation in the sense that > > > > our soul returns in the form of a different species but contend the > > > > soul returns as another human being. A human soul does not return as > > > > a cow in my opinion. I think we retain life experiences within our > > > > soul and believe that life might be occurring simultaneously within a > > > > parallel universe and further that there is a level at which time is > > > > of no consequence. > > > > Belief in certain aspects of death may give credence to what some know > > > > as Heaven and the Immortality of the soul. For atheists, pantheists, > > > > materialists and rationalists there would be no question and > > > > conversation of such idea would be moot. So what meaning does death > > > > have to us as we are living? Perhaps it is a reminder that life is > > > > temporary and that we should pay heed to what lies ahead without > > > > paying as much attention to amassing materialistic treasures over > > > > spiritual values. Is death just a marker between lives? Possibly > > > > and for me most likely, no one has ever come back to tell us anything > > > > about it. Is there a Karma that carries from one life to the next? I > > > > would think that if the soul retains it's accumulated properties then > > > > it might also retain the aspects of retribution. Upon new life in the > > > > new physical frame is there a clean slate with which to develop? I > > > > often wonder why some people are born into extreme poverty and pain > > > > while others live wonderful lives. While both will have to commit to > > > > death the interim of life seems to have significance in the fact that > > > > maybe there is for them a lesson to be learned. I would also have to > > > > examine why it is that a person is born and dies within hours of > > > > living if there is any significance to life between birth and death. > > > > Some believe that what we do in this life influences our lives to > > > > come, so I have to wonder what has that person done within it's few > > > > hours of life to influence it's future life. Can we lay down a > > > > prospective for person's future life based on general observation of > > > > the person's current life. IF so then where might be Hitler, Dahmer, > > > > Saddam and what are they doing in their future life? Have they > > > > returned already and are they living among us as we speak? The > > > > question begets more questions which beget even more as the question > > > > surrounding the most mysterious aspects of human life remains > > > > enigmatic; what of death? > > > > > > As for the Noggin article, it's an interested experiment, to be sure, > > > > > but did you have a particular perspective on it? To me, it isn't > > > > > particularly surprising that different parts of the brain light up > > > > > based on your preferences. Presumably, imaging equipment will > > > > > eventually be able to see which pictures send more dopamine through > > > > > your brain and hence are the ones you like. Did you have a different > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > On Mar 3, 7:35 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You are indeed the arbitrator, wood. > > > > > > We had some discussion on thought not long ago. I started a thread > > > > > > titled "Noggin News or Nonsense" in which I presented a study. > > > > > > I'd be interested in your "thought" on it. > > > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490606,00.html > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 12:01 am, wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > WoW! WoW! Slip & Michael > > > > > > > Putting the rotten cheese aside, you gentlemen are not worlds > > > > > > > apart in > > > > > > > your frame of thinking. What I’m seeing here, are two smart guys > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > clearly have a lot ideas and theories to be told, and I think it > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > make an interesting discussion. Somewhere along the line, in > > > > > > > turn we all can benefit from > > > > > > > each other’s intellect. Maybe afterward we can all have some > > > > > > > cheese > > > > > > > and crackers. > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:28 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Response to Slip: > > > > > > > > > "There is no evidence that thought itself does not exist > > > > > > > > within a subconscious realm beyond that of the cognitive self." > > > > > > > > > There is also no evidence that thought is not made of green > > > > > > > > cheese. > > > > > > > > The absence of evidence against something isn't nearly as > > > > > > > > compelling > > > > > > > > as the presence of evidence for something. Moreover, the > > > > > > > > absence of > > > > > > > > evidence against something counts for nothing unless we have > > > > > > > > strong > > > > > > > > extrinsic reasons for believing that thing. There may be > > > > > > > > strong, > > > > > > > > extrinsic reasons for believing in thought that exists withing a > > > > > > > > subconscious realm, but you haven't articulated them; at least > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > that I can glean. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:27 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Welcome Jodie, We see light from stars that are physically non > > > > > > > > > existent. There is no evidence that thought itself does not > > > > > > > > > exist > > > > > > > > > within a subconscious realm beyond that of the > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
