I agree with a lot of what you say, Slip, but I don't see any of it as necessarily supporting arguments for the existence of a "soul". My use of the term "need", which you seem to find so annoying was basically an application of Occum's sharp instrument. I find myself able to set forward a basic position on human nature, which generally manages to answer the questions I have without reference to the concept of "soul" and particularly transmigrating soul such as you seem to understand it. I certainly would never claim that our explanations and knowledge are ultimate; our understanding of things is constantly growing and changing, leading indeed to repeated phase shifts like the shift from a magical world to a scientific world, from a geocentric universe to a Copernican revolution, from a Newtonian universe to one better explained by relativity and quantum theory (which, incidentally, also poses the existence and properties of certain sub-atomic particles and states, many of which can, and have been scientifically/experimentally verified).
Nor would I ever claim that our understanding of things is limited to our history and experience on planet earth. But this does not mean that we should abandon the scientific method when faced with new phenomena, which have yet to be explained. Two quotations: Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Profiles of the Future (revised edition, 1973) "Clarke's Third Law doesn't work in reverse. Given that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," it does not follow that "any magical claim that anybody may make at any time is indistinguishable from a technological advance that well come some time in the future." ... There have admittedly been occasions when authoritative, pontificating skeptics have come away with egg on their faces, even within their own lifetimes. But there have been a far greater number of occasions when magical claims have never been vindicated. An apparent magical claim might eventually turn out to be true. In any age there are so many magical claims that are, or could be, made. They can't all be true; many are mutually contradictory; and we have no reason to suppose that, simply by the act of sitting down and dreaming up a magical claim, we shall make it come true in some future technology. Some things that would surprise us today will come true in the future. But lots and lots of things that would surprise us today will not come true ever." Richard Dawkins, in "Putting Away Childish Things" in The Skeptical Inquirer (Jan-Feb/95) Francis On 8 Mrz., 04:39, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I also agree that the concept of life is > superfluous<<<Orn > > The concept of life is superfluous? > > Again, there is not question that there is no need for such positing. > <<Orn > > I think the "key" word here is "need", which clearly was not a part or > portion of any soul posit. > > You don't have a soul because you need one, you just have one. > > You don't have a physical body because you need one, you just have > one. Look in the mirror, you are there! Not because you "Need" to be > there but because you just are, just as your soul IS. > > I think the key word should simply be "acceptance", so that we can > move on. > > “..But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold it > together….” – <<<fran Absolutely correct yet again! : - ) <<<Orn > > We don't "Need" to live, to exist, to be human, to be physical, but we > are! > > “…With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all…” – fran > > No kidding? Yeah well I wasn't born yesterday and for sure the > technology is not the point. I guess you think that human technology > in data storage is the ultimate technology in "ALL" of the universe. > > My point was that if we pea brain humans can develop such > technologies, then what technologies might exist beyond our > comprehension. Obviously it seems beyond the comprehension of some. > > Life is much more than "Planet Earth". > > On Mar 7, 4:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…I don't need to call it a soul, because I regard this concept as > > superfluous, much as I regard the concept of God as superfluous. ..” > > fran > > > I agree fran. I also agree that the concept of life is > > superfluous….along with all concepts. However, we can only see as much > > of reality as our notions about that reality can provide. > > > “…I don't see the need to posit any part of what I am as being due to > > knowledge and understanding which my "soul" has accumulated throughout > > many lifetimes….” – fran > > > Again, there is not question that there is no need for such positing. > > This is common rebuttal language and misses the mark so obviously. > > Need has nothing to do with soul, life, etc. All of it ‘is’….and, here > > I will posit that it all ‘is’ based on an ultimate purpose. > > > “..But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold it > > together….” – fran > > > Absolutely correct yet again! : - ) > > > “…With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all…” – fran > > > “…The soul, whatever it may or may not be, is not subject to this sort > > of analysis or discourse…” – fran > > > Yep…an analogy is but an analogy. How the heck could one scramble > > one’s entire being? Difficult to imagine. > > > And, of course, all notions aside, there is either gnosis or there > > isn’t. There is theosis or there isn’t. By ‘is’ in these examples, I > > mean one knows it or one doesn’t. It isn’t for debate. > > > On Mar 7, 9:27 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7 Mrz., 14:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I could even be Albert Einstein in my next life. Or Helen of Troy. Or > > > > my own grand-dad. <<<fran > > > > > No fran, that is not how it works, you cannot commandeer the soul of > > > > someone else. You can only be "you" forever, from here in on out or > > > > from then on. Even in space time, would you challenge the possibility > > > > that the soul could retain its integrity? Soul is your being, your > > > > essence in life, you are who you are because of your soul. > > > > There seem to be things you see clearly, Slip, that I don't see at all > > > - or maybe it's the other way round. I am who I am because I am who I > > > am; my consciousness, my experiences, my mind, my body and brain, my > > > memories, my relationships with others. A unity which I experience as > > > me. I don't need to call it a soul, because I regard this concept as > > > superfluous, much as I regard the concept of God as superfluous. > > > > You, fran, can see the difference when you go out and about in the > > > world around > > > > > you. There is obviously a huge difference between you and many other > > > > people, and when you ask why is that, which you have at times, you can > > > > simply attribute it all to the fact that your soul has accumulated > > > > knowledge and understanding throughout many lifetimes. > > > > I don't see the need to posit any part of what I am as being due to > > > knowledge and understanding which my "soul" has accumulated throughout > > > many lifetimes. I am the product of the life I have lived over the > > > past almost 49 years, starting with the unique genetic mix of my > > > conception, moving through the development of my body and > > > consciousness and all that I have experienced in that time, everything > > > continuously interacting with everything else. I am not who I was ten > > > years ago, nor who I will be - if I'm still around - in ten years > > > time. Yet there is continuity here, a continuity consisting of my > > > consciousness in continual dialogue with my memory and in the > > > perception of those around me, along with a biological continual > > > development (even if few of the molecules are still the same after ten > > > years). But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold it > > > together. > > > > It's rather > > > > > simple really. As I said earlier, in this day and age when we have > > > > microwaves and space travel, computers, cell phones, dvd, cd, etc, I > > > > find it hard to believe the disbelief in this theory. > > > > In other words, we can store gobs of information on a piece of plastic > > > > but we can't have a soul? > > > > The analogy doesn't work, Slip, in my opinion. We don't store the > > > information on plastic but rather on a magnetic stripe (or an or a > > > chip on the plastic), where binary code is laid down according to > > > particular magneto-electrical processes. Even if I don't understand > > > all the science or engineering involved, I am acquainted with the > > > basic principles and, if I had the inclination, could learn more about > > > the details. With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all. > > > The same goes for various techniques involved in modulating the > > > frequency of particular forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as is > > > the case in microwave ovens and cell phones. They are physical > > > phenomena, explainable by science. On a cd or dvd, "data are stored as > > > a series of tiny indentations known as “pits”, encoded in a tightly > > > packed spiral track molded into the top of the polycarbonate layer. > > > The areas between pits are known as “lands”. Each pit is approximately > > > 100 nm deep by 500 nm wide, and varies from 850 nm to 3.5 µm in > > > length., The spacing between the tracks, the pitch, is 1.6 µm. A CD is > > > read by focusing a 780 nm wavelength (near infrared) semiconductor > > > laser through the bottom of the polycarbonate layer. The change in > > > height between pits and lands results in a difference in intensity in > > > the light reflected. By measuring the intensity change with a > > > photodiode, the data can be read from the disc." (Wikipedia) The soul, > > > whatever it may or may not be, is not subject to this sort of analysis > > > or discourse. > > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
