I completely accept your line of thinking. What I wonder is if you accept that it is purely speculation. You speak of it as knowledge, gnosis, when it is no such thing. How can it be? It is based on nothing more than an idea that you choose to accept as true. Fair enough. By this system of validation, I choose to accept the validity of the Pink Unicorn, and will also say to you "No, that's not how it works" should you choose to say something which counters the "truth" of the Pink Unicorn...at least, as I speculate such to be.
Empiricism is not perfect, nor complete, as a system of dialectics, but it does provide a foundation for separating what is, from what is simply being stated as a flight of fancy. I'm in no way stating that "Souls" are a flight of fancy, but I have yet to have anyone actually tell me just what a soul is, where it's kept, what it's made of. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between a soul and a fairy...the only difference being, you might think me bonkers if I suggested I had a fairy. As a materialist, what can you offer me to support your idea of the soul? Can you explain to me what you mean, in physical terms, by soul? Is there any terminology in science which might be used to describe the structure of a soul? On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > All knowledge is not measured by empirical evidence and, as in thought > experiment, one can have knowledge prior to establishing evidence. > Many things in the past "seemed" to be made up and arbitrary, but > later received validation. > I don't set limitations upon my thoughts or perceptions due to lack of > evidence. Many scientific data is post speculative. The suggestions > of how the soul works are not presented authoritatively, though it may > be perceived that way by some. I'm sure you don't live your life > according to scientific absolutes. There is no empirical evidence of > what will be tomorrow or in the future, but you proceed anyway because > you intuitively perceive what will be. > I affirmatively state that apparitions do exist because I have seen > them, however, there is no empirical evidence that they exist. There > is much to life that we have not proof of, yet we know. > > You stated: .........there is no "memory" or "identity" which is > passed on which can be measured in some scientific state. > > Well how do you know that it "cannot" be measured, somehow, someway, > sometime, maybe sooner or later? Do you think it is a good idea to > sit around waiting for someone else to tell us what is and what > isn't? How many great thinkers were laughed at in history? > > You don't have to believe in a soul, that is your right. > > Of course you do believe in soul food and soul music, right? > > > > > On Mar 7, 7:58 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> What is this soul? Where do you keep it? What color is it? How much >> does it weigh? What does it smell like? Without any empirical >> knowledge of it whatsoever, what gives you the confidence to suggest >> to someone "How it works", when it seems to be something entirely made >> up and arbitrary? >> >> Energy is universal, and yet nothing about it is consistent from one >> state to the next, there is no "memory" or "identity" which is passed >> on which can be measured in some scientific state. Without empirical >> observation, there is nothing here but speculation, in which case, >> there is no authority from which to state how something does or does >> not work, no? >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:17 AM, 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. 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. 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? >> >> > On Mar 6, 12:54 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
