Answers interspersed below. On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > To a materialist I can offer nothing as you insist on having empirical > evidence to even consider the possibility, but aside from that tossing > in a pink unicorn is not even remotely a possible consideration for > speculation but a simple absurdity out on a limb. Awareness of or the > possibility of the "soul" is ancient pre-socratic philosophy. From > Homer to Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics etc all spoke and > thought about the soul "not" pink unicorns. Many cultures recognize > the soul in distinguishable form from that of the physical and whether > theoretical, religious or philosophical in nature the issue of soul > remains valid subject content for discourse analysis. If you can find > someone who wants to to discuss pink unicorns then have at it, perhaps > at the local asylum.
Many noted minds also discussed dragons, fairies, angels, demons, vampires, werewolves, gods and goddesses, and even Invisible Pink Unicorns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Many cultures speculate about the soul, but not one of them has ever done more than come to a greater social acceptance of a tradition or belief about the nature of such a thing. I am very well aware of the fact that soul > concept to some people is pure speculation but yes I do speak of it as > knowledge for I seem to have the knowledge of it. I'm sure that if > you had some personal experience like NDE or other traumatic episode > in which you attained extraordinary knowledge, your view might change. You've had a fantastic experience. I completely understand that. We have discussed that before, and also have discussed how you can attain that again. If you recall, I referred to the works of Hoffman, Leary, and Castaneda on the topic, and discussed the intrinsic chemistry of the brain in NDE stress response, specifically as it relates to DMT production. Many people have had that experience, and many people, including the writers I've mentioned attach great spiritual meaning to it. I've had various experiences of my own, and also attached various spiritual meanings to each of them, in their time. My Materialist viewpoint is not intended to counter your position, but to clarify it. When you began to speak from a position of authority ("It doesn't work that way..."), I wondered how you could be so confident in that position, when there seemed to be no way to present evidence to support it. Dialectically, it seemed to be a questionable response. > First you say soul is pure speculation then say you are in no way > saying that soul is a flight of fancy. See, I think we are on the edge of miscommunication here. A flight of fancy has a specific negative connotation. Speculation does not. When I am stating that your position is purely speculative, but clarifying that I am NOT saying that souls are merely a flight of fancy, I am stating that although your position is not provable from an empirical perspective, it is not without a vast history of schools of thought supporting it. The concept of "Soul" is obviously not some passing fancy dreamed up by a schoolboy on an idle springtime afternoon (although if it was, I'm sure it was Arch). When you are discussing the concept, you are speaking with a crowd of billions. Don't misunderstand my intention. Part of the search for truth is separating what we know, from what we know. > On Mar 8, 6:41 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
