Space exists, Chris, without those properties or characteristics you ask of the soul !
You have anything against speculation, Chris ? Why should you be always looking for " authority,' especially if it is in the context of your own self ? Why should anybody else have more " authority " on matters pertaining to your own self ? Chris Jenkins 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 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 > >> > >> ... > >> > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
