I would agree that there's no use hypothesizing things without scientific evidence for them. The human mind is just too creative. It comes up with the idea of a soul, or, say, an afterlife, or, say, reincarnation, without any evidence for such things. Then, because the human mind is so smart and creative, it can construct stories of how all of these concepts can exist and be internally consistent. For example, all of your responses to how reincarnation works. Slip's explanation of how souls work - "not something you can see, touch, package or taste" - demonstrates how creative thinkers can construct wholly consistent models for concepts that are initially invented without any evidence for them. But the question remains, why hypothesize them in the first place?
Is hypothesizing a soul any more useful than hypothesizing that the entire earth is an experiment run by super-intelligent aliens designed to calculate the solution to a complicated question - which is the premise of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? If you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it's internally consistent - we can imagine how our earth actually could be a finely calibrated experiment (ignoring, for now, how unrealistic it would be) - but just because an idea, or a story of how things are, is internally consistent, doesn't mean there was any reason for positing it in the first place. Why should we believe the fictional plot of a Hitchiker's Guide? We shouldn't - it's fiction written for our entertainment. Why should we believe in souls, as truthful constructs, either? Why not just consign them to the realm of enjoyable, perhaps even deep and insight-generating, fiction? The human mind can always come up with interesting ideas and interesting constructs - that is the nature of creativity. But I don't see how it gets anyone anywhere to argue that those constructs are true - at least not when they weren't initially posited based on evidence. On Mar 8, 7:03 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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".<<fran > > Indeed there are areas that are gray but I don't see why you don't see > "any" of it as supportive even to the slightest degree of supporting > the possibility. The "need" clarification that wasn't annoying me, is > useful but I would think you would be even less accepting with a > parsimonious presentation. Therefore is seems necessary to offer > extraneous variables to attract even a remote possibility. You state > a basic position on human nature that answers your questions without > soul theory and so I would be interested in what that position is. I > generally agree that our understanding of universal principles is > continually evolving as new discoveries delete past positions. A c&p > from an earlier post; Our consciousness, in and of itself, may be the > physical representation of soul and therefore has evidential value. I > don't recognize any religious affiliation with soul and see it as > independent of theocracy. Therefore I can bypass atheistic rejection > of theistic notion and recognize the possibility of the soul. As with > thought, soul is not a materialistic energy that can be measured with > scientific instrumentation and is not something you can see, touch > package or taste. This is where the scientific view falls off the > ledge. When it comes to matters of the mind, out of body experience > or life after death, science has not the means for examination or > observation. Within these parameters it is only possible to accept > soul entity as a theory unless of course one, such as myself, has > personal experiences of soul symptom, as with the many accounts of out > of body, past life experiences, etc. While Orn seems to be on target, > I disagree that one would not find where the soul resides without > following a theistic path. While I can not offer any proof, the > understanding I have remains strong and reinforced by personal > experience which I can only relay in written form. I don't stand alone > in my belief as there are thousands, perhaps millions of others, who, > through personal experience share in the concept of soul and soul > transmigration. > > On Mar 8, 1:05 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
