I sent minds-eye a link to an article that is relevant to this discussion. I know nothing about it and so don't have an opinion. Here's a link as well but I'm not sure you'll be able to use it. WSJ is a pay site.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655409722065741.html dj 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. 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. > First you say soul is pure speculation then say you are in no way > saying that soul is a flight of fancy. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
