Forget science - how about logic?
When someone conducts a double-blind study and shows that one thing
works better than another thing, whether or not you call that
"science" is irrelevant. As a matter of logic, a positive result in a
double-blind study can logically imply a conclusion (as long as you do
a couple of them, to rule out the possibility of a positive result by
chance alone).
There are certain logical ways of reaching conclusions, that must be
true, from facts. And there are other ways of reaching conclusions,
that might or might not be true, from facts.
Reasoning from perception to existence ("I feel like I have an extra-
material mind, so I do" or "I have perceived apparitions, so they
exist") simply cannot produce conclusions through an infallible,
logical process. Plenty of stuff in "science" also doesn't produce
infallible, logical results. But let's distinguish things that do
(e.g., double-blind studies that produce positive results) from things
that don't.
The argument that science has not infallibly produced true results is
to the contention that therefore, we should trust what we see is as
apples are to Wednesdays. One has nothing to do with the other. The
fact that science hasn't infallibly produced truth means we shouldn't
place absolute faith in science; it doesn't mean we should place
absolute faith in what we perceive. Indeed, it is beyond clear that
perception is a fuzzy process that does not correspond to the
objective reality (to the extent that one exists) in a wide variety of
systematic ways. Arguing that something exists, from the fact that it
is perceived, is simply a non-starter if you're trying to make any
sort of claim about the actual truth of things rather than about the
mere perception of things.
On Mar 9, 7:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simply remove the word "story" because ghosts are not a story.
> Apparitions are real and I would imagine that their visual is
> accomplished by their ability to attract particles in the air, dust
> and whatnot, that create the visible form we see. Of course, this is
> nearly impossible for some people to comprehend, when they have not
> had any experience with apparitions. Most people I talk to about my
> experiences think I'm a crazy. Well the crazy part is true but so are
> the experiences! I wouldn't say I've ever been appreciative of
> having experiences with dead people but the fact that I do remains. I
> don't know what it is or why it is, but I just go along with the
> flow. Not to get too far off track but that matter is that these
> experiences lend themselves to my belief that souls do exist. Why
> some are still floating around this place eludes me. Truth is I don't
> care a smidgen about scientific proof for every aspect of living
> because life is what it is and we can't explain everything from
> something that is literally in its infancy; that is science.
> Science has killed as many people as it has saved, is wrong as many
> times as it is right and changes its colors like a chameleon. The
> world abounds with "fallacies" of science. Thanks but no thanks, I'm
> not some scientific guinea pig!
>
> On Mar 9, 10:11 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you
> > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale?
>
> > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, 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.
>
> > > If the soul/spirit is a coherent field of energy, then it must,
> > > somehow, retain coherence. It could only do that given space and
> > > time. That is, there is no 'coherence' outside of time (or space).
> > > Ghosts, if disincarnate souls, would stand as evidence that spacetime
> > > is STILL a factor after disincarnation.
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
