I'm thinking that Russell's Teapot is flying high tonight, Michael, just past Saturn...
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
