On Mar 10, 8:22 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
I suppose you are speaking of yourself, Michael ! When the ice cream
means " the whole world " to the child, it means just that ... the
whole world. That meaning is real, just as whatever the ice cream may
mean to the grown up or the old, the infirm, the scientist, the
artist, the playwright, the moralist, the philosopher, the sportsman,
the economist, the dietician, etc. So, perceptions are important ; so
is knowledge, of all kinds if I may add. If the dietician sees it as
calories, he is not wrong ; so is the scientist, who might see it as
atoms and electrons. So would be the technocrat, who would see it as a
product of an elaborate manufacturing process.
> 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.
I did not find SD placing absolute faith anywhere, much less demand
that others place theirs on what he is saying. He speaks of his
experiences and perceptions, physical and mental and intellectual, and
suggests his beliefs based on that. We each, of course, are free to
make whatever we are inclined to, in accord with our experiences and
knowledge and beliefs. I see that as being no reason for " opposing "
SD's suggestions by raising dogmas, scientific or logical or not !
> 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.
Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out there.
As what that " something " is, we can all have our respective takes !
>
> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
