Well said, Vama, especially: <<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 10, 12:03 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
