On 10 Mar, 22:29, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Existence itself is the property that places us (and
>
> anything) within the confines of space-time.
>
> I think you are right with respect to time but I do not think you are
> right with respect to space. Space is accidental with respect to
> existence - it is not essential. It is possible to experience non-
> spatial existence and for the current universe to evolve to a non
> spatial state at some time in the future.
If so, where would that occur? if an event (such as the one you
describe or, indeed ANY event) occurs, it occurs at a particular place
at a particular time. I cannot envisage an event that can occur at a
given time and, yet, occurs nowhere, as that is what MUST happen if a
purely spatial event occurs. The only way around that, perhaps, is to
declare that all purely spatial events are everlasting, i.e., taking
up all of time.
>Indeed the spatial
> structures that we intuit may be more properly conceived of in terms
> of experience. When I say possible I mean logically possible. In fact,
> it may also not evolve that way and there is no evidence that it
> necessarily will. Still, we should not rule out the possibility of non-
> spatial existence nor define our terms too narrowly.
>
Boil it down, though. Where would a non-spatial existence take
place? Equally, WHEN would a non-temporal event occur? These
questions appear koan-like because space and time are intrinsically
joined to one another in a space-time continuum. There is no way to
separate them and have non-temporal or non-spatial events as, by
definition, an event must occur at some place at some time. And, I'm
afraid, THAT'S the governing logic here.
> As a concrete example consider that you are looking out at a river and
> suddenly everything starts to turn gray. They whole scene then becomes
> gray. There is no way you can turn around or look left or right as
> there is only gray. Then imagine that even that ceases. You can see
> nothing. That does not mean that you see black simply that you do not
> see. However you hear. You hear one note. A sound that just continues.
> Now at that point there is an entire intentional structure: "you"
> "are" "hearing" "it" and that structure "is". However the reality (the
> sound) is not spatial. Other senses, like smells are also potentially
> not spatial.
>
Nope. You hear because air is being compressed at different rates.
The sound waves move through the air (this takes both time and space,
the time it takes for the wave to leave its source, travel through a
medium and land on your ear). The air exists within space-time.
Smells are also received by chemicals that are passed past one's
olfactory bulbs when one breathes. This takes time, and space is
involved, again, as the medium through which the chemicals pass.
> Whether this will happen in reality is doubtful given current theory
> but those theories are empirically justified - essentially its like
> saying it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet - and
> technically that is a non sequitor.
>
> This means that there is another property besides existence that
> places us within space-time. That property is the spatial nature of
> the universe. It is real but it is not essential with respect to
> existence. It is an accident (in the medieval sense of being something
> that can change and the thing will still be what it is - not in the
> sense of "car accident"). We exist *and* our existence happens to be
> spatial. To say it is spatial is to say something other that the fact
> that it exists.
Whilst I agree with your last statement, I fear it's for other
reasons. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean in my passages above where
I point out the spatio-temporality of things you thought had one side
missing. I'm intrigued by but unsure what you mean by 'the spatial
nature of the universe', as, since Einstein, we've come to understand
the universe as not spatial and temporal but spatio-temporal. That
is, our universe is a space-time continuum with NO missing (spatio-
temporal) points. As there are no missing points in the continuum, we
know, then, that the future is already just as much a part of it as is
the past, and that all events within said continuum are within a cause-
and-effect framework, that is, no uncaused events can occur. This
understanding, in a sense, does away with the medieval understanding
of 'accident' by demonstrating that everything that exists MUST have a
cause (or many causes) and, therefore, could NOT have been changed, as
the event was already a part of the space-time continuum anyway. I
hope that helps clarify what I meant, but, I expect it may also clash
with your paradigm (especially if you believe in free will).
>
> On Mar 10, 5:34 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Mar, 15:11, 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?
>
> > A ghost story is a story about ghosts; a fairy tale is, usually, a
> > folktale derived from some local folklore. There is some overlap, as
> > ghost stories may develop into fairy tales and some fairy tales
> > (because of the former reason) contain ghosts. None of this, though,
> > has anything to do with the soul. My concept of a soul or spirit is
> > 'a coherent field of energy'. And, in the above, I extrapolated that,
> > in order to maintain coherence, the field MUST exist within space-
> > time, therefore making it a spatio-temporal object. In fact, in order
> > for it (or anything) to exist, it must exist at some place and at some
> > time (feel free, though, to put forward an exception if you can think
> > of one). Existence itself is the property that places us (and
> > anything) within the confines of space-time.
>
> > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
