On 11 Mar, 14:55, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> If that is what you expect, than this is what will happen ... geez,
> Pat... get out of your cage. I will it so. *laughing*
>
Ahh, yes, one might be able to think outside the box, but that won't
get you out of the cage. ;-)
PS As I'm leaving the office, now, I WILL be getting out of THAT cage
(for a few hours, at least).
> On 11 Mrz., 14:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
