Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Researchers Finally Confirm There Is Life After Death
#21
(06-03-2016, 08:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Actually, as I showed in the philosophy thread on the old forum (still available in the archive), science CAN prove the afterlife. It may not prove it to the satisfaction of those determined to hang on to their old way of seeing things; they can try to explain it away. Proving it does mean more than just proving that some consciousness continues in a dying brain, I am sure. But there is other research that goes beyond this. It's all referred to in the archive, and those who read the thread will remember.

I find it interesting that Galen, in his all-consuming interest in libertarian economics, says that liberalism in the 20th century is based on the mechanistic worldview. He wrote, "What I described is common to all of what is called the soft sciences.  You have to understand that the progressive and modern liberal viewpoint is very mechanistic.  This works in the modern realm of physics and engineering but fails in psychology and economics.  Consider what it means if Mises and Rothbard are in fact correct as I believe they are.  It means that the world of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is build on a false foundation."

If mechanistic reductionism fails in the realm of psychology, then it can't explain things like ghosts or the afterlife. I wonder what worldview Galen considers a firm foundation for civilization. In the 20th century, the mechanistic worldview became the default one for educated people, as Sheldrake explained. In the red/blue split, most liberals subscribe to this default, mechanistic worldview, as opposed to the right-wing Christian one that conservatives generally uphold. But mechanism really belongs to the previous era, the Renaissance-Enlightenment era that culminated in Darwinism and the atomic, materialist theories. The predominant worldview that preceded it, apart from some romantic hybrids like Goethe, was the Traditional Christian one. Radind adhers to it, but I am not aware that Galen does, or that he supports the religious right.

Of course the Medieval Christian worldview was not quite the same as the bastardized, fundamentalist Protestant one that emerged in the 20th century and now dominates the religious right-wing in the USA. It was more subtle and complicated than that, and included many elements from the blend of esoteric hermeticism and ancient Greek philosophy that was bequeathed to it by the ancient world. The medieval world view understood symbolism, while literal, Biblical worldviews do not at all.

The 20th century was also the time when many intellectuals and some physicists rejected the mechanistic worldview and went off in a new direction called the New Paradigm. This was especially true in Europe in the early 20th century, and affected the USA since the sixties in the hippie counter-culture and new age/human potential movements. Gen Xers  like Galen in their compulsive rejection of everything "boomer" have cut themselves off from this new tradition, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. But this New Paradigm worldview is certainly open to the afterlife, and does the opposite of reducing knowledge to engineering and the hard sciences, as though they could understand the psyche and the soul.

Some new agers are libertarians, I know. But most are not rigid conservatives of one stripe or another, but liberals who see the potential in humans to liberate themselves from enslaving worldviews and work together to build a new civilization that works well for all, and not just for a few as libertarian economics advocates.

So taramarie, indeed everything ties in together with everything else, and so Americans obsessed with politics and economics have always an opening to turn any subject in their preferred direction.

The counter-culture, just like the libertarians, were at first very utopian, since we know the potential in human beings to be free. Ideally no state with the power to enforce laws by force would be needed in this utopia. The difference between libertarians and new agers/counter-culturalists is the difference in their goals. Libertarian economists want to tear down the state first, in the belief that the state is the problem and humans will rise to their potential automatically without it. This destruction of the state enables libertarians like the Koch Brothers to evade the needs of society, lower their own taxes and regulations, and thus boost their own power and wealth. New Agers on the contrary see that the "problem" is within us, similar to what Buddha and real (mystical) Christians taught, and that spiritual liberation is what will eventually lead us toward needing less and less state power to physically enforce laws. In the leftist Green Party, the new age politics, decisions are made by consensus as much as possible, as opposed to simple majority rule enforced on the minority.

It is this new age view that also opens up research into the afterlife, because the foundation for the new civilization leads beyond mechanistic worldviews toward the spiritual worldview, in which human beings are primarily spirits and not just visible and tangible bodies.
does the tread address what ghosts are, how they interact with the world around them as well as afterlife discussion? If so i would be interested in this. What is the thread called? i think both world views are correct in certain ways btw. Both connected.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#22
(06-03-2016, 05:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 12:42 PM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 09:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote: A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

Perhaps the most important delusion.

Of course the state has a way to determine what is valuable. It's what the people vote for. They express their values when they vote.

The private sector also compels people to obey the dictates of money and property. If people don't, they get hauled off to jail for stealing. But that means that money rules. He that has the gold, rules, is the libertarian version of the golden rule. I prefer the traditional version myself; the one upheld by all religions.

Government can not do economic calculation.
Stop you right there. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you fall for this most obvious of delusions. Amazing, though! You and your libertarian buddies REALLY DO think that "value" = "economic calculation!" Total absurdity!

Quote:  Voting as a means of economic calculation is absurd for the simple reason that 50% + 1 get to override the preferences of 50% - 1.  This typically does not happen in the market for the simple reason that one producers products do not necessarily preclude the existence of another producer creating something else.  Voting only allows people to express a preference without regard to the resources available which is by no means economic calculation and tends to lead to disaster.  People keep voting for socialists in Venezuela but it is safe to say that they don't like what they are getting.
Venezuela was unfortunately not socialist, but cult worship. I would not have voted for that bozo Hugo Chavez.

People voting express their values; their priorities of what needs to be done by the state. That obviously encompasses much more than what makes the most money for somebody. If resources are needed to accomplish what is needed, then it taxes you. And I hope it taxes you until you bleed! Since that's all you care about!

Quote:If you botthered to read Gabriel Kolko, no friend of the free market, you would know that he came to essentially the same conclusion that Rothbard did about the consequences of the progressives.  He was not very happy about that discovery.  You are an economic illiterate who has only been exposed to the comic book version of history one gets through the public schools.  Yet another example of the glaring failures of the state.
You obviously don't read my posts so you are not entitled to say what I know or what I don't.

Quote:Saying that people are compelled by economic realities is a bit like saying people are compelled by physics to fall should they walk off a cliff.  Money is a medium of exchange which allow people to decide for themselves what is most important to them.  It also provides a way of allocating resource to their best use a expressed by their preferences.

Money can't buy what is most important to people, and having money does not mean that the market will supply you with what you need. Often, it only supplies what is convenient for them to make. That's why I often cannot buy what I want to buy in this economy. And money in the world does not mean that a corporate economy is going to hire you, and it certainly does not provide for fair wages or working conditions. What making the market central DOES do, is force all values into the economic calculus. And that means the abdication of all values, and the destruction of our planet.

Observing here what is being said but i have to say i totally agree with what i highlighted.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#23
does the thread address what ghosts are, how they interact with the world around them as well as afterlife discussion? If so i would be interested in this. What is the thread called? i think both world views are correct in certain ways btw. Both connected.
[/quote]

You were there before, the philosophy, religion, science and turnings thread, I think it was called.
http://generationaldynamics.com/tftarchi...-00001.htm

You need to start here:
http://generationaldynamics.com/tftarchive/
and find this philosophy thread alphabetically and then click on one of the recent higher-numbered pages. I don't know just what page would involve the research into life after death; it might be back in the page #80s or 70s I'm not sure. I don't think the archive allows you to go from one page to the next either.

But I don't have time right now to find all the links to the research. But it's out there if you want to use google and search for it. It was available for quite some time in the old forum.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
(06-03-2016, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: does the thread address what ghosts are, how they interact with the world around them as well as afterlife discussion? If so i would be interested in this. What is the thread called? i think both world views are correct in certain ways btw. Both connected.

You were there before, the philosophy, religion, science and turnings thread, I think it was called.
http://generationaldynamics.com/tftarchi...-00001.htm
[/quote]

ok will give the thread a more thorough look
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#25
Responding to someone like Galen whose values are so opposed to mine does tend to bring out the fiery crusader in me Smile

It's interesting that we actually agree on some points of philosophy. But I have little hope that he understands anything I write. Obviously, we can't totally trust either the market OR the state to give us all that we want and value. There is a deeper source of life, which is the source of all that transcends this physical plane as well as all that is manifest upon it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#26
(06-03-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Responding to someone like Galen whose values are so opposed to mine does tend to bring out the fiery crusader in me Smile

It's interesting that we actually agree on some points of philosophy. But I have little hope that he understands anything I write. Obviously, we can't totally trust either the market OR the state to give us all that we want and value. There is a deeper source of life, which is the source of all that transcends this physical plane as well as all that is manifest upon it.

Which is partly the reason why i created this thread. Not only to discuss and see other viewpoints but to also find an explanation. Guess we will never have one and certainly not one that satisfies all. As a former wiccan i call it energy. But I do not dismiss the material. They are one .... but not necessarily the same. Why I think so is for example, people die, sometimes in a violent way. But it is not present (so i have seen so far) to show in their spirit. I cannot be certain as i have only seen a few. Others say they do see them in a different way and i find that interesting. They see the damage that was done to the body. All very interesting. I am very intrigued by hard and soft science and its exploration.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#27
Let's bring this topic back to the alleged confirmation of life after death.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#28
[Galen]It isn't but the Austrian School approach recognizes that experiments are not possible.
[Mike] I already addressed this.  You did not respond

[Galen]What you have to work with is logic and deduction from actual events and human nature.  Much of what they write can be translated in Propositional Logic and First Order Predicate Calculus which are very useful tools in proving whether a statement is true.  There is nothing mystical about such this.
[Mike]The mysticism comes in the assumptions about human nature.
Reply
#29
Create your own thread about this please. This has nothing to do with the after life. Dan, can you give them their own thread as they refuse to listen as usual.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#30
I am still skeptical of the reports based on near death experiences.

Quote:http://godevidence.com/2014/05/atheisms-denial-soul/

… "Harvard University neuroscientist Eben Alexander from his book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey to the Afterlife in which he encountered God after a brain infection caused the complete cessation of activity within his brain:
“During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly–it wasn’t working at all….In my case, the neocortex was out of the picture. I was encountering the reality of a world of consciousness that existed completely free of the limitations of my physical brain.” [italics are his]
“Mine was in some ways a perfect storm of near-death experiences. As a practicing neurosurgeon with decades of research and hands-on work in the operating room behind me, I was in a better-than-average position to judge not only the reality but also the implications of what happened to me.”
“Those implications are tremendous beyond description. My experience showed me that the death of the body and the brain are not the end of consciousness, that human experience continues beyond the grave. More important, it continues under the gaze of a God who loves and cares about each one of us and about where the universe itself and all the beings within it are ultimately going.””..
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#31
Here's the trouble with saying that "science" can "prove" the existence of an afterlife:

The scientific method DEMANDS reproducibility! That's why anecdotal evidence confuses people. If one can build up enough anecdotal evidence, sort it, organize it and analyze it, it can become solid evidence for something.

So, let's say that these phenomena are real, that they happen to every single person who dies. Now, if we apply the scientific method, we start to propose hypotheses for the cause or causes of the phenomena. Are we supposed to believe that ONLY this one woo-woo explanation is possible? Can there not be many, many possible explanations? Well of course.

The trouble is, we now have to be able to reproducibly demonstrate that one or more of the possible causes is the cause.

Afterlife, or not afterlife ... sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]"... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."[/font]
Reply
#32
(06-12-2016, 12:45 PM)TnT Wrote: Here's the trouble with saying that "science" can "prove" the existence of an afterlife:

The scientific method DEMANDS reproducibility!  That's why anecdotal evidence confuses people.  If one can build up enough anecdotal evidence, sort it, organize it and analyze it, it can become solid evidence for something.

So, let's say that these phenomena are real, that they happen to every single person who dies. Now, if we apply the scientific method, we start to propose hypotheses for the cause or causes of the phenomena.  Are we supposed to believe that ONLY this one woo-woo explanation is possible?  Can there not be many, many possible explanations?  Well of course.

The trouble is, we now have to be able to reproducibly demonstrate that one or more of the possible causes is the cause.

Afterlife, or not afterlife ... sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

The only other explanations possible for the many kinds of evidence for the afterlife are materialist, and they all boil down to "it's all in the brain," do they not?

I don't know what the false dichotomy is. There is either an afterlife, or there isn't. Pretty straightforward to me.

Edit: No doubt there are possible explanations like delusion, fraud, mistaken attribution of phenomena; etc., the upshot of them, though, is to support the materialist worldview on this topic: it's all in the brain, and when it dies; that's it. So evidence to the contrary can be explained away.

And the evidence is about experiences of individual soul survival. So the "it's all one, so there's no individual survival" theories still boil down to the idea that the "individual soul" is only produced by the physical organism and its brain.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#33
(06-13-2016, 02:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-12-2016, 12:45 PM)TnT Wrote: Here's the trouble with saying that "science" can "prove" the existence of an afterlife:

The scientific method DEMANDS reproducibility!  That's why anecdotal evidence confuses people.  If one can build up enough anecdotal evidence, sort it, organize it and analyze it, it can become solid evidence for something.

So, let's say that these phenomena are real, that they happen to every single person who dies. Now, if we apply the scientific method, we start to propose hypotheses for the cause or causes of the phenomena.  Are we supposed to believe that ONLY this one woo-woo explanation is possible?  Can there not be many, many possible explanations?  Well of course.

The trouble is, we now have to be able to reproducibly demonstrate that one or more of the possible causes is the cause.

Afterlife, or not afterlife ... sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

The only other explanations possible for the many kinds of evidence for the afterlife are materialist, and they all boil down to "it's all in the brain," do they not?

I don't know what the false dichotomy is. There is either an afterlife, or there isn't. Pretty straightforward to me.

He's right you know. It is or it isn't. I have experienced far too much personally to brush it all off as non paranormal activity personally and that to me (i am a seeing is believing type) is proof. I would never believe otherwise. Scratches, hand marks on places i cannot reach, doors opening with no other way of doing so (trust me i know) taps turned on and flooding rooms (no one in the house), blood on the walls and doors (hand mark shaped), lights turning on by themselves (light switch flipped). I believe there is and it has no place called heaven or hell. That is a personal interpretation for each soul living or dead from what i have experienced anyway. With this i actually think i side with Eric. I think he believes in an afterlife too. But we may differ on what it is. It is very much an individual experience i think. I would say as an atheist that it would be nothing. As i was not around before that i am aware of. But experiences have left me questioning this topic. I do not know about reincarnation. That is something i have no opinion on. My mother is open to the idea. I am not sure personally. But i have had a long history with another form of "afterlife." Check out The Dead Files. Sort of similar to that ability and it is a common ability.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#34
Nonsense.

You can reduce many things to this "it either is, or it isn't" binary statement. Doesn't make it so.

For example, let me list only a few of perhaps an infinite number of possibilities:

1. There is simply NO afterlife at all for the individual. We are born, we live, we die. We neither exist as that discrete individual before nor after.

2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows. There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."

3. There is a species-wide super-consciousness - use a pool of water as a metaphor for it. As each discrete individual is born, he/she scoops a dollop of this consciousness out and uses it for the period of his/her life. When he/she dies, the dollop is poured back into the pool and the discrete individuality disappears forever and mixes together with the pool at large.

4. Each of us is a small increment of a Supreme Being, a God, if you will. During our life we are siphoned off into our indivdual, discrete consciousness. We live out our lonely wretched existence. We die. We are rejoined with God and forget totally about our brief interlude as an individual, and are part and parcel of the Great One once again.

5. Furthermore, one can conjure up another interesting idea: What it there is "Life Before Birth" but NO life after death? No? Why not? Lots of folks believe in NO life before birth, but life after death!

Must I go on?
[fon‌t=Arial Black]"... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."[/font]
Reply
#35
(06-14-2016, 03:29 PM)TnT Wrote: Nonsense.

You can reduce many things to this "it either is, or it isn't" binary statement.  Doesn't make it so.

For example, let me list only a few of perhaps an infinite number of possibilities:

1. There is simply NO afterlife at all for the individual. We are born, we live, we die.  We neither exist as that discrete individual before nor after.

2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows.  There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."

3. There is a species-wide super-consciousness - use a pool of water as a metaphor for it.  As each discrete individual is born, he/she scoops a dollop of this consciousness out and uses it for the period of his/her life.  When he/she dies, the dollop is poured back into the pool and the discrete individuality disappears forever and mixes together with the pool at large.

4. Each of us is a small increment of a Supreme Being, a God, if you will.  During our life we are siphoned off into our individual, discrete consciousness.  We live out our lonely wretched existence.  We die. We are rejoined with God and forget totally about our brief interlude as an individual, and are part and parcel of the Great One once again.

5. Furthermore, one can conjure up another interesting idea:  What it there is "Life Before Birth" but NO life after death? No?  Why not?  Lots of folks believe in NO life before birth, but life after death!

Must I go on?

But aren't 1 through 4 already covered by my earlier statement? I mentioned these in my post above. The question is individual survival after death. There are many possibilities about non-individual soul survival. But about individual soul survival, the question is either-or.

Life before birth, but not after death: has anyone ever proposed this? If there is life before birth, that at least proposes that there's a soul that exists beyond birth and beyond the physical body. That to me implies that the soul survives death, and is once again living "before" the next birth.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#36
(06-14-2016, 03:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 03:29 PM)TnT Wrote: Nonsense.

You can reduce many things to this "it either is, or it isn't" binary statement.  Doesn't make it so.

For example, let me list only a few of perhaps an infinite number of possibilities:

1. There is simply NO afterlife at all for the individual. We are born, we live, we die.  We neither exist as that discrete individual before nor after.

2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows.  There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."

3. There is a species-wide super-consciousness - use a pool of water as a metaphor for it.  As each discrete individual is born, he/she scoops a dollop of this consciousness out and uses it for the period of his/her life.  When he/she dies, the dollop is poured back into the pool and the discrete individuality disappears forever and mixes together with the pool at large.

4. Each of us is a small increment of a Supreme Being, a God, if you will.  During our life we are siphoned off into our individual, discrete consciousness.  We live out our lonely wretched existence.  We die. We are rejoined with God and forget totally about our brief interlude as an individual, and are part and parcel of the Great One once again.

5. Furthermore, one can conjure up another interesting idea:  What it there is "Life Before Birth" but NO life after death? No?  Why not?  Lots of folks believe in NO life before birth, but life after death!

Must I go on?

But aren't 1 through 4 already covered by my earlier statement? I mentioned these in my post above. The question is individual survival after death. There are many possibilities about non-individual soul survival. But about individual soul survival, the question is either-or.

Life before birth, but not after death: has anyone ever proposed this? If there is life before birth, that at least proposes that there's a soul that exists beyond birth and beyond the physical body. That to me implies that the soul survives death, and is once again living "before" the next birth.
The closest idea to life before birth would be reincarnation. People remembering being with another family and telling them details about a life they should not know of especially as they were not alive back then (in their current form).
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#37
Quote:3. There is a species-wide super-consciousness - use a pool of water as a metaphor for it. As each discrete individual is born, he/she scoops a dollop of this consciousness out and uses it for the period of his/her life. When he/she dies, the dollop is poured back into the pool and the discrete individuality disappears forever and mixes together with the pool at large.

4. Each of us is a small increment of a Supreme Being, a God, if you will. During our life we are siphoned off into our individual, discrete consciousness. We live out our lonely wretched existence. We die. We are rejoined with God and forget totally about our brief interlude as an individual, and are part and parcel of the Great One once again.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before too, but in fact we don't have to physically die to realize that we are always "part and parcel" of the Great One. These two views, #3 and 4, are true all the time, as far as they go. I and others of my persuasion offer a blended version of these two views of life and death. We are never alone, discreet beings; we are always connected and one with the Whole. But also we are always individuals; not discreet or separate, yet one within ourselves, souls that are holograms of the whole. God always manifests as individuals, in heaven ("the other side") and on Earth too. It's all the same universe. This is the holistic paradigm, also similar to pan psychism.

People who have been pat of the new age or spiritual community, perhaps more available in states like coastal California, are more used to these ideas. I have met many people who remember or even help others to remember their "past lives." We forget when we reincarnate or go wherever we go, and yet on a deeper level we can remember, and there's continuity.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#38
2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows. There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."


My scenario above: Can't you see that this is simply one stop among many possible on a continuum from NO individual survival to some individual survival, to individual survival, to cosmic integral-part-of-"god" survival in which individual survival is as irrelevant as scooping up a bucket of the Pacific Ocean and calling it different just because it's in a bucket?

MY point is that "It either IS or it ISN'T" is nonsense. There are literally an infinte number of possibilities. Just because you think one of them is true, doesn't make it so.

I suggest that none of us knows jack-diddly about this mystery.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]"... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."[/font]
Reply
#39
(06-20-2016, 10:55 AM)TnT Wrote: 2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows.  There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."


My scenario above:  Can't you see that this is simply one stop among many possible on a continuum from NO individual survival to some individual survival, to individual survival, to cosmic integral-part-of-"god" survival in which individual survival is as irrelevant as scooping up a bucket of the Pacific Ocean and calling it different just because it's in a bucket?

MY point is that "It either IS or it ISN'T" is nonsense.  There are literally an infinte number of possibilities.  Just because you think one of them is true, doesn't make it so.

I suggest that none of us knows jack-diddly about this mystery.

True. Just like music. Very individual responses to the same song. Interpretations are just that. But still interesting to discuss and explore as well as try to figure it out.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#40
(06-20-2016, 10:55 AM)TnT Wrote: 2. Each species has genetic memory which transcends discrete individuality, but allows for things like a bird dog's propensity to hunt birds, or a gopher's ability to dig burrows.  There is no survival of the individual's own discrete consciousness, but there remains a strong intergenerational "memory."


My scenario above:  Can't you see that this is simply one stop among many possible on a continuum from NO individual survival to some individual survival, to individual survival, to cosmic integral-part-of-"god" survival in which individual survival is as irrelevant as scooping up a bucket of the Pacific Ocean and calling it different just because it's in a bucket?
I understand your point. I think #2 to #4 is a continuum, but the alternative of individual survival is a distinct alternative to those various collective survival scenarios.

Quote:MY point is that "It either IS or it ISN'T" is nonsense.  There are literally an infinte number of possibilities.  Just because you think one of them is true, doesn't make it so.

I suggest that none of us knows jack-diddly about this mystery.

I think more is known now than ever before. But it's true, it remains a mysterious topic. I might think individual survival is true, based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, but I don't claim to know what is true. The relationship between the individual and the One is inherently fuzzy, especially since both are true at once and interdependently, IMO, so I understand why you think there are infinite possibilities. The best approach is to be open to the evidence and the truth.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)