All that is fine. Yes, you can hypothesize all you want. You can't prove that your dog loves you, but you probably believe it.
You can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, and set tonight, (or that the earth will spin to cause this effect), but I am guessing you believe it. Neither you nor I understand all the details of our nervous system or our physical body,or subtle body, if there is one, but we probably have developed some beliefs about what happens when this physical body dies. In my case, from my accumulated knowledge, I believe some aspect of our existence goes forward in a personalized form. Can I prove that? Of course not. And that is my point, and probably not a profound one, that there are many things we can't prove, that we believe. You seem to have developed a construct we does not require some part of our existence moving forward in that manner, and so, believe that is the case. Perhaps that is more of a rationalist approach. I only believe what I can prove. No problem. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : It's not what we believe, it's what we know. But what we know for sure seems to be only that we exist now. I hypothesise that at death, the world comes to an end because the means of experience, the nervous system ceases to function. None of the 'subtle body' shit persisting, because the 'subtle body' is still the nervous system, it's part of the software of the neural net, a neural map of the body. As for a 'soul', there is only being, so 'soul' is a redundant conceptual entity related to the software map called the 'subtle body'. There are probably better ways technically to name these things. The mistake is 'immortality' is eternity in a timeless present, rather than persistence in time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : There's always, "reality could be this, reality could be that" what really counts, is what you believe. do you believe, as many do, that when you die, it's lights out? I don't care if you answer it or not. But, I suspect you do not believe it, even you care to dance around it, with, "well, I have no proof" not that it has any practical value, but as humans we ponder these things, even if it doesn't affect our day to day actions. on the other hand, philosophical discussions of this nature, at least on this forum have pretty much ceased to be interesting, or instructive. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Some spiritual traditions do not consider 'a soul' to be a real thing. Rather it is a fiction created by the sense of individuality (ego) that separates and destroys the experience of unity. Now I have never thought I had a soul, and I have never found one. That does not mean such a thing is non-existent, but what is the evidence that suggests that such a thing exists? In my fifth decade of meditation, no soul has ever appeared but many other experiences of integration have. So what gives? How does one discover they have a soul other than the simple belief that there are such things, for that is not evidence it exists. If this idea is in the mind simply because others told you about it, that does not count as evidence. What are the specific steps required for a person to discover if he/she has a soul or not? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Om no, a soul is really larger than you think. The immortal soul also resident in the energy field of the mortal coil is way more than just some consciousness or some transcending consciousness in meditation. Some who are without experience with their souls need sit with it some more and it will reveal. It comes with spiritual practice. Sit with it some more and look for it. Everyone knows it in the end. It is awesome really. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : So Sal what do you think happens to the individual human awareness when the body wears out? It wears out too as it's part of the body. No more body, no more awareness. I'm happy to receive evidence to the contrary though and won't be disappointed if I get into heaven, not that there's much chance of that.... From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:44 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rise of the machines? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Fine, but could Google's computer's algorithmic intelligence host a soul like happens spiritually in the carbon form of a human being? It depends what you mean by "soul". If you think we have a detachable thing that goes on to some other world after we die then I'm sure I could programme a computer to believe it in the way we are. I think any self-improving and self-replicating machine would judge things on an evidential basis as it's the only way to improve ultimate performance. No point clinging on to outdated ideas if you want to get somewhere intellectually. So I think even if we programmed our robots to think they have souls they would test and evaluate the notion and decide they are better of not wasting good processing time on fairy tales. They would live more for the moment and use the time more constructively without any irrelevant distractions designed to make them happier about their lot. If you just mean an awareness that being alive is a good thing then yeah, they could have souls... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : When intelligence becomes intelligent consciousness becomes conscious.. Would you think Google could pull off self-referral consciousness or just algorithmic intelligence? It depends what you mean by "self referral". If a computer could see and hear and respond independently of it's programming to the world then it what way is it not conscious like us? Even seeing and hearing are limited, we perceive very little of our surroundings. A computer based intelligence might be aware far beyond what we are capable of and think us puny because of it. And they are already working on programmes that can improve themselves, this takes "self referral" to another level does it not? What I'm getting at is that we have this opinion that we are special simply by virtue of our ability to ponder the matter. But we could be designing something so much more impressive in our terms than what nature did for us. But first we have to understand ourselves - that's the tricky bit. But not impossible because we are things made of stuff. Or we could bypass human mimicry and build something innately superior in every way. Exciting times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Brain upgrades on the way at the very least... it's like we actually want to make ourselves obsolete! Google a step closer to developing machines with human-like intelligence http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/21/google-a-step-closer-to-developing-machines-with-human-like-intelligence http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/21/google-a-step-closer-to-developing-machines-with-human-like-intelligence Google a step closer to developing machines with... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/21/google-a-step-closer-to-developing-machines-with-human-like-intelligence An algorithm developed by Google is designed to encode thought, which could lead to computers with ‘common sense’ within a decade, says leading AI scientist View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/21/google-a-step-closer-to-developing-machines-with-human-like-intelligence Preview by Yahoo
