“Hi y'all - I think science (and I use the term in its widest sense) over centuries has searched for a soul.” – Clog
In its widest sense, which I too use quite often, of course! However, very seldom do people on this email list use science in its widest sense. Thus, my specific use of the term. I doubt that many here would find Socrates to have used science, nor Plato, let alone some such as Chandrakurti or Nagarjuna. “Humans are routinely investigated, examined and degradated by ever more intimate and advanced tools.” – Clog Yes Clog, at this time and in this culture, you are of course correct. And, in being correct, you make my point about ‘tools’. “If any matter constituting a soul is tucked away somewhere, I believe it would have been found.” – Clog We are not in contradiction here. Again, you make my point about science not having the ‘tools’ to address soul. “ If the soul does not consist of matter then I discount it.” – Clog Ahh, yes. Here it is, isn’t it? Few who rely upon external tools for their epistemology will accept consciousness observing itself as a proper scientific method. Again, you help to support what I have posted. And, I hope I do not appear to be confrontational in any negative sense. My intention is to present yet another avenue of scientific examination that has existed for thousands of years and remains today as valid as ever regardless of the current culture of absolute resistance to such methods. Again, this clearly can be and is an atheistic point of view. It’s just one that wishes to explore what it is to be a human being beyond the dogma of current day science. In the process, it in no way rejects science. In fact, if anything, it wishes to expand and improve current day’s rather limiting use of the word. On Sep 24, 2:44 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I think science (and I use the term in its widest sense) > over centuries has searched for a soul. Humans are routinely > investigated, examined and degradated by ever more intimate and > advanced tools. If any matter constituting a soul is tucked away > somewhere, I believe it would have been found. If the soul does not > consist of matter then I discount it. > I do know that alleged "scientists" working for the Design Institute > would pay $100B to anyone who could prove its existence thus we come > to the usual dead end - is it necessary to prove that a god/soul > doesn't exist? > > On Sep 24, 3:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…My understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a > > soul, without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana…” – > > clog > > > In many ways you are correct here Clog. Yet, even HHDL has addressed > > such notions as the absolute. So, in this regard, there at the very > > least appears to be not only an acceptance but a direct apprehension > > of some sort of (perhaps non-anthropomorphic) divine and objective > > state. Of course, the notion of negative theology comes in handy here > > due to the nature of such apprehensions. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology > > > “Science can find no record of this.” – Clog > > Of soul? IF this is what you mean, I’m not aware of any such studies. > > Of course, this doesn’t mean they haven’t taken place. However, I am > > on an email list with many worldwide scientists and Buddhists, > > including some I’ve mentioned here, and their goal is to find as many > > things in common they have as well as to learn from the other ‘camp’ > > recognizing that each has much to learn from the other. > > > “Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no one posting in > > this thread would subscribe to that (yet.)” – Clog > > I still wonder exactly what was being researched here. What sort of > > ‘energy’, ‘matter’, etc. was being looked for? This is what puzzles me > > in that, as far as I know, common science today does not seem either > > interested nor capable of addressing these things. > > > “On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness via the > > nervous system etc.” – Clog > > > This is the area of epistemology where many begin to start to talk > > past each other. And, as I’ve said, I’m not evangelical on the whole. > > However, since you have brought this up, I’ll jump into the fray. > > > There appears to be at least two camps of thought when it comes to > > these type of experiments. (Leaving out those who reject science > > overall…) > > > The first understand that when some sort of instrument exhibits > > (registers) some sort of change while attached to anything, that > > something is learned. This is fine. Where the apparent difference of > > view starts as I understand it is when those in this camp do not > > examine, calculate and/or include their own consciousnesses (observer) > > into the mix. > > Of course, to do so would cause some difficulties. This said, to > > ignore and/or reject self observation overall ignores the direct > > experience and, thus apprehension of consciousness and ‘being-as- > > such’. > > > Those in what appears to be the second camp I’m talking about overall > > do include such understandings in the mix. > > > “When I talk to someone, I can assess their level of conscousness > > simply from their responses. If they say they believe in gods, I > > naturally assume they are close to being comatose.” – Clog > > > Quite humorous, and, a good example of how subjectivity is included in > > all analysis. > > > On Sep 24, 12:34 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - I think I'll jump in here before Jason does as you've > > > mentioned "Buddhist Friends." and > > > "Either way, we both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does > > > not address such > > > things today. . . I hope! " > > > I think we need to separate soul and consciousness here. My > > > understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a soul, > > > without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana. Some souls > > > remain outside Nirvana to help others along. Science can find no > > > record of this. Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no > > > one posting in this thread would subscribe to that (yet.) > > > On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness via the > > > nervous system etc. When I talk to someone, I can assess their level > > > of conscousness simply from their responses. If they say they believe > > > in gods, I naturally assume they are close to being comatose. > > > > On Sep 23, 3:11 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting foreward?” > > > > - Stem> Even if one posits that the moment of conception > > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then > > > > > realize that it is a scientific question. – Stem also > > > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other > > > > such notions." - orn > > > > > Well Stem, I’m not clear about your questions either nor am I meaning > > > > to be obtuse here either. I’ll guess as to what you are asking and you > > > > can correct me if I am wrong OK? > > > > I’m guessing you are asking about my words above that you included in > > > > your post. That said, most of my words in this thread follow from a > > > > short aside I made about when consciousness enters the body according > > > > to some Buddhist sects. I do know that most of the focus here is on > > > > antitheology and antichristiandom in particular which is fine. I find > > > > most of such believers troublesome at best. I merely added something I > > > > learned from some Tibetan Buddhists to the mix because I thought it > > > > was interesting. This even though the context here was your link and > > > > comments about embryos and fetuses. Next Taylor brought up soul. The > > > > underlying and rather tacit topic here is abortion. Yes? At least for > > > > the fundies. > > > > Since you asked about me, I’ll comment about this too. Over the years > > > > I’ve had different positions about abortion. I think I’ve even posted > > > > to this group about it in the past. Currently, I feel that abortion is > > > > killing and that it should remain legal. Please do not question what > > > > appears to be a contradiction here…like do I think that killing should > > > > be legal. I’m aware of how this appears. > > > > However, your question addresses my comment about consciousness/soul > > > > and perhaps science, I guess. Again, I’m retelling what was told to me > > > > by some Buddhist friends. In a rather simplistic overview and using > > > > symbols, they see that the eternal continuum – consciousness – enters > > > > the ‘body’ at the moment of conception. This is when the red gem/drop > > > > and the white gem/drop unite …it is at that moment that the blue gem/ > > > > drop enters this realm and joins the red and blue. The iconography is > > > > well known. The existence of this particular cosmology itself can not > > > > be questioned. If one wishes to say it does not match their own > > > > view(s) of reality, this is fine and I’d even hasten a guess that most > > > > Buddhists would agree with the use of such skepticism. > > > > Continuing… > > > > > “I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get > > > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science > > > > of the soul.. Zeus does not throw lighting bolts. It is non- > > > > existent....like Zeus...god...reincarnation, etc. When I said that it > > > > is a science question, I was referring to the science of development. > > > > In other words, Zeus does not throw lighting bolts.” - Slip > > > > > I can see you are trying to clarify what you meant and, unfortunately, > > > > I still don’t grok. I’m ignorant about what you mean by ‘science of > > > > development’. > > > > I just googled it and guess you mean the science of child development? > > > > If so, I think I can guess what you mean. Are you saying that > > > > consciousness can not enter at the single and/or double cell level > > > > because the brain has not yet developed? If so, I do understand your > > > > stance and do not deny your logic. > > > > > You continue with some comment about a Greek god. So, I’ll guess that > > > > your meaning there is that, in your view, science does not nor ever > > > > will address such things as soul (consciousness/reincarnation?) > > > > because you don’t believe they exist. If I’m not getting your meaning > > > > here, I apologize. And, I can only guess that you understood my > > > > meaning that science does not address these things at all as well as > > > > my view that it doesn’t because they are not within the purview of > > > > science which is slightly different from your reason. Either way, we > > > > both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does not address such > > > > things today. . . I hope! > > > > > I almost hesitated to go into it this much because of my not being > > > > clear about what you were asking. I hope that at the very least I > > > > haven’t confused things further. > > > > > On Sep 22, 9:12 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting > > > > > foreward? > > > > > > > Even if one posits that the moment of conception > > > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then > > > > > > realize that it is a scientific question. > > > > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other > > > > > such notions." > > > > > > I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get > > > > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science > > > > > of the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" 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/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
