OK Clog, braking it down: " Few who rely upon external tools for their epistemology.." = few scientists who use instruments (external [to the human being itself]tools) for determining what they know (their epistemology)…
“… will accept consciousness observing itself as a proper scientific method." = “…will accept self observation, the being-as-such, introspection, mind knowing itself etc. (consciousness observing itself)… as a proper scientific method. (This should be self explanatory.) On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I'm glad I was able to make your case for you, but you'll > have to clarify this for me: > " Few who rely upon external tools for > their epistemology will accept consciousness observing itself as a > proper scientific method." > > On Sep 24, 5:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[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.” – 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
