[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq:> I think the most you can say is that "There is no > > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > > and neither does science." > > > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > > exist?" > > This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting > point. > > I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks > good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief > being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the > belief. Only if that person is trying to convince someone else that his belief is "right." I have never done this with regard to my belief in reincarnation. It may be total hooey, but I'm comfortable with it. I have nothing to "prove" and no way to "prove" it, and no desire to. > So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be > justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic > belief. I think you need to read what he actually SAID. He didn't just say that there was a lack of good evi- dence; he said: "There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist." As far as I know, that statement is completely false. There may be a host of experiments that failed to confirm someone's claim of remembering past lives, but that does NOT constitute "evidence that past lives don't exist." Such evidence is the thing that doesn't exist, one way or another, AFAIK. > I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of > evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack > in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing > my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more > than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really > know know what happens after death... No one knows what happens *subjectively* after death. Big distinction. We can be pretty certain from the smell and other things what happens physically. :-) > ...we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence > for the specific belief in reincarnation. As there is for a belief in God. But people still believe in God, and will no matter how many people do the "scientist fundamentalist rant" and tell them that they are stupid for believing it. That, to me, is *exactly the same hubris* as someone who believes in God telling an atheist that they are stupid and "just don't realize the truth yet." Neither the atheist or the theist "knows" ANYTHING; they just have beliefs. > But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our > beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our > POV, we are advocates usually. Not necessarily. Have I ever tried to "convert" anyone here to my lack of belief in God? Have I ever tried to "convert" anyone to my personal belief in reincarnation? Have I even "advocated" it as a "preferable" belief? I don't think I have. > Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove > it wrong without taking a dirt bath. I would say instead that every belief IS equally valid when it comes to things that cannot be proved. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering them all equally valid, as long as it's only a personal belief. If the believer starts prosyletizing obnoxiously, or starts crusades to forcibly convert others to his belief, then you have a point. But if the person just believes in God, or believes in reincarnation, I don't see either of those two beliefs as any less "valid" than someone who doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe in reincarnation. > We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more > satisfying. To whom? :-) > Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously > creating detailed experiences, we should > lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. We should? :-) Why not say, "I might lose such conviction." 'Should' is a pretty nasty word, one that you have given others shit for using inappropriately many times. Knowing how inventive our minds are does NOT necessarily invalidate a person's beliefs in something like rein- carnation. In my case, I am more than willing to admit that my beliefs might be totally without basis, but I kinda like them anyway. They "cover more bases" of my own life experience than the "that's just my mind being inventive again" theory does. And as long as I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone else, I don't see that you or anyone else has the right to "should" me about them. > You > expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought > in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your > inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not > been in. I did that fo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
Turq:> I think the most you can say is that "There is no > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > and neither does science." > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > exist?" This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting point. I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the belief. So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic belief. I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really know know what happens after death, we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence for the specific belief in reincarnation. But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our POV, we are advocates usually. Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove it wrong without taking a dirt bath. We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more satisfying. Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously creating detailed experiences, we should lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. You expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not been in. Since I was not there, I don't know how much confidence I can put in that as a test. But it illustrates that these experiences can be tested to some degree. Before we could study chemical imbalances in the brain, mankind attributed mental illness to supernatural forces. Now that we can correct some of these imbalances does it prove that there are still no demons at work? Not really. But the usefulness of that explanation drops off. And despite the fact that the Judy-Stu aspect of this discussion has broken down a bit, everyone is adding really interesting points in this thread. This goes to the heart of what we know and how we can be confident about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your > > belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What > > does it matter to you what other people believe about > > what happens when they die? > > > > You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, > > the degree of certainty that you are bringing to > > your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some > > of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. > > I don't think I've heard any of them say that they > > know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But > > you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. > > > > What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs > > on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of > > my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET > > knows for sure what happens when one dies. That > > statement included me, and it included you. I don't > > see how believing that one knows "for sure" that > > there is no afterlife is any different than believing > > that one knows "for sure" that there is. > > > > See what I'm getting at? > > > > "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." > > > > "There is no reincarnation and that's that." > > > > Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist > > to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what > > you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. > > Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences > from one of your earlier replies on this thread. > > > Past lives are a fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections > > of the mind. > > > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. > > The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but > it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with > that? > > And the second sentence is even more off the wall. > I know of no such "evidence that past lives don't > exist." In an earlier reply I asked you to point us > to where such evidence is if you can. > > I think the most you can say is that "There is no > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > and neither does science." > > Isn'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your > > belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What > > does it matter to you what other people believe about > > what happens when they die? > > > > You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, > > the degree of certainty that you are bringing to > > your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some > > of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. > > I don't think I've heard any of them say that they > > know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But > > you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. > > > > What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs > > on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of > > my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET > > knows for sure what happens when one dies. That > > statement included me, and it included you. I don't > > see how believing that one knows "for sure" that > > there is no afterlife is any different than believing > > that one knows "for sure" that there is. > > > > See what I'm getting at? > > > > "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." > > > > "There is no reincarnation and that's that." > > > > Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist > > to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what > > you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. > > Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences > from one of your earlier replies on this thread. > > > Past lives are a fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections > > of the mind. > > > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. > > The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but > it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with > that? > > And the second sentence is even more off the wall. > I know of no such "evidence that past lives don't > exist." In an earlier reply I asked you to point us > to where such evidence is if you can. > > I think the most you can say is that "There is no > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > and neither does science." > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > exist?" Stu is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool TFNB [true fundamentalist non-believer].
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your > belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What > does it matter to you what other people believe about > what happens when they die? > > You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, > the degree of certainty that you are bringing to > your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some > of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. > I don't think I've heard any of them say that they > know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But > you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. > > What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs > on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of > my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET > knows for sure what happens when one dies. That > statement included me, and it included you. I don't > see how believing that one knows "for sure" that > there is no afterlife is any different than believing > that one knows "for sure" that there is. > > See what I'm getting at? > > "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." > > "There is no reincarnation and that's that." > > Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist > to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what > you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences from one of your earlier replies on this thread. > Past lives are a fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections > of the mind. > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with that? And the second sentence is even more off the wall. I know of no such "evidence that past lives don't exist." In an earlier reply I asked you to point us to where such evidence is if you can. I think the most you can say is that "There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science." Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than "There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist?"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > But really, dude. What IS it if it isn't a flash of > > > recognition of someone you've done time with before in > > > another life? I'd like to hear your take on it, espec- > > > ially given your involvement in one of the most > > > unabashedly hopelessly romantic TV series in ages. > > > > > The poetry of Pushing Daisies was the result of a team of experts > > who knew how to manipulate images and sound in the most dynamic > > way to get a visceral reaction from the audience. Some of us on > > the crew are huge romantics other of us are not. But we are all > > good at creating the illusion of connection and magic on a > > flickering 2 dimensional surface. > > > > There is no romance in the process - it is carefully controlled > > frame by frame so the process is transparent and the eye is > > delighted. Its a mirage. > > I usually don't reply to my own posts. But when I was meditating I > realized I missed an important point about the manipulation at play > on a show like Pushing Daisies. > > The budget was more than 5 million dollars. > The script was worked and reworked over a period of several years. > It took a crew of about 80 people 18 12-hour plus days to shoot it. > I had about 8 weeks to cut the show aided by assistants, a dialog > editor, efx editor, music editor, Foley artist mixers, a visual > effects crew of a dozen people, and a composer and musicians. > > All of these people are dedicated to making the final 42 minutes > look fresh, spontaneous, and emotional. But the process itself is > anything but. All very interesting, I...uh...guess. But did you notice that there was a question at the top of the post you're replying to with all this stuff about how the illusion of romance is created? That question was why I posted, not to hear more about the making of Pushing Daisies, as fascinating as that may be. I'll repeat the question: What is your explanation for "love at first sight?" Also, I'm going through the posts sequentially, and may just not have gotten to your reply to one of my other posts in which I also rapped a bit about reincarnation. But just in case there was no such reply, I thought that in that post I made a pretty clear case for me believing in reincarnation per- sonally, on the basis of my personal experiences, but that belief NOT being anything I would consider "truth" or claim to be fact. As I said, if the reincarnation theory is wrong, I will never know it, because I will just "blink out." ON THE OTHER HAND, if the reincarnation theory is correct, I may be in a better position to handle what's going on between death and rebirth than someone who was counting on the "blink out" theory. So, as I said, for me it's a bet with no "down side" to it, not a rigid belief. How does that equate in your mind to "Barry weigh- ing in as a believer?" My "belief" is a working hypothesis that is consistent with my experience, but one that I do NOT hold or promote as "truth," and one that I couldn't have been clearer about saying that I DON'T know whether it's true or not. I was certainly not trying to SELL my belief in reincarnation. On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows "for sure" that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows "for sure" that there is. See what I'm getting at? "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." "There is no reincarnation and that's that." Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: > > > > But really, dude. What IS it if it isn't a flash of > > recognition of someone you've done time with before in > > another life? I'd like to hear your take on it, espec- > > ially given your involvement in one of the most > > unabashedly hopelessly romantic TV series in ages. > > > The poetry of Pushing Daisies was the result of a team of experts who > knew how to manipulate images and sound in the most dynamic way to get a > visceral reaction from the audience. Some of us on the crew are huge > romantics other of us are not. But we are all good at creating the > illusion of connection and magic on a flickering 2 dimensional surface. > There is no romance in the process - it is carefully controlled frame by > frame so the process is transparent and the eye is delighted. Its a > mirage. I usually don't reply to my own posts. But when I was meditating I realized I missed an important point about the manipulation at play on a show like Pushing Daisies. The budget was more than 5 million dollars. The script was worked and reworked over a period of several years. It took a crew of about 80 people 18 12-hour plus days to shoot it. I had about 8 weeks to cut the show aided by assistants, a dialog editor, efx editor, music editor, Foley artist mixers, a visual effects crew of a dozen people, and a composer and musicians. All of these people are dedicated to making the final 42 minutes look fresh, spontaneous, and emotional. But the process itself is anything but. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This one is for Stu, because I've really been enjoying > your responses on the reincarnation thread. > > So. What about the phenomenon we know as "love at first > sight?" It's a universal phenomenon, or a universal myth. > Zut alors, the French are so taken with it that they've > got two phrases for it -- coup de foudre (a stroke of > lightning), which is more about the instantaneous nature > of the moment of recognition itself, and coup de coeur, > which connotes more of the inner intensity of the moment. > > There are many, many skeptical explanations for the > phenomenon of love at first sight. It could be nothing > more than simple nose chemistry, two sets of olfactory > nerves finding their pheromonal soulmates. It could be > a visual thing, finding a physical person who matches > the neural template for a lover you've constructed in > your brain. It could be the result of indoctrination > from watching too many episodes of "Pushing Daisies." :-) > > But really, dude. What IS it if it isn't a flash of > recognition of someone you've done time with before in > another life? I'd like to hear your take on it, espec- > ially given your involvement in one of the most > unabashedly hopelessly romantic TV series in ages. > The poetry of Pushing Daisies was the result of a team of experts who knew how to manipulate images and sound in the most dynamic way to get a visceral reaction from the audience. Some of us on the crew are huge romantics other of us are not. But we are all good at creating the illusion of connection and magic on a flickering 2 dimensional surface. There is no romance in the process - it is carefully controlled frame by frame so the process is transparent and the eye is delighted. Its a mirage. I am a romantic. I enjoy the rush of emotions that comes from seeing my true love. I am happy that the death of BF Skinner's behaviorism was a German scientist who proved Skinner could not explain the "aha" moments of life. Or in this case the importance of these moments in learning went beyond operant conditioning. This is the stuff that makes life worth living. This is the transcendent, the unexplained, the wordless - the basis for art. And it could be explained by Pheromones, Oedipal complexes, childhood fixations, genetic factors - but why spoil the fun? Unless of course you are some sort of pervert who has a "coup de foudre" for elementary school children. Then you may benefit from understanding the forces at issue. On the other hand folktales about the afterlife, theism, enlightenment/salvation and the like involve huge issues of social morality and personal denial that involve dangerous life choices. Look at whats going on in Mumbai this week. It boils down to people who don't agree about these stories. These dudes my also benefit from understanding the forces at issue. s.
