[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > Stu, > > > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > > logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives > > his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other > > people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to > > the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. > > Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of > > challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work. > > > > To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not > > true, is to really say nothing at all. > > > > I thought I was very clear and gave a number of references to current > articles on visual processing that contradict the 90's era model you > have been using. > > To summarize: > 1. Visual processing is non-linear. Roughly like parallel processing > concurrent with serial processing (this is an over simplification). > > 2. The optic nerve carries signals to two parts of the brain, first > the Brain stem which cues unconscious reactions. The other signal > moves to some 30 area of the brain for deeper analysis. > > 3. A fair amount of visual processing (faces for example) are > "pre-programed" in template-like structures. This reduces the need > for number-crunching as your model suggests. > > 4. Child development experts have observed many visual processes that > develop as the physical brain develops. Baby's are not born with > skills to be learned. As pathways develop visual processing develops. > > > You argue some sort of apriori skills that a baby necessarily must > have to analyze raw visual data. Even though this argument is flawed, > it does not automatically suggest apriori knowledge from past lives. > A better explanation of these "skills" would be coded in the genetics > of past generations. > > Theoretically and logically yours, > > s. > Wouldn't "coded in genetics" be where you would get your transfer of abilities from. It seems that the numbers of children playing some pretty complex music is increasing and, they are getting younger.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stu, > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives > his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other > people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to > the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. > Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of > challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work. > > To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not > true, is to really say nothing at all. > I thought I was very clear and gave a number of references to current articles on visual processing that contradict the 90's era model you have been using. To summarize: 1. Visual processing is non-linear. Roughly like parallel processing concurrent with serial processing (this is an over simplification). 2. The optic nerve carries signals to two parts of the brain, first the Brain stem which cues unconscious reactions. The other signal moves to some 30 area of the brain for deeper analysis. 3. A fair amount of visual processing (faces for example) are "pre-programed" in template-like structures. This reduces the need for number-crunching as your model suggests. 4. Child development experts have observed many visual processes that develop as the physical brain develops. Baby's are not born with skills to be learned. As pathways develop visual processing develops. You argue some sort of apriori skills that a baby necessarily must have to analyze raw visual data. Even though this argument is flawed, it does not automatically suggest apriori knowledge from past lives. A better explanation of these "skills" would be coded in the genetics of past generations. Theoretically and logically yours, s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Curtis wrote: > This is such an excellent thread, > I hope you guys continue it. > Yeah, me too, it's just your basic Fwap: Rama claimed that he was the ninth reincarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu; in 1531-1575, a Zen Master, from Japan; 1602-1771, Head of Zen Order, Japan; 1725-1804, Master of Monastery, Tibet; 1834-1905, Jnana Yoga Master, India; 1912-1945, Tibetan Lama and Head of Monastic Order, Tibet; and from 1950, a 'Self Realized Spiritual Teacher' and Director of Spiritual Communities, United States. "Lenz, who calls himself Rama, first appeared in 1531 in Japan, where he was a Zen master, according to a published resume. He claims to have lived four lives - in India, Tibet, and Japan - between then and his current incarnation, which began in the holy land of San Diego in the year 1950. Read more: 'Take Me For A Ride' Coming Of Age In A Destructive Cult By Mark Laxer Outer Rim Press, 1993 http://tinyurl.com/4oaxm4 "Anyone who has teenagers, young adults in their family would be wise to read this book." - Diana Linden
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > The conversation is too massive for me to have time to reply to > > everyone, but I think I will step in here. That is a good point about > > what might be pre-wired in. In fact, evolution works very slowly, so > > the pre-wiring would have had to occur over the past couple of million > > years. It is hard to see how a belief in an afterlife would have > > helped Paleolithic Homo sapiens > > If you took the time to read the research you would see the genetic > markers for Person Permanence have strong evolutionary consequences - > the propensity to believe in an afterlife is a side effect of the gene. > This propensity is not subject to natural selection. > > snip > > > > In any case, whether there is a hard-wired belief or not is completely > > irrelevant to whether or not reincarnation actually occurs. > > It is highly relevant. Because of our inability to conceptualize > non-consciousness we have a strong need to fill in the blanks. We all > come with strong feelings or intuition of an afterlife. This is a basic > desire like our predisposition to like sweets or/and fats. > > It means when confronted with the observable data that supports that > dead things are dead we have an extremely strong desire to deny it. > > If reincarnation occurs - what is the evidence? All evidence is > fantastic, requires leaps of faith in the supernatural, and comes with > bizarre rules - like only certain people have "insight" into their past > lives (Why do past life believers domonstrate poor source monitoring?), > Why do these people all have different conceptions about the details of > the process. Buddhist and Hindu versions differ and there are > difference between sects. Does it cross species - is there some sort of > karmic judgment involved to people move up? Is personality lost? Do > people remain in the castes? Can they become inanimate objects? Why do > Catholics bypass reincarnation and go straight to the pearly gates? > > The evidence that it does not occur is stronger. For in order to > believe that death is death one only needs to accept things as they are. > Physics does not have to change. Physical conditions are met to hold > consciousness. The physical conditions stop - consciousness stops. I > remember Thich Nhat Hanh likened it to a candle and a flame. A > match, the wax and a wick make the flame possible. Take away part of > these basic conditions and the flame goes away. > > With the later, it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort > of universal consciousness/intelligence that may or may not continue > after the physical conditions desist. But that > consciousness/intelligence is largely abstract and bears no consequence > to us. > > You telling me to believe in unicorns becasue you have absolute proof. > Yet your proof is obscure and depends on speculation. I am saying I > will continue to be skeptical about unicorns until I see one for myself > or at the very least see some very credible evidence. > > Why should I accept the fantastic over the obvious? > > s. > Don't worry Stu, His noodly appendage will touch you and you will Know. (In fact, stimulation of part of your brain can lead to a religious experience so I have science to back up this claim.) You did a nice job Stu but this type of discussion leads nowhere good on this forum. You will be called names, accused of making arguments you did not make, and no one will read the resources that you cite. As I have said before, we don't need to have minds so open that everything falls out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > snip > snip > > > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the > > > only response can be about the why and hows of the > > > response. > > > > No, actually we could have discussed the > > part you keep snipping: > > > > I'm making one very straightforward point: > > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong > > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's > > making). > > > I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread). > As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any > possibility no matter how remote. What I am claiming is that this > reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote. > > Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these > posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried > an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for > fantastic claims lies with the claimant. > > I am off the hook. I have no obligation to prove a negative. I > assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the > horns. > > s. > Goats, actually, and there IS a rare mutation in goats where teh horns twist together and fuse in a central location... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Science is all about trying to prove the negative. That is what the > "crucial experiment" is all about. But you may not know very much > about science. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a fairly low level publication. > > You might start with my data: That we perceive images. > > Do you have any reason to claim that we don't perceive images? Er...Do you mean we ONLY see "images"? if so, no I am not convinced of that. An image is "a representation of something beyond itself". When I look out my window I see in the distance a farm house. I think you are saying "no, what you *really* see is discrete IMAGE bits of a farm house presented to you inside your brain". Where did you get that idea from and why do you take it to be axiomatic? I prefer to take a simple perspective realism as axiomatic, unless a better idea is forced on us. Yes, your perception of the world you live in is mediated through your brain activity (and in my case through my spectacles if we are talking about vision). But that doesn't mean that "what I see" is my brain activity, rather than the farmhouse itself, does it? There is no "image" in this case. The fact we can perceive (be conscious) of anything is of course a complete mystery (the "hard problem"). But bringing the outside world into the brain as a set of images does not solve that problem - it just sets up a regress. How do you "really see" the images? Furthermore you end up with the pesky philosophical worry of subjective idealism (Bishop Berkeley) or unknowable things-in-themselves (Kant). Keep it simple I say: Cut out the middle man (the images) and accept our immediate and direct knowledge of the external world. If science appears to suggest otherwise, the science must be wrong! An empirical epistemology presupposes that we have direct sense contact with the external world. > Then, you might look at the first step in my analysis: That we > perceive all parts of the image simultaneously. If we were not seeing > some parts of the image at the same time, those parts simply wouldn't > be part of the image we are seeing now. > > To disconfirm that, you would find data and reasons to think we don't > see all parts of the images we perceive at the same time. > > Then, you might look at the next step: That this means that the > information of each part must in some way touch the information of all > the other parts. Another way of putting this is that all parts are > present in the same awareness, which places the information of each > part in direct contact (via the awareness) with all the other information. > > To disconfirm that, you might prove that we could have two separate > awarenesses and still see a unified image split among both of them. I > personally don't think you could prove that, but that is the crucial > experiment and what you would have to do to support your position. > > Then we move on to the data about the brain: My theory includes the > data that complex information being processed is scattered into many > nerve impulses in a pattern on a number of different neurons. > > You could disconfirm that by proving that it is possible for a single > nerve impulse to hold a complex image by itsself. That is to say, by > proving that just knowing a zero or one, one would know what image > were intended by the zero or one. I don't think you could prove that. > > You might also disconfirm by finding some way that separate things > would really not be separate. Try friend A being and New York and > friend B being in Los Angeles, and not using long distance devices > like telephones or the Internet, could be having a face-to-face > conversation with each other. I don't think you could prove that, but > to support your position, you would have to prove one of these ideas I > am point out. > > Jim > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > > wrote: > > > > > > Stu, > > > > > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > > > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > > > logic. > > > > I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist. > > > > I do know there is no way to prove a negative. As long as anyone wants > > to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them. > > > > As far as I can tell we are born and we die. If there is more to that I > > am open to the evidence. > > > > As for disproving this specific "solid proof" - I and others on this > > thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I > > questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it differs > > from the present scientific model, and you have not responded. > > > > s. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Science is all about trying to prove the negative. That is what the "crucial experiment" is all about. But you may not know very much about science. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a fairly low level publication. You might start with my data: That we perceive images. Do you have any reason to claim that we don't perceive images? Then, you might look at the first step in my analysis: That we perceive all parts of the image simultaneously. If we were not seeing some parts of the image at the same time, those parts simply wouldn't be part of the image we are seeing now. To disconfirm that, you would find data and reasons to think we don't see all parts of the images we perceive at the same time. Then, you might look at the next step: That this means that the information of each part must in some way touch the information of all the other parts. Another way of putting this is that all parts are present in the same awareness, which places the information of each part in direct contact (via the awareness) with all the other information. To disconfirm that, you might prove that we could have two separate awarenesses and still see a unified image split among both of them. I personally don't think you could prove that, but that is the crucial experiment and what you would have to do to support your position. Then we move on to the data about the brain: My theory includes the data that complex information being processed is scattered into many nerve impulses in a pattern on a number of different neurons. You could disconfirm that by proving that it is possible for a single nerve impulse to hold a complex image by itsself. That is to say, by proving that just knowing a zero or one, one would know what image were intended by the zero or one. I don't think you could prove that. You might also disconfirm by finding some way that separate things would really not be separate. Try friend A being and New York and friend B being in Los Angeles, and not using long distance devices like telephones or the Internet, could be having a face-to-face conversation with each other. I don't think you could prove that, but to support your position, you would have to prove one of these ideas I am point out. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > Stu, > > > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > > logic. > > I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist. > > I do know there is no way to prove a negative. As long as anyone wants > to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them. > > As far as I can tell we are born and we die. If there is more to that I > am open to the evidence. > > As for disproving this specific "solid proof" - I and others on this > thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I > questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it differs > from the present scientific model, and you have not responded. > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My gut feeling on this is people who make specious > claims of contacting the "unified field" or pure > consciousness or the "clear light" are just by and > large bullshitters. What a surprise! (If their claims are specious, BTW, they're bullshitters by definition; you don't need your gut to tell you that, just a dictionary.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > > > wrote: snip > recognition of this finite life seems to drive two ways of being. > either we see that this life is it, and act accordingly, or we > believe in an afterlife, in clouds of either sunshine or sulfur, or > that we will be back, and also act accordingly. > > which, then, drives the more beneficial behavior? do we recognize > that this is all we will have, and as a result act in positive ways > in order to leave a legacy of a better world for the next > generation? or do we adopt a cavalier attitude about life, realizing > that there is no judgment day, and so do whatever we please? > > or option two, do we think we are coming back, and in fear of that, > act well? or recognize that we are coming back anyway, so what the > hell, we are here for countless lifetimes, might as well do what we > want when incarnated? > > so there are four choices: > 1. this is it, act good for future generations. > 2. this is it, act bad because there will be no consequences. > 3. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act good out of fear of > karma. > 4. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act bad because the > treadmill of human lives is endless. > Thanks James for once again opening an interesting thread for discussion: I personally come from the Aristotelian school of ethics. This means I do not proscribe to a slave morality (Neitzche's term) that dictates terms to live by. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality Instead I recognize there are ideals, be it truth, fairness, love, equality, etc. or as Buddha put it right speech, right action, etc... Though these ideals are difficult to define they suggest templates of excellence to strive towards to live a full and good life. There is no option to act bad. The project is about achieving a rich life living close to common ideals. This philosophy has the advantage of putting ethical issues in the hands of man and society. This is opposed to accepting lists of taboos and rules handed down from supernatural beings or forced by supernatural circumstances like the fear of hell, or samsara. This does not mean that people who are of weaker disposition do not need "slave morality" to guide them through a life with minimal problems. I understand why alcoholics in AA need lists of regulations to live by. But for me, master morality insures I live a life worth living, with surrounded by associates, friends, lovers and family who share mutual trust and admiration. Incidentally, I believe my meditation practice brought me to this path. Master morality requires the reduction of stress so that decisions are not made viscerally. One is skillfully and consciously aware of their actions. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > > > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates > > > > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a > > > > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all > > > > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do > > > > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation. > > > > > > > > > It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- > > > speak, your own level of consciousness. > > > > > > When was the last time you rebooted Dawn? > > > > > to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that View > > of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, with > > regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as yours: > > it depends. in other words, not provable. > > >It looks like proof would be different for each person so some are > content with some subtle event and, others remain left to be hit with > a brick. sounds like there are two kinds of people in yours and vaj's world. those in the know and everyone else. i'll joyfully and graciously place myself in the latter category. no offense, but you guys don't seem like any fun.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates > > > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a > > > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all > > > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do > > > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation. > > > > > > It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- > > speak, your own level of consciousness. > > > > When was the last time you rebooted Dawn? > > > to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that View > of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, with > regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as yours: > it depends. in other words, not provable. > It looks like proof would be different for each person so some are content with some subtle event and, others remain left to be hit with a brick.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates > > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a > > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all > > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do > > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation. > > > It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- > speak, your own level of consciousness. > > When was the last time you rebooted Dawn? > to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that View of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, with regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as yours: it depends. in other words, not provable.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation. It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- speak, your own level of consciousness. When was the last time you rebooted Dawn?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: >> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs >> and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of >> discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, >> you >> really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad >> entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of >> reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like >> energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a >> rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the >> fine- >> tuned channels of discursiveness. >> > > > I think I need to drop acid with you to follow this conversation Vaj! > I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to invest the meditation time to > reboot creation. Sounds like a party though. No drugs necessary--but if that's the way you wanted to go MDMA would be the preferred way, in the proper set and setting. It's more integrative: you keep what you get and you can bring it back.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -snip- > It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so many > times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration of > these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" and > "rebirth". In every moment of plain living. > > But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs > and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of > discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you > really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad > entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of > reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like > energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a > rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- > tuned channels of discursiveness. > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > Stu, > > > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > > logic. > > I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist. > > I do know there is no way to prove a negative. As long as anyone wants > to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them. > > As far as I can tell we are born and we die. If there is more to that I > am open to the evidence. > > As for disproving this specific "solid proof" - I and others on this > thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I > questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it differs > from the present scientific model, and you have not responded. > > s. > now that all of us have determined that there is no evidence proving reincarnation, i'd like to examine a different angle, and that is what death means to us. death ensures that we have a finite life, and this has been baked into the DNA pretty solidly over the last million years or so. recognition of this finite life seems to drive two ways of being. either we see that this life is it, and act accordingly, or we believe in an afterlife, in clouds of either sunshine or sulfur, or that we will be back, and also act accordingly. which, then, drives the more beneficial behavior? do we recognize that this is all we will have, and as a result act in positive ways in order to leave a legacy of a better world for the next generation? or do we adopt a cavalier attitude about life, realizing that there is no judgment day, and so do whatever we please? or option two, do we think we are coming back, and in fear of that, act well? or recognize that we are coming back anyway, so what the hell, we are here for countless lifetimes, might as well do what we want when incarnated? so there are four choices: 1. this is it, act good for future generations. 2. this is it, act bad because there will be no consequences. 3. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act good out of fear of karma. 4. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act bad because the treadmill of human lives is endless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs > and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of > discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you > really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad > entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of > reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like > energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a > rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- > tuned channels of discursiveness. > I think I need to drop acid with you to follow this conversation Vaj! I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to invest the meditation time to reboot creation. Sounds like a party though. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > > wrote: > >> > >> Stu, > >> > >> But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > >> responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data > > and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person > > gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then > > other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic > > relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed > > the theory. > > > > And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after > > every claim other people make too? > > > > I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately. > > Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature > > works. Everything is not equally probable. > > > > If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past > > lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from > > ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of > > stuff. But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special > > knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to > > life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our > > previous life. Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not > > interesting to science. > > > My gut feeling on this is people who make specious claims of > contacting the "unified field" or pure consciousness or the "clear > light" are just by and large bullshitters. Well hey: it sounds good > and wild. Where do I sign up? How much? > > The reason for this is pretty simple. If you are making the claim that > you're in contact with the very basis of the phenomenal world, the > 'silence before creation', "pure" consciousness (ever notice how no > one ever asks "how" pure but just accepts it?)--well, eventually you > come back to the world, your body, brain and consciousness, the same > world we all share. If (big "if") you've actually had this experience, > then you're basically just watching creation boot--and watching, > detachedly, the whole program come up on your "monitor". Do that again > and again and you recognize all the otherwise relatively mundane > elements of the phenomenal world in a new light; you've literally > "been there, done that", you've seen it all before, from the seed, to > the root and the eventual tree--and the tree dying, back to soil and > seed and new saplings once again. > > Hang out with some real yogis and you'll see what I mean. > > I remember one such yogi. He was visiting the caves of Lascaux in > France. Of course Anthropologists have their own ideas what their > megalithic graffiti means. But this dude was grooving on a different > wavelength altogether. Having, literally watched the world reboot so > many times, it has 'old hat' to him. Not only did he know, from his > own experience the exact time they were scrawled--he knew what they > were saying and conveying. Really. > > It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so many > times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration of > these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" and > "rebirth". In every moment of plain living. > > But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs > and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of > discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you > really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad > entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of > reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like > energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a > rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- > tuned channels of discursiveness. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stu, But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after every claim other people make too? I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately. Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature works. Everything is not equally probable. If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of stuff. But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our previous life. Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not interesting to science. My gut feeling on this is people who make specious claims of contacting the "unified field" or pure consciousness or the "clear light" are just by and large bullshitters. Well hey: it sounds good and wild. Where do I sign up? How much? The reason for this is pretty simple. If you are making the claim that you're in contact with the very basis of the phenomenal world, the 'silence before creation', "pure" consciousness (ever notice how no one ever asks "how" pure but just accepts it?)--well, eventually you come back to the world, your body, brain and consciousness, the same world we all share. If (big "if") you've actually had this experience, then you're basically just watching creation boot--and watching, detachedly, the whole program come up on your "monitor". Do that again and again and you recognize all the otherwise relatively mundane elements of the phenomenal world in a new light; you've literally "been there, done that", you've seen it all before, from the seed, to the root and the eventual tree--and the tree dying, back to soil and seed and new saplings once again. Hang out with some real yogis and you'll see what I mean. I remember one such yogi. He was visiting the caves of Lascaux in France. Of course Anthropologists have their own ideas what their megalithic graffiti means. But this dude was grooving on a different wavelength altogether. Having, literally watched the world reboot so many times, it has 'old hat' to him. Not only did he know, from his own experience the exact time they were scrawled--he knew what they were saying and conveying. Really. It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so many times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration of these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" and "rebirth". In every moment of plain living. But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- tuned channels of discursiveness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stu, > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after every claim other people make too? I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately. Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature works. Everything is not equally probable. If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of stuff. But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our previous life. Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not interesting to science. > Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of > challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work. > > To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not > true, is to really say nothing at all. > > I would be extremely happy if some people would sincerely try to > disconfirm my theories. The word "sincerely" is key. If they didn't > disconfirm the theory, then the theory would gain in strength. If the > theory were disconfirmed, the process of coming to that conclusion > would, as a side effect, produce additional scientific knowledge. > > If you don't have the self-confidence to get into serious, sincere > data and logic, well, don't be shy. I'm not going to think less of you > if you fail to disconfirm the theory, as long as you do a good job. If > you do disconfirm the theory, then you will have added to my knowledge. > > Jim > > Jim > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > snip > > snip > > > > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the > > > > only response can be about the why and hows of the > > > > response. > > > > > > No, actually we could have discussed the > > > part you keep snipping: > > > > > > I'm making one very straightforward point: > > > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong > > > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's > > > making). > > > > > I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread). > > As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any > > possibility no matter how remote. What I am claiming is that this > > reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote. > > > > Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these > > posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried > > an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for > > fantastic claims lies with the claimant. > > > > I am off the hook. I have no obligation to prove a negative. I > > assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the > > horns. > > > > s. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stu, > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > logic. I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist. I do know there is no way to prove a negative. As long as anyone wants to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them. As far as I can tell we are born and we die. If there is more to that I am open to the evidence. As for disproving this specific "solid proof" - I and others on this thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it differs from the present scientific model, and you have not responded. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Stu, But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work. To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not true, is to really say nothing at all. I would be extremely happy if some people would sincerely try to disconfirm my theories. The word "sincerely" is key. If they didn't disconfirm the theory, then the theory would gain in strength. If the theory were disconfirmed, the process of coming to that conclusion would, as a side effect, produce additional scientific knowledge. If you don't have the self-confidence to get into serious, sincere data and logic, well, don't be shy. I'm not going to think less of you if you fail to disconfirm the theory, as long as you do a good job. If you do disconfirm the theory, then you will have added to my knowledge. Jim Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > snip > snip > > > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the > > > only response can be about the why and hows of the > > > response. > > > > No, actually we could have discussed the > > part you keep snipping: > > > > I'm making one very straightforward point: > > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong > > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's > > making). > > > I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread). > As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any > possibility no matter how remote. What I am claiming is that this > reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote. > > Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these > posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried > an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for > fantastic claims lies with the claimant. > > I am off the hook. I have no obligation to prove a negative. I > assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the > horns. > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > snip snip > > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the > > only response can be about the why and hows of the > > response. > > No, actually we could have discussed the > part you keep snipping: > > I'm making one very straightforward point: > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's > making). > I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread). As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any possibility no matter how remote. What I am claiming is that this reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote. Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for fantastic claims lies with the claimant. I am off the hook. I have no obligation to prove a negative. I assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the horns. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > There is not enough time in the day for this. > > > > You dragged me into this, and now you want > > out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm > > saying is "post-modern blah-de-blah." You > > pulled those words out of a hat for all the > > relevance they have. > > > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the > only response can be about the why and hows of the > response. No, actually we could have discussed the part you keep snipping: I'm making one very straightforward point: your arguments aren't anywhere near strong enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's making).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The conversation is too massive for me to have time to reply to > everyone, but I think I will step in here. That is a good point about > what might be pre-wired in. In fact, evolution works very slowly, so > the pre-wiring would have had to occur over the past couple of million > years. It is hard to see how a belief in an afterlife would have > helped Paleolithic Homo sapiens If you took the time to read the research you would see the genetic markers for Person Permanence have strong evolutionary consequences - the propensity to believe in an afterlife is a side effect of the gene. This propensity is not subject to natural selection. snip > > In any case, whether there is a hard-wired belief or not is completely > irrelevant to whether or not reincarnation actually occurs. It is highly relevant. Because of our inability to conceptualize non-consciousness we have a strong need to fill in the blanks. We all come with strong feelings or intuition of an afterlife. This is a basic desire like our predisposition to like sweets or/and fats. It means when confronted with the observable data that supports that dead things are dead we have an extremely strong desire to deny it. If reincarnation occurs - what is the evidence? All evidence is fantastic, requires leaps of faith in the supernatural, and comes with bizarre rules - like only certain people have "insight" into their past lives (Why do past life believers domonstrate poor source monitoring?), Why do these people all have different conceptions about the details of the process. Buddhist and Hindu versions differ and there are difference between sects. Does it cross species - is there some sort of karmic judgment involved to people move up? Is personality lost? Do people remain in the castes? Can they become inanimate objects? Why do Catholics bypass reincarnation and go straight to the pearly gates? The evidence that it does not occur is stronger. For in order to believe that death is death one only needs to accept things as they are. Physics does not have to change. Physical conditions are met to hold consciousness. The physical conditions stop - consciousness stops. I remember Thich Nhat Hanh likened it to a candle and a flame. A match, the wax and a wick make the flame possible. Take away part of these basic conditions and the flame goes away. With the later, it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort of universal consciousness/intelligence that may or may not continue after the physical conditions desist. But that consciousness/intelligence is largely abstract and bears no consequence to us. You telling me to believe in unicorns becasue you have absolute proof. Yet your proof is obscure and depends on speculation. I am saying I will continue to be skeptical about unicorns until I see one for myself or at the very least see some very credible evidence. Why should I accept the fantastic over the obvious? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > snip > > > There is not enough time in the day for this. > > You dragged me into this, and now you want > out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm > saying is "post-modern blah-de-blah." You > pulled those words out of a hat for all the > relevance they have. > Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the only response can be about the why and hows of the response. Communication about communication. Its post-modern blah-de-blah and I don't have time for it. I have notice most of your threads devolve this way. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument was not about your beliefs or disbeliefs. The discussion > was about the motivations that would lead one to accept the doctrine of > reincarnation. Jim::: Motivations are something to double check to make sure one isn't biased, but motivations have nothing to do with whether or not something is true. It is a logical fallacy to think that motivations determine truth. Stu::: I was pointing out there is very good evidence that the belief in an > afterlife is pre-wired. This provides strong predilection to > rationalize an after death doctrine. Jim:::The evidence you have presented is only an interpretation of fuzzy data by a scientist who wants to disprove all religious ideas. That is not adequate evidence. In fact, I don't think any neurological research tools at present can adequately detect what people are specifically thinking. For pre-wiring, you need to show how, over hundreds of thousands of years, people who believed in an afterlife survived while people who didn't believe in an afterlife died. That would be essential to select as group of genes which would wire something as specific as that belief into the brain. Eventually, it would be necessary to find the actual genes involved. But there is another hypothesis which is possible. Perhaps people to some extent often remember a little about having had past lifetimes, and that common memory is the reason for the widespread belief. Stu::: On the other hand, people such as us have enjoyed the alternative myths > from the far East which posit the doctrine of karma. Sounds good. > Let's buy into it. Don't question it. The doctrine of Karma comes packaged with a bonus gift - a morality > tale. Jim::: Actually, I haven't posted it yet, but I do have a proof of karma as well, which came together for me about the turn of the century. It involves the way conation memories would be acted upon naturally by similarity processes (Gestalt grouping, association processes which involve similarity, generalization). The natural processes involved in these interactions, act like karma. Again, what people believe with respect to karma has nothing to do with whether karma is true or not. Jim
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
The conversation is too massive for me to have time to reply to everyone, but I think I will step in here. That is a good point about what might be pre-wired in. In fact, evolution works very slowly, so the pre-wiring would have had to occur over the past couple of million years. It is hard to see how a belief in an afterlife would have helped Paleolithic Homo sapiens (I don't know why the spell checker says that is wrong. I double-checked the dictionary and that is what the dictionary says) and earlier species, to survive. It is a complicated idea so would require selection of several genes, which would require a very large number of deaths of early people not having the genes to become set in by evolution. Why would not having that belief have caused almost all early humans without that belief to die before reproducing? Perhaps when something shows up in brain research, it is only emotions associated with the belief, not the belief itself, which is being detected. It is also, by the way, generally thought that neurological research is not yet able to detect specific ideas that someone is thinking. In any case, whether there is a hard-wired belief or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not reincarnation actually occurs. Note that all my derivations start with data which is highly commonplace. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > > > > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in reincarnation at some > > point. > > > > > > Some Jews still do. > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > A very small percentage. In Catholicism the belief in reincarnation > > is heretical. As for the very small portion of Jewish mystics that > > have such beliefs it is not at all like the Eastern notion of a wheel > > of birth and death. The common Jewish notion of the afterlife is > > "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust". > > > > Only two characters in the Bible manage to have an afterlife. Elijah > > and Jesus - who both rise up to heaven with their bodies. For the > > rests of us we will rise from the graves on Judgment day like in a > > zombie movie. > > > > The concept of a soul surviving the body came from the writings of > > Greek pagans like Aristotle. He was all the rage of early middle age > > theologians. > > > > Body or no body, the predominant western afterlife myth is a one way > > street. > > > > s. > > > > In which case, the "hard-wired prediliction for believing in it" isn't too strong, > eh? > > > Lawson >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Stu wrote: > > There is not enough time in the day for this > > Now, Stu, it's obvious you're just copping out because > Judy's arguments are so darn irrefutable, just like the > ones about aliens romping about in cornfields. :) Sal's lying, Stu. I never made any such argument, and she knows it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Stu wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: As usual Judy your argument leads to meta-communication. Far from the original topic, a post-modern jumble of questioned syntax and illusive trops. There is not enough time in the day for this Now, Stu, it's obvious you're just copping out because Judy's arguments are so darn irrefutable, just like the ones about aliens romping about in cornfields. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > As usual Judy your argument leads to meta- > communication. Far from the original topic, > a post-modern jumble of questioned syntax > and illusive trops. Oh, Stu, what a load of bull. I'm making one very straightforward point: your arguments aren't anywhere near strong enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's making). We don't have anything but beliefs either way, and you ought to be able to recognize that and deal with it as you do any other belief that can't be proved or disproved, without demeaning those who don't believe as you do. > There is not enough time in the day for this. You dragged me into this, and now you want out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm saying is "post-modern blah-de-blah." You pulled those words out of a hat for all the relevance they have.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: As usual Judy your argument leads to meta-communication. Far from the original topic, a post-modern jumble of questioned syntax and illusive trops. There is not enough time in the day for this. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > The real question here is why you can't seem to > > grasp that I'm not espousing any particular > > afterlife model (there are many more than two, > > BTW), or even the belief that there *is* an > > afterlife. > > Two posts ago I suggested you were agnostic on > the subject. And then in this recent one you demanded that I tell you which afterlife belief was correct! Let it go > Judy - I am not arguing about your beliefs. Then stop attributing beliefs to me, please. > snip > > > > There is no more evidence *against* an afterlife > > than there is *for* an afterlife. > > Thats not true. There are plenty simple exercises > you can do at home to test the theory of reincarnation. > Here is one for example: > > Imagine one of your past lives. Remember a detail from it. > Do some research to see if that detail has any validity. This isn't evidence against afterlife or reincarnation, Stu. > In my posts I have suggested some other simple exercises. Which aren't evidence against afterlife or reincarnation either. There is no > reason to believe if reincarnation was important and > natural as death that it should be so hidden from people. Sure there is. If it happens, it happens after you die. We don't know what happens after you die. What other natural human > processes have this hidden agenda? Why would it take a > shaman to tell us about these cycles? We don't know whether we simply cease to exist after death either. Why not, since death is a natural human process? > > > The point is culture develops and decorates the > > > innate psychological building blocks of religious > > > beliefs. > > > > And of materialist beliefs as well. > > Empiricism does not fully constitute belief systems. Not fully, but its most basic tenet is a belief. > Just because our brain is hard wired to desire an > afterlife doesn't mean it exists. There is no > observable evidence for such a thing. However > there is plenty of evidence that without a brain > we loose consciousness. That's not evidence for what happens after you die. For all we know, the consciousness that inhabited the brain we've lost is swirling around on some other plane. We know the brainless (dead) body doesn't exhibit consciousness, but that's it. > > To pretend to certainty either way is foolish. We > > simply don't know, and there's no way to find out > > (or not find out, depending) for sure except to die. > > Not true. Because reincarnation suggests we have > already been through these cycles. The death in > this life would constitute just one more we have > already experienced. How many cycles do I need > to go through before I am convinced this is the > way of the world? Non sequitur. That's conjecture, not evidence against. > In fact as TMers who have been meditating for as > many years as us (I am going past 30 years now) I > should be sufficiently ready to shuck off samsara. > My death may be the one that ends the cycle - it > would prove nothing. Non sequitur. I'm not arguing against your belief that there's no afterlife. I'm just saying your arguments for any kind of certainty are very weak.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > > nitpicking sniped > > Translation: Correction of embarrassing mistake by > Stu snipped. > > > > In any case, Jewish belief in reincarnation > > > *today* is a non sequitur if you're attempting > > > to claim that because Jesus is not recorded (in > > > the canonical Gospels, at any rate) as having > > > espoused reincarnation, therefore it cannot > > > be true (which point is extremely weak anyway > > > because the canonical Gospels have been redacted, > > > as I pointed out earlier). > > > > > Then I stand corrected. Western religions are > > susceptible to two afterlife superstitions. > > Reincarnation as well as the judgment myth. > > Perhaps either you or Mr. Lawson can tell me > > the exact ratio of who believes what. You may > > want to leave room for the believers of the > > Rapture (a popular subset of the judgment myth). > > And lets not forget all the more modern stories > > of ghosts and ghouls. After you guys tell me > > the ratio can you more importantly expound on > > which myth is correct? > > The real question here is why you can't seem to > grasp that I'm not espousing any particular > afterlife model (there are many more than two, > BTW), or even the belief that there *is* an > afterlife. Two posts ago I suggested you were agnostic on the subject. Let it go Judy - I am not arguing about your beliefs. snip > > There is no more evidence *against* an afterlife > than there is *for* an afterlife. Thats not true. There are plenty simple exercises you can do at home to test the theory of reincarnation. Here is one for example: Imagine one of your past lives. Remember a detail from it. Do some research to see if that detail has any validity. In my posts I have suggested some other simple exercises. There is no reason to believe if reincarnation was important and natural as death that it should be so hidden from people. What other natural human processes have this hidden agenda? Why would it take a shaman to tell us about these cycles? > > > The point is culture develops and decorates the > > innate psychological building blocks of religious > > beliefs. > > And of materialist beliefs as well. Empiricism does not fully constitute belief systems. IE. Common sense tells us the world is geocentic. After all its clear from observation that the sun rises in the east and falls in the west. However the empirical evidence suggest a heliocentric world. Mathematical observation, repeatable and verifiable experiments, a superior model move us towards a great understanding of the facts of the kosmos. Just because our brain is hard wired to desire an afterlife doesn't mean it exists. There is no observable evidence for such a thing. However there is plenty of evidence that without a brain we loose consciousness. If you ever had anesthesia for an operation you must know that. And as you know Judy, I do not identify myself in any way shape of form a materialist. I do not believe in matter. There is only process. > > To pretend to certainty either way is foolish. We > simply don't know, and there's no way to find out > (or not find out, depending) for sure except to die. > Not true. Because reincarnation suggests we have already been through these cycles. The death in this life would constitute just one more we have already experienced. How many cycles do I need to go through before I am convinced this is the way of the world? In fact as TMers who have been meditating for as many years as us (I am going past 30 years now) I should be sufficiently ready to shuck off samsara. My death may be the one that ends the cycle - it would prove nothing. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > nitpicking sniped Translation: Correction of embarrassing mistake by Stu snipped. > > In any case, Jewish belief in reincarnation > > *today* is a non sequitur if you're attempting > > to claim that because Jesus is not recorded (in > > the canonical Gospels, at any rate) as having > > espoused reincarnation, therefore it cannot > > be true (which point is extremely weak anyway > > because the canonical Gospels have been redacted, > > as I pointed out earlier). > > > Then I stand corrected. Western religions are > susceptible to two afterlife superstitions. > Reincarnation as well as the judgment myth. > Perhaps either you or Mr. Lawson can tell me > the exact ratio of who believes what. You may > want to leave room for the believers of the > Rapture (a popular subset of the judgment myth). > And lets not forget all the more modern stories > of ghosts and ghouls. After you guys tell me > the ratio can you more importantly expound on > which myth is correct? The real question here is why you can't seem to grasp that I'm not espousing any particular afterlife model (there are many more than two, BTW), or even the belief that there *is* an afterlife. What I've been doing is pointing out that your argument against reincarnation is not anywhere near as strong as you think it is. I've already dealt with your point about Jesus. Additionally, that a belief "can be explained by" the results of some psychological test does not mean that it *is* explained by that psychological test. You can't rule out the validity of the belief on that basis. > There is ample evidence that despite the > obvious evidence that dead people are dead - there > is a strong propensity to deny the obvious. There is no more evidence *against* an afterlife than there is *for* an afterlife. > The point is culture develops and decorates the > innate psychological building blocks of religious > beliefs. And of materialist beliefs as well. To pretend to certainty either way is foolish. We simply don't know, and there's no way to find out (or not find out, depending) for sure except to die.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" nitpicking sniped > In any case, Jewish belief in reincarnation > *today* is a non sequitur if you're attempting > to claim that because Jesus is not recorded (in > the canonical Gospels, at any rate) as having > espoused reincarnation, therefore it cannot > be true (which point is extremely weak anyway > because the canonical Gospels have been redacted, > as I pointed out earlier). > Then I stand corrected. Western religions are susceptible to two afterlife superstitions. Reincarnation as well as the judgment myth. Perhaps either you or Mr. Lawson can tell me the exact ratio of who believes what. You may want to leave room for the believers of the Rapture (a popular subset of the judgment myth). And lets not forget all the more modern stories of ghosts and ghouls. After you guys tell me the ratio can you more importantly expound on which myth is correct? I can't imagine Mormons are reunited in heaven while Hindus are spinning around this wheel. This only reinforces my original thesis. Given consciousness has clearly demonstrates the simulation constraint hypothesis (as put forth by Jessie Bering, director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture, Queens University, Belfast). And neurobiologists have demonstrated such strong forces as Person Permanence as physical properties of the brain. Along with numerous psych studies concerning values and attitudes people who believe in an afterlife (such as the published work of Bjorkland from Florida Atlantic University, and Gerald Koocherm from The U of Missouri). There is ample evidence that despite the obvious evidence that dead people are dead - there is a strong propensity to deny the obvious. The point is culture develops and decorates the innate psychological building blocks of religious beliefs. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > > > > > > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in > > > > reincarnation at some point. > > > > > > > > Some Jews still do. > > > > > > > A very small percentage. > > > > "The belief [in reincarnation] is common in Orthodox > > Judaism. Indeed there is an entire volume of work > > called Sha'ar Ha'Gilgulim (The Gate of Reincarnations), > > based on the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria (and compiled > > by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital). It describes the > > deep, complex laws of reincarnationMany Orthodox > > siddurim (prayerbooks) have a nightly prayer asking for > > forgiveness for sins that one may have committed in > > this gilgul or a previous one, which accompanies the > > nighttime recitation of the Shema before going to sleep." > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Judaism > > > a very very small percentage. The Orthodox are a significant percentage of religious Jews, Stu, which is who we're talking about here, obviously. And they're around 10 percent of *all* Jews in the U.S. One estimate for world Jewry is that the Orthodox constitute from 50 to 70 percent of all religious Jews (and from 32 to 45 percent of all Jews). http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/demographics.htm In any case, Jewish belief in reincarnation *today* is a non sequitur if you're attempting to claim that because Jesus is not recorded (in the canonical Gospels, at any rate) as having espoused reincarnation, therefore it cannot be true (which point is extremely weak anyway because the canonical Gospels have been redacted, as I pointed out earlier).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in reincarnation at some > point. > > > > Some Jews still do. > > > > L > > > > > A very small percentage. In Catholicism the belief in reincarnation > is heretical. As for the very small portion of Jewish mystics that > have such beliefs it is not at all like the Eastern notion of a wheel > of birth and death. The common Jewish notion of the afterlife is > "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust". > > Only two characters in the Bible manage to have an afterlife. Elijah > and Jesus - who both rise up to heaven with their bodies. For the > rests of us we will rise from the graves on Judgment day like in a > zombie movie. > > The concept of a soul surviving the body came from the writings of > Greek pagans like Aristotle. He was all the rage of early middle age > theologians. > > Body or no body, the predominant western afterlife myth is a one way > street. > > s. > In which case, the "hard-wired prediliction for believing in it" isn't too strong, eh? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > > > > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in > > > reincarnation at some point. > > > > > > Some Jews still do. > > > > > A very small percentage. > > "The belief [in reincarnation] is common in Orthodox > Judaism. Indeed there is an entire volume of work > called Sha'ar Ha'Gilgulim (The Gate of Reincarnations), > based on the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria (and compiled > by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital). It describes the > deep, complex laws of reincarnationMany Orthodox > siddurim (prayerbooks) have a nightly prayer asking for > forgiveness for sins that one may have committed in > this gilgul or a previous one, which accompanies the > nighttime recitation of the Shema before going to sleep." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Judaism > a very very small percentage. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ++ On being concerned with the past-it would probably be well to > live> in the present as they say. > > In school,we generally do one grade at a time and move on. > > Too much concern for the past would be a distraction it seems. > > You are mixing up fields of knowledge. Living in the present is a > physiological principle, testing people's claims for their accuracy > concerning the validity of their past lives is an epistemological > issue for people who want to separate fantasy from something with > broad implications for humanity. > > And the analogy of school is absurd. In every field of knowledge I > have ever studied I constantly go back to refresh basic principles. > > I am not advocating being "too much concerned with the past" whatever > that means. It is a question of applying all our human cognitive > tools to separate fact from fantasy. Doesn't that concern you also? > + Yes-you are right- I wasn't very clear evidently. Living in the present would be not thinking about the past to the point that one couldn't function well. On learning things, I find they exist just below the surface and, are there when needed without having to refresh only rarely. I guess we aren't on the same wavelength-maybe a generation gap? On another note, I recall Mabelle Carter doing "Wildwood Flower live and, have been thru a lot of Utube Chet Atkins and his contemporaries. WF still leaves a bump in my throat. Best,N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > snip > Where could the infant have > > had > > > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > > > you assume that the link between the discrete nerve impulses and the > > bundling of such impulses into higher order abstraction is a skill, > > whereas i see it as an integrated function that occurs simply > > because of all of the additional complex machinery that our human > > brain has. > > > > in other words, the sophistication of our consciousness is nothing > > more than a correlate to the sophistication of the physical > > processes that the construction of our brain makes avaialble to us, > > vs. say a giraffe's. > > > > so there really is no learning of a skill, per se. the skill comes > > later when we learn to associate language with objects, and > > categorize objects in order to share and learn. > > Very well put. It is in fact the case in Piaget's work on child > development that there is a progress skills to interpreting the visual > world that has been observed. A baby learns to differentiate itself > from the other, and people from objects. Some of this is learned, > most of it has to do with brain development. > > Consciousness evolves in direct correspondence to brain development. > > That is one of the claims of TM. > > s. > glad to hear you validate this through your own investigation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 snip Where could the infant have > had > > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > you assume that the link between the discrete nerve impulses and the > bundling of such impulses into higher order abstraction is a skill, > whereas i see it as an integrated function that occurs simply > because of all of the additional complex machinery that our human > brain has. > > in other words, the sophistication of our consciousness is nothing > more than a correlate to the sophistication of the physical > processes that the construction of our brain makes avaialble to us, > vs. say a giraffe's. > > so there really is no learning of a skill, per se. the skill comes > later when we learn to associate language with objects, and > categorize objects in order to share and learn. Very well put. It is in fact the case in Piaget's work on child development that there is a progress skills to interpreting the visual world that has been observed. A baby learns to differentiate itself from the other, and people from objects. Some of this is learned, most of it has to do with brain development. Consciousness evolves in direct correspondence to brain development. That is one of the claims of TM. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > > having turned blue, or something. > > > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. > > Nice one E D (hey wait a minute, Viagra has already claimed those > initials!) Anyway interesting points on a great thread. I think that > the claims of reincarnation are provable. There are all sorts of > details that someone could give concerning the technologies of the day > that might be verified by going to a museum and having the person show > us some stuff that we didn't know about some of the objects there. Or > they could remember how to speak in another language or dialect. Precisely. All of there rantings can be chocked up to poor source monitoring. > > What strikes me about people who put a lot of stock in reincarnation > is that they seem pretty uninterested in finding out if their memory > is real. There seems to be a tendency to take it at face value that > if you have a detailed memory of a past life that this is enough. > People who write historical novels might be able to offer an > alternative explanation. I myself have fantasies of going back in time to other cultures or times. How about sharing a beer and some guitar playing with Big Bill Broonzy in 1932? How cool would that be? I get a little worried when people start mistaking these fantasies for reality. These are source monitoring issues. Even Barry has weighed in as a believer, and I always took him as a first class skeptic. I remember hearing Ken Wilber admit he is into reincarnation. But he could not rationalize it. Just took it on faith. Avoids the issue in his books. > > As far as proving enlightenment: I still hold out the hope that it > would give a person some special something something. So far it seems > that the abilities can be mimicked by anyone who can smile a lot and > speak in "all this is that" hypnotic language patterns for an extended > period. That's why I am reserving enthusiasm for these states. I > mean, I already got the memo that all humanity is one family. We all > came from Africa. Until I see something unique (which was always a BIG > part of Maharishi's promise package) I'll assume that the time spent > in spiritual practices are just because they are fun in themselves...I > mean for people who don't have a bunch of new songs to learn. > I hear you brother - I should be learning "Blues for Alice" which has a way nice chord progression but the melody is mind numbingly complex. I can 't continue to fake it and let my guitar partner Eric carry the tune. But that's not to be. Instead, better to be trying to get a handle on why these people buy into this folklore without taking a minute to question the deeper reasoning. Its all about procrastination. The spiritual practice stuff is primarily about Be Here Now. Doesn't even warrant comment. Enlightenment is a PR term to get people interested. With practice the illusions of goals, gods, higher states, ghosts, unicorns, enlightenment and the like will fall away. Or so I'm told. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in > > reincarnation at some point. > > > > Some Jews still do. > > > A very small percentage. "The belief [in reincarnation] is common in Orthodox Judaism. Indeed there is an entire volume of work called Sha'ar Ha'Gilgulim (The Gate of Reincarnations), based on the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria (and compiled by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital). It describes the deep, complex laws of reincarnationMany Orthodox siddurim (prayerbooks) have a nightly prayer asking for forgiveness for sins that one may have committed in this gilgul or a previous one, which accompanies the nighttime recitation of the Shema before going to sleep." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Judaism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't Jesus have preached about our inevitable > > > movement into the next life if the reincarnation > > > story is so absolutely correct? > > > > Did I say anywhere that "the reincarnation story > > is so absolutely correct," or did you hallucinate > > it? > > > > Sheesh, talk about straw men! > > > The argument was not about your beliefs or disbeliefs. You appeared to be attempting to rebut some argument you thought I was making. > My point was this is a cultural phenomenon. A person > (or god in Jesus' case) would go to whatever mythology > was available to help rationalize the insistence of > person permanence (a developmental psych term). Since > Jesus did not have any other myths available than the > common Jewish myths (One of which happened to be reincarnation...) > he went with those. Later his PR person, Paul > adapted some compelling Roman myths to further > enhance the afterlife story. However, that no explicit statements about reincarnation from Jesus have come down to us in the Christian Scriptures isn't evidence that he never made any. As I'm sure you're aware, the texts that ended up as the Gospels in particular were redacted like crazy. The Gnostic Gospels, on the other hand, are full of references to reincarnation. None of this proves anything, of course, but your comment about Jesus doesn't begin to hold up as any kind of *disproof* of reincarnation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Top posting. No comments at bottom: > > Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in reincarnation at some point. > > Some Jews still do. > > L > > A very small percentage. In Catholicism the belief in reincarnation is heretical. As for the very small portion of Jewish mystics that have such beliefs it is not at all like the Eastern notion of a wheel of birth and death. The common Jewish notion of the afterlife is "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust". Only two characters in the Bible manage to have an afterlife. Elijah and Jesus - who both rise up to heaven with their bodies. For the rests of us we will rise from the graves on Judgment day like in a zombie movie. The concept of a soul surviving the body came from the writings of Greek pagans like Aristotle. He was all the rage of early middle age theologians. Body or no body, the predominant western afterlife myth is a one way street. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > Wouldn't Jesus have preached about our inevitable > > movement into the next life if the reincarnation > > story is so absolutely correct? > > Did I say anywhere that "the reincarnation story > is so absolutely correct," or did you hallucinate > it? > > Sheesh, talk about straw men! > The argument was not about your beliefs or disbeliefs. The discussion was about the motivations that would lead one to accept the doctrine of reincarnation. Your posts suggest a certain agnosticism on the subject. I was pointing out there is very good evidence that the belief in an afterlife is pre-wired. This provides strong predilection to rationalize an after death doctrine. My point was this is a cultural phenomenon. A person (or god in Jesus' case) would go to whatever mythology was available to help rationalize the insistence of person permanence (a developmental psych term). Since Jesus did not have any other myths available than the common Jewish myths he went with those. Later his PR person, Paul adapted some compelling Roman myths to further enhance the afterlife story. On the other hand, people such as us have enjoyed the alternative myths from the far East which posit the doctrine of karma. Sounds good. Let's buy into it. Don't question it. The doctrine of Karma comes packaged with a bonus gift - a morality tale. Be careful about putting good or bad stuff out in the world, its going to come back to bite you. Strong stuff - could even supplant the legal system with natural law. s. -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's a question for you; what reincarnates?>> The Reincarnator reincarnates. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > > having turned blue, or something. > > > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. > > Nice one E D (hey wait a minute, Viagra has already claimed those > initials!) Anyway interesting points on a great thread. I think that > the claims of reincarnation are provable. There are all sorts of > details that someone could give concerning the technologies of the day > that might be verified by going to a museum and having the person show > us some stuff that we didn't know about some of the objects there. Or > they could remember how to speak in another language or dialect. that stuff can be faked. > What strikes me about people who put a lot of stock in reincarnation > is that they seem pretty uninterested in finding out if their memory > is real. yep. agreed. i've had a few experiences that i could have attributed to past lives, but there are other explanations too. what about this akashic records business? or the collapse of spacetime? the reason i don't buy the whole reincarnation bit is that it is too self-serving: i think this and have that experience and therefore my ego concludes i won't die- i will live forever! too damned convenient for my taste. for example, B. says he knows what is in a room before he sees it and therefore this is proof he has lived around there before. or that he has pretty well developed psychic abilities, or that someone told him about the same place a long time ago and he has forgotten it, or he has good intution and makes a good guess... to proclaim any proof of reincarnation is suspect at best. -snip-
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't Jesus have preached about our inevitable > movement into the next life if the reincarnation > story is so absolutely correct? Did I say anywhere that "the reincarnation story is so absolutely correct," or did you hallucinate it? Sheesh, talk about straw men!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: > > > > > > Here's a question for you; what reincarnates? > > > > > > The jiva is what reincarnates. > > > > > Precisely. What is tantamount to saying nothing reincarnates. > > Do this simple home test: > Have Jiva to do your laundry. > > Could s/he separate the whites from the colors? What a stupid argument. According to the definitions provided, the jiva with a body could indeed 'do the laundry'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Top posting. No comments at bottom: Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in reincarnation at some point. Some Jews still do. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would > > appear that the only person treating others with a > > lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: > > > > "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, > > probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new > > age literature." > > > > Nelson's comment was in response to the above. > > Judy, I provided articles that described numerous experiments that > suggest strongly that the concept of reincarnation is cultural with > strong proclivities to believe in Life after Death based on brain > structure. > > Here is another one: "The Natural Emergence of Reasoning about the > Afterlife as a Developmental Regularity. Bering, Developmental > Psychology, Vol 40, page 217-233, 2004. > > If Nelson did not learn about the concept of reincarnation from New Age > philosophy (I include TMO in this), where did he learn it? > > Do you think that if he was not exposed to this mythology he would still > have adopted it? > > Have you ever heard of say, a 12th century monk, who after years of > prayer and internal investigation came to the conclusion that the Church > was dead wrong about Heaven and Hell and adopted the trappings of the > perennial religion? If the reincarnation myth were true wouldn't all > xtian monks at sometime experience a sever crisis of faith? > > Wouldn't Jesus have preached about our inevitable movement into the next > life if the reincarnation story is so absolutely correct? > > Or was he misguided about all that Day of Judgment stuff? > > Or was he acting on his strong predilection for the mind to believe in > what psychologists call "Person Permanence". > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is exactly what is needed for both perceiving an image and for > Quantum Entanglement. > > If each point in the image, or each nerve impulse, is encoded into a > point in a point cluster, then the information of each will directly > touch the information of all the others at the same time. So that > would make perception of an image possible. > > For Quantum Entanglement, of points separated in three dimensional > space touch each other directly in a point cluster in a space of more > dimensions, then they can interact instantaneously, even if they are > separated in three dimensional space. This thread is way over my head but I'm glad someone thinks about these things. Point Cluster Theory...umm O.K. by me. I'd like to join in the left brained conversation here but I'm more of a right brained person doing my best to avoid entanglements and committed to making only one dimensional point at a time. So in the spirit of the topic I offer a corny raunchydog poem which is off topic scientifically but on topic metaphysically: RETURNING Vishnu was sleeping And when he awoke He created life's drama And played a big joke >From one cosmic egg Hatched on the earth Wheel of karma Returning for birth Falling as stardust Scattered as seeds Sown in the garden Known by our deeds Baggage claim pick up Your name on the tag There are no mistakes Whether rogue or a wag The letter delivered The package untied Just desserts eating The apple of pride Pay tribute to Silence Uniting as one Joyful together Our journey is done raunchydog
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: > > > > Here's a question for you; what reincarnates? > > > The jiva is what reincarnates. > > Precisely. What is tantamount to saying nothing reincarnates. Do this simple home test: Have Jiva to do your laundry. Could s/he separate the whites from the colors? s. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > wrote: > > > > > > In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would > appear that the only person treating others with a > lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: > > "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, > probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new > age literature." > > Nelson's comment was in response to the above. Judy, I provided articles that described numerous experiments that suggest strongly that the concept of reincarnation is cultural with strong proclivities to believe in Life after Death based on brain structure. Here is another one: "The Natural Emergence of Reasoning about the Afterlife as a Developmental Regularity. Bering, Developmental Psychology, Vol 40, page 217-233, 2004. If Nelson did not learn about the concept of reincarnation from New Age philosophy (I include TMO in this), where did he learn it? Do you think that if he was not exposed to this mythology he would still have adopted it? Have you ever heard of say, a 12th century monk, who after years of prayer and internal investigation came to the conclusion that the Church was dead wrong about Heaven and Hell and adopted the trappings of the perennial religion? If the reincarnation myth were true wouldn't all xtian monks at sometime experience a sever crisis of faith? Wouldn't Jesus have preached about our inevitable movement into the next life if the reincarnation story is so absolutely correct? Or was he misguided about all that Day of Judgment stuff? Or was he acting on his strong predilection for the mind to believe in what psychologists call "Person Permanence". s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
First of all, let me apologize for the rib about believing in Reincarnation. I was only trying to point out the article that stated in an experiment that people who believe in reincarnation have a 94% failure rate in source monitoring tests. You may be one of the 6% who have excellent source monitoring and still insist on the belief in a personal consciousness after death. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: > > > Our ability to discern sensory data is hardwired. Looking at the > > evolution of vision it is clear that sentient being at first could only > > discern slight light and shadow. As the process evolved the visual > > system becomes better. > > > > The breakdown of the visual field happens in 30 some parts of the brain. > > The analysis is augmented by memory and basic attributes. For example, > > we have a part of the brain specialized in "reading" faces. > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231623.htm > > Jim:::That is certainly true about the brain. The information > processes of the brain which are hard wired are highly sophisticated, > as is not surprising after so many hundreds of millions of years of > evolution as a multi-celled animal. However, even though it is so > sophisticated, the product of the brain's information processing is > still a pattern of nerve impulses. And the nerve impulses in the > pattern are not in direct contact with one another, so they are not > really integrated. Any final integration must be done from the > outside. What I am saying is that consciousness is some kind of field > different from gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and > weak nuclear force and perhaps different from dark energy -- > which does the final integration of the bits of information carried by > the nerve impulses. But because so many nerve impulses are involved in > a single image, and the decoding is so quick, the level of function is > very high. I do understand what your saying. However, I have presented scientific articles that contradict your model of visual processing. We know the processing in not analogous to a computer's approach. It involves something akin to parallel and serial processing. In addition, certain images are built into the DNA such as faces, basic shapes and landscapes. This reduces the need to fully process an image from raw data. The only reason I know this is because my job requires knowledge of how we process visual information. I act on this data everyday and it works. I can depend on these "templates" that are part of the structure of consciousness. Incidentally, research in this are started with Language (with a large L). Lacan's landmark work "The insistance of the letter on the subconscious" starts us on a track of looking for basic Language structures "hard wired" in the brain. Neurologists know that a baby comes into this world with certain basic templates to process language and visual information. Its not learned. Its biology. Consciousness rides along these templates. Consciousness emerges from physical processes, it does not have a "life" of its own. Try this little experiment: Begin the mantra. Repeat it. If you forget what you are doing come back to the mantra. Do this for 20 minutes or so. Did you notice that as you occupied your stream of consciousness with meaningless repetition what happened to conscioiusness? I have noticed it recedes to nothingness. Pure awareness. No identity, no learning, no light, dark, past lives, future lives. Just nothingness. Its not the stuff that would saunter into a new born's body and help her recognize her mother's face. > > > Stu::: This is not learned, or passed down from past lives. Templates of > > visual references are stored in the DNA. There is no need to assume you > > learned this in a past life. If you did, you didn't learn very well. > > The visual system sucks and is full of flaws. We make mistakes all the > > time. > > Jim:::Again, I am not saying that the brain part of the information > processing comes down from past lives. I am saying that the > consciousness part does. > > Stu::: Making this jump suggests to me you have a purely irrational > belief on > > past lives, probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new age > > literature. You are going out of your way to rationalize it. > > > > Better to just take the belief on faith, admit its a superstition that > > gives you solace against death, and leave it at that. > > Jim:::There is no way you can know whether it is a jump or not, > because from what you have said, you still don't understand my data > and logic. I am trying too. The data is not the same data I have on recent neurobiological breakthroughs. I have been very fortunate as of late to have a friend who is a psychologist who need to take frequent courses to fulfill license requirement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those are radical and bizarre motives to subscribe to the scientific > community. Jim::: No they aren't. I am not ascribing them because I have actually heard scientists say that. Nor is it really bizarre. People were burned at the stake for being so-called heretics. Both Fundamentalist Christianity and Islamic Fundamentalism are fighting against science and scientists, and they are both quite powerful. Hopefully, they will never attain political control, but if they did, they might well seriously harm scientists. It is not bizarre for scientists to be afraid of that possibility. Stu::: Even our good buddy Dr. Haglin has indicated > the possibility of the brain working on a quantum level with processing > power far exceeding the sorts of machines we brains make today. Jim::: You've just trashed your own credentials. The Quantum Theory of Consciousness is not accepted by the majority of the neurological community at this time. I am running out of time, so I will just describe Point Cluster Theory briefly. I published first, but the Quantum Theory of Consciousness explains that nerve impulses can be connected by entanglement, which is instantaneous and so faster than the speed of light. This is what is needed for all the bits of information in the image to directly touch one another simultaneously. But the Quantum Theory of Consciousness has no explanation for how entanglement functions, how entanglement works. Point Cluster Theory is the only explanation I have found for the integration needed to see an image, and it also could explain Quantum Entanglement. I will start the explanation with examples. In a one dimensional space, a line, a maximum of two points can touch each other directly at the same time. In a two dimensional space, a plane, a maximum of three points can touch one another directly at the same time. In three dimensional space, four points. In general, in N dimensional space, a maximum of N+1 points can all touch one another directly at the same time. This is exactly what is needed for both perceiving an image and for Quantum Entanglement. If each point in the image, or each nerve impulse, is encoded into a point in a point cluster, then the information of each will directly touch the information of all the others at the same time. So that would make perception of an image possible. For Quantum Entanglement, of points separated in three dimensional space touch each other directly in a point cluster in a space of more dimensions, then they can interact instantaneously, even if they are separated in three dimensional space. Jim
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's a question for you; what reincarnates? The jiva is what reincarnates. >From Wikipedia: Jiva In Hinduism and Jainism, a jiva is a living being[1], or more specifically the immortal essence of a living being (human, animal, fish or plant etc...) which survives physical death[2]. It has a very similar usage to 'atma', but whereas atma refers to 'the self', 'jiva' is used to denote a 'living entity' or 'living being' specifically. The concept of the jiva is similar, but not necessarily identical to, the concept of the soul as presented in Abrahamic religions. The word itself originates from the Sanskrit Jivás, with the root jīv- 'to breathe'. It has the same Indo-European root as the Latin word Vivus: "Alive". Definition In the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism the jiva is described as immutable, eternal, and indestructible. It is said not to be a product of the material world (Prakrti), but of a higher 'spiritual' nature[3]. At the point of physical death the jiva takes a new physical body depending on karma and the individual desires and necessities of the particular jiva in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva +++ >From 'Hinduism Today' ~Life after death - the Hindu explanation~ Excerpt: For Hindus, death is nobly referred to as mahaprasthana, the "great journey." When the lessons of this life have been learned and karmas reach a point of intensity, the soul leaves the physical body, which then returns its elements to the earth. The awareness, will, memory and intelligence which we think of as ourselves continue to exist in the soul body. Death is a most natural experience, not to be feared. It is a quick transition from the physical world to the astral plane, like walking through a door, leaving one room and entering another. Knowing this, we approach death as a sadhana, as a spiritual opportunity, bringing a level of detachment which is difficult to achieve in the tumult of life and an urgency to strive more than ever in our search for the Divine Self. At death we drop off the physical body and continue evolving in the inner worlds in our subtle bodies, until we again enter into birth. We are not the body in which we live but the immortal soul which inhabits many bodies in its evolutionary journey. What is this "soul" which never dies? Our individual soul is the immortal and spiritual body of light that animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with God is fully realized. Our soul is God's emanational creation, the source of all our higher functions, including knowledge, will and love. Our soul is neither male nor female. It is that which never dies, even when its four outer sheaths change form and perish as they naturally do. The soul body has a form just as the astral body has a form, but it is more refined and is of a more permanent nature. It is this body which reincarnates, creating around itself new physical and astral bodies, life after life after life. This process matures and develops the body of the soul. The body of the soul is pure light, made of quantums. It is indestructible. It cannot be hurt or damaged in any way. It is a pure being, created by God, maturing its way to Him in final merger. The body of the soul is constant radiance. Its mind is superconsciousness, containing all intelligence, and is constantly aware, does not sleep and is expanding awareness as the soul body matures. The body of the soul lives in the eternity of the moment, simultaneously conscious of past and future as a one cycle. The true nature, everlasting secure personal identity, is realizing oneself as the soul body. This is truly finding our roots, our source, our indestructible, ever-maturing soul. More here: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1999/9/1999-9-11.shtml
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's a question for you; what reincarnates? "I" do. As long as there exists something that can identify with the concept of "I," there is something that exists that can identify with the concept of it reincarnating. If one jumps that hurdle, who the fuck cares? If one doesn't, who the fuck cares? And if someone/something still exists that gives a fuck, who really cares what it thinks. Really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Here's a question for you; what reincarnates? --- On Sun, 11/30/08, James F. Newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: James F. Newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 1:44 PM > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, humans are far from the only animal that > decodes > > nerve impulses into images. If you're going to use > the > > fact that humans do so as an argument for > reincarnation, > > you have to include all animals that do so as > candidates > > for reincarnation. > > Jim::: Good questions. Yes, I do include the animals. In > fact, an > animal which sees images is functioning at a level much > higher than > our best supercomputers. One of the puzzles is how animals > can be such > geniuses at the decoding of nerve impulses level, yet not > be very > intelligent as they exist in the world. > > > Auth::: Second, don't all the senses use some version > of this > > process? It isn't just vision, right? > > Jim::: You are right. I use images because it makes the > discussion > clearer in some ways. But the same applies to any complex > percept, > such as sound, odor, touch, emotion. I even include > meaning, which we > perceive in our minds, but which is subtler than the > sensory input, > > > > Auth::: Third, what happens when you trace this development > > back in time? Does every species of animal start out > > virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals > > have reincarnated enough times to have learned how > > to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a > > major obstacle to survival at the beginning. > > Jim:::There might be some interplanetary reincarnation when > an > intelligent species has a nuclear or germ warfare war. But > aside from > that, it would, it seems, have to start with a single cell. > What > exactly a beginner consciousness would experiment > interpreting the > chemical flows of a single cell, I don't know. But > single cells do > respond to stimuli with simple behaviors. Where the actual > starting > point is, I don't know. Perhaps consciousness starts > with just > detecting the movements of a few molecules. How > consciousness gets > those seeds started, I don't know. > > Jim > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
> ++ On being concerned with the past-it would probably be well to live> in the present as they say. > In school,we generally do one grade at a time and move on. > Too much concern for the past would be a distraction it seems. You are mixing up fields of knowledge. Living in the present is a physiological principle, testing people's claims for their accuracy concerning the validity of their past lives is an epistemological issue for people who want to separate fantasy from something with broad implications for humanity. And the analogy of school is absurd. In every field of knowledge I have ever studied I constantly go back to refresh basic principles. I am not advocating being "too much concerned with the past" whatever that means. It is a question of applying all our human cognitive tools to separate fact from fantasy. Doesn't that concern you also? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > > > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > > > having turned blue, or something. > > > > > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > > > > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > > > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > > > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. > > > > Nice one E D (hey wait a minute, Viagra has already claimed those > > initials!) Anyway interesting points on a great thread. I think that > > the claims of reincarnation are provable. There are all sorts of > > details that someone could give concerning the technologies of the day > > that might be verified by going to a museum and having the person show > > us some stuff that we didn't know about some of the objects there. Or > > they could remember how to speak in another language or dialect. > > > > What strikes me about people who put a lot of stock in reincarnation > > is that they seem pretty uninterested in finding out if their memory > > is real. There seems to be a tendency to take it at face value that > > if you have a detailed memory of a past life that this is enough. > > People who write historical novels might be able to offer an > > alternative explanation. > > > > As far as proving enlightenment: I still hold out the hope that it > > would give a person some special something something. So far it seems > > that the abilities can be mimicked by anyone who can smile a lot and > > speak in "all this is that" hypnotic language patterns for an extended > > period. That's why I am reserving enthusiasm for these states. I > > mean, I already got the memo that all humanity is one family. We all > > came from Africa. Until I see something unique (which was always a BIG > > part of Maharishi's promise package) I'll assume that the time spent > > in spiritual practices are just because they are fun in themselves...I > > mean for people who don't have a bunch of new songs to learn. > > > snip > ++ On being concerned with the past-it would probably be well to live > in the present as they say. > In school,we generally do one grade at a time and move on. > Too much concern for the past would be a distraction it seems. N. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
To also keep the record straight, diversity is a wonderful research tool. For example, there is a Dutch school of mathematics that only accepts mathematical deduction, and unlike other schools of mathematics, rejects the use of mathematical induction. By limiting their focus, they discover things they probably wouldn't have discovered if they had allowed induction. In the long run, of course, all the different schools of thought can put their various different discoveries together. So if Stu wants to be dogmatic about the brain-only hypothesis, that is OK. Brain-only neurologists are, for example, making many valuable discoveries. The only thing that would be a problem would be if the brain-only school of thought did not allow consciousness oriented scientists to do research. In the end, we will all put our various discoveries together. There is something highly important about the neurological research. Because consciousness and the brain exchange energy, the field of consciousness, whatever it is, should be related in some way to the physical fields - gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, dark energy. If we could find out the nerve impulse patterns which go with certain qualia, that would give us a set of formulas on how consciousness is related to those physical fields. Probably, that would provide some perhaps small but additional variables in equations that scientists hope to find which would describe why elementary particles have the masses they do, and other matters. So whether I agree with him or not, I am happy to see Stu follow any set of principles in his thinking he wants to, as we may get some new discoveries from him due especially to his particular set of principles. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall > > > > past lives and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise > > > > individual, it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road > > > trip after he told me all about how my personality > > > will live forever in heaven reunited with my family. > > > > > > People who recall past lives have predictable results > > > to source monitoring tests. > > > > > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > > > > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" > > > predilections of the mind. > > > > Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical > > reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't > > believe in stuff that others took as a given the first > > time they were told about it :-), > > Just to keep the record straight, the only person > who has come anywhere near treating Stu "like a > peon" is Nelson, in what Barry quotes above. > > "Like a peon" is a rather odd characterization; a > "peon" is "2: a member of the landless laboring class > in Spanish America; 3: a: a person held in compulsory > servitude to a master for the working out of an > indebtedness; b: DRUDGE, MENIAL," according to Mr. > Dictionary. I guess we can assume Barry's using it > to mean treating Stu with a lack of respect. > > In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would > appear that the only person treating others with a > lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: > > "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, > probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new > age literature." > > Nelson's comment was in response to the above. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > > having turned blue, or something. > > > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. > > Nice one E D (hey wait a minute, Viagra has already claimed those > initials!) Anyway interesting points on a great thread. I think that > the claims of reincarnation are provable. There are all sorts of > details that someone could give concerning the technologies of the day > that might be verified by going to a museum and having the person show > us some stuff that we didn't know about some of the objects there. Or > they could remember how to speak in another language or dialect. > > What strikes me about people who put a lot of stock in reincarnation > is that they seem pretty uninterested in finding out if their memory > is real. There seems to be a tendency to take it at face value that > if you have a detailed memory of a past life that this is enough. > People who write historical novels might be able to offer an > alternative explanation. > > As far as proving enlightenment: I still hold out the hope that it > would give a person some special something something. So far it seems > that the abilities can be mimicked by anyone who can smile a lot and > speak in "all this is that" hypnotic language patterns for an extended > period. That's why I am reserving enthusiasm for these states. I > mean, I already got the memo that all humanity is one family. We all > came from Africa. Until I see something unique (which was always a BIG > part of Maharishi's promise package) I'll assume that the time spent > in spiritual practices are just because they are fun in themselves...I > mean for people who don't have a bunch of new songs to learn. > snip ++ On being concerned with the past-it would probably be well to live in the present as they say. In school,we generally do one grade at a time and move on. Too much concern for the past would be a distraction it seems. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
According to Einstein, time acts mathematically like a spatial dimension, so if one rotates a graph of all of them, they will project shrinking and growing distances in a mathematically connected way. Of course, time seems a little different from a spatial dimension, even though it acts like a spatial dimension mathematically. Some physicists, by the way, are suggesting that there are more than one time dimensions. I don't know whether or not they are correct. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti18411" > wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that the subject of reincarnation cannot be separated > > from what you think is true about the nature of time and the personal > > self.As far as what we call time is concerned the separation between > > past,present and future is actually an illusion or at least Einstein > > thought so. > > I am not sure Einstein suggested time was an illusion. I am no > physicist but I believe his theory was about space/time and its very > real effect on matter. > > The illusion was time as an absolute. But other's on this group may be > able to correct me. > > I do know Einstein was a strong believer in determinism and the > philosophy of Spinoza which comes really close to Eastern theology. > > > >It's hard to think of an individual reincarnating if all > > his/her lifetimes are happening simultaneously.Also is there a > > personal self that exists independent of it's parts e.g the body? > > I don't think so. I used to. I have quite literally come to my senses. > I am convinced we develop the self. The body makes the necessary > conditions for consciousness and consciousness thrives until the body > can no longer support it. > > To test this theory drink a 5th of Jack Daniels and see if any other > "selves" come to replace the consciousness now nested in the alcohol > infused body. > > >OTOH > > I think that there can exist a connection between material entities > > e.g different beings who exist at different points in space-time(see > > Dean Radin "Entangled Minds" and " 20 Cases Suggestive of > > Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson(whose work actually got some favorable > > comments from Carl Sagan in his book the Demon Haunted World)Just my > > two cents about a topic which I doubt there ever will be universal > > agreement.Kevin > > > > Isn't this world enough? > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone has different circumstance, age,experience, > etc. and see things differently and as a thought for > Judy, instead of pointing out someone was a dunce, > wouldn't it have more impact if they discover it on > their own? Sure. Question is, how much damage are they going to do in the meantime? I mean, would you let your 10-year-old try to drive your car and find out for herself that she isn't up to it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > First, humans are far from the only animal that > > decodes nerve impulses into images. If you're > > going to use the fact that humans do so as an > > argument for reincarnation, you have to include > > all animals that do so as candidates for > > reincarnation. > > Jim::: Good questions. Yes, I do include the animals. > In fact, an animal which sees images is functioning > at a level much higher than our best supercomputers. > One of the puzzles is how animals can be such > geniuses at the decoding of nerve impulses level, yet > not be very intelligent as they exist in the world. Wouldn't this suggest, in the Occam's razor sense, that it isn't a matter of genius in the first place? I have a lot more problems with the idea of nonhuman animals reincarnating than I do with humans. Does the animal soul stick with one species birth after birth? If not, is the "code" the same from species to species? Many nonhuman animals have certain senses that are far more highly developed than those of humans. > Auth::: Third, what happens when you trace this development > > back in time? Does every species of animal start out > > virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals > > have reincarnated enough times to have learned how > > to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a > > major obstacle to survival at the beginning. > > Jim:::There might be some interplanetary reincarnation > when an intelligent species has a nuclear or germ > warfare war. But aside from that, it would, it seems, > have to start with a single cell. What exactly a > beginner consciousness would experiment interpreting > the chemical flows of a single cell, I don't know. But > single cells do respond to stimuli with simple > behaviors. Where the actual starting point is, I don't > know. Perhaps consciousness starts with just detecting > the movements of a few molecules. How consciousness > gets those seeds started, I don't know. It sounds to me as if what you're describing is *biological* evolution, not spiritual evolution via reincarnation. Did the earliest humans have trouble decoding sensory nerve impulses because they hadn't had enough births yet to learn how? If so, how did they manage to survive as a species? Bottom line for me is (as I think you mentioned in one post) that we don't understand even basic, everyday consciousness yet. We don't understand what awareness is or how we have it, let alone awareness of awareness (self-consciousness). Until we've gotten a handle on that, I don't see how we're ever going to have a clue about the possible mechanics of reincarnation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our ability to discern sensory data is hardwired. Looking at the > evolution of vision it is clear that sentient being at first could only > discern slight light and shadow. As the process evolved the visual > system becomes better. > > The breakdown of the visual field happens in 30 some parts of the brain. > The analysis is augmented by memory and basic attributes. For example, > we have a part of the brain specialized in "reading" faces. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231623.htm Jim:::That is certainly true about the brain. The information processes of the brain which are hard wired are highly sophisticated, as is not surprising after so many hundreds of millions of years of evolution as a multi-celled animal. However, even though it is so sophisticated, the product of the brain's information processing is still a pattern of nerve impulses. And the nerve impulses in the pattern are not in direct contact with one another, so they are not really integrated. Any final integration must be done from the outside. What I am saying is that consciousness is some kind of field different from gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force and perhaps different from dark energy -- which does the final integration of the bits of information carried by the nerve impulses. But because so many nerve impulses are involved in a single image, and the decoding is so quick, the level of function is very high. > Stu::: This is not learned, or passed down from past lives. Templates of > visual references are stored in the DNA. There is no need to assume you > learned this in a past life. If you did, you didn't learn very well. > The visual system sucks and is full of flaws. We make mistakes all the > time. Jim:::Again, I am not saying that the brain part of the information processing comes down from past lives. I am saying that the consciousness part does. Stu::: Making this jump suggests to me you have a purely irrational belief on > past lives, probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new age > literature. You are going out of your way to rationalize it. > > Better to just take the belief on faith, admit its a superstition that > gives you solace against death, and leave it at that. Jim:::There is no way you can know whether it is a jump or not, because from what you have said, you still don't understand my data and logic. Timewise, some of the theory of consciousness parts came first, and reincarnation only came out of the data and logic later on. Reincarnation is more a nightmare than a comfort. Given the distribution of poverty in the world, I am more likely to be born into a family on the edge than into a family with a pleasant standard of living. I could well end up in a famine, or war, or tortured. Then, even for people with a good standard of living, life often becomes a nightmare when there is a painful illness, or someone you love dies. Jim
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof > > of consciousness, in > > > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > > > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > > > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > > > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of > > consciousness necessarily, > > > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore > proof > > > of reincarnation? > > > > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn > something > > new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn > > another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > > impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new > > language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of > > seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have > had > > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > you assume that the link between the discrete nerve impulses and the > bundling of such impulses into higher order abstraction is a skill, > whereas i see it as an integrated function that occurs simply > because of all of the additional complex machinery that our human > brain has. > > in other words, the sophistication of our consciousness is nothing > more than a correlate to the sophistication of the physical > processes that the construction of our brain makes avaialble to us, > vs. say a giraffe's. > > so there really is no learning of a skill, per se. the skill comes > later when we learn to associate language with objects, and > categorize objects in order to share and learn. > > i think there is a deep seated need for most of us to understand > what comes after the death of our bodies. someone i know says that > is the basis for all religions. nonetheless we cannot know, because > anything anyone tells us is secondhand at best, regardless of > the "proof". > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > having turned blue, or something. > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. > ++ I would agree with this observation and, would say that I am satisfied with being a believer due to personal experience and observation. It would be difficult to convince someone that was very young that the earth is round when they can see that is obviously flat (to them) but, as time passes,and more knowledge and experience is gained, the earth becomes round. Everyone has different circumstance, age,experience, etc. and see things differently and as a thought for Judy, instead of pointing out someone was a dunce, wouldn't it have more impact if they discover it on their own? N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Notice that single cells often can detect light, although they tend to be especially sensitive to chemicals in the water they live in. White blood cells, also single cells, can track down, identify and eat, bacteria, which has to involve some moderately developed sensory abilities. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Scientists have traced out the ancestor of all animals, which is the Sponge that live deep oceans. It has no eyes, ears, nose or tongue.! It survives by filtering out the organic material that is present in the water as it runs though it. > > Scientist also say that eyes evolved several times in the evolutionary history. Senses evolved as it gave advantage in survival over other organisms. > > Still, Organisms that live deep dark ocean depths where there is no light are blind as they have no use for eyes. So are the Organisms that live in sealed underground caves for millions of years, they lose sight as it has no need for it. > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation > Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 1:19 PM > > Three things occur to me (BTW, I lean toward the idea > of reincarnation) . > > First, humans are far from the only animal that decodes > nerve impulses into images. If you're going to use the > fact that humans do so as an argument for reincarnation, > you have to include all animals that do so as candidates > for reincarnation. > > Second, don't all the senses use some version of this > process? It isn't just vision, right? > > Third, what happens when you trace this development > back in time? Does every species of animal start out > virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals > have reincarnated enough times to have learned how > to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a > major obstacle to survival at the beginning. > > * > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, humans are far from the only animal that decodes > nerve impulses into images. If you're going to use the > fact that humans do so as an argument for reincarnation, > you have to include all animals that do so as candidates > for reincarnation. Jim::: Good questions. Yes, I do include the animals. In fact, an animal which sees images is functioning at a level much higher than our best supercomputers. One of the puzzles is how animals can be such geniuses at the decoding of nerve impulses level, yet not be very intelligent as they exist in the world. > Auth::: Second, don't all the senses use some version of this > process? It isn't just vision, right? Jim::: You are right. I use images because it makes the discussion clearer in some ways. But the same applies to any complex percept, such as sound, odor, touch, emotion. I even include meaning, which we perceive in our minds, but which is subtler than the sensory input, > Auth::: Third, what happens when you trace this development > back in time? Does every species of animal start out > virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals > have reincarnated enough times to have learned how > to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a > major obstacle to survival at the beginning. Jim:::There might be some interplanetary reincarnation when an intelligent species has a nuclear or germ warfare war. But aside from that, it would, it seems, have to start with a single cell. What exactly a beginner consciousness would experiment interpreting the chemical flows of a single cell, I don't know. But single cells do respond to stimuli with simple behaviors. Where the actual starting point is, I don't know. Perhaps consciousness starts with just detecting the movements of a few molecules. How consciousness gets those seeds started, I don't know. Jim >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
> it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > having turned blue, or something. > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. Nice one E D (hey wait a minute, Viagra has already claimed those initials!) Anyway interesting points on a great thread. I think that the claims of reincarnation are provable. There are all sorts of details that someone could give concerning the technologies of the day that might be verified by going to a museum and having the person show us some stuff that we didn't know about some of the objects there. Or they could remember how to speak in another language or dialect. What strikes me about people who put a lot of stock in reincarnation is that they seem pretty uninterested in finding out if their memory is real. There seems to be a tendency to take it at face value that if you have a detailed memory of a past life that this is enough. People who write historical novels might be able to offer an alternative explanation. As far as proving enlightenment: I still hold out the hope that it would give a person some special something something. So far it seems that the abilities can be mimicked by anyone who can smile a lot and speak in "all this is that" hypnotic language patterns for an extended period. That's why I am reserving enthusiasm for these states. I mean, I already got the memo that all humanity is one family. We all came from Africa. Until I see something unique (which was always a BIG part of Maharishi's promise package) I'll assume that the time spent in spiritual practices are just because they are fun in themselves...I mean for people who don't have a bunch of new songs to learn. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof > > of consciousness, in > > > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > > > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > > > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > > > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of > > consciousness necessarily, > > > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore > proof > > > of reincarnation? > > > > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn > something > > new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn > > another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > > impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new > > language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of > > seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have > had > > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > you assume that the link between the discrete nerve impulses and the > bundling of such impulses into higher order abstraction is a skill, > whereas i see it as an integrated function that occurs simply > because of all of the additional complex machinery that our human > brain has. > > in other words, the sophistication of our consciousness is nothing > more than a correlate to the sophistication of the physical > processes that the construction of our brain makes avaialble to us, > vs. say a giraffe's. > > so there really is no learning of a skill, per se. the skill comes > later when we learn to associate language with objects, and > categorize objects in order to share and learn. > > i think there is a deep seated need for most of us to understand > what comes after the death of our bodies. someone i know says that > is the basis for all religions. nonetheless we cannot know, because > anything anyone tells us is secondhand at best, regardless of > the "proof". > > it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be > enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb > having turned blue, or something. > > same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. > > so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as > challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever > convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall past lives > > > and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise individual, > > > it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road trip after he > > told me all about how my personality will live forever in heaven > > reunited with my family. > > > > People who recall past lives have predictable results to source > > monitoring tests. > > > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections of > > the mind. > > Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical > reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't > believe in stuff that others took as a given the first > time they were told about it :-), "past lives" may or > may not be a fantasy. > > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. > > Please present some that hinted at the statement you > make above. As far as I know, there is simply no > consistent evidence that people who claim to remember > past lives can "remember" certain details about those > lives consistently. The same is true of people trying > to remember details that didn't stick in their minds > about *this* life. > > > Its not even a cross-cultural myth. > > Nope. The religious memes come first, and then any > personal feelings about those memes are "grafted > on" to the religious memes to make them seem more > "true." This is certainly the case with regard to > the Hindu beliefs in reincarnation. They were seen > as reinforcing the very human attempt to keep those > in power in power forever via the caste system. > > For myself, even though I have clear memories of > both some fragments of past lives that have been > "verified" to my satisfaction (being able to describe > to friends what they will find in the next room in > buildings that none of us have ever been to in this > life, etc.) and of journeys through the Bardo from > life to life, and thus *tend* to believe in past > lives, it doesn't really matter a damn to me. When > I die, whatever happens will happen, no matter what > I choose to believe about it. Same for you. > > As I said once to enlightened_dawn, it's like Pascal's > Wager to me -- a bet. I'm betting that a bit of sup- > posed knowledge from Tibetan traditions may be useful > to me during the transition from death to rebirth. If > that doesn't happen, and everything just fades to > black, it's no sweat off my balls; I won't even know > that it happened. There will just be black, and I > won't even be around to know that it happened. -snip- whether your balls are sweaty or not, there won't even be a fade to black. there will just be a loss of consciousness, after which all memories, hopes, desires, fears, and enjoyments that are you, will forever vanish, never to be incarnated again. that is all we know for certain. the rest is just a hopeful story, even the assumption that everything will fade into black. there won't even be black after the fade.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof > of consciousness, in > > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of > consciousness necessarily, > > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore proof > > of reincarnation? > > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn something > new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn > another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new > language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of > seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have had > the time to learn such an advanced skill? you assume that the link between the discrete nerve impulses and the bundling of such impulses into higher order abstraction is a skill, whereas i see it as an integrated function that occurs simply because of all of the additional complex machinery that our human brain has. in other words, the sophistication of our consciousness is nothing more than a correlate to the sophistication of the physical processes that the construction of our brain makes avaialble to us, vs. say a giraffe's. so there really is no learning of a skill, per se. the skill comes later when we learn to associate language with objects, and categorize objects in order to share and learn. i think there is a deep seated need for most of us to understand what comes after the death of our bodies. someone i know says that is the basis for all religions. nonetheless we cannot know, because anything anyone tells us is secondhand at best, regardless of the "proof". it is a similar problem for us humans when someone is said to be enlightened-- there is no verifiable proof, like their left thumb having turned blue, or something. same with reincarnation. no way to ever prove it. so those who insist they are a product of reincarnation are as challenged as those who speak about enlightenment. can they ever convince someone else of this so called reality? i doubt it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall > > > > > past lives and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > > > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise > > > > > individual, it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road > > > > trip after he told me all about how my personality > > > > will live forever in heaven reunited with my family. > > > > > > > > People who recall past lives have predictable results > > > > to source monitoring tests. > > > > > > > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > > > > > > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" > > > > predilections of the mind. > > > > > > Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical > > > reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't > > > believe in stuff that others took as a given the first > > > time they were told about it :-), > > > > Just to keep the record straight, the only person > > who has come anywhere near treating Stu "like a > > peon" is Nelson, in what Barry quotes above. > > > > "Like a peon" is a rather odd characterization; a > > "peon" is "2: a member of the landless laboring class > > in Spanish America; 3: a: a person held in compulsory > > servitude to a master for the working out of an > > indebtedness; b: DRUDGE, MENIAL," according to Mr. > > Dictionary. I guess we can assume Barry's using it > > to mean treating Stu with a lack of respect. > > > > In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would > > appear that the only person treating others with a > > lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: > > > > "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, > > probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new > > age literature." > > > > Nelson's comment was in response to the above. > > > ++ I had not meant to belittle anyone and, to anyone > who saw it that way, I apologize. > I observed that the poster was well qualified to > keep on with research on the subject and, might modify > his outlook in time. Noted. I was actually trying to give Barry the benefit of the doubt. I think many of Stu's skeptical comments have been quite overtly disrespectful, whereas yours was mild by comparison, even if it was misunderstood as a bit of return fire. I don't have any particular beef with Stu's comments. My point was Barry's misrepresentation, portraying Stu as besieged by putdowns from those who purportedly swallowed the reincarnation idea whole on first hearing. Not only was Stu not besieged by putdowns, it's not clear that anyone here who believes in reincarnation accepted it as fact the first time they heard about it. Barry simply made all that up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall > > > > past lives and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise > > > > individual, it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road > > > trip after he told me all about how my personality > > > will live forever in heaven reunited with my family. > > > > > > People who recall past lives have predictable results > > > to source monitoring tests. > > > > > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > > > > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" > > > predilections of the mind. > > > > Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical > > reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't > > believe in stuff that others took as a given the first > > time they were told about it :-), > > Just to keep the record straight, the only person > who has come anywhere near treating Stu "like a > peon" is Nelson, in what Barry quotes above. > > "Like a peon" is a rather odd characterization; a > "peon" is "2: a member of the landless laboring class > in Spanish America; 3: a: a person held in compulsory > servitude to a master for the working out of an > indebtedness; b: DRUDGE, MENIAL," according to Mr. > Dictionary. I guess we can assume Barry's using it > to mean treating Stu with a lack of respect. > > In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would > appear that the only person treating others with a > lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: > > "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, > probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new > age literature." > > Nelson's comment was in response to the above. > ++ I had not meant to belittle anyone and, to anyone who saw it that way, I apologize. I observed that the poster was well qualified to keep on with research on the subject and, might modify his outlook in time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall > > > past lives and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise > > > individual, it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road > > trip after he told me all about how my personality > > will live forever in heaven reunited with my family. > > > > People who recall past lives have predictable results > > to source monitoring tests. > > > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" > > predilections of the mind. > > Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical > reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't > believe in stuff that others took as a given the first > time they were told about it :-), Just to keep the record straight, the only person who has come anywhere near treating Stu "like a peon" is Nelson, in what Barry quotes above. "Like a peon" is a rather odd characterization; a "peon" is "2: a member of the landless laboring class in Spanish America; 3: a: a person held in compulsory servitude to a master for the working out of an indebtedness; b: DRUDGE, MENIAL," according to Mr. Dictionary. I guess we can assume Barry's using it to mean treating Stu with a lack of respect. In fact, other than Nelson's brief comment, it would appear that the only person treating others with a lack of respect has been Stu, e.g.: "...you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new age literature." Nelson's comment was in response to the above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
   Scientists have traced out the ancestor of all animals, which is the Sponge that live deep oceans. It has no eyes, ears, nose or tongue.! It survives by filtering out the organic material that is present in the water as it runs though it.  Scientist also say that eyes evolved several times in the evolutionary history. Senses evolved as it gave advantage in survival over other organisms.  Still, Organisms that live deep dark ocean depths where there is no light are blind as they have no use for eyes. So are the Organisms that live in sealed underground caves for millions of years, they lose sight as it has no need for it. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 1:19 PM  Three things occur to me (BTW, I lean toward the idea of reincarnation) . First, humans are far from the only animal that decodes nerve impulses into images. If you're going to use the fact that humans do so as an argument for reincarnation, you have to include all animals that do so as candidates for reincarnation. Second, don't all the senses use some version of this process? It isn't just vision, right? Third, what happens when you trace this development back in time? Does every species of animal start out virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals have reincarnated enough times to have learned how to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a major obstacle to survival at the beginning. * Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall past lives > > and, others to whom it has become obvious. > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise individual, > > it will become obvious to you. N. > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road trip after he > told me all about how my personality will live forever in heaven > reunited with my family. > > People who recall past lives have predictable results to source > monitoring tests. > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections of > the mind. Stu, as much as I'm enjoying your hard-core skeptical reaction to being treated like a peon because you don't believe in stuff that others took as a given the first time they were told about it :-), "past lives" may or may not be a fantasy. > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. Please present some that hinted at the statement you make above. As far as I know, there is simply no consistent evidence that people who claim to remember past lives can "remember" certain details about those lives consistently. The same is true of people trying to remember details that didn't stick in their minds about *this* life. > Its not even a cross-cultural myth. Nope. The religious memes come first, and then any personal feelings about those memes are "grafted on" to the religious memes to make them seem more "true." This is certainly the case with regard to the Hindu beliefs in reincarnation. They were seen as reinforcing the very human attempt to keep those in power in power forever via the caste system. For myself, even though I have clear memories of both some fragments of past lives that have been "verified" to my satisfaction (being able to describe to friends what they will find in the next room in buildings that none of us have ever been to in this life, etc.) and of journeys through the Bardo from life to life, and thus *tend* to believe in past lives, it doesn't really matter a damn to me. When I die, whatever happens will happen, no matter what I choose to believe about it. Same for you. As I said once to enlightened_dawn, it's like Pascal's Wager to me -- a bet. I'm betting that a bit of sup- posed knowledge from Tibetan traditions may be useful to me during the transition from death to rebirth. If that doesn't happen, and everything just fades to black, it's no sweat off my balls; I won't even know that it happened. There will just be black, and I won't even be around to know that it happened. However, if consciousness of a sort does continue, and it resembles both my "memories" of the Bardo and the rather detailed descriptions of the Bardo experience in Tibetan tradition, I'll have a clue as to what is happening and how to not get all freaked out by it. So I'm betting on the Bardo as a real description of a real experience. But as a "bet," I'm covered either way. If I "lose" and there is only blackness, there is no down side. If I "win" and my consciousness continues, there is no down side. So I don't see any down side to the belief. The essential part of belief in life after death, however, is that it's IRRELEVANT. The only thing that matters -- on any level -- is how you live your life today, here and now. In all systems that believe in reincarnation and in all systems that believe in "nothing but blackness," that is a given. Or it should be, if people aren't using belief in "I can do it later" as an excuse for not doing it today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti18411" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me that the subject of reincarnation cannot be separated > from what you think is true about the nature of time and the personal > self.As far as what we call time is concerned the separation between > past,present and future is actually an illusion or at least Einstein > thought so. I am not sure Einstein suggested time was an illusion. I am no physicist but I believe his theory was about space/time and its very real effect on matter. The illusion was time as an absolute. But other's on this group may be able to correct me. I do know Einstein was a strong believer in determinism and the philosophy of Spinoza which comes really close to Eastern theology. >It's hard to think of an individual reincarnating if all > his/her lifetimes are happening simultaneously.Also is there a > personal self that exists independent of it's parts e.g the body? I don't think so. I used to. I have quite literally come to my senses. I am convinced we develop the self. The body makes the necessary conditions for consciousness and consciousness thrives until the body can no longer support it. To test this theory drink a 5th of Jack Daniels and see if any other "selves" come to replace the consciousness now nested in the alcohol infused body. >OTOH > I think that there can exist a connection between material entities > e.g different beings who exist at different points in space-time(see > Dean Radin "Entangled Minds" and " 20 Cases Suggestive of > Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson(whose work actually got some favorable > comments from Carl Sagan in his book the Demon Haunted World)Just my > two cents about a topic which I doubt there ever will be universal > agreement.Kevin > Isn't this world enough? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
> > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road trip after he > told me all about how my personality will live forever in heaven > reunited with my family. > > People who recall past lives have predictable results to source > monitoring tests. > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections of the mind. > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. Its not even > a cross-cultural myth. It seems to me that the subject of reincarnation cannot be separated from what you think is true about the nature of time and the personal self.As far as what we call time is concerned the separation between past,present and future is actually an illusion or at least Einstein thought so.It's hard to think of an individual reincarnating if all his/her lifetimes are happening simultaneously.Also is there a personal self that exists independent of it's parts e.g the body?OTOH I think that there can exist a connection between material entities e.g different beings who exist at different points in space-time(see Dean Radin "Entangled Minds" and " 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson(whose work actually got some favorable comments from Carl Sagan in his book the Demon Haunted World)Just my two cents about a topic which I doubt there ever will be universal agreement.Kevin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Thanks for keeping up the good work Stu. Your posts make me feel sane. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall past lives and, > > others to whom it has become obvious. > > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise individual, > > it will become obvious to you. N. > > > > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road trip after he > told me all about how my personality will live forever in heaven > reunited with my family. > > People who recall past lives have predictable results to source > monitoring tests. > > http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html > > Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections of the mind. > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. Its not even > a cross-cultural myth. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ++ This doesn't play well with the people who recall past lives and, > others to whom it has become obvious. > Give it some time and keep looking and, being a wise individual, > it will become obvious to you. N. > I had a Mormon tell me the same thing on a long road trip after he told me all about how my personality will live forever in heaven reunited with my family. People who recall past lives have predictable results to source monitoring tests. http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html Past lives are as fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections of the mind. There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. Its not even a cross-cultural myth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Subjective images are not at all like the patterns of nerve impulses > that the brain uses as its computer-like codes for the images. Nerve > impulses don't have colors, for example, and the shapes of the > patterns in the brain are physically different from the shapes of the > various parts of the images. Actually, while nerve impulses don't have color, there are impulses wth a 1 for 1 coorespondance with color coming out of the eye. Likewise, even after going through the hypothalimus, the initial visual image coming into the Visual ARa I retains a remarkably "image'like quality" to it allowing for the wrinkled nature of the "projection screen" (the visual cortex). Once the processing ofthe data stars in the cortex, it becomes less and less visual like, although, miraculousy, when the processed visual data is merged with the raw data in the hypothaimus, it somehow manages to keep enough vision-like character for it to be acceptable to the V 1 receptors. Furthermore, the brain could not produce > an actual image like those we see because the information in a > subjective image is integrated to a single point of awareness, but a > nerve impulse cannot be an integration point for a whole lot of > information, because it is an all or nothing single impulse that > cannot contain the complexity of a complicated image. Why do you believe that our awareness is of a single point? Certainly, my experience isn't like that... One cannot > squeeze an image into a single dot, and still have the image, which is > all a single nerve impulse could do, even if one were programmed to do > that. > > So the decoding of nerve impulse patterns into images must be done by > a consciousness which transcends the physical brain. By consciousness > I mean both the part of consciousness we are aware of and the > unconscious part of consciousness which transcends the brain. > Assuming there is such, but what makes you certain there is? > The the crucial point is that decoding nerve impulse patterns into > images requires great skill. The nerve impulse patterns have many > thousands of nerve impulses for a single fairly simple image. The > pattern is not compact, but rather there are extraneous nerve impulses > here and there within it which aren't supposed to be part of the > pattern. All nerve impulses are the same. A nerve impulse coding for a > bit of red is the same as the nerve impulse coding for a bit of blue, > for example. > Aside from coming in from different nerves... > Finally, our minds decode a nerve impulse pattern into the right image > in a fraction of a second. That level of skill is beyond the level of > the most powerful supercomputer that has ever been built. > > So much skill couldn't be learned by a baby in a few weeks. Where, > therefore, did the skill come from? > > It must have been learned over a large number of previous lifetimes, > starting with decoding a very simple brain, and then working up. Since > our level of skill at decoding nerve impulse patterns into images must > have been built up over so many past reincarnations, reincarnation is > a very vigorous natural process. Such a vigorous process can be > expected to occur in the future. > > There are some interesting implications, but I think I will wait to > discuss them until people have had time to think about the above long > enough to evaluate it. Some hold that DNA itself is the equivalent of past-life encoding, but like most of these topics, its a matter of interpretation to perceive what you want to to arrive at with this kind of conclusion (IMHO). L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Subjective images are not at all like the patterns of nerve impulses > that the brain uses as its computer-like codes for the images. Nerve > impulses don't have colors, for example, and the shapes of the > patterns in the brain are physically different from the shapes of the > various parts of the images. Furthermore, the brain could not produce > an actual image like those we see because the information in a > subjective image is integrated to a single point of awareness, but a > nerve impulse cannot be an integration point for a whole lot of > information, because it is an all or nothing single impulse that > cannot contain the complexity of a complicated image. One cannot > squeeze an image into a single dot, and still have the image, which is > all a single nerve impulse could do, even if one were programmed to do > that. > Well, *draSTaa* *dRshi*-maatraH shuddho 'pi pratyaya-*anupashyaH*. -- YS II 20
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > no_reply@ wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof > > of consciousness, in > > > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > > > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > > > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > > > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of > > consciousness necessarily, > > > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore proof > > > of reincarnation? > > > > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn something > > new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn > > another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > > impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new > > language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of > > seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have had > > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > > > To look at this from another direction, consider those hidden figure > > puzzles. Those are simple compared to decoding a pattern of nerve > > impulses. The pattern of nerve impulses is likely to include hundreds > > of thousands of nerve impulses if the pattern is reasonably complex. > > The nerve impulses are embedded in a substantially larger number of > > nerve impulses which are irrelevant. The shapes of the nerve impulse > > patterns in the brain are not the same as the shapes in the image, but > > rather are distortions of those shapes. Some nerve impulses code for > > odd things like edges and diagonals in the image, rather than being > > just a one-to-one array of each light pixel which fell on the retina. > > Color is coded by location of certain nerve impulses, which must be > > distinguished from the color impulses, even though they are all the > > same moving ion flows, so look the same, and are mixed together in > > various ways. I don't see how a consciousness could learn how to do > > this in a short period of time, like within a couple of hours of the > > time a baby is born. > > > > Another way of putting this is, if a baby could learn such a high > > level decoding skill in a few hours at most, why couldn't a baby learn > > something easier like learning a language in a few hours, or learning > > the field of mathematics in a few hours? > > > > E-dawn::: seems to me the ability to interpret the seed material of > > the brain > > > and therefore have consciousness, could be just a result of the sum > > > being greater than its parts. in other words, we get all of this > > > brain soup so to speak, and as a result, conciousness becomes active > > > in order to do all of the subjective processing of the components of > > > the brain soup. > > > > Jim::: You are certainly right about the sum being greater than its > > parts, and that is an area where much research is needed. However, > > this is part of an attempt to understand HOW the sum can actually > > function as something greater. What are the mechanisms/processes > > involved.That is a much harder question. Again, there is much more I > > don't understand than I know. > > > > > E-Dawn::: but i don't see how it follows that this consciousness has > > therefore > > > been a parasitic constant of a stream of ever changing bodies and > > > therefore brains of different individuals through time, and by > > > extension is proof of reincarnation? > > > > Jim:::I wouldn't use the word "parasite". Having a dual information > > processor, brain plus consciousness, would provide a Darwinian > > survival advantage over having just a single processor, a brain. > > > > Jim > > > Our ability to discern sensory data is hardwired. Looking at the > evolution of vision it is clear that sentient being at first could only > discern slight light and shadow. As the process evolved the visual > system becomes better. > > The breakdown of the visual field happens in 30 some parts of the brain. > The analysis is augmented by memory and basic attributes. For example, > we have a part of the brain specialized in "reading" faces. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231623.htm > > This is not learned, or passed down from past lives. Templates of > visual references are stored in the DNA. There is no need to assume you > learned this in a past life. If you did, you didn't learn very well. > The visual system sucks and is full of flaws. We make mistakes all the > time. > > Making this jump suggests to me you have a purely irrational belief on > past lives, probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new age > literature. You are going out of your way to rationalize it. > > Better to just take the belief on faith, admit its a superstition that > gives you solace again
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > no_reply@ wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof > of consciousness, in > > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of > consciousness necessarily, > > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore proof > > of reincarnation? > > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn something > new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn > another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new > language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of > seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have had > the time to learn such an advanced skill? > > To look at this from another direction, consider those hidden figure > puzzles. Those are simple compared to decoding a pattern of nerve > impulses. The pattern of nerve impulses is likely to include hundreds > of thousands of nerve impulses if the pattern is reasonably complex. > The nerve impulses are embedded in a substantially larger number of > nerve impulses which are irrelevant. The shapes of the nerve impulse > patterns in the brain are not the same as the shapes in the image, but > rather are distortions of those shapes. Some nerve impulses code for > odd things like edges and diagonals in the image, rather than being > just a one-to-one array of each light pixel which fell on the retina. > Color is coded by location of certain nerve impulses, which must be > distinguished from the color impulses, even though they are all the > same moving ion flows, so look the same, and are mixed together in > various ways. I don't see how a consciousness could learn how to do > this in a short period of time, like within a couple of hours of the > time a baby is born. > > Another way of putting this is, if a baby could learn such a high > level decoding skill in a few hours at most, why couldn't a baby learn > something easier like learning a language in a few hours, or learning > the field of mathematics in a few hours? > > E-dawn::: seems to me the ability to interpret the seed material of > the brain > > and therefore have consciousness, could be just a result of the sum > > being greater than its parts. in other words, we get all of this > > brain soup so to speak, and as a result, conciousness becomes active > > in order to do all of the subjective processing of the components of > > the brain soup. > > Jim::: You are certainly right about the sum being greater than its > parts, and that is an area where much research is needed. However, > this is part of an attempt to understand HOW the sum can actually > function as something greater. What are the mechanisms/processes > involved.That is a much harder question. Again, there is much more I > don't understand than I know. > > > E-Dawn::: but i don't see how it follows that this consciousness has > therefore > > been a parasitic constant of a stream of ever changing bodies and > > therefore brains of different individuals through time, and by > > extension is proof of reincarnation? > > Jim:::I wouldn't use the word "parasite". Having a dual information > processor, brain plus consciousness, would provide a Darwinian > survival advantage over having just a single processor, a brain. > > Jim > Our ability to discern sensory data is hardwired. Looking at the evolution of vision it is clear that sentient being at first could only discern slight light and shadow. As the process evolved the visual system becomes better. The breakdown of the visual field happens in 30 some parts of the brain. The analysis is augmented by memory and basic attributes. For example, we have a part of the brain specialized in "reading" faces. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231623.htm This is not learned, or passed down from past lives. Templates of visual references are stored in the DNA. There is no need to assume you learned this in a past life. If you did, you didn't learn very well. The visual system sucks and is full of flaws. We make mistakes all the time. Making this jump suggests to me you have a purely irrational belief on past lives, probably due to indoctrination of this concept by new age literature. You are going out of your way to rationalize it. Better to just take the belief on faith, admit its a superstition that gives you solace against death, and leave it at that. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Per Curtis Delta Blues I will continue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote > There is no solid proof of reincarnation. However there are very > observable brain functions that indicate a "hard wired" proclivit > towards a belief in life after death. > > Jim::: Of course the brain is an information processor. I do not agree with this statement. Jim you are just replacing one myth with another. The brain as an information processor is an extremely dangerous analogy. Better to understand information processors as the result of brains. They are human artifacts. > However, that > doesn't automatically mean that the subjective "projections" of the > results of the brain information processing is also in the brain. By > analogy, we could say that your computer, and other computers, are > processing this Internet message. You would claim, if you used the > same logic, that that means that only your computer, and other > computers, exist, and there is no human Stu involved. The human Stu is > really merely your computer and the other computers. That is not my argument. If you read that in my statements I apologize. > What I am doing, > however, is analyzing what happens to the information after the brain > processes it. > > > > >Stu::: You may be very interested in the October edition of Scientific > > American Mind, an article called, "The End" Why so many of us think > > our minds continue after we die. by Jesse Berling. It gives a solid > > neurological explanation for this irrational line of thought. > > Jim::: The same thing. Just because there might be some brain > processes, doesn't mean that the brain processes are the same as the > subjective meaning. Fundamentally, the scientific community remembers > the burning at the stake of heretics, so they fearfully insist that > only brain activity exists, so that they can keep churches from > becoming powerful again. Actually, a proof of reincarnation would not > strengthen the churches which threaten so-called heretics. Those are radical and bizarre motives to subscribe to the scientific community. I don't deny that the scientific project often has economic and political motivations, but for the most part the point of scientific observation is much aligned with the point of meditating twice a day. To observe what is. To that end it is important to read scientific research with a critical eye, in that many times "science" is used as an apparatus of the corporate state. > > Stu:::(snip) The clock on a beach argument. Developed in the 19th century > > to "prove" there was a creator. How could something as complex as the > > human body exist without an engineer? Its like finding a watch > > without a watchmaker. > > Jim:::That you mentioned this means you did not understand my logical > derivation. I am not saying that consciousness exists because > information processing in the brain is complex. I am saying that a > CERTAIN KIND of information processing involved could not be done by > the brain alone. Why not? By clinging to your computer analogy your are putting severe limitations on the brain. Even our good buddy Dr. Haglin has indicated the possibility of the brain working on a quantum level with processing power far exceeding the sorts of machines we brains make today. > When we see a subjective image, we see a lot of > smallest subjective pixels of the image simultaneously. Each > subjective pixel contains a bit of information. To PERCEIVE all of > them simultaneously means that in awareness, the bits of information > must simultaneously be in contact with one another. If they were not > in contact with one another, then when we were looking at information > bit A, we would not be aware of information bit B, which would be > somewhere else. Now the brain can do all kinds of processing of visual > input, in a mechanistic, computer-like sort of way. But the processing > ends up with a pattern of nerve impulses which are all on separate > nerve fibers, so separate from one another physically. Nerve impulses > separate in space could not be the medium of a subjective image in > which the bits were perceived at the same instant. If we try to force > an integration, by assuming that all the bits of information in the > pattern converge onto a single neuron, so there is a summation value > of either one or zero, that single summation one or zero will have > lost all the differentiation that went into it. So it could not be the > medium of an image in which all the information bits are seen > simultaneously, but still remain differentiated. That is a very left brained analysis of vision. We know the brain operates simultaneously linearly and holistically. In the case of vision the optic nerve breaks into two pathways. The "old" pathway called the seperior colliculus goes to the brain stem. The "new" pathway projects to the v
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to > learn something new. For example, it takes a > considerable amount of time to learn another language, > or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve > impulses into images is much harder than merely > learning a new language or the field of mathematics. > Yet the infant shows signs of seeing images from just > about birth. Where could the infant have had the time > to learn such an advanced skill? Three things occur to me (BTW, I lean toward the idea of reincarnation). First, humans are far from the only animal that decodes nerve impulses into images. If you're going to use the fact that humans do so as an argument for reincarnation, you have to include all animals that do so as candidates for reincarnation. Second, don't all the senses use some version of this process? It isn't just vision, right? Third, what happens when you trace this development back in time? Does every species of animal start out virtually blind, deaf, etc., until its individuals have reincarnated enough times to have learned how to do the decoding? Seems to me this would be a major obstacle to survival at the beginning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof of consciousness, in > other words, consciousness as something that is needed to > subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain > processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible > proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of consciousness necessarily, > extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore proof > of reincarnation? Jim:::I am thinking in terms of how long it takes to learn something new. For example, it takes a considerable amount of time to learn another language, or the field of mathematics. Now decoding nerve impulses into images is much harder than merely learning a new language or the field of mathematics. Yet the infant shows signs of seeing images from just about birth. Where could the infant have had the time to learn such an advanced skill? To look at this from another direction, consider those hidden figure puzzles. Those are simple compared to decoding a pattern of nerve impulses. The pattern of nerve impulses is likely to include hundreds of thousands of nerve impulses if the pattern is reasonably complex. The nerve impulses are embedded in a substantially larger number of nerve impulses which are irrelevant. The shapes of the nerve impulse patterns in the brain are not the same as the shapes in the image, but rather are distortions of those shapes. Some nerve impulses code for odd things like edges and diagonals in the image, rather than being just a one-to-one array of each light pixel which fell on the retina. Color is coded by location of certain nerve impulses, which must be distinguished from the color impulses, even though they are all the same moving ion flows, so look the same, and are mixed together in various ways. I don't see how a consciousness could learn how to do this in a short period of time, like within a couple of hours of the time a baby is born. Another way of putting this is, if a baby could learn such a high level decoding skill in a few hours at most, why couldn't a baby learn something easier like learning a language in a few hours, or learning the field of mathematics in a few hours? E-dawn::: seems to me the ability to interpret the seed material of the brain > and therefore have consciousness, could be just a result of the sum > being greater than its parts. in other words, we get all of this > brain soup so to speak, and as a result, conciousness becomes active > in order to do all of the subjective processing of the components of > the brain soup. Jim::: You are certainly right about the sum being greater than its parts, and that is an area where much research is needed. However, this is part of an attempt to understand HOW the sum can actually function as something greater. What are the mechanisms/processes involved.That is a much harder question. Again, there is much more I don't understand than I know. > E-Dawn::: but i don't see how it follows that this consciousness has therefore > been a parasitic constant of a stream of ever changing bodies and > therefore brains of different individuals through time, and by > extension is proof of reincarnation? Jim:::I wouldn't use the word "parasite". Having a dual information processor, brain plus consciousness, would provide a Darwinian survival advantage over having just a single processor, a brain. Jim
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
Jim, i understand your assumption here as proof of consciousness, in other words, consciousness as something that is needed to subjectively correlate all of the pixelated data that the brain processes. i am ok with what you have said as being a plausible proof of consciousness. however, why is it a continuum of consciousness necessarily, extending beyond the life of a particular brain, and therefore proof of reincarnation? seems to me the ability to interpret the seed material of the brain and therefore have consciousness, could be just a result of the sum being greater than its parts. in other words, we get all of this brain soup so to speak, and as a result, conciousness becomes active in order to do all of the subjective processing of the components of the brain soup. but i don't see how it follows that this consciousness has therefore been a parasitic constant of a stream of ever changing bodies and therefore brains of different individuals through time, and by extension is proof of reincarnation? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote > There is no solid proof of reincarnation. However there are very > observable brain functions that indicate a "hard wired" proclivit > towards a belief in life after death. > > Jim::: Of course the brain is an information processor. However, that > doesn't automatically mean that the subjective "projections" of the > results of the brain information processing is also in the brain. By > analogy, we could say that your computer, and other computers, are > processing this Internet message. You would claim, if you used the > same logic, that that means that only your computer, and other > computers, exist, and there is no human Stu involved. The human Stu is > really merely your computer and the other computers. What I am doing, > however, is analyzing what happens to the information after the brain > processes it. > > > > >Stu::: You may be very interested in the October edition of Scientific > > American Mind, an article called, "The End" Why so many of us think > > our minds continue after we die. by Jesse Berling. It gives a solid > > neurological explanation for this irrational line of thought. > > Jim::: The same thing. Just because there might be some brain > processes, doesn't mean that the brain processes are the same as the > subjective meaning. Fundamentally, the scientific community remembers > the burning at the stake of heretics, so they fearfully insist that > only brain activity exists, so that they can keep churches from > becoming powerful again. Actually, a proof of reincarnation would not > strengthen the churches which threaten so-called heretics. > > Stu:::(snip) The clock on a beach argument. Developed in the 19th century > > to "prove" there was a creator. How could something as complex as the > > human body exist without an engineer? Its like finding a watch > > without a watchmaker. > > Jim:::That you mentioned this means you did not understand my logical > derivation. I am not saying that consciousness exists because > information processing in the brain is complex. I am saying that a > CERTAIN KIND of information processing involved could not be done by > the brain alone. When we see a subjective image, we see a lot of > smallest subjective pixels of the image simultaneously. Each > subjective pixel contains a bit of information. To PERCEIVE all of > them simultaneously means that in awareness, the bits of information > must simultaneously be in contact with one another. If they were not > in contact with one another, then when we were looking at information > bit A, we would not be aware of information bit B, which would be > somewhere else. Now the brain can do all kinds of processing of visual > input, in a mechanistic, computer-like sort of way. But the processing > ends up with a pattern of nerve impulses which are all on separate > nerve fibers, so separate from one another physically. Nerve impulses > separate in space could not be the medium of a subjective image in > which the bits were perceived at the same instant. If we try to force > an integration, by assuming that all the bits of information in the > pattern converge onto a single neuron, so there is a summation value > of either one or zero, that single summation one or zero will have > lost all the differentiation that went into it. So it could not be the > medium of an image in which all the information bits are seen > simultaneously, but still remain differentiated. > > Stu::: Unconscious processes do not transcend the brain. > > Jim::: Consciousness has both conscious and unconscious processes. For > example, in the field of awareness, we perceive an image, but we don't > perceive all the decoding processes the consciousness had to do to > decode the nerve impulse pattern into that particular image. By the > way
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
This is such an excellent thread, I hope you guys continue it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote > There is no solid proof of reincarnation. However there are very > observable brain functions that indicate a "hard wired" proclivit > towards a belief in life after death. > > Jim::: Of course the brain is an information processor. However, that > doesn't automatically mean that the subjective "projections" of the > results of the brain information processing is also in the brain. By > analogy, we could say that your computer, and other computers, are > processing this Internet message. You would claim, if you used the > same logic, that that means that only your computer, and other > computers, exist, and there is no human Stu involved. The human Stu is > really merely your computer and the other computers. What I am doing, > however, is analyzing what happens to the information after the brain > processes it. > > > > >Stu::: You may be very interested in the October edition of Scientific > > American Mind, an article called, "The End" Why so many of us think > > our minds continue after we die. by Jesse Berling. It gives a solid > > neurological explanation for this irrational line of thought. > > Jim::: The same thing. Just because there might be some brain > processes, doesn't mean that the brain processes are the same as the > subjective meaning. Fundamentally, the scientific community remembers > the burning at the stake of heretics, so they fearfully insist that > only brain activity exists, so that they can keep churches from > becoming powerful again. Actually, a proof of reincarnation would not > strengthen the churches which threaten so-called heretics. > > Stu:::(snip) The clock on a beach argument. Developed in the 19th century > > to "prove" there was a creator. How could something as complex as the > > human body exist without an engineer? Its like finding a watch > > without a watchmaker. > > Jim:::That you mentioned this means you did not understand my logical > derivation. I am not saying that consciousness exists because > information processing in the brain is complex. I am saying that a > CERTAIN KIND of information processing involved could not be done by > the brain alone. When we see a subjective image, we see a lot of > smallest subjective pixels of the image simultaneously. Each > subjective pixel contains a bit of information. To PERCEIVE all of > them simultaneously means that in awareness, the bits of information > must simultaneously be in contact with one another. If they were not > in contact with one another, then when we were looking at information > bit A, we would not be aware of information bit B, which would be > somewhere else. Now the brain can do all kinds of processing of visual > input, in a mechanistic, computer-like sort of way. But the processing > ends up with a pattern of nerve impulses which are all on separate > nerve fibers, so separate from one another physically. Nerve impulses > separate in space could not be the medium of a subjective image in > which the bits were perceived at the same instant. If we try to force > an integration, by assuming that all the bits of information in the > pattern converge onto a single neuron, so there is a summation value > of either one or zero, that single summation one or zero will have > lost all the differentiation that went into it. So it could not be the > medium of an image in which all the information bits are seen > simultaneously, but still remain differentiated. > > Stu::: Unconscious processes do not transcend the brain. > > Jim::: Consciousness has both conscious and unconscious processes. For > example, in the field of awareness, we perceive an image, but we don't > perceive all the decoding processes the consciousness had to do to > decode the nerve impulse pattern into that particular image. By the > way, I think there is both a brain memory and a consciousness memory. > A consciousness memory is needed to carry the skills needed to decode > nerve impulse patterns. A brain memory seems to be indicated by > neurological research. > > > Stu::: There is no evidence of any functions coming from the Kosmos at > large.Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of receiver? > > Jim:::I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I am not > talking about a consciousness out there and a receiver like a > telescope in our heads. I am talking about some kind of field of > consciousness which has its own processes. This field of consciousness > stretches throughout the brain and detects the nerve impulses. > Actually, I suspect it might be detecting the change in the docking > molecule for neurotransmitter chemicals, and it might be detecting > this through the change in the bending of space caused by the > gravitational field change when the docking molecule changes shape. > Then, when c
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote There is no solid proof of reincarnation. However there are very observable brain functions that indicate a "hard wired" proclivit towards a belief in life after death. Jim::: Of course the brain is an information processor. However, that doesn't automatically mean that the subjective "projections" of the results of the brain information processing is also in the brain. By analogy, we could say that your computer, and other computers, are processing this Internet message. You would claim, if you used the same logic, that that means that only your computer, and other computers, exist, and there is no human Stu involved. The human Stu is really merely your computer and the other computers. What I am doing, however, is analyzing what happens to the information after the brain processes it. > >Stu::: You may be very interested in the October edition of Scientific > American Mind, an article called, "The End" Why so many of us think > our minds continue after we die. by Jesse Berling. It gives a solid > neurological explanation for this irrational line of thought. Jim::: The same thing. Just because there might be some brain processes, doesn't mean that the brain processes are the same as the subjective meaning. Fundamentally, the scientific community remembers the burning at the stake of heretics, so they fearfully insist that only brain activity exists, so that they can keep churches from becoming powerful again. Actually, a proof of reincarnation would not strengthen the churches which threaten so-called heretics. Stu:::(snip) The clock on a beach argument. Developed in the 19th century > to "prove" there was a creator. How could something as complex as the > human body exist without an engineer? Its like finding a watch > without a watchmaker. Jim:::That you mentioned this means you did not understand my logical derivation. I am not saying that consciousness exists because information processing in the brain is complex. I am saying that a CERTAIN KIND of information processing involved could not be done by the brain alone. When we see a subjective image, we see a lot of smallest subjective pixels of the image simultaneously. Each subjective pixel contains a bit of information. To PERCEIVE all of them simultaneously means that in awareness, the bits of information must simultaneously be in contact with one another. If they were not in contact with one another, then when we were looking at information bit A, we would not be aware of information bit B, which would be somewhere else. Now the brain can do all kinds of processing of visual input, in a mechanistic, computer-like sort of way. But the processing ends up with a pattern of nerve impulses which are all on separate nerve fibers, so separate from one another physically. Nerve impulses separate in space could not be the medium of a subjective image in which the bits were perceived at the same instant. If we try to force an integration, by assuming that all the bits of information in the pattern converge onto a single neuron, so there is a summation value of either one or zero, that single summation one or zero will have lost all the differentiation that went into it. So it could not be the medium of an image in which all the information bits are seen simultaneously, but still remain differentiated. Stu::: Unconscious processes do not transcend the brain. Jim::: Consciousness has both conscious and unconscious processes. For example, in the field of awareness, we perceive an image, but we don't perceive all the decoding processes the consciousness had to do to decode the nerve impulse pattern into that particular image. By the way, I think there is both a brain memory and a consciousness memory. A consciousness memory is needed to carry the skills needed to decode nerve impulse patterns. A brain memory seems to be indicated by neurological research. > Stu::: There is no evidence of any functions coming from the Kosmos at large.Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of receiver? Jim:::I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I am not talking about a consciousness out there and a receiver like a telescope in our heads. I am talking about some kind of field of consciousness which has its own processes. This field of consciousness stretches throughout the brain and detects the nerve impulses. Actually, I suspect it might be detecting the change in the docking molecule for neurotransmitter chemicals, and it might be detecting this through the change in the bending of space caused by the gravitational field change when the docking molecule changes shape. Then, when consciousness sets off new nerve impulses, it changes the shape of some empty docking molecules as if a neurotransmitter molecule were docking, which then sets off the chemical cascade which produces a nerve impulse. I'm uncertain on this point but considerations are that gravity punches through d
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
There is no solid proof of reincarnation. However there are very observable brain functions that indicate a "hard wired" proclivity towards a belief in life after death. You may be very interested in the October edition of Scientific American Mind, an article called, "The End" Why so many of us think our minds continue after we die. by Jesse Berling. It gives a solid neurological explanation for this irrational line of thought. Also this article, though not totally relevent is interesting as well: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=previous-life-memories-due-to-bad-memory My specific notes are below: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=implantable-visual-prosthetic --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (snip) The clock on a beach argument. Developed in the 19th century to "prove" there was a creator. How could something as complex as the human body exist without an engineer? Its like finding a watch without a watchmaker. > > So the decoding of nerve impulse patterns into images must be done by > a consciousness which transcends the physical brain. By consciousness > I mean both the part of consciousness we are aware of and the > unconscious part of consciousness which transcends the brain. Unconscious processes do not transcend the brain. Functions such as body temperature and heart rate appear outside of consciousness. In fact most of the brain is occupied with hormone release, reactions, and other activities that never are reported to the pre-frontal cortex. There is no evidence of any functions coming from the Kosmos at large. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of receiver? > > The the crucial point is that decoding nerve impulse patterns into > images requires great skill. The nerve impulse patterns have many > thousands of nerve impulses for a single fairly simple image. The > pattern is not compact, but rather there are extraneous nerve impulses > here and there within it which aren't supposed to be part of the > pattern. All nerve impulses are the same. A nerve impulse coding for a > bit of red is the same as the nerve impulse coding for a bit of blue, > for example. > > Finally, our minds decode a nerve impulse pattern into the right image > in a fraction of a second. That level of skill is beyond the level of > the most powerful supercomputer that has ever been built. This is silliness. We have many complex physical functions that do not require "skill" or learning. Fortunately millions of years of natural selection have adapted us harmoniously to our environment. Vision is one such function. A look at the evolution of vision through different species reveals a path towards the modern eye. Current science is getting a pretty good handle on how the eye functions. The following is a lay article on some of the progress in this direction: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=implantable-visual-prosthetic > > So much skill couldn't be learned by a baby in a few weeks. Where, > therefore, did the skill come from? Millions of years of evolution. > > It must have been learned over a large number of previous lifetimes, I thought you were a meditater. In meditation one learns to see what is. This means when observing a phenomenon, best to look at the evidence and look for clear explanations. To jump directly to a superstition like reincarnation suggest your motives are not clear (see above articles on the mind's proclivities). A being of higher consciousness is not going to live their life through myths and superstitions. This method is best left to those living in the iron age. Better to observe and understand the world around us. Use meditation to understand the deep seated tendency of the brain, what is a higher function and what unconscious functions are based in the reptile brain. > > There are some interesting implications, but I think I will wait to > discuss them until people have had time to think about the above long > enough to evaluate it. First read some literature on those who have researched the subject and then begin to make cogent conclusions based on observable facts. We are beyond believing in geocentrism. We know the consequences of drinking water filled with bacteria or virus. Yours, s. > > Jim >
