Reincarnation

[skyS]

does anyone here believe in reincarnation? if so, how do you see it?

[juroara]

you might want to refer to the spiritual/religion forum. Im sure some one has brought up the subject over there

[Ben_]

I can respond this from the Buddhist point of view, I practise Buddhism and have study what you call "Reincarnation" or said in other words "stream of consciouness".. This is a complex and long subject, so It will be impossible for me to post all of it here. So you can understand this theory you need to know other aspects of the Buddhist Phylosophy for example karma. The buddhist contemplate us as streams of consciouness that is always changing/. A will put a quick example of this theory. You are aware of your present state of mind right now////yeah?..ok.. You could say that this present state of consciouness is influenced for your past state of consciouness. yeah??? for example what happend yesterday affected the state of consciouness of this morning// EG; yesterday you got into a fight with your girl and felt very upset.. this morning you feel sad//get my point..? ok. .. the world, peolple, espect that your mind changes and learns and experience.. Your mind is always changing/. When you go to school you pass the year from 3rd grade to 4th grade.. why>??beacuse the teachers espects that you have learned the things from 1st,2nd,and 3rd grade/.. so your mind= state of consciouness is influenced by your past{ experienced} state of consciouness.. with me so far? now lets use simpe LOGIC,, if you plant a SEED of Apples you will grow a tree of Apples... Simple right? It would be IMPOSSIBLE to plant a Seed of apple and grow a tree of CHILE??or a TREE of DOgs?? Its not in the nature of the apple seed to grow chile it will only grow apple trees.. simple logic// now place this into your present state of consciouness your presente state of consciouness is influenced by your previous state of consciouness(it has to come from something of teh same nature) and the one before that by the previous one , and the one before the previuos one that by the previous one. and so on.///// (result = Infinit) go back to your birth// you could say that your mind was created in the moment that the egg was fertilazed by the sperm right??>... HERE is where the problem comes in// How something physicall like the fertilization of the egg can produce a mind? how can ir creat something that is not physicall? that will only come from something of its own nature. Scientist till this day dont really know what is the mind? who are you?? who is seeing through thoose eyes, learning, expierencing?? that ME/// is now where to be found.. But that ME,, when you die doesnt go into a Dogs body, that ME is only temporay to your human state. You have been in infinite bodies and places, The problem here is that you are still suffering, and you keep dying and born again, but why>? beacause you are under the influenced of ignorance... you plant the seeds to your own suffering existance,, They say that the oportunity to be human and come in contact with the Dharma (Buddhist teachings) is the most precious thing the world, because you have the chance to be Free, to reach enlightment, no more compulsive Reincarnations.. how? training your mind, make that ME dissapear, undesrtand reality, make Ignorance dissapear.. like the matrix, we are asleepa and you have the chance to take the blue pill. So why waste so precious oportunity.... you have won the lottery.. really.. It is a very extensive topic.. so I'm sorry I left many blanks.. If anyone is enterested I can recommend books, teachers or teachings.. message me. Ben

[Neruo]

Reincarnation: means people have a soul. Evolution and souls don't mix. Therefor also: Science and souls don't mix. Concluding: Science and reincarnation doesn't mix.

[Spectre]

Reincarnation: means people have a soul. Evolution and souls don't mix. Therefor also: Science and souls don't mix. Concluding: Science and reincarnation doesn't mix. [/b] Thanks for stating the obvious.

[taltho]

philosophically; reincarnation has been thought of by many cultures around the world (whether these ideas spawned individually or through idea diffusion is uncertain). I think many people in their quest to discover who we are and where we came from and where we are going, thought of this idea as a means to answer these questions, and also to deal with his/her fear of dieing. Almost everyone is curious to know what happens after we die, reincarnation is one answer out of many.

[wombing]

Reincarnation: means people have a soul. Evolution and souls don't mix. Therefor also: Science and souls don't mix. Concluding: Science and reincarnation doesn't mix.[/b] in what sense are you using the concept "soul"?

[Volcon]

I believe that there is something along the lines of "Reincarnation" because god made the world and life for us to experience life, but i think one of the reasons i beleave is because i, as a human, can not comprehend the concept of what some call "heaven" it is impossible to imagine something that is beyond our understanding.. Picture this, life is like a book, each page is another part of our human history, "god" is the writer of the book. can the characters in the book imagine what is beyond their book? who created their book? no. (and im just going to toss this up there) maybe the writer "god" also created other books, but we can get to these books, because 2 different books do not have connections to each other and this is where the concept of different dimensions comes in.

[~Erin~]

I'm really not a religious person and I don't mean to offend anyone . But to your answer I have a question. I don't really believe in "Reincarnation." It’s because I don't really understand it, I know what it is but what I don't understand is if there is a god, heaven and hell. If heaven is exposed to be all that great then why come back in form of another person or animal, is it our choice? Maybe what I said doesn't make sense but I never could get my head around "Reincarnation" without thinking about that question.

[Neruo]

in what sense are you using the concept "soul"? [/b] Oh, but please DO explain how reïncarnation would be possible without some sort of medium for the mind to travel to another body.

[Keeper]

Buddisim doesn't beleive in the Soul dont ask me how re-in would work then Bible doesn't mention souls in the context many people think oh, and Evo doesn't = science

[Neruo]

Buddisim doesn't beleive in the Soul dont ask me how re-in would work then Bible doesn't mention souls in the context many people think oh, and Evo doesn't = science [/b] It is often scientific to believe in the (by far) most likely thing then to follow a weird view of the world of wich there are alot of copies of. Religion is to science like Hitler to love, evolution is to science like a map of a town to a town. And other lame metaphors. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter what terminology you use, if reincarnation exists, the mind is more then a few braincells with electric currents, it can 'move' to another movie somehow.

[Keeper]

exactly. Reincarnation doesn't make much sence to me: if it is real, why dont you remember your past life, and which life was first?

[wombing]

Oh, but please DO explain how reïncarnation would be possible without some sort of medium for the mind to travel to another body.[/b] *laughs* i only asked for your definition of soul, because otherwise any discussion is pointless, with a vague term like that in the equation. no need to get snooty... and i can't think of a way to explain how the mind could "travel" to another body without some sort of medium, as that scenario is inherently impossible (travel neccessitates a means of travel). ------- however, most people that denouce reincarnation on the grounds you have given ignore a very real possibility: that mind is fundamentally no-thing. it is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. the beginning and the end, and everything in between. That time and space are only concepts within Mind. the same with self-hood. --------- brain science is FAR from regulating consciousness solely to brain activity. they can't even "locate" consciousness, much less clearly define its boundaries. show me my father's consciousness as a result of the electricity within his brain. and then show me where it goes when he dies. show me the place and time where the organization of molecules breaks down as a functional unit, and his mind dissipates back into the "universe". ---- A disbelief in reincarnation assumes that consciousness is a product of temporarily arranged molecules and biological processes, and that it ceases to exist once the brain-body ceases to function electrically. That hypothesis is not yet justified... ----- not sure if any of that was clear. so i'll put it this way. you asked how reincarnation would be possible without some sort of medium for mind to travel from one body to another. my main point is that it is still entirely possible (even with all science has discovered about the material universe) that mind requires no medium in order to relocate, because Mind is the "space" within which the material universe has its ever-changing being. keep in mind (pun intended) that if Mind is the "space" within which the material universe has its ever-changing being, then the Mind-filters (brains) do not create consciousness, only trans-form it. focus it. ---- for any metaphysical theory to be believeable, it must fit in with a unified, solid theory of the purely physical. the distinction between physics and metaphysics only exists because humanity still has such a puny view of Mind and Matter, and no way to unify them as of yet.

[DeadDollKitty]

I try to keep an open mind, but I do hope reincarnation exists. b/c i love to live.. and I'd hate this to be my only life and have to spend the rest of it dead, cold, and in the freezing ground w/ worms crawling through my wrists and my insides rotting away. I want to live! Of course, there are the signs that point to it and against it so I'm not saying I beleive in it or against it, untill I get the facts that convince me one way or the other..

[Neruo]

*laughs* i only asked for your definition of soul, because otherwise any discussion is pointless, with a vague term like that in the equation. no need to get snooty... [/b] It wasn't really snooty, I just really wondered how you could say 'reincarnation' but not 'soul'. Your little 'the mind is everywhere' theory is just the same as the soul, or do minds mix? Because that would make reincarnation pretty silly, since you would have Everyone inside of you. Actually I DO think there Might be some sort of 'global conscious', an electric current or magnetic something that slightly influences people's mind. Like the lest with people that did crosswords better if they were for yesterdays paper, but those people had no way of knowing. brain science is FAR from regulating consciousness solely to brain activity. they can't even "locate" consciousness, much less clearly define its boundaries. [/b] And that makes it metaphysical? Yeah, just like the stars, they are little holes in the black dome of the gods. Or at least so some religion thought, before they understood stars. A disbelief in reincarnation assumes that consciousness is a product of temporarily arranged molecules and biological processes, and that it ceases to exist once the brain-body ceases to function electrically. That hypothesis is not yet justified...[/b] Flying spaghetti monster? You are having the same arguments as a theist right now. 'OH, OH, we don't know, so that makes it pretty likely right, right?'. I don't say it is impossible, but just because we didn't find the conscious yet to use that as an Argument for reincarnation... what the hell? you asked how reincarnation would be possible without some sort of medium for mind to travel from one body to another. my main point is that it is still entirely possible (even with all science has discovered about the material universe) that mind requires no medium in order to relocate, because Mind is the "space" within which the material universe has its ever-changing being. keep in mind (pun intended) that if Mind is the "space" within which the material universe has its ever-changing being, then the Mind-filters (brains) do not create consciousness, only trans-form it. focus it. [/b] Ahhh... how cute... it's all zen like bullshit Do you believe in evolution? How the heck do you explain how we got to be 'focusers of the super-hippy-mind-space' or whatever you want to call it. The mere existance of the 'mind-space' thing is as likely as a god. I don't say it is impossible, I am just saying that if you believe if (find it likely), you might as well start believing rain is angel piss.

[wombing]

Your little 'the mind is everywhere' theory is just the same as the soul, or do minds mix? Because that would make reincarnation pretty silly, since you would have Everyone inside of you.[/b] my opinion for the moment is that there are no such things as "minds", only Mind, which is immaterial (like information). This Mind (which is synonomous with "Relation") interacts with Matter (which is synonomous with "the appearance of Division") . Mind-Matter is ultimately All That Is (or Universe). what is the alternative to this "little" theory? having No-one inside of you? Actually I DO think there Might be some sort of 'global conscious', an electric current or magnetic something that slightly influences people's mind. Like the lest with people that did crosswords better if they were for yesterdays paper, but those people had no way of knowing.[/b] Do you have a source for the crossword dealie? i've heard it mentioned on different occasions, and always thought it sounded suspicious. It seems strange you are so critical of my "new age" bullshit, but grant credibility to the study you mentioned. And that makes it metaphysical? Yeah, just like the stars, they are little holes in the black dome of the gods. Or at least so some religion thought, before they understood stars.[/b] The fact that science has yet to define consciousness as a purely physical process generated within the human brain certainly does make consciousness metaphysical. "Metaphysical" simply means that which cannot be com-prehended by the senses-that which is without form or substance. The "physical universe" is just a concept we use to synthesize and represent all that humanity understands about relation and processes and the interaction of Energy and Matter. I am not bashing science (physics). it is much of what makes us human. it has freed us from much ignorance and fear. but it is wholly incomplete, particularly in regards to consciousness. i am not proposing that we leave consciousness there forever, defined by airy and unproveable theories. but i am proposing that you acknowledge just how much consciousness IS still "metaphysical", and that only where the physical and metaphysical join into a unifed whole will the truth be found. Flying spaghetti monster? You are having the same arguments as a theist right now. 'OH, OH, we don't know, so that makes it pretty likely right, right?'. I don't say it is impossible, but just because we didn't find the conscious yet to use that as an Argument for reincarnation... what the hell? [/b] That is strange, seeing as i am an atheist... i am not positing something outlandish. some are strict materialists, and see consciousness as a result of physical processes. some are strict spiritualists (or metaphysicists), and see all physical processes as unreal, and taking place only because of, and within, Mind. as with all great discoveries in history, the truth will likely be a combination of the two "opposing" views. materialists and spiritualists both let their emotions and personal hopes cloud their judgement, IMO. it is almost certainly not a case of "one or the other", but "both and neither at once". Ahhh... how cute... it's all zen like bullshit [/b] Most practitioners of Zen are atheist, and accept evolution as the process by which physical life took form. for instance, Susan Blackmore (the harvard psychologist whom Dawkins has praised for her explication of his theory of memes) is such a person. Do you believe in evolution? How the heck do you explain how we got to be 'focusers of the super-hippy-mind-space' or whatever you want to call it. The mere existance of the 'mind-space' thing is as likely as a god. [/b] evolution is presently the most logical and verifiable theory explaining biology. i tentatively "believe" it. The mere existance of anything is as likely as a god. "god" is simply a "reason" for why the universe exists. But your alternative is in actuality no better...(i am assuming from your posts that you believe the universe to be the result of an "accident".) an "accident" is by definition an event which happens without apparent cause. sort of like "god". ---- incidentally neuro, i find it strange that you have the sigs which you do. huxley is considered by many to be a "father" of the hippy movement. The little "brain as mind-filter" theory was one which he explored in his druggie book "the doors of perception". while on his deathbed he took lsd, and had passages from "the tibetan book of the dead" read to him. that text being, of course, a manual for the direction of consciousness after death. sounds like alot of hippie bullshit by your standards....you'd better disown any association with him. and your quote by socrates seems similarly out of place, considering how quick you are to deride anything which does not jive with the wholly materialist philosophy to which you profess to adhere. -------- don't get me wrong...i like you. the desire to see bullshit for bullshit is one which i value highly. the desire to know "the truth", even if it means one's previously held picture of existence is destroyed in favour of a less comforting one. if you re-read my posts, you will see that i never tried to support reincarnation in the traditional sense. i only sought to show that your arguments were built on the assumption that "souls" need a medium in order to travel from one body to the next, when it is entirely possible (and not nearly as unlikely as the flying sphagetti monster) that consciousness/mind is not caused by the biological brain, but only altered by it. ----- the following is one of my favourite quotes. It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet. These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human nature, in different times or different cultural environments or different religious traditions: hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow. - Werner Heisenberg, founder of quantum mechanics

[Keeper]

I cant recall his name, but this one guy Darwin was in corrispondance with involving Evolution beleived in spirits, and I think he also beleived in reincarnation it was one of the few issues they didn't agree on ...

[Neruo]

I didn't know, that if you agree with one thing someones says, you immediately are a fan of everything he (or she) says. I didn't know that. I guess you are from America, because I don't see where you got such an absolutist mindset. (about the huxley part). Besides that, the mind is as metaphysical as rain was before we understood it. I am not saying it Can't be metaphysical, but to believe that it is, out of the blue, is pretty silly. You say you believe in evolution, yet you didn't say how that fits in with your filter-brain theory. As for me, my theory on conscious is that it just is a result of evolution. There is no higher reason for it. Anyhow, what really strikes me is that in my eyes you REALLY reason like a theist. I don't say you ARE one, but you use the same 'logics'. : "A disbelief in reincarnation assumes that consciousness is a product of temporarily arranged molecules and biological processes, and that it ceases to exist once the brain-body ceases to function electrically. That hypothesis is not yet justified..."[/b] So? That is like saying: Have you ever disproven god? I really don't see a reason to accept all those theories you have as 'the most likely'. I am not saying they are impossible, but they really are on the same site as religious topics: You can't be sure about them, and there are 'some things', but not by Far enough things to actually make it reasonable to believe in. P.S. Hippies are cool. Just don't think illogical

[wombing]

I didn't know, that if you agree with one thing someones says, you immediately are a fan of everything he (or she) says. I didn't know that. I guess you are from America, because I don't see where you got such an absolutist mindset. (about the huxley part).[/b] of course you shouldn't accept everything someone says. however, if you respect someone's intellect enough to accept certain thoughts as exceptionally valuable and clear-headed, it makes it that much harder to write off those thoughts you don't agree with as childish and baseless only logical, is it not? Besides that, the mind is as metaphysical as rain was before we understood it. I am not saying it Can't be metaphysical, but to believe that it is, out of the blue, is pretty silly.[/b] what is the physical? it is the realms of experience open to us via the five senses. we are in agreement here? (if you do not accept this definition, please offer a better one). now, humans have always experienced thunder (just as all animals have since the earth has circulated water vapour between land and sky somewhat like the present day). but it is highly unlikely that hamsters or dolphins or bonobos UNDERSTAND thunder, or ever will. but do we FULLY understand it? what is the means by which humans typically understand something previously unknown to them? metaphor. science is really just the refinement of metaphor. perhaps at first thunder was thought of, understood as, the gods clashing in battle in the sky above. Would you say that these humans understood thunder "better" than a hamster? i would argue that they certainly did. masses of air at varying temperatures colliding to create noise ARE similar to invisible bodies of "gods" crashing together in battle to create noise. not "exactly" the same of course. but to accept such a metaphor meant one understood thunder a little better. ------ now, what is the metaphysical? it is that portion of the universe which is (supposedly) beyond the five senses, and is immaterial and unobservable. i (presently) believe that this portion of the universe is what we feebly classify as "mind". It is the "absolute", coming from the "metaphysical" angle. but how do we presently understand mind? in terms of metaphors which have no-thing to do with mind's true nature (which is immaterial and not a "thing"). ---- let us take the term you used, "understand", to clarify. it means "to know or comprehend the true nature of" "of" what? in most cases, a physical "thing" or "process" (relation between "things"). com-prehend means "to include in scope, to encompass within something broader" "understand" and "comprehend" are synonyms. again, what is the manner in which humans increase their knowledge or understanding? metaphor. both metaphor and metaphysical have the same greek root: "meta", which means "beyond" or "beside". now, the very fact that we have the word "meta" reminds us of a problem we have in classifying things by separating them. because if something is truly "beyond" or "beside" something else, those two things can never be accurately related to one another unless there is a point where they share a part of their being. in which case they are not actually separate, but "parts" of the same whole. --- heh, i fear this is frightfully unclear...if so, simply discontinue reading while i attempt to clarify my murky thoughts. you put your faith in science (as i largely do). what is the closest "thing" to an absolute in physics? light. according to science, light is sometimes "a particle" and sometimes "a wave". "particle" and "wave" both being (useful) but incomplete metaphors by which we understand light. a metaphor can never fully define an absolute, for obvious reasons. -------- now, are there two separate universes, the physical and the metaphysical? if so, all this discussion is meaningless, as they can never be related, and indeed, there is no way to prove that one exists from within the other. i was just trying to show (obviously unclearly) that to the honest seeker of truth, the two can never be separated. they are parts of the same whole. and thus, the physical can never be described fully in terms of the metaphysical, and the metaphysical can never be described fully in terms of the physical. You say you believe in evolution, yet you didn't say how that fits in with your filter-brain theory. [/b] i do not think that Mind "chose" to set off the big bang in such a way so that eventually we would evolve as brain-filters. i think that "Mind" has always been (without existing), and always will be. that it predates, or postdates, or "meta-dates" our physical universe. Again, i am using "Mind" in the sense of "relation". it always is, and yet changes. and it changes by means of the physical. imagine the universe (all that is) as a sphere. there is nothing "outside" this sphere. to "understand" all that is, one cannot use metaphor (as there is nothing outside the whole to which to relate it). one can simply "be" "it". and "being it" involves both the metaphysical and the physical. while "being it" there can be no distinction between the two. there is not "it" (or materiality), because how can our hypothetical sphere know that materiality even "exists" without touching it? how can the only hand touch itself? how can the only mind be aware of itself? As for me, my theory on conscious is that it just is a result of evolution. There is no higher reason for it.[/b] if the laws of physics (including time) did not exist before the big bang, how can our universe (and thus evolution) be a result of them? how can any ultimate "cause and effect" truly exist when dealing with the whole? cause and effect does not account for the existence of the universe as a whole (both material and immaterial) because those concepts only exist WITHIN the observable universe. Anyhow, what really strikes me is that in my eyes you REALLY reason like a theist. I don't say you ARE one, but you use the same 'logics'. : So? That is like saying: Have you ever disproven god? I really don't see a reason to accept all those theories you have as 'the most likely'. I am not saying they are impossible, but they really are on the same site as religious topics: You can't be sure about them, and there are 'some things', but not by Far enough things to actually make it reasonable to believe in.[/b] religion and philosphy and science and art are all simply means by which we try to make "sense" of the universe. UNDERSTAND it. but we can never step ouside the universe my friend, or else we would cease to be able to communicate. and the very act of communicating implies that we see ourselves as separate parts within a whole. we both use the same logics. you say "as for me, my theory on conscious is that it is just a result of evolution" it just occured to me that i what am essentially saying (despite my calls for looking beyond simplistic relationships) is "as for me, my theory on evolution is that it is "just" a result of consciousness" does the wave nature of light cause the particle nature of light? can relation ever create utter chaos, or utter chaos relation? P.S. Hippies are cool. Just don't think illogical [/b] there is no ultimate logic. at least none that science has discovered. otherwise all physicists would agree on the conditions "before" the Big Bang. which is just another way of saying all true scientists (seers) would agree on WHY the universe exists, and exists as it does. ultimately logic is just a tool used by flawed chimps to validate there guess as to why they exist as part of the universe. it is dependent on black and white, cause and effect, true and false dualisms. and yet, logically, the universe (all that is) cannot be truly divided, but is ultimately a unified, fully related whole. that illogical, paradoxical, ever-changing Be-ing is what created you and i. it is rather comical to think on why i initially responded to this thread... it was simply because i felt that you were too sure of yourself, and thought i would offer a way in which some form of reincarnation could hypothetically exist. and then i got all caught up trying to defend the theory which i never truly believed anyways, simply to show that i was "right" and you were "wrong". only the whole can ever be right or wrong. and it doesn't even know what those words mean. it doesn't speak, and so cannot lie or tell the truth. in the end, our beliefs come down to what we WANT to believe. even though any honest person knows that they truly know nothing, many moderns fall into the trap of thinking they do. because of science. it certainly can explain much of "when", "where", and "how" the physical universe operates. but it can never explain WHY the universe operates. i suspect you are opposed to reincarnation (even the "everyone is in you" version i offered) because you dislike that it implies a purpose to this mindfuck we call existence. ultimately, every subjective human holds their beliefs on cosmology based on what makes them feel best. feel happy. what is happiness? i would argue it is inseparable from healthfullness, or holiness. health, holy, and whole are all derived from the same root concept. they are all dependent on relationship. and yet relationship must ultimately be a result of an unrelateable whole. why are we here? so we can argue over whether brain creates mind or mind creates brain, among other things. what is the one thing no human argues about?...the fact that All of This just Is. if they argued that, they wouldn't be a human, and thus couldn't argue. why is science valuable? i would say it removes fear. it enables us to seek our fleeting happiness with as little interuption as possible. it is a way to discover the component parts of the state of being we call "happiness". and then it is a means to measure the ingredients of our happiness and combine them technologically. no matter how much scientists go on about "objectivity" or "the cold hard truth". in the end the illusion of "objectivity" makes them happy as stupified little apes wandering around this mysterious universe without any real knowledge. the word "measurement" derives from the sanskrit root "maya", which means roughly "to divide". the hippies were heavily influenced by eastern philosophy. at it's core, eastern philosophy is concerned with maya. it seeks to show that the illusion of division in the phenomenal universe is the source of the human delusion that we exist as separate egos. as long as one accepts this illusion, they are caught up in the cycle of rebirth (or reincarnation), and continue to believe they exist as separate from the universe IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. It is fascinating that "enlightenment" is the state where one realizes that the absolute is paradoxical. and that "light" is the physical state which science has designated as the only absolute (paradoxical though it may be within time and space) you cannot ride "on" a beam of light, as einstein once tried to imagine with profound scientific and technological results. but you can ride "as" a beam of light. both here in body as particle, and "out there" in the the "ether" as wave, lol. in the end, language is the true divider. "i think, therefore i am" it says. but it cannot BE in that place where cause and effect are inseparable. in that place, everything "just is". i encourage you to take five minutes right now and forget everything "you" think you know about the universe and its processes (valuable though these facts are when navigating the physical universe as if it is self-evident) and simply be. and then you will KNOW, without under-standing, no-thing is self-evident, because one can never offer evidence either for nor against the very concept of "self". especially a self without eyes or ears. buddhism (particularly zen) is the simplest philosophy i have ever encountered. also the most profound. and the best part is, one can perform its prescribed experiments personally. ----- i realize this probably sounds pretentious. i hope it does. because i am, of course, only pretending i know what the fuck i am talking ABOUT. whenever one thinks they know what they are talking ABOUT, they have failed to take the whole into account. True knowledge is eternal, yet only to be "found" from the starting point of incomplete knowledge. The only true self is forever being born and forever dying. ----- and now? my empty stomach is contracting, creating the feeling of hunger, which i will now remedy in order to be happy. -- these 32 minutes of disconnected rambling have been brought to you by the universe's infinite well of meaning, relation, paradox, and bullshit...hope you enjoyed

[Belisarius]

The whole of science is based on a few assumptions, if any of those turn out not to be true, the possibilities are limitless. Even without writing off science, there are developments in string theory that could add all sorts of dementions to our understanding(as many as ten dimensions in fact). We could discover all sorts of things in those hidden dimensions. Do not make the mistake of believing that because something has not yet been found to be true, it is necessarily false. Science has not ruled out any of these possibilities yet, nor has there been any evidence to prove them. So for now we should discuss them as posibilities only.

[Neruo]

I hope you don't expect me to read that whole part of text, that is structured not much different as I structure long parts of text: Like crap. Anyhow, from what I read I do agree on a lot of what you say, I think you have thought about a lot of things in about the same way as I have. However at one part we differ quite a lot. You seem to hold the metaphysical up as something we can never reach (truly). Or something like that at least. Well I disagree. Quite frankly because I believe we can't even comprehend This reality in its true way. I see a rock, but all that happens is that light bounces of it, into my eyes. I touch a rock, but all I do is stimulate sensors in my fingers by moving the muscles in my arm to touch the rock. If I hear a rock fall, all that happens is that some sound waves reach my eye. That leads me to conclude that basically all that we see and experience is just a small part of the spectrum of 'true' reality. Something that impossible to reach. All we will ever see is just a representation of it. However, we have to tools in our mind to make up a model, a system. to explain and understand, indirectly, the 'real' reality. However trough that small spectrum of senses we have, I do believe we can see a lot more. For instance, with electron microscopes, we have gained access to another way of looking at the universe, access to another part of the spectrum. We just translate everything we sense into a certain way we understand it. If we see a car, we don't just see a car. I have thought about this, and if you really think, you see more then some light in your eyes: there is like an invisible line around the car, that around mind makes. Quite large proof of this 'categorizing' everything can be seen if it is lacked. Schizophrenics people often can not see faces as we see them. They just can't identify them... I am quite sure, that they look at peoples faces the way we look at animal faces. I really do think animals (the kind that rely on eyesight and social groups) see each other as different as we see humans apart. That is proof, to some extend, to me, that what we think we see is Severely altered and pre-processed by our brain. Ok, lets mix those 2 together: -The brain that changes what we sense into systems, categorizing it in something we can grasp. -The ways, technically and even philosophically, to look beyond our spectrum of senses. I think an atom-model, showing quarks and such, is as 'worthy' as an image interpreted by your brain that is also filtered to fit a system. The model might not represent 'true' reality perfectly, but neither do our eyes. That about is the bottom line: All humans do is try to understand, make up 'models', make molds of reality. And we aren't even capable of Not doing that. You will always have the systems in your brain to make you recognize, categorize human faces better then monkey's faces. And because of that, we can approach everything as good as I can interpret that stone I see, touch, hear and maybe even taste.

[wombing]

heh, my structure is crap...certainly. Anyhow, from what I read I do agree on a lot of what you say, I think you have thought about a lot of things in about the same way as I have. However at one part we differ quite a lot. You seem to hold the metaphysical up as something we can never reach (truly). Or something like that at least. [/b] i was trying to say that the metaphysical is not actually separate from the physical, as they are parts of the same whole. yet obviously they are very different parts of the same whole, as is evidenced by the seeming disconnect between these two "realities' in common thought. the junction of this union is neccessarily both "physical" and "metaphysical". without seeking to find (or create) this bridge between them, a unifed comprehension is impossible. it is only in this sense that the metaphysical is ever separate or "unreachable". if one "reaches" outwards from their limited perspective, they can never take that which "reaches" into account. there will always be that blind spot where the eyes begin. you cannot "see that which sees" That leads me to conclude that basically all that we see and experience is just a small part of the spectrum of 'true' reality. Something that impossible to reach. All we will ever see is just a representation of it. However, we have to tools in our mind to make up a model, a system. to explain and understand, indirectly, the 'real' reality. However trough that small spectrum of senses we have, I do believe we can see a lot more.[/b] i agree we can see a lot more. science shall almost certainly extend its amplified vision much farther than it already has. but you don't seem to accept that there is a mode of being separate from "seeing". "sight" implies a set perspective. when a scientist perceives a geiger counter, he is not seeing atomic activity, but interpeting a series of clicks or whatever according to a particular model. as belsarius pointed out, all science is based on axioms, which cannot themselves be proven. science's fundamental axiom is that every cause has an effect. this is essentially all that logic is: seeking out the most reasonable cause-effect relationships. ocam's razor and all that... the discarding of flying spaghetti monsters as an explanation for the orgin of the universe. All humans do is try to understand, make up 'models', make molds of reality. And we aren't even capable of Not doing that. You will always have the systems in your brain to make you recognize, categorize [/b] those systems are always running "somewhere" in one's brain, provided they are alive. but it IS possible to gain insight and knowledge apart from these systems neuro. we are capable of comprehension aside from limited models. why does this universe of relation exist? i do not think the answers to this question will come by purely "logical" models. because in the end, cause and effect are only real from our present vantage point (looking out from our eye sockets). --- again, what CAUSED relation itself to BE? we can NEVER answer this question, because causality itself is only PART of RELATION as a WHOLE. you accept causality (the axiom of science) because you accept the concept of relation. now, can we have a model of "relation" without PHYSICALLY REPRESENTING relation? and is not every physical representation a specific, limited EXAMPLE of a particular instance of relationship, and not relationship itself? ---- meh, i'll spare you another rambling post, as they are apparently suitable only to make me laugh at my own incomprehensibility, and then go meditate. there is no "answer" to the question of why relationship exists to begin with. there can be no cause of causality. words are real only in terms of limited, incomplete models of reality...they are useless at that point where physics and metaphysics become one process. where causality bows down before relation. if you try to dissect the universe, you will only alternate between two feelings: the coldness of your imaginary "scalpel of logic" which is supposedly separate from the system it slices and dices....and "pinched skin". but if for just a moment, you fully accept the entirety of your seemingly separate and limited being (brain-body), you will see that relation (Mind) is All That Is. it can never be "created or destroyed". only APPEAR to change. you are fundamentally no more or less mindful than a hunk of salt dissolving in water. ---- i'll stop now, and perhaps you will actually read this whole thing...and somehow extract my intended point from it. because even i am not sure what that "point" is...what i am trying to convince you of that i currently believe you are not yet convinced of. but there is no harm in trying. even knowing that one is attempting to lift a hundred pound weight with an arm capable of lifting ten. you are Mind, and you are Brain...right now, this very moment. and also this very second in time. all seconds are contained within this very moment. just as all brains are contained within this very mind. you can never see that, or define that, or create a model of that. but i am as sure that it is true and real as i am sure that if you kicked me in the nuts i would fall down and cry like a little girl... ---- i'll stop posting in this thread now

[Neruo]

Again, from what I read: You don't believe that one can know something for sure. Like a Geiger counter, it basically is just a theory that it actually does count radiation. But what we see, isn't better then that Geiger counter. Also, I think that anything metaphysical that interferes with Our physical reality is by the standards of Our reality measurable. What is metaphysical but does not interfere with us in any way, really doesn't matter to any extend. Unless it does, Nothing can be said about it.

[Volcon]

I have somthing to add to my concept of reality up on page one, reincarnation would be like God reusing the essence of your character, the personality, whatever. in another character in another book a new character, with new experainces, to experaince this book till the end.