Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Formula for this thread: Find out you are a spiritual being.
It might be easier for some people to find out that someone else is spiritual in nature. That way they don't have to deny themselves.
Formula for this thread: Find out you are a spiritual being.
It might be easier for some people to find out that someone else is spiritual in nature. That way they don't have to deny themselves.
No kidding, Ted. You could probably line up a thousand humans all in a row and go down the line checking on the "spiritual nature" of each one and you'd end up with a thousand different aspects and a thousand parallels.
Learning spirit is what waterplanet life is all about in the first place. Life couldn't even exist without Spirit creation.
obvious from the three laws of thermodynamics which MEST obeys perfectly. life is counterentropic with MEST material which entropifies rather quickly when separated from spirit
By Design said:... I guess bury your head in the sand and keep assuming the same cartesian ghost we've assumed for thousands of years if it makes you happy. ...
You keep ascribing views to me which I have not stated and do not hold. That is tremendously annoying and extremely arrogant on your part. It also tells me that you've yet to actually understand what has been stated before on this thread, but instead are basing your arguments on your own assumptions about 'reality' rather than actually addressing the topic raised. Frankly, that doesn't make for interesting or intelligent discussion.
Mark A. Baker said:As Gadfly points out there are many subjective experiences which may influence the world but for which there are no means of direct physical measurement. That spirit and consciousness may exist in an insubstantial manner yet nonetheless influence the physical world in an unknown way is not beyond the realm of conception. Far from it, the reality of spirit or consciousness has been the favored hypothesis for understanding the world since first posited over 2000 years ago.
?
I looked back at our conversation:
^ what are you asserting there? You literally said that the mental states to which Gadfly referred may not be physical phenomena, and elsewhere in this thread you've made clear that this claim logically obtains despite advances in the finesse of our instruments and advances in our methodological approaches.
You've also asserted the existence of a logically formalized metaphysics containing such an effect-less mental state. I have shown the kinds of empirical measurements that such a formalized framework must be consistent with.
You're hunting for unaccountable phenomena. That class of phenomena is rapidly shrinking, yet you maintain (through sheer assertion alone imo) there is a bounded region which, despite the scientific enterprise, must necessarily remain opaque to our scientific inspection.
From my perspective, what I have to say is that the Physical sciences as currently practiced are missing the boat on the issue of spirituality and/or anything to do with what might or might not precede the formation of the physical universe because they keep trying to perceive, analyse and discourse on the issue of spirit by physical means alone . . .
... You literally said that the mental states to which Gadfly referred may not be physical phenomena, ...
... and elsewhere in this thread you've made clear that this claim logically obtains despite advances in the finesse of our instruments and advances in our methodological approaches. ...
... You've also asserted the existence of a logically formalized metaphysics ...
... containing such an effect-less mental state. ...
...I have shown the kinds of empirical measurements that such a formalized framework must be consistent with. ...
... You're hunting for unaccountable phenomena. ...
It does not invalidate the possible existence of any phenomena which may be intrinsically immeasurable, should such exist.
ie: 'may' be dualist. Yet you've now come back the next day and lied about having said such.Yes, the key word being may.
Do I need to go dig up quotes of you to root out this lie as well? You told either Student of Trinity or Programmer Guy that it doesn't matter how much we improve our technology and instruments, that the evidence we are looking for is necessarily (in the modal sense, I take it) outside the scope of scientific investigation.No, and that is dub-in on your part. What I have alluded to is that phenomena which are not physical would not be detectable by means of physical measurement. The identification of any particular phenomena as subject to measure validates the measurability of the measurable. It does not invalidate the possible existence of any phenomena which may be intrinsically immeasurable, should such exist.
There are to my knowledge very few metaphysics which have been formalized into logical statements. Most of those are all materialist, since that's pretty much what we're left with if we don't want our metaphysics to oblige us to untrue statements.Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which deals with the existence of universal principles. As an established branch of philosophy it exists of itself and has now for something on the order of 2500 years. It's existence is not predicated on my assertions.
You can continue to lie about what you've said but it's there for all to read. You've said that the spirit 'may' be non-material, that subjective states 'may' have no effects, that such a view is the result of the formal logic.Nope. Dub-in.... containing such an effect-less mental state. ...
There are to my knowledge very few metaphysics which have been formalized into logical statements. Most of those are all materialist, since that's pretty much what we're left with if we don't want our metaphysics to oblige us to untrue statements.
By Design, this above is elegantly stated, elegantly argued.
From my perspective, what I have to say is that the Physical sciences as currently practiced are missing the boat on the issue of spirituality and/or anything to do with what might or might not precede the formation of the physical universe because they keep trying to perceive, analyse and discourse on the issue of spirit by physical means alone . . . and the physical universe instruments and perception and measure methods they try to employ in the endeavor simply cannot perceive and/or measure or analyse the spiritual (at this point in time).
We spiritual Beings are capable of it, and my recommendation is that we honor our perceptions and not be misled by the physical universe attempts of "science" which are inadequate to the task.
Rog
Keep living. Eventually spirit happens.
And a LOT of folks "know".
You must do a lotta jackingoff.
With all due respect, sez who?
Sorry, there are those, many, thousands upon millions, who "know".
Turning this around: The higher "truth" would be something like: "Who knows what happens after you incarnate?"
Sorry, there are those, many, thousands upon millions, who "know".
Turning this around: The higher "truth" would be something like: "Who knows what happens after you incarnate?"
Equally sorry, but appealing to "millions and millions" is called Bandwagon and is a logical fallacy.
That said, I sympathize with your "certainty." I was there, too. Everyone should have the freedom to seek how, where and when they choose.
Learning to feel instead of think-think-logicize-logicize might be a good idea for some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgYXhBsgm6A