do you believe in the SPIRIT REALM?

[reyam200]

if you can't disproove it, and you can't proove it, than don't bother saying weather its real or fake. its a waste of breath.

its pointless trying to proove or disproove somthing that can't yet be prooved or disprooved.

[Sisyphus]

So the invisible space hippo is just as likely to exist as not exist?

[reyam200]

i suppose so, although that one is very hard to beleave. its implausable. but not nessasarly impossible, aliens in a cloaked ship watching you in the shower(i just made this up).

HIGHLY unlikely of course. i mean, why would an advanced species come all that way to watch people take a shower?

 

also there is plenty of wealthy people that could pull a prank of that magnitude.

don't know any who would.

[JustStuit]

When you base your neutralist point of view by illusionists and people whose vocation is to decieve others your logic is bound to be flawed.

[reyam200]

im getting tired of repeating myself, so ill only say it once more.

i don't form an opinion until i have proof either for or against. but i always leave room for more possiblitys.

that is the most logical solution.

[JustStuit]

Believing in TK is logical? Just because it is 100% dissproved and is totally illogical? Everything should be taken with a pinch of salt. There was this one video of a guy showing how many of the illusions works that was posted on an earlier thread. I'll go try to find it.

 

edit:: I found it http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18642&highlight=video

He talks about some illusions and it's very interesting. He also talks about the physics too.

[rising moon]

careful. if you dont do correctly. you will get manipulated by genie.

[THoR]

"Cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore I am.

 

One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist. Each existence in the cosmos has its own unique history particular to itself. Your body; however, isn't a single existence, it is a composite. It is comprised of billions of fundamental particles - a myriad of individual elements each with its own properties and physical boundary. While it is natural that each existence would have its own singular identity, any claim that a composite can, by some esoteric power, also have a single identity rather than multiple identities invokes the supernatural and regardless of the number of letters after the claimant's name the contention is contrary to logic. It is not possible for anything to 'be' more than (or less than) a single existence, so the identity you experience must be that of a single element within the composition of your body.

 

This isn't rocket science. It has nothing to do with religion. It is simple reasoning and elementary deduction.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, poor Descartes. He sure did try.

 

"Cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore I am.

 

Correction: There is a perception of thinking, and that's really all you can say.

 

One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.

 

Circular argument. The question "how can I experience if I don't exist" already presupposes that something has to do the experiencing. Instead, "there is an experience."

 

Each existence in the cosmos has its own unique history particular to itself. Your body; however, isn't a single existence, it is a composite. It is comprised of billions of fundamental particles - a myriad of individual elements each with its own properties and physical boundary. While it is natural that each existence would have its own singular identity, any claim that a composite can, by some esoteric power, also have a single identity rather than multiple identities invokes the supernatural and regardless of the number of letters after the claimant's name the contention is contrary to logic.

 

So your contention is that in order to talk about a water molecule, having properties and unified existence independent of any of its components, you must invoke the supernatural? And you're accusing others of being contrary to logic?

 

It is not possible for anything to 'be' more than (or less than) a single existence, so the identity you experience must be that of a single element within the composition of your body.

 

You don't experience an identity. You experience experiences, and infer your existence from some notion that an experience requires an experiencer. There's nothing you can point to and say "that is me."

 

This isn't rocket science. It has nothing to do with religion. It is simple reasoning and elementary deduction.

 

It is elementary deduction, yes, but flawed, I think. It fails to take into account our own biases and assumptions of experience.

[THoR]

Oh' date=' poor Descartes. He sure did try.

 

Correction: There is a perception of thinking, and that's really all you can say.

 

Circular argument. The question "how can I experience if I don't exist" already presupposes that something has to do the experiencing. Instead, "there is an experience."[/size']

 

So your contention is that in order to talk about a water molecule, having properties and unified existence independent of any of its components, you must invoke the supernatural? And you're accusing others of being contrary to logic?

You can talk about the inherent properties of any composite - up to and including the Universe itself. Every combination and permutation has different resulting properties. That is not the point. They are NOT single existences - they are collections. You can 'unify' them conceptually if you wish and often this is convenient (especially in conversation - saying 'chair' instead of seat, back, legs and arms). But to declare that two existences can magically become a single existence because they are molecularly bonded smacks of voodoo.

You don't experience an identity. You experience experiences, and infer your existence from some notion that an experience requires an experiencer. There's nothing you can point to and say "that is me."

I perceive. If I had no identity there would be no 'I' in the preceeding sentence. And if I were a composite I would have said 'We'. To challenge your own existence is an excercise in futility. To engage in a discussion in which every commonly held basic axiom is challenged is equally futile...and rather dull.

 

Yeah, the mud I wear conceals me rather well, but I have little doubt I am in there somewhere - a physical reality which can be pointed to.

It is elementary deduction, yes, but flawed, I think. It fails to take into account our own biases and assumptions of experience.

Ridiculous...I tried VERY hard to include ALL my biases and assumptions. Did I miss any?

[bascule]

any claim that a composite can, by some esoteric power, also have a single identity rather than multiple identities invokes the supernatural and regardless of the number of letters after the claimant's name the contention is contrary to logic.

 

Sounds to me like you're basically saying it's impossible (or rather, that it would require a supernatural explanation) for group decision making systems to conclude upon a single choice.

 

I'm going to go with "Uhh, no, wrong"

[THoR]

Sounds to me like you're basically saying it's impossible (or rather, that it would require a supernatural explanation) for group decision making systems to conclude upon a single choice.

A group having a concurring opinion is NOT quite the same thing as multiple entities being a single identity....(kinda reaching there aren't ya?? )

[aguy2]

Sounds to me like you're basically saying it's impossible (or rather' date=' that it would require a supernatural explanation) for group decision making systems to conclude upon a single choice.

[/quote']

like: "Who is to be King?"

aguy2

[aguy2]

A group having a concurring opinion is NOT quite the same thing as multiple entities being a single identity....(kinda reaching there aren't ya?? )

how about Legio X, 63 bce?

aguy2

[bascule]

A group having a concurring opinion is NOT quite the same thing as multiple entities being a single identity....(kinda reaching there aren't ya?? )

 

I'm most certainly not reaching. Consciousness is a thalamocortical effect resulting from the collective action of the neocortical columns in your brain.

[THoR]

I'm most certainly not reaching. Consciousness is a thalamocortical effect resulting from the collective action of the neocortical columns in your brain.

Oh, I see. So multiple independent processes are magicaly transformed into a single consciousness? Bio-chemical processes are certainly a byproduct of thought - but not the thought, themselves. Thought is a form of change that occurs within a single existence, not a collection of independent processes within a composite.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, I see. So multiple independent processes are magicaly transformed into a single consciousness?

 

There's nothing magical about it. Why would there be?

 

Bio-chemical processes are certainly a byproduct of thought - but not the thought, themselves.

 

So you say, but utterly without basis. I say it's the other way around, that thoughts are the combined effect of physical processes. Since my way doesn't require invoking some magical entity from nowhere, I'd say it's more likely, with no more justification needed than Occam's Razor.

 

Thought is a form of change that occurs within a single existence, not a collection of independent processes within a composite.

 

It is, in a sense, a single existence, in the same way that a chair, once unifed, has properties (namely, that it is a comfortable and convenient place to sit) that cannot be found individually in the arms, seat, back, or legs. You can't point to any part of the chair and say "there lies its chairness," and yet together it is a chair, and there's nothing supernatural about it.

[bascule]

Oh, I see. So multiple independent processes are magicaly transformed into a single consciousness?

 

You're the one trying to make the case for magic, not I.

 

There's nothing singular about your consciousness at all, really. It's a seething cauldron of conflicting impulses which are continuously evolving until certain ones dominate.

 

Ideas move through a sensory preprocessing -> assocation -> motor control continuum which exists within your cerebral cortex, each stage further refining and building upon the pattern recognition activities of the previous stage.

 

Bio-chemical processes are certainly a byproduct of thought - but not the thought, themselves. Thought is a form of change that occurs within a single existence, not a collection of independent processes within a composite.

 

The irreducibility of qualia argument, easily explained through property dualism as Sisyphus has done.

 

However, to go beyond the mere philosophical arguments, here is a scientific study regarding just how qualia manifest themselves in the brain, and the answer is, again, collective action:

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=33281

 

And I am left to wonder how long it will be until everyone accepts that you think with your brain...

[alice]

Hmm...I do believe that there is a spirit realm...i don't know why...but I do...there must be a world opposite ours.

[Jim]

science says that the SPIRIT REALM does not exist. this is a place where you do not have a physical body' date=' you have a spirit body or dream body. some say the SPIRIT REALM can be accessed through the psychedelic experience when you connect to the ASTRAL PLANE and transcend TIME AND SPACE as you enter a metaphysical reality where you can talk to anyone who has at any time connected to THE ASTRAL PLANE.

 

i was recently tripping ACID and as i was peaking i talked to the ghost of my dead sister when we both connected to the ASTRAL PLANE. she told me all about what it's like to be dead and said that i should not be afraid of death because it is not the end, it is merely a transition. i found her words quite comforting and it was great to see her again because she was taken when she was very young and i miss her dearly.

 

i know the late grate scientist DR. TIMOTHY LEARY did extensive research into the ASTRAL PLANE although i do not know if modern scientists have continued his work or not.[/quote']

 

The only personal experience I had with this kind of thing was in college. My roommate was rather morose normally but one time when I was going to a class I had the firm conviction that I HAD to go back to check on him immediately. I was almost panicked to get back to the apartment. When I did, I heard him bustle out of the bedroom and after some prodding he told me that when I came in he had been standing on a chair trying to figure out how to hang himself with a belt. The chair was still in the closet as was the belt. I'm not sure if he'd figured out yet how to make it happen but he was working on it.

 

It's hard to describe but I just knew I had to return even though I had a commitment. Probably, something in his manner or something he had said that morning registered subconsciousless but I can't describe the force of the conviction and the near feeling of panic that overcame me. I've never experienced anything like it before or since.

 

Ultimately, the guy got counseling and was okay. However, this event has always made me less arrogant about dismissing the notion that there might be more to life than what we can see.

[THoR]

There's nothing magical about it. Why would there be?

It takes AN existence to experience A thought. A pair of existences have two separate experiences. Just because cells of wood are held together by molecular bond does not make it a single existence (except as a symbol in the mind). It is certainly not hard to understand why the bias exists to consider a chair as a single thing; however' date=' it is certainly NOT

So you say, but utterly without basis. I say it's the other way around, that thoughts are the combined effect of physical processes. Since my way doesn't require invoking some magical entity from nowhere, I'd say it's more likely, with no more justification needed than Occam's Razor.

A collection of particles 'thinks'. I see....oh, xcusa...WE see. If you could survive the transfer of your entire body particle by particle from your present position to a distance 20 ft away, at some point the identity you experience would be in the new location. The trick is finding that particle.

It is, in a sense, a single existence, in the same way that a chair, once unifed, has properties (namely, that it is a comfortable and convenient place to sit) that cannot be found individually in the arms, seat, back, or legs. You can't point to any part of the chair and say "there lies its chairness," and yet together it is a chair, and there's nothing supernatural about it.

Just because cells of wood are held together by molecular bond does not make it a single existence (except as a symbol in the mind). It is certainly not hard to understand why the bias exists to consider a chair as a single thing; however, it is certainly NOT ...

Sorry - repeated myself again, again.

[Sisyphus]

It takes AN existence to make A comfortable place to sit.

[THoR]

It takes AN existence to make A[/b'] comfortable place to sit.

Actually, it takes a seat, legs, back and arms (pillow optional but recommended). If you prefer wood, then those parts are made of sets labeled ‘cells’ which are comprised of sets labeled ‘molecules’ which are formed by sets labeled ‘atoms’, whose components have been theoretically superseded as elemental particles by hadron and lepton groups - populated by sub-sets of even smaller particles and anti-particles.

 

Tell me, are Siamese twins ONE person? I mean SERIOUSLY, do they BOTH get to vote?

[Sisyphus]

Yes, it takes all of those things in conjunction to generate the property than none of them have on their own. Just like it takes an entire functioning brain, made of cells and molecules and atoms and subatomic particles, to have thought. That's why brain damage changes the way you think, why it changes who you are.

[THoR]

Yes, it takes all of those things in conjunction to generate the property than none of them have on their own. Just like it takes an entire functioning brain, made of cells and molecules and atoms and subatomic particles, to have thought. That's why brain damage changes the way you think, why it changes who you are.

 

If you cut off your arm, your arm will be over there, but you will still experience your same identity. You will probably still have feeling in a 'phantom arm' which isn't there. Just because your arm was held on by molecular bond didn't make it YOU. A body is something you wear, not something you are. It does; however, seem to be a necessary tool in order for us to function and think in human terms. But thought is an experience and something must "exist" in order to experience it. It isn't possible for something to be more than (or less than) a single existence and any claim that a composite can, by some esoteric power, become a single identity invokes the supernatural.

 

Your body is a plurality, a collection of individual elements each with its own properties and physical boundary. Every element in your corpse acts and reacts individually and differently to similar stimulus. Unfortunately you have been trained since birth to think you are that thing you see in the mirror. Hair, eyes, nose, skin, appendages. By rote and repetition you have developed a false self image - you think your body is YOU.

 

If you are relying on 'emergent properties' to explain how 2 equals 1, I'm afraid that was long ago exposed as lacking in the logic department.