Browse Members |
New Members |
[more]
|
Members Born Today |
thelastofourk... 20 year old female Hamilton, ON (CA) We are but hopeful lovers, we are the last of our kind. [more]
|
In response to... |
June 29, 2008, 2:56AM |
|
 |
by: Jareth topic: Philosophy bookmark this article view bookmarked articles go to archives |
|
| This, I suppose I should post as an article. This is in response to a comment that Eon made regarding my article, "To wax a little more philosophically.."
He'd posited some interesting comments, and those that I could explain better I did, some of the others I did not respond to I felt were covered by that which I DID respond to. I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions and such. Where would the balance be if consciousness were continually brought in, but never returned? (To die, and have your spirit remain in the dirt with the body?) What would the point be of that output of energy? This assumes that the "spirit" is a distinct entity, possessing it's own energy. How do you know that what we perceive as "consciousness" is anything more than a sequence of memories, stored on what is essentially an organic computer? Once the physical body is destroyed, perhaps the memories are erased and everything that was once perceived as "spirit" or "consciousness" is simply a heap of lost data? This is an entirely possible theory, and I really cannot agree nor disagree with it. There really isn't much that I can identify as proof one way or another on that. However here is where a slight exercise in logic comes in. As in, if we were no more than a mere supervamped computer, how would that negate the concept of spirit, or spiritual energy? I defer, as reference, to the numerous documented projects detailing something that so far I am aware of has no other conjecture. These projects involve Kurlian(sp) photography, which give a very visual indication of a certain type of electromagnetic field that surrounds and envelopes the body, and which also has been noted to change color, size, and even shape apparently depending upon the individuals mood and state of being. In fact, further research in the last several years has shown that the state of this field tends to influence the body's health, and not the other way around. This is a field that is not observable in human bodies after death. Now I suppose that this could be stated to be a field generated by the operation of the "human computer", but either way without God or whatever to say, how can we know it's not just a by product of the machine operating, varying due to the operating parameters, or the real spirit? I would submit the further, documented experiments conducted by Robert A. Monroe (deceased) of the Monroe Institute, that demonstrate in observable and documented means a mode of human existence that does not necessitate the human body. I encourage anyone to google these names, you will find information. As well, Dr. Monroe published a trilogy of books (albeit the latter two seemed to be more of a chronicaling of his experiences rather than his scientific works) describing in fairly good detail how he went about experimenting with his Out Of Body Experiences, and proving what was and was not fact. What about the concept of when the body dies, the spirit simply ceases to be? Balance? Perhaps. This is a little more plausible than the previous, if the energy of that spirit were somehow recycled back into the stew of reality as raw. Then it could be more believable. Yes, this is where I think you're missing something. What energy are you talking about here? What exactly needs to be recycled? I think you're assuming there to be some kind of spiritual energy that needs to be dealt with. Why must there be? If the spirit is only a construct of the mind, then it doesn't exist in any real way. In this way, the spirit is virtual and virtual things can definitely go "poof". Well.. that being so, wouldn't electricity fall under the category of not existing in any real way? We cannot see or touch electricity, it has no quantifiable substance, only an effect that we have learned over centuries to measure and eventually harness. I do not as yet see any reason to think any differently of this energy that I speak of. There already is rudimentary means of measuring it, and even observing it, due to the previous research into the electromagnetic field. And what I would see being recycled, is the information that is carried within the energies of each individual. Afterall, what IS a thought, or memory? A perturbation of the EM field that is generated and transmitted within the brain, conducted along the synapsis and nerves, and all the little gooey things in the brain. Well, it makes sense to me that all that we learn is carried within our beings as an altered, or modulated, EM frequency. As we learn and grow our energies change due to the addition of more frequencies. This is how I suspect that we as a collective ALSO (not the only way, but it contributes) learn and evolve. By the recycling of these alterations into the mass pool of energy that we all exist in as is. That being, the EM field that permiates everything, us, plants, planet, sun, solar system. As stated before, if you look far enough into any given solid object you will find that it is created of EM particles, or energies. Proton, neutron, electron. Therefore, I see that as being the most common elemental constituent, something that even IF spirit did not exist, we all have in common with eachother and everything else. The original primordial ooze, if you will. This kind of observation just makes it seem like it's not such a far leap in logic. I'm thinking that, while this energy might not be observable within the body after the body expires, it leaves that and returns to the mass pool. Whether the individuality is kept in it's form or not, I cannot speculate. It would seem to me an idea both reeking of balance and making more sense as to why live at all.. the classic reincarnation theory. Why does life have to make sense or have a purpose? You're projecting a very human desire onto your interpretation of reality. Of course, just because we wish something doesn't make it so. Reincarnation theory is very elegant and it's pleasing to imagine. I'll give it that. But that's all I'll give it. Reincarnation isn't necessary to explain anything. It isn't some kind of missing piece that we need to fit. I may be trying to make it make sense, indeed this IS the thinnest part of all my conjecture, but I STILL have no reason to say it isn't a truth. But I will admit it is a bit weak by itself. Yes, this implies a creator, gestalt, superbeing. I can not logically and without ignorance conclude against such a being. Nor can I remove some form of evolution of that creation. And thus, the last chunk of your argument breaks down. There is no need for a creator. Whether or not there is one is open to debate, but we don't need one to explain anything. My only convincing observation on this matter, is the pure artwork I see in existence. I just cannot see the kind of beauty I see just.. happening. Blah, between conversations, surfing the net for information on other things, and just feeling lazy on a day I cannot leave the ship, I'm about worn out writing. I tried to keep this shorter and simpler, maybe I accomplished it? |
||
| pages: |