What if.. II
Richard K Bethell
Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Time travel ... space travel ... A LOT of it could be
> possible if just for a moment you would consider leaving
> your body behind and go ahead with your mind/soul alone...
> This body is tied to this present time and this planet;
> your mind on the other hand is something else..
On the other hand, you mind may be an illusion generated by your higher
brain functions. There is neither conclusive evidence for or against a
soul independent of body.
--
Richard K Bethell (cj...@freenet.carleton.ca)
* NCF Net Abuse Response Team member | CAUCE Member
* NCF Help Desk Coordinator * Helping users use FreeNet
* visit my PostScript page at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj434 *
Marcel M. LeBel
Time travel ... space travel ... A LOT of it could be
possible if just for a moment you would consider leaving
your body behind and go ahead with your mind/soul alone...
This body is tied to this present time and this planet;
your mind on the other hand is something else..
--
M. LeBel
Marcel M. LeBel
Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
On that subject.... Take the concept of distance; it is a
tool for our perception of the univers. Distance is a
measure between two points taken at the same moment; now,
you can't connect simultaneously two points because they
are always separate in time, therefore, distance as a
measure is not possible. Everything you see around you is
away in time !
Einstein never set out to tell us the limits of the
universe; only the limits of the observer. And as such,
we may have accepted those limits but we still have to
discover them.
> --
> M. LeBel
>
--
M. LeBel
Marcel M. LeBel
Richard K Bethell (cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Time travel ... space travel ... A LOT of it could be
>> possible if just for a moment you would consider leaving
>> your body behind and go ahead with your mind/soul alone...
>> This body is tied to this present time and this planet;
>> your mind on the other hand is something else..
>
> On the other hand, you mind may be an illusion generated by your higher
> brain functions. There is neither conclusive evidence for or against a
> soul independent of body.
OBE, remote viewing, etc. are pretty convincing to me.
> --
> Richard K Bethell (cj...@freenet.carleton.ca)
> * NCF Net Abuse Response Team member | CAUCE Member
> * NCF Help Desk Coordinator * Helping users use FreeNet
> * visit my PostScript page at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj434 *
--
M. LeBel
Richard K Bethell
Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Richard K Bethell (cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Time travel ... space travel ... A LOT of it could be
>>> possible if just for a moment you would consider leaving
>>> your body behind and go ahead with your mind/soul alone...
>>> This body is tied to this present time and this planet;
>>> your mind on the other hand is something else..
>>
>> On the other hand, you mind may be an illusion generated by your higher
>> brain functions. There is neither conclusive evidence for or against a
>> soul independent of body.
>
> OBE, remote viewing, etc. are pretty convincing to me.
>
There are physiological explanations for "disassociative" phenomenon such as
these and "Near Death Experiences". Most serious researchers on the topic
are quite unimpressed by the impoverished evidence not related directly to
disassociation, such as Oliver Sacks (sp?) who wrote "Awakenings".
Jim Poushinsky
Richard K Bethell (cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Richard K Bethell (cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Marcel M. LeBel (bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> Time travel ... space travel ... A LOT of it could be
>>>> possible if just for a moment you would consider leaving
>>>> your body behind and go ahead with your mind/soul alone...
>>>> This body is tied to this present time and this planet;
>>>> your mind on the other hand is something else..
Well said.
>>> On the other hand, you mind may be an illusion generated by your higher
>>> brain functions.
Consciousness as an illusion? All thought is illusion? Get a grip man!
Keep thinking like that and you might disappear altogether.
>>>There is neither conclusive evidence for or against a
>>> soul independent of body.
You are correct in assuming that a lack of proof is not conclusive
evidence something does not exist. On the other hand, if you personally
experience your soul as something independant of your body, that is
as conclusive evidence as it is possible to get.
>> OBE, remote viewing, etc. are pretty convincing to me.
And to me. First person experiences first, second hand information based
on the experiences of others second. As for those who have never had such
experiences and choose to disbelieve all who have - in the words of the
Beatles "it really doesn't matter..."
> There are physiological explanations for "disassociative" phenomenon such as
> these and "Near Death Experiences". Most serious researchers on the topic
> are quite unimpressed by the impoverished evidence not related directly to
> disassociation, such as Oliver Sacks (sp?) who wrote "Awakenings".
Imagine we came from a time before electricity and are seeing our first
working television. You would take the set apart and analyze its
components, then try to tell us the picture appearing on the set is
the result of the workings of the tv machine, nothing more.
The human body is a far more complicated communication device than a tv
or radio. Some people realize that, some don't. Why don't you try it out
for yourself? There's really nothing to fear about waking up in the higher
dimensional universe. The Gateway is within, through the unconditional
love in your heart. Let it shine and you will experience the truth that
will set you free of your self-imposed physical prison. It's your choice.
--
\.!./
Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
carleton.ca / : \
Richard K Bethell
I don't subscribe to this, personally. When all kinds of facets of your
behaviour can be altered by chemical stimulation/brain surgery, there is
clear reason to believe, in my view, that we *are* our bodies.
Brian RA Sterling
Yah, we are *only* physical substance which can be measured and recorded
by our human technology. O.K. If that is so, than Richard you prove
to me that you think, that you have actual *thoughts*.
Prove it to me now!
--
*Remember your future*
Hollywood is disinformation
CNN is misinformation
Entertainment Tonight is the truth
Brian RA Sterling
Yah, so cant prove to me with *physical* machines that you think.
I guess human beings dont really haev thoughts then, because according
to you, only what can be proven, and "picked-up" by our technology
is *real*.
Isnt this an attitude on the ignorant side of things?
Richard K Bethell
Brian RA Sterling (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Yah, we are *only* physical substance which can be measured and recorded
> by our human technology. O.K. If that is so, than Richard you prove
> to me that you think, that you have actual *thoughts*.
>
> Prove it to me now!
Beyond Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum?
I can't, of course.
That is the essence of Existentialism - it starts with the presumption
that you (ergo your thoughts) exist. Any attempt to use that to argue for
their own existance would be completely circular.
Richard K Bethell
Brian RA Sterling (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Yah, so cant prove to me with *physical* machines that you think.
Well, it is a reasonable deduction that I think. After all, I obviously
make a number of decisions in a day when I walk one way, instead of
another. Experiments with primates do tend to demonstrate that, in
primates at least, behaviour needs to be learned, ergo thought.
But the electrical signals fired by neurons in the Human brain are not
something that we have entirely figured out how to translate. So while the
circumstantial evidence is there that these things are thoughts in
process, I can;t *guarantee* that they are.
>
> I guess human beings dont really haev thoughts then, because according
> to you, only what can be proven, and "picked-up" by our technology
> is *real*.
>
Only what can be proven (and there are many levels of proof - in order to
accept Scientific proof, you have to accept that you, your consciousness,
and what you observe are real; the rest is a smaller leap) can be a
construct for further hypothesizing. If you heap speculation upon
speculation, you do eventually get a house of cards.
> Isnt this an attitude on the ignorant side of things?
I don't think so. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.
Brian RA Sterling
Yah, right as if physical machines actually prove anyting, other than
What dos it all meen, anyway for my fkin existence?
Brian RA Sterling
Mirror, Mirror on the wall
What have you written, why do you fall
Your ego blends too well with fiction
I do understand how pleasant conjecture
remains a crown of thorns upon your skull
or should that be Mirror Mirror on the Wall, who is the Dumbest of them All?
Brian RA Sterling
Egad! Ye Fools!!!
Brian RA Sterling
I guess that we may conclude that poetry/thought is really the most
absurd non-reality we can experience. Although I dont really know
how we can even experience something as absurd as poetry/thought
when it is scientifically unverifiable.
But then again, who ever said life was supposed to be "provable."