Concious awareness of the things that go beyond our boddily desires. For our body never needed to evolve beyond eating and mating. Yet it did. And animals never evolved to half the intelligence of a two year old,… yet we paved the way for them.
Yet all I have to do is say that all evidence of ghosts is the side effect of energy that is independent of the physical world. It seems to charge the air is goes though. Yet that would mean the soul charges the body. That’s why I say we use 100% of our brain to percieve the soul into the physical world. That’s why if you effect someones brain with drugs, you change their perception of the world.
Things that perplex me about the feelings of the brain. The lack of hope = depression,… and not just the void of hope. The lack of love doesn’t equal hate but indiffereance.
Something that is better explained by the soul then by physical science… How about the fact that when I feel love it comes from outside me and not from with-in like a horemone.
or marital love. For if love comes from the soul, how can it be that homosexuals are limited by who they can love. Or are you saying that marital love is caused by the body. But then I also say that the soul is neither male nor female, and it takes love between the sexes to look beyond these differences. Homosexuals will become bias toward estrogin and testosterone.
But then that’s just one of thousands of reasons you would want to deny the exsistance of the soul.
so let me get this straight. This electromagnetic disturbance around ghost sightings is more likely caused by solar flares.
But then the lack of logical cause allows me to assume a ghost and not be hampered in my scientific understanding of the world around me. You see philosophy is ideas of understand of that witch science cannot explain.
Just because a ghost sighting is led to believe it’s a ghost because of 20 different unexplained factors that point in the dirrection of it being a ghost,… doesn’t mean it’s actually a ghost because there is no dirrect proof.
What about black holes. Is there any dirrect proof of them. Or do you scoff at the scientists that write entire books about them?
rolf… but at least you can get laid by twenty different aids victums in one night.
is your need to turn people into meaningless sexual encounters a sign of your lack of ability to have intamite relationships? Or maybe you think it’s a way to prove your a man. You like the idea of everyone being reduced to sexual objects,… so you can class yourself as a concourer, and not a ugly dweeb.
Cheep shot,… I know satanists are just hippies in disguise. Make love and not war dude.
is DR satanical’s lack of reality in his posts reason enough to poke fun at him. Or should I take him seriously out of sake of respect toward individuality.
Well that’s the problem most people see with blorgs. It becomes a battle of wits and not facts. At least I’ve seen that in most message boards. Yet what facts are there about philosophy.
Ohh well, no matter where you live, you’ll find the same types of people.
Not to sound like a loon but, I have had outside encounters with spirits it was freaky, for quite awihle I kept quite about what was happening night after night at my job in a nursing home. i worked in food service My station was a dining hall reserved for folks that had apartments and could mostly care for themselves. Plates ,cups and glasses were stacked firmly up against the wall in short sturdy stacks at least 6 to 8 inches away from the edge of the table. No way could they have fallen off unless physically pushed. Yet they did evrynight I worked at that station before anyone would come in or after everyone had left some plates cups or glasses. You could hear them being pushed off the table and by the time I turned around or came into the dining hall from the little kitchen they would be in the air falling or on the ground. I never saw them actually move on the table. ( for that I am grateful ). My best friend and one other girl worked this station too. One night my friend and I were discussing work and I asked had she noticed anything wierd. she went white and just said “you too thank god”, We went to the other girl’s house and asked her the same question, The relief on her face was immediate.
Now we all had the plates and cups falling I now mention the footsteps and man like voice we all heard, also the locked doors opening and closing. All doors were locked when we were alone before serving and after. Yet we would hear them unlock and open and close even while standing beside the door the distinct sound and air touching our arms would go by us but, the door was locked. It might be possible the three of us are insane but, try as hard as we could there was no rational explanation to be found. We all confided to the security guard his reaction was much as ours was but, he claimed it could not be anything supernatural that there was a hardcore physical reason. so I am either bonkers or a fool. Perhaps that one incedent led to me being gullible or sensitive but, since that first time other things have occurred. so much so that I have ignore it now.
I do know that we are made up of energies that alone may explain alot.
I was actually going to rebut you, phil, but I felt stupid doing it.
Nothing you said about me has any grounding in reality, in fact very little of what you said had any grounding in reality (and none whatsoever in grammar)
But I did laugh out loud a few times, thanks for that
I found this to be particularly amusing
I don’t like getting involved in disputes, but this is particularly offensive. C’mon, guys, keep the sissy-fighting out of the forums Both of you are really smart but guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. Let’s keep it grounded in reality, as both of you are attempting to do, and attack the ideas not the people. Yeah?
Yeah. So about the soul.
Dr. Satanical:
Just for arguments’ sake, let’s say that there was scientific, empirical-quality evidence for the existence of the soul, an afterlife, God, etc. Would this convince you of its objective reality? Is physical science the same thing as the underlying reality it attempts to document and predict?
Because there’s a growing minority of physicists (c.f. Frank J. Tipler et al if you’re interested) who’re claiming that certain results of synthesizing quantum physics with general relativity can be reasonably interpreted as “proving” (scientifically) the existence of an afterlife, of the eternal existence of a soul, etc. I’m not saying this is the same thing as a proof of the existence of God, but I think it’s rather naive to oppose spiritualism/religion to science as though they’re mutually exclusive. Science, philosophy and religion do not work in a vacuum or completely independently of one another: they each represent partial answers of different aspects of the fundamental question we are all asking in one way or another.
Phil27of79:
Phil, as much as scientists talk of ‘proof’ and empiricism, most of them are sensitive enough to the philosophical issues surrounding their endeavor to recognize that their theorems and laws do little more than represent, model and predict reality and are NOT identical to the world. A map of the world is not the world, nor does it prove anything. It’s validity is its accuracy, the degree to which it reflects and makes intelligible the underlying reality, which is always in fluctuation. Science is cyclical and self-correcting, approaching the truth about the underlying nature of the universe, but always separated from it. But about black holes: besides the fact that at this point we actually have rather convincing evidence of their existence, I assume the point you’re trying to bring out is that before this happened they represented nothing more than the results of physical equations. To wit, one of the first people (Schwartzchild, I think) to solve Einstein’s field equations realized that his solution represented a black hole. Thus, his solution of the equations included a prediction which, depending on whether observations bore his prediction out, would reflect on the validity of his solutions. It turned out that to a considerable degree our observations and experiments imply that his solution to the field equations were valid. Importantly, THIS STILL DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING. It merely demonstrates that a given hypothesis (i.e., black holes exist) has not YET been falsified. Seeing a black hole would give this theorem much more credibility, but it would not suffice as proof in a philosophical sense. It would make us more certain but not absolutely certain. Absolute certainty is already within the realm of theology, not of philosophy.
Of these two premises, I highly doubt the first, and outright deny the second.
I am guilty of no ad-hom arguments.
I would suspect any ‘science’ involving the premise of ‘afterlife’ to be highly specious, absent any evidence.
There is no dualism between spirituality and science.
Science is a proven method that gets actual results.
Spirituality is a nebulous work of fiction, that hasn’t a shred of evidence to support it, nor does the existance of soul theoretically or otherwise add anything to what we know.
This isn’t direct proof… Mathematics is a language game like any other, all it shows is the rules by which the game is played and cannot be used to verify anything outside the game (such as black holes)…
the mathematics of language, concepts, are the way in which we see reality. There is no distinction therefore if you fail to take heed to these rules then you deny reality. Thus what you are saying is thorougly meaningless and cannot be true nor false!
Additionally beware your cartesian metaphors, they lead you down a wrong and thorougly meaningless path.
Dr.Satanical:
Your points are well taken, sir. However, if possible, I’d like you to clarify your position a bit further…
Undoubtedly. The scientific method would have been discarded long ago were it not for its profound ability to make predictions about reality and interpret the physical universe in a way that accords with objectively observable reality.
However, surely you will conceded that scientific theories are not Knowledge (in the eminent sense) nor are scientific models any more than just that. Certain fundamental axioms must be assumed to be true in order for science to function. While science is dependent upon empirical observation and the test of falsifiability, its results are not the same things as proving a hypothesis to be true. In any given instance, all one can reasonably and logically say about a scientific theory is that it has not been proven false. Objective reality is the goal of science, but by the philosophical bias inherent in the method, the best science can do is abstract and approximate.
What do you think about the reality of fundamentals–like mass, gravity, magentic fields, etc.? We can only infer that gravity exists by observing its effects–we still have yet to see a ‘graviton’ which is responsible for the creepy action-at-a-distance phenomenon involved. Also, you may be right about spirituality being fictional, but that doesn’t mean that science is factual as a result. I’m still curious about your response to the hypothetical situation where physics demonstrates in an empirical way the existence of a soul, or of God (Tipler calls it the Omega Point.) I disagree with his arguments, but the fact that serious scientists are advancing these kind of claims is at least interesting, don’t you think?
someoneisatthedoor:
I agree with you. There is certainly a world of difference (literally!) between language and reality. At best, language points to reality. But it does so through a neutral third term–words, abstract concepts, mathematics, etc–and thus is always at a remove from the world. Baudelaire talks of this ‘holocaust of words’: he says that language is radically insufficient for describing being, or the conscious experience of living. Words are only a place-marker for experiences which we assume to be common, such as percieving the color red when we look at an apple, but since we have no recourse to these experiences other than language, we are trapped within its confines. Wittgenstein notes that it’s impossible to use language to get outside of language.
The problem for me is naming things. Names seem so arbitrary and contingent when compared to the phenomena which they name, so rooted in society and history and politics that the actual event seems lost in the woods of etymology. We search for truth inside language or we search for truth with language… but experience, reality, is nonverbal and nonlinguistic. Language then seems to be almost an afterthought to the experience of being…
[/quote]
