|
Post by brandt on Dec 19, 2011 13:49:27 GMT 9.5
I don't think that the physical existence is separated from anything else. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy (Junior High School Science) is true. Neither the body nor the energy that makes it up ceases to exist. What isn't supported anywhere is a continuation of a "self." If anything it is seen that the self does not perpetuate.
We may have to have a discussion on the nature of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 19, 2011 14:57:00 GMT 9.5
I don't think that the physical existence is separated from anything else. What anythings do you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 20, 2011 0:53:46 GMT 9.5
brain-mind, body-spirit, etc. etc.
If, when we die, we are simply reabsorbed into the absolute that this pheonomenon that we view as "I" is diluted to be nothing in particular. How far stretched can "I" be before the image loses coherence?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 20, 2011 6:03:22 GMT 9.5
... If, when we die, we are simply reabsorbed into the absolute .... Any number of people in every age report having witnessed or experienced their deceased relatives. General Patton comes to mind. He reported that he would discuss tactics with his grandfather the night before each battle.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Dec 20, 2011 7:19:46 GMT 9.5
Wotif - the 'absolute' is Mind? Wotif - when we are eventually re-absorbed we all think we are the Mind? I and my Father are One. Wotif - we on the forum are chatting to ourselves? You don't read much apart from science books? ;D If you are interested, one of my dead relatives came to tell me about an expected baby in her family .... which proved to be true, and not known by the expectant family themselves at the time. I have related other instances on this forum. So I can tell you with confidence that the self does survive the death of the body physical. (So be very careful what you say about people at the funerals ;D )
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 20, 2011 7:24:14 GMT 9.5
The Buddha was emphatic that there is no self that continues. Could he have been wrong?
As a consequence of my work I an up to my derrier in science books, research, and reports. So who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Paul, General Patton could well have been a loon.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 20, 2011 7:33:28 GMT 9.5
The Buddha was emphatic that there is no self that continues. Could he have been wrong? As I recall the Buddha was cautious in his teachings to avoid confusing the masses. "Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. " Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.) ..General Patton could well have been a loon. But he was not. As I recall the Germans regarded Patton as the best Allied general. So here is Patton explaining one of his means of being the best. "A bad tree cannot put forth good fruit"
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 20, 2011 9:24:10 GMT 9.5
Are you suggesting that even the Buddha recommended that I be skeptical of the statements of others?
Regarding Patton, being a loon doesn't make one a bad general.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 20, 2011 9:51:27 GMT 9.5
It is necessary to test all statements:
- by experiment and/or observation if possible, or if unable - by reason, or if unable - by consistency with existing beliefs.
This last is perhaps the most common, but is not really a learning strategy
Personally I prefer observation and experiment - as necessary to progress in the work of the FC
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 20, 2011 9:52:43 GMT 9.5
.. Patton, being a loon doesn't make one a bad general. And yet he is a classic example of using the mind as a sense organ. Tesla is another classic.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Dec 20, 2011 10:23:27 GMT 9.5
The Buddha was emphatic that there is no self that continues. Could he have been wrong? Then Buddha no longer exists. My eyes. Remember the Emporer (with no clothes) Yes, optical illusion is common... not so common is the 'illusion' which brings new knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 20, 2011 13:49:05 GMT 9.5
It is necessary to test all statements: - by experiment and/or observation if possible, or if unable - by reason, or if unable - by consistency with existing beliefs. This last is perhaps the most common, but is not really a learning strategy Personally I prefer observation and experiment - as necessary to progress in the work of the FC I certainly prefer experimentation and observation.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 20, 2011 13:50:45 GMT 9.5
.. Patton, being a loon doesn't make one a bad general. And yet he is a classic example of using the mind as a sense organ. Tesla is another classic. Can you really that those two men experienced their environment directly without the mediation of their sense organs. The brain is not a sense organ, please point to the mind as separate from the brain. Tesla, while brilliant, was just a man who had the same constraints of Homo sapien biology.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 20, 2011 15:31:37 GMT 9.5
Can you really that those two men experienced their environment directly without the mediation of their sense organs. They gave detailed accounts of just that. The brain is not a sense organ That is a different topic. Nevertheless, it is already known that some animals have magnetic crystals in the brain that they use for navigation , please point to the mind as separate from the brain. That again is a different topic. Some NDEs occurred under surgery when all brain activity ceased and yet the patient was able to report what was happening Tesla, while brilliant, was just a man who had the same constraints of Homo sapien biology. Quite possibly so, and a sobering lesson that is. I suspect you have not read his writings. www.amazon.com/Tesla-Said-Nikola/dp/0914119001This gives good accounts of his perception and modelling processes.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 21, 2011 1:15:48 GMT 9.5
I have read a good deal about Tesla, a remarkable man indeed.
A magnetic crystal is simply a sense organ, the brain of that animal is still not a sense organ. Disconnecting the sense organs from the brain leaves the brain with no input from the outside world. It is likely to invent some stuff by replaying recorded stimuli but no new stimuli gets in.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 21, 2011 5:47:17 GMT 9.5
A magnetic crystal is simply a sense organ, the brain of that animal is still not a sense organ. So the magnetic crystal that is embedded in the brain is not part of the brain even though using neurons to function? And the excised crystal, shorn of its neurons is an organ even though it is inorganic? I think that strains the usual meaning of the word organ.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 21, 2011 6:03:17 GMT 9.5
I have read a good deal about Tesla, a remarkable man indeed. "When I get an idea, I start at once building it up in my imagination. I change the construction, make improvements and operate the device in my mind. It is absolutely immaterial to me whether I run my turbine in thought or test it in my shop. I even note if it is out of balance. There is no difference whatever; the results are the same. In this way I am able to rapidly develop and perfect a conception without touching anything. When I have gone so far as to embody in the invention ever possible improvement I can think of and see no fault anywhere, I put into concrete form this final product of my brain. Invariably my device works as I conceive that it should, and the experiment comes out exactly as I planned it. " Lost Journals of Tesla p21 Here Tesla explains that mental building of devices produces exactly the same result as workshop testing - invariably. How can that occur unless the mind is a sense organ?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 21, 2011 12:32:34 GMT 9.5
Really Bro?
Imagination did not build anything until he put it into action. If he never turned a wrench none of his work would have been made manifest.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 21, 2011 15:06:55 GMT 9.5
That is not the point he is making. He is explaining how he uses the mind to prototype his invention and that his mind is so completely faithful to physical reality that only the final version need be produced.
You may see parallels with Mozart's mental processes.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 22, 2011 1:16:58 GMT 9.5
So what you are saying is that he can think about it, he knew a great deal about it, but none of it was real into he actually made it?
|
|