I hear this crap all the time! (page 5)

Pole

Confession: If I was religious, I'd now believe in the immortal soul thing.

Pole

zen nudist

from buddhism I find an interesting concept

the Buddha taught that those who say there is an immortal soul are mistaken, but those who deny one were just as mistaken... which of course leaves most poeple just scratching their heads.....

for me it boils down to this:

I have NEVER known a moment when I did not exist and I will never know such a moment.....

but the me who knows is always existing only in one moment, now.... so NOW is the only moment I ever have to worry about...

is there life after death? the main thing to me is there life BEFORE death? even if I was reincarnated from a prior existance, that does not guarentee that system will continue either.... so now is all I got, now is when I always find myself alive, now is when I have to make any decisions that I need to make, so now is where I have learned to live...and my life has significantly improved since I have stopped trying to live in the future and stopped worrying about changing the past...two things I have never experienced, but only worried too much about.

metaphysically I find that I am a wave upon the ocean and the ocean.... what I am is made of many changing elements and relationships of the one thing which never changes, the overall total universe which never grows nor shrinks in energy... while it may change wildly in size and shape and relationships within it.... so part of me is never the same from moment to moment while all of me is always the same eternally...which I believe answers the buddha's puzzle.

LittleToe

Pole:
I like to take a dualistic approach to things.

The overarching "objective" view is fair and just, but we can't see life from that angle, because the picture is too large and interconnecting.
The here-and-now "subjective" view is all we have to play with, and it's mightily confusing...

upside/down

Well we know what the Dubs would say...

I guess the question for us would be the status of the "data" from the death of the physical body till it's re-install in a newly made one. One could easily liken the data "you" (as a mental entity) to a "soul" and I still think that the wording might be argued by some but the concept is as you describe essentially the same. So if you change the definition of the soul to mean "you" as a sentient thinking entity and not as "you" (Dub def) the complete person, I can see that point of view.

I guess I'm tending to focus on the end result and not the process. Like TV- I'll be damned if I can figure out how the damned picture and sound goes through the air and then is pulled out of the air and presented as a show on the tube. I even took physics in school and still don't quite "get it". But I still enjoy TV ( the result of the process I don't "get"). I hope I'm explaining that right..

u/d Top o the marnin to ya!

Pole

LT,

The overarching "objective" view is fair and just, but we can't see life from that angle, because the picture is too large and interconnecting.
The here-and-now "subjective" view is all we have to play with, and it's mightily confusing...

Exactly what I meant. I tend to stick with the latter aspect of your dualistic approach. Perhaps due to some nasty experiences which have dimmed my picture.

Pole of the "I'm off to pick up my wife from work before she decides kill me for not showing up for so long" class

zen nudist

guess the question for us would be the status of the "data" from the death of the physical body till it's re-install in a newly made one. One could easily liken the data "you" (as a mental entity) to a "soul" and I still think that the wording might be argued by some but the concept is as you describe essentially the same

if data alone were involved there would be no problem.... the main point is that I am not data, but something some entity, or whatever who is AWARE of data.... I find no way that data can be ware of itself.... so moving data around is not moving that aspect which I most associate with me, my awareness.

from buddhism I find an interesting concept
the Buddha taught that those who say there is an immortal soul are mistaken, but those who deny one were just as mistaken... which of course leaves most poeple just scratching their heads.....
for me it boils down to this:
I have NEVER known a moment when I did not exist and I will never know such a moment.....
but the me who knows is always existing only in one moment, now.... so NOW is the only moment I ever have to worry about...
is there life after death? the main thing to me is there life BEFORE death? even if I was reincarnated from a prior existance, that does not guarentee that system will continue either.... so now is all I got, now is when I always find myself alive, now is when I have to make any decisions that I need to make, so now is where I have learned to live...and my life has significantly improved since I have stopped trying to live in the future and stopped worrying about changing the past...two things I have never experienced, but only worried too much about.
metaphysically I find that I am a wave upon the ocean and the ocean.... what I am is made of many changing elements and relationships of the one thing which never changes, the overall total universe which never grows nor shrinks in energy... while it may change wildly in size and shape and relationships within it.... so part of me is never the same from moment to moment while all of me is always the same eternally...which I believe answers the buddha's puzzle.

LittleToe

Zen:S'ok, data was just an analogy.

So if you are that "One", do we get to blame you for all the crap that's going on in the world...

zen nudist

So if you are that "One", do we get to blame you for all the crap that's going on in the world...

you can blame me for not being an ideal fantasy version of what I am.... but if you accept me as you find me, there is nothing to blame

reality is perfect until you compare it to something its not...which is only done in human ignorance of reality, not understanding of it.

AlmostAtheist

Note- Any Star Trek fans? Are the people that get "beamed" the same person? Disassembled atomically then reassembled and what about their minds and memories? To me it's like the internet... same concept EXACTLY.

Yeah, the transporter thing is similar. I always assumed, though, that they weren't copying as much as truly "transporting". The physical converted to energy then reconverted to physical. This makes a little sense because they had transporters, but not replicators. (Replicators came later)

But of course, they invariably had trouble with the transporter (made by the same company that later built Holodecks, no doubt) and ended up with two of the same person. When they did, it always became a question of who was the "original" and who was the "copy". (They even let Riker's copy go on living, I always wished they'd've done more with that character in another episode.)

I think this is something you either buy or you don't. We're both looking at the same thing, but we call it something different. I say that you're dead and this "resurrected" guy just looks, acts, and thinks like you. To all appearances, he's you. Your friends will all be happy to see him, since he's you. But to my way of thinking, he's not you.

An immortal soul solves that problem. But probably creates others.

I expect to dissolve and get eaten by bacteria when I die. I hope they enjoy me. I've been eating lots of Twinkies, I should be good and tender by then. ;-)

Dave

LittleToe

Isn't the devil always in the detail.
And so theology was born...

I hear this crap all the time!

Share this