vagrant

David, I think you are projecting. I don't feel the need to think that I will be "eternal", I am comfortable with the fact that my time is finite.
And the body is just the vessel, that which made me "me", will be gone forever.

And as the atoms of my toothbrush, my dog, the gook on my shoe will all go on far beyond me, should I feel better that the bits of me that will be eternal will also have my stuff?

Moderator: Does the original post really have anything to do with "Philosophy"? Seems more like some more idle ramblings from DM to me.

[edited because you would think I could type considering its a major facet of how I make my living...]

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: vagrant ]
[DOH...son of a...]

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: vagrant ]</p>

Dr S

The idea of an afterlife has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard. I don't know about you guys but I would have a pretty hard time seeing and hearing without my sense organs. Moving around might be a bit of a problem too with no hands or feet.
But the idea that it is beneficial just to "believe" in one-with no mention of if it is a fact or not-shows IMO a rather poor view of human kind

Belief in an afterlife is beneficial to the degree to which it does motivate people to sacrifice their life in defense of others.
I spent 18 months in combat myself, so I have some experience to base an opinion on.
There is no correlation whatsoever between risking your life for others and the belief in an afterlife. With one exception. Every man I met who claimed to have "a personal relationship with Jesus" was a coward.

Martyrdom is such a self-sacrifice in which people die in defense of their faith and their fellow believers.
In this past year thousands of Americans, and people from all parts of the world were murdered by martyrs to their faith. That you could have even suggested that such a thing is a positive attribute is appalling.

There are other forms of brave actions such as military exploits or standing in front of a car to save a child which belief in an afterlife justify.
Just doesn't make any difference at all, so you can stop patting yourself on the back.
Altruism is prevalent in many animal species and in all the great apes, including us. It is part of "hunting pack" behavior and is quite common amongst domestic dogs. It has nothing to do with superstitions…er, um… I mean philosophies, it's genetics.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Dr S ]</p>

lpetrich

However, one can always sacrifice oneself for the perceived benefit of others; in fact, "kin selection" is the favorite explanation for the evolution of altruism.

What does social convenience have to do with truth? This seems to be the Royal-Lie viewpoint all over again.

Then why not send oneself there?

Amos

Hello Dr.S

I must disagree with you (sorry to disagree in my first post to you), because our "sense organs" are just the organs needed to transfer the different kinds of messages to the mind, which is the place where they are interpreted and either forgotten or tied into the eternal mind. Each one of us has an eternal mind that is incarnate to us from our ancestors for up to "One Thousand Years." In this respect mankind is eternal and humankind is temporal. The point here is that humans are temporal (to make atruism possible) and man is eternal. This makes humans superficial and phony (to make cowardice possible) because the temporal existence of our humanity is only a conditional state of existence (our human-ity is only a condition of being that belongs to the being so indicated with the -ity suffix; see Aristotle's "Cathegories").

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

I agree and am happy to see it here again.

Dr S

(Amos) I must disagree with you (sorry to disagree in my first post to you),
(S) Not at all. I'm married with children, and so am quite used to being told that I am wrong.

(Amos) because our "sense organs" are just the organs needed to transfer the different kinds of messages to the mind, which is the place where they are interpreted and either forgotten or tied into the eternal mind.
(S) Some how we've left out more than a little of the knowledge that we have of how people function. As poetic as this view is it ignores the fact that it is the brain-a very physical organ-that sorts out the information received from our sense organs. The "mind" is just our term for the functioning of this organ. There cannot be an "eternal mind" without an eternal brain.

The mind cannot sense anything without sense organs. In fact when deprived of sensation the mind goes "hay wire.

(Amos) Each one of us has an eternal mind that is incarnate to us from our ancestors for up to "One Thousand Years."
(S) And you base this statement on just what?
As for your ancestors minds-when you consider that you have two parents and the each have two…and so on, doubling the number for each generation…the number of individuals that you are descended from in just the past thousand years is staggering.
As you cannot remember even one of their life memories it is safe to assume that all of their countless minds ceased when their individual brains stopped functioning.

(Amos) In this respect mankind is eternal and humankind is temporal. The point here is that humans are temporal (to make atruism possible) and man is eternal.
(S) Eternal is quite a claim to make. Every species runs it's course and becomes extinct either through death or through evolving into something else. The Sun and the Earth themselves are not eternal. If the scraps and atoms go on for some time it does not mean that you do. You can make no claims on eternity.

(Amos) This makes humans superficial and phony (to make cowardice possible) because the temporal existence of our humanity is only a conditional state of existence
(S) A very bleak view, and an undeserved one at that.

Amos

The point was that both altruism and cowardice are possible only because of our dual mode of existence. Since one cannot be conceived to exist without the other a bleak view can be juxtaposed with a positive view.

Dr S

(Amos) True, yet we are incarnate sons and daughters of our parents who were incarnate sons and daughters of their parents who were incarnate sons and daghters of their parents and so on, and on unto One Thousand Years which I believe will be the furthest away that our ancesters' real life experiences can have an influence on our behavior.
(S) Depends on which side of the family you are talking about.
If we figure a generation is 20 years (to make the math easier) and we assume that each parent had two parents by the time we get back to only 1800 you already have 2046 parents and grandparents. In August of 1002 there would be millions and millions of people in your family tree.
You're are going to have to settle for having you Mothers Father's hairline and your Dad's ears.

(Amos) I actually believe that Methuselah was that old because that was the furthest he could recollect data from his own eternal mind.
(S) Under the best of conditions the human body can make it to about 120 years old before it falls apart by it's self. Methuselah is just an old folk tale.

(Amos) My basis for this is that we only use a small portion of our mind that we call our conscious mind
(S) The using only 10% of your brain is an urban myth. You need ever bit of brain you have.
(Amos) …and we use this to recollect data (Plato) from our subconscious mind and add to this knowledge based on our sense perception and situation evaluation.
(S) When you find yourself in possession of information that you had no way of knowing you are not drawing upon the wisdom of your long dead family members…you are imagining things.

(Amos) In animals science we do believe in pedigree breeding and are willing to place huge bets on this science.
(S) Yeah, it's called genetics and is what evolution is based on.
(Amos) For now, it is not so important that you believe in it as much as that I recognize a valid basis for my proposition
(S) That's good because I'm not believing. The basis of your proposition seems to be myth and tall tale and not observation.

(Amos) Eternal is simple and means without the conscious passing of time.
(S) The key word there is "conscious." Whether we are conscious of it or not, time still passes.
(Amos) In our right brain we are not time conscious and so if we can become 'resident' of our right brain it can be said that we are eternal. To be resident of our right brain we must go by our intuition.
(S) And why would we even want such a condition?

I'm reminded of an afternoon spent at the San Francisco Zen Center. I listened to the lecture on history and ritual. I learned about quieting the mind. I sat on the mat in front of a bronze Buddha with my group. All of us droning the Ohm, all of us with our hands in little "okay" symbols of harmony resting on our knees.
But I peaked after about ten minutes. I looked at us all sitting, I looked at me sitting…and I got the giggles. I couldn't believe how foolish and pretentious I was and it broke me up.
They say it's good to be able to laugh at yourself; just not in front of a bunch of monks.

Dr S

Not to pick nits but I just looked up Methuselah
in Gen:5
Where are you getting your information on what he did and didn't know? The only things written about him are...

GEN5:21
And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
5:22
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:23
And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
5:25
And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
5:26
And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:27
And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

And that's all there is about him.

Infinity Lover

I deliberately cut out the middle part there. This unfortunately smells like the 'religion as a medicine' argument just a little too much.

if religion was a medicine, having to comply with every regulation other medicines have to comply with, it would have been pulled off the market LONG ago, due to SERIOUS side-effects!

I acknowledge David tries to manifest himself as a good person. But a good man should also apply himself to make WISE choices (back to philosophy, don't panic), because he's ultimately responsible for the consequences of his choices.

Isn't a leap of faith making a choice regardless of consequences?

How about the way the world's divided into a multitude of disagreeing groups (a situation David obviously regrets, as one of his posts on this thread points out). THAT is a situation that will never go away as long as the belief in a higher power is maintained. See; God UNITES! And uniting ladies and germs IS dividing.

God want's his believers to be honest. But distinguishing between certainties and uncertainties (a sssubtil difference that'ssss very tempting to disssmisss) is where the line of truthfullness is drawn in the defense of beliefs. Be honest, as long as you lie to yourself about me.

Be cautious towards earthly temptations, but disregard religion as a possible earthly temptation.

If God wanted David to be honest, would he honour his wishes?
Any comments inspired by those two cents?
David?


[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>