WJ

Well, of course I would have to agree with Kim on this one too. Not only from Bill's either/or comparison to dualism, but from an anti-materialism view.

Perhaps the ironic thing about dualism is the fundamental question that Bill poses. Why can't there be independent existence? Why can't we be an 'illogical' [for lack of] mixture of both?

Well, maybe the question relates to the word be. What does it mean to be or exist? Is it logical to exist? What does Being mean?

I think too, another appealing thing of dualism (though it's been awhile) is that there are those related questions pertaining to the evolution of ethics and emotions. (Has ethics evolved?) Emotionally and ethically, are we the same stupid people we were since consciousness appeared on the planet? Why can't I be what I want to be? Why does my mind will one thing; my flesh another? Why do I even think that? How are we different from lower life forms? Why do we posses the ablity to compute math when the laws of gravity aren't required to dodge falling objects for survival in the jungle?

I think that the tension of Being/existence supports the idea that human's are a mixture of an 'independent' mind and body because of our ability to have and hold such thoughts of finitude (consciousness). To know that we are aware that what we are now, may or could be different with time, yet still not achieve that which we will to achieve, is something profound and not to be taken lightly as simple happenstance (as we percieve our evolutionary existence as absolute). Aside from the old arguments of sentience, love, and all the rest, materialism seems even less appealing to me in explaining away a complete theory of conscious existence from inert matter.

From a metaphysical point of view though, I think even the notion that 'one could not be declared 'a human' if the body didn't exist', is quite appealing. Isn't that what part of so-called spiritual phenomena is

On a lighter side, I was watching a comercial about drugs and depression where the person said the causes for which are still unknown. Were cave men depressed? Do we still have problems associated with how one ought to behave and think?Again, has ethics evolved?

As to the original question, essentially, I propose man has no new mind. As been said before, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't know, I can certainly be wrong...

Walrus

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Philosoft

Never mind.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

A3

Hi All,

And ‘they stay the same’ because although we have become more sophisticated, the reason why we are here has not changed one bit. There is quite a lot to read here and absorb. I cannot avoid remembering a story I heard some years ago about a group of blind people that visited a zoo. They were invited to touch the elephant and describe what they thought the animal looked like. They each touched different parts of the animal and so each had very different descriptions.
I can only relate to the one system that I have been close to and makes sense to me and thus seems true to me. But each his or her own and if anyone wants to call it a cult, please stand in line.
There is one thing, however, that is very high in this system’s banner and that is freedom. As this website also proofs, we all have the freedom to think whatever we want.

One aspect of the above story that very much applies, we are all born spiritually blind. We all have to learn to elevate our thoughts above the natural plane, even above spacetime. Allow me to just quote a small section of “The Human Mind” which is based on Swedenborg’s (1688-1772) writings.

[in other words is spiritually blind]

From Swedenborg’s perspective I can even agree, very remotely, with the thought that dead objects have a spirit because they have a use, a purpose and sometimes a very lofty representation or even medicinal value. In no way, however, can I see that as being a life form.
Life is response to God (positive or negative) because God is LIFE itself. A gesture or act can certainly have a motive which could be seen as a spirit.

Our physical environment is extremely familiar with pollution. And this is just my idea, but is it possible that through our ignorance about spiritual things we have invited the wrong crowd. Our thoughts don’t originate in our gray matter, they are received by it and how do we know what is good and what is bad. We have nothing to relate to. The Christian Church is no help, they have been spiritually dead for over 200 years.

On the one hand it is a neat idea that at death this ‘lightbulb’ turns infra red. What’s the use though? You are right though, we can’t die, but that can only be the case if we are spirits in a body. It is nice and neat to think up all sort of stuff but the qualifier is: what is the use??????
Adrian

emphryio

I think a mind without body would result in all personal identity and individual personality being lost.
Although perfect memory would be obtained and perfect intelligence, (notwithstanding creativity), we would all be ultimately exactly the same.

A3

We do have a lot in common with animals and rocks and worms. But what makes us human is our mind. Our mind loves, thinks and even sees and feels. Each one of us does this interpreting differently, as we all know. Our mind is us, and makes us the individuals we are. It also is the one and only thing we 'take with us.' We do indeed become more perfect individuals after death but in the same direction we have started here. If after death we all end-up the same, this life would make absolutely no sense at all.
Adrian