spacer1

Amos,
So, "we are because it is our share of the collected consciousness from many generations past." We are? Are we our true identity or are we eternal or are we both? Is the quoted sentence the reason for our being our true identity and/or eternal, or is being our true identity and/or eternal the reason for the quoted sentence?

The quoted sentence bears a striking resemblance to evolution, btw.
The Lord God bears a similar resemblance to the human race. We are the "continuity" of our parents and their parents before them, etc. However, in speaking of the "collected consciousness", the focus seems more on our thoughts.
I'm taking your meaning of "soul" here to be similar to your "Lord God" above, in my interpretation, in that your "contribution" is to society, to other humans, and that the contribution we make to our souls is the legacy we leave to future generations.
Following on with my interpretation, I would only see a duality if I considered myself to be not only an individual, but also a part of a larger whole, which is society. The conflict arises between individual and society, since if I am an individual then I have a true "I", but if I am part of a larger whole I have no true "I". Is this what you mean?
I can't make much sense of this, other than that if we assume ourselves to be part of a larger whole and not as individuals, then we gain eternal life (psychologically, I assume).
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Bible.

spacer1

exnihilo,
Death is the end of life. The two are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot be both dead and alive.
This is a feature every pair of opposites possesses.

crocodile deathroll

Death is a part of life in fact it is
very much a part of live

spacer1

crocodile deathroll,
I have been speaking of life and death at the level of the organism, not at the cellular level. I do not dispute that cells die while we (as organisms) remain alive.

Amos

In our true identity we are eternal and in our ego identity we are temporal. We are eternal because in our true identity are we the continuity of the collected consciousness of many generations.

You are right, in race horses and dairy cattle we value this beyond anything but in humans we claim it does not exist.

Gen. 1, 2 and 3 is crammed with evolution because creation is the leading edge of evolution.



Yes and our thoughts originate in our mind. But I see your point and there must be a better word for that.

Correct, but not just the legacy because our children are our own flesh and blood and our values have an influence on their soul for many generations.

In my duality your "I" is the individual and the larger whole is our true identity that we inherited.

Yes, when we take up residence in our soul be become eternal. In the bible this is called the "upper room" and in politics we become senators in the upper house.

crocodile deathroll

Death on the organism's level is ecologically necessary, and a safety valve against over population.

On French Island in Westernport Bay, Victoria, there is a serious overpopulation problem with Koalas, and if you were to let these cute little critters breed unchecked it would be very bad news for the forest and very bad news for them in the long run.

This is the balance of nature in a nutshell.

pmurray

Is there any fate better than death? The gentle forever sleep. All of the alternatives are terrifying.

crocodile deathroll

We tend to look on death from the perspective of our own mortality, but in a objective sense that only means the death of an individual organism. That has hardly has any serious implications for the human race as a whole if only just one of its members die, but if for what ever reason some catastrophe were to bring on the extinction of the entire human race, that is an objective fate that would be far worse than death.

So a full species extinction would be a fate that would be far worse than death.

Bill Snedden

That's an interesting thought. Although undoubtedly it would be a highly unethical experiment, it does give one pause.

I can't immediately imagine any way in which such an experiment could be constructed. After all, sensory experiences take place in the womb. One would have to essentially ensure that the brain received no sensory input whatsoever for the entirety of its development. Under those circumstances, I don't see any reason to believe that there would be anything, even static.

I'm no expert in neurobiology, but I do know that stimulation is essential to the development of neural pathways in the brain. Without it, the brain will fail to develop the connections essential to the development of higher functions. It seems to me, therefore, that the lack of any stimulation, from any point in time during the development of the brain, would lead to a lack of these connections and thus to a lack of brain activity.

In short, I think it's quite likely that such an individual would be unable to detect any changes in brain activity, even given that there would be such activity. There would simply be nothing there to detect the changes...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Secular Elation

So a full species extinction would be a fate that would be far worse than death.

I meant the question in regards to the individual. But you make a good point.

The thing is, once I am dead, none of what you mention will no longer matter to me--the ultimate fate of the human race will mean nothing to me, since I will in fact be nothing upon my death. Objectively, however, the destruction of the human race is a far worse fate than the death of an individual. But from the individuals perspective, death is quite a dilemma, I think.