Aha! I think I know what you are talking about, Bosda!
http://store.sluggy.com/detailed-autumnzoe.html
Our hair is identical. But that is where the resemblance ends. sigh[/hijack]
Now, we are getting somewhere. Can we see these coded sequences as memory in data storage in the human brain? What do they look like and if stimulated could they reproduce the event? Since everything we experienced should be stored, that should be a whole lot of data, and easy to see. I want to get beyond theory and see some proof. This would be your proof of non-spiritual man.
Can you explain how someone who has never been taught music can play a piano? Happens, you know.
Now if the brain is damaged in a certain area, soon another area takes over the function of the damaged part. How does the brain know to do this? Do you know all brain cells look alike, but seem to function in many different ways. I don’t know of any other organ cells in the body that do this.
Ever wonder what makes you, you, and no one else. Why is everyone so unique?
You have not given proof of anything yet, just theory.
So “by definition,” nature is everything that exists? Seems to me that you’re adopting a rather creative (and unsubstantiated) definition of the term.
Then perhaps you can site an authoritative text – an encyclopedia of philosophy, perhaps – which substantiates your definition. You’ve been asserting that nature should be defined this way, but have yet to support that claim.
Quite simply, I’m using the dictionary. Here’s what dictionary.com has to say:
Note that not a single one of these definitions says “everything in existence.” Indeed, definition #1 is the only one which applies to this discussion, and it is explicitly limited to “the material world” alone. In other words, it is not meant to include immaterial phenomena (e.g. spirits, ghosts, souls).
That’s because your definition is erroneous.
What dendrites look like:
http://www.tagtoys.com/html/dendrites.htm
Yes, artificial electrical stimulation of the brain can elicit memories; it has been demonstrated under controlled conditions.
Uh, the data isn’t gonna be sitting there in your brain in Microsoft Word format. Other than that, I’m not sure what you’re expecting. There’s plenty of proof, you’re just ignoring it in favor of your own personal agenda.
You’ve raised questions, but what do these questions have to do with the topic at hand?
Teaching yourself a new skill, piano or otherwise, is just part of the learning process. Most learning goes on without a teacher, just by experience (read “trial and error”).
How does this relate to the alleged existance of the “supernatural”? 
Given the fact that the brain is behind 1/3rd of an inch of bone (for some of us), I have not seen a living brain in person. See the comment on “ethics” above.
Electrical phenomina are not “seen” in any caes, they are measured by EKG equipment.
>>You have not given proof of anything yet, just theory.<<
My friend, scientific theory is backed up with facts. “Facts” meaning observed & recorded data that can be replicated under controlled circumstances. Which is why your notion of the “supernatural” is not a fact, nor is it a theory–it is an unproven hypothesis. A guess. And every attempt to test your hypothesis under repeatable laboratory conditions has resulted in failure.
To put it another way, weigh me out five pounds of “spirit” and put in a paper sack, Bub.
How do these phenomena interact with the physical universe, then? Why do we consider them to be ‘immaterial’ if they can do so?
I don’t think you have any conception of the scientific and philosophical problems plaguing dualism.
Good grief.
If an entity is not bound by physical laws, it does not mean that it is incapable of influencing the physical world. It could very well be that an immaterial entity can influence physical objects, but not vice versa. (In other words, Newton’s third law would not apply.) For example, if an all-powerful entity were to have created the universe, this would not necessarily imply that the universe can likewise exert force or influence on that all-powerful entity.
Moreover, let’s suppose that you’re correct. Suppose that an immaterial object CAN NOT exert influence on the physical world? Does this mean that it does not exist? Obviously not. So either way, raising your question does not automatically prove the non-existence of the supernatural. If your tenet were correct, then the supernatural could exist, but it would merely be undetectable.
And I think you’re putting too much stock in these alleged “problems.” You raised a question, but raising this question does not automatically disprove the existence of the supernatural. You continue to think as though the supernatural must somehow be subject to physical laws, but that isn’t necessarily so.
Once again, for emphasis: “Nature” refers to the physical, material universe. “Supernatural” means those things which are outside of nature. The existence of nature and its physical laws does nothing to disprove the existence of the supernatural.
Au contraire, that’s precisely what it means.
If there’s an interaction between some “immaterial” phenomenon and one that we accept is part of the “physical” universe, then the description of the nature of that interaction is a rule that determines the behavior of the physical universe. That binds the supposedly immaterial event as much as it does the material – more precisely, it shows that the designation of “immaterial” is incorect.
Is light part of the physical universe? People once were convinced that it was fundamentally different from “normal” objects. We know better now.
Being capable of interacting with the material world is what we mean by the word “existence”, JThunder. Another universe in which things interact with each other but that doesn’t interact with out universe cannot be said to exist relative to us. The consequences of its “existing” are identical in every way to the consequences of its “not existing”. The designations are indistinguishable.
No, it doesn’t. It merely implies that the immaterial phenomenon CAN influence the physical. It does not mean that there must be some “rule” which governs that interaction. Again, consider some all-powerful entity that can create or destroy at will. No rules, no physical limitations.
Moreover, even if such rules exist (whatever they may be), these aren’t necessarily physical rules. So even then, supernatural phenomena aren’t subject to physical laws, and are not part of the physical universe.
Granted, but that doesn’t prove that non-physical phenomena CAN NOT exist. You can’t prove that non-physical phenomena can’t exist, merely by pointing to an instance wherein some people were mistaken.
No, it isn’t. Existence is merely the quality of existing. Even if something is incapable of interacting with the physical world, that still would not imply that it does not exist. Heck, it could be interacting with other non-physical phenomena. How could it do so, if it has no existence whatsoever?
You don’t have any idea what it means to claim that there are no rules describing the interactions, do you?
(Typical. I suppose next you’ll be claiming that the problem of an immovable object meeting an irresistable force is unsolvable.)
If there are no rules to govern the interaction, then we can’t say that the interaction has some effect A and not effect Not A. We can’t actually say that the interaction has any particular property because we can’t exclude any properties (which result is identical to excluding all properties).
If existence is the quality of existing, what does it mean for something to be existing? What properties are we implying when we say something exists?
By definition, nothing outside the universe exists. Your inability to grasp this simple concept is most remarkable.
Hmm. If we cannot affect or observe the supernatural universe, and it has no effects on our universe that cannot be explained by existing natural laws, then how can we know it exists?
Actually, if objects fall not because of the laws of gravitational attraction, but because The Supernatural makes them fall, and could not make said object start levitating and singing show tunes the next time you dumped it off a cliff, you have no problems with science or philosophy, because they wouldn’t meaningfully exist: without an underlying series of rules governing the universe, observations would be meaningless, and all knowledge therefore not necessarily true.
Again, consider an all-powerful entity that created the universe. Most people would agree that such an entity must be supernatural in nature. Indeed, if that entity created nature, then it cannot be part of it!
Such an entity is not subject to physical rules. We can describe its behavior, insofar as we say it can do anything to the universe that it desires, but that hardly constitutes a “physical rule.” If anything, it’s a blanket assertion that all rules are off!
To say that “By definition, nothing outside the universe exists” is simply false. The universe is physical, and the definition of the universe does not preclude non-physical phenomena from existing.
Once again, let’s look at what dictionary.com has to say:
Look at definition #1 closely. By definition, the universe is limited to matter and energy. Your assertion that “By definition, nothing outside the universe exists” is simply false.
“Matter and energy” are concepts we used to describe the universe. (They’re also fundamentally transmutable: they’re really different forms of the same thing.)
If something interacts with the stuff of the universe, it’s necessarily obeying the same principles (or laws, or properties, or rules, or whichever term you’d like) it is, and it’s therefore part of the universe.
Why? What evidence exists that we should give such a concept any consideration?
As a matter of fact, if the supernatural isn’t bound by the rules of our universe, then we can’t really make any claims about it. We can, however, note that there is no need for the supernatural to exist, that the universe appears to be consistent and there is no reason to assume ghosts or magic or God exist, and move on to another topic.
(Yeah, right.)
Bingo! This is the only credit I can give lekatt. S/he rightly yearns to find a satisfactory way of describing how matter can extend into mind and mind into matter. Lekatt of course has this erroneous concept of what modern epistemic systems founded on scientific methodologies have to say about it. S/he thinks contemporary Scientists are all materialists and have resolved the dualist problem by claiming “man is meat” (meat meaning matter I will assume). Lekatt, says: wrong, “man is spiritual” (spiritual meaning mind I will assume). And incredibly (shame on you who feels spoken to), some in this thread are reinforcing her “all Science-minded are materialist”. From now on, let’s call them Brights ;).
You can dismiss mind as little as you can dismiss body, but neither can you completely separate them into two distinct systems. And here is Lekatts big mistake about Brights. Many of us don’t have a problem with how matter turns into spirit and spirit into matter because we describe one as being emergent from the other. How that “exactly happens” is like asking: Why does a thing move when I push it? You can describe muscle movements, kinetic energy and yada yada. But ultimately, there’s a simple (and to many reductionists unsatisfactory explanation): it moves because you push it.
Mind emerges from matter, matter emerges from energy and energy emerges from the mere possibility of something. Because after all (to reverse the why question), why not? Something was bound to happen after an eternity of nothingness, no? We unify them (ouch! dangerous word) under one little umbrella called POTENTIAL without ignoring the fact that they are different. Just like I’m different from my father, and my father’s father’s father’s…is different from a single celled animal. They share the same structures. But by the time I get around to existing, I have acquired all these characteristic made possible by the endlessly greater number of ways you can combine billions of cells.
You can go on and on asking these questions Lekatt, but neither your nor my approach will answer it. What “causes” one thing to “cause” another? This is a flavor of the koan that I was referring to as the “space between epistemic units”. This is why you should abandon seeing epistemic systems as EXPLANATORY and see them for what they are: DESCRIPTIVE. Perhaps you can only be liberated from this problem by focusing very hard on the space between causes.
What is the sound of one clapping hand?
ETHIC
I have to agree with the others, J. “Rule” is kind of a misnomer, in that we didn’t invent the rules. The rules are simply describing how things behave in the universe. If an entity is capable of having some sort of physical effect on the universe, then that effect is measurable, and it constitutes a “rule”.
To simply say “You can’t prove me wrong” has always struck me as an exceedingly weak argument.
What exactly is the difference between an entity that we can’t interact with in any way, and an imaginary entity?
posted by Lakatt
So, what is the point of all of this putative re-incarnation? If it so wonderful to be in the ‘other-state’, then why do we want to go through it again? If we have climbed a long ladder to get to that place, why must we do it over and over?
I meant ** Zoe **
** If there’s no rule, then the interaction has no properties (or all properties; the two states are equivalent). It doesn’t actually change anything; thus, it doesn’t exist.
What is the relationship between this entity and everyday reality? What rules govern the entity’s behavior? In what way is reality a subset of those rules?
What’s the difference between a physical rule and a non-physical rule? What property or properties do rules have that make them physical or non-physical?
You’re missing the point. A phenomenon that doesn’t result in any changes to things in our reality doesn’t exist relative to our reality. By consequence of the definition of the concepts, a non-physical phenomenon doesn’t exist in our universe.
But what does existing involve? Are you incapable of using a non-circular definition to discuss the concept?
“Existence” is relative to ourselves and our own universe. Nothing outside of our universe can meaningfully be said to exist.
Radio waves exist, we can’t see or feel them, but we can indirectly/directly experience them through our radio receivers.
Billions of people have experienced the spiritual world through their inner senses. Because “scientists” can’t measure this doesn’t mean it isn’t there. If scientists could move beyond their closed-minded theories, they also could experience the spiritual.
But I really doubt that will happen. So it is enough to respect others beliefs until we understand them.
I read in the news a psychiatrist said that near death experiences were a form of dissociation, but NDEers should not be considered mentally ill. How nice of someone who can’t give proof that “dissociation” is real or explain how the Psyche works, beyond opinions and theories. Hey, I don’t think psychiatrists should be considered mentally ill either.
Love
Leroy