Mind Body and Spirit?

[Emily Darke]

All arguments are good and well. But I'm not much for mathematics and science.... what is logical now, may in 50 years be ridiculous. Science must constantly evolve, and really doesn't satisfy anybody in the end.

I have faith in my return to the collective soul. No need to explain it. It just is, and it just will happen.

Simply getting my two cents in, I've been trolling tonight. I'm following this discussion though, it interests and teaches me, so please continue uninterrupted lol.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The trick to at least attempting to finding the truth is not to entrench in a position from which we "know" we are totally right and totally incapable of even entertaining the idea that we might be wrong. We always could be wrong and should not find ourselves in a position that our egos prevent us from seeing other possibilities. We all fall prey to this, but we should try and guard against it. We just have to try and focus on what the best evidence we can find points to and not get attached to something so strongly that it blinds us to any other possibility. Then at worst just being plain LAZY is the worst mind killer of all. "I believe X.. ok I'm tired, done. I have faith in it, done, next subject." is the one argument that I can barely tolerate.

This being a subject near and dear to me, as well as having one full-blow out-of-body near-death experience and a second experience almost as intense I've come to agree with the oft paraphrased idea that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Flowery wording, childhood indoctrination, romantic sounding pseudoscience or calls for compassion in times of need or emotional "wanting a sense of purpose" do not a good argument make. Our having some "other existence" besides the well-documented physical one needs to be equally well documented. (and it may be)

But, because I WANT something to be true or because I "like" some (physical reality), does not make it so. I'm not saying there is nothing else but "physical reality" exactly, but if there is REAL evidence against it, not just wishy-washy stuff, I've yet to find it. And yes I've read my share of 300 page novels that "prove" the existence of one supernatural thing or another and found them wanting. Some only after 10 years of trying to figure out why or why not.

Now, does that mean I begrudge anyone from believing otherwise? Hell no. Believe what you want. I'd just ask that we all try to think about what it is we believe for more than a few hours or a few months and try to argue against what it is we believe and see if we can refute our own arguments.

I was 100% of the opposite opinion 15 years ago and about 80% in favor of all sorts of various supernatural phenomenon with no need for critical analysis per-se even 3-4 years ago. I have been studying science, traditional religion, new Age and Occult stuff all my adult life. I started out on this journey many moons ago a hardcore Christian. When I say hardcore I mean evangelistic hardcore (then on to various forums of occult including wicca).

But I'm a passionate seeker of "the truth" and I guess I always was. Wia the most credible evidence I'm aware of at any given time. I'm unsure it will ever be totally known(the truth), and hell that's half the fun. The search. But nowadays, at least for me, this does not allow for any vagaries like "mind" and "spirit" not anymore. I used to fall prey to vague arguments about various supernatural concepts but the more critically I look at them the weaker they seem to become. I need clearly defined terms and then demonstrable evidence of their existence. There are particles and energy that make up the observable universe. Anything beyond that is speculation and unsubstantiated once I look at it with a critical eye and spend enough time researching various "altered states" or "spiritual plains" there is no solid evidence for it. Now does that mean there is no such thing as "a spirit" (in the traditional sense, lets not start playing word games please) or "souls" or "collective unconscious"? No it doesn't mean that stuff does not exist. It just means there is no good evidence for it.

There is a lot of hearsay, poorly reported information, wishful thinking and even well-meaning (but Ill-informed) intelligent arguments in favor of much of the mystical arguments but in the end they do not hold up to rigorous research and testing and require huge leaps of faith, far more than I think is rational to give them.

Again that does not mean that we have "proof against" mystical teachings or beliefs. But the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. I could assert that there are levitating super turtles living in my teapot, but the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate their existence.

[SomeDanGuy]

Az is absolutely right.

....and so is Troy! Great posts, guys. And Troy did you see news of this experiment last year?

[Rev.Reverence]

The trick to at least attempting to finding the truth is not to entrench in a position from which we "know" we are totally right and totally incapable of even entertaining the idea that we might be wrong. We always could be wrong and should not find ourselves in a position that our egos prevent us from seeing other possibilities. We all fall prey to this, but we should try and guard against it. We just have to try and focus on what the best evidence we can find points to and not get attached to something so strongly that it blinds us to any other possibility. Then at worst just being plain LAZY is the worst mind killer of all. "I believe X.. ok I'm tired, done. I have faith in it, done, next subject." is the one argument that I can barely tolerate.

A view I hold dear.

[Rev.Reverence]

this experiment

NICE LINK!

[Rev.Reverence]

Though I am not, myself, a scientist by trade, I tend to be strictly empirical in my approach to life, especially in my approach to things metaphysical.

Therefore, I don't believe in the existence of a spirit. If you can prove it exists, great, I'll reexamine my outlook. Until then, we're just self-aware animals, in my book.

Did you ever hear what the Nazi's did that was horible to people, but a huge boon to the Occult/Science movements?

They measured a weight loss AT the time of death that is not accountable...they measured the urine and fecal matter and calculated the mass of the gas exhalation... they were missing like 20 grams...

SOUL...!...?

[SomeDanGuy]

I think you're referring to Dr. MacDougall's study in 1907. (A movie called '21 grams' came out recently which was about this.) It wasn't really scientific at all, and if you read through the results you can see its bunk. Snopes has a piece on it.

[Rev.Reverence]

I think you're referring to Dr. MacDougall's study in 1907. (A movie called '21 grams' came out recently which was about this.) It wasn't really scientific at all, and if you read through the results you can see its bunk. Snopes has a piece on it.

Scientists disregard his research into this field due to allegations of bias.

These "Scientists" are always discounting things they don't like.

..also, I distinctly recall the word "Nazi"..may haps I'm wrong...always a possibility...

[Shade Everdark]

Did you ever hear what the Nazi's did that was horible to people, but a huge boon to the Occult/Science movements?

They measured a weight loss AT the time of death that is not accountable...they measured the urine and fecal matter and calculated the mass of the gas exhalation... they were missing like 20 grams...

SOUL...!...?

The nice thing about adopting an empirical approach to something is the ability to revise it without 'losing face', as there is no real personal investiture, except the time taken to study.

That said, this isn't likely to make me change my mind.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

These "Scientists" are always discounting things they don't like.

..also, I distinctly recall the word "Nazi"..may haps I'm wrong...always a possibility...

Its true that we have to look at the quality of evidence not just the quantity of evidence or what we like. Good science rarely works on what one scientist does or doesn't like. You publish your findings , then after a lot of peer review and ability to replicate the findings (or they are refuted and unreproduceable) they slowly become accepted. Its not just "well i don't like it" in the same way as we do in everyday life. There is a heavy bias in toward actually being able to reproduce your findings and defend them until they seem very solid.

The scientific community as a whole is a self-correcting mechanism, unlike most other schools of thought that have no fully built-in self correcting mechanisms and are much more prone to personal bias. True scientists are still just people and can make mistakes, but built into the scientific method is self-correction. Totally the opposite of many other fields of study and fact-finding. I'm unaware of any more credible source of factual information about physical realities. "They" can often be wrong, but they are also the most accurate source I'm aware of for such information.

The idea is to allow yourself to be proven wrong that's how it works. You make your best estimate of the truth after study and research and allow later information to conform or refute it.

Or... we could just read shades much clearer and more concise quote:

The nice thing about adopting an empirical approach to something is the ability to revise it without 'losing face', as there is no real personal investiture, except the time taken to study.

That said, this isn't likely to make me change my mind.

I guess I'd have to rephrase the question as "What do you believe about the existence of Mind , Body and/or Spirit and why/how do you come to this conclusion?" (then see my post previous to this one)

[Az_]

Its true that we have to look at the quality of evidence not just the quantity of evidence or what we like. Good science rarely works on what one scientist does or doesn't like. You publish your findings , then after a lot of peer review and ability to replicate the findings (or they are refuted and unreproduceable) they slowly become accepted. Its not just "well i don't like it" in the same way as we do in everyday life.

etc etc etc

I have to say I like the cut of your argument sir. Mind if I count you as ally in matters of scientific debate and what not here on the DGN? You seem to present a very good understanding of the scientific method and its actual workings. An unfortunately rare commodity these days.

[graverobber]

Homogenization and Heterogynization of experience?

Making everyone's experience definable

or Undefinable and different.

Very often, useful adaptations and evolutions are 'banned'

from 'experience' and discouraged because vital skills

are 'primal, evil, dangerous, sexy' and overthrow the

monotony of slow observation and endless intellectual

exhaustion

it is so very goth to intellectually exhaust oneself in order to

gain rest, without intellectual exhaustion we could start

at the base of the spine and maintain total control of

our nervous growth.

-Coffee Filled ramble that tangents off topic and purposely frustrates the reader-

as thoughts fall from the hands, frustration builds in the skills

-the spiritual condition of -I can't follow you, because you do not say what I want you to say-

is what I study. All together? Madness.

[torn asunder]

Series of (extremely) complex chemicals reactions, all governed ultimately by the physical constants of the universe.

I would, however, take exception to those who say that this reality is somehow depressing or cynical. It's frickin' amazing! Humans are amazing and the world is full of beauty and wonder even if (and often because) it all operates according to laws we continue to understand more fully.

The fact that altering your brain can alter your personality is pretty clear proof of this. If not, in what way does your 'spirit' affect you or have an impact on reality?

holy crap!! somedanguy is back!?!?

WAASSAAAAP!!!

(btw, i'll hopefully get to this thread this weekend - it's really interesting to see people's thoughts on this!)