Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 Excellent post! Thanks for joining in. Marblehead is right... Hehehe. I'm really not trying to be 'right'. All I am doing is offering food for thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 The hard evidence is amazing. There are a huge number of kids younger then 7 who remember past lives, even in America where its not on our radar. There are too many stories to dismiss. Michael Isn't imagination a wonderful thing??? Imaginary friends are really great because you can create them to be anything you want them to be. You even get to become God in your own little world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 You cant discount other ways children could absorb information about such things, ... Excellent consideration. Thanks for sharing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 MH, There is a huge misconception about the "Scientific Method". ... Yep. And I am aware of that. This is why I also included above that this 'whatever' concept must be consistent with the processes of nature. Scientists are people too and we all know how the mind of man can stray from the truths (small 't') of reality. Thanks for joining in. Haven't seen you for a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted March 16, 2011 Marblehead is right...the many worlds theory is only a theory, not a fact. In science, a "theory" is a statement that among many criteria, is backed up by lots of evidence over time, has yet failed to be falsified, produces predictions, among many criteria. Thus, to state that something is "only a theory" is misguided, since this epithet isn't awarded lightly. Mandrake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted March 16, 2011 This is why I also included above that this 'whatever' concept must be consistent with the processes of nature. What we consider to be "the processes of nature" has changed repeatedly throughout history. It has several times been upgraded to include many concepts and paradigms that weren't there before, and this will probably happen again. \Mandrake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted March 16, 2011 i wonder sometimes (often) about the collective unconcious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 In science, a "theory" is a statement that among many criteria, is backed up by lots of evidence over time, has yet failed to be falsified, produces predictions, among many criteria. Thus, to state that something is "only a theory" is misguided, since this epithet isn't awarded lightly. Mandrake You got technical on me there didn't you? Hehehe. But you are correct in the most part. "Big Bang" is a theory. "Evolution" is a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 What we consider to be "the processes of nature" has changed repeatedly throughout history. It has several times been upgraded to include many concepts and paradigms that weren't there before, and this will probably happen again. \Mandrake Supreme importance lies with those first three words. But the processes have not changed, only our understandings of them. And I agree, hopefully over time we will clarify our understandings and make appropriate changes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 16, 2011 i wonder sometimes (often) about the collective unconcious. That, Sir, is another tricky one for me. I do basically accept Jung's theory of collective unconscious but I attribute this to genetics. No, I do not have any factual data to support this belief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
宁 Posted March 16, 2011 Marbles, your reasoning is flawed: you can't say that rebirth doesn't exist based on science. You can say however that there is still no scientifical evidence to support this idea. Science is itself evolving, who knows what tomorrow's science will look like. Be a little more flexible, for Laozi's sake (i'm sure he'll appreciate, hehe) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that Posted March 17, 2011 We might imagine that all possible worlds exist as books in a library, where each book tells a story slightly different from the one beside it (one word different, one sentence, one paragraph...etc). All the content of the possible world is contained in the words of the story (the complete phenomenal manifold). This includes the definition and description of the protagonist--the 'you' or main character. 'You' don't exist except in and through a story in a book. Now, there is also a reader of the story--consciousness. This reader has a simple nature, to open a book and read, i.e. to illuminate a particular story. It is purely a narrator, and it only reads one story, opens one book, at a time. But it is free to open any book and start reading any story at any point. It is not constrained by the books or the stories and its nature has no connection to the main character it reads in the stories. In this analogy all possible worlds are books with stories, and they are all fixed, i.e. written, for all time. Nothing is added or taken away; the stories are complete. IOW, each possible world is deterministic, or static in all dimensions. Consciousness is the reader, which alone has freedom, as it is not ultimately constrained to any particular book or story. Consciousness can and does 'choose its own adventure' and can either read a story straight through cover to cover (i.e. live a life) or move through a series of books at key decision points (skip through possible worlds). In the latter sense, consciousness can carve a unique path through all possible worlds merely by 'reading' a page in an adjacent book. However, it does so seamlessly so everything appears continuous as if it was reading a single book. I like that analogy. If that's the case I'd like to slap the author, as around pages 20 - 29 I got really bored with the book. I think the author needs to take some writing classes. I'm gonna' choose a James Bond novel next because they always have a 'happy ending'. I'm steering clear of the 'romantic fiction' section though, lest I end up reading a Mills & Boon book. The question is: Does it matter to anyone if you ate a cake last week? That wasn't the question at all! And I would suggest if I want to prove to you I ate cake last week then it does matter. But if you felt it really mattered you would have made a video of the event nad presented that video to those people you thought it was important to. And if anyone questioned the validity of the video you could have it analized by experts. That's assuming that 1. I have a video camera, or access to one, and 2. That I had the foresight necessary in order to realize that the next week I would be wanting to prove I had eaten a cake to you. Alternatively it would be much easier to tell you I remember eating a cake, and for you to take it on good faith that I'm not a lying bastard. That way we can have our cake and eat it The reason I am making a fuss here is that I think it is a waste of a person's life to spend much time dreaming about a better life somewhere. If you don't like you current life than change it through honest, constructive action. I agree totally with that. Passivity is such a downer, but there's no point in trying to do anything about it. But I desagree with your last paragraph conclusion. There is a world of difference between me believing that you ate a cake last week and believing that you are a reincarnation so some person who lived a long time ago and god spoke to you and said that you are the to be the new coming. Not really any difference at all. Both are based on memory. Actually.... come to think of it you are right: I cannot prove I ate cake last week... but a child could be taken to a location he has described and prove, through recounting facts about the people at that location (that he couldn't have possibly known) and geographical features he couldn't possibly know, much easier than me trying to prove I ate cake last week. In fact. Whether you would believe it or not is another matter. I have no need to prove anything. I just want others to think as little before accepting the Easter Bunny as the reincarnation of Jesus. The Easter Bunny will be the reincarnation of Jesus!!?? That's the best news I've heard all day! Although that's not saying much, as I've just woken up. At least he's gonna bring chocolate eggs this time round, last time he didn't bring any gifts at all! Gifts are always well received, I reckon that's where he went wrong last time. This brings me on to my next part: I have conclusive proof that Santa Claus exists. Not only did he eat a bit of my cookie (biscuit) and drink some of my milk, but he also left me some rather nice presents as evidence. I'm not sure I could produce these presents now mind you.... but you'll just have to take my word for it. (If you ask me to prove his exact location then I will just say he's really, really good at hiding) ps. As far as memory serves me, I didn't eat cake last week. My memory is somewhat faulty though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 17, 2011 Marbles, your reasoning is flawed: you can't say that rebirth doesn't exist based on science. You can say however that there is still no scientifical evidence to support this idea. Science is itself evolving, who knows what tomorrow's science will look like. Be a little more flexible, for Laozi's sake (i'm sure he'll appreciate, hehe) Hehehe. I won't deny that my reasoning may well be flawed. But remember, I also base my understanding on the observable processes of nature. Can you suggest that any other animal or plant goes thru the process of reincarnation? Have you ever met anyone who you can say 100% positive is a reincarnation of someone who lived before? I can't. Oh, my flexibility is pretty good for an old man. So what do you think I should say? That maybe reincarnation is a possibility? If I said that I would be lying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sloppy Zhang Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Have you ever met anyone who you can say 100% positive is a reincarnation of someone who lived before? I can't. Ask around on the magick section of these forums: http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php And maybe you'll find some people who can answer that in the positive. Edited March 17, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 17, 2011 This brings me on to my next part: I have conclusive proof that Santa Claus exists. Not only did he eat a bit of my cookie (biscuit) and drink some of my milk, but he also left me some rather nice presents as evidence. I'm not sure I could produce these presents now mind you.... but you'll just have to take my word for it. (If you ask me to prove his exact location then I will just say he's really, really good at hiding) ps. As far as memory serves me, I didn't eat cake last week. My memory is somewhat faulty though. Okay. Shall we analize this? You left cookies and milk for Santa. In the morning while you were sleeping someone took a bite from the cookie and drank some of the milk. How in the world does that prove that Santa Claus exists? It only proves that someone took a bite from the cookie and someone, perhaps even a different person drank a bit of milk. And who left the presents? I do accept the informtion from you that presents were placed somewhere for you. Perhaps with your name on them? NO, I have no idea where Santa Claus hides out during the summer either. Wait, isn't he working with the people in the Southern hemisphere during Northern summer? No, there's something wrong there. Anyhow, if anyone here wants to reincarnate y'all just go ahead on. Have a happy next life. But don't forget to live this one while you have it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sloppy Zhang Posted March 17, 2011 Anyhow, if anyone here wants to reincarnate y'all just go ahead on. Have a happy next life. But don't forget to live this one while you have it. Well I guess how you view reincarnation and what you do with that knowledge/belief depends on the system/tradition. Some systems don't view reincarnation to mean like, "oh hey, be a good person so you'll be rich and not a bug in your next life", but more like a, "you should understand where you're coming from, the karma you have, why you are the way you are, and how that influences the decisions you make in the present, which could lead to a particular future". I agree that you should live in the present, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should not keep the past or the future in mind! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted March 17, 2011 Isn't imagination a wonderful thing??? Imaginary friends are really great because you can create them to be anything you want them to be. You even get to become God in your own little world. The book wasn't about imaginary friends. They did research, got names, investigated the past. There were no Napoleons or Cleopatra's, quite the opposite. Neither they, the parents or the kids were from a society that accepts reincarnation (not in the first half anyway). The writer seemed like he'd be happy to debunk it, but the cases had researchable depth to them. The book clearly wasn't written to become a best seller, it was dry and academic. Personally I'm on the sidelines about reincarnation and to whether it really matters. I don't know what it means, but the book proved to me that there is something going on some phenomena whereby young children remembered and identified with events from a deceased persons life. And that its not a rare occurrence. Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted March 17, 2011 there is something going on about it. i think i am still on the sidelines too. i feel the collective unconcious is a part of it somehow. i am just not sure exactly how it all fits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard Posted March 17, 2011 Interesting view. Thanks for sharing. Can you difine the word "Samsara" for me? The endless cycle of life and death with no beginning and no end. It's like floating on a pond in which one is unable to see the shore and being moved here and there by the ripples created by individual karma interacting at the same time in a medium shaped by causal interdependence. But this has already been discussed so many times... it's pointless starting all over again...a cat chasing its own tail. Not again please... What I would like to discuss is what sort of process allows sentient beings jumping from let's say for example the earthly physical plane to a given astral plane in planet X located in the constellation of Draco. I have always wondered this. It would be interesting to read someone's direct experience with this karmic relocation to a completely different environment after one life-death experience. Perhaps there is an underlying order in this apparently random phenomenon but this is way beyond my limited spiritual knowledge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gauss Posted March 17, 2011 I guess the phenomenon of oneself resembling the deceased person of an earlier lifetime is really interesting too. Even to the extent that several distinct character traits and health troubles are common. The birthmark(where your deadly wound was inflicted in your earlier lifetime) is also extremely interesting. Personally I have a strong sense about who I was in one earlier lifetime and even his sense of humour and writing style matched mine, his health troubles too... Anyway, some interesting links(I am not claiming this information is true, I just find the research and ideas very interesting): http://www.johnadams.net/cases/samples/Semkiw-Adams/index.html http://brianstalin-barackobama.blogspot.com/ Just my two cents, no truth offered whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted March 17, 2011 But the processes have not changed, only our understandings of them. And I agree, hopefully over time we will clarify our understandings and make appropriate changes. We also discover new processes. Electromagnetic fields weren't just there in the stoneage view of what constituted natural processes. Mandrake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted March 17, 2011 You got technical on me there didn't you? Hehehe. But you are correct in the most part. "Big Bang" is a theory. "Evolution" is a fact. Evolution is a theory, still, in scientific parlance. But also fact, if one by that means that it can be observed readily in nature. Mandrake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gauss Posted March 17, 2011 Evolution is a theory Correct. All theories are not scientific, some are political. Parenthesis(good idea for a new thread): In my opinion evolution is the worst political theory invented by people with ulterior motives. It is outside the scope of this thread but evolution theory is truly debunked as soon as one starts looking at suppressed archaelogical findings. Ancient civilizations on the seafloor(but nobody wants to fund research on them..), giant skulls, footprints in rocks, ancient UFO technology etc etc. Even in NY Times they had articles about giant skeletons being found in the 1920s(approx.). All of these things quickly disappeared out of sight of course.. Just my two cents, no truth offered whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
宁 Posted March 17, 2011 Oh, my flexibility is pretty good for an old man. So what do you think I should say? That maybe reincarnation is a possibility? If I said that I would be lying. Marbles, i always thought you are 30, maybe 30 something If you knew EVERYTHING, and said it was a possibility, KNOWING firsthand it isn't, that, my friend, would be lying, wouldn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 17, 2011 I agree that you should live in the present, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should not keep the past or the future in mind! Totally agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
