Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:51:31 -0800 From: albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.religion.christian.alt.christnet.theology,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Message-ID: References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.6 NNTP-Posting-Host: lajolla-32.sandiego.access1.net Lines: 46 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!nntp.snfc21.pbi.net!news.pbi.net!news.access1.net!albertreingewirtz Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:63 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:386 In article <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com>, division@csinet.net wrote: > RedHeifer wrote: > > > The soul is the seat of emotions (Gen. 34:3; Isaiah 42:1) > > among other things. > > Or, "the soul is the unconscious". Since modern science has > determined that the unconscious is the seat of emotions, the > above implies that the "soul" and the "unconscious" are the same > thing. This is precisely what DivisionTheory teaches. > > RedHeifer continued: > > The soul of a sinner will die (Ezek. 18:4)[while] the soul of a > righteous person will live (Isaiah 55:3; Psalm 16:8-10,30:3). > > What is meant by "die" and "life" in these passages? > It is self evident what "die" and "death" means when refering to > the body. We have all seen the decomposition of a dead carcass. > But what does "die" mean in reference to a "soul"? > And what would "die" mean in reference to an "unconscious"? > > SPIRIT AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE > DivisionTheory suggests, as does the Bible, that "spirit" is the > source of all life; whatever spirit occupies will live and remain > alive, while whatever spirit departs will die. > > People's inner spirits, the ancient Hebrews believed, came > directly from the deity at their births, and, although residing > within them throughout their lives, continued to belong to Him, > being parts of the deity's own spirit. They believed that this > inner spirit was what animated them and gave them life, associat- > ing it with that most fundamental symbol of life, breath itself: > > "... God ... breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life, > and man became a living soul." > - Genesis 2:7 > The rest of the garbage is deleted. There is no such thing as a soul, a God, heaven, hell, angels... But there is plenty of credulity in fairy tales of the Bible. -- God can't be dead, it never existed ###### [quite a few messages here went missing] ###### Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:07:46 -0800 From: albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Message-ID: References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.6 NNTP-Posting-Host: lajolla-28.sandiego.access1.net Lines: 21 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!nntp.snfc21.pbi.net!news.pbi.net!news.access1.net!albertreingewirtz Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:78 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:425 In article <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote: > On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:22:46 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net > (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > > >There is no such a thing as Gods, souls, heaven, hell, angels, Mashiach.... > >Whe I see anyone of those, I'll believe. You are the one claiming that such > >things exist without proof. I have the right to seat back and say to you: > >Prove it because you make the claim that they exist. I do not have to prove > >anything at all. You would do well to take any introductory course in > >philosophy or logic. > > Hmm... say you bumped into some kind of being claiming to be God, what > kind of proof would you accept? Any acceptable scientific evidence that can be repeated with no possible occus pocus. Is there a problem with this minimal evidence requirement? -- God never died, it never existed ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:24:28 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 98 Message-ID: <34E26B6C.5BCB@ix.netcom.com> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: nwk-nj16-10.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Feb 11 9:27:17 PM CST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: Albert Reingewirtz Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:77 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:424 Albert Reingewirtz wrote: > > In article <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie>, "Samhain" <@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > > > Albert Reingewirtz wrote in message ... > > >> > The soul is the seat of emotions (Gen. 34:3; Isaiah 42:1) > > >> > among other things. > > >> > > > > >There is no such thing as a soul, a God, heaven, hell, angels... But there > > >is plenty of credulity in fairy tales of the Bible. > > > > > > > > > Oh yea prove it so. > > How exactly have you come to this belief? > > No, schemegegi those who claim that there such a thing as a soul have the > burden of proof. I'll believe in souls when I see one, not before. > > -- > God can't be dead, it never existed Cute. So prove to me, he never existed. Were you always around checking? Or is there something about reality in the present which proves to you, he not only doesn't exist, he never could have? Hey, you're Jewish, no? Then you should know that God is a composite mind of all the left brains in Mankind. And the left brain being naturally verbal, favored the Jewish people(chosen ones, right bud?). Influenced them into writing the Bible. And the collection of right brains, Satan, favored more mechanical minded people, instilled a more independent, aggressive set of values. Where talents with your hands are as important as just pure abstract skills. And he hated God for taking, assuming an more important role in picking the direction of human destiny. So they fought, even to this day. Napoleon was the first anti-Christ, wiping out the feudal system in Europe, allowing the industry might of Europeans to surface. Making Europe more powerful than just left brain smart nations. Allowing new engines of destruction to be unleashed. But too soon. Hitler, the second anti-Christ. And we know what he did. Who he went after. The third? Hmmmmmm............where.......when.......how....who has got a 200 million man army..or might get one? You know, God being a left brain being, favors his right hand. "My Glorious right hand!" Left brain controls right hand, right? Or does God have a real right hand, and two feet. Sinister left? Who said that? Come on, you know this. Or you still keeping secrets and lying about it? What is a soul, its awareness. Tell me, confess, which thoughts of yours are just physical molecules? Oh, maybe its a process? So what can unify the imfomation of one brain region with another and fuse it into one sewed together thought, seemless unity of awareness. Do you know? I think its because abstractions and physical reality and thought are really one, but not all ours. A dead universe on an atomic level, giving rise to group awareness of trillions of dead atoms working together, not one, alive in of itself, not one with a gleam of awareness, builds collectivity an "I". Mechanical motion I can understand, but awareness, fusing chemical signals together, into meaningful patterns which have self-reflection, awareness of something other than itself, outside itself, wow, think its all physical? No room for metaphysical reality? You sure? Laws of nature, math, physical structures? Colors, physical structures? Inner awareness, physical structures? And the whatever it was, in reality, which allowed, or assisted the creation of the physical universe, a physical structure? Or did something, like a metaphysical law, have to exist, allowing physical creation before it was? Or did a THING have to exist before you can create A THING? Who knows, of course, you do. Only a man who could state for sure, that God never existed, would know. No angels? Aw, better tell a few friends of mine to go home. Or maybe you're a believer all along. Still hiding the truth guy? Agenda not fullfilled yet? So, why does a guy who is convinced God never has existed, or could have, bother to come here and post anything at all? Boy, I almost wish I was there again. To only believe in what I see and think I know. It was a cold place, but it had a secure charm to it. Don't get intuitive guy, the bubble bursts. Just use your dry logic, and keep it at that. More is dangerous. Robert L. ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:34:28 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 189 Message-ID: <34E36AE4.359E@ix.netcom.com> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <34E26B6C.5BCB@ix.netcom.com> <34E3227D.6DB2@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: nwk-nj16-03.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 12 3:37:26 PM CST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!nntp.flash.net!207.114.4.11.MISMATCH!nntp.abs.net!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:85 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:431 Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > > > Albert Reingewirtz wrote: > > > > > > In article <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie>, "Samhain" <@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > > > > > > > Albert Reingewirtz wrote in message ... > > > > >> > The soul is the seat of emotions (Gen. 34:3; Isaiah 42:1) > > > > >> > among other things. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >There is no such thing as a soul, a God, heaven, hell, angels... But there > > > > >is plenty of credulity in fairy tales of the Bible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yea prove it so. > > > > How exactly have you come to this belief? > > > > > > No, schemegegi those who claim that there such a thing as a soul have the > > > burden of proof. I'll believe in souls when I see one, not before. > > > > > > -- > > > God can't be dead, it never existed > > > > Cute. So prove to me, he never existed. Were you always around > > checking? Or is there something about reality in the present which > > proves to you, he not only doesn't exist, he never could have? > > > > Hey, you're Jewish, no? Then you should know that God is a composite > > mind of all the left brains in Mankind. And the left brain being > > naturally verbal, favored the Jewish people(chosen ones, right bud?). > > Influenced them into writing the Bible. > > > > And the collection of right brains, Satan, favored more mechanical > > minded people, instilled a more independent, aggressive set of values. > > Where talents with your hands are as important as just pure abstract > > skills. And he hated God for taking, assuming an more important role in > > picking the direction of human destiny. > > > > So they fought, even to this day. Napoleon was the first anti-Christ, > > wiping out the feudal system in Europe, allowing the industry might of > > Europeans to surface. Making Europe more powerful than just left brain > > smart nations. Allowing new engines of destruction to be unleashed. But > > too soon. > > > > Hitler, the second anti-Christ. And we know what he did. Who he went > > after. > > > > The third? Hmmmmmm............where.......when.......how....who has got > > a 200 million man army..or might get one? > > > > You know, God being a left brain being, favors his right hand. "My > > Glorious right hand!" Left brain controls right hand, right? Or does God > > have a real right hand, and two feet. Sinister left? Who said that? > > > > Come on, you know this. Or you still keeping secrets and lying about > > it? What is a soul, its awareness. Tell me, confess, which thoughts of > > yours are just physical molecules? Oh, maybe its a process? So what can > > unify the imfomation of one brain region with another and fuse it into > > one sewed together thought, seemless unity of awareness. Do you know? I > > think its because abstractions and physical reality and thought are > > really one, but not all ours. > > > > A dead universe on an atomic level, giving rise to group awareness of > > trillions of dead atoms working together, not one, alive in of itself, > > not one with a gleam of awareness, builds collectivity an "I". > > Mechanical motion I can understand, but awareness, fusing chemical > > signals together, into meaningful patterns which have self-reflection, > > awareness of something other than itself, outside itself, wow, think its > > all physical? No room for metaphysical reality? You sure? Laws of > > nature, math, physical structures? Colors, physical structures? Inner > > awareness, physical structures? > > > > And the whatever it was, in reality, which allowed, or assisted the > > creation of the physical universe, a physical structure? Or did > > something, like a metaphysical law, have to exist, allowing physical > > creation before it was? Or did a THING have to exist before you can > > create A THING? Who knows, of course, you do. Only a man who could state > > for sure, that God never existed, would know. > > > > No angels? Aw, better tell a few friends of mine to go home. > > > > Or maybe you're a believer all along. Still hiding the truth guy? > > Agenda not fullfilled yet? > > > > So, why does a guy who is convinced God never has existed, or could > > have, bother to come here and post anything at all? > > > > Boy, I almost wish I was there again. To only believe in what I see and > > think I know. It was a cold place, but it had a secure charm to it. > > Don't get intuitive guy, the bubble bursts. Just use your dry logic, and > > keep it at that. More is dangerous. > > > > Robert L. > > Opps, I really should say, brain cells, by themselves also have no > awareness. But a collection of them, has. How? Brain cells are separate > from one another, it might not look it, but they are. They're only > encased together. And they send chemicals signals to each other. > > Now assume a tiny, tiny, tiny glimmer of awareness there, pretend. What > enables all the awareness to add their awarenesses together? It isn't > like a car, part A moves part B which moves part C and on and on...that > is simply mechanical movement. Those processes are easily explained by > the properties of structure and physics. > > This is another problem. These are abstract processes you're adding up. > Now unless ideas have their independent reality, not a flimsy kind, like > our midget minds, but of an more endurable type, such as the universal > laws, I don't believe you can make the addition. Ideas have to have > their own independent reality. And I suspect, a more real one, deeper > one. Laws govern the physical, not the pother way around. I don't see > particles saying to anstract laws, "Screw your laws of motion. I'll > behave in any way. You won't predict shit." > > I do argree the brain itself is an organic machine. Its a chemical > computer. But it doesn't generate awareness, the soul does. Too many > people have floated abover their bodies and dead brains, to only find > themselves alive. If our brains were we, that couldn't happen to anyone, > much less, thousands. Unless they are all lying or mistaken. But for me, > I've been there. > > Besides, experiments in England just recently made have shown the > transmission of information from different members of birds to one > another using ESP. That means information travels outside the brian, > into the physical world, and into another brain. Like a TV or radio > signal, but without the wave. I think that space itself is the key. I'm > tired of writing that. > > Its like the science article i read about on Tuesday. Somebody thinks > that different number bases means its a different mode of math. Or that > different intervals means a new math. How silly? The rules of operation > and the nature of equally would change, but the underlying ordered > sructure would be the same. And its already beig done. Without it, no > Einstien gravity models. Pi is a relationship entity, not a thing in of > itself. > > The abstract entities of words are hard wired in us, yes. But they are > only logical boxes, to help us understand the underlying sequence of > external events around us. Words were not meant by nature to let us > understand how nature works as much as we work in nature. But those > abstract boxes do hold a part of the key to understanding outside > reality. The messy side, which doesn't lead itself to regular rules. But > the understanding of the past, present, and future is a basic always > true understanding. And that part, is exactly hardwired in the brain. > > And since when has evolution developed abilites in the brain without a > use? If is hardwired in us, chances are, evolution knows there is > something to adapt to. First we adapted for physical survival, evolving > towards bodies. Now we are adaptig towards a mental enviromental, one > around us and in us. An underlying layer of reality, which is > metaphysical, where math lives and our minds and souls. So if the brain > is evolving towards it, it probabilty means, its there externally, not > that we're making it up. > > > > Robert L. To give you a better idea about what I'm saying, I'll give you a question to ask yourself. If you take human DNA, there is a lot of coding. But coding in what sense? As the first cell grows and divides, new complex structures surface. These physical structures in the developing brain and body far surpass the surface complexity of the DNA code. With each new level of growth, more information expressed in the physical body. The liver has millions of finctions, the brain..forget it,..everything,,so complex. and all the interactions between all the systems? Complexity off the human scale. Now back to the DNA. are all the layers of dormant information...real..in a real sense. Is the information of the entire body already mapped into the first cell, all the interaction, all the organs, all the systems working together as one system. This is a collection of sets of information. All sets, adding to the body. Is this layer of information..REAL? Ideas are already expressed in nature, and we're proof of it. Robert L. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 12 Feb 1998 23:43:14 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 176 Message-ID: <7m70la0t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <34E26B6C.5BCB@ix.netcom.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:81 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:427 Warning: this is a heavy-to-digest post. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > The soul is the seat of emotions (Gen. 34:3; Isaiah 42:1) > among other things. Albert Reingewirtz wrote in message ... > There is no such thing as a soul, a God, heaven, hell, angels... But there > is plenty of credulity in fairy tales of the Bible. In article <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie>, "Samhain" <@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > Oh yea prove it so. > How exactly have you come to this belief? Albert Reingewirtz wrote: > No, schemegegi those who claim that there such a thing as a soul have the > burden of proof. I'll believe in souls when I see one, not before. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > Cute. So prove to me, he never existed. Were you always around > checking? Or is there something about reality in the present which > proves to you, he not only doesn't exist, he never could have? Before argueing about whether souls, god, etc exist, it would perhaps be good to define what you mean with these words. To make my point a bit more clear I will take here 2 different definitions of "god" (of well over 10 known to me) and show the effect: god(1): define as: the abstracted case of a) the coming into existance of the universe (the uncaused cause), b) the coming into existance of life, c) the source of conciousness, d) the big light seen by NDEers. All these 4 have in common that they are (or at least were) mysterious, "large", impressive. It was a near-laying conclusion to believe they were facets of the same thing: it was named god. Today we know that a) is something "outside" the universe, while b)-d) are inside, so not the same thing, b) is explained by evolution, c) is explained by neuroscience (or at least in reach of being explained), d) is denied by many (incl Albert) and explained as telepathy from an large spirit by some others. Egro: the conclusion was wrong, god(1) (one cause for a)-d)) does not exist. This is the definition I use, that is why I call myself an Atheist. god(2): define as: the sum of all "left brains", the sum of the analytic thinking of all people. Brains exist, are split in left/right. The left part does think analytically. There exist multiple brains. Their effects add up (via the mechanism called culture). Ergo the claim is self-evident, god(2) (sum of left brains) exists. This is as far as I understand him, Richards definition, so he believes in god. I would strongly expect that Albert is using a god(n) definition that is more similar to mine and inserting that into Roberts sentances and coming to the conclusion that his (Alberts) version of Roberts sentances make no sense. Then he calls Robert names. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > Tell me, confess, which thoughts of > yours are just physical molecules? Oh, maybe its a process? According to current neuroscience all thoughts are the sequences of changes in the state of the brain. So they are processes, not bound to individual molecules. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > So what can > unify the imfomation of one brain region with another and fuse it into > one sewed together thought, seemless unity of awareness. Processing. One of those things that are extremely difficult to understand because the experiences needed to get an intuitive feeling for these processes are not part of most peoples life experience. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > Do you know? I > think its because abstractions and physical reality and thought are > really one, but not all ours. Unlikely. Because the physical reality existed before us. Our thoughts and abstractions (result of the thought processes) are derived from the interaction of reality with the mechanisms of our brains. So they have some simularity, but are not the same. An example of such a deviation is that some people do not believe in spirit, because it is not part of their experience and so has not shaped the creation of their abstractions. Atoms are not part of my experience but use that abstraction of matter because I see no contradiction to my experiences and other abstractions in them and so trust the specialists who have derived these abstractions. Most others do so too. Spirits are neither part of my experiences (I am not an NDEer) but I also believe in them (but not a 99.99% belief, more 70-80%). Some others believe in them, some do not. The later usually don't because they percieve an contradiction with other trusted abstractions. I see no such contradiction, but my abstractions were shaped by a lot of experience with elecromagnetic waves (25 years of electronics) and with signal/information processing (15 years of computing). Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > A dead universe on an atomic level, giving rise to group awareness of > trillions of dead atoms working together, not one, alive in of itself, > not one with a gleam of awareness, builds collectivity an "I". Yes. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > Mechanical motion I can understand, but awareness, fusing chemical > signals together, into meaningful patterns which have self-reflection, > awareness of something other than itself, outside itself, wow, think its > all physical? Here you are the one who is failing over. This fallacy even has a name (it is done so often). It is called "the argument from personal incredibility". It consists of taking the inability of an human being (oneself) as proof that something can not exist, despite the limits of human knowledge being a known thing. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > And the whatever it was, in reality, which allowed, or assisted the > creation of the physical universe, a physical structure? Or did > something, like a metaphysical law, have to exist, allowing physical > creation before it was? Or did a THING have to exist before you can > create A THING? "whatever it was..creation" assumes that the creation was an causal event, but causality is part of the creation, so the creation must be acausal. "metaphysical law" assumes causality, as laws are formulas developed by humans to describe causal effects, see before. "THING have to exist before..THING" assumes creation to come from thing, but things are part of creation. The problem with understanding the "beginning of all" is that time, space, energy, matter, causality all are part of the "all", so "before" anything happend there had to be an acausality. But human brains are made to work in an causal world. So that is why we can not understand "the beginning", it will allways remain a mysterium. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > Who knows, of course, you do. Only a man who could state > for sure, that God never existed, would know. Any man who is unaware of his physics/biology given limits or of the consequences of them, such as Albert is (in claiming no god) and you are (in claiming awareness to be non-physical). Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > No angels? Aw, better tell a few friends of mine to go home. Angels: another word with multiple meanings. Exists or not, depending on which meaning one uses. Robert believes that Angels(Robert) exist, Albert believes that Angels(Albert) do not exist. As A(R) not equal A(A) both of these statements can be true at the same time. Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > So, why does a guy who is convinced God never has existed, or could > have, bother to come here and post anything at all? Because he believes (by missunderstanding you) that you are erring and he wants to show you your "wrong" ways, to help you get away from them. He fails in this because your ways are not the ones he believes them to be. -- Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 12 Feb 1998 23:57:44 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 40 Message-ID: <67mkl9cn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:82 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:428 On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:22:46 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > There is no such a thing as Gods, souls, heaven, hell, angels, Mashiach.... > Whe I see anyone of those, I'll believe. You are the one claiming that such > things exist without proof. I have the right to seat back and say to you: > Prove it because you make the claim that they exist. I do not have to prove > anything at all. You would do well to take any introductory course in > philosophy or logic. In article <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote: > Hmm... say you bumped into some kind of being claiming to be God, what > kind of proof would you accept? albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > Any acceptable scientific evidence that can be repeated with no possible > occus pocus. Is there a problem with this minimal evidence requirement? Yes, there is a problem: the non-demonstratability of many phenomena for which we humans have no sufficiently detailed measuring equipment. Example: you know from your own experience that conciousness exists, but now try to give scientific evidence for its existance. The nearest thing you can do is prove the existance of varying intricate patterns of electromagnetic waves emiting from the brain. As spirit is most likely detected by telepathiy which is an effect of human brain and conciousness (possibly some form of biological radio) it is not provable with scientific rigour. So we have to take the word of people who have experienced what they interpret as spirit/soils/god/etc. The best we can do (bar getting such an experience ourselves, I haven't) is try to get as good as possible descriptions from as many of them as possible and try to analyse them. That is why I read a.c.n-d-e, a.l.al and read a.pn before it became a constant flame war. -- Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 13 Feb 1998 02:06:36 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 51 Message-ID: <6c09rc$mu6@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh39-22.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 12 8:06:36 PM CST 1998 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.onenet.net!news.oru.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.nacamar.de!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:86 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:432 In albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) writes: > >In article <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk >(Malcolm McMahon) wrote: >> what >> kind of proof would you accept? > >Any acceptable scientific evidence that can be repeated with no >possible occus pocus. Is there a problem with this minimal evidence >requirement? My scientific proof of God's existance is to simply stoop down, pick up a handfull of rich living soil, hold it before you, and say, "Make this. With no hocus pocus. Make this from nothing. If you can't - if you have absolutely no conscious understanding of how this happens to be here supporting your feet when there, by logic, should be absolutely nothing here at all, then you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about and have absolutely no valid reason to make a flat statement that God never existed... You just make yourself look ignorant." There is not a scientific 'theory' (remember - science also operates on 'theory') about the beginning of the universe that doesn't originate from some 'unknown' source beyond it. The closest I've come to realize an origin was when I was traveling - I found a riddle, it said, "How long can you leave 'nothing' laying around before it collapses on itself and becomes 'something'?" Tough question... Can you answer it? If you can, you might come closer to a valid reason for your claim, but you would still have to come up with the answer of 'where did these specific laws of physics originate?' Man's search for God without God will never be over. Fortunately, Soul knows where God is. When Man looks for God in Soul, Man will find God. Until then, Man will be ignorant. Bart >-- >God never died, it never existed ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:17:35 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 292 Message-ID: <34E4802F.6506@ix.netcom.com> References: <885849501.1476591618@dejanews.com> <6anl6f$15k$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <886410353.1802305541@dejanews.com> <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <34E26B6C.5BCB@ix.netcom.com> <7m70la0t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: wfd-nj1-25.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Feb 13 9:20:45 AM PST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.vt.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.eng.convex.com!cs.utexas.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:93 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:441 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > > Warning: this is a heavy-to-digest post. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > The soul is the seat of emotions (Gen. 34:3; Isaiah 42:1) > > among other things. > Albert Reingewirtz wrote in message ... > > There is no such thing as a soul, a God, heaven, hell, angels... But there > > is plenty of credulity in fairy tales of the Bible. > In article <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie>, "Samhain" <@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > > Oh yea prove it so. > > How exactly have you come to this belief? > Albert Reingewirtz wrote: > > No, schemegegi those who claim that there such a thing as a soul have the > > burden of proof. I'll believe in souls when I see one, not before. > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Cute. So prove to me, he never existed. Were you always around > > checking? Or is there something about reality in the present which > > proves to you, he not only doesn't exist, he never could have? > > Before argueing about whether souls, god, etc exist, it would perhaps > be good to define what you mean with these words. > > To make my point a bit more clear I will take here 2 different > definitions of "god" (of well over 10 known to me) and show the effect: > > god(1): define as: the abstracted case of a) the coming into existance > of the universe (the uncaused cause), b) the coming into existance of > life, c) the source of conciousness, d) the big light seen by > NDEers. All these 4 have in common that they are (or at least were) > mysterious, "large", impressive. It was a near-laying conclusion to > believe they were facets of the same thing: it was named god. > Today we know that a) is something "outside" the universe, while b)-d) > are inside, so not the same thing, b) is explained by evolution, c) is > explained by neuroscience (or at least in reach of being explained), > d) is denied by many (incl Albert) and explained as telepathy from an > large spirit by some others. > Egro: the conclusion was wrong, god(1) (one cause for a)-d)) does not > exist. This is the definition I use, that is why I call myself an > Atheist. > > god(2): define as: the sum of all "left brains", the sum of the > analytic thinking of all people. > Brains exist, are split in left/right. The left part does think > analytically. There exist multiple brains. Their effects add up (via > the mechanism called culture). > Ergo the claim is self-evident, god(2) (sum of left brains) exists. > This is as far as I understand him, Richards definition, so he > believes in god. > > I would strongly expect that Albert is using a god(n) definition that > is more similar to mine and inserting that into Roberts sentances and > coming to the conclusion that his (Alberts) version of Roberts > sentances make no sense. Then he calls Robert names. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Tell me, confess, which thoughts of > > yours are just physical molecules? Oh, maybe its a process? > > According to current neuroscience all thoughts are the sequences of > changes in the state of the brain. So they are processes, not bound to > individual molecules. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > So what can > > unify the imfomation of one brain region with another and fuse it into > > one sewed together thought, seemless unity of awareness. > > Processing. One of those things that are extremely difficult to > understand because the experiences needed to get an intuitive feeling > for these processes are not part of most peoples life experience. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Do you know? I > > think its because abstractions and physical reality and thought are > > really one, but not all ours. > > Unlikely. Because the physical reality existed before us. Our thoughts > and abstractions (result of the thought processes) are derived from the > interaction of reality with the mechanisms of our brains. So they have > some simularity, but are not the same. > > An example of such a deviation is that some people do not believe in > spirit, because it is not part of their experience and so has not > shaped the creation of their abstractions. > > Atoms are not part of my experience but use that abstraction of matter > because I see no contradiction to my experiences and other abstractions > in them and so trust the specialists who have derived these abstractions. > Most others do so too. > > Spirits are neither part of my experiences (I am not an NDEer) but I > also believe in them (but not a 99.99% belief, more 70-80%). Some > others believe in them, some do not. The later usually don't because > they percieve an contradiction with other trusted abstractions. I see > no such contradiction, but my abstractions were shaped by a lot of > experience with elecromagnetic waves (25 years of electronics) and > with signal/information processing (15 years of computing). > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > A dead universe on an atomic level, giving rise to group awareness of > > trillions of dead atoms working together, not one, alive in of itself, > > not one with a gleam of awareness, builds collectivity an "I". > > Yes. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Mechanical motion I can understand, but awareness, fusing chemical > > signals together, into meaningful patterns which have self-reflection, > > awareness of something other than itself, outside itself, wow, think its > > all physical? > > Here you are the one who is failing over. This fallacy even has a name > (it is done so often). It is called "the argument from personal > incredibility". It consists of taking the inability of an human being > (oneself) as proof that something can not exist, despite the limits of > human knowledge being a known thing. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > And the whatever it was, in reality, which allowed, or assisted the > > creation of the physical universe, a physical structure? Or did > > something, like a metaphysical law, have to exist, allowing physical > > creation before it was? Or did a THING have to exist before you can > > create A THING? > > "whatever it was..creation" assumes that the creation was an causal > event, but causality is part of the creation, so the creation must be > acausal. "metaphysical law" assumes causality, as laws are formulas > developed by humans to describe causal effects, see before. "THING > have to exist before..THING" assumes creation to come from thing, but > things are part of creation. > The problem with understanding the "beginning of all" is that time, > space, energy, matter, causality all are part of the "all", so "before" > anything happend there had to be an acausality. But human brains are > made to work in an causal world. So that is why we can not understand > "the beginning", it will allways remain a mysterium. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > Who knows, of course, you do. Only a man who could state > > for sure, that God never existed, would know. > > Any man who is unaware of his physics/biology given limits or of the > consequences of them, such as Albert is (in claiming no god) and you > are (in claiming awareness to be non-physical). > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > No angels? Aw, better tell a few friends of mine to go home. > > Angels: another word with multiple meanings. Exists or not, depending > on which meaning one uses. Robert believes that Angels(Robert) exist, > Albert believes that Angels(Albert) do not exist. As A(R) not equal A(A) > both of these statements can be true at the same time. > > Robert Lauzeckas wrote: > > So, why does a guy who is convinced God never has existed, or could > > have, bother to come here and post anything at all? > > Because he believes (by missunderstanding you) that you are erring and > he wants to show you your "wrong" ways, to help you get away from them. > He fails in this because your ways are not the ones he believes them to > be. > > -- > Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped Wow, you must really taken your time to reply. I don't have time to answer all your points now, but I will before the weekend is out. But I'm curious to see your reaction to a new set of ideas on the Trinity. God, a composite mind of left brains. Being verbal, favoring Jews, since they have the highest average verbal intelligence, coupled with an average or below average spatial intelligence. Analytical, verbal, and very logical. And I mean a unified mind, a separate consciousness. And because he is in us, he was very concerned about human activity. "Master when we see the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus, "When it comes, you'll see it not. No man will be able to point and say, 'Here it is or there it is' for the Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Judgement Day by God? As promised? Those going with him will go to his right, those going to Hell his left. Now how can an all-powerful God be finite enough for left and right sides? Ah, its all bullshit, all bullshit. Unless there was a hidden message. The left brain controls the right side of out bodies, our right hands, and vice versa. The right side is represented by the left brain, him. Those that go with him. And the right brain represents the left side, those that go with Satan. And if Satan was a composite mind of right brains, IFFFFF. And he wasn't verbal, and he hated God and anything God's mind favored or produced. How would Satan, if he expressed his thinking in the mind of Hitler, a second anti-Christ, anti-left brain, feel about books? Or intellectuals? Would he want them shot? How about book burning in a culture which prides itself on learning and its knowledge? Would the hatred of Satan be so great as to create a cultural twist, a country of learning, burning books? Think he could? God is in all. So is Satan. Jesus, the human center of the left composite brain. You know, standing on the right side and all. And since God can't judge us properly, he has his best human cell do it for him, Christ. "You cannot go to the Father except by me." The Holy Ghost, the underlying mind to all of reality. You think of abstractions as by-products of the physical brain, brain processes, that you hatch them up. Some you do, but others you don't. How do you connect the signals of all the brain cells together? You think they know, they don't. That is one of the biggest unanswered questions in cognitive science today. They are looking for some sort of physical process, or maybe signals firing at the same time, or maybe some sort of grandparent brain cell, where it all clusters together. And they haven't got a clue. I think the answer is space itself. Not as empty room, but as an expression of the essence of a relationship. So, in other words, space is an abstraction. And that is how different signals get fused together. Sets of activities fusing into greater sets of abstractions, unified into awareness. And awareness is spirit. If I'm right, but only if, you already know what a spirit is. Haven't you noticed, with NDEers, the me in the body remains afterwards, the awareness stays. I also think because space is truely a set of abstractions, a soul, another set of abstractions adding up to our own awareness, it can float in it. I think that is how you can explain souls hovering above their bodies or traveling out of their bodies. Information in information. And as far as the physical world is concerned. Well, if string theory bears out then spacetime curves are all forces and and what passes for matter. And what is space or time if not abtractions. This is what I meant by everything being of the mind. Not ours, of course. Processes have to be fused into awareness. Take the subjective experience of blue, you find it correlated with brain processes, but if you looked inside the brain, you couldn't find it, see it. And no physical pattrern of movement of chemicals in the brain is blue. And no, neuroscience doesn't have the answer, it is still one of the great mysteries. When you think of process, get intuitive, see it, picture the molecules in action. Why should one brain know anything other than what its get chemically, either to or from its cell membrane? By itself, nothing. The additive process of chemical signals has to be fused, I believe, by an abstraction. I don't mean the kind we conjure up in our minds trying to understand it, but of a deeper kind. More like the ones I suspect govern physical laws. Why does math predict so well physical laws of nature? Math is a set of abstract ideas, the other seemingly stuff. So where do both worlds meet? Why should any scientist be able to walk up to a blackboard and start writing symbols, with no corrsponding physical objects, and be able to turn around and say, "See this is how nature works." This ability of the brain, really our soul, to add brain activity together is how I believe brain processes are fused together into meaningful patterns. And how subjective colors and words and other abtract symbols are made. Color can only be found in the essence of the abstract relationship of a brain process. But those essences go outside the brain to. Many people who died said colors were much more vivid on the other side. Take it with a grain of salt. I was going to post an essay but someone told me I'll have to pay for it. I'll have to finally dish out and buy a book on Netscape. If anyone wants, mail me a request for it at Edison Post Office, Raritan Center Station, Edison New Jersey 08818. Just sent me what you think will cover the costs of sending back about fifty or sixty pages or a disk. Then if you like it, you can sent me more. I work cheap. Hollywood seems to have liked it, why not you. This applies to anyone. Robert L. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 14 Feb 1998 00:02:18 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 150 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:91 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:439 Robert Lauzeckas added 2 bits to as older post: > Opps, I really should say, brain cells, by themselves also have no > awareness. But a collection of them, has. How? Brain cells are separate > from one another, it might not look it, but they are. They're only > encased together. And they send chemicals signals to each other. > > Now assume a tiny, tiny, tiny glimmer of awareness there, pretend. What > enables all the awareness to add their awarenesses together? It isn't > like a car, part A moves part B which moves part C and on and on...that > is simply mechanical movement. Those processes are easily explained by > the properties of structure and physics. Iron atoms by themselves have no ability to drive. But a collection of them (the car) has this ability. They are also separate, and they send photon signals (I'm here, come or budge!) to each other. Transistors by them selves have no ability to process data. But a collection of them (computer) has. They are also separate, and they send electric signals to each other. This is because the whole is more that its parts (or all of them when simply as a pile). New, previously unseen, abilities appear when assembled properly. The key to understanding all of these (iron/car, transistor/computer, cells/brain) is that they are mechanisms consisting of many parts interacting (nonlinearly, I should add). There exists an art of designing mechanisms so that they gain abilities when assembled, it is called engineering. And yes it is difficult. Please don't assume a glimmer of "driviness" or "processiness" or conciousness" simply adding together. This is only the case with linear mechanisms, such as a bigger pile. > This is another problem. These are abstract processes you're adding up. > Now unless ideas have their independent reality, not a flimsy kind, like > our midget minds, but of an more endurable type, such as the universal > laws, I don't believe you can make the addition. Ideas have to have > their own independent reality. And I suspect, a more real one, deeper > one. You don't need to make the addition. So this suspect becomes superfluous. > Laws govern the physical, not the pother way around. I don't see > particles saying to anstract laws, "Screw your laws of motion. I'll > behave in any way. You won't predict shit." Actually causality governs the physical. Laws are just human descriptions of the quantities of causality. Subject to revision when their predictions deviate from observation. Example Newton -> Einstein. > I do argree the brain itself is an organic machine. Its a chemical > computer. But it doesn't generate awareness, the soul does. Too many > people have floated abover their bodies and dead brains, to only find > themselves alive. If our brains were we, that couldn't happen to anyone, > much less, thousands. Unless they are all lying or mistaken. But for me, > I've been there. This is for me the best proof that the "astral planes" (I hate the term, because it suggests that it has something to do with stars, but I have no better one) exists. OBE could still be explained by some inner-brain mental effect, NDE can't. > another using ESP. That means information travels outside the brian, > into the physical world, and into another brain. Like a TV or radio > signal, but without the wave. Why "without the wave"? It is long proven by basic electrical theory that all nerve systems emit radio waves. Without that the EEG (Electro Encephalograph) would be impossible. And that nerve systems react to external radio waves is also proven. It would actually be surprising if evolution had not found out how to process the brain waves of others. > The abstract entities of words are hard wired in us, yes. But they are > only logical boxes, to help us understand the underlying sequence of > external events around us. Words were not meant by nature to let us > understand how nature works as much as we work in nature. Actually what is built in is the ability to derive entities from our sensual input and abstract laws from their behavour and to use word as tags to identify the entities and abstractions. > An underlying layer of reality, which is > metaphysical, where math lives and our minds and souls. So if the brain > is evolving towards it, it probabilty means, its there externally, not > that we're making it up. We evolve to fit to whatever we percieve, this includes abstractions. But that does not prove that our abstractions are right. Anyone who believes that driving a car will harm his soul will adapt (evolution is simply adaption) to live without driving. > If you take human DNA, there is a lot of coding. But coding in what > sense? Yes a lot. In the sense of using ATCG to represent protein sequences and so the actions these are capable of doing. > As the first cell grows and divides, new complex structures surface. > These physical structures in the developing brain and body far surpass > the surface complexity of the DNA code. The DNA only contains a recipy how to react to the environment. The environment is complex, so the reactions are. To demonstrate: Input/Environment Recipy Result 0 *4+2 2 1 " 6 234 " 938 -42 " -166 The recipy is simple, but the result is an large (potentially infinite) series. > With each new level of growth, more information expressed in the > physical body. The liver has millions of finctions, the brain..forget > it,..everything,,so complex. and all the interactions between all the > systems? Complexity off the human scale. > Now back to the DNA. are all the layers of dormant > information...real..in a real sense. Is the information of the entire > body already mapped into the first cell, all the interaction, all the > organs, all the systems working together as one system. The information in the DNA (the recipy) is real. But the entire body is not in the DNA, only the recipy to make together with the environment (that includes the womb) a body. > Is this layer of information..REAL? Ideas are already expressed in > nature, and we're proof of it. Ideas are not equal to information. They are a special case of it that only exists in the brain (or the astral brain). They are different from the information in the DNA (recipies). -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 14 Feb 1998 00:56:23 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 92 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:92 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:440 In albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) writes: >Any acceptable scientific evidence that can be repeated with no >possible occus pocus. Is there a problem with this minimal evidence >requirement? bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) answered: > Make this from nothing. Once again the uncaused cause (the coming into existance of matter and with it causality, from non matter and therefore non causality) rears its ugly head. > If you can't - if > you have absolutely no conscious understanding of how this happens to > be here supporting your feet when there, by logic, should be absolutely > nothing here at all, That you would have to. As that is not the case, you can deduce that causal logic does not work, at least not for the "uncaused cause" problem. Thats why it got its name over 2000 years ago. > then you obviously don't have a clue what you are > talking about Splash!! Here you go over bord. One can certainly have a clue: that using causal logic to solve the "coming into existance" problem is not a good idea. > and have absolutely no valid reason to make a flat > statement that God never existed... Assuming an "god" (I am here using following definition: intelligent entity that created world) is a causal solution. We have just seen that doing that is not good. Actually you simply replace "from where the universe" with "f w god". This replaces the glaring problem with an (for you) less obvious (and so less disturbing) one. But for many people that "solution" doesn't cut anymore. > There is not a scientific 'theory' (remember - science also operates on > 'theory') about the beginning of the universe that doesn't originate > from some 'unknown' source beyond it. A theory would require the description af an (causal) mechanism. So there can exist no such thing as a scientific theory of "coming into existance". Anything billed as such is not one. > I found a riddle, it said, "How > long can you leave 'nothing' laying around before it collapses on > itself and becomes 'something'?" Tough question... Can you answer it? Easy. "nothing" can not collapse. Collapsing is the movement (in direction of gravity) of "something" in space over time. When you have "nothing" (before "coming into existance") you have no collapsible stuff, no space to do so in, no time for movement to happen in and no gravity to define the direction, so no collapse. > If you can, you might come closer to a valid reason for your claim, > but you would still have to come up with the answer of 'where did these > specific laws of physics originate?' This question is only answerable acausally, that requires an acausal brain, that we have not got (ours evolved in an causal world, just see the problems people have in even recognizing the special nature of this problem, let allone accepting the consequences). So this is humanly impossible. > Man's search for God without God will never be over. Search for anything that isn't will never be over (in the sense of "over when found"). But it will be over when the futileness (because we have no experience of acausality and so no understanding of it) is recognized and it is abandonned. Using an causal mechanism (an creator-god) to solve an acausal problem will never work, unless you blind yourself to the most important attribute of the problem. I prefer not to. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 16 Feb 1998 23:06:28 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 223 Message-ID: Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:103 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:450 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > Warning: this is a heavy-to-digest post. > Before argueing about whether souls, god, etc exist, it would perhaps > be good to define what you mean with these words. Robert Lauzeckas replied: > Wow, you must really taken your time to reply. IIRC (it was 4 days ago) it took about 20-25 minutes. Actually it was not that much work, because I had the points basically worked out for a long time (the problems with multiple meaning words in intellectual discussions is one of my pet peeves since a few years). The post I wrote a day later (and only sent off today due to an 3-day newsfeed crash) was actually a lot more work (3/4 hour). This post also took longer. > But I'm curious to see your reaction to a new set of ideas on the > Trinity. Sorry. I will have to pass up on that one. I have yet to attribute some meaning to that word (I come from an protestant background and am today an atheist, so that word never aquired a meaning for me, in fact it is one of the most confusing bits of catholicism for me). > Jesus, "When it comes, you'll see it not. No man will be able to point > and say, 'Here it is or there it is' for the Kingdom of Heaven is within > you." With other words: heaven (and hell) are not geographic places. Actually I believe these words to refer to psychic states of mind. As in the phrase "hell of one owns making" (meaning mentally tormented by ones own state of mind (beliefs, fears, etc)). > Now how can an all-powerful God be > finite enough for left and right sides? Ah, its all bullshit, all > bullshit. Unless there was a hidden message. I would assume a hidden message. Or that the writer of that part of the Bible was being inconsequent and writing a story that desagrees with the character he is writing it to (I regard the Bible as a literary work, not the word of god(creator), actually that would make it the word of god(leftbrain)). > And if Satan was a composite mind of right brains, IFFFFF. That would be the logical counterpart to god being the composite of left brains. > How would Satan, if he expressed his thinking in the mind of > Hitler, a second anti-Christ, anti-left brain, feel about books? Or > intellectuals? Would he want them shot? How about book burning in a > culture which prides itself on learning and its knowledge? Would the > hatred of Satan be so great as to create a cultural twist, a country of > learning, burning books? Think he could? Right brain dominated people usually feel frustrated by an left brain dominated world. On the other hand they usually lack the single mindedness that characterised Hitler&Co. > How do you connect the signals of all the brain cells together? The signals get connected together by the cells, that is after all their purpose there. > You think they know, they don't. That is one of the biggest unanswered > questions in cognitive science today. They are looking for some sort of > physical process, or maybe signals firing at the same time, or maybe > some sort of grandparent brain cell, where it all clusters together. And > they haven't got a clue. As I have read quite a bit of Artificial Intelligence stuff (I am a programmer by training) I have quite a good picture of the state of brain research. The main search at the moment is for the details of the formula with that the brain transforms its input. > I think the answer is space itself. Not as empty room, but as an > expression of the essence of a relationship. So, in other words, space > is an abstraction. And that is how different signals get fused together. > Sets of activities fusing into greater sets of abstractions, unified > into awareness. Here you are near to the scientific view. The above mentioned formula is "programmed" as the interconnection (that come from the spacial arrangement) of the cells in the brain. Different arrangement = different formula. And the transformation consists of stepwise extracting of higher abstractions. Example: Eye delivers an grid of coloured dots, first nerves detect edges, then shapes/surfaces, then objects/volumes, then behaviour/motion, then motivation/interpretation (in the case of seeing a human do something). > And awareness is spirit. If I'm right, but only if, you > already know what a spirit is. Haven't you noticed, with NDEers, the me > in the body remains afterwards, the awareness stays. I define spirit as meaning the conciousness/awareness/person/me that survives bodily death (allthough I do not believe in god, I do believe in spiritism). That would also be the part that separates while NDE or OBE. Not having had an NDE I have an interest in experimenting with OBE, but up to now have not got around to doing it. > I also think because space is truely a set of abstractions, a soul, > another set of abstractions adding up to our own awareness, it can float > in it. I think that is how you can explain souls hovering above their > bodies or traveling out of their bodies. I speculativly explain it as some form of quantum effect where a group of quanta (most likely electrons) form an definitive structure in space which can process information (and so be aware) but which is not bound to an actual set of quanta, the same as a wave is not bound to an actual set of atoms, but rather moves from atom to atom, but still keeping its identity as a wave. I am also thinking of such strange effects as super conductivity (electrons building structures without nucleii), standing waves and boson condensates (as found in the microtubuli of brain cells) as a general direction (here I run into the limits of my knowledge of physics). > And what is space or time if not abtractions. This is what I > meant by everything being of the mind. Not ours, of course. The ideas of space and time found in our brains are certainly abstractions. As for "out there", we do not know the true nature of anything, only our abstractions (which are the result of millions of years of successfull brain development). > And no > physical pattrern of movement of chemicals in the brain is blue. And no, > neuroscience doesn't have the answer, it is still one of the great > mysteries. No pattern _is_ blue. But some pattern _represents_ blue. And yes it still is a great mystery. But I think that, like life, it is a mystery that will fall, perhaps sooner than many think. > Why should one brain know anything other than what its get > chemically, either to or from its cell membrane? By itself, nothing. That is all that it does know. The pulses coming from the sense organs (plus possibly direct electrical input, I believe that to be the base of telepathy). > The > additive process of chemical signals has to be fused, I believe, by an > abstraction. I don't mean the kind we conjure up in our minds trying to > understand it, but of a deeper kind. More like the ones I suspect govern > physical laws. The adding _is_ an physical process. Pulses increase the electric charge of a cell. When this gets hig enough the cell fires off an pulse and loses some of its charge. > Why does math predict so well physical laws of nature? > Math is a set of abstract ideas, the other seemingly stuff. So where do > both worlds meet? Maths is (highly) abstracted from observation of the world. Actually maths is simply a precice language for expressing quantitative abstractions. So it meets the physical world by being a simplified version of it. > Why should any scientist be able to walk up to a > blackboard and start writing symbols, with no corrsponding physical > objects, and be able to turn around and say, "See this is how nature > works." Because the symbols _do_ correspond to physical objects (or often to some of their attributes). The symbols are simply shorthand for words which are themselves labels/tags for abstracions, which are derived fron observing the world. It is this chain of actions that makes science so successfull. > This ability of the brain, really our soul, to add brain activity > together is how I believe brain processes are fused together into > meaningful patterns. And how subjective colors and words and other > abtract symbols are made. Color can only be found in the essence of the > abstract relationship of a brain process. Yes. > But those essences go outside the brain to. I assume this is because the final abstracting (or at least the being concious of it) happens in the spirit part. > Many people who died said colors were much more vivid on > the other side. Take it with a grain of salt. I assume this to be because there is no/less distraction, resulting in better (more intensive) concentration. > I was going to post an essay but someone told me I'll have to pay for > it. I'll have to finally dish out and buy a book on Netscape. :-) Actually you will need a book on HTML writing/authoring to make Web pages. Netscape is only about viewing pages that are allready written. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:34:21 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 356 Message-ID: <34E9134D.5ABE@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: wfd-nj4-05.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Feb 16 8:38:07 PM PST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.ece.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!pitt.edu!dsinc!nntp.upenn.edu!news.misty.com!news.snip.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.mccc.edu!pallol.usenet.co.uk!usenet.co.uk!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:112 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:466 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > > Robert Lauzeckas added 2 bits to as older post: > > Opps, I really should say, brain cells, by themselves also have no > > awareness. But a collection of them, has. How? Brain cells are separate > > from one another, it might not look it, but they are. They're only > > encased together. And they send chemicals signals to each other. > > > > Now assume a tiny, tiny, tiny glimmer of awareness there, pretend. What > > enables all the awareness to add their awarenesses together? It isn't > > like a car, part A moves part B which moves part C and on and on...that > > is simply mechanical movement. Those processes are easily explained by > > the properties of structure and physics. > > Iron atoms by themselves have no ability to drive. But a collection of > them (the car) has this ability. They are also separate, and they send > photon signals (I'm here, come or budge!) to each other. > > Transistors by them selves have no ability to process data. But a > collection of them (computer) has. They are also separate, and they > send electric signals to each other. > > This is because the whole is more that its parts (or all of them > when simply as a pile). New, previously unseen, abilities appear > when assembled properly. > > The key to understanding all of these (iron/car, transistor/computer, > cells/brain) is that they are mechanisms consisting of many parts > interacting (nonlinearly, I should add). There exists an art of > designing mechanisms so that they gain abilities when assembled, it > is called engineering. And yes it is difficult. > > Please don't assume a glimmer of "driviness" or "processiness" or > conciousness" simply adding together. > This is only the case with linear mechanisms, such as a bigger pile. > > > This is another problem. These are abstract processes you're adding up. > > Now unless ideas have their independent reality, not a flimsy kind, like > > our midget minds, but of an more endurable type, such as the universal > > laws, I don't believe you can make the addition. Ideas have to have > > their own independent reality. And I suspect, a more real one, deeper > > one. > > You don't need to make the addition. So this suspect becomes superfluous. > > > Laws govern the physical, not the pother way around. I don't see > > particles saying to anstract laws, "Screw your laws of motion. I'll > > behave in any way. You won't predict shit." > > Actually causality governs the physical. Laws are just human > descriptions of the quantities of causality. Subject to revision > when their predictions deviate from observation. > Example Newton -> Einstein. > > > > I do argree the brain itself is an organic machine. Its a chemical > > computer. But it doesn't generate awareness, the soul does. Too many > > people have floated abover their bodies and dead brains, to only find > > themselves alive. If our brains were we, that couldn't happen to anyone, > > much less, thousands. Unless they are all lying or mistaken. But for me, > > I've been there. > > This is for me the best proof that the "astral planes" (I hate the > term, because it suggests that it has something to do with stars, but > I have no better one) exists. OBE could still be explained by some > inner-brain mental effect, NDE can't. > > > > another using ESP. That means information travels outside the brian, > > into the physical world, and into another brain. Like a TV or radio > > signal, but without the wave. > > Why "without the wave"? It is long proven by basic electrical theory > that all nerve systems emit radio waves. Without that the EEG (Electro > Encephalograph) would be impossible. And that nerve systems react to > external radio waves is also proven. It would actually be surprising if > evolution had not found out how to process the brain waves of others. > > > The abstract entities of words are hard wired in us, yes. But they are > > only logical boxes, to help us understand the underlying sequence of > > external events around us. Words were not meant by nature to let us > > understand how nature works as much as we work in nature. > > Actually what is built in is the ability to derive entities from our > sensual input and abstract laws from their behavour and to use word as > tags to identify the entities and abstractions. > > > An underlying layer of reality, which is > > metaphysical, where math lives and our minds and souls. So if the brain > > is evolving towards it, it probabilty means, its there externally, not > > that we're making it up. > > We evolve to fit to whatever we percieve, this includes abstractions. > But that does not prove that our abstractions are right. > Anyone who believes that driving a car will harm his soul will adapt > (evolution is simply adaption) to live without driving. > > > If you take human DNA, there is a lot of coding. But coding in what > > sense? > > Yes a lot. In the sense of using ATCG to represent protein sequences > and so the actions these are capable of doing. > > > As the first cell grows and divides, new complex structures surface. > > These physical structures in the developing brain and body far surpass > > the surface complexity of the DNA code. > > The DNA only contains a recipy how to react to the environment. The > environment is complex, so the reactions are. To demonstrate: > > Input/Environment Recipy Result > 0 *4+2 2 > 1 " 6 > 234 " 938 > -42 " -166 > > The recipy is simple, but the result is an large (potentially > infinite) series. > > > With each new level of growth, more information expressed in the > > physical body. The liver has millions of finctions, the brain..forget > > it,..everything,,so complex. and all the interactions between all the > > systems? Complexity off the human scale. > > Now back to the DNA. are all the layers of dormant > > information...real..in a real sense. Is the information of the entire > > body already mapped into the first cell, all the interaction, all the > > organs, all the systems working together as one system. > > The information in the DNA (the recipy) is real. But the entire body > is not in the DNA, only the recipy to make together with the > environment (that includes the womb) a body. > > > Is this layer of information..REAL? Ideas are already expressed in > > nature, and we're proof of it. > > Ideas are not equal to information. They are a special case of it that > only exists in the brain (or the astral brain). They are different > from the information in the DNA (recipies). > > -- > private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped > olution had not found out how to process the brain waves of others. > > > The abstract entities of words are hard wired in us, yes. But they are > > only logical boxes, to help us understand the underlying sequence of > > external events around us. Words were not meant by nature to let us > > understand how nature works as much as we work in nature. > > Actually what is built in is the ability to derive entities from our > sensual input and abstract laws from their behavour and to use word as > tags to identify the entities and abstractions. > > > An underlying layer of reality, which is > > metaphysical, where math lives and our minds and souls. So if the brain > > is evolving towards it, it probabilty means, its there externally, not > > that we're making it up. > > We evolve to fit to whatever we percieve, this includes abstractions. > But that does not prove that our abstractions are right. > Anyone who believes that driving a car will harm his soul will adapt > (evolution is simply adaption) to live without driving. > > > If you take human DNA, there is a lot of coding. But coding in what > > sense? > > Yes a lot. In the sense of using ATCG to represent protein sequences > and so the actions these are capable of doing. > > > As the first cell grows and divides, new complex structures surface. > > These physical structures in the developing brain and body far surpass > > the surface complexity of the DNA code. > > The DNA only contains a recipy how to react to the environment. The > environment is complex, so the reactions are. To demonstrate: > > Input/Environment Recipy Result > 0 *4+2 2 > 1 " 6 > 234 " 938 > -42 " -166 > > The recipy is simple, but the result is an large (potentially > infinite) series. > > > With each new level of growth, more information expressed in the > > physical body. The liver has millions of finctions, the brain..forget > > it,..everything,,so complex. and all the interactions between all the > > systems? Complexity off the human scale. > > Now back to the DNA. are all the layers of dormant > > information...real..in a real sense. Is the information of the entire > > body already mapped into the first cell, all the interaction, all the > > organs, all the systems working together as one system. > > The information in the DNA (the recipy) is real. But the entire body > is not in the DNA, only the recipy to make together with the > environment (that includes the womb) a body. > > > Is this layer of information..REAL? Ideas are already expressed in > > nature, and we're proof of it. > > Ideas are not equal to information. They are a special case of it that > only exists in the brain (or the astral brain). They are different > from the information in the DNA (recipies). > > -- > private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped Oh I hate this long dragged out useless arguments, but I can't seem to avoid them. From Lockheed to here. Man oh man, what bad luck. Just when I thought I left all my scientist friends behind, I find new ones. Yes, I know all about engineering. Graduated from an engineering school myself. But in computer science. But my real love is mathematics. Don't confuse mechnical motioin with a brain giving rise to thought. They are not the same. But its a common mistake, all too common. Many cognitive scientists orginially believed as you do, and I confess, as I did once. Complex behavior can be derived from complex systems. So complex brain activity can give rise to thought, like your iron atoms can drive. Just iron atoms? But subjective perception is unified and alive, a car isn't. You don't think a computer, when its processes information is alive, do you? It isn't. I've written expert systems, they don't think, they don't know anything at all. It is just a complex set of predefined rules which, when followed, will give you an answer to question which can be structured in a structured way. If you had the patience, you could represent every 1 with a coin, heads for 1, tails for 0. And create a mechanical machine, with gears and levers to simulate a central processor, and it would be super slow, but would you call it alive, on any level? A computer chess program doesn't think like a grandmaster. It doesn't see, doesn't understand even what its doing, doesn't even realize its doing anything at all, doesn't even realize its there, no inner light, no awareness. Yet, a great program beat Kaspy boy? All the program do is number crunch in what they call dept searchs. Just because a computer program can stimulate a logical pattern which your mind can also use to come to a realization or conclusion, doesn't mean they are the same thing. Computers, as yet, don't think. But they get better at simulating complex thought, providing its all logically structured. One of the biggest unsloved mysteries in cognitive science today is, explaining subjective experience. Not its complexity, but how any complexity can add its activities beyond itself? I ran acrosss this idea myself, and was a little surprised when a friend of mine, an EPA chemist gave me a copy of Scientific America[1993, some month], which talked of it. No, they don't have the answer, because they realized a new problem with the old ideas. You see your subjective thinking is a result of a collection of activites, brain activites from billions of cells. Any one of them alone, isn't any of what your would call, your thoughts. They do add up, brain activities from many cells, someone combine their information, but not just in a linear fashion[that too], but as integrated thoughts. That ability to integrate is the Holy Grail of cognitive science today. If you find it, you'll also find your Nobel Prize. That addition is all important. Without it, you can explain souless bodies and souless brains, like souless cars and souless planes. But inner awareness, mental life, mental life, awareness, colors, not photons, not electrical patterns, not nerotransmitters, but RED, BLUE, YELLOW go unexplained. No where in the tasperty of physical reality in the brain do they exist. A brain process, by itself, is just a process of a chain reaction of chemical activity, but no color. Not the subjective kind, just the correlation kind, "see, when this happens you see red, when this happens you see blue". But the brain processes and the subjective experience are two different things, once assumed, in some mysterious fashion, the same thing. But all that went out of the window already. Old stuff. Laws? I was a bit too intuitive here I guess. I never meant to say our formulations of natural processes are the laws themselves. So from Newton to Einstein to later...mathematics gets closer and closer to those laws. But unless those laws were there, the search would be useless. Those laws exist, but can we quantify them completely? Who knows? Most scientists are betting and hoping we can. The astraL PLANE STUFF I think is the metaphysical realm, where ideas have their own existence. Actually I think, realtionships are it. The lowest parts of reality, beneath it, nothing. I think this realm is where everything that is, comes from, and where our souls go back to. I think space itself, is the informational skin, dividing our physical reality from that metaphysical reality. I also think that metaphysical realm is where the Holy Grail is, the place where separate brain activity becomes merged and meaningful on a higher level. Where the seaprate activities of billions of brain cells together say, "I am". But its information of ours souls that do the merging, so a brain can say, "I AM", and when you die, and think without a brain, you can still say while hovering above your dead body, "SHIT, I STILL AM". ESP, why do I think its without a wave. Hmm, its because I've had dreams wher dead people told me about future events which came out for starters. I also get dreams about future events, they also come out. Who or what is broadcasting to me with radio waves? I think space, if it really is a physical manifestation of an abstraction, communicates information, not just information. That could solve that other unsolved mystery of action at a distance. It seems small particles can send information, somehow to each other faster than light. They ran the experiments and the results are in, it happens, but....how? Because information isn't supposed to go faster than the fastest onjects that can communicate them, light. But it does. In some ways not to unlike when they discovered that light travels the same speed, no matter what the reference? Impossible, but true. By adapting to evolution I meant if that metaphysical realm of abstraction wasn't there, how could we adapt to it? Why adapt to something unreal? Words yes, seem unreal in substance, so unreal. If our brains are making them up, then no matter how useful, they aren't REALLY REAL, ARE THEY? Yes, I get it. But I never meant it that way. How real can an abstraction realy be? There isn't any substance? Nothing to hold. Nothing to collide with. Nothing to see. Nothing to hit. Nothing to feel. Aren't words the same? And mathematical entities? Well, aren't they. But if your subjective experience is the collection of separate brain activites, added up in a metaphysical way, with soul addition, then your subjective thoughts, colors, sounds, touch, smells, are all alive abstractions. All awareness. That is how unreal abstraction are, as real as your life and soul. Pretty real to me. And in an intelligent universe, where all activity and understanding require understanding and mental life, it doesn't really surprise me. I know all about DNA codig my friend. An idea is information, information about itself, and if true with the external reality, information about the external reality. Can you understand that the color red is an idea, not the idea of seeing red, BUT RED ITSELF. DNA coding unravels itself into the physical world, layer after layer. One physical structure gets build chemically, its realized, then its structural information, unravels a second and more deeper latent layer of embedded DNA information. And sunbsets of information combine in countless supersets of information. All this is never seen by just examining the simple genes[not so simple really]. Well, right now, I got to study for this good MBA course. But I'm a little too old for college now, or feel that way. And besides, I can't imagine a payoff, that is killing me. My mind almost refuses to work. Its going, "NOT AGAIN". Robert L. ###### Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800 From: albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Message-ID: References: <6baafo$iub$1@news.indigo.ie> <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> <6c09rc$mu6@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <34E48578.4AB@ix.netcom.com> <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.6 NNTP-Posting-Host: sandiego-2-38.sandiego.access1.net Lines: 47 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.he.net!news.pbi.net!news.access1.net!albertreingewirtz Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:117 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:471 In article <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net>, lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:16:30 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net > (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > > > >Thereby stand the reason poeple are afraid to discard the idea of Gods. The > >priests/snake oil salesmen have sold this idea of another idiocy, the after > >life. Suckers are born ever minute and most believe in this crap of a God > >because they bough hook sink and bait the very fear of hell and the promise > >of paradise of if and when they submit to the snake oil salesmen/priest > >with their cockamaimy fairy tale of God, they too will go to paradise and > >not in hell. > > > >There is no hell, no paradise, no Gods, no souls. When you die it is lights > >out and diner for bacteria. So live but live right because you have only > >one chance to live right. You will live only once so "do the right thing!" > > > Albert, I think you took a bad turn somewhere and ended up in the > wrong newsgroup. You see, in this newsgroup, most of the people have > had first-hand personal experience with those things you say don't > exist. > > If you really want to argue the point then I challenge you to get past > the discussions at http://nde.simplenet.com on the FAQ pages. Since no > scientist has been able to disprove the discussions let's see how well > you do. > > I personally think you have a lot of growing to do. > > Leroy, I am in the right group but are you? This is a Jewish News group. Regarding growing up. I had my growth longer than I can tell you. I had to grow fast at a tender age and take care of the business of remaining alive. By the way, scientists do not have to prove anything out of thin air. Those who claim that there is such idiotic things as Gods, angels, hell, devils, miracles... Those are the people who have the burden of proof, not I and not scientists. 2,000 years of trying to prove the existence of God has always fallen into terrible results. Isn't it about time we all say enough already we can't prove the existence of this boogaboo therefore it doesn't exist? -- God never died, it never existed ###### From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 19:00:07 GMT Organization: ioNET Inc. Lines: 43 Message-ID: <34eb2dab.2962845@news.ionet.net> References: <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> <6c09rc$mu6@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <34E48578.4AB@ix.netcom.com> <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: tulnas7-19.ionet.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news1.ispnews.com!ionews.ionet.net!not-for-mail Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:127 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:491 On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: >In article <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net>, lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy >Kattein) wrote: > >> >Leroy, I am in the right group but are you? This is a Jewish News group. >Regarding growing up. I had my growth longer than I can tell you. I had to >grow fast at a tender age and take care of the business of remaining alive. > >By the way, scientists do not have to prove anything out of thin air. >Those who claim that there is such idiotic things as Gods, angels, hell, >devils, miracles... Those are the people who have the burden of proof, not >I and not scientists. 2,000 years of trying to prove the existence of God >has always fallen into terrible results. Isn't it about time we all say >enough already we can't prove the existence of this boogaboo therefore it >doesn't exist? You must be confused as to where you are posting. This is a newsgroup about Near Death Experiences. I am not surprised, since you are confused about God also. The existence of God has been proven millions of times. If you doubt this you need to read about Near Death Experiences. In my web site http://nde.simplenet.com is plenty of proof of God. Read the "Near Death Experience, what is it" first, then read the FAQ pages, all of them. There is conclusive proof of God, the spirit world and all the other things you say don't exist. I personally have experienced God, the spirit world and thousands of other people have also. If you do not believe, that is ok with me. I know you will when the time comes. All do, without exception. In Love, Leroy Kattein Life + Look : Listen : Learn = Laugh : Love : Let-go (lekatt@ionet.net) (http://nde.simplenet.com) ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: 20 Feb 1998 01:47:07 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> <6c09rc$mu6@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <34E48578.4AB@ix.netcom.com> <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net> <34eb2dab.2962845@news.ionet.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:130 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:494 The Newsgroup header says this: > Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal, > alt.consciousness.near-death-exp In article <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net>, lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) wrote: > Albert, I think you took a bad turn somewhere and ended up in the > wrong newsgroup. You see, in this newsgroup, most of the people have > had first-hand personal experience with those things you say don't > exist. On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > Leroy, I am in the right group but are you? This is a Jewish News group. From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > You must be confused as to where you are posting. This is a newsgroup > about Near Death Experiences. I am not surprised, since you are > confused about God also. Ok. Would the two of you have a look at the Newsgroup: line up above? As you can see this is a discussion in: soc.culture.jewish *and* alt.life.afterlife *and* alt.paranormal *and* alt.consciousness.near-death-exp. With other words: in 4 newsgroups parallel (this is known as cross-posted). Some of the readers (and therefore also the writers) come from 4 different (and not particularly related) groups. Expect differences in ideas what it is about to happen. If you want to fault someone, do so to the one who started the discussion that has lead to this fight. That person (I do not know who, it happend while one of my newsfeeds frequent blackouts) thought that the original theme was of interest to all these 4 groups. The resulting discussion did not turn out to be. So that was an error. Become aware of the limits of human nature. On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > By the way, scientists do not have to prove anything out of thin air. > Those who claim that there is such idiotic things as Gods, angels, hell, > devils, miracles... Those are the people who have the burden of proof, not > I and not scientists. Hmmm, I disagree. Dogmatics (either of the religious or the "scientific" persuasion) have the burden of proof of their dogma. Real scientists collect different points of view and the proofs and then decide - for the side with the better proofs. In this case both sides have weak points: pro-god has personal experiences (but no objective proofs), anti-god has the absense of experience (but that is also no proof). So a real scientist takes the point of "there is no certainty possible, live with uncertainty, keep an open mind". On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > 2,000 years of trying to prove the existence of God > has always fallen into terrible results. Isn't it about time we all say > enough already we can't prove the existence of this boogaboo therefore it > doesn't exist? From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > The existence of God has been proven millions > of times. If you doubt this you need to read about Near Death > Experiences. As I said in my post a week ago to RL: first define the meaning of the word "god", etc before claiming that it exists or doesn't exist. 100 people have 100 different definitions of this word, some of the defined things exist, some do not. Example: God(common cause of creation/life/subconcious/white-light) does not exist). God(all left brains) exists. I could add: God(old man on cloud) does not exist. God(subconcious) exists, so does God(white-light). And so on for the 100s of definitions possible. This is the danger of multiple meaning words. From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > In my web site http://nde.simplenet.com is plenty of proof of God. > Read the "Near Death Experience, what is it" first, then read the FAQ > pages, all of them. There is conclusive proof of God, the spirit world > and all the other things you say don't exist. > I personally have experienced God, the spirit world and thousands of > other people have also. If you do not believe, that is ok with me. I > know you will when the time comes. All do, without exception. To be more precise: you have (I assume) experienced the "white light of love" that NDEers speak of and have come to the conclusion that that is what the word "God" stands for, so for you God exists. Others without that experience (such as Albert) define God differently and in a way contradicting their experriences, so for them God doesn't exist. Beware of the dangers inherent in multiple meaning words. That is: both of you. > In Love, Leroy Kattein Promoting basic understanding and so expanded awareness, Neil -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Questions about souls after death Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:22:59 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 133 Message-ID: <34ED0523.54E0@ix.netcom.com> References: <6bga7p$g95$3@news.indigo.ie> <34e008de.891918@news.demon.co.uk> <6c09rc$mu6@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <34E48578.4AB@ix.netcom.com> <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net> <34eb2dab.2962845@news.ionet.net> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: wfd-nj1-14.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 19 10:27:12 PM CST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!nntp.net-link.net!news.pagesat.net!howland.erols.net!psinntp!ix.netcom.com!news Xref: ccw.ch alt.life.afterlife:131 alt.consciousness.near-death-exp:499 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > > The Newsgroup header says this: > > Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.life.afterlife,alt.paranormal, > > alt.consciousness.near-death-exp > In article <34e785f2.7040301@news.ionet.net>, lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy > Kattein) wrote: > > Albert, I think you took a bad turn somewhere and ended up in the > > wrong newsgroup. You see, in this newsgroup, most of the people have > > had first-hand personal experience with those things you say don't > > exist. > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net > (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > > Leroy, I am in the right group but are you? This is a Jewish News group. > From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > > You must be confused as to where you are posting. This is a newsgroup > > about Near Death Experiences. I am not surprised, since you are > > confused about God also. > > Ok. Would the two of you have a look at the Newsgroup: line up above? > As you can see this is a discussion in: > > soc.culture.jewish *and* > alt.life.afterlife *and* > alt.paranormal *and* > alt.consciousness.near-death-exp. > > With other words: in 4 newsgroups parallel (this is known as > cross-posted). Some of the readers (and therefore also the writers) > come from 4 different (and not particularly related) groups. Expect > differences in ideas what it is about to happen. > > If you want to fault someone, do so to the one who started the > discussion that has lead to this fight. That person (I do not know > who, it happend while one of my newsfeeds frequent blackouts) thought > that the original theme was of interest to all these 4 groups. > > The resulting discussion did not turn out to be. So that was an > error. Become aware of the limits of human nature. > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net > (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > > By the way, scientists do not have to prove anything out of thin air. > > Those who claim that there is such idiotic things as Gods, angels, hell, > > devils, miracles... Those are the people who have the burden of proof, not > > I and not scientists. > > Hmmm, I disagree. Dogmatics (either of the religious or the > "scientific" persuasion) have the burden of proof of their dogma. Real > scientists collect different points of view and the proofs and then > decide - for the side with the better proofs. In this case both sides > have weak points: pro-god has personal experiences (but no objective > proofs), anti-god has the absense of experience (but that is also no > proof). So a real scientist takes the point of "there is no certainty > possible, live with uncertainty, keep an open mind". > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:44:45 -0800, albertreingewirtz@access1.net > (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote: > > 2,000 years of trying to prove the existence of God > > has always fallen into terrible results. Isn't it about time we all say > > enough already we can't prove the existence of this boogaboo therefore it > > doesn't exist? > From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > > The existence of God has been proven millions > > of times. If you doubt this you need to read about Near Death > > Experiences. > > As I said in my post a week ago to RL: first define the meaning of the > word "god", etc before claiming that it exists or doesn't exist. 100 > people have 100 different definitions of this word, some of the defined > things exist, some do not. > > Example: God(common cause of creation/life/subconcious/white-light) > does not exist). God(all left brains) exists. > I could add: God(old man on cloud) does not exist. God(subconcious) > exists, so does God(white-light). > And so on for the 100s of definitions possible. > > This is the danger of multiple meaning words. > > From: lekatt@ionet.net (Leroy Kattein) > > In my web site http://nde.simplenet.com is plenty of proof of God. > > Read the "Near Death Experience, what is it" first, then read the FAQ > > pages, all of them. There is conclusive proof of God, the spirit world > > and all the other things you say don't exist. > > I personally have experienced God, the spirit world and thousands of > > other people have also. If you do not believe, that is ok with me. I > > know you will when the time comes. All do, without exception. > > To be more precise: you have (I assume) experienced the "white light > of love" that NDEers speak of and have come to the conclusion that > that is what the word "God" stands for, so for you God exists. > > Others without that experience (such as Albert) define God differently > and in a way contradicting their experriences, so for them God doesn't > exist. > > Beware of the dangers inherent in multiple meaning words. That is: > both of you. > > > In Love, Leroy Kattein > > Promoting basic understanding and so expanded awareness, Neil > > -- > private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped Don't bother with these people dear, they are a waste of time. Nothing you can say, can make them agree. They love to be smug and superior. But actually idiots. Take the one with scientists. Newton and Einstein were very religious. The more they understood, the more they saw, the more they believed. Those others can't see because they see this way, "gee, none of those theories call on the ancient God, so this new understanding of nature proves that God isn't." Means nothing. They are not spiritual, dry minds with dry logic. The miracle of existence itself, is beyond them. They see as my dog sees, not more, but less, what is, is all there is. Where's the miracle for them? Don't bother. R.L. R.L.