Passage ...... Where do you go after you die

truth
Rosborne, I know you knew that. Pardon me for being so ponderous (telling more than is necessary). That's what comes from speaking off the top of one's head.

No need for appology JL.

Our views are often similar. Something I find refreshing given its rarity within the general population.

And I have enjoyed your thoughtful reasoning in many posts.

Best Regards,

Hey JL

I've thought this over for a bit, and the most significant observation I can make is that we seem to be in substantial agreement on significant components of the issue we are discussing here.

And quite honestly, I don't see any sharp areas of difference.

Let me mention some of the items where I see agreement:

We pretty much seem to agree that knowledge of the Ultimate Reality of existence is hidden from us.

Even if what the person on the street would call "reality" actually IS reality -- we really do not know it.
(I am using "know" here in a loose sense -- not in a pedantic or sophistic way.)

We seem to agree that a reasonable person can come up with several possible descriptions of what reality MIGHT BE -- and we seem to agree that reality MAY BE a construct so incomprehensible to humans at their present stage of evolution -- that speculation on it now would be fruitless.

I see the value of the estimates of reality you are making -- and I hope you understand that the agnostic in me causes me to stress the "I do not know" element -- and to downplay (often eliminate) speculation about what reality (or any unknown) most likely is.

I'm not sure of where the differences are -- and perhaps you can fill me in on that particular if major ones still remain.

As to the thought that was provoked by your last post -- the one I mentioned (Prove to me that you did not come into existence for the first time just a few seconds ago -- complete with all your supposed memories.)…

...I suspect that was a message from my unconscious telling me something like this:

A good mind can always come up with possibilities -- sometimes very weird possibilities -- that have no real reason for coming into existence other than to present a counter argument to what someone else is saying.

Perhaps some of the "possible" reality scenarios I have offered fit that description. I certainly am not above inventing a weird scenario just to provoke conversation or debate - and that may be what is happening here. Although, I do feel very strongly that the Ultimate Reality MAY be very, very different from what we assume reality to be. (I think the Zen thinkers even refer to the universe and all its stock as the "illusion."

In any case, I suspect that initial thought was not directly related to our conversation -- and probably was just a private message from my unconscious to my conscious telling me to be aware of why I create some of these possibilities.

Here's my thoughts on the subject. I don't think we will understand all the different realities that exists in this world - past, present, or future. There are some basic realities that we all understand. When two people have sex, it has a chance of producing another homo sapien. Our reality is also influenced by whether we are born a man, a woman, or a hermaphrodite. Some of us are born with what are considered abnormalities. The environment and genes have the greatest influence on what our reality will be. Everything else we consider as our reality has to do with our access to food, shelter, economic development, and medical care. No two people will have the same reality. c.i.

truth
C.I., yes no two people ever have the "same realities" if by that you mean identical experiences and perspectives. But the differences that exist, say, between people who feel that they share much and are in synce (sp?) suggests that the differences, in the Pragmatist's sense, make no difference.
Frank, I'm glad we have come to agreement on something. This would be the opportunity for that since I am clearly a sceptic/agnostic with respect to the great astronomical theoretical questions. Those questions are in principle at least empirical in nature and therefore must be taken seriously even though we have no capacity as yet to deal with them. We can predict eclipses and explain all kinds of phenomena, but we cannot talk with clarity and "scientifically" about such matters like the nature and extent of the universe (in the sense of everything) or the boundaries of space and time. The definitely non-empirical questions such as the existence of God(s) need not, I feel, be taken at all seriously, except, of course, for their political and sociological implications.
Regarding your fanciful (unconsciously inspired) comment/puzzle. Please feel free. It never stops Geligesti and BoGoWo. I wish I could be more creative and playful in that regard. I sometimes feel I am the among most intellectually "uptight" of A2Kers. But there's little help for it.

Would you say two people, while gazing at an apple, both accurately recalling the taste, texture and firmness of the fruit, while both observe the color of the fruit to be red ..... could it be said that these two people are sharing a reality with the readers of this paragraph?

Frank, even those with no beliefs are guilty of believing their belief.
Some things are true no matter how hard you wish them not to be.

a
is it my deodrant?

That statement makes no sense, Ge. If you want to discuss it, I'll be happy to, but you really have to tell me what in hell you are saying.

Try considering two separate statements. Even if you don't beleive in anything isn't that still a belief? You cannot escape commitment by denying believing, from there is only left .... the grist.

The second statement should stand alone.

Ge

"Some things are true no matter how hard you wish them not to be"
is correct -- a tautology, of sorts.

But what does that have to do with the other half of the statement you directed to me?



No!




Huh?????

My echo, "Huh?" c.i.

No belief is infallible because beliefs are based on faith ... not looking for a semantics arguement here .... you can not form a belief by denying error or accepting only what holds true to your belief ...... you have to accept the grist for what it is or what you mill out.

Example.
I can close my eyes and think that CI will not be there when I open them but ........... I can't believe it due to a nagging belief or knowledge that he will be .... ;

After death:

Good people go are allowed to wander the stacks at Library of Congress, The British Library, the Biblioteque Nationale, The Monumenta Germanica Historiae, etc....

Bad people are sent to wander the printing offices of People!

truth
Gel, when you extract (hypothetically) the "properties" of an apple, such as its redness, weight, taste and shape, what is left? It's soul?

Probably the core - after I've eaten it. Hypothetically, ofcoarse!

I will accept all that, Ge, but what the hell does that have to do with your statements:





I truly am not sure of what thought you are trying to convey.

Just re-state whatever it is you wanted to say to me when you wrote that original post -- and actually say what you mean to say.

Hi JL, that is a thought, if an apple had a soul. I think you have a feel for what I tried to convey. Go back and read that post then think it through in this context:

Imagine if every mind on this planet were to think of the exact same thing ... say .... the qualities of an apple.
During this period of 'same thought' would there be only one reality, since all powers of perception are tuned into that red juicy apple.

If so, what would be the implications on reality. Remember the question is 'if so.'

truth
Gel, I can't imagine everyone on the planet imagining the same thing, e.g., an apple. Well, let me clarify: I CAN imagine everyone thinking of "an apple", but since I do believe that there are no identities in nature, only similarities (not even two pennies could be identical, similar in some respects but never identical) each person's thought would be formally similar but substantially different. To be identical is to be one, not two. Nevertheless, there IS (to my way of perceiving and thinking) only one reality. Correction: I would agree with the zen buddhist who do not say ONE; they say NOT TWO. Sorry to be so obscure, but then you were no less obscure. Right?

a
JL, I knew you had a sense of it. Atonement, reconciliation with God. At one ment ....
How do you encourage these thoughts in a race of free thinking men? Answer: You don't. Random chance plus an evolutionary nature will do the job quite nicely. Eliminate the time factor with something akin to DNA ... something like 'soul DNA'.

Men's thoughts are incomplete and must be taken as such. Enter impetus and its compelling nature and you begin to understand the completely random event of our creation.

enlightenment?
Maybe