death

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am referring to the apparent entity that is typing the post. If I ask the typist, what happened 5 years ago today and the answer is "I don't remember" then 'you' is the entity that did not remember. I want to know if your soul might remember something that the body it controls, denies knowledge of.

Well I don't know how it works. I think that the soul has access to knowledge the body has not or not anymore.
I do not pretend to "know" how details of my conception of soul/body actually work. I'm merely expressing my thoughts about how it could work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I missed this post. The 'selfish gene' hypothesis is about genes not DNA. DNA is not selfish, genes are. And they are no more selfish than hard rocks on a mountain which do not erode as easily as softer rocks. The 'selfish gene' hypothesis is simply a mathematical outcome of replication, so if your soul exists then computer programs can have souls too.

Why do genes replicate but rocks don't?

I'm open to the possibility that computer programs have soul...

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it, itself, cannot think? I presume you meant memories of your thoughts and deeds?

ide have to agree until i understand better

Originally posted by twhitehead
He said: "there are numerous people that know their former lives".
I suppose one could use similar methods to those used in courts to verify whether someone is telling the truth about his experience of events.

Well I should have said: "there are numerous people that know parts of their former live(s)"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, I guess I lack the intellectual capacity to understand such concepts. The universe as a deity? Nope, cant picture it.

The capacity you lack seems to be imagination...

Originally posted by twhitehead
He said: "there are numerous people that know their former lives".
I suppose one could use similar methods to those used in courts to verify whether someone is telling the truth about his experience of events.

Do court records feature in scientific journals?

Parapsychology, I gather, is dismissed as a pseudo-science, so it is unlikely to feature in established journals. Whether or not there is anything in it.

Anyhoo ... Do you dismiss 'out-of-body experiences' as outright fraud or attribute them to some as yet imperfectly understood but natural process?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do court records feature in scientific journals?

Parapsychology, I gather, is dismissed as a pseudo-science, so it is unlikely to feature in established journals. Whether or not there is anything in it.

Anyhoo ... Do you dismiss 'out-of-body experiences' as outright fraud or attribute them to some as yet imperfectly understood but natural process?

Are you serious here? Parapsychology is dismissed as a pseudo-science for its failure to deliver anything concrete.

I think 'out-of-body' experiences are in general either fraudulent or self-suggestion. There is no evidence (and therefore no reason) to think otherwise. Did you read Smaug's post about kids thinking they saw Santa purely through self-suggestion? Self suggestion can be a strong force even when thinking about conscious periods, one can only presume this to be even stronger regarding periods of unconsciousness.

Originally posted by Palynka

I think 'out-of-body' experiences are in general either fraudulent or self-suggestion. There is no evidence (and therefore no reason) to think otherwise. Did you read Smaug's post about kids thinking they saw Santa purely through self-suggestion? Self suggestion can be a strong force even when thinking about conscious periods, one can only presume this to be even stronger regarding periods of unconsciousness.

Not to mention that they have been able to cause people to have the same effects of "near death experiences" without actually causing anything "near death" in the subject.

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you serious here? Parapsychology is dismissed as a pseudo-science for its failure to deliver anything concrete.

I think 'out-of-body' experiences are in general either fraudulent or self-suggestion. There is no evidence (and therefore no reason) to think otherwise. Did you read Smaug's post about kids thinking they saw Santa purely through self-sugges ...[text shortened]... periods, one can only presume this to be even stronger regarding periods of unconsciousness.

Being dismissed as pseudo-science means nothing, only that methods used were not "scientific". It does not say anything about claims made by parapsychology being true or not.
Since parapsychology (mostly) deals with things that can't be measured I'm not really interested in what science has to say about it. Only if science "proves" it to be absolutely impossible I'm willing to review the "evidence"..

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you serious here? Parapsychology is dismissed as a pseudo-science for its failure to deliver anything concrete.

I think 'out-of-body' experiences are in general either fraudulent or self-suggestion. There is no evidence (and therefore no reason) to think otherwise. Did you read Smaug's post about kids thinking they saw Santa purely through self-sugges ...[text shortened]... periods, one can only presume this to be even stronger regarding periods of unconsciousness.

Yes, and that's reasonable, too. Parapsychology probably doesn't know what it's looking for ...

Isn't autosuggestion potentially quite useful? Shamanic healing, for example, if attributable to autosuggestion, is beneficial. Fervent belief in spirits can only intensify the power of autosuggestion ... No reason to dismiss the experiences as worthless -- perhaps evidence of 'inner worlds' rather than 'outer worlds'. (When you say 'there is no evidence to think otherwise', what kind of evidence are you talking about?)

Anyhoo. Here's Rupert Sheldrake's telephone telepathy test for your amusement:
YouTube

And his home page: http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Not to mention that they have been able to cause people to have the same effects of "near death experiences" without actually causing anything "near death" in the subject.

Indeed -- so what does that mean? What can be done with it?

Originally posted by Quirine
Being dismissed as pseudo-science means nothing, only that methods used were not scientific. It does not say anything about claims made by parapsychology being true or not.
Since parapsychology (mostly) deals with things that can't be measured I'm not really interested in what science has to say about it. Only if science "proves" it to be absolutely impossible I'm willing to review the "evidence"..

"It does not say anything about claims made by parapsychology being true or not."
I didn't say it didn't. However, being dismissed as a pseudo-science reflects the fact their inability to support their claims by actual evidence. This lack of substantiation of such claims means that you have to take such assertions on faith. Personally, I'm not willing to do that.

"Since parapsychology (mostly) deals with things that can't be measured I'm not really interested in what science has to say about it."

Anything that can impact our world can be measured. If not directly, then indirectly. There are many examples of indirect measurements being accepted as "science".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, and that's reasonable, too. Parapsychology probably doesn't know what it's looking for ...

Isn't autosuggestion potentially quite useful? Shamanic healing, for example, if attributable to autosuggestion, is beneficial. Fervent belief in spirits can only intensify the power of autosuggestion ... No reason to dismiss the experiences as worthless com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk

And his home page: http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

Isn't autosuggestion potentially quite useful?
Certainly. But that doesn't require the existence of something underlying that supports those 'out-of-body' experiences. Para-psychology would then be a branch of psychology that is wrongly attributing non-psychological causes to these phenomena.

Edit: I chopped your quote to this line, as I agree with the usefulness of autosuggestion which was the bulk of your post. Let me know if I missed an important link in between.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Not to mention that they have been able to cause people to have the same effects of "near death experiences" without actually causing anything "near death" in the subject.

Really? Can you say more about this?

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Isn't autosuggestion potentially quite useful?
Certainly. But that doesn't require the existence of something underlying that supports those 'out-of-body' experiences. Para-psychology would then be a branch of psychology that is wrongly attributing non-psychological causes to these phenomena.

Edit: I chopped your quote to this line, as I agree wit ...[text shortened]... stion which was the bulk of your post. Let me know if I missed an important link in between.[/b]

I'm just feeling my way really.

What interests me of course is the link between mind (and there I think you are right about parapsychology) and matter. Co-extensive or separate?