Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

heaven is real

Expand Messages
  • William
    BS
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      BS
    • Mary
      What is mind? What is real? Can I know when they are not? Mary
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        What is mind? What is real? Can I know when they are not?

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
        >
        > BS
        >
      • Mary
        And to expand just a bit, I think that what are called hallucinations, altered states, and even dreams, should challenge our standard definition of ordinary or
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          And to expand just a bit, I think that what are called hallucinations, altered states, and even dreams, should challenge our standard definition of ordinary or normal consciousness. Skepticism is necessary for scientific advance, but all the arguments to debunk these experiences don't seem to persuade the experiencers of the unreal nature of their experience. I won't attribute this attitude to stubbornness or emotional attachment. It seems more that both sides of the issue refuse to admit the paradoxical 'existence' of Nothing. The more limits we place on experience, the more it pushes into the freedom of the unknown.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
          >
          > What is mind? What is real? Can I know when they are not?
          >
          > Mary
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
          > >
          > > BS
          > >
          >
        • Dick.
          How would you place limits on human experience? And why would you want to do that? Which bits would you allow and which bits would you not allow? There is no
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            How would you place limits on human experience? And why would you want
            to do that? Which bits would you allow and which bits would you not
            allow? There is no such thing as an experience which did not happen. But
            how does what happen, happen? And why shouldn't it? There is also
            the question as to what effect does this or that experience have on the
            experiencer. Is it a good effect or a bad effect for them? How would
            anybody else know?

            rwr

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > And to expand just a bit, I think that what are called hallucinations,
            altered states, and even dreams, should challenge our standard
            definition of ordinary or normal consciousness. Skepticism is necessary
            for scientific advance, but all the arguments to debunk these
            experiences don't seem to persuade the experiencers of the unreal nature
            of their experience. I won't attribute this attitude to stubbornness or
            emotional attachment. It seems more that both sides of the issue refuse
            to admit the paradoxical 'existence' of Nothing. The more limits we
            place on experience, the more it pushes into the freedom of the unknown.
            >
            > Mary
          • gil_serrano@ymail.com
            Many of these sorts of questions are more easily addressed by examining exactly what is our criterion for truth or for what is real . Maybe a better approach
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 28, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Many of these sorts of questions are more easily addressed by examining exactly what is our criterion for truth or for what is "real". Maybe a better approach is to ask what is reasonable to believe rather than what is real?
            • Mary
              Reasonability is a social or legal criterion, whereas truth and reality fit psychological and phenomenological criteria, in other words, philosophical. Some
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 28, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Reasonability is a social or legal criterion, whereas truth and reality fit psychological and phenomenological criteria, in other words, philosophical. Some facts are scientifically consensual but others are not. Common sense is more relative than first appears.

                No one has definitively defined consciousness because it isn't an entity or simply a mechanistic object; it's a relationship within an environment. Consciousness is subject and object for itself and other consciousness.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@..." <gil_serrano@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Many of these sorts of questions are more easily addressed by examining exactly what is our criterion for truth or for what is "real". Maybe a better approach is to ask what is reasonable to believe rather than what is real?
                >
              • gil_serrano@ymail.com
                I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 29, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical argument could be devised to ground this proposition?

                  This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.

                  Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an "object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about the problem.
                • Mary
                  The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people who say they ve experienced an afterlife. It seems that a religious context is
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 29, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious context is often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the initially unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and control. An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in either to validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the other. Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a norm. Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical grounding either.

                    If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared clinically dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of consciousness must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared clinically dead for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is happening is a state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness, however it might be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what consciousness experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this state, because they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing to say such experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable because neither extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the other's interpretation.

                    I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.

                    My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being and nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and death for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance as one phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is entangled and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.

                    Mary



                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@..." <gil_serrano@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
                    >
                    > This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.
                    >
                    > Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an "object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about the problem.
                    >
                  • Mary
                    When I wrote, Normalizing peoples experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical grounding either, I meant that attempt to normalize experiences
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 30, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      When I wrote, "Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical grounding either," I meant that attempt to normalize experiences through control such as ostracism (religious, atheist, or scientific) merely "seems" reasonable to those who do it BUT that these don't have philosophical grounding either.

                      Mary
                    • William
                      ... Now as to the reality of these altered states if you require three demensional happenings in temporal sequence for a situation to be real then most of
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 30, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious context is often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the initially unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and control. An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in either to validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the other. Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a norm. Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical grounding either.
                        >
                        > If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared clinically dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of consciousness must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared clinically dead for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is happening is a state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness, however it might be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what consciousness experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this state, because they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing to say such experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable because neither extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the other's interpretation.
                        >
                        > I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.
                        >
                        > My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being and nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and death for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance as one phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is entangled and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.
                        >
                        > Mary
                        > mary, I only go so far in discussions of thinking about thinking. In this case I see similarities between Dicks altered state of consciousness and these after life situations. Now if you come back you were not dead and whatever you experienced was a life experience.
                        Now as to the reality of these altered states if you require three demensional happenings in temporal sequence for a situation to be real then most of these states are not real. You might be able to bring back memeries of these states and those memories could contain ideas that might be of use in the conscious life. I think that would be rare and studying the far envolopes of science would be more productive. If ,however you are seeking entertainment such altered states might be enjoyable if they can be controlled.
                        For years I have used controlled dream states for relaxation and as a sleep aid. I am at the end of an opening sequence and need a new point of entry. I have worn out my rabbit hole . My crushing nightmare has been dormant for many years and I would fear having it return. A recent show on groom lake revived my controlled dream with the introduction of a totally stealthy craft that can fly at mach 8 inside or outside the atmosphere. Add beam weapons to that package and you have a sifi extravaganza of a toy.
                        I have never seen any of what I drempt have any affect in the real world. It was a fun state and had no carry over in real time living. I think the red line is knowing what is a fun exercise and what has repurcussions in real life. If I sleep well and awake rested that is enough for me. Buildind a real life philosophy from fragments brought back from altered states is more than I will allow and that remains my choice. Bill
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@" <gil_serrano@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
                        > >
                        > > This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.
                        > >
                        > > Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an "object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about the problem.
                        > >
                        >
                      • Mary
                        Thanks for your input, Bill. I think your last statement is most relevant. Is it really possible to build an entire philosophy from such disparate pieces. I
                        Message 11 of 11 , Oct 30, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks for your input, Bill. I think your last statement is most relevant. Is it really possible to build an entire philosophy from such disparate pieces. I don't think so, for the simple fact is that we can't know what the source or cause of them is. I think anything else is obsession. Glad to see you concur that one is not completely dead if they experience these states. Whether one is completely dead or completely alive, as a fetus, are not matters for the state to define.

                          Mary

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious context is often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the initially unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and control. An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in either to validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the other. Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a norm. Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical grounding either.
                          > >
                          > > If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared clinically dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of consciousness must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared clinically dead for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is happening is a state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness, however it might be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what consciousness experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this state, because they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing to say such experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable because neither extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the other's interpretation.
                          > >
                          > > I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.
                          > >
                          > > My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being and nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and death for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance as one phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is entangled and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.
                          > >
                          > > Mary
                          > > mary, I only go so far in discussions of thinking about thinking. In this case I see similarities between Dicks altered state of consciousness and these after life situations. Now if you come back you were not dead and whatever you experienced was a life experience.
                          > Now as to the reality of these altered states if you require three demensional happenings in temporal sequence for a situation to be real then most of these states are not real. You might be able to bring back memeries of these states and those memories could contain ideas that might be of use in the conscious life. I think that would be rare and studying the far envolopes of science would be more productive. If ,however you are seeking entertainment such altered states might be enjoyable if they can be controlled.
                          > For years I have used controlled dream states for relaxation and as a sleep aid. I am at the end of an opening sequence and need a new point of entry. I have worn out my rabbit hole . My crushing nightmare has been dormant for many years and I would fear having it return. A recent show on groom lake revived my controlled dream with the introduction of a totally stealthy craft that can fly at mach 8 inside or outside the atmosphere. Add beam weapons to that package and you have a sifi extravaganza of a toy.
                          > I have never seen any of what I drempt have any affect in the real world. It was a fun state and had no carry over in real time living. I think the red line is knowing what is a fun exercise and what has repurcussions in real life. If I sleep well and awake rested that is enough for me. Buildind a real life philosophy from fragments brought back from altered states is more than I will allow and that remains my choice. Bill
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@" <gil_serrano@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
                          > > >
                          > > > This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.
                          > > >
                          > > > Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an "object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about the problem.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.