I don’t see how I am putting words in your mouth Referos… You threw this randomly on the end of your second post and I didn’t quite get what you are on about:
>And the “name” aspect continually exists on Earth as long as it is remembered and spoken.
I responded using “you guys” referring to Navarre’s earlier comment too. Then you said:
>What I did say was that the ancient Egyptians believed to be important to remember and speak the name of the dead, since that was part of their soul. Which, yes, makes a good argument for the “souls were created to maintain the memory of people” theory, but I’m not touching that.
Why make the judgment that something is a good argument but refuse to back it up with any sort of proof? From memory, I think that I agree with Egyptian’s and Mesopotamian’s views on the dead but I was looking for some sources on my own and couldn’t find these specifics.
>I just brought up the commentary about the Egyptians because I felt it was interesting.
Thank you. It is interesting and relevant to the topic overall, but not to prove that the idea of spirits came from an explanation of death.
>During no moment did I say that your articles were irrelevant.
I didn’t say you did.
>I only say that, yes, for an academic point of view, you wouldn’t be able to use them in, say, a doctorate thesis. Because this discussion does not have an academic tone (after all, it’s a casual game site), I felt that I could give you a simple link to Wikipedia, which is also considered a source with zero academic credibility. However, had you give us references of books or university articles, then I would mind giving you more credible references.
I don’t know the guidelines for a thesis and we agree that is not what we are doing here. If you put the opinion pieces against each other they are the same, and I don’t see the big difference between Ingo Swann’s essays being online instead of in a book or accepted by some university. You aren’t going to find many more credible subjects of this research program, because there aren’t (m?)any others. Also, our theories will never advance if everything that doesn’t fit in with the accepted ideas of the time is automatically rejected. The evidence from the Voyager experiment seems to have an academic tone to me. I could be wrong on some technical formatting requirements, but I think it is quite thorough and gives every reference it can. The only thing is that it is outdated. To be thorough we would have to look at all the data since 1995 like the Shoemaker-Levy comet and the whole body of knowledge on Jupiter which may or may not contain some contradictions. Also, these articles are part of a serialized book of his that is still in the works and he has published other books.
>As for Ingo Swann’s remote viewing of Jupiter, you haven’t explained how, even if it is valid, it implies the existence of a soul.
If it doesn’t imply that, what would it imply the existence of?
>ee80, what’s your definition of “soul”? The most common one, and the one many people seem to be using on this thread, is something along the lines of “the essence of a person.” This definition does not work with what we know of the brain, because a person’s “essence” can change due to purely physical trauma.
Nope, it is different. Before we had all this technology like brain scans, people thought that the brain was like a cooling station, and all of our thought came from our heart. The concept of a soul included all of this stuff I will agree is biological processes of the brain; however, it included more which still has not been explained by science. I don’t know if I can give you the best definition right now, but there are probably some in those writings. If you really want me to, I can try later.
>Finally, if Ingo Swann really can do this sort of remote viewing, why hasn’t he applied for the Randi Foundation’s million dollar prize? It’d be pretty good payment for a couple of days’ work.
You would have to ask Swann. Perhaps he doesn’t agree with their methodology, or doesn’t want attention, or is even a fraud. The Voyager data seems convincing to me, but I haven’t read all of his writings or independently verified all of those scientific articles. There are plenty of frauds and hoaxes OK? This one from Randi’s site is funny, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=3cd3e6000fed25d0b250505db1f733ce&t=89877#
Sorry, I made the mistake about Swann’s actual role there, I knew he was a subject. Obviously though he had some sway in what went on. You can read this article if you want about SRI and skepticisms of Randi himself. link
I will try to catch on the the other comments maybe, but let me be informal about this subject now. If you asked me 10 years ago, I would have said I was an atheist or agnostic but I probably didn’t know the difference. I have had some strange experiences, but I can’t say that I ever had any supernatural powers for certain. I had a shift in my psyche and can still sense what I can only explain as some form or supernatural energy. These everyday experiences like sensing one looking at me (Actually, poignant, conscious examples of this happen at most twice per month to me) are real to me and have been shared with others like me. I actually wonder if people with these senses gravitate toward one another, because most of my friends acknowledge the phenomena, while everyone so far denies it.
Anyhow, just understand this: I normally will agree with atheists when it gets into organized religion; however, when I see an atheist argument against the soul that uses the ancient conception of it or weaves the christian afterlife into the argument, I can’t help but see it as silly automatically because of my own experiences. I think that there is the potential for humans to develop these powers, but it will be extremely difficult for the average person. Even I, who encountered this purely by accident, was not anywhere close to as disciplined as one would need to be to harness the power. When I talk next about the mirror neurons, hopefully this will be more clear.