Originally Posted by JonLaw

"In superstring theory the extra dimensions of spacetime are sometimes conjectured to take the form of a 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, which led to the idea of mirror symmetry."

I suspect that this is where the irrational geometric numbers of this particular universe come from.

Pi, e, etc.

Mirror symmetry is important. Kind of like chaos theory is important.

So it's from string theory. I suspect it's important, but I wonder. On the simple level where I am, I could relate it to the interacting spirals of more familiar things to me, like the chakra system, DNA, Bach's Toccata in F or other musical canons, etc.

I guess it's kinda like, if I ask WHAT IS a "Calabi-Yau manifold," the answer from experts will be a hundred more terms I don't understand!

I suspect numbers come from our way of looking at things, and so do "dimensions." I wonder if "dimensions" really exist at all; at most they are mathematical conventions we use for calculating how to fit things together. There is really no such thing as a point, the first dimension, and line and depth are based on the point. My conclusion was the numbers are based on the rhythms of life, so we need to look there.

fractal patterns and strange attractors of Chaos theory, an emergence of order from apparent randomness in a way that is reminiscent of magic (and probably is magical in nature).
Wouldn't this issue be addressed if the underlying geometry of space-time could be represented by mirror Calabi-Yau manifolds?

The inherent geometry of space time would then have an underlying fractal order that could be described using irrational (geometric) numbers such as pi.

Does string theory support the idea of a fractile order, meaning "as above, so below" emanation, or smaller patterns replicating larger ones, etc. Is there a simple way to explain how?

Not so much pi, but phi has this nature.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

Valentin Tomberg.

Very good; I found it. I'll study it more later.

The Magician represents the starting point as tools for the spiritual journey, I think is what he says. His thoughts on meditation as the primary tool seem correct to me.

I loved Robert Place's book The Tarot History, Symbolism and Divination. I clarifies the background of tarot and its meaning as allegorical of the spiritual journey. I enjoy seeing correlations between various expressions of "the story" and "the patterns of emanation."
http://philosopherswheel.com

Originally Posted by JonLaw

I'm pretty sure that a lump of lead is pretty much dead (to us).

That touches on the question of what consciousness is and where it comes from. I'm not entirely clear what Eric's objection to "mechanism" involves. Obviously living things do have mechanistic aspects and can be described in terms of physical/chemical/biological law. Toss in a layer of psychology and sociology and I'm convinced that this can fully describe human beings in every objective aspect, by which I mean every aspect that can be observed from the outside. That includes thought and feeling (or "affect" as feeling is called in psych). It does not of course describe life or humanity as experienced subjectively from the inside, but that for me is not another subject matter but merely a different viewpoint.

I'm a non-dualist. I reject the idea that there is a non-physical component of the mind. I reject the idea of the personal, individual soul, because I see no evidence of it, direct or indirect. I believe that all of the observable workings of the mind can be accounted for as functions of the brain. I believe that consciousness cannot be, but at the same time I also believe that consciousness is not a working of the mind, observable or otherwise. I believe that individual consciousness is an illusion, and that the only individual aspects to any of us is physical/chemical/biological. Consciousness, universal and unitary, looks out simultaneously on reality through all available vehicles, including all human brains, and it is only the isolation of memory that prevents us from seeing this ordinarily, although in certain altered states of consciousness we are able to grasp it.

This has the advantage of being consistent with mystical experience and the added advantage of being elegant and consistent with science, and avoids the necessity of tossing fudge-factors into the pot. I do not have to introduce a supernatural element such as the soul. It seems to me that a lot of the confusion arises from trying to stop halfway, or to eat one's cake and have it. Mystical experience says that all is One? Fine: all is one. But wait (say those not yet ready), I cannot abandon my individual soul yet -- I cannot accept that I, this unique and personal self distinct from the universe as a whole, will die! And yet if you have stood in awe before the Cosmos' glowing light, you know that that unique and personal self distinct from the universe as a whole is an illusion, and you have laughed at its pretensions.

Individually, we are mortal, not immortal. Individually, we will die. It may be a little fuzzier than would appear without an understanding of how magic works; information from a lifetime may persist in the probability matrix after the life is over and allow experiences such as seeing ghosts or communicating with the dead; but the organized entity we call a mind will be gone when the brain ceases to function. The universe, which is the only consciousness that truly exists, will go on, however. Currently it sees through my brain and everyone else's. When I am dead, it will still see through everyone else's, together with new brains that have come on line between now and then, and as that is the real me, the only true I, I will go on as well. But this personality will not.

Regarding the OP, I don't see any need at all to combine science with mysticism and art into a new whole. I'm perfectly all right with leaving them in their separate compartments, recognizing the validity of all of them in answering the questions for which they are appropriate, and engaging in any of them that I wish to when I wish to. There is, for me, no conflict between being a mystic and believing in science, because my mysticism has no element of the supernatural in it. Even my magic has none; I see it as a purely natural process, one with the rest of natural law. If science does not yet understand it, well, there are many things science does not yet understand, and science has presented me with the enabling bedrock in quantum mechanics and chaos theory which together show an indeterminate world where probability rules. Take the world as modeled in modern (not Newtonian) physics, add a quasi-force that can alter probability, and that is my world in all its objective aspects. I need no external God, no other planes of existence, no spirits literally understood as such, no Heaven or Hell or astral plane or Other Side, and if I will sometimes employ all of these as poetic metaphors, that is all they are for me.

There's a subjective world, or rather a subjective perspective on the same world, which is not encompassed in scientific descriptions, and a wide array of forms of knowing separate from science, including art and spirituality, but I see no need to combine these with science or for science to recognize them. Each is appropriate to answering its own questions, none can answer questions appropriate to the others, and what is wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm a non-dualist. I reject the idea that there is a non-physical component of the mind. I reject the idea of the personal, individual soul, because I see no evidence of it, direct or indirect.

And if I performed my personality and memory swapping experiment and it worked, would that be evidence to you of the existence of an individual soul?

Just asking.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

And if I performed my personality and memory swapping experiment and it worked, would that be evidence to you of the existence of an individual soul?

Just asking.

No, because my model of the mind includes telepathy. Those would be pretty extreme manifestations of telepathy, granted (and I'll believe it when I see it), but would not require the introduction of an individual soul hypothesis to account for.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That touches on the question of what consciousness is and where it comes from. I'm not entirely clear what Eric's objection to "mechanism" involves. Obviously living things do have mechanistic aspects and can be described in terms of physical/chemical/biological law. Toss in a layer of psychology and sociology and I'm convinced that this can fully describe human beings in every objective aspect, by which I mean every aspect that can be observed from the outside. That includes thought and feeling (or "affect" as feeling is called in psych). It does not of course describe life or humanity as experienced subjectively from the inside, but that for me is not another subject matter but merely a different viewpoint.

I'm a non-dualist. I reject the idea that there is a non-physical component of the mind. I reject the idea of the personal, individual soul, because I see no evidence of it, direct or indirect. I believe that all of the observable workings of the mind can be accounted for as functions of the brain. I believe that consciousness cannot be, but at the same time I also believe that consciousness is not a working of the mind, observable or otherwise......Take the world as modeled in modern (not Newtonian) physics, add a quasi-force that can alter probability, and that is my world in all its objective aspects. I need no external God, no other planes of existence, no spirits literally understood as such, no Heaven or Hell or astral plane or Other Side, and if I will sometimes employ all of these as poetic metaphors, that is all they are for me.

There's a subjective world, or rather a subjective perspective on the same world, which is not encompassed in scientific descriptions, and a wide array of forms of knowing separate from science, including art and spirituality, but I see no need to combine these with science or for science to recognize them. Each is appropriate to answering its own questions, none can answer questions appropriate to the others, and what is wrong with that?

Your view is fine; my view is different. I guess we can challenge each other, although this does not seem to alter our views. To your last question here, my answer is, nothing, or as Seinfeld says, "NTTAWWT"

As a non-dualist also, I reject the idea that there is a physical component to the objective world we are aware of. So that's like your view turned on its head. I don't know how you can hold there's a subjective world, which is a subjective perspective on the objective world, known by art and spirituality, but that this subjective world is not consciousness, since it's just the objective world from another view; and not the mind; nor includes "thought or feeling" (since these latter two can be known objectively). I don't know what this subjective world consists in, that you grant needs to be known by other methods than science. Just another viewpoint? Isn't this viewpoint worthy of classification or characterization in some way? It's not thought; it's not feeling; it's not consciousness; what is it then?

For me Consciousness is the working of the mind, the body, the world, and unitary being, and all the other planes, spirits and all such-- without which our knowledge of reality is very incomplete. That means for me, "life or humanity as experienced subjectively" is the primary viewpoint; objectivity is the view of this subjective consciousness from the outside. I don't think I could ever fathom your idea that "cause" is bunk, and yet that Hume was wrong, and "mechanistic law" still describes "aspects" of life as well as "thought" and "affect." Since I agree "cause" is bunk, then I hold mechanistic law (being utterly dependent on that notion) cannot account for "aspects" of "living things" or "thought and affect." If we are talking about "mechanism" as "probability" or "quasi-force" you are mixing definitions. Quantum theory for example is not mechanistic. Do living things have aspects THAT can be described in quantum terms? I may be OK with that... hmmmmmmmm....

Best wishes in your world, and please wish me well in mine.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, because my model of the mind includes telepathy. Those would be pretty extreme manifestations of telepathy, granted (and I'll believe it when I see it), but would not require the introduction of an individual soul hypothesis to account for.

So, there are no tests that could be run for an individual soul?

How about the executed murderer knocking the prison guard out of his body?

Any traction there?

Originally Posted by Odin

I get it now, Eric is just twisting the meaning of words so they mean what he wants them to mean.


I mean no offense, Eric, but you are as close-minded as any fundamentalist Christian that dismisses any evidence that runs counter to his views as "the devil trying to fool me". You "know" you are right and no amount of arguing and reason will budge you from your position. You have no intellectual humility at all. Socrates (the real Socrates, not Plato's literary sock-puppet) would have a field day with you.

And thoughts here on designing my "individual soul" experiment where Brian might accept the evidence as supportive of the hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Individually, we are mortal, not immortal. Individually, we will die. It may be a little fuzzier than would appear without an understanding of how magic works; information from a lifetime may persist in the probability matrix after the life is over and allow experiences such as seeing ghosts or communicating with the dead; but the organized entity we call a mind will be gone when the brain ceases to function. The universe, which is the only consciousness that truly exists, will go on, however. Currently it sees through my brain and everyone else's. When I am dead, it will still see through everyone else's, together with new brains that have come on line between now and then, and as that is the real me, the only true I, I will go on as well. But this personality will not.

This reminds of some musings I have had involving the Many-World interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. My inspiration comes from the book The Fabric of Reality by physicist David Deutsch, who, in the first part of the book, lays out and defends the Many-Words interpretation.

Essentially, I speculate that there is a constant "leaking" of information from one universe to another, and that the more similar the universes are the more "leakage" there is between them, very different universes that have had very different events (like, say, universes that went their separate ways at the Big Bang) will have virtually no leaking of information between each other (the technical physics term is Decoherence)

I also speculate that living things with nervous systems have evolved mechanisms to filter out much this leaking to prevent unnecessary reactions that would imperil the survival of the organism, If you are an antelope trying to avoid lions in your own universe reacting to ghostly images of a lion leaking in from a similar universe isn't going to help you, and it will certainly distract you. But, this filtering is not 100% effective, and some people are more sensitive to the leaking than others. I also suspect that the immature brains of young children are less good at filtering than the brains of adult individuals are.

You have probably already guessed where I'm going with this. I suggest that this quantum leaking is the source of a lot of "paranormal" stuff. I speculate that ghosts, for example, are the result of information leaking in from a very similar universe where the deceased individual is still alive. This would explain why most ghosts don't exist for a long time, eventually decoherence eliminates them.

Originally Posted by Odin

This reminds of some musings I have had involving the Many-World interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. My inspiration comes from the book The Fabric of Reality by physicist David Deutsch, who, in the first part of the book, lays out and defends the Many-Words interpretation.

Essentially, I speculate that there is a constant "leaking" of information from one universe to another, and that the more similar the universes are the more "leakage" there is between them, very different universes that have had very different events (like, say, universes that went their separate ways at the Big Bang) will have virtually no leaking of information between each other (the technical physics term is Decoherence)

I also speculate that living things with nervous systems have evolved mechanisms to filter out much this leaking to prevent unnecessary reactions that would imperil the survival of the organism, If you are an antelope trying to avoid lions in your own universe reacting to ghostly images of a lion leaking in from a similar universe isn't going to help you, and it will certainly distract you. But, this filtering is not 100% effective, and some people are more sensitive to the leaking than others. I also suspect that the immature brains of young children are less good at filtering than the brains of adult individuals are.

You have probably already guessed where I'm going with this. I suggest that this quantum leaking is the source of a lot of "paranormal" stuff. I speculate that ghosts, for example, are the result of information leaking in from a very similar universe where the deceased individual is still alive. This would explain why most ghosts don't exist for a long time, eventually decoherence eliminates them.

Have you read Neil Stephenson's "Anathem"? Not to hand you any spoilers, mind you, but .... just read it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Have you read Neil Stephenson's "Anathem"? Not to hand you any spoilers, mind you, but .... just read it.

No I haven't, thanks for the suggestion, Pat!

Originally Posted by JonLaw

So, there are no tests that could be run for an individual soul?

How about the executed murderer knocking the prison guard out of his body?

Any traction there?

There's lots of similar examples. Whether they are enough for Brian, or others of similar views to his, is another question.

Originally Posted by Odin

You have probably already guessed where I'm going with this. I suggest that this quantum leaking is the source of a lot of "paranormal" stuff. I speculate that ghosts, for example, are the result of information leaking in from a very similar universe where the deceased individual is still alive. This would explain why most ghosts don't exist for a long time, eventually decoherence eliminates them.

To me, such speculations about leaking alternative universes seem far more incredible than the simple explanation that spirits, ghosts and souls exist.

I think they exist, just as individual organisms exist; not as separate entities, but as individual expressions of the one divine soul that is everything.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

To me, such speculations about leaking alternative universes seem far more incredible than the simple explanation that spirits, ghosts and souls exist.

I think they exist, just as individual organisms exist; not as separate entities, but as individual expressions of the one divine soul that is everything.

The Universe does not care one bit about what us inhabitants of a tiny corner of it think of as "incredible" or not. Our brains evolved to help us to survive in a hostile world, not to speculate about the nature of the world. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem far more incredible than Classical Mechanics because the later fits better with how we percieve the world, but the former are far more accurate descriptions of how the world really works.

And now theoretical physicists are starting to test hypotheses that are even more incredible, the various offspring of Superstring Theory: Brane-Words and the cyclic Ekpyrotic Model of the Big Bang. The first is being tested by testing the strength of gravity over small distances (less than a millimeter). The second will be tested, IIRC, by a new satellite that will study polarization artifacts in the Microwave Background Radiation.

Regarding the individual soul:

This relates to the question of "what thinks." We know that brains think. How do we know this? Because:

1) People with certain kinds of brain damage have impaired thinking.
2) Artificial stimulation of certain parts of the brain generate thoughts.

The same is true of memory, imagination/visualization, emotion, and every other known and recognized mental function.

The original, ancient, pre-scientific concept of the soul emerged before it was understood that brains think or even what function the brain served. Ancient thinking sometimes placed the soul not in the head but in the heart, liver, or other part of the body. The heart and liver both being vital organs whose malfunctioning resulted in death, this was not altogether unreasonable.

If we retain a concept of the soul today, we must do one of three things.

1) Deny that brains think, which in view of the evidence that they do amounts to putting one's hands over one's ears while shutting one's eyes and saying "LA LA LA LA" endlessly at the top of one's voice;

2) Posit something that thinks alongside the brain in a redundant fashion; or

3) Posit a function for the soul other than thinking, such as pure consciousness free of content.

Any reasonable and informed person will dismiss option 1 as nonsense. Option 3 leaves us with a problematical soul in terms of retaining individual characteristics, since individuality is a function of memory and if we don't have any functional redundancy between soul and brain the soul cannot be individual in any meaningful sense. Option 2, then, is the only one that is not absolutely disproven by known facts and also retains the whole reason we would want to believe in an individual soul in the first place.

Given that the hypothetical soul's function is redundant with the brain's, it is a clumsy hypothesis and we have no evidence in support of it. Basically, it depends logically upon an ability to exercise mental functions (cognition, memory, emotion, imagination) during circumstances when the brain is non-functional, or those parts of the brain that exercise mental functions anyway.

A further question arises as to whether the soul can exercise any of the physical-interface functions of the brain as well, such as the motor control necessary for speech. If not, then the soul's existence becomes inherently unprovable, because even if it is exercising mental functions in the absence of a functioning brain it cannot communicate this fact and we will never know it. If it does have these functions as well, then a test would be to show normal cognitive, emotional, memory, and imaginative functioning and the ability to communicate them in the absence of a working cerebral cortex. If someone suffering from severe brain damage that destroys all of the cortex can still talk and still think normally, then we have evidence of mental functioning that is not brain-dependent and this would be a first step in demonstrating the existence of the soul.

None of the tests proposed above would do it. All of them, even if shown to occur (which AFAIK is not the case), could be explained in terms of telepathy or other psi perception. The same is true of all paranormal experiences involving seeing ghosts or communicating with the dead.

Regarding Eric's statement inverting mine, saying that he is a non-dualist and rejects the physical world instead of the spiritual world, that is a non-statement. It has no operational significance at all. The world is as we perceive and experience it. Whether we regard it as material or spiritual is of no significance; it's the same world and behaves the same way regardless. Thus, everything I've said above remains true if we regard so-called "material" reality as a function of consciousness, which is of course logically sound. However, in terms of what is being discussed here (e.g. whether the individual soul exists), it changes nothing; if the brain that we observe is a "spiritual" entity rather than a "material" one, nonetheless it remains the brain that we observe, its behavior is unchanged, it is still that which thinks, and all of the arguments presented above retain precisely the same validity.

Regarding Odin's reference to some of the more arcane elements of modern physics, specifically aspects of the many-worlds hypothesis, I think that can coexist with my own model of psi as an alteration of probability. It could be that the various possible outcomes of indeterminate events are themselves intersections with other worlds and that psi or magic makes one or another of those outcomes more likely. That's speculative, however, and an explanation for the indeterminacy of the universe rather than for psi as such.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

To me, such speculations about leaking alternative universes seem far more incredible than the simple explanation that spirits, ghosts and souls exist.

I think they exist, just as individual organisms exist; not as separate entities, but as individual expressions of the one divine soul that is everything.

If memory serves, haven't we been down this path before? And I asked for some specific examples, me being the skeptic and all ... and it seems like I didn't get any specifics.

Here's the thing ... after nearly 70 years on the planet, I've never seen, heard or otherwise run into a ghost or spirit. And, I don't know anyone that has. But I've heard and read about talented folks who were extremely interested in such things, and who investigated extensively, also unsuccessfully ... i.e. Harry Houdini. To make it even worse, there are many, many examples of charlatans perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting ... i.e. seances. If ghosts/spirits were that easy to conjure up, the fraud wouldn't be necessary.

Wouldn't you think that if spirits/ghosts, etc are generated from each and every death, that we'd be pretty much over-run by them by now?

Originally Posted by TnT

If memory serves, haven't we been down this path before? And I asked for some specific examples, me being the skeptic and all ... and it seems like I didn't get any specifics.

Here's the thing ... after nearly 70 years on the planet, I've never seen, heard or otherwise run into a ghost or spirit. And, I don't know anyone that has.

Wouldn't you think that if spirits/ghosts, etc are generated from each and every death, that we'd be pretty much over-run by them by now?

I've been trying to nail this down for some time. Meditations on the Tarot helped me understand some of what I already suspected. It introduced me to the concept of egregore.

"Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a "thoughtform" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. Thesymbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme."

If you want to investigate the so-called paranormal, you would be best served hooking up with a Catholic exorcist.

The so-called dead can talk to you in your dreams. My step-sister used to do this. My ex girlfriend could see so-called demons - I'm not sure what they are beyond knowing that they are something to be avoided. It depends on the circles in which you run.

My fundamental worldview was originally skeptical materialist scientism, for lack of a better word. My experiences have taught me otherwise. There really are things that go bump in the night.

There are indeed things that go bump in the night. TnT, you do know someone who has seen ghosts: me.

There are things that go bump in the night; the question is exactly what they are. One should separate the experience from the model or explanation. When people say they experience something (see a ghost, feel the presence of someone else's mind, or that of a demon or angel or God, or any of many other occult phenomena) it is irrational as well as rude to dismiss their experiences out of hand. However, while the experience itself should be regarded as real (assuming they're not lying or exaggerating, and of course that does happen), this does not mean that their explanation of the experience will be one that is well thought out or makes sense.

Eric and I both, in some sense "believe in" spirits. He takes them at face value without looking under the hood. I don't. The difference is one of concept, not of the phenomenon itself.

I'm in the club of "people who've never seen ghosts". To the extent that you are interacting with a ghost, I think there are two seperate types:

1) You are seeing what amounts to a recording on some medium, showing you another time and another place. This would be where you see a scene from the past. Probably a scene with significant emotional content that was "burnt" into some medium.

2) You are seeing what amounts to some sort of thoughtform left over from someone's actual life. Kind of like seeing a cardboard cutout of a person. The ghost is "there" on some medium, but it's not a person or a consciousness or "disembodied soul", although it was created by the formerly living person. It's temporary, weak, and limited in time and place. So, you're not going to trip over ghosts on a regular basis because they are only created under special circumstances.

That's my two cents on ghosts.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Universe does not care one bit about what us inhabitants of a tiny corner of it think of as "incredible" or not. Our brains evolved to help us to survive in a hostile world, not to speculate about the nature of the world. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem far more incredible than Classical Mechanics because the later fits better with how we percieve the world, but the former are far more accurate descriptions of how the world really works.

Quite the contrary, Odin. Our purpose on this Earth is to wonder and express our love and curiosity. Speculation on the nature of the world is part of what makes us human. "The Universe" cares because we are the universe; we are an expression of the universe, there is nowhere else we came from. It is not hostile; it does provide what we need to learn, grow and survive if we can learn to use what we have been given through the creative evolution that brought us here. I agree about quantum theory, but if you are going to use complicated fantasies about alternative universes to explain spooky events, I think that's fine, but all I'm saying is the simple explanation for ghosts and the paranormal, are ghosts and the paranormal. Why complicate things with explanation that aren't necessary?

And now theoretical physicists are starting to test hypotheses that are even more incredible, the various offspring of Superstring Theory: Brane-Words and the cyclic Ekpyrotic Model of the Big Bang. The first is being tested by testing the strength of gravity over small distances (less than a millimeter). The second will be tested, IIRC, by a new satellite that will study polarization artifacts in the Microwave Background Radiation.

Interesting, although these investigations can never answer how the big bang happened or what came before. And if there was no "before," it's because the "before" is right now. We live in eternity, not in what man measures as "time."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding Eric's statement inverting mine, saying that he is a non-dualist and rejects the physical world instead of the spiritual world, that is a non-statement. It has no operational significance at all. The world is as we perceive and experience it. Whether we regard it as material or spiritual is of no significance; it's the same world and behaves the same way regardless.

Your inverted statement of mine is no more valid that my statement, for the same reasons.
"I reject the idea that there is a non-physical component of the mind. " assumes the existence of the "physical" and that it explains the mind. If it being material or spiritual is of no significance, why did you take the stand that it is material (physical)?

Originally Posted by TnT

If memory serves, haven't we been down this path before? And I asked for some specific examples, me being the skeptic and all ... and it seems like I didn't get any specifics.

I don't know TnT; I remember being down this path with Brian many times, but I'm not sure I remember your path too well.
Come to think of it, I think I did answer you pretty well iirc

Here's the thing ... after nearly 70 years on the planet, I've never seen, heard or otherwise run into a ghost or spirit. And, I don't know anyone that has. But I've heard and read about talented folks who were extremely interested in such things, and who investigated extensively, also unsuccessfully ... i.e. Harry Houdini. To make it even worse, there are many, many examples of charlatans perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting ... i.e. seances. If ghosts/spirits were that easy to conjure up, the fraud wouldn't be necessary.

Wouldn't you think that if spirits/ghosts, etc are generated from each and every death, that we'd be pretty much over-run by them by now?

I know many people "that have run into" a spirit. But it is not "easy" for most people to see or know spirits; we are too limited by our fixation on this denser, sense-based level we call "physical."

I don't think I have time to give you examples again; maybe later.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quite the contrary, Odin. Our purpose on this Earth is to wonder and express our love and curiosity. Speculation on the nature of the world is part of what makes us human. "The Universe" cares because we are the universe; we are an expression of the universe, there is nowhere else we came from.

Our purpose here is to perform our individual purpose. And thus know ourselves and ultimately to ascend to theosis.

We've all got a job to do.

Yeah, everything participates in everything else, but I'm pretty sure that there is an "I" and that "I'm" stuck with being "me".

It's not like I get to vote on whether I'm immortal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

how the big bang happened or what came before. And if there was no "before," it's because the "before" is right now. We live in eternity, not in what man measures as "time."

Unless the universes really are sung into creation in the highest octave of creation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quite the contrary, Odin. Our purpose on this Earth is to wonder and express our love and curiosity.

I believe that we have a moral duty make curiosity and wonder an important part of our lives, but it is not an inherent "purpose".

Speculation on the nature of the world is part of what makes us human.

I totally agree.

"The Universe" cares because we are the universe; we are an expression of the universe, there is nowhere else we came from.

Sort of. I believe, in agreement with Carl Sagan, that we (and all other sapient beings, be they biological or mechanical) are the way the universe can know itself. And on a smaller scale, we are the cognitive aspect of Gaia, the whole Earth System, we are her brain, and we are her vehicle for reproducing herself, via us colonizing other planets.

It is not hostile; it does provide what we need to learn, grow and survive if we can learn to use what we have been given through the creative evolution that brought us here.

It is our technology and our social structures that have made the universe less and less hostile.

I agree about quantum theory, but if you are going to use complicated fantasies about alternative universes to explain spooky events, I think that's fine, but all I'm saying is the simple explanation for ghosts and the paranormal, are ghosts and the paranormal. Why complicate things with explanation that aren't necessary?

All objective hypotheses start out as "complicated fantasies". Einstein, as a kid, often daydreamed about what it would be like to ride a beam of light. That daydream eventually became the foundations of modern physics.

Interesting, although these investigations can never answer how the big bang happened or what came before.

Actually, that satellite I mentioned could do just that. If the data corroborates the Ekpyrotic model then we will have a glimpse of what happened before the Big Bang

We live in eternity, not in what man measures as "time."

"Time" is a subjective mental experience. While in reality everything just "is" in Spacetime.