Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Afterlife Theories
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="taykair" data-source="post: 170509" data-attributes="member: 9418"><p>I understand your frustration with the terminology, Harte. I really do. However, to me, it is also a reminder of my earlier days as a fundamentalist and a literalist. Even your suggestion of "flapdoodle" as a substitute for "energy" brings to mind the way that I would belittle and mock "unbelievers".</p><p></p><p>I agree with you that "energy" may not be the correct word. I also agree that non-corporeal existence is not, as yet, detectable by present scientific means. However, "energy" is the closest term available to describe the thing in question, and that is why I made use of it. (After all, one of the primary definitions of the word "energy" is "the ability to do work". In the context of the theory I offered, this would be stated as "the ability to do the work of preserving and maintaining mental activity in the absence of known physical processes".)</p><p></p><p>If we humans should be aware of anything, then we should be aware of how unaware we really are. If we can know only one thing, then that thing should be how little we really know. This is true for two reasons: First, it keeps us humble. Second, it motivates us to find answers.</p><p></p><p>Infrared and ultraviolet light existed long before we poor humans found ways to detect them. I know how you would answer this. "Yes," you would say, "But infrared light <em>is</em> light. Ultraviolet light <em>is</em> light. They are <em>not</em> flapdoodles." And you would be correct - but this is not my point.</p><p></p><p>The point is that, if a non-corporeal mind can exist, then it must have "something to make it function". The mind, in its corporeal state, exists in the brain, and the "motive power" involved is bio-chemical in nature. Obviously, such a physical process cannot be responsible for a non-corporeal mind. So, if we maintain that the non-corporeal mind can exist, then we must discover some other process which would allow it to function.</p><p></p><p>Call it "energy". Call it a "force". Call it a "flapdoodle", if you must. The <em>word</em> is unimportant. It is the <em>idea</em> which must be examined. Of course, in order to do that, we must make use of language. But we should not spend an inordinate amount of time arguing whether a certain word is properly used. The focus should rather be on the idea.</p><p></p><p>If you have a theory about how the afterlife (if there is one) operates, then I would be interested in that theory. However, I am tired of arguing semantics. It does not move the discussion forward. It only bogs things down in a swamp of minutiae. I know that this was not your intention. Nevertheless, it can have that effect - not just in this thread, but anywhere else this may be done.</p><p></p><p><em>Take care.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="taykair, post: 170509, member: 9418"] I understand your frustration with the terminology, Harte. I really do. However, to me, it is also a reminder of my earlier days as a fundamentalist and a literalist. Even your suggestion of "flapdoodle" as a substitute for "energy" brings to mind the way that I would belittle and mock "unbelievers". I agree with you that "energy" may not be the correct word. I also agree that non-corporeal existence is not, as yet, detectable by present scientific means. However, "energy" is the closest term available to describe the thing in question, and that is why I made use of it. (After all, one of the primary definitions of the word "energy" is "the ability to do work". In the context of the theory I offered, this would be stated as "the ability to do the work of preserving and maintaining mental activity in the absence of known physical processes".) If we humans should be aware of anything, then we should be aware of how unaware we really are. If we can know only one thing, then that thing should be how little we really know. This is true for two reasons: First, it keeps us humble. Second, it motivates us to find answers. Infrared and ultraviolet light existed long before we poor humans found ways to detect them. I know how you would answer this. "Yes," you would say, "But infrared light [I]is[/I] light. Ultraviolet light [I]is[/I] light. They are [I]not[/I] flapdoodles." And you would be correct - but this is not my point. The point is that, if a non-corporeal mind can exist, then it must have "something to make it function". The mind, in its corporeal state, exists in the brain, and the "motive power" involved is bio-chemical in nature. Obviously, such a physical process cannot be responsible for a non-corporeal mind. So, if we maintain that the non-corporeal mind can exist, then we must discover some other process which would allow it to function. Call it "energy". Call it a "force". Call it a "flapdoodle", if you must. The [I]word[/I] is unimportant. It is the [I]idea[/I] which must be examined. Of course, in order to do that, we must make use of language. But we should not spend an inordinate amount of time arguing whether a certain word is properly used. The focus should rather be on the idea. If you have a theory about how the afterlife (if there is one) operates, then I would be interested in that theory. However, I am tired of arguing semantics. It does not move the discussion forward. It only bogs things down in a swamp of minutiae. I know that this was not your intention. Nevertheless, it can have that effect - not just in this thread, but anywhere else this may be done. [I]Take care.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Afterlife Theories
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top