h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin.


Sure it will, but the question is: will it BE the same entity? I'm amazed that so many folks here take what-is-believed to be what-is-the case. Surely that is self-evidently false.

Is that better?

Jez - headen and widch (I hab a code today)

G'mornin' Jez .



I've just waded through five pages of backlog and have two things to comment on:

Comment the first; animals and souls. In druidry the flowing spirit of life is seen to be in all natural things, people, animals, plants, and places. True it is a matter of perspective, yet once you have made that perspective shift you do look on the world in a very different way. You are less inclined, for a start, to kill, maim and destroy without great need. This is why I am vegetarian. I simply have no need to take the life of an animal to feed my fat frame.

Comment the second; Human sacrifice. There is no reliable evidence that early heathens or druids performed human sacrifice. Caesar is totally unreliable and the bog bodies that have been found could equally have been judicial executions.

Unlike for the Christian Faith who kept meticulous records of their activities. Every 'witch' that was hanged, every 'heretic' that was burnt was a sacrifice to their theology. Indeed most churches that predate the tenth century have one or more human sacrifices in the foundations (an old Roman tradition that the church continued).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

for me and Moth and Noggin

for Math

for Jez

for Toxxin

for Jordan


phew! this is getting complicated . . .

Hey, where's mine?

Math did you read Wild Wales?

Alji

You've never said what you like for breakfast . . .

az

Thanks az, I needed that. The brain cells just don't work in the morning without

Thanks Toxx - I was reading what-is-believed-to-be.

But surely what we are talking about here is how-we-choose-to-talk-about-it? And this falls into one of those neither Arbitrary nor Absolute modes. We can't say just anything, but in novel circumstances our definitions are incomplete - unless there's an unduplicatable "soul", in which case the transportation ought to provide some proof of this. But in that case we would be talking about an empirical fact whose truth value cannot be currently ascertained.

And what happens if the Buddhists are right, and there is no *real* self?

Noggin

Re the "no God/god because of diabilities, terrorist attacks, deaths of innocents etc."
So, if there was a God/god, these things would never happen?
I had an argument similar to this with my wee bro' a while back - he takes a Humanist view and vehemently despises orthodox religion; I am a Christian with (I hope) a mind open enough to accept the faiths of others and the faults in mine.
In my opinion, ultimately we can't argue this point out intellectually, since it touches on spiritual matters; I can't say why I believe, just that I do. Upbinging, conditioning, laziness in seeking out altenatives, might all play their part, but since these are all part of my subconcious, it's difficult to rationalise them.

Hi speff.

"Ultimately", that's probably true. But it is possible to clarify conceptions, and to see the shape of people's beliefs and commitments.
What, for example, do you understand by "spiritual matters" and why do you think they can't be argued intellectually? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but this is a recurrent theme in this thread to which people bring many viewpoints.)

Noggin

Back in link mode http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html
Quote;
"Warped Minds
The best analogy I have seen of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity comes from a small book, The Logic of Special Relativity by S. J. Prokhovnik. In it he equates the apparent shortening of measuring rods and slowing of clocks when they move away from an observer at constant velocity to the diminution in size experienced by two receding travellers. The effect is reciprocal but no one imagines that the effect is real. Strangely, in effect that is precisely what Einstein did imagine and it has led to continual confusion and argument. Experiments were said to prove the effect was real but when examined closely each brought its own set of preconceptions to the data. The problem was compounded when it was argued that space itself shortened, not the rod. It is like saying that the receding traveller appears to shrink because the space he occupies is shrinking. And as space is shrinking it takes less time to cover a given distance. Here we see the insidious effect of this kind of thinking because we now have time and space tangled up together."

http://www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm
Quote from "Science Heading for a BIG BANG";
"Halton Arp is known for his classic work, "Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies". When he began to announce findings nearly 30 years ago that contradicted orthodox cosmology he was refused telescope time and publication in the standard journals. In frustration he published two books, the first in 1987 titled "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", and more recently "Seeing Red"."

Alji

i think after a point we must agree that god exists for those who want him to if you beleve in god then he is there for you...
if you beleve that behind the gates of heven sits a duck who judges your life then so be it for you...
i have no prolems with belefe or religion or with a mixing of the two... what does annoy me is when peole are too narrow minded to see that the belefes of others are up to the person who beleves in them and as long as no-one else is hurt by these belefes then it is not up to anyone to say that thay are right or wrong because it does not effect them and thay have not had the same experiences in life...

Anthea

hi Anthea,

I agree with you that we can believe whatever we like. No harm done. My take on believing or having faith in something is that, by having faith, one does not require proof. Others disagree about this, which is also fine for them if they want to continue looking for proof of things that - I think - mostly exist within ourselves anyhow and would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to 'prove' as any sort of universal truth. At any rate, thinking about god does not keep me awake at night. Not being able to pay my rent keeps me awake at night, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.


Hey Noggin,

If I could convince my landlord I was a Buddhist and had no real self do you think he might stop charging rent to someone who is probably not really there anyhow?

az

Possibly; he might also decide to let your flat to someone who *is* real.

Noggin

I think that what I mean is that we are made up of 4 component "selves"; the physical, the emotional, the intellectual and the spiritual. These are obviously, not mutually distinct parts, but they have their own separate influences upon us.
If I look at the sunset over Duntulm Bay in the North - West of Skye, there is probably an emotional response of strong happiness and astonishment; there might be an intellectual response which recognises the meteorological conditions which make that sunset something special; but there is also a spiritual response, the "inner candle" moment, for want of a better description.
Now, some people might argue (and probably correctly) that this is just a more sophisticated emotional response, but it's presence means that a part of me believes in something beyond the intellectual rationale of doing so.

Noggin,

Yes, of course this would be the obvious outcome. Just being silly.


hi speff,

I think possibly the pagans on this thread would argue (and I think quite rightly) that the situation you described and your response was *not* just a more 'sophisticated emotional response' if you truly felt yourself connected to your experience. Though I could be wrong.

I don't pretend to understand the various pagan beliefs at all, I only get this inkling that they are more about being connected to all life sources and things that we often call 'mysteries'.

I personally don't believe we can separate the 4 component 'selves' you described. Or if we do, we do so at our own peril.

az

'Oh sure Jordan. You've failed to notice "the elephant in the room"! If there can be two of them, they can't be each other or both be me! Argue against that if you can.

OK, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that since there are two human beings in the room, they can't both be the same person, i.e. you?

If so, I've already argued against that. What you say is true generally, but the situation at the instant duplication is complete is very different from any that would ever arise naturally. Both are exactly the same physically and neurologically. Therefore, they have the same reactions, bodily functions and heck, even personality, memories, emotional states and abilities. They are identical. Thus, they are both the same person, i.e. you.

I feel I'm missing something, because I've mentioned this so many times you must be sick of it! What did you mean?

- Jordan

On the other hand, any one person in a room can be many different people at the same time, although physically still one.

But this probably has nothing to do with what you and Toxxin are discussing.

Feel free to ignore me. Just hanging out on a Sunday afternoon.

az

Hi Noggin. I think we don't so much have empirical questions as empirical approaches or otherwise. Take evolution; "only the survors survive" vs "only the fittest survive". The first seems true by definition but the second appears to be empirical. Yet they both refer to the same set of data/events/observations. We are in the territory of metaphilosophy here and I reckon we could really do with sorting this one out. I can see the appropriateness of both the conceptual and empirical approaches to the 'transporter' conundrum. Perhaps that's what comes of being both a scientist and a philosopher. Doh!

I don't *think* speff was arguing for four distinct entities (but correct me if I'm wrong), "selves" rather than selves being used, but had in mind different "viewpoints", which need to be combined for a complete picture.

Alji - of course we don't really understand what space, time, mass etc are; and Euclidean space is as much a preconception as curved space. Does it even mean anything to ask whether space is "flat" or "curved" outside of some conception or other. Everything must be defined in terms of something else, and eventually the path leads back to its starting point.

Noggin

the starting point being . . .?

az