Past lives

Jenna James

Tuco88 wrote: »

What I would do to go back to the world of the late 90s.

I was only thinking that today.

A good night out in Henry’s, Cork 😀

Jenna James

Tuco88 wrote: »

What I would do to go back to the world of the late 90s.

I was only thinking that today.

A good night out in Henry’s, Cork 😀

Steve012

Jenna James wrote: »

I was only thinking that today.

A good night out in Henry’s, Cork ��

Or Nancy Spains,

Kaybaykwah

Sardonicat wrote: »

That wouldn't be you fudging the answer because you're stumped, now, would it?

Yeah sure, I'm stumped.

What makes you want to believe all this crud about being the reincarnation of some other being in times past?

Not enough comes out of the unholy matrimony between two cells in a petri dish or your two parents in a waterbed?

I get that if your dad looked the village idiot and your mom had a ghastly temper you might wish for other forebears, but...

Sardonicat

I have never stated I believe in reincarnation. I don't, as a matter of fact. But I also acknowledge the limits of our understanding. Does that mean I beleve.unsubstantiated theories? No. But I also acknowledge that some things we simply can't substantiate within the confines of scientific method. A method that once consisted of different processes to what it dies now and most likely that paradigm will continue to shift and evolve over time, just like it always has. The scientists of the future will guffaw at our stupidity just as the scientists of today laugh at the natural philosophers of the past. You were asked what consciousness is. I was wondering what you thought. Because I have no real proof that I'm not actually sitting here typing this just because my senses tell me I am and in fact I'm a brain in a vat in 3055 being manipulated by scientists into believing I'm having an online discussion in 2020. And I've no real proof thst I wasn't around before either. I don't believe either of those things, but I can't prove them either way. Nor can you, or anyone else.

Kaybaykwah

Sardonicat wrote: »

I have never stated I believe in reincarnation. I don't, as a matter of fact. But I also acknowledge the limits of our understanding. Does that mean I beleve.unsubstantiated theories? No. But I also acknowledge that some things we simply can't substantiate within the confines of scientific method. A method that once consisted of different processes to what it dies now and most likely that paradigm will continue to shift and evolve over time, just like it always has. The scientists of the future will guffaw at our stupidity just as the scientists of today laugh at the natural philosophers of the past. You were asked what consciousness is. I was wondering what you thought. Because I have no real proof that I'm not actually sitting here typing this just because my senses tell me I am and in fact I'm a brain in a vat in 3055 being manipulated by scientists into believing I'm having an online discussion in 2020. And I've no real proof thst I wasn't around before either. I don't believe either of those things, but I can't prove them either way. Nor can you, or anyone else.

Well you can go on about consciousness, tell me I'm stumped because I didn't answer about this, but then you tell me that there is nothing to talk about, no proof to speak of.

Reincarnation entails coming to life in a new body relevant to an older spirit or being; a past life? How would that occur

How do you explain it if you say you don't believe but seem to be hell bent on defending the possibility of it?

Sardonicat

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Well you can go on about consciousness, tell me I'm stumped because I didn't answer about this, but then you tell me that there is nothing to talk about, no proof to speak of.

What would reincarnation entail, does it somehow imply coming to life in a new body relevant to an older spirit or being; a past life?

How do you explain it if you say you don't believe but seem to be hell bent on defending the possibility of it?

Obviously, I can't. If I believed in it as a matter if faith then I would explain it to you in those terms. For you that explanation would not be satisfactory as you do not share that faith(I'm presuming there, based on your previous posts ).

You do accept that what is considered epistemologically sound changes with time, I take it? And I presume you accept that evidence acquired through the senses has its limits (neither of us can explain fully what consciousness is by appealing to empirical evidence solely, for example, but you're quite sure your conscious and I'm quite sure I am but I can't directly observe your consciousness or even my own) Simply put, there are limits on what we can 'know' for now, maybe forever. Rather than write off things that can neither be proved or disproved I choose to keep a healthy skepticism in an open mind. Best we can do is deal with what's in front of us, IMO. Some things defy empirical scrutiny, reason and logic. Everyday things like love, hope, beauty, despair. I don't know 'what' these things are. Perhaps they are divine. Perhaps we humans are greater than the sum of our parts, or at least have the potential to be. I'm happy with that perhaps. I think it's the neatest we can get being limited, sentient brings. Proof I cannot give because we're not constituted in a way to even apprehend it.

Kaybaykwah

Sardonicat wrote: »

Obviously, I can't. If I believed in it as a matter if faith then I would explain it to you in those terms. For you that explanation would not be satisfactory as you do not share that faith(I'm presuming there, based on your previous posts ).

You do accept that what is considered epistemologically sound changes with time, I take it? And I presume you accept that evidence acquired through the senses has its limits (neither of us can explain fully what consciousness is by appealing to empirical evidence solely, for example, but you're quite sure your conscious and I'm quite sure I am but I can't directly observe your consciousness or even my own) Simply put, there are limits on what we can 'know' for now, maybe forever. Rather than write off things that can neither be proved or disproved I choose to keep a healthy skepticism in an open mind. Best we can do is deal with what's in front of us, IMO. Some things defy empirical scrutiny, reason and logic. Everyday things like love, hope, beauty, despair. I don't know 'what' these things are. Perhaps they are divine. Perhaps we humans are greater than the sum of our parts, or at least have the potential to be. I'm happy with that perhaps. I think it's the neatest we can get being limited, sentient brings. Proof I cannot give because we're not constituted in a way to even apprehend it.

All I ever heard of reincarnation was very unsatisfactory, because the implications were those of an unexplained connection to past lives, events and ways of thinking that to the subject concerned "seemed" to be served by this logic of reincarnation.

I am pretty satisfied that the combination of cells and the essence of a varied mix of characteristics of our forebears be expressed in posterity, via ourselves. The combination of chemicals, doesn't explain everything, it certainly structures the potential for consciousness.

That there are humans with varying degrees of consciousness, and attendant low or high propensity for achievement, crime, disease, this is a question to occupy us looking forward. There is still plenty of mystery in the human brain, consciousness if you will, spirit if you like.

What I find puzzling is the need for explanations from thin air in areas that seem to reveal a lack of introspection rather than a searching stance.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

I am pretty satisfied that the combination of cells and the essence of a varied mix of characteristics of our forebears be expressed in posterity, via ourselves. The combination of chemicals, doesn't explain everything, it certainly structures the potential for consciousness.

You are basing that on blind faith though..

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

You are basing that on blind faith though..

Whatever pleases your consciousness.

Sardonicat

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Whatever pleases your consciousness.

So do you not believe in consciousness, then?

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

You are basing that on blind faith though..

The kind of blind faith I am basing this on though is a distillation of scientific knowledge that is readily available. I am not saying science explains everything, but it explains more as it moves along. That is consciousness if you will, it involves a certain openness to accepting levels of knowledge from scientists that are not easy for individuals like myself that are dismal at science.

On the other hand, since I am a painter and work with certain concepts that when gelled on canvas may be ascertained as magical, or otherworldly, I am bound to respect creative outlooks. I believe in artistic expression that brings some of the unsatisfied questions of humanity to the fore, and if not answered, at least discussed in novels, films, music, and other forms.

Kaybaykwah

Sardonicat wrote: »

So do you not believe in consciousness, then?

What is your point?

GooglePlus

I thought it was just a saying.

For example, someone who is mad about cheese must have been a mouse in a past life.

Mister Vain

I knew a woman once. She died soon afterwards.

Kaybaykwah

GooglePlus wrote: »

I thought it was just a saying.

For example, someone who is mad about cheese must have been a mouse in a past life.

Of course you had to barge in here and make light of a very serious subject.

I would die for a piece of cheese just about now. No laughing matter.

Sardonicat

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Of course you had to barge in here and make light of a very serious subject.

I would die for a piece of cheese just about now. No laughing matter.

Clearly you were a mouse who died on the trap, eternally destined to crave one final piece of cheese. But it will never be enough.

Kaybaykwah

Sardonicat wrote: »

Clearly you were a mouse who died on the trap, eternally destined to crave one final piece of cheese. But it will never be enough.

It has been my lot, over and over for eternity.

I have thought up a new name for the phenom: Korma.

nthclare

Jenna James wrote: »

I was only thinking that today.

A good night out in Henry’s, Cork 😀

And Greg and Shane on the decks, Stevi G in the back bar...
The walls dripping wet and the breakdown and the doors shuddering with bass..

Radio friendly and the soul show...The Crannog, The Oval... Bodega..

I used to live in Henry's,still getting flash backs