Reincarnation

[attofishpi]

Lets hope you finally do what you keep threatening to do, and finally once and for all, do it.

Lets wait and see.

I will miss banter and having a larf with you...but if such be the price of having to avoid any logical philosophical enquiry/debate with you, then we have an accord.

SO.. starting ....

NOW

[Dontaskme]

Lets hope you finally do what you keep threatening to do, and finally once and for all, do it.

Lets wait and see.

I will miss banter and having a larf with you...but if such be the price of having to avoid any logical philosophical enquiry/debate with you, then we have an accord.

SO.. starting ....

NOW

Ok, I'll miss you too.

[attofishpi]

I don't think of the soul as a cause of anything, more a place holder, your POV within the matter of spacetime. However, I guess upon reincarnation, that POV spacetime position is where the new biological matter manifests (by growing around it) - and you are reborn.

If there is an intelligence behind this, which makes it happen, do you ever wonder what the point of it is, or do you know what the point is?

Are you asking me what the meaning of life is Harbal?
Personally, I think this God entity finds life interesting. When I asked it what it wants from us, it stated it learns from us. Thus, we learn and find life interesting, so why shouldn't it?
Once upon a day I stated to God\sage - I'm just here for your entertainment - the reply was "don't flatter yourself".

What phenomenon requires there to be such a thing as the soul in order to explain its existence? What reason do we have to even think there could be such a thing as the soul?

Experience of God (in my case and clearly many others through time).

This is where I am at a disadvantage; I don't have any experience of God.

Ah well, you know the binary choice if you want some.

You are still not ready to consider God but are still interested in reincarnation.

When I have a reason to consider God, I suppose I will consider God. I won't need to get myself into a state of readiness first, all I will need is the reason. It's not so much that I am interested in reincarnation myself, but more that I am interested in why anyone else is interested in it.

Certainly you are interested in the concept of reincarnation and your interest in others is to interrogate their views on it. I don't think it is so much as to WHY they are interested in it as to HOW they think the concept is possible to help you understand the same...
..per your OP>> I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

How can we intelligent men conceive of reincarnation where there is no intelligence beyond our own minds within the nature of Earth where dead material bodies shall decompose?

It's not that I can't conceive of intelligence beyond our own minds, but the nature of such an intelligence, and what influence it might have "within the nature of Earth" are things upon which I have no basis for speculation. My imagination could, no doubt, come up with endless theories, but none are likely to be correct.

But do you think it plausible that reincarnation can still occur without the form of God\"God" I have been suggesting? As you mentioned there are beliefs of reincarnation without a deity, of the type of God I have proposed...even I cannot conceive of how reincarnation then would be possible.

That is to say without any form of willing agent operating at the sub-atomic level of my matter and the matter around me, surely my matter will decompose into the soil and I no longer exist.

[Harbal]

Certainly you are interested in the concept of reincarnation and your interest in others is to interrogate their views on it. I don't think it is so much as to WHY they are interested in it as to HOW they think the concept is possible to help you understand the same...
..per your OP>> I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

I was just in one of those moods when I started this thread.

But do you think it plausible that reincarnation can still occur without the form of God\"God" I have been suggesting? As you mentioned there are beliefs of reincarnation without a deity, of the type of God I have proposed...even I cannot conceive of how reincarnation then would be possible.

That is to say without any form of willing agent operating at the sub-atomic level of my matter and the matter around me, surely my matter will decompose into the soil and I no longer exist.

I just find the whole idea of reincarnation doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why some might like the idea of it when the alternative is just death, but I don't see how it could be possible, or why it should happen even if it were possible. Whether I include God in my thinking doesn't really make much difference.

[Age]

Having to believe in one unlikely thing in order to understand another also seems a bit pointless. It doesn't matter; I'm not on a quest for enlightenment, or anything, I'm just curious.

Well then perhaps we should look at what it is that makes such a concept as God unlikely to you. Certainly I am more perplexed in knowing it exists, especially where so much suffering appears to be happening.

So beyond that, what else makes you think it unlikely? (if you are still curious)

Just my own experience of living in the world, and my observations of what the laws of nature allow, and what they don't. Some things can and do happen, and some things never happen. We are born, we hang around for a while, and then we die.

This is NOT EXACTLY True.

There has never been an exception to that process,

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

so until I see evidence to the contrary, that is what I take to be reality.

I much prefer to USE ACTUAL PROOF instead of just little old 'evidence'.

As for suffering; it is just an inevitable part of being sentient.

'Suffering', itself, is NOT some 'thing' that ANY one HAS TO 'endure', AT ALL nor EVER.

[Age]

Just my own experience of living in the world, and my observations of what the laws of nature allow, and what they don't. Some things can and do happen, and some things never happen. We are born, we hang around for a while, and then we die. There has never been an exception to that process, so until I see evidence to the contrary, that is what I take to be reality. As for suffering; it is just an inevitable part of being sentient.

Yes. But is death the end? Death of an individual is what it says on the tin, but death of what that deceased individual did is impossible, because that individual's actions were causes that fed into the interminable network of causes and effects.

Is it too unfathomable to consider that at the most finite sub-atomic scale of matter, where that of our perception of the nature of reality sits upon, there is an intelligence?

But what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here is NOT just 'fathomable' but IS ALREADY KNOWN, and WELL UNDERSTOOD.

Also, HOW and WHY that Intelligence WORKS, and SITS 'there' IS ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, and WELL UNDERSTOOD.

[Harbal]

Just my own experience of living in the world, and my observations of what the laws of nature allow, and what they don't. Some things can and do happen, and some things never happen. We are born, we hang around for a while, and then we die.

This is NOT EXACTLY True.

How so?

There has never been an exception to that process,

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

Let's change it to: "There has never been a known exception to that process."

so until I see evidence to the contrary, that is what I take to be reality.

I much prefer to USE ACTUAL PROOF instead of just little old 'evidence'.

Proof is preferable before arriving at a conclusion, but evidence is adequate for deciding on whether something is worth considering, or investigating.
The search for proof usually starts with evidence of some kind.

As for suffering; it is just an inevitable part of being sentient.

'Suffering', itself, is NOT some 'thing' that ANY one HAS TO 'endure', AT ALL nor EVER.

In the absense of an explanation of what you mean by that, my only response can be that I strongly disagree.

[attofishpi]

I just find the whole idea of reincarnation doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why some might like the idea of it when the alternative is just death, but I don't see how it could be possible, or why it should happen even if it were possible.

Well the why it should happen, so far as my thoughts go returns to the bit I mentioned earlier where God many years ago stated it learns from us. Also, knowing a sage that has an occasional interaction with me from the aether since introducing himself back in 2005, he knows me better than I do - as he informed me on that night a rather profound thing about my previous life. (hence why I make the point that it appeared to me that I am here for their entertainment! - to which was replied "don't flatter yourself".

I think the point of the reincarnation could be sort of like an experiment from the God\sages - that perhaps they can tweak certain character traits (hopefully consistent within the realm of our ethics from the original life) to see how once reborn we develop within the next life.
The ultimate destination for anyone that truly believes in love of wisdom COULD be do become a sage, to not die for aeons with out having to be reborn with memory wipe. Perhaps to get what Christ stated - to live in heaven (here on Earth with full dimensional protection of God) pretty much for eternity - a billion years?? the Sun should be stable enough? - but truly I think there is more to this.

So to truly love wisdom for me is to believe in the life of Christ - to know God (I made it that far). I have told them if I have to be reborn wiped, I want all my memories of this life 'downloaded' perhaps at the age of 7. Of course this is all a pile of hope.
If I have to be reborn with NO idea, all over again...well I'd rather be dead for the rest of eternity for I truly do not want to run the risk of dealing with the wrath of God ever again.

The sage told me a few years ago he lives in a penthouse in California and told me one morning, he wants to buy me a beer! - So ya, I'd love to hang out with the sages and learn stuff. Christ probably lives somewhere on Earth and definitely is a friend of the sage. HEAVE_n - we work and strive for it each life. People that don't take that leap of faith in believing in Christ (which takes a real eyes

Whether I include God in my thinking doesn't really make much difference.

Well it should for any contemplation of reincarnation to be plausible.

[Wizard22]

So, what is 'your' INTENT, "wizard22"?

Your ideal of "One True Self" sounds mystical to me, based on mysticism. This is typical of the liberal-left and their all-inclusive mentality. "We are all One!" No We are not. You are not me. I am not you. There is very little you and I have in common at all.

When it comes to self, as I mentioned, it mostly revolves around selective-bias. Most of these are sub-conscious. People subconsciously identify with things it values and deems as Good, misidentifies with things it does not value and deems as Bad/Evil. This is how people identify with groups. Or taken to the absolute limit, as with autistic minds (Age), the need and compulsion to identify with EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, they mystical, magical, God, "One". Hence why you brought in the term, "One True Self".

My intent? My intention is philosophical, to investigate and inquire into all matters of existence, especially the politically incorrect, and all other human deficiencies/blindspots/weaknesses.

Why are there individuals? I guess, that Life has vanity installed into it by genetics. Dawkins called it the "Selfish Gene", correct? There is a need organisms have to Divide, and thus Individuate. This is required in biology, obvious among mammals, as infants and children cannot remain dependent upon their mother for long. They must be weaned-off the breast milk, and fast, before they are caught and eaten by Apex Predators. The same instincts are true in Hominids. Thus there is a need to individuate (from the birth mother, to gain independence).

This should be common-sense. Are you really claiming that you don't know this, Age? Are you faking as though this is unknown to you?

[Age]

Just my own experience of living in the world, and my observations of what the laws of nature allow, and what they don't. Some things can and do happen, and some things never happen. We are born, we hang around for a while, and then we die.

This is NOT EXACTLY True.

How so?

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way.

'This living on' even goes 'deeper', and/or with far more 'explanation', and FAR MORE PROOF, if ANY is Truly INTERESTED.

There has never been an exception to that process,

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

Let's change it to: "There has never been a known exception to that process."

'Known', by 'you', right?

Also, could 'things' ABOUT 'processes' be continually 'coming-to-light', and thus be-coming 'known', continually, and 'known' to 'some' BEFORE "others"?

so until I see evidence to the contrary, that is what I take to be reality.

I much prefer to USE ACTUAL PROOF instead of just little old 'evidence'.

Proof is preferable before arriving at a conclusion, but evidence is adequate for deciding on whether something is worth considering, or investigating.

If one is STILL 'considering', or 'investigating', some 'thing', then they have NOT YET FOUND or SEEN 'Proof'.

For SURELY once one HAS PROOF, then there is NOTHING MORE to even 'consider', NOR 'investigate', in regards to 'that ACTUAL thing', right?

The search for proof usually starts with evidence of some kind.

NOT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AT ALL.

The reason being I can give in the example that SOME people, in the days when this is written, BELIEVE that there IS 'evidence' that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING. And, for THOSE people they could spend the REST of 'their times' HERE, in the Universe, 'searching' FOR 'proof' that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

Just like there is, OBVIOUS, and EVEN ACTUAL, 'evidence' FOR the sun revolving around the earth. And, one could then 'search' FOR 'proof' that the sun revolves around the earth, for the REST of 'their time' HERE. BUT, for "others" 'those ones' would just be WASTING 'their WHOLE lives' doing so.

Just like how SOME people CLAIM to HAVE 'evidence' that the earth IS flat, and so may well spend the REST of 'their lives HERE' 'searching', or LOOKING, FOR PROOF.

See, WHAT HAPPENS IS, BECAUSE of the way 'the human brain' WITH the 'belief-system' ACTUALLY WORKS, 'confirmation bias' can ALL TO EASILY and SIMPLY 'set in', and once this does, then so-called 'evidence' "can be" SEEN and NOTICED, when, REALLY, there IS NONE.

SEE, some people grew up HEARING the words, 'In the beginning', in relation to the Universe, Life, and Existence, 'Itself', (referring to the EXACT SAME 'Thing' by the way). So, UNKNOWING these people can grow up ACTUALLY ASSUMING or BELIEVING that there ACTUALLY WAS some sort of 'beginning', to Everything.

Now, 'these people' can gravitate TOWARDS 'this beginning' STARTED or BEGAN in ANY way POSSIBLE, (and even ANY way that IS ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, if the Truth be KNOWN here), anyway, 'these people', depending on 'past experiences' and thus on 'what' the brain has been INFLUENCED BY, EXACTLY, can "start SEEING and NOTICING" so-called "evidence" for THE 'beginning', which they have been UNCONSCIOUSLY becoming to ASSUME or BELIEVE 'was the beginning'.

Some people "SEE" 'evidence' in some 'thing' called 'God', as being 'the beginning', while "others" "SEE" 'evidence' in so-called 'red shift', as being 'the beginning'. But what ALL of 'these people' have IN COMMON is an UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN 'confirmation bias', which had ALREADY begun, and is continually growing, and building, WITHIN 'them'.

And, WHAT HAPPENS when 'these people' START BELIEVING that 'their' OWN, what are REALLY JUST, ASSUMPTIONS are true, then they "SEE" and "GATHER" MORE and MORE 'evidence', for what IS ESSENTIALLY just 'their OWN BELIEFS', and then WHAT HAPPENS is SOME people BEGIN and START 'searching', and LOOKING, FOR 'the proof' of 'that', which they think or BELIEVE that they HAVE ACTUAL 'evidence' FOR. While SOME even SPEND the REST of 'their lives' DOING. And, SOME even get to A POINT of calling "themselves" words like "scientists" while as the SAME time CLAIMING to BE "the experts" 'here' (on whatever subject), which then UNCONSCIOUSLY 'instills' IN "others" a sense of 'they MUST KNOW what they are talking ABOUT then'. When, then can START and BEGIN a GROWING number of FOLLOWERS, ALL BELIEVING (IN) the EXACT SAME 'things', of which there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF FOR AT ALL.

I SAY, 'there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF FOR, AT ALL, BECAUSE as SOON AS one HAS ACTUAL PROOF, then one NEVER HAS TO BELIEVE (IN) 'that thing' ANYMORE, as 'that thing' is, NOW, just AN IRREFUTABLE Truth, anyway.

So, AGAIN, I suggest one JUST OBTAINS PROOF, which IS ALWAYS IRREFUTABLE ANYWAY, and thus IS ACTUAL, instead of EVER considering to USE so-called 'evidence'. As so-called 'evidence' can ALL TO EASILY and SIMPLY LEAD one FURTHER ASTRAY.

As could be CLEARLY SEEN WITHIN and throughout human writings, up to the days when this is being written.

As for suffering; it is just an inevitable part of being sentient.

'Suffering', itself, is NOT some 'thing' that ANY one HAS TO 'endure', AT ALL nor EVER.

In the absense of an explanation of what you mean by that, my only response can be that I strongly disagree.

SEE here we have a GREAT example of the 'default position' of the 'adult human being', in the days when this is being written.

That is;
I do NOT CARE one iota even IF you HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR 'your CLAIM', I BELIEVE otherwise, so I am just going to STICK with what I ALREADY BELIEVE is true'.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

The philosophical word for what you explain is 'substance dualism'. It indicates that body and mind are separate substances. Descartes is the modern philosopher par excellence who supports substance dualism.

Philosophers who don't believe in substance dualism believe 1.that body and mind are the same
2. or that mind is an unnecessary epiphenomenon

3. or that mind and body are different way to regard nature

4. or that body is an idea created by mind.

[Age]

I just find the whole idea of reincarnation doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why some might like the idea of it when the alternative is just death, but I don't see how it could be possible, or why it should happen even if it were possible.

Well the why it should happen, so far as my thoughts go returns to the bit I mentioned earlier where God many years ago stated it learns from us.

What God was ACTUALLY MEANING is that 'I', thee one and ONLY One, also known as 'God', came to KNOW thy 'Self' because of and through 'you', human beings.

See, thy 'Self' NEEDED, through evolution, a species to evolve with the ability of the human brain to be able to gather enough information and store enough knowledge OF and ABOUT the 'environment/Universe' in which 'it' had FOUND itself WITHIN.

In other words God NEEDED human brains, which work EXACTLY like computers do, to STORE the data that God had been LEARNING and gathering along the way.

Also, knowing a sage that has an occasional interaction with me from the aether since introducing himself back in 2005, he knows me better than I do - as he informed me on that night a rather profound thing about my previous life. (hence why I make the point that it appeared to me that I am here for their entertainment! - to which was replied "don't flatter yourself".

Who and/or what is 'this sage', and, who and/or what is 'this God', EXACTLY?

HOW do you DISTINGUISH BETWEEN 'this' 'sage' and 'this 'God', EXACTLY, and HOW do you KNOW which one is which when 'they' talk, to you, EXACTLY?

I think the point of the reincarnation could be sort of like an experiment from the God\sages - that perhaps they can tweak certain character traits (hopefully consistent within the realm of our ethics from the original life) to see how once reborn we develop within the next life.

Which one below IS MORE BELIEVABLE?

EACH ONE INDIVIDUAL human being is so-called 'reborn', just for SOME 'thing' to SEE how 'that one' re-develops within ALL of 'its' so-called 'next new lifes', OR, through thee One and ONLY 'Thing', 'Its' parts are EVOLVING, ALWAYS ABLE TO KEEP LEARNING HOW to one day end up living a MUCH BETTER 'life', that is; A 'life' where EVERY one has LEARNED HOW TO, and IS, living A Truly 'Peacefully and Harmoniously life' TOGETHER, as One?

The words;
'Carnation',
'Incarnation',
'Reincarnation',

have been defined as;
- God's flower, and, a color of human flesh.
- a 'person' who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.
- a new version of something from the past.

Or, in other words, thee One 'I' IS continually CHANGING, through evolution, until, eventually, 'It' has LEARNED enough, through and from 'you', human beings, while ALWAYS FORMING 'new versions' of 'life', until the 'ultimate destination' or the 'PERFECT LIFE' is being LIVED.

Or, whatever ELSE ANY one of 'you' wants to IMAGINE and/or SEE the word 're-in-carnation' MEANS, or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

The ultimate destination for anyone that truly believes in love of wisdom COULD be do become a sage, to not die for aeons with out having to be reborn with memory wipe. Perhaps to get what Christ stated - to live in heaven (here on Earth with full dimensional protection of God) pretty much for eternity - a billion years?? the Sun should be stable enough? - but truly I think there is more to this.

'Heaven' may well START 'here on earth', BUT there IS an endless Universe for those that do NOT DESTROY, TO LEARN HOW to PLAY IN, FOREVER or FOR ETERNITY.

So to truly love wisdom for me is to believe in the life of Christ - to know God (I made it that far).

To 'truly love wisdom' is to just be 'Truly OPEN to learning', MORE, and ANEW.

I have told them if I have to be reborn wiped, I want all my memories of this life 'downloaded' perhaps at the age of 7. Of course this is all a pile of hope.

As well as being SHOWING a Truly SELFISH and GREEDY attitude.

If I have to be reborn with NO idea, all over again...well I'd rather be dead for the rest of eternity for I truly do not want to run the risk of dealing with the wrath of God ever again.

LOL So, in one sentence 'you' CLAIM, ' to truly love 'wisdom' ' of all 'things', is to BELIEVE in some life of "christ" - to know God. Yet just two sentences later you do NOT want 'to deal with the so-called 'wrath of' God, EVERY again'.

NOT much BELIEF IN God here now is there?

And, 'the love of wisdom' went VERY QUICKLY, AS WELL, right?

The sage told me a few years ago he lives in a penthouse in California and told me one morning, he wants to buy me a beer! - So ya, I'd love to hang out with the sages and learn stuff.

Are 'you' SURE a 'sage' or ANY 'sage' would BOTHER EVER MENTIONING that 'they' lived in some so-called 'penthouse' is some so-named 'state'?

If yes, then WHY would 'they'?

Christ probably lives somewhere on Earth and definitely is a friend of the sage.

What do you mean by 'probably' here?

HEAVE_n - we work and strive for it each life.

LOL There is NOT one NEED in 'life' that ANY one has to so-call 'strive' for, NOR even 'work' for.

People that don't take that leap of faith in believing in Christ (which takes a real eyes

YET SOME of the ones that, SUPPOSEDLY, BELIEVE in "christ" ONLY GUESS WHERE "christ" LIVES.

Whether I include God in my thinking doesn't really make much difference.

Well it should for any contemplation of reincarnation to be plausible.

ANY one could include God in their thinking in regards to 'reincarnation', but this alone will NEVER make THEIR 'version' of 'reincarnation' necessarily 'plausible'.

[Age]

So, what is 'your' INTENT, "wizard22"?

Your ideal of "One True Self" sounds mystical to me, based on mysticism.

Well the 'ism' in 'your' 'mysticism' means HOLDING a VERY PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self', based on 'mysticism' ALONE, then 'that IDEA' WILL OF COURSE 'sound' MYSTICAL, to 'you'.

This is typical of the liberal-left and their all-inclusive mentality.

And what you are SAYING here is typical of ones who MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, and who do NOT OBTAIN FULL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, based on OPENNESS.

"We are all One!" No We are not. You are not me. I am not you.

That is VERY CERTAIN. The word 'I' CERTAINLY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO 'you'. Which MEANS that 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'I'.

So, 'I' am VERY GLAD that 'you' AND 'I' BOTH AGREE ON and ACCEPT 'this Fact.

There is very little you and I have in common at all.

WELL CONSIDERING the Fact that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then what 'you' SAY and ALLEGE here STANDS TO REASON.

When it comes to self, as I mentioned, it mostly revolves around selective-bias.

Which IS EXACTLY what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in the days when this was being written. That is; BE VERY SELECTIVE and VERY BIASED in regards to 'your' OWN personal views on 'things'.

Most of these are sub-conscious. People subconsciously identify with things it values and deems as Good, misidentifies with things it does not value and deems as Bad/Evil.

Yes, 'that' IS EXACTLY what 'you', and 'you' "OTHER" adult human beings, DO, in the days when this was being written.

As 'you' ARE CLEARLY SHOWING and PROVING True here, for 'us', "wizard22".

This is how people identify with groups. Or taken to the absolute limit, as with autistic minds (Age), the need and compulsion to identify with EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, they mystical, magical, God, "One". Hence why you brought in the term, "One True Self".

Okay. If 'you' SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

My intent? My intention is philosophical, to investigate and inquire into all matters of existence, especially the politically incorrect, and all other human deficiencies/blindspots/weaknesses.

Which 'you', "wizard22", ARE, REMARKABLY, ABLE TO OVERCOME, and so HAVE ABSOLUTELY NONE OF, right?

Why are there individuals?

'individual' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, IN ACTUALITY, or just IN CONCEPT ONLY?

Also, and as "attofishpi" writes; WITH-in (I) divide/u/all, FOR VERY SPECIFIC and PARTICULAR REASONS.

I guess, that Life has vanity installed into it by genetics.

OF WHICH 'you' ARE SHOWING 'us' here, "wizard22", WHEN 'you' MAKE CLAIMS like; 'your' INTENTION IS to INVESTIGATE and INQUIRE in ALL matter of existence, BUT ESPECIALLY SO to the POLITICALLY INCORRECT views that ONLY "others" HAVE, (when those views are of the OPPOSITE "side" or 'position' OF "YOURS', and INTO ALL of the OTHER human deficiencies, which 'you' VERY VAINLY CLAIM 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NONE OF.

Dawkins called it the "Selfish Gene", correct?

'What' IS 'it' here, EXACTLY, which some human being may or may not have called the 'selfish gene'?

'What' 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING here?

Also, WHY ask 'me'?

AND, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS to A species and NOT IN REGARDS TO just ONE INDIVIDUAL OF A species, OBVIOUSLY.

Also, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS TO ACTUAL 'NEEDS', and NEVER in REGARDS TO 'WANTS'. For example, like the countless, completely UNNECESSARY 'WANTS' that 'you', adult human beings, have 'grown up' WANTING, in the days when this is being written.

There is a need organisms have to Divide, and thus Individuate.

Okay, So 'this' MEANS that ANY talk OF 'unity' is just ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, and therefore just MYSTICAL ONLY, right?

This is required in biology, obvious among mammals, as infants and children cannot remain dependent upon their mother for long.

Have 'you' ACTUALLY LOOKED AT and OBSERVED for HOW LONG some of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ACTUALLY WANT to LIVE WITH, LIVE FROM, and/or LIVE ON 'their' "mothers" FOR, EXACTLY?

They must be weaned-off the breast milk, and fast, before they are caught and eaten by Apex Predators.

WHO and/or WHAT are these so-called "apex predators", EXACTLY, that, SUPPOSEDLY, PREY on human babies who have NOT YET been QUICKLY weaned-off breast milk, in the days when this is being written?

The same instincts are true in Hominids. Thus there is a need to individuate (from the birth mother, to gain independence).

Were 'you' UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that the named and known 'thing' as a 'birth mother' was somehow the EXACT SAME 'thing' as the 'thing' that 'it' gave birth to?

If 'you' WERE NOT, then WHY SAY such a 'things' as 'this' here?

ABSOLUTELY NO one that I KNOW OF anyway EVER even thought such a 'thing' as 'this'. Let alone has SAID 'it' NOR WRITTEN about 'it' ANYWHERE I KNOW OF.

This should be common-sense. Are you really claiming that you don't know this, Age? Are you faking as though this is unknown to you?

Here we HAVE ANOTHER ONE who completely and utterly TWISTS and DISTORTS 'the words' it READS, and/or JUST SEES, AROUND, AND THEN PROCEEDS to go ON FROM 'its' OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS.

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL suggest ACTUAL and FULL CLARITY IS SORT, BEFORE ANY ACTUAL ASSUMPTION OR CONCLUSION IS EVER DREAMED UP, LET ALONE thought NOR BELIEVED to be true.

If you JUST DID 'this' INSTEAD, then 'you' will NOT BE SO WRONG, SO OFTEN, and 'you' WILL ALSO STAY ON TRACK of what the "other" IS ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

[Age]

Age wrote:

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

The philosophical word for what you explain is 'substance dualism'.

WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, DECIDED 'which' words ARE, supposedly, 'philosophical', EXACTLY, 'what', supposedly, IS 'philosophical', EXACTLY, 'which words' MEAN 'what', EXACTLY?

And WHOEVER or WHATEVER MADE 'this' DECISION, then, FROM THEN ON, are 'words', and 'their' 'definitions' NOT ALLOWED to CHANGED, AT ALL?

Also, are you EVEN AWARE that whatever ANY so-called 'philosophical word/s' is/are MEANT to explain IS NOT the SAME for EVERY one, well NOT YET anyway, in the days when this is being written?

If no, then, HOPEFULLY, 'you' ARE thinking about 'this' and REALIZING that 'it' IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

It indicates that body and mind are separate substances.

ONCE AGAIN, the 'mind' word IS USED, but WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL 'thought' INTO, 'What does the 'mind' word ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY? EVER coming INTO PLAY here.

By the way IF ANY word, words, or terms, so-call 'INDICATE' some 'thing', which I am NOT MEANING, then those words or terms, OBVIOUSLY, have NOTHING AT ALL to do WITH what I am ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and SAYING.

Descartes is the modern philosopher par excellence who supports substance dualism.

WHO CARES?

I DO NOT.

Philosophers who don't believe in substance dualism believe 1.that body and mind are the same

WHO CARES what 'you', human beings, BELIEVE is true.

'What' IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True I FIND FAR MORE IMPORTANT, AS WELL AS FAR MORE INTERESTING.

After all 'you', human beings, once BELIEVED that the earth IS flat, that the sun revolves AROUND the earth, and that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING. BUT, ONCE AGAIN, 'what' 'you', human beings, BELIEVE is true is NOT necessarily true AT ALL, NOR IN PART.

2. or that mind is an unnecessary epiphenomenon

Okay.

3. or that mind and body are different way to regard nature

Okay.

4. or that body is an idea created by mind.

Again, OKAY.

[seeds]

_______



_______