General Chat

To dream, perhaps, of being trampled by Wendy? hehehehe... Naughty Boy Rob

At this point len goes to bed.

Have a care, Robert, Wendy is brighter than me and she knows it. She's very kind, though, and won't trample me too much. len

Wendy, I think that you are missing the point that the erudite Len is trying to make - having a machine that can give you access to almost all human knowledge, and help you to sort it and arrange it as you wish would have been frighteningly close to magic in the not-so-distant past; that this machine could be so small as to be so easily portable would seem impossible to your close ancestors. To be able to go back in time to chat with Darwin, or Dickens, and you would no doubt be laughed out of the auditorium if you suggested much of what we now consider commonplace. The ONLY reason these things are commonplace is because some (mainly men - oh, and British, too!) thought to think the outrageous, and to dabble in their dreams. Personally, I do have my doubts about reincarnation, but will not consider it to be 'twaddle,' unless and until there is some definitive proof that it is so. It is what I like to refer to as 'an open mind.' Your reference to the 'great thinkers' shows that even the best of us can close our minds. It was the even greater thinkers, who discussed the 'twaddle' of their day, and proved your great thinkers wrong. Rob

Hi Bendy But there is a logical connection between people of a generation or two ago, who could not accept concepts that today we take for granted, and people of today with minds closed to new research and findings. I accept that much of what is in the bible is ancient spin and raising the dead is different from reincarnation. It would seem logical, though, that if conciousness is a free entity and may leave and return to a brain, it is not a great leap to concede it may enter a different brain? If a human being has a soul/mind/consciousness/spirit (different words, same thing) which is not a brain function, where does it come from and at what stage does it appear? Don't ask me - even the medics can't define consciousness although they are getting there. Latest research in genetics indicates that genetically transmitted characteristics may skip a generation or two so how is this achieved? Perhaps its magic. I'm trying to lead you into deeper water of course. len Ps. I've been indisposed for a few weeks.

No human progress can be made without finding out everything about everything The greatest fields of exploration remaining to science are those of space and the mind. Most scientists still claim (having failed to define it) the mind to be purely physical but emerging evidence shows it is quite clearly non-physical. It is not so fanciful to suppose, therefore, that once we fully understand the enormous power of the mind and how to harness its product, thought, we will be on the threshold of a development far more revolutionary for humanity than the industrial revolution. It does little to help progress when doltish individuals, who probably have never in their lives read a scientific paper above the level of Playboy, like to bawl 'rubbish'. Little do these individuals, mostly males, realise that their present comforts and even their laptops, Ipods and mobiles are brought to them by courtesy of past thinkers the world. No doubt, though, their dads and grandads before them would, in their time, have bawled similar inanities at the concept of computers. Len

I (and, it appears, others for and against me) do not wish to deny anyone the right to disagree. All I ask is that you give a rational argument in support of your disagreement; to merely shout, 'Rubbish' through the metaphorical letterbox does little to enhance the general debate. (And giving the argument in reasonably well-punctuated and grammatical language helps, too!) Kay - had a peek at Snopes... good for a chuckle, as well as exposing many of the urban myths of our times. Rob

What did he have to say about those who say nothing and keep repeating it? Man cannot exist without dialogue. Len

Was it Voltaire who said I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Kay.

is there anyone out there? please give me the answers to Psychological Quiz 3 - knock once for yes and twice for no.

Louise, is there any chance of you reincarnating the answers to your Phychological Quiz 3 - have been growing cobwebs sitting here waiting to know. x

Very interesting subject, just up my alley. I'm bumping it up so that it will be in the first 20 pages tomorrow. I'm too tired to read it right now. Night - Deb

Kay Thank you for the reference. I will try and find it. Robert I am glad to say that science is distancing itself from the Hi Cliffs of this world and leaving them behind. Was it Bacon, Shakespeare or perhaps Dr Johnson who coined the saying 'sitting in a cesspool and adding to it' ? A report in 'The Lancet' Dec 15 2001 gives chapter and verse on research into trancendence and this may be found at: (fingers crossed that GR doesn't block it) http://profezie3m.altervista*org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm. Remove the asterisk and substitute full stop. The Lancet is one of the worlds most important medical journals and anything appearing in its columns is taken seriously by the scientific world. If Hi Cliff does not wish to find one and jump off, perhaps he could find a cosy little hole somewhere and climb in ? It must be nearly time for his hibernation. Len

Hi Len - have a look at http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp I only heard a snippet about this and then found out a film had been made about it so had to look on the net and I found the above. I didnt say I believed it just that I would be more inclined to accept this than reincarnation but after reading about it it seems like twaddle. Kay.

I can appreciate others opinions, and respect that as im sure most people who have posted can but to 'BELITTLE' others opinions is rude and just plain arrogant!!!

Hi Cliff What upsets me most about your argument (such as it is) is your refusal to accept that the apostrophe (') exists! You'll usually find the key a couple to the right of 'L' (under @ on my keyboard). However, other than shouting, 'Bunkum,' what IS your argument? Are you saying that all who have experienced ghosts, mysterious happenings, out-of-body events, or deja vu are either hallucinating or lying? What is the premise for your beliefs, other than the old mantra of, 'Science knows best'? Rob

Think you'll find we are only two Cheers Kaz

I have never such bunkum in my (living life) We are animals, with brain that has evolved, so much so,that we are to able to question our existance, all this reincarnation twaddle, life after death stuff is a get out. people don,t want to die............so some clever guy thinks!!! I,m on a winner here, I,ll tell em they.ll go to heaven( a nice place) if your not, to hell (a bad place)......................... Then some other guy, with a bit of nous,thinks, I,m on a winner here! I,ll tell them they can come back into the living world in their spirit (whatever that is?) etc..etc sorry to disagree with you guys, I am only one. hope Iv,e not upset anyone just my thoughts. cliffx

Kay Please tell me more, my mind is boggling. Did he have the desperately sick patient on the scales and, at the points immediately before and after death, weigh him/her ? How, in that day, could the moment of death be decided? Bear in mind that in 1905 scales were cumbersome things with weights; no electronics then. In the USA, he would have made the weight difference 0.741 ounces as they did not use the metric system; quite a skilled and lengthy task one would have thought. len

A fascinating series of arguments! As readers of similar threads may have deduced, I am inclined along the lines of Len; I am a sceptic, but do acknowledge that there have been too many reports of unusual happenings to dismiss them all as hallucinations, mass hysteria, or lies. Where my arguments fall down is that I have not done the research that Len has to thoroughly trounce others. However, I also tend towards CB; I believe that God is, but that His work has been misunderstood, misconstrued, or totally misrepresented through the ages, either through innocence, ignorance, or outright malice. I would use an analogy here: a flaworm may consider itself to be the pinnacle of evolution, but how can it possibly understand the complexities of the scientist experimenting upon it? We are cosmological flatworms (though we do have the benefit of free will - and that we must use!). As for resurrection - this, I feel, is a red herring. The idea of resurrection of the old, decrepit body that I hope to wear out is alarming, and I bet Prof Hawking will be pretty ticked off, too. Any form of corporeal existence has a time limit; whether it is the fleeting life of a mayfly to the eons of a star, there is an end; God may have been using the resurrection of Jesus as a dramatic analogy for what He really has planned. As for the infallibility of science - we must remember that the scientists of the day refused to look through Galileo's telescope as they knew that Jupiter had no moons! Scientists are human, and have human failings: recently, one scientist spent a lot of time and money proving the existence of 'gravity waves,' and nearly had everyone convinced. Gravity, electricity, and magnetism still cannot be explained by scientists, but the existence of all three cannot be denied, otherwise: 'What science can't explain, it denies,' as so succinctly put by CB. We have to accept that there IS more than we know about; Einstein admitted that, though even he ridiculed the idea of an after-life! Ah, now that IS a ramble! Rob