I am Hermann, a retired physicist, living in Australia.
I have spent a long time to make up my mind about the purpose of life. The result of my thoughts you will find on my website: www.users.bigpond.com/hermann.raith
It would be great to get some comments and to enter into an interesting discussion.

Having these perfect scenarios in mind, it would be rather astonishing, if just the most valuable individual experience, especially of higher, self-aware species would simply get lost.

I didn't see the connection between your scenarios and the soul. Hence I wasn't astonished. Would you care to explain?

Hi Hermann

I see you've already spent some time here before and it appears you're arguments were based merely on a 'hope and a prayer,' so to speak, and were explicitly refuted.

Welcome back.

Scientists are committed to explain everything on a materialistic basis, because materialism is a dogma in all sciences. Such explanations are possible, but the question is, whether they are convincing and satisfying.

For me the spiritual world is completely independent from the material one. Its interaction with the material world is still a mystery like gravitational forces. The soul seems to be our main existence (equivalent to our mind), which survives the biological death. Therefore I think we will also remain as self-aware individuals after death. This view does not fit to the materialistic dogma at all. Therefore the main question is, will you stick to materialism or are you open for alternatives.

In the Middle Ages scientists were locked in the cage of the church, from where they freed themselves. Now it seems to me, that they are locked in the cage of materialism, from where they have to escape, too.

There is no purpose until one decides they need purpose. Then, they define their own purpose. That's how it works.

For me the spiritual world is completely independent from the material one. Its interaction with the material world is still a mystery like gravitational forces.

What's so mysterious about gravity? At least there is a measurable effect. As a physicist, you should know that.

What is the measurable effect of the spirit world?

There is no purpose until one decides they need purpose. Then, they define their own purpose. That's how it works.

I almost agree. Only that the purpose of life becomes a trouble when one is depressed. Otherwise, the purpose of life is not questioned.

Life is what you make of it, no more no less. However who's in control of it is another question.

Scientific explainations aren't satisfying?

Materialistic explainations might be very complex but,material existence is well established.

There isn't even any reason to assume a spirit world exists.

We all know what happened to so many non-materialistic explainations of the past.

Gekkou, Water, Russ723,
Do you really believe that we and the whole universe exist only by chance – without any purpose behind?

Semblance,
Although Newton’s theory of gravity was based upon evidence, he was skeptical. He believed that it was impossible to assume a force between distant bodies in space without any direct contact. Therefore, he feared that rational individuals would not accept his theory. But scientist could cope with that and invented the field model. Thinking in models gives a feeling of understanding. For scientific evidence, it is enough to prove that nature behaves as if there were a force between bodies generated by a field.
Since Einstein scientists believe in gravity waves, which could not be measured up to now, but perhaps it may be possible soon. If scientists would believe in a spiritual world and would put similar efforts in its proof, I would assume something could be measured as well.

Kunax,
What do you mean by “However who’s in control of it is another question”? Who could be “who”?

Hermann - Q is my userid, that is, unless you wish me to refer to you as Registered User?

Yes, Newtons theory was based on evidence, as was Einsteins. The measurable effects of gravity were little more than what technology could provide to measure them and what exactly can be measured.

That has nothing to do with the spiritual world as there does not appear to be any measurable effects, let alone evidence.

Now that we've cleared that up, I ask again, what are the measurable effects of the spirit world and why would you assume something could be measured? Is there some evidence we are now aware, perhaps an observation gone unobserved?

Scientists are committed to explain everything on a materialistic basis, because materialism is a dogma in all sciences. Such explanations are possible, but the question is, whether they are convincing and satisfying.
It has come to my attention that science is merely organized knowledge, and does not necessarily explain. The illusion is that similar to when anything is being organized its function is based on the arranger’s purpose. Take the orchestras, the arrangement of the instruments and band members, the instruments in question, the notes; all for the purpose of the piece. We may be evolving backwards for all we know, in fact in reality time travels in all axis and moment is all tat really exixts. Knowledge are convincing and satisfying to our purpose alone, which in turn is a summary and multiple of what we think we are. But what we think we are is an idea; nothing can ever know itself unless someone or something else tells it. All things can be arranged in a gazillion ways to fit any purpose or point of view.

There isn't even any reason to assume a spirit world exists.

Spirituality, to make sense even to an alien from mars is also an arrangement, the ultimate organization if you will. Afterlife, soul, even nature. All these notions have a system answering to a higher energy plane or working together to present one. I could find a broom on the floor but if I were an alien from Pluto It wouldn’t be of use to me, at least not for sweeping, maybe for scratching my itch. At the end of every day and age it all comes down to purpose. For its is purpose that allows us to exist. We are not here because we are free; we are here because of purpose, it precedes spirituality and the ultimate Zen. Purpose is a demon at best; it possesses entities and never the other way around. The question what is my purpose, I don’t think the greatest Gods can even answer otherwise it will all be blank. Of cause we are in auto pilot, we are always in it in one way or the other, if it’s not socio-cultural requirements, its religion, intellectual, or personality. What brought us here is still taking us along thus far, leading us along. The annoying creep likes to be quiet, after all if we eventually figure it out we won’t be behind anymore but alongside, which in a way is the end of our time or the realization of our own universe. Guidance they say... is more important than power.

In my opinion we all evolved, its simpler than asking where did God come from I guess. Our brain, body, and enviroment are in more control of our being than we think. Form follows function, we are somewhere knee deep inside this function as packets of concious energy, we have no control. The real control is done by the nature that allows us 10 fingers, which we got our number system from.We are but a drop of water in an ocean, we are a blimp in eons, we are a passer by pedeatrial on the interstellar expressway.

"I realized a long time ago that Just because I have a brain does not mean I am seperate from nature"- G. Carlin. Modern day comic

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

Scientists are committed to explain everything on a materialistic basis, because materialism is a dogma in all sciences. Such explanations are possible, but the question is, whether they are convincing and satisfying.

Many sciences are immaterial, like uhhhh... all of the social sciences. Right? Right?

Not only can materialism and spirituality coexist, they're intertwined.

Gekkou, Water, Russ723,
Do you really believe that we and the whole universe exist only by chance – without any purpose behind?
Yes, at least in the sense of what we understand purpose to be. Sometimes I imagine that Nature has a purpose for us, but in the sense that there is order to things and thus perhaps there is enough order surrounding the small bit of the universe known as life on earth that our evolution has an inevitable outcome (barring any of many possible interruptions).
Think of it this way. If you put a jug of water on the side of a hill and push it over it will spill out and it will form little rivulets. Those two facts have to do with the nature of the water and the hill. They have nothing to do (except perhaps in the grandest possible way concerning connectedness of all things ("uni"verse)) with your intellect or intention. I look at the argument of an intelligent god creating the entire universe in the same way.

If scientists would believe in a spiritual world and would put similar efforts in its proof, I would assume something could be measured as well.
Why do you think they don't? Could it be a matter of practicality? Could it be that scientists study what seems to naturally follow from what they already know?

I almost agree. Only that the purpose of life becomes a trouble when one is depressed. Otherwise, the purpose of life is not questioned.
Like in the movie Matrix reloaded: only after Agent Smith is destroyed but fails to cease to exist (wouldn't that be depressing) does he find a need for purpose so intensely that he will seek to destroy EVERYTHING to find some purpose that can't be thwarted.

There is no purpose until one decides they need purpose. Then, they define their own purpose. That's how it works I agree


I'd rather be entertained anyday than be bored with my own purpose. In fact I would see my purpose as some form of entertainment because life has become bigger than its purpose, otherwise why am I seeking its purpose in the first place. I am free, even if its an illusion.

Hermann,


Do you really believe that we and the whole universe exist only by chance – without any purpose behind?

I actually think this a false dichotomy -- to oppose chance and purpose.
I realize it is a traditional dichotomy that went unquestioned for a long time.
But I intuitively sense that there is something wrong with it. I can't yet say what exactly, I will think about it some more.



~water~

Materialism is based on the belief that everything that exists is related to matter or energy. This includes non-material features like fields, information, ideas, and even our minds. Materialism is a dogma in all sciences, and their general working base. It commits also scientists in medicine, psychotherapy and psychology to work along the same lines.

Research in fields like psychology is mostly based on evidence not on measurements, which makes proofs more difficult. A very interesting example is the so-called “Near Death Experience (NDE):
Around 1970, the physician Raymond Moody began an investigation by interviewing many people who had been reanimated, meaning that they were dead or near to death. Those who could recall something and were willing to talk about it, reported amazing experiences. They reported that although they had left their bodies, they could see what people were trying to do with them. They could understand what those people were saying, and even observed events taking place outside the room. Many other researchers, working along similar lines, also found the same results.

However, other researchers conducted interviews to disprove such phenomena, and of course, they were successful, too.
Psychological studies and experiments carried out by investigators with opposite theoretical orientation can lead to conflicting results. The supposedly objective scientific method is here still subject to the beliefs of the experimenter.

Neurophysiologists are still convinced that everything connected with NDE were hallucinations, caused by remaining brain activities during the time when the heart has stopped beating. Witnessed reports of observations outside the room will be ignored or doubted.
If there would be a real interest in science to prove the existence of a spiritual world it could be done easily by detailed NDE studies performed by a group of researchers with different orientation. Reanimations take place daily in any hospital worldwide. But it seems to me, that there is no interest in science, because they fear to lose the dogma of materialism. Also churches are not interested in such research, because they may lose their monopoly in “afterlife”.

Water,
I would be very interested to learn what could be between chance and purpose. If the world exists by chance we have not to think about purpose. But if the world exists by a given purpose, then it can be assumed that the total world scenarios are perfect as I did.

9/17/05 06:03 PM - Materialism is based on the belief ...
I too would like to see that kind of stuff explained satisfactorily as I am now not satisfied with any round about suggestions as to what it is. I, however, doubt the idea that such a thing is not material, even if it is what people report it to be, able to see what's going on in another room, etc. I do have a feeling that the answer is simpler than I can imagine it to be, but still, it is all rather baffling.

Isn't the purpose of life apparently "to evolve"?

Can evolution be planned?

I suppose that's what Eugenics is, no?

But what about dinosaurs and the beings living back then?
How planned, in terms of eugenics, is the evolution from reptile to bird, for example?

It could be argued that eugenics is inherent to evolution anyway -- so my question remains.

(Eugenics as the human representation of natural selection.)

Can evolution be planned?

Why would it need to be? It must necessarily be an expression of first principles (whatever they be), no?

I suppose it matter how fundamentalist of a view you take of Eugenics.
I think that, as you mentioned, Eugenics IS inherent in evolution.
You (general sense) are attracted to a mate who will create offspring with aspects you value.
At the most subtle level, sex with an attractive person in an effort to produce a child is Eugenics.
At the most absurd level you have Nazis.

All species are driven by instincts, at the mos base level, for survial of the species and survival of the individual.
If you have traits that are beneficial to the survival of the species in you current environment, you are attractive.
This drives evolution of the species toward benefitting the species as a whole.

Imagine you are a dinosaur when it starts getting cold and food starts getting scarce.
What would be attractive to you as a potential mate?
One who needs less food (smaller) and can keep warm (scales splitting into feather-like structures).
Dinosaurs evolving into birds is driven by a subtle natural form of Eugenics.
Galton just gave it a name.

Why would it need to be?

Is a plan, of whatever kind or form, a NECESSARY prerequsite for evolution?


It must necessarily be an expression of first principles (whatever they be), no?

If it is an expression of first principles, then these principles are the ones setting up the plan/being the plan, no?

Evolution is planned in the sense that it is constricted I guess....

How do you mean, spuriousmonkey?

There are basic patterns that repeat itself because they work best. Animals living in the sea tend to have similar solutions, because they work best. They all do it differently though.

Well, it appears Hermann is only here to regurgitate previous posts and whatevers on his website, stuff thats already been refuted.

He's probably not even a physicist.

No, water, evolution is not planned. :rolleyes:

Is a plan, of whatever kind or form, a NECESSARY prerequsite for evolution?'

The principles are all that are required I'd think.

If it is an expression of first principles, then these principles are the ones setting up the plan/being the plan, no?

If you call "a set of rules expressed in the local reference frame" a plan, then yes. I wouldn't call it a plan, no. I'd call it "fruition of circumstance" or something.

If you call "a set of rules expressed in the local reference frame" a plan, then yes.

I wouldn't call it a plan, no. I'd call it "fruition of circumstance" or something.

Chance then?

Do first principles exist by chance?

Chance then?

Do first principles exist by chance?

How would I know? I'd say the first principles exist because they evidently must (or can) - whatever they are.

When I say circumstance I basically mean something like "the evolution of the moment", meaning "the everlasting change of state in the everpresent now" for any reference frame.

One thing, one one thing, leads to a nuh uh uh-ther.

How would I know? I'd say the first principles exist because they evidently must (or can) - whatever they are.

You should know, if you are making claims about them.

So those first principles are necessary?

Or does the universe exist and things happen in it -- just because they can?


One thing, one one thing, leads to a nuh uh uh-ther.

Either the first principles are eternal (and if you can't define what they are, it is kinda pointless to talk about them anyway), or they came from somewhere.
Which is it?

I agree with wesmorris: The purpose of life is “to evolve” as an individual, as a soul.

Water, I don’t think evolution is planned. The biological evolution goes on by chance and by survival of the fittest. But this combination is in average an upwardly directed eugenic process fulfilling certain purposes.
The German science journalist Hoimar von Ditfurth once observed: “We have ears, because there is sound, which we can hear. We have eyes, because there is light allowing us to see. The archaic parts of our brain are needed for controlling our body functions and for spontaneous reactions to certain events. But why did evolution provide us with the huge brain (the cerebrum) allowing intelligent and creative actions? Is there something we have to be adapted for? If there would be a spiritual world and individual souls, an interface to our material body would be needed, which could be within the brain.” This is a very interesting point, but of course, such thoughts are far from any scientific considerations today.

If there would be a real interest in science to prove the existence of a spiritual world it could be done easily by detailed NDE studies performed by a group of researchers with different orientation.

Now there's a sure fire way to flush valued research dollars down the toilet.

But it seems to me, that there is no interest in science, because they fear to lose the dogma of materialism.

Or, they haven't lost their minds.

You should know, if you are making claims about them.

I only claim there are some. Physics gives us some pretty decent models that describe them, but the model isn't complete.

So those first principles are necessary?

Or does the universe exist and things happen in it -- just because they can?

How the shit can a human, who is necessarily part of the consequence of first principles, have any rational stance on their necessity? If they exist, they simply ARE. Necessity has about squat to do with it.

Either the first principles are eternal (and if you can't define what they are, it is kinda pointless to talk about them anyway), or they came from somewhere.
Which is it?

*sigh*

Nobody can define what they are, as physics currently falls short of unification. Until there is a unification thoery, it's gonna be tough to say where it came from. I think it will likely be found within the next 50 years. If and when it's established, we might have more to talk about here.

Wes,



Your reasoning in regards to the first principles is the same as that of theists.
Only the names are a bit different.

I think it's bleeding. I'm almost convinced life is for bleeding. I might have a son or two, just to make sure.

Wes,

Your reasoning in regards to the first principles is the same as that of theists.
Only the names are a bit different.

So theists concur that there is no way to know what first principles are as of yet? They would concur that there is no plan, but rather - an ongoing expression of something that hasn't yet been defined, but might be? Would you agree with either?

Well, either way - they're both faith-based arguments. A key difference IMO, is a minimization of faith vs. the opposite.

Is there a fundamental difference between a physics book and "holy scripture"?

So theists concur that there is no way to know what first principles are as of yet? They would concur that there is no plan, but rather - an ongoing expression of something that hasn't yet been defined, but might be? Would you agree with either?

The common theistic argument is that God works in mysterious ways. Which is in effect the same as you say above.


Well, either way - they're both faith-based arguments. A key difference IMO, is a minimization of faith vs. the opposite.

What is the opposite of faith ...


Is there a fundamental difference between a physics book and "holy scripture"?

I don't think so. They are both usually printed on paper.
There are differences in how some people approach them though.

The common theistic argument is that God works in mysterious ways. Which is in effect the same as you say above.

That isn't an argument. It's a statement that I see as equivalent to "don't bother to think", whereas I've clearly endorsed the opposite.

What is the opposite of faith ...

The opposite extreme of faith, not the opposite of faith. You can have just a wee little assumption that's irrefutable to self or pretty much anyone like for instance, "cogito ergo sum", or you can have a huge, unsupportable, arguably ridiculous one-step solution that doesn't answer any questions and results in things like "god works in mysterious ways" (a non-statement to those who refute your faith).

IMO, self is irreducable.

God is infinitely reducable.

That's just my opinion. Reject it if you like.

I don't think so. They are both usually printed on paper.
There are differences in how some people approach them though.

I was speaking to the content and its basis.

I was speaking to the content and its basis.

Now consistently apply your understanding of observational distance, and you'll see you can't make any other but subjective statements about anything.

And what is the subjective worth?

Now consistently apply your understanding of observational distance, and you'll see you can't make any other but subjective statements about anything.

I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from then. Do you however, allow a psuedo-"shared understanding"?

On a related note, I've been thinking about this and ponder if objective statements can be made via some sort of transform, that first accounts for subjectivity. It's probably a pipe dream but it sometimes seems promising.

And what is the subjective worth?

Whatever the subject renders it.

Q,
Many people see the world like a puzzle. They get a fixed picture from somewhere and recognize only such events (puzzle pieces) that fit to the prefixed picture. Others puzzle pieces (events) may fit well to other pictures, but these will be automatically ignored. Some atheists seem to be as biased as religious fanatics.

Hermann

Talking in riddles does not answer the questions posed to you.

Physicist, indeed. HA!

Q,
I did not expect, that this was a real question. But yes, I am physicist and got my Ph.D. degree in 1966. A detailed biography you will find on my website.
What are you? Where did you get your arrogant behavior from?

I did not expect, that this was a real question.

How many times do I need to ask before you realize its not a fake question?

A detailed biography you will find on my website.

Then it must be true, if its on a website.

Where did you get your arrogant behavior from?

From those who spout nonsense and don't answer questions.

How the shit can a human, who is necessarily part of the consequence of first principles, have any rational stance on their necessity? If they exist, they simply ARE. Necessity has about squat to do with it. This is giant point that I would like to make again and again in spite of the irony of wasting time doing so. It is fine to wonder about the most far reaching things every once in a while, but there are people who seem to love to endlessly debate things that are far beyond the ken of the highest of geniuses, especially when they make no effort scientifically to even approach a theory. - questions like 'what is the origin of the universe'. Does God exist? These worked over questions that are so non-answerable are such a pointless exercise. Why isn't everyone tired of even asking them yet?

Ok, I'll cut us some slack. We're just jaw-jacking here (with a keyboard), but really, some people take this stuff very seriously. People much older than myself sometimes. What's that about? :confused:

Q,
I did ask you “What are you?” – this was a real question, but you did not answer.

I did ask you “What are you?” – this was a real question, but you did not answer.

I see, I'm required to answer your questions, but you're immune to answering mine?

Q,
Which question did I not answer? I am willing to answer any reasonable question. Why are you not telling us what you are?

Hermann,


Could you say that if you knew the purpose of life, then you'd finally feel safe? But until then, you will feel insecure?

Hermann, you simply have to read the thread to know which questions you didn't answer.

What I am? I am a person.

Purpose is opposite of freedom. As it is we are free. But that also means we are not fulfiling our purpose as much, which is a detriment to the system. Either the system has been overiden unconsiously or the system is now gently roasting our demise. The correct scenario is anyone's guess. There is always a system present where there is a sort of organizaton and that also applies to living things. For it is the system that has brough us this far.Whatever. One thing we can always count on is evolution, our time will surely come to a peak and the crest will roll back. I do believe all what we are insinuating about purpose is from the heart alone, as only someone else can tell you who you are.

Whenever we like or not, the humans are only one of the species living on earth. Every species has only one philosophy of life: to survive. All others philosophies came later and just try to answer to some fundamental questions upon the historical or social conditions.
From my personal point of view, without any scientific argument, I think that life is just an accident, like a virus, that probably will alter the sublime masterpiece of the universe.

comisaru, that is silly.

the universe itself is an accident in the context you put forth. life is the result of the universe seeking equilibrium no? meh. life is an integral part OF the sublime masterpiece of the universe. it cannot "alter it", as it IS it. To alter "it" is to alter "itself". life will do what it does, it is the mandate of the universe that it does so (as in ultimately, the continuing fruition of first principles, whatever they be (the rules of physics)).

oh but you're mostly right about the survive thing. but it's not quite that simple. it's more accurately "perform its function" which is generally survival as the creature in question percieves it in the now.

The purpose of life is what YOU want it to be .

The purpose of life is what YOU want it to be .

Honey, this is the most useless answer there can be.

The people who know what they want the purpose of their life to be, don't ask about it.

And those who don't know it, post such threads and nobody can help them.

Or, water, some post such questions to recieve such answers, as cosmictraveler has thoughtfully provided, because they are confused by others religious beliefs, that claim the purpose of life is with gods.

Or, haven't you figured that out yet?

the universe itself is an accident in the context you put forth. life is the result of the universe seeking equilibrium no? meh. life is an integral part OF the sublime masterpiece of the universe. it cannot "alter it", as it IS it. To alter "it" is to alter "itself". life will do what it does, it is the mandate of the universe that it does so

Right. Still, the life came somehow after the universe. And for sure the life will "alter" itself, whenever could or not alter the universe or a part of it.
See the hypothetical alien civilizations, ranked by the use of the energy of one star or one galaxy.

the point is: the universe is dynamic. it is a constancy of alteration. life is part of that. there is no choice but for the universe to be altered, as it would seem its very nature is constant change. *shrug*

Or, water, some post such questions to recieve such answers, as cosmictraveler has thoughtfully provided, because they are confused by others religious beliefs, that claim the purpose of life is with gods.

Or, haven't you figured that out yet?

There is no need to eternally blame others for our own confusions.

There is no need to eternally blame others for our own confusions.

If those others claim their god fantasies as some sort of reality and cause the confusion, then yes, we should blame them.

There is no need to eternally blame others for our own confusions.

If those others claim their god fantasies as some sort of reality and cause the confusion, then yes, we should blame them.


What is the use in blaming?

Water,

You are right. I feel safe by having an idea about the purpose of life and I would feel insecure without.

Regarding “blaming” I must say, that I hate people who are intolerant and arrogant. All fanatics are intolerant and often arrogant, because they believe to know the absolute truth. In this respect there is no difference between fanatic atheists and religious fanatics.

I have never said, that I know the truth. With this thread I was only seeking for an open discussion, where I expect that everyone tries to understand the opinion of the other. But such a discussion is not possible with fanatics.

Honey, this is the most useless answer there can be.

The people who know what they want the purpose of their life to be, don't ask about it.

And those who don't know it, post such threads and nobody can help them.

It may seem useless to you but to me it makes perfect sense for I can't tell you what the purpose of your life is only the purpose of my own. Therefore by telling you my purpose wouldn't answer the question as to what your life is all about , would it?

Hermann,


You are right. I feel safe by having an idea about the purpose of life and I would feel insecure without.

But is your idea about the purpose of life, the idea that makes you feel secure -- is it a rational idea, is it substantiated, justified, is it realistic?


Regarding “blaming” I must say, that I hate people who are intolerant and arrogant. All fanatics are intolerant and often arrogant, because they believe to know the absolute truth. In this respect there is no difference between fanatic atheists and religious fanatics.

I have never said, that I know the truth. With this thread I was only seeking for an open discussion, where I expect that everyone tries to understand the opinion of the other. But such a discussion is not possible with fanatics.

Isn't it intolerant and arrogant to hate people who are intolerant and arrogant?


* * *


cosmictraveler,



It may seem useless to you but to me it makes perfet sense for I can't tell you what the purpose of your life is only the purpose of my own. Therefore by telling you my purpose wouldn't answer the question as to what your life is all about , would it?

Read what I said:


The people who know what they want the purpose of their life to be, don't ask about it.

And those who don't know it, post such threads and nobody can help them.

You've said in roundabout the same thing as I did.

Water,

I think it would be better to ignore all kind of fanatics, because it is useless to talk with them.

My ideas are certainly not substantiated like scientific facts. But I regard them as rational and logical conclusions based on my premises. Perhaps the following examples may help to understand my view:

The biological evolution is a fact for you and for me. The evolution is only based on evidence and is not really accessible for experiments, but it is backed by a very convincing theory. Creationists who would not accept the theory behind can doubt it quite easily.

The UFO phenomena seem to be still nonsense to me. But scientists can easily become convinced, because these fit to the materialistic worldview and are often part of science fictions.

Now lets look at NDE (Near Death Experience), Here the evidence is stronger than for the evolution and it would be accessible for experiments. For me it is also backed by a convincing theory, but this would not fit to the dogma of materialism in sciences and only therefore NDE will be rejected or ignored. There is also no interest in a careful research, because a possibly confirming result is not wanted.

Scientists are not unbiased, they are committed to the dogma of materialism, and this is a big problem in my opinion.

Herman,


I think the ultimate test for any idea about the purpose of life is if you can employ that idea at ANY time in your life, be it good times or bad times, and have that idea help you out and restore you, and encite happiness in you.

Does your idea pass this test?

Water,

Yes – without any doubt – my idea is passing your test completely.
I like your definition and I am wondering, which other rational philosophy of life could pass your test as well.

Herman,


Alrighty then. I've nothing more to say here.

I wish you well.

The purpose of life is to avoid all purpose.

The Purpose of Life: To be born into the world. To thus become free beings. Free from the confines of everlasting eternity. The purpose of life ;To Live as a finite , to live as a mortal is to be born free.The Earthly reasonings of things, of the mechanical world or of faith ideas in the wonders of the worlds wonderful works of nature or mankinds are all apart of the freedoms of self-will and self expression we do all enjoy in space , on earth as earth, as time bound beings born of the souls who comprise this worldly manifestation.
The Soul is eternal. The numbers of souls is infinite. The Souls of the Everlasting universal condition , a condition not so pleasant to the soul, must by sheer demand of countless personality expressions of each join in a grand universal endeavor , master plan , if you will, and create the environment , forge the mechanical process, that will by the powers in these souls very personal being, thus cause the manifestation of the World as We know it.As it is Willed it is Done. The Universe is VERY Personal. All empty space is an illusion. It has No limits of Individual Personalities existing in or as cosmic essence, very individual essence, no two the same in every manner. Dwelling endlessly until that moment of personality escape , by the doings of the master plan, escape into the finite vehicle, the body. The vehicle , the body of man or beast, a design that must by default change and decay , die that all who compose reality might have a chance to live unto the dream of time bound life and it's many dynamic dramas of love and hate, triumph and defeat.Good and Evil.
You are Right Herman in many ways but do Not understand that the true magnitude of the 'Souls investment' in the Finite world is total. It is ALL WE have ...PERIOD!

regards,

Hermann's probably dead by now.

That makes this thread particularly tragic when you think about it.

I am still alive, but I thought my thread was dead.

Segestan,
Thanks for your interesting post, but unfortunately I could not fully understand it -especially your last sentence. Do you not agree, that our real existence is within our soul, which is captured in our body and will survive? My view becomes much more clear, if you would read my small booklet online at: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Hermann+Raith%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=1
The discussion would become easier, when you could tell where you can’t agree with my thoughts or statements and what would be your alternative ideas.
Kind regards
Hermann

Hermann

The problem with your booklet's rationale is that you believe in creationism and spiritism, yet you make no case for them. You fail miserably in your attempts to link those fantasies with the natural world based on misrepresentation of the facts. It's rubbish.

Semblance,
You show a quite intolerant behaviour. Whether there is a spiritual world outside matter or not is just a question of belief. Both the existence and non-existence cannot be proven. Science has the limitation that it requires a materialistic working base, which does not allow any access to a possible spiritual world. This restriction has to be recognized as a principle limitation. There were many famous scientists, like Albert Einstein, who were also deeply religious. Will you regard all of them as nuts?
I believe in the existence of a spiritual world and have described in my booklet, how this can be easily combined with all proven scientific facts – including biological evolution (I don’t believe in creationism). You are not forced to share my opinion, but you should also not force others to accept your opinion as the only truth.

Semblance,
You show a quite intolerant behaviour. Whether there is a spiritual world outside matter or not is just a question of belief.

Yes, as are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy merely a question of belief, but I see no mention of them in your booklet.

Both the existence and non-existence cannot be proven. Science has the limitation that it requires a materialistic working base, which does not allow any access to a possible spiritual world. This restriction has to be recognized as a principle limitation.

A sprititual world, if it exists, should be as testable and measurable as the natural world. If it cannot, then it has no demonstrable effects, hence it exists only within your imagination.

There were many famous scientists, like Albert Einstein, who were also deeply religious. Will you regard all of them as nuts?

Einstein was not deeply religious and that is a strawman argument.

I believe in the existence of a spiritual world and have described in my booklet, how this can be easily combined with all proven scientific facts – including biological evolution (I don’t believe in creationism). You are not forced to share my opinion, but you should also not force others to accept your opinion as the only truth.

What you believe has nothing to do with science or "proven scientific facts" and has more to do with failed attempts at aligning your personal fantasies with reality. Your opinions are worthless in this regard.

The booklet is complete rubbish and by selling it, you are peddling snake oil.

Hermann:

Two questions: What provoked you to postulate that there was a spiritual reality distinct from this one? And are you interested in philosophy in general?

Semblance,
Here are some quotes of Albert Einstein just for your information:
• "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
• "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
• "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
• "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
• "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
• "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
• "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."


Prince James,
I have been provoked to postulate an independent spiritual reality by NDE studies (carried out by Raymond Moody, etc.) and subjectively by specific personal experience.
Yes, I am also interested in general philosophy.

Semblance,
Here are some quotes of Albert Einstein just for your information:

There are entire threads here dedicated to showing how misinformed people like you are in regards to Einsteins quotes about religion, you should read them before making a further ass of yourself.

Hermann:

Might you be willing to share the personal experiences?

What do you say to those who propose more mundane reasons for NDE? Such as oxygen deprivation? Has Moody also ever done any studies on non-Western NDE?

But I am quite glad that you share an interest in philosophy. If you have interest in the topic, you should come over to the philosophy section and discuss some stuff with us. Also, I would imagine you'd be interested in some of the philosophical arguments for the soul and dualism, specifically Plato's and Descartes'. Have you read those?

Purpose of life?
To live because one is alive?

Hermann :)

I can't remember where I mentioned this on this board before (maybe in Human science thread) but I aired a ponderance about the soul and the human body being seperate living beings existing together symbiotically. Thus when the animal body dies the other being (we refer to it as 'soul') can continue existing in it's true form (energy?) or whatever. I didn't speculate much beyond that. Q may recall the thread, I'm sure he was poo pooing it :)

I felt this idea would explain many phenomenon.

I personally see nothing far out about the possibility of two creatures existing together so long (since birth and until death) that they consider they are one being and are not aware they are infact two until perhaps one of them dies!

For example, the fish they have discovered in these deep HOT sea vents, survive only because a specail heat resistant bacteria protects their skin. Thus they enter and exit the world with the protection of this other living thing. Are the fishes aware the bacteria is not part of their fabric? Unlikely.

I haven't looked at your link in detail but caught something that seemed similar to this thought process.

This type of thinking doesn't go down well here, as you may have noticed.

good luck, I'll read your link somemore tonight.

shouldn't this thread be in philo forum?

Q: I don't know exactly the depth of Einsteins religious adherence but it is obvious that the man did believe in a higher phenomenon he called god. If he didn't believe in a 'personal god' its only because such a notion is alien within judaism. There is a lot of rubbish on the net but here is a link that supports
your position concerning Einstein

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm

Personally I am more aligned with your position on this. These discussions become doo-lally simply because we use words like 'god' and assume everyone understands what is meant by the term. Same with soul and spirit. I don't understand this fascination with life outside of what we know as life. What is the soul or spirit? What are we referring to? What is life outside consciousness? I say nothing but I am sure Hermann would disagree. Is the soul or spirit separate from consciousness itself? I doubt it but I am not a scientist.

Hermann: I recently had a discussion with someone who claimed to believe in the detachment of the soul from its body after death and in reincarnation. She said that when her father died she looked at his body and stated 'he just wasn't there'. Now I don't understand why she would expect him to be there since afterall he was dead. So here is the question: Why does the soul, spirit, consciousness or whatever one would call it have to go anywhere? What is so frightful about nothingness, the end of experience that man from his humble beginnings has had to form a myth around an afterlife? If there is a 'spritual' life separate from the realm of experience, the material body, how does the spirit sense anything at all?

Q,
You and many other members of this forum are very fanatic materialists being unable to support unbiased discussions. In this respect I cannot see a difference between fanatic materialists and religious fanatics.

Prince James,
I think it is quite useless to share personal experience, because there is no general proof for. But my subjective proof corresponds quite well with NDE studies or other out-of-body experiences.
NDE studies have been made also with non-Western people. I read similar reports from Australian Aborigines happened far before Moody. I considered also all other arguments like oxygen deprivation etc. but these cannot explain all reported and witnessed events.
I will visit the Philosophy section next time again.

sniffy,
There is nothing wrong with it, if it satisfies you.

Theoryofrelativity,
There are certainly a lot of theories or speculation with some truth in it. It depends then on the individual overall picture what to believe and what not. We can built up our own worldview like a puzzle leading to a good and convincing picture at the end. Unfortunately many people (like all fanatics) have a prefixed picture and will automatically ignore or reject all puzzle pieces, which do not fit.
I have put this thread in “Members”, because it is very personal.

Lucysnow,
Thanks for the Einstein link, which made things clearer.
In my opinion there is no life outside consciousness! I believe our consciousness is connected with our soul and not with the brain. The brain seems to be just the momentary cage for it, which gives restrictions only. The brain is for me comparable with the on-board computer of a huge airplane, while the pilot corresponds to our soul. The brain and the on-board computer are only needed to steer the vehicles according to higher commands. In such view life after death appears as regained freedom.
Quite competent (and not fanatic) in this field seems to be William Buhlman. If you want, you may have a look at: www.out-of-body.com

Q,
You and many other members of this forum are very fanatic materialists being unable to support unbiased discussions. In this respect I cannot see a difference between fanatic materialists and religious fanatics.

Clearly, you're not able to handle criticism of your booklet or correction of your assertions. A poor author and worse debater. Too bad.

I believe our consciousness is connected with our soul and not with the brain. The brain seems to be just the momentary cage for it, which gives restrictions only. The brain is for me comparable with the on-board computer of a huge airplane, while the pilot corresponds to our soul. The brain and the on-board computer are only needed to steer the vehicles according to higher commands. In such view life after death appears as regained freedom.

Unfortunately, that analogy is worthless since the soul has yet to be shown to exist and you've failed to describe any mechanism that would connect it with consciousness, hence the plane has no pilot.

Hermann:

I look forward to seeing you there, then. We have some great debates and discussions.

Also, I shall check out the non-Western NDEs, too. That sounds like interesting research.

cross reference: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56900

I remember Crunchy Cat's mentioning an experiment in hospitals where pictures were placed on objects above head level, facing up, in the hope that someone experiencing an OBE / NDE might see them and correctly identify the picture as proof the OBE / NDE occurred. Apparently it hasn't happened yet.

Hi everybody:

Nearly a year ago a friend taugth me to be lucid in dreams and it has been a great experience, no matter if lucid or no, dreams are great, and have great messages. Some weeks ago in a dream i found my friend waiting me near of my home, then i told him all about my last love deception, when i ended he told me: "People that fear an run away from pain caused for interpersonal relationships NEVER achive the perfection. WE ARE IN THIS WORLD TO FORGE US IN THAT. Live, live without fear"

I left you with this message

See ya

Hi to materialistic and atheist in this forum, i left you with some reflexions made for a rock band named 'Muse' from their album 'Absolution'

Thoughts Of A Dying Atheist

Eerie whispers
trapped beneath my pillow
won't let me sleep
your memories

and I know you're in this room
I'm sure I heard you sigh
Floating in between
where our worlds collide

scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

and I know the moment's near
and there's nothing you can do
look through a faithless eye
are you afraid to die?

it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

It scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

Intelligent people are not ignorant regarding their future in life. They try to plan everything taking into account all possibilities. Why do intelligent materialists promote ignorance regarding the personal future after biological death? The strongly biased answer would be: There is no future! But what is, if this answer is wrong???

Lordofkammos: Not all atheists or materialists fear death. The idea that the end of life is the end of all experience isn't necessarily anything to worry about.

Hermann: Thanks for the response it has raised more questions. You speak of regained freedom after the soul has left the body or disconnected from the brain, what is your definition of 'soul'? What is it made of? What purpose is this new 'freedom' and what does the 'soul' do after death? Does it go to heaven? Is it forced into reincarnation? Or does it simply float around watching over old friends and family? Oh yes and what about animals not to mention flora and fauna do they also have this soul thing?

Intelligent people are not ignorant regarding their future in life. They try to plan everything taking into account all possibilities. Why do intelligent materialists promote ignorance regarding the personal future after biological death? The strongly biased answer would be: There is no future! But what is, if this answer is wrong???

One can employ 'what if's' to every possible scenario and never leave their cave.

The worst offence though, is to employ a 'what if' to something that has no basis in reality.

But what is, if this answer is wrong???
Then we'll find out after death. There seems precious little evidence to be seen before then ;)

Not all atheists or materialists fear death. The idea that the end of life is the end of all experience isn't necessarily anything to worry about.

You´re right, the song is only a reflection a point of view to think. The song have some different interpretations, since the pure scaried athetist until atheist scaried to feel ghost bewteen worlds colliding. Also there´s religious one´s who fear death:p .

I don´t know why we are here and i think nobody knows, none eskeptic or scientific or most religious man in this planet, none of them. Until last human will disssapear will be thousand of opinions about that, i only know that we are here, apparently without reason. I think that someday we must return to nothing, to the eternal darkness in the void, but i think that state really free 'us' from everything (if anything like 'us' or 'i' exist) leaving 'us' in a state of eternal peace, an eternal unconscience. I think that every one of us decide his own reason to exists, every one of us decide his own purpouse in life, we´re here to probe, believe, feel, see, hear, be happy, be worried, no matter if i believe in that or these, we spend our lifes discussing about religions and beliefs:confused: , while we could be living, seeing the sun, running or swimming with our friends:D.

Hermann: Thanks for the response it has raised more questions. You speak of regained freedom after the soul has left the body or disconnected from the brain, what is your definition of 'soul'? What is it made of? What purpose is this new 'freedom' and what does the 'soul' do after death? Does it go to heaven? Is it forced into reincarnation? Or does it simply float around watching over old friends and family? Oh yes and what about animals not to mention flora and fauna do they also have this soul thing?

I regard my soul as the essence of myself. It consists of not detectable matter or not detectable energy, which does not worry me – we also don’t know the true nature of gravitation or corresponding theories are at least not proved yet. I think, if a soul has reached consciousness, it will keep its individuality on the way of its endless development. This development goes through reincarnations and beyond. After death or between lives the restrictions given by the brain will disappear and you will have all possibilities of communication with other free souls. You remember everything of your past experiences and you may be able to do many things you want to do just driven by thoughts. But all that is difficult to imagine or do describe.
I think our biggest mistake is, that we strongly overestimate the capabilities of the brain, The brain is a tool only – never the origin of something. We know e.g. where musical performance is located in the brain allowing to perform the voice or operating an instrument, but the music itself has not its origin there. The creative origin of everything is within the soul, which is captured and restricted by the brain, but free again after death. For more details I have to refer to my small booklet, which I made freely accessible for online reading at: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Hermann+Raith%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=1

Lordofkammos I like your style. Very well said.

Hermann: "I think, if a soul has reached consciousness, it will keep its individuality on the way of its endless development. This development goes through reincarnations and beyond. After death or between lives the restrictions given by the brain will disappear and you will have all possibilities of communication with other free souls."

Individuality is linked to identity and personality, something that is formed through family, society and culture so how can one retain their individuality and go through reincarnation where it is assumed one is born a different living entity? Also how would these wandering souls communicate? Through what mechanism? And what would they have to say to each other being dead and all? And no I am not taking the piss I am being serious. If these free souls are having so much fun in the ether why bother being reincarnated? Would you agree that what we are discussing is religious belief (eastern in origin and new age by description) and not scientific knowledge? You play with an idea but it has no scientific relevance.

Oh yea and what do you think god the source of this process you describe?

I regard my soul as the essence of myself. It consists of not detectable matter or not detectable energy, which does not worry me – we also don’t know the true nature of gravitation or corresponding theories are at least not proved yet.

Complete nonsense, gravity is detectable, the soul is not, how can you compare the two? Your credentials are in question here.

But all that is difficult to imagine or do describe.

Yet, your overactive imagination is attempting to do so.

I think our biggest mistake is, that we strongly overestimate the capabilities of the brain, The brain is a tool only – never the origin of something. We know e.g. where musical performance is located in the brain allowing to perform the voice or operating an instrument, but the music itself has not its origin there. The creative origin of everything is within the soul, which is captured and restricted by the brain, but free again after death.

So, something that hasn't been detected or shown to exist is the source for creativity? And the brain gets a pass on that one? Quite imaginative.

Lucysnow,

I agree that we are discussing now religious belief and not scientific knowledge. There seem to be worlds between science (on materialistic basis) and religious beliefs. I am quite familiar with both sides and at least for myself I could combine them. Therefore I am still deeply convinced about all I have written. But it makes no sense to discuss this further, if there is no common base – science alone is not sufficient.

science alone is not sufficient.

Yes, it is.

Well Hermann thank you for your honesty. Since no-one can know for sure I guess we have to wait for the big moment. Personally I think its an exhausting proposition...the floating around after death business. Anyway do you believe in hell or is the afterlife all haha heehee?

Greetings Hermann

I agree our Real existence is within our soul. I have read your booklet and I see no real topic of disagreement.The various subject matters you have chosen are all logical analysis of the visable universe and its workings.
However it is the visable things , the constructed things that are as they are only due to the souls that do inhabit the pre-organized universe who collectively makes the analysis possible from the finites point of observation.To observe the workings of creation from the view of a time bound organized being , of man or beast will not through the natural senses reveal truth. Your point on the size of the human brain being not an evolutionary requirement is quite right. The brain like every other element is a created thing designed for a specific role in the drama of the soul once it is enhoused as the living soul of man or beast. The creative ability of the human being is no accident. The best I can do in words for this topic is to say ; The soul is Individual and there are No limits it would seem, on the numbers of souls. The Created material things big or small All exist within the same space as the souls. The souls , that is the condition that exists for the soul prior to birth in the flesh is a collection that is only governed by Individuality. No soul prior to birth can realize self-will in any meaningful way. They are all captive to reality. The Human drama is an illusionary reality. A reality constructed to Not reveal the condition of origin. It is Not very pleasant. The Faith in a God by the souls in time , that is those who are temporally enhoused is the souls attempt to realize as self-worth and at the same time hide the ugly truth.Thanks for your kind reply to my previous posting even though I know my post is not revealing and difficult of genuine understanding.

regards,

Segestan: "The soul is Individual and there are No limits it would seem, on the numbers of souls. The Created material things big or small All exist within the same space as the souls. The souls , that is the condition that exists for the soul prior to birth in the flesh is a collection that is only governed by Individuality. No soul prior to birth can realize self-will in any meaningful way. They are all captive to reality. The Human drama is an illusionary reality. A reality constructed to Not reveal the condition of origin. It is Not very pleasant. The Faith in a God by the souls in time..."

You really aren't helping his case at all with what reads like horse radish splattered over a mint-green canvas. At least Hermann attempts to bridge the gap between his beliefs and actual knowledge. What you have written is complete goobly-goop!