Kevin's Watch

They say that the most open mind is an empty one, and in my opinion every human being needs to be convicted in SOMETHING to be human.

Among my convictions...

-I have an immortal part, and this part is tied to my consciousness.

-The words of Christ give the outline to living a perfect existance.

-There can never be too much love in your heart.

I have never been convicted of anything.

Seriously though, (well, mostly serious) I'm convinced that the world could be a better place. I'm convinced that only we have the power to improve things, I'm convinced that old opinions are dangerous, I'm convinced that we have an obligation to constantly question anything established wisdom tells us, I'm convinced that humans are god, or that god is human (one or the other), I'm convinced that the world would be a better place with fewer people, I'm convinced that Chaos is the dominant force in the universe, I'm convinced that life is what we make it, and finally, I'm convinced that everything is a matter of perspective, and that the more perspectives that we can contain, the better for us.

--Avatar

Well, Avatar beat me to the joke as I was typing it. (rassin frassin *grumble*) So then I'll just answer the question.


LOVE!!!!!!! There is absolutely no limit to how many people we can love. As I said elsewhere, babies are love-engines. But maybe love perpetual machines is more accurate: If they're fed love, they produce love - both returning it, and causing others to love them. And even if it's not always easy to love someone, it's never wrong.

What he said!

Death is a door, and there are many more.

...life dances and rejoyces in the promise of new found destiny.

never to harm or kill another living being, even in one's thoughts.

...if you're not learning you're not living.

All is one.

What are my convictions?

-Murder One.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

But, I also believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

Oh boy, this is an interesting one for me.

My convictions:

~There is truth and beauty in all religions (even if you have to look really hard for it).

~A "good" life is a matter of perspective. You chose to laugh, play and enjoy life. No matter how difficult life can be, you choose to look at it from a dim view or a positive view. As a single mom I could let myself get dragged down and sometimes I do, but never for long. I work, I raise 3 kids alone for the past 4 years. I am almost always broke, but less so now. I never get time away from the kids except for work. I am exausted and have no medical insurance and need $6000 in dental work (broken teeth), but I will have insurance starting in March. People ask me how I do it. I just do! What else can I do? I could get all down and subject myself and the kids to poverty, but I refuse! There are 3 kids to play with, to love, to make them laugh and have them make me laugh. There are video games to play and pets to play with. Life is good, life is grand.

~ Matter can not be created nor destroyed. Therefore, there is an afterlife and a beforelife. Our sould exist now, have existed and always will. We can even chose to be reborn again. This applies to animals as well.

~ God exists, but is neither male no female. I perfer Creator. I beleive our souls are made in God's image, not our bodies.

~ We are divided into male and female so when we bond we experience God's essence and through giving birth we experience the power of Creation.

SoulQuest1970 wrote: ~ Matter can not be created nor destroyed. Therefore, there is an afterlife and a beforelife. Our sould exist now, have existed and always will. We can even chose to be reborn again. This applies to animals as well.

Are you rejecting Einstein, who saideth, "E = mc^2"? Matter *can* be created and destroyed! Nuclear bombs convert matter into (lots of) energy, for example.

Personally, I admire/envy people without convictions, like my wife, who was raised without religion and feels no need for absolute convictions. I was raised with religion and the biggest conviction I feel is that I would have been better off without it.

I have no absolute convictions. In fact, I'm suspicious of absolutes as a general rule.

I think that what SoulQuest meant to say, was that Energy cannot be destroyed, and so continues in some form forever.

--Avatar

Exactly! Einstien's equation only proves my point. Matter is transformed into energy in the case of a nuclear explosion. Also water, for example, goes from water to air to ice. It is still H2O regardless of the form.

Well, I think using physical laws to discuss the existence of a non-physical soul is absurd, but while we're on the subject ...

Energy is conserved, sure. But that doesn't mean that information is. Those annoying laws of thermodynamics say that the universe's entropy (disorder) is continuously increasing. Assuming souls have some sort of information content, there's going to come a point someday when souls have to lose information content and eventually become non-souls.

And thus, the second law of thermodynamics disproves the existence of the immortal soul.

In that case I'll make it a point to defy that law!

"The memory of all things is in all things." - Danlo wi Soli Ringess

nuk wrote:And thus, the second law of thermodynamics disproves the existence of the immortal soul.

Well, I'm dubious about the "immortal soul", but simply for the sake of argument, I think that your reasoning only holds valid for a given definition of "soul."

For it to be meaningful, we have to assume that the "personality/consiousness" of a person is a fundamental part of the soul. That a soul must carry the information that makes you...well...you.

If the soul is simply, life-force, (in other words, merely a form of energy) then we could argue that it still exists, and not even necessarily in an altered state.

--Avatar

nuk wrote: Energy is conserved, sure. But that doesn't mean that information is. Those annoying laws of thermodynamics say that the universe's entropy (disorder) is continuously increasing. Assuming souls have some sort of information content, there's going to come a point someday when souls have to lose information content and eventually become non-souls.

And thus, the second law of thermodynamics disproves the existence of the immortal soul.

Provocative line of thought, nuk. Imagine, applying the laws of thermodynamics and entropy to the soul! Very intriguing! You may want to be careful, though: the folks here may resent scientific thought barging in on religious and spiritual matters. Just a friendly heads-up, nuk. I'd hate to see you crucified for your heretical statements.

Well, in fairness, he didn't start it, and in fact, said at the outset that he thought applying such reasoning to something non-physical was "absurd."

Of course, here on The Watch, absurdity is commonplace, and rarely frowned upon.

--A

Quite true. I stand corrected concerning nuk. Still, I thought it was worth it to make my statement. Like the separation of church and state, I believe in the separation of science and religion. (Now there's a conviction worth having.)

And to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm on the side of science. So in fact I'm rather taken with this idea of the information content of the soul deteriorating over time, as it makes logical sense to me, when viewed from the perspective of the law of entropy. I just recommend that we science nuts discuss that sort of thing in a venue such as the Loresraat (that has fewer theological minefields than the Close). Heh.

I think this is a better place to discuss it personally. The fun of the Close is navigating that theological minefield, without blowing anything important off.

Actually, I'm quite interested as well. I suppose it comes down to how you percieve the "soul" really. Is "soul" and personality the same thing? Is the "soul" the thing that makes you what you are? And does it have some independant physical existence? In other words does, or can, the soul have an "information" content?

I suppose in practical terms, although I've said the "soul" is something we develop, I still consider it a part of the brain, and integral part of the meat of our bodies, and thus something with a finite physical existence. I can go for the idea of our "energy" always existing, but to assume that the information content thereof allows us a "post-physical" independant existence is difficult for me.

I would like it to be true, but that doesn't mean that it is.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:I think this is a better place to discuss it personally. The fun of the Close is navigating that theological minefield, without blowing anything important off.

Fun? Theology? Ah, you're a kamikaze conversationalist boldly diving into explosive topics with reckless disregard for your own safety. And just how many war metaphors can we get away with here?

Avatar wrote:I suppose it comes down to how you perceive the "soul" really. Is "soul" and personality the same thing? Is the "soul" the thing that makes you what you are? And does it have some independant physical existence? In other words does, or can, the soul have an "information" content?

Well, my belief or conviction is that soul and personality are the same thing, for all intents and purposes. Not that I'm especially morbid, but I often think of something like Alzheimer's disease in connection with the soul. Assuming there is such a thing as a soul, I see Alzheimer's in a sense as a "soul killer": what makes it so terrifying is that it destroys the very thing that makes you uniquely you--your personality. Without that, you are rendered a "soulless" automaton just going through the motions of life.

Avatar wrote:I suppose in practical terms, although I've said the "soul" is something we develop, I still consider it a part of the brain, and integral part of the meat of our bodies, and thus something with a finite physical existence.

That's my view as well. The "soul"--if there is such a thing-- is a function of the brain, as far as my convictions about this sort of thing are concerned. If the soul does have an independent physical existence, I guess that should be wonderful news. But if I have an "afterlife" soul, will it be the same in every way as my "soul" as it is right now, the one that's "occupying" my brain? Or does the event of death change the soul in some fundamental way? No convictions there, just pure, goofy speculation.

Okay, I've done enough of my own kamikaze flying for now. If you hear a loud crash and see smoke and flames, that's just me.

Don't worry MM, I've got the rescue crews on standby.

At the risk of embarrassing your delicate sensibilities, I do wish you'd post more here and in the Think-Tank. Not only are your posts well-written and reasoned, they're almost always good for a chuckle as well.

You raise an interesting point though, and one which I've not had much consensus on. If there is an afterlife, will we experience it as the individuals that we are?

Some folks say, "no, we'll simply be subsumed in the mind of god and not experience anything as the individuals that we are." (To me, this means the same as if there were no afterlife. If I can't experience it independantly as myself, then I'm not there, which means it isn't there itself.)

And if "personality" is simply a function of the neural pathways in the brain, (a collaboration between the stimuli and stored information), which I suspect, then similarly, it should have no existence independantly of the life of the body.

As I've said before, I really like the thought of some sort of afterlife, but I find it implausible at best. Here and now are all we have. And if more people thought that way, perhaps we'd do a better job of making the here and now somewhere that we'd like to be.

If death fundamentally changes the "soul", then it's not as though we experience anything at all. We are not there to experience it.

--Avatar