KayWrites's Comments (440)

“LOL. Tell you what, let's call it a draw. Okay, how about this.

Seems to me your argument against the existence of life after death goes something like this:

“I have never been to China. No one I know and trust here in the 15th century has been to China. The reports I have heard of China seem fantastical to me based on my understanding of what I have been taught about the physical world. Therefore China does not exist.”

Yet China is surely there. Not so sure about life after death. But proof or disproof requires us to look beyond our current understanding of the world, outside all our perceptions of the mechanics of the physical universe, since it isn’t the physical universe we are talking about.

Even if this were strictly a physical phenomenon, are we sure we understand everything about how the universe really works? Any good physicist will tell you no. So I am loathe to make such a blanket statement when so much is left to discover about the nature of everything.”

“If there were NOTHING to hear it, there would be no tree, since a tree, all its neighbors and even the ground it hits count as things. And we now know that plants hear classical and rock music (maybe only vibrationally, but still). So even if no humans or animals of any kind were present, SOMETHING would still hear it. Even if only the tree itself.”

“Exactly the questions I asked, but you stated it much better.”

“If you find anything in your search let me know. I'd be interested in that data too.”

“PART VI

6) "If one believes the blind woman's experience was true, and I don't..."

Ah, the crux of his argument. It all comes down to belief.”

“PART V

4) "The mind is utterly dependent on the body for the acquisition of information about the environment.

This assumption is held to be true only in western cultures tied to the notion of life as merely a physical experience. The Australian Aborigines would not even understand the sentence above.

5) "Perhaps we humans would be less willing to throw our lives away for crazy religious, political and military causes if we didn't believe in everlasting life."

Or perhaps we humans would believe there are no consequences to any of our actions, that we are completely disconnected from one another, so why not live for the moment with no concern for the welfare of others or for our own future. Fear of afterlife retribution has been a great motivator for a very long time. Not that I agree with it.”

“PART IV

(continued)
3) "...a significant amount of energy is still required to maintain the information it contains after it floats away from the body...What form of energy would drive a disembodied mind...?"

One thing science does tell us is this: nothing is ever lost. Energy is everywhere and it never disappears. Sometimes it is locked within a piece of wood which, when burned, releases great heat energy. The splitting of only a few atoms can destroy cities. How much more, then, is the energy of our minds imprisoned? How much more will it expand when released?”

“PART III

3) "...a significant amount of energy is still required to maintain the information it contains after it floats away from the body...What form of energy would drive a disembodied mind...?"

What if Dr. Mendelson is beginning with the wrong assumption? What if he has everything backwards? What if, instead of the body powering and operating the mind, it is energy (spirit, soul, Atman, whatever you call it) that operates the mind and body using the resources at hand?

What if, when we die, that energy that was once used to maintain the mind and body is released?
And how does he know death does not precipitate a re-union of the bodily energy with the vast energy reserve of the whole universe? That would be a great source of energy.

And how much energy would be needed to maintain these thoughts and memories? The author says "significant" but gives no quantitative estimates. So how does he know?

And how does he know that time and space are still operative or of any value once the body is gone? What if, once we are disembodied, everything happens all at once in a continuous now, making memory unnecessary?”

“PART II

2) "The problem is how a disembodied mind would perceive these things."

Yes, it certainly is.

"...since color has no reality without the body's systems...the mind that supposedly floated above the operating table would have had no mechanism by which to see and recognize specific colors."

An impossible-to-prove assumption. Having never been disembodied, is this author or anyone else who has never had this experience, in any way qualified to make such a judgment about whether and how a disembodied person (soul, spirit, whatever) "sees?"

What if the disembodied mind "sees" in an entirely different way? What if, freed from the confines of a limited and limiting human body, that disembodied energy not only sees the limited visual spectrum of the ordinary human eye, but everything from infrared to unltraviolet light? Perhaps it even sees in the dark.

There is no way to really know.”

“PART I
Let me say at the outset that I neither agree nor disagree with Dr. Mendelson's conclusions. I am completely uncertain about the existence of life after death.

I am also, however, compelled to point out some serious flaws in his arguments.

1) "However, color, sound, taste, smell, and touch certainly have no existence outside of an organism's interaction with stimuli in the world."
The other argument is that these qualities certainly do exist apart from the body's ability to perceive it. If two people, one of them deaf, are standing in the forest when the tree falls, the hearing person will insist that the sound exists, while the deaf person will say it does not. Therefore, it is not the sound, but our ability to perceive it which either exists or does not exist. In which case, the answer to the question of the tree falling is, of course, YES!”

“Ann, it is interesting that you should begin your story about the connection between being rich and being happy in general, then go directly to Tiger Woods as your sole example.

It is also interesting that you would use the observations of the not-rich yacht captains and crew as the definitive judgment on how happy the rich are. It might have been a good idea to research studies done on the subject. You may be surprised to learn that most rich people say they are are very happy. Conversely, poor people almost always describe themselves as unhappy.

It may be that the rich are more driven and superficial, and that money really really does make them much happier than the important people in their lives ever could. Or it may be that their money allows them to buy the best spouses. Whatever the reason, your conclusions may be flawed.

As for Tiger Woods, well, who knows what demons haunt him? Or what pleasures bring him happiness? Lasting meaningful relationships may not be one of them.

It is a mistake to measure the happiness of others by that which we find meaningful and important. For the rich business tycoon, it may be the next big take-down of a competitor. For Tiger, it may be a new golf trophy.....or a new mistress.”

“These things are the fear responses from those too afraid to walk into the unknown, those too afraid to embrace new ideas. Fear is the root cause evil in the world.”

“Bored people don't switch religions. Empty people do. We are looking for something, sometimes we don't even know what.”

“If you make the lie big enough and tell it long enough.......”

“She says it is business. He says it is business. Until there is proof otherwise, no story here. Move along.”

“Good thought. Except Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the country. By that reasoning it should be at the bottom.”

“That was my first thought!”

“Predicting big fail.

Why would you compare prices on something that is pretty ordinary and evenly priced around the country? And why would you share what you paid for a big ticket item? Too many snoops and crooks around looking at what we spend to make that safe.

This is just a con to get people to give away their buying habits for marketers. I'll pass.”

“Does everyone on this site suffer from literalism? It's an allegory.”

“Maybe. But the first two people to get stoned to death in the Bible were adulterers. Jesus saved a woman adulterer from stoning. And two of the ten commandments tell Moses' followers not to commit adultery or covet their neighbor's wife. Not "neighbor's wives." The Bible may be mum on polygamy, but it has a lot to say about fooling around on your spouse.

I'm not saying I believe any of this. I am just pointing out that the custom of monogamy goes WAY back. It is NOT a recent invention.”

“Liberman's political agenda is about blocking cancer care for millions of women. So the answer is yes, this is about curing cancer AND a political agenda. Or don't you get it?”

“That was GREAT!”

“If you believe that I sure do hope you are, and remain, single. Otherwise your partner is going to get badly hurt.”

“Good for Jenny. Finally, a political wife with a spine and self-respect.”

“And you know that......how?”