In article <363f910d.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote:
>>Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ioga$ks6 at ux.cs.niu.edu>...
>>>No, I am not a Marxist, and I do not consider DNA a dirty word. I
>>happen to like science to be accurate, and not just a set of "Just
>>So" stories.
>>Wouldn't we all.
>>It is for this reason that I argue that people should use the word "soul"
>instead of "mind" when referring to that which is aware.
Not a bad idea.
> Let the brain think
>and let neuroscientists examine the brain.
> Let the soul (mind, self,
>intellect) be aware
But then you fail in the next sentence, bulking it all together.
Furthermore, awareness does not come from the mind,
it comes from the beyond the mind.
> of the constellations of active neurons in the working
>brain. Let the soul be aware of them as "thoughts".
Well, you see, if the person in your profession
asserts that there is something different than the mind,
that there IS something that can be AWARE of the very thoughts,
then our so called science better look at it deeper.
Who knows, may be there is something, we are so carefuly avoiding.
>I say this so that we shall have accurate science on the one hand and devout
>religion on the other.
Ray. This is the very wedge, you drove into your own being.
And noone but you will have to face the consequences of it.
You see, there is no need to separate the science and religion.
They both have common property.
They are both the tools of enquiry into the greater something,
forever illusive.
One enquires into without.
The other enquires into within.
If you take all the ugly and stupid belief of religion,
as we know it to date,
there is no inherent conflict.
For some reason, the greatest scientists hold beliefs
of something of the greater.
They may call it god,
they may call it mystery of life,
they may call it anything they want.
That does not matter.
What matters is the recognition,
that no matter how far we have gone,
there still remains something,
we can not even begin to comprehend,
something intangible.
And that is why we do all we do,
forever craving for that.
The religion makes is a professional occupation,
the science is driven by it at the very core.
>It is my conjecture that toward the end of the next century, when the
>activities of the brain are fully worked out, it shall be clear that the
>brain has no need of soul.
Well, meanwhile, you better take care of your own
BEFORE the last day of YOUR life.
What WILL happen to other people in the next 100 years
does not change your own equasion.
As it appears that you still have some issues to resolve.
> People will then know soul and turn to religion
>for solace.
>So. let us have science now and religion then.
No way, hosey.
You better start equiring within the deepest core
of your own being as fast, as impossible,
as there may be no next 100 years.
With the way things developed to date,
and in the state we are now,
we have no such luxury of remaining blind,
not only for the next century,
but for THIS generation.
There can be no science if you deny the truth.
And truth is the domain of religiouness.
>Ray
