 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Harsh
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/13/2007 11:50 |   | | | | | | | | | Many believe that reincarnation is not scientifically acceptable phenomenon.
But i ask what is science?
Is this universe really following the "empirical rules" observed by humans?
or its just a "short lived(according to the standards of universe) behaviour following a set of rules for that time frame"
As an example the motion of water molecules in a terbulent flow is random. But for a short span of time(may be milli secs) some of these molecules may flow orderly(scientifically possible)...
There is a lot of difference in observing a system "from the inside" and "from the outside".
What we do is observe this universe as one of its element.
Being the element of the system under cosideration our scope for observation is restricted and hence access to information about the system.
so we can say that science is a set of rules laid down to explain the observed phenomena "as seen by humans".
Hence we cannot conclude that what we know is complete; we cannot conclude the dependancies of any observed phenmena because we just can't see everthing
One more important concept is that we are bound to time.
That is we cannot see beyond time or time itself because we ourselves are defined by time.
Now, to start of with
we can say that "everything is a function of everything"
refer "butterfly effect"
Each one of us have a unique identity/mind,
mathematically say a multidimesional vector M, its components signifying its ideas.
Society is a set of minds, social rules being the vector addition of individual minds. (S = {Mi})
Now each individual lives in space-time, tracing his "world line" throughout his lifetime. (x,y,z,t)
refer relativity...
Intersection of world line is an event.
eg. when you meet someone, both of your space-time co-orinates become equal.
Life being a non-linear dynamical system, each event is a function of al the previous events.
All of our world lines are related with each oher, as we all live a social life.
Even a insignificant event in my life can change yours significantly.
Again we are analysing the system being a part of it.
That is we cannot monitor all of the 6 billion people's lives just to figure out what is their effet on ours .
leaving the non-human factors apart.
So,
Our life can be cosidered as a computer game where we can only see whatever is the display on the screen, we cannot see what data crunching is going on inside the processor, which is the reason we see what we see on the screen.
Now the main topic "REINCARNATION".
what is soul??? is probably the first logical question to be answered before going into incarnation.
what i believe is soul is nothing but "a soft copy of our mind".
soft copy meaning all the events in his life(which is his memory)...
And the storage media for this soft copy is the soiety itself.
give it a thought yourself..
according to def. reincarnation is the rebirth of the soul in new physical form.
now it can be consdered that the soft copy of a particular person may converge at a particular point in society, that is to a new born baby.
this convergence can be traced starting from his parent s and the babies social aquaintances.
It is highly possible that the behaviour of the baby is like that of the particular person we considered.Which we observe as reincarnation.
I conclude from this discussion:
1) It is possible for us to predict future of any person exactly if we know all the information(which is ruled out).
2) Reincarnation is possible and can be traced from a person to a new person.
3) validity of some rules in religion where it is told not to commit sins/evil acts(which will have lots of problems for our children)
4)Science what we see is based on "human assumptions" which may or may not work in long term.
| | |
| | |
non believer
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/15/2007 14:00 | | | | | | | | | | "It is highly possible that the behaviour of the baby is like that of the particular person we considered."
The baby eats and wets itself. So did my 90 year old grandmother but I don't believe she has been reincarnated.
What behaviour of the baby are you referring to?
| | |
| | |
Justathought
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/16/2007 11:57 | | | | | | | | | | Gee, what a load of bunk.
You only make assumptions, at no point do you show how anything could be 'possible'. The fact YOU cannot rule it out, does not bring it into existence. Show mechanisms, then we'll look at them.
BTW do you think software exists as a 'separate entity', or is all software actually just switches in hardware, at any given point? Does software transmigrate without a medium? Ever?
Just to keep things a bit more down-to-earth. If you cannot properly answer these simple questions, I suggest you give up on reincarnation for a while, until you do.
| | |
| | |
Salil
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/17/2007 21:02 | | | | | | | | | | Harsh! What these guys say is correct. Your 'passage' seems to be a totally haphazard presentation. From my viewpoint the first 75% of your posts has thing which don't relate to reincarnation. If you think they do you should show how they relate. That's a really nice amount thought stream you have put out in this post. I am sure it didn't take you much time. I would take years to write that much. Whatever you have posted completely makes sense in an unlinked fashion. So we could say that you put forth 5 statements that make sense on their own but don't support each other. If you read good books and articles, you can analyze them for the flow of content and the organization. First of all you never take into consideration how to interest the user at every sentence and paragraph. Your goal should be to make the user get interested over a concept that is put forth as a module in the content. This is followed by adding a reason to put forth the module plus a text that will consider the points within the module and make it link to modules that follow. The concept in the introduction initially interests the reader. This is followed by the applications, depths, advantages and disadvantages of the concept that make the reader go further in depth. So your content shouldn't break abruptly without any reason..... :) glad to let out this chunk of decoded data from my brain... take it easy... ;-)
| | |
| | |
tkorrovi
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/18/2007 02:08 | | | | | | | | | | Well to make it interesting... You can make interesting a book or game, but in science only the theory itself matters... Who understands, will be at least somewhat interested, who don't understand, never do... But concerning that reincarnation, i can even agree with part of the things said, though obviously it's far from theory and doesn't prove anything, just what i wonder is what that all has to do with AI, or even Artificial Consciousness? If you could explain that, then it may happen that there may also be some use of what you said...
| | |
| | |
Harsh
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/24/2007 10:32 | | | | | | | | | | What behaviour of the baby are you referring to? --
non believer
Pardon me for using the word baby, i should have used "Person" to which the baby develops.And behavior doesn't mean wetting or eating, it can be way of learning things which is what defines a character.
You only make assumptions, at no point do you show how anything could be 'possible'.
---Justathought
Even einstein "ASSUMED" that the path followed by a mass under gravitation is a geodesic.
THEN he proved that mathematically and hence curvature of space. If a public forum is to prove things then i think there is no need of prestigious publications for scientists.
what i have given is just an idea or an overview of what it can be. I do not intend to prove anything here.
And about ur software problem.
There is no "intelligent communication" between two softwares and hence they just cannot develop themselves and cannot transmigrate(at least for now).
Your 'passage' seems to be a totally haphazard presentation. From my viewpoint the first 75% of your posts has thing which don't relate to reincarnation.
| | |
| | |
Harsh
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/24/2007 10:47 | | | | | | | | | | ---Salil
Salil, if u cannot look at the bigger picture then that is not my problem.
The passage may seem to be in haphazard manner but it is not.
It is a "Whole to part" approach towards the concept. Ruling out the ideology of scientific theory, our understanding of things, space time warp etc. from our discussion is just like trying to run a computer without a processor.
If you think that five statements written make sense on their own accord, and cannot be interlinked, then try the "Part to whole" approach of learning things.
Start from effect of ones behavior on the other.
And yes i am not at all interested in intriguing anybody into reading my articles.
just what i wonder is what that all has to do with AI, or even Artificial Consciousness?
---tkorrovi
It is important to trace the development of an AI system. If we are successful in building one we would like to know where it is heading. That is to predict what level/abilities will it achieve in a specified time frame.
| | |
| | |
Justathought
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/25/2007 00:10 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Harsh wrote @ 8/24/2007 10:32:00 AM:
There is no "intelligent communication" between two softwares and hence they just cannot develop themselves and cannot transmigrate(at least for now).
| |
Oh, if they can have 'intelligent' conversations, they gain the power to transmigrate. If they 'develop'. Rrrrright.
OK, it's all *very* clear now. :P
[out]
| | |
| | |
Justathought
[Guest] |
| | |
|
|
|
|
