[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: karma question (zero Who)



> In realist terms, metaphysics is, as you say, only another description of events, but it's not baseless and the events are not necessarily random.

Can you provide me with any citations from legitimate, respected scientific or psychological journals where any type of metaphysical phenomenon was found to occur via experimentation? Or does the scientific community like to keep those results under wraps, like the government refuses to tell us about UFOs?
You're mixing philosophies here. Experimentation can't prove feelings and perceptions, though it might provide a prediction as to when they might occur. How you feel about something is a spiritual and emotional matter. And, actually Science can get into serious trouble without having a look at meaning and consequences of action.


> and metaphysics's a reasonable system which only represents a somewhat different perception and a different interpretation.

It's a faith-based "system" with no hard evidence or proof to back it up. Santa Claus presents a "different perception" & a "different interpretation" for children about events relating to Christmas. Does that somehow make Santa Claus real or legit?
It's real to someone who believes in it, and how else do you embody the spirit of giving at Christmas time? I understand what you're saying here, but you're holding on to a very narrow viewpoint and missing the allegory and symbolism that's present in the different descriptions of personal reality. Plato was a very intelligent guy. He noticed that ALL our perceptions are a limited view of reality because our senses and our minds are limited--and this limited perception includes scientific theory. Theories change. It's not that Newton's physics was wrong; it was just a limited description, while Einstein had a clearer vision.


> For example, if someone says they are haunted by a ghost, then they are haunted, whether or not I can see the ghost.

No one's denying that people's mental faculties can become impaired or
that superstition isn't rampant in our society. But that doesn't make any of that nonsense *real.*
It's real if you're experiencing it and not necessarily superstition. Haven't you ever been haunted by something?


Just because you believe in karma doesn't mean
it's legit. Karma & ghosts may be a part of *your* mind but they don't
exist in *my* world & there's no evidence for either of them. So, what am I supposed to believe? That karma & ghosts *do* exist, or that many people are superstitious & believe in things that aren't real.
Your personal reality is inside your mind. If you live in a world of ghosts and spirits, then that's your reality. It's only a different description to call memory a ghost and probabilities karma. However, there's a different perception that goes with the philosophical shift, and a different world experience.


> Likely it's in their own mind, and there is some reason that it's there.

Again, this is a psychological matter.  It has nothing to do with the
physical sciences.  You're making a mistake by trying to link the two.
Physical science has yet to explain the processes of the human brain, or what makes them go right or wrong. It's possible to run experiments on psychological or sociological hypotheses and come up with a statistical answer that will predict thought and behavior, but there's no way to make the prediction work in every case. It's only probability. And experiment can't describe feelings at all.


> A psychologist might exorcise it, but then a priest might do a better job. It all depends on the nature of the ghost.

Oh my God. What year is this? 1640? Have I traveled back in time? The human race is doomed.
Well, maybe it is, but not because priests are considered good at dealing with spiritual problems. If you don't like Protestant or Catholic answers, you're always free to consult with a Shamen.


> Karma has to do with accumulated probabilities.

Here in 2003 we call that statistical mathematics. And karma isn't needed to explain any of it.
Statistics can provide you with a prediction, but not with meaning. It doesn't describe how you feel about yourself, or how others see you.


> If you live your life well, then you accumulate probabilities that you will have less heart disease, less cancer and fewer auto accidents.

Oh my Lord. Those are health decisions! Smoking, drinking, driving recklessly. What's that have to do with karma? Karma states that if I do something bad or immoral, like smacking my wife around, I'll pay for those actions later on down the line, perhaps in a way that has no connection with my original offense.
Also known as, "what goes around comes around." This is just another description of how lifestyle probabilities will catch up with you. (Bad karma.)


*That's* what I'm arguing against! Not that smoking or drinking isn't bad for people! Let's not dilute or sidetrack the discussion, OK?
I think you have a limited understanding of karma. It's very powerful stuff. ;)


> However, if you sin, you've got bad actuarial probabilities and you may end up reincarnated as a roach.

Why would that be bad? From what I understand roaches are pretty resilient. Unless you mean roach as in the remnant of a marijuana joint. But again....
No, I'm talking about the bug. Wifebeaters are nasty creatures, aren't they?

:)
keets

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963