May 26 2013: This time I'm askin' for freedom
Freedom from a world which you deny
And you'll give it to me now
Or I'll take it anyhow
When the night comes fallin' from the sky
Another Dylan quote. From the song "When the night comes falling from the sky"
The allegory with the TV set is not pointing to the "sender or receiver" within the physical brain. .. but the signal itself. The spiritual element of the human being as existing free from the physical brain.
The idea that "thoughts themselves" are "signals" that travel upon what Sheldrake calls the "morphic field" is nothing new. Esoterics have been saying exactly this for a few hundred years. So Sheldrake is picking up on this same phenomena and has given it a new name, one that sound more scientific ... I don't know much at all about Sheldrake. Never heard of him before I came over this big discussion on TED about him. It would be interesting to hear more of what you weren't satisfied with from his research.
That the brain might be a sense organ for thought rather than a creator of thought is an interesting postulate.
Should it ever be confirmed (via NDE for example) that the human being does in fact have a spiritual body that survives the death of the physical body, ...then .. it isn't such a big step to postulate that thoughts themselves arise from another place than the physical brain. If it could it be proven true that the spirit can exist free from the physical body, then why can't thoughts also exist free from the physical body..?
Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.
Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?
There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.
So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?
TEDCred score: +25.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Do we need boundaries to be free?
Read along on the text.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3onnJuBS18
A comment on Conversation: Do we need boundaries to be free?
Every English teacher needs to know Bob Dylan.
He's the incarnation of the American modern English street poet.
Google around on some of his lyrics. You'll love em!
A comment on Conversation: Do we need boundaries to be free?
A comment on Conversation: Do we need boundaries to be free?
Freedom from a world which you deny
And you'll give it to me now
Or I'll take it anyhow
When the night comes fallin' from the sky
Another Dylan quote. From the song "When the night comes falling from the sky"
Great song. Youtube it!
"Hey Mr. Tambourine Man" was the previous quote.
Thanks for the thumbs up!
A comment on Conversation: Do we need boundaries to be free?
Bob Dylan said that
A comment on Conversation: Could the stars be conscious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
A reply on Conversation: If certain scientific laws remain consistent, is reincarnation / rebirth logical?
The allegory with the TV set is not pointing to the "sender or receiver" within the physical brain. .. but the signal itself. The spiritual element of the human being as existing free from the physical brain.
The idea that "thoughts themselves" are "signals" that travel upon what Sheldrake calls the "morphic field" is nothing new. Esoterics have been saying exactly this for a few hundred years. So Sheldrake is picking up on this same phenomena and has given it a new name, one that sound more scientific ... I don't know much at all about Sheldrake. Never heard of him before I came over this big discussion on TED about him. It would be interesting to hear more of what you weren't satisfied with from his research.
That the brain might be a sense organ for thought rather than a creator of thought is an interesting postulate.
Should it ever be confirmed (via NDE for example) that the human being does in fact have a spiritual body that survives the death of the physical body, ...then .. it isn't such a big step to postulate that thoughts themselves arise from another place than the physical brain. If it could it be proven true that the spirit can exist free from the physical body, then why can't thoughts also exist free from the physical body..?
A reply on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Exactly!
A reply on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Give me just 3 examples of objective morality?
A comment on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.
Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?
There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.
So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?