Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Anonymous,
If you're bored how about finding some interesting topics to post? We are always looking for new posts that are scientific in nature and of interest to others. It would be a better use of your time than making pointless or off topic comments to other people's threads.

Amaranth
Moderator


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Amaranth Rose II:
TT,
This is a science forum. Your remarks are needlessly crude. Please refrain from such remarks in future, or I will edit your remarks.

So your saying... the question posed in the, lets pretend your an unborn foetus thread, is scientific. frown
Hmmm... Well I can see why you would want to edit the comment.

I guess I wasn't pretending properly. Damn...I hate when that happens!


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
So your saying... the question posed in the, lets pretend your an unborn foetus thread, is scientific. frown

Hi, Tutor Turtle.

At the risk of talking to myself if your post gets deleted, you're probably aware that there are, in science, such things as 'thought experiments'. They begin with 'Let's pretend...". Einstein, Wheeler, and many others created thought experiments that are often quoted for their penetrating insight. Whilst it's not even remotely likely that we, at our humble level, are about to produce Earth-shattering revelations on the nature of reality, threads like this provide the opportunity for discussion of issues that are rapidly becoming the focus of scientific investigation, particularly in such fields as neuroscience. Sciences concerned with the functions of the brain, the nature of consciousness, 'emergent' qualities and the related phenomena, are as important as any other.

You will note that this thread is placed in the Not-Quite-Science Forum out of deference to those who adhere strictly to reductionism. By all means participate if you feel you have a constructive contribution to offer. If not, there are other threads that might be more to your liking. smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Thanks for your comment Rede. If my memory serves me well, Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

BTW, about my thought experiment: We could consider it in connection with PSYCHOLOGY and PNEUMATOLOGY.

With your help--Thanks!--and that of others, I came to the realization that my thought experiment was not properly set up and worded. Therefore, in brainmeta.com--where there is no limit to editing, or to the length of the question--I have set it up in the form similar, but not exactly, to the following question:

If You Were Given the Choice About the Nature, Duration and Number of Lives You would be Able to Live, What Would You Choose? Any Number? Or Just This One? How Long Would You Like to Live in This Life? Let us give our answer plus our reasons for the choice.

THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL THREAD. The idea is to explore how we think about the duration of life. Some people have no problem believing in the teachings of the major religions. Others think of the idea as nonsense, a money-making racket set up by doctrinaire religions. What about you? What do you think?

Some--For example, reincarnationists--believe that we have lived before and that we will live again. Others find it virtually impossible to even imagine the idea. Others never give it a second thought. As a wag once said: "Some people do not even believe in life after supper." laugh

Here is a pneumatological question: When it comes to the things we believe, or do not believe, what makes us so different from one another?

BTW, I have no problem accepting a wide variety of beliefs as long as they are rational, moral, ethical, legal and serve the public Good--what I like to think of as "creative variety." The current moderator of the United Church, the Rt. Rev. David Giuliano, wants the UC to be one that is "radically inclusive" of a wide variety of beliefs.

How we should we handle beliefs that are divisive and often contrary to reason is another question.
=================================================================

Now, Let us use our imagination as we consider the following.

You--I, we--are told by some inner voice, spirit guide, whatever:

HERE IS T HE SET UP
===================
You are at the end of your life. You have lived before and you have become convinced that there is some kind of life after this one. However, you strongly feel that it is the kind you were taught by any religions--the ones with a judgment day followed by getting assigned to a heaven or a hell.

If you were given the opportunity to have another go at living, would you? And what kind of life would you want it to be?

By the way, you are prepared to accept that the new life will have the same kind of crises--dangers and opportunities--you have had in this life. However, you also feel that there will be the opportunity to build on your past experiences and to improve things for all future lives, for you and others, to come.

Accepting this, what would we choose? Would you be willing to take the risk? Or would you prefer to not to bother.

Me? I would be willing to take the risk.

BTW, what are your thoughts about REINCARNATION. WHAT DO YOU KNOW AND FEEL ABOUT IT? Do you think it is a lot of nonsense? Why?

Some, who believe in reincarnation--about which I keep and open mind--say: One way or another, life in inevitable. But help is available, but only if you agree to accept it. It is your choice to make things worse, or better.

Or do you feel we only live once? period.


Last edited by Revlgking; 06/20/08 04:19 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Rev: "BTW, what are your thought about REINCARNATION......WHAT DO YOU KNOW AND FEEL ABOUT IT?..."

Reincarnation may be a reality, regardless of what I believe, but I think it's improbable because there's a lack of evidence and, as far as I'm aware, there's no known physical process by which it has been shown to be possible. However, that doesn't make it impossible.

Rev: "what would we choose? Would you be willing to take the risk? Or would you prefer to not to bother."

If I were guaranteed to get at least as good an innings as I've had this time around, I would certainly sign up for another round.

Rev: "Or do you feel we only live once? period."

Just to throw a light on where I'm coming from:

My interpretation of things is probably the result of my unconscious, intuitive assessment of the probabilities relating to those things, overlaid by conscious thoughts, and influenced by my various perceived and unperceived wants and needs, together with emotions.

According to that interpretation, I conclude that:

(1) There is, most probably, a self-consistent objective reality existing independently of interpretation and belief
(2) Believing something to be true does not make it true.
(3) Believing something to be untrue does not make it untrue.
(4) While something has not been shown to be true, it may still not be false.
(5) When something has been shown to be true, it remains so only while it cannot be shown to be untrue.

This is the bottom line of my interpretation of things:

There's a greater reality of unimaginably profound and beautiful spirituality of which, if we are very fortunate, we catch the slightest glimpse now and then. It's this from whence we come, and it's to this that we return. smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Hi, Tutor Turtle.

At the risk of talking to myself if your post gets deleted, you're probably aware that there are, in science, such things as 'thought experiments'.

I'm fully aware of hypothesis, but the question regarding incarnation in this case isn't thought out. If one has actually studied the philosophy of reincarnation, or cause and effect, the question would hypothetically follow those universal laws.
First one would have to decide for themselves whether incarnation was a conscious or random act. Then reincarnation would imply that consciousness in the case of individuality applies to a living entity that outlasts the construct of human appearances or human flesh.
If that consciousness came from an oblivion of some sort, re-incarnation would be a moot point. Oblivion translates to a void of endless nothing, The word oblivion means the state of complete unawareness, unconsciousness, or forgetfulness; or the state of being completely forgotten. Therefor to idealize an unconscious consciousness that is the essence of human life reduces any Theory of God to chaos and as such would be devoid of any angelic armies or hierarchy by simple reasoning.
(I'm being logical and facetious at the same time) wink

If we are to be scientific and truly objective then no answer is a wrong answer including the one I gave, for it doesn't attack the original post as Amaranth Rose suggests. Scientifically or psychologically she chose to personally identify with the remark and took offense. She doesn't know me and so she projected herself rather than having actually placed me in the scenario.
What I respect and what she respects are two different things, obviously.
I did answer within the boundaries of the question. It said I came from oblivion and was given temporary consciousness (tho it didn't specify it was God consciousness, or that equal to the angel). And since science often looks at consciousness as simply the firing of neurons within the fleshy substance encased in the skull of human form, and hasn't universally accepted a consciousness that survives the human condition, I chose an answer that I felt fit within the boundaries of loose and superstitious thinking.
People take offense due to their attachment to the way they see things. I think a moderator would be a bit more objective and less invested in personal feelings or limited boundaries of personal thought. Like fully placing ones self in anothers' shoes before deciding from the outside what is in those shoes.

Just my thoughts tho. I like to think I can intuitively read people like she does, but maybe with less investment in how people are victims in their world and more like they are conscious creators, and I try not to make any assumptions about someone without having more than one experience of them.

I noticed also that the Rev has updated the question, as demonstrated by his Brain-meta reference making it clear that he himself agrees the question wasn't well thought out.

Someone told me in another thread that their sarcasm had intention, specifically he said.."I like to think that I make people think."

I like to think that my response would take someone to the witnessing aspect of psychological awareness, in noticing the emotional attachments, and then to realize they are not their emotions. A Child eventually gets over themselves as they grow up and start thinking more about their relationship with the world rather than their sandbox, what's in it, and whether anyone can come in to play and disturb personal boundaries. Some Children never grow up tho and objectivity becomes to them something they understand but never live. For them sticks and stones break their bones and words annihilate their low self esteem.

If we are going to discuss reincarnation how about we establish a reality such as God, or a consciousness that exists prior to human form, and then pretend how the consciousness establishes itself into form by discussing scientific probabilities.

I can fully understand pretending a God exists if one doesn't have an experience of God and then pretending this God is intelligent or overbearing and demands humans perform tricks like some kind of animal but we haven't established that in this game of pretend.

The Reverend at least gets to a more serious question of belief in reincarnation tho he doesn't say he believes in it.
He just says he's open to it.
So in light of his own approach I would say he shouldn't be invested in any kind of response since he doesn't really believe in his own topic, and I was not attacking his topic.

Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 06/20/08 05:40 PM.

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
TT, the text you quoted above (in #26767) was posted by me, not by Rev. King.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
You're right!! So I deleted it.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Thoughtful response, Rede. Note that I have re-edited the above set up. And at top of my post I have related it to psychology and pneumatology, which, IMO are "sciences", especially pneumatology (the mother of psychology), which deserve far more attention than they are getting.

It goes without saying that I have a great deal of respect for who we are, somatologically--that is, physically--the rightful realm of the hard sciences. But, with you, I have a strong intuitive feeling that "there is a greater reality" than that sensed by the senses and confined to the somatic dimensions.

I repeat: What I am calling for is a holistic approach to understanding what nature is and who we are within it. Perhaps life a matter of nature, nurture and pneumature. This holistic approach is calls for a delicate balance of somatic, psychosomatic and pneumasomatic factors--physical, mental and spiritual. Health is what we call it when all three are in balance and harmony.

This poses questions about the nature and cause of diseases. Somatic diseases are obvious. There was a time when medical science believed that all diseases are somatic. They bring on pains and suffering to the body and mind, as a whole, and in its parts. They operate somato psychically.

PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASE
But what of diseases which appear to originate in the psyche, the mind, that give aches and pain to the body?

Since the 1930's we have become familiar with the term, "psychosomatic". Medical science finally came to accept that certain, not all, physical aches and pain can originate in the way we precess things, mentally. Stress, that is, stress in excess, in the mind can give us the feeling of physical stress and pain in the body.

See THE STRESS OF LIFE, by the great Canadian researcher, Dr. Hans Selye. (do a google). Experimenting with animals, Dr. Selye demonstrated what excessive stress--some stress is normal--can to the glands and bodies of animals. It can bring about a painful and early death.

However, Selye took note that none of the animals used in the experiment every gave themselves stress. All stress was imposed on them by humans. It seemed that only humans gave themselves stress.

PNEUMA-PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASE
Enter the pneuma factor. (Be back. Got to go, for now. More on this, later.)




Last edited by Revlgking; 06/20/08 08:47 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
For me the one of the problems of re-incarnation is, aside from its more horrible implications of belief in karma, is that it only allows for reincarnation of humans. I think that the human is an animal as other animals. We are weak compared to others, smaller and less able to defend ourselves and so we have developed our intelligence to allow us to survive. Since we differ in only minor ways from other animals should not they be able to reincarnate? Or do believers of this idea think that the ability to live again lies in the 2% of our genetic heritage that we do not share with the apes?

A second problem is that, like a voice from the afterlife, there is absolutely no credible evidence that either has ever happened, ever, anywhere!

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Quote:

A second problem is that, like a voice from the afterlife, there is absolutely no credible evidence that either has ever happened, ever, anywhere!

Before a teenager drives a car they can only imagine what it is like. After driving it there is no way he will imagine it the same way.
When one has an experience of a past life they do not imagine their life the same anymore.
Trying to convince someone else of their experience is a moot point. There is no practical interest in a skeptic to know of something they do not accept on a deep conscious level.

If you offer a fat, food addicted person a chance to fast at a nice quiet retreat, or a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, the chances are the retreat will come in second.
People who are committing themselves to their beliefs or their lines in the sand because of their experience are going to be a hard sell when it comes to experiencing something new.
If it isn't mainstream it is going to be less credible.

For those who have clear visions of past lives there can be plenty of arguments for their experiences to be imaginary, mostly because of disbelief. But does it really matter unless one decides to give up their beliefs or their experiences just because other don't agree?

The following is an excerpt from a website that details discussions and teachings of JJ Dewey

The Milgram Experiment

Monday, December 14, 1998 4:57 AM

A while back Dateline had a special on the power of Authority.

They started the show by showing an old clip from Candid Camera. In this clip the victim of the show entered an elevator with about six other people in it. The funny thing was that the other six (who worked with Candid Camera) were told to face different directions at different times.

Normally when you are in an elevator you face the door, but this group all faced the inside panel with their backs toward the door. Even though this was very odd, the victim did not want to be different so he turned with his back toward the door. Then they showed several clips of the people in the elevator and every time the group turned, the victim turned with them.

It seemed kind of funny and I'm sure the Candid Camera audience got a good laugh out of it, but the reality behind this is the scariest human trait we possess. That is, most of mankind will follow the leader or group even if it makes no sense or if it goes against every moral teaching they have ever been taught.

The second part of the feature had an experiment done with college students. Again they had an unsuspecting victim participating with a group of about a half dozen that knew what was going on. The group was shown a set of four lines and of the four there were two of equal length. They were then asked to pick the two lines that were equal. They showed the lines on TV and it was obvious which two were the correct match.

The next thing they did was to have the planted students all give the same wrong match. Then when it became the victim's turn you could tell he began to doubt what his eyes and reasoning were telling him. Some of the victims gave the right answer for a round or two but one by one each victim gave in and started giving the wrong answer as the right answer, even though he knew within himself that it was wrong.

The interesting thing about watching their faces on TV was that they all looked a little depressed when they started knowingly giving the wrong answers as right answers. It was almost like the poor kids were selling their souls.

Finally they showed the most alarming experiment of all authority which was conducted by Stanley Milgram way back in the sixties.

Milgram was curious about how a group of apparently normal people like the Germans could have participated in the Nazi atrocities which was against every moral teaching that they ever believed in. Their excuse was always the same: "I was just following orders."

Below is a description of the experiment:

When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue. Sixty-five percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

What was interesting about watching this on Dateline was that when the subject hit the high voltage the pretended victim screamed like crazy and even said he had a bad heart and that the experiment was killing him.

The subject then turned to the authority as if asking what to do and the authority told him to continue. If the subject seemed to doubt the authority told him that he would take responsibility.

Then the subject continued to shock the supposed victim past 300 volts until he went silent. This indicated the victim was either unconscious or dead. Still the subject did not cease. He continued to increase the voltage clear up to 450 which would mean that if the victim was not dead yet this would surely kill him.

The interesting thing is that if this was a real happening, the subject would not only have killed another human being which was against every teaching that he believed in, but he would have also been brought up on murder charges. It is scary that even that possibility did not deter the subject from following authority.

The funny thing about these experiments is that the scientists predicted that only one out of a thousand would follow an authority to shock up to 450 volts, but 65% went that far and 100% of the subjects went up to 300 volts, which is still enough to kill.

Thus we have a great example of the true mark of the beast on the right hand - the willingness to follow blind authority no matter what the consequences.

The interesting thing is that very few people know themselves well enough to know whether or not they would administer the 300 or more volts to an innocent brother. Most would think that they would never do such a thing, but are they right? Remember, 100% of those in the experiment yielded to the authority.

Even more sinister is the mark in the forehead. Remember the philosophy of Big Brother in the novel 1984? It was not enough that people did as they were told. In addition to this he demanded that they also love Big Brother and totally embrace everything he stood for in their belief system. If someone was caught having independent thought he was not executed immediately. First he had to be brainwashed into loving Big Brother and when the victim demonstrated that he was willing to accept an obvious falsehood from Big Brother with Love, then he was shot, but not before.

Now we must remember that over half of the world's population is under the direct obvious control of some Big Brother type of government. For these inhabitants there is often no way for immediate escape from the mark of the Beast. They have to at least pretend to go along or they will not be able to get work, will not be able to buy or sell and may wind up executed.

It's a little different in the Free World. We do not have to receive the mark here; instead, we embrace it by our own free will, just as do the subjects in the Milgram experiment. They were free. They could have gotten up any moment and left, but they did not.

Kyle said that perhaps religion administers the mark of the beast in the free world. Yes, this is true as shown by Jonestown, Heavens Gate and your fanatical neighbor down the street, but this is only part of the mark.

The mark is demonstrated before us right now on TV by the Democrats and Republicans in the impeachment proceedings. Both sides are going along with group thought. I think out of the 435 Representatives only one Republican and no Democrats defied their party thoughtform and authoritative leaders on the last Impeachment vote.

One of about 435 going against accepted authorities. That's how powerful the beast is! It doesn't matter to the beast if you are Republican or Democrat, or even which is closer to the truth. What matters is control.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: "Would I be strong enough to be one out of the 435?"

Would we have been strong enough as an early Christian to refuse to acknowledge Caesar as God and allow ourselves to be fed to lions?

Putting religion aside you have to admire these followers of Christ who gave their lives to defy the beast. Their lives were not in vain, for they paved the way to the wounding of the beast. Now finally we are in a point in time and space where the whole beast will be destroyed, but before we can destroy such an enemy we must know and understand what it is and how it functions.

The beast, as a whole, is not a country or anything physical, but is blind authority and is demonstrated by the "blind following the blind."

The beast is destroyed by opening the eyes of the blind, and this we shall do with power and great glory, but first we must open our own eyes to the one authority - the Spirit of God within us.

Now we shall attack the greatest, most discussed mystery of the whole Bible - the number of the Beast. Everything you have learned so far has just been preparation to understand this mystery.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


Generally speaking, we live in defiance of possibility until proof makes us give up our position, or our line in the sand.
Proof is always relative, and consciousness/God itself, is not bound to relative laws within scientific boundaries.
Reincarnation is a lot like God. Some have a gut feeling about the intelligence within the Universe and past lives, and others ignore their gut feelings because of the nature of authority and proof.
We, all to easily, allow our subtle cognitive abilities to wither and die long before our bodies do.

Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 06/22/08 06:29 AM.

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Ellis
For me the one of the problems of re-incarnation is, aside from its more horrible implications of belief in karma, is that it only allows for reincarnation of humans.

I share your scepticism, but moral objections aren't an argument for the truth or falsity of the issue.

Regarding the point of humans v. other animals, one's idea of reincarnation need not - indeed, should not - be restricted by the ideas of others. Accepting the possible validity of the basic hypothesis doesn't require the adoption of a pre-existing cultural edifice, or any part thereof.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
For me, Ellis, one of the problems of re-incarnation is, aside from its more horrible implications of belief in karma, is that it only allows for reincarnation of humans.
This is an excellent example which demonstrates how differently we humans think about the same topic.

RE-INCARNATION AND THE MORAL ARGUMENT
=====================================
Of course, as one who believes in doing my best to be a moral, ethical and loving person, without conditions, I believe that it is best to do that which is righteous, good and true just because it is the best thing to do. But is it wrong to think to oneself: "I have discovered that every time I treat my wife, my family and my neighbours well they seem to reciprocate. I have become convinced that living by the Golden Rule--treat others as you would like them to treat you--is a good idea."

Human pets have discovered this principle ages ago.

If you think the above is nonsense, then there is not much left to dialogue about; but if we are agreed on the above, let us apply this to the idea that it is possible that all life is ongoing. In my opinion, all life will, eventually go on, and on, and on, into the spiritual dimensions; but sometimes it is necessary for certain lives--animals, vegetables and minerals--to reincarnate in this three-dimensional form.

RE-INCARNATION--MY PERSONAL BELIEFS ABOUT
=========================================
It is for all of nature, including animals, vegetable and minerals.

RE-INCARNATION--NOT ALL FUN AND GAMES
=====================================
In my opinion, re-incarnation can be fun, especially when one gets the opportunity to live a long, happy, healthy, prosperous, rewarding and successful life. It would be interesting to know: What percentage of any population gets this opportunity.

However, unless one enjoys being disciplined and educated--sometimes in a strict manner, sometimes with large dollops of pain and suffering--re-incarnation is not necessarily a reward.

For example, here is what I believe about myself. And I have no proof, yet, that this is so. Keep in mind, this is what I believe, personally:

I have the intuition that in my last time on earth I was a rich, powerful and arrogant SOB. In the belief that we only live once, I fought my way to the top, without much regard for others who got in my way. I wanted my life to be rewarding now, not in some kind of airy-fairy after life.

The first son--I was number one of five boys and three girls--of a British naval admiral. One of his ancestor's, Captain James King sailed with Captain James Cook (1728-1779).
Quote:
Hawkesworth, John, Capt. James Cook) and James King
THE THREE VOYAGES OF CAPTAIN COOK, 9 vols, Including Folio Atlas

London, 1773, 1777 and 1785 W. Strahan & T. Cadell Captain Cook's three voyages, one of the greatest of all eighteenth century explorations in the Pacific are featured here in 9 volumes chronicling his adventurous navigational travels and discovery in detail. Cook first sailed to Tahiti charting his way to New Zealand and the east coast of Australia and other islands. His second voyage would take him in search of the Antarctic, while his third voyage, the search of the Northwest Passage would unfortunately be his last. Captain Cook was killed by natives of Hawaii leaving Captain James King to finish the last entry of his last voyage.
http://www.ilab.org/db/book1360_pb.0311.html
Quote:
Captain James Cook in Newfoundland, 1762-1767
Introduction
James Cook was based in Newfoundland, off the Eastern coast of Canada, from 1762 to 1767. He arrived there in 1762 as master of HMS Northumberland. The next year, 1763, he returned as surveyor of Newfoundland and was given command of the schooner Grenville. He then spent the summers of 1763 to 1767 surveying a large portion of the coast of the island. For most of this period we have copies of logbooks and journals that Cook (or more likely, the master's mate, William Parker and Michael Lane) kept, recording the results of the surveys, their movements, the weather and other assorted pieces of information. Cook also wrote up sailing directions for the South, West and North coasts of Newfoundland and they are reproduced here. Finally, a considerable amount of correspondence exists concerning Cook's surveys and this will be added as it becomes available.

I have undertaken to provide notes to provide background information about locations, people, ships, nautical terms and any other pieces of text that warrant explanation. This extra information appears in the right-hand column under notes but gradually live links will take you to fuller explanations on other pages. The pages were started in late November 2004. Now (May 2005), most of the transcriptions of the logbooks and journals have been added though most of the notes fields are far from complete. These will be added more slowly, as and when I have time.

Cook's time in Newfoundland was most important but remains largely unknown and ignored. It gave Cook the opportunity to acquire new skills (surveying, astronomy and leadership) and hone existing ones (navigation and seamanship) so that when the Endeavour voyage was contemplated in 1768, Cook was the ideal candidate for the job of leader of the expedition.

I was born around 1780, and grew up during the time of Wellington (1769-1852), Nelson (1758-1805) and Napoleon (1769-1821). I was with my father at the battle of Trafalgar, 1805. My family and mother were of the aristocratic establishment, including the established church. I grew up as a formal British Christian. My mother was very religious and demanded that all her children be raised as good Christians. When I moved away from home, like a hypocrite I went to church once in a blue moon, and accepted the usual doctrines, just in case ...

My upper classes education, received in private schools, prepared me to work in one of the family businesses, or I could join the army, or navy. Because I admired my father, I chose the navy. I joined as a young midshipman and, later, I became an officer in the naval marines. With an eye for business inherited from my father, I chose the navy so I could travel. As an old poster read: "Join The Navy and See the World". Naturally, I got the opportunity to see what was going on in the colonies. In my first voyage

My father, though in time of need he was prepared to serve in the navy of his king and country, when he got in the higher ranks, he did not spend all his time at sea. In cooperation with other members of the family, he ran several businesses having to do with providing supplies for the navy. My family got quite wealthy providing all those supplies for the ships and crew of his majesty's Royal Navy.

BTW, As an arrogant officer of marines, in charge of supplies, I rode the sailors hard as they went about their daily duties. Because of this I was not popular with the ordinary seamen, most of whom were not volunteers. I thought of most of them as the scum of earth.

After several years in the navy, I left and began a business career working for a member of the family who made a fortune in the fishery off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. He was also into timber, and even some mining. Over the years sailors and other servants of the king ate tons of salt cod from Newfoundland. There was always the need for timber and minerals. Needless to say, I too made a fortune and lived well. I lived in expensive homes, had the best clothes, smoked expensive cigars and drank the best wines, rum and brandy. Sad to say, I now realize, many of those I exploited did not fare near so well.

In my sixties I was much overweight. In addition I suddenly became ill with a serious kidney and liver disease. One doctor told me: "Knowing your eating and drinking habits, I am surprised you been healthy this long."

When I became very ill and was told I was going to die, I, suddenly, became very "religious". To make sure that I would die forgiven of all my sins I demanded the attention of my High Church Anglican priest. To get all the attention I felt I deserved, I even gave the priest and the church a few healthy donations.

When I arrived in what I will now call "the world of the dead" I was shocked to find: "This is not the kind of heavenly place I was expecting." But the good news is: Neither was it the kind of hell which I was taught to dread--one filled with people suffering in eternal flames. It seemed more like a large an old-fashioned hospital with all kinds of people, some of whom I knew, with all kinds of physical, mental and spiritual conditions. In many ways it was not unlike life on earth. But the difference was ... [The story will continue.]





Last edited by Revlgking; 06/22/08 07:02 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
For me the one of the problems of re-incarnation is, aside from its more horrible implications of belief in karma, is that it only allows for reincarnation of humans.
Sounds like all of your problems exist in your knowledge and beliefs of reincarnation. You don't understand Karma other than what you have heard, and you don't believe reincarnation applies to animals.

Why not just change your beliefs?
"Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot"...-John Lennon


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TT, note: It was our good friend , Ellis, who expressed the skepticism. He didn't believe in re-incarnation when he was here the last time, either? smile

I have a feeling that we are on the same path, eh?--as we say in Canada. Me? I have believed in the possibility of re-incarnation ever since I was a little frog. laugh

Last edited by Revlgking; 06/22/08 07:24 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
TT Rev and Rede......

It's all much more simple than all the philosophical theories you are suggesting.I don't believe in reincarnation because I don't believe in any sort of an afterlife other than that which we have in the memory of others. That's it. When you are dead that's it. It's over.



Rev wrote--- I believe that it is best to do that which is righteous, good and true just because it is the best thing to do. But is it wrong to think to oneself: "I have discovered that every time I treat my wife, my family and my neighbours well they seem to reciprocate. I have become convinced that living by the Golden Rule--treat others as you would like them to treat you--is a good idea."

Human pets have discovered this principle ages ago.


I could not agree more. The Golden Rule is the one thing that repeats in every religion and rule. Re pets --there is a lovely SF story about the way dogs have manipulated us to do their will by worshipping us. It's very clever, and really funny, a rare thing with SF. I can't remember the title and have lent the book to someone so can't check it!!


Last edited by Ellis; 06/23/08 12:43 AM. Reason: Add sentence
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
I don't believe in reincarnation because I don't believe in any sort of an afterlife other than that which we have in the memory of others. That's it. When you are dead that's it. It's over.
I had a belief once....


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
OK, Ellis, I guess, by now I know from whence you are coming. And I respect your point of view. You are convinced that this is it.

If you are right, we will miss each other in the hereafter. But I hope you don't mind me saying: I hope you are wrong.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
You might miss each other in the hereafter even if he believed in reincarnation. One does not always take with them memories of other lives.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Continuing my story:

In many ways it (my life in the world of the dead) was not unlike life on earth--a place of crises--danger and opportunity. I even met Ellis and other Internet-friends there.

But the difference was I also met many of the people I had wronged, despised and treated so unjustly, when I lived the life of a SOB decades ago. Because of this I experienced no peace of mind. I did not RIP (rest in peace).

Eventually, I expressed my wish to do something about it. I sincerely wanted to have peace of mind. Like old Scrooge in Dickens' famous Christmas Carol, I said to my spirit guides that I was willing to make amends for the kind of life I had lived.

As a result of my sincere desire a spiritual guide appeared. The guide told me: Here is how you can make amends, and have peace of mind. Unless you want to go on feeling miserable, you will need to go back to earth and live, without moaning and groaning about it, a life similar to that of one of the ones you exploited in your last life time. You will actually reap what you sowed by experiencing the same kind of pain you caused others. However, if you live this life graciously, and take advantage of the opportunities which will come your way, peace of mind will be granted to you, eventually.

Here is your assignment: You are given the opportunity to be the child of an un-educated fisherman/miner/carpenter--one of the working-poor class--in the colony of Newfoundland, the same place where your family had once made its fortune. You will be number seven of eight children.

Are you willing to accept this opportunity to redeem yourself?

I said, "I agree."

The above story is from my imagination; the following is a fact: Thus I was born, Jan.14--a cold and crisp day--1930, in the midst of depression and on the verge of a world war. I was the seventh child of a family without many of the comforts of life; and one which did not need another child to feed and care for at that time. Number eight, a sister, was born in 1932.

Last edited by Revlgking; 06/23/08 04:52 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5