GameBanshee Forums

Lady Dragonfly, I am sorry if you were offended by my previous message. I did not intend any insult. I can see why you thought that my remarks were addressed specifically to you, but actually, they were addressed to everyone who was reading them, not to you in particular. When I address someone in particular, I either address them by name or quote something by them before I make my remarks. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear.

I don't know you well at all, and I do not presume to judge your educational background (although it is apparent that you know a lot about physics as well as lots of other things). Inviting you to study a subject like quantum mechanics in case you are not familiar with it does not seem like an insult to me, but if you took it that way, so be it. Generally speaking, in a forum like this, it is safe to assume that a lot of people are not familiar with quantum mechanics (I really don't know that much about it myself), and whether or not you should be counted in that group, that was the group I was addressing.

Under the circumstances, I have not taken any offense at the way you turned my own words against me, but I would like to point out that the remarks I made specifically to Vicsun were made with the understanding that he and I have a long history of gently ribbing each other (he teases me for the way I abuse smileys, and I tease him for every little thing I can think of), while you and I have no such history. In the absence of such familiarity, your remarks to me had a much different character than my remarks to Vicsun. They certainly did not have the same affection, since I have no reason to presume any on your part. I'm not saying that you don't already understand that, but I just thought I'd point that out.

Frankly, I deliberately tried to avoid addressing you directly when I wrote the post that immediately followed yours. It was indeed sort of a counterpoint, but it's not what you think. You challenged the "Soulmates Crowd" to explain how "inter-spirit" communication works, and you basically gave them a choice between a) offering an explanation in accordance with the laws of classical physics, or b) admitting that they are talking about telepathy and psychokinesis, which in my experience are frequently the objects of scorn. I didn't expect anyone here to answer a challenge like that, but I did not want to comment directly on your challenge--you were fully within your rights, and I did not wish to say anything negative about it. However, I did wish to let everyone know that I for one am perfectly willing to hear, shall we say, less than scientifically rigorous ideas on the subject of soulmates, because I love to listen to speculation. ("Unlike Lady Dragonfly"? No, I don't know if that's right, and I didn't want to sound like I was saying that.) I wanted to let everyone know that based on my own understanding of physics, I think there is lots of room for other kinds of explanations for "things we can't quite understand". My remarks didn't really have much to do with your question to the group, but it was my intention to stimulate more debate by offering people a little more leeway than you did (the way I perceived it, anyway). And I was hoping that my remarks about quantum mechanics would themselves stimulate some more discussion. (Are you suggesting that I was going off-topic? I'm not clear on that.)

According to the cittamatra school of buddhism the distinction between mind and matter is a fabrication.

An example of the reasoning is to imagine your own experience. You think there is a real world 'out there' and that you have an inner world of your thoughts. But how does the outer world get into your thoughts? Where exactly is the boundary? Have you ever experienced ANYTHING that you couldn't say occured within thought? (including tables and chairs etc these are mental events).

This is known as the 'mind only school'

Whereas the Shvravaka school is equivalent to realizing that the dream you are having is not reality and that you can wake up from it (since you cannot locate a permanent separate self) the Cittamatra school is like lucidly dreaming and being present with the dream state and realizing that it has no hold over you (since you realize that all phenomenon are mind).

The goal is to liberate oneself from wrong views which are thought to be the cause of negative emotions and obscure the manifestation of primordial purity. Its actually easy to dismiss this view with a little aggressive arguing but the path is to hear teachings (clearly with no bias - so that the meaning is not distorted in your perception), analyze them and see if they are true and uncover doubts and confusion, and three meditate on them (to actually remove doubt directly with single pointed concentration and letting the luminous (knowing) nature of mind see directly).

fable wrote:Not true. It differs from species to species, and frequently within each species between types. For example, the Emperor Penguin changes mates each year, while the so-called Little Penguin is (usually) fiercely faithful throughout life to its chosen mate.

True, there are animals that stick to one partner, most notably several species of birds. But as far as I know, most mammals are polygamous in one way or other, so I think my point is still valid. And seeing how hard it is for most couples to be like Little Penguins, one wonders whether this was really our natural way of mating.

Not in most cases, no. At least, not outside Baptist and Pentacostal preachers.

Actually it is quite striking if one spends some time in the country among farm animals, or with a few male pets, how readily they out their sexual frustrations on each other in the absence of females. A bit like Greeks and Romans, I suppose.

I do not presume to know anything about quantum mechanics, so please do not bite my head off now, all you hotspurs! I just want to add a remark about the phenomenal world as opposed to the things-in-themselves as it was originally conceived. Kant postulated that mathematics, physiscs and human disciplines in general are founded entirely axiomatically in human psychology. That is why they would only make sense in a human context. So when we say "the moon rises," nothing of the sort actually really happens, since outside of human psychology there are no such things as "moon" or "to rise." Similarly "1+1=2" exists only if you are a human being (and not too wrapped up in quantum mechanics ).

But, and this is a big but, all this really only goes to show the limitations of human thought. It is not that Nature is haphazard and unpredictable, it is just that we are only seeing shadows on the wall, as it were. However, there is no reason not to believe that there is ****** ******-ing out there even as we are not looking. When this Mermin is saying there is no moon, he is basically just playing on semantics.

Anyway, model building is an art form, and as such should have aesthetic qualities above all. If quantum mechanics rock your soul, that is a good thing. Einstein was an odd-ball philosopher more than anything else in my view. And I prefer Dali's rendering of modern science to that of some soulless rocket builder every time (Vicsun! Keep breathing! ). And do not even try to refute that, you guys will just make me fall asleep on the keyboard and all sorts of nonsense will spring out of my forehead into the aether and corrupt you nervous systems for ever!

fable wrote:So because I have one set of beliefs outside the mainstream, I must embrace all sets of beliefs outside the mainstream. Which makes a lot of sense.

Good point, which I think should be applied in this thread. Belief in telepathy does not necessarly imply belief in soulmates. I have some experiences that suggest to me that the former exists in some fashion, while I find the idea that people should fit with one and only one partner for their whole life utterly bizarre and demonstrably wrong. Now some people may use a looser definition of soulmate, but that only goes to show that we probably should have clearer definitions before we start discussing.

@VonDondu

You really did not have to apologize.

You challenged the "Soulmates Crowd" to explain how "inter-spirit" communication works, and you basically gave them a choice between a) offering an explanation in accordance with the laws of classical physics, or b) admitting that they are talking about telepathy and psychokinesis, which in my experience are frequently the objects of scorn.

Don't you think that even the quantum-mechanical phenomena should be subject to some sort of the law of nature? Or, perhaps, the “nature” stopped at subatomic threshold, and all these lawless phenomena are just the mind-boggling mathematical expressions of all probable/improbable physical states (warping reality into a mathematical paradox), imagined by mad physicists who skipped their meds (which is as likely)? There is only one step (or leap of faith), here, to dualism and the idea of divine source of matter (which is fine, if one is ready to make this leap of faith). Is that what you wish to discuss?
I mentioned some properties of a wave vs. telepathy because I can't imagine any other way of spiritual communication between two people separated by continents. Can you?

I didn't expect anyone here to answer a challenge like that, but I did not want to comment directly on your challenge--you were fully within your rights, and I did not wish to say anything negative about it. However, I did wish to let everyone know that I for one am perfectly willing to hear, shall we say, less than scientifically rigorous ideas on the subject of soulmates, because I love to listen to speculation.

And so do I. A member, who I personally respect, presented his anecdotal evidence of an incredible bond ("We share such an incredible empathy, bordering on telepathy...") he shares with his wife who, being in Mali, experienced some "bad feelings" on the day he was hospitalized. We don't know whether his wife had similar prophetic feelings before or after that day. Could that be a coincidence? It seems (to me) he did not think so. He said, "If that ain't "soulmates" then nothing is."
I would absolutely love to listen to all sorts of speculations, scientific and otherwise, about how such an extraordinary event could possibly occur.
You subtly ridicule my question. Is the question less valid than the claim?

I think there is lots of room for other kinds of explanations for "things we can't quite understand". My remarks didn't really have much to do with your question to the group, but it was my intention to stimulate more debate by offering people a little more leeway than you did (the way I perceived it, anyway). And I was hoping that my remarks about quantum mechanics would themselves stimulate some more discussion.

Somehow, I doubt you can stimulate much debate involving Hilbert space or Schroedinger equation.
On the other hand, I was able to elicit a confession from Naffnuff that he believes in telepathy.

(Are you suggesting that I was going off-topic? I'm not clear on that.)

No more than Fable when he invoked his Penguinology (he should've presented us with a respectably long list of references and sources too, but he is eccentric).

Lady Dragonfly wrote: No more than Fable when he invoked his Penguinology (he should've presented us with a respectably long list of references and sources too, but he is eccentric).

Understanding an animal that is always dressed up in tail coat is obviously crucial to understanding marriage. I suggest you apologize to fable.

I obviously have a lot to read to catch up on (I don't often get on GB for casual purposes, I'm usually on for fifteen minutes and then gone).

But I will mention one thing that's a bit off topic. Naffnuff, you have 3 posts in a row above. Please use the edit feature instead of double posting, even if they're hours apart.

Naffnuff wrote:Understanding an animal that is always dressed up in tail coat is obviously crucial to understanding marriage. I suggest you apologize to fable.

Personally, I have no problems with LD's comment. But the penguin, he sulks. He stays indoors. He picks at his fish. He drinks nothing but dry martinis. His feelings are hurt. I hope LD will do the right thing by him.

For the rest, I have had the same feeling some others have had about their wives/husbands/SOs: the ThisIsTheOne! sense. In fact, I've had that happen twice, or once more after splitting up with the woman I was engaged to in Dallas. (She now leads her own Black Baptist ministry. In reflection, I have to wonder whether there is something about being involved in a relationship with me that drives women to turn to their god.) The fact that TheOne was actually TheTwo only confirmed to me that this feeling is very intense and real, but also very subjective, and liable to repeat, given certain circumstances. What should we conclude from that? That we each have several interchangeable soulmates? Reason leads me to think that emotion, cultural background, physical passion, mental stimulation--in short, the usual stuff--led to a heady sense of something new springing into existence, where it hadn't existed before: a loving relationship, with personal borders to an extent let down.

As for telepathy or empathy, I remember parties with my coven in Dallas where we sat around and achieved a roughly 70% rate of success on guessing colors chosen randomly from a deck by one member. We shared a bond, but not any supposed soulmate kind of bond.

Personally, I have no problems with LD's comment. But the penguin, he sulks. He stays indoors. He picks at his fish. He drinks nothing but dry martinis. His feelings are hurt. I hope LD will do the right thing by him.

And what is Guido's reaction? Has I hurt his feelings too? I will send each of them a copy of "Causality and Complementarity". Do you think that would cheer them up?

Reason leads me to think that emotion, cultural background, physical passion, mental stimulation--in short, the usual stuff--led to a heady sense of something new springing into existence, where it hadn't existed before: a loving relationship, with personal borders to an extent let down.

And then, after euphoria has abated, a relationship depends on mutual tolerance of imperfection.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:On the other hand, I was able to elicit a confession from Naffnuff that he believes in telepathy.

Indeed you did, but only under severe pressure, so forget about going to court with it. Patriot Act does not extend to anything without a thick mustache, and as you can tell from my avatar I am quite the baby face.

However, now that you caught me, I might as well tell you the whole story. On the morning my grandfather died, I had a dream, in which I saw him sitting in a chair, in a certain room in his house in Spain. I did not know that he was about to die, only that he was ill, but he had been so for months. Later, when I told my relatives about my dream, they could confirm that he had been sitting exactly where I had seen him, that he had looked as I described him (very much thinner), wearing the clothes I had seen him in, and that he had died at the exact time when I dreamed the dream (after which I awoke).

Is this "piece of evidence" anecdotal? It certainly is! Do you have to believe me? No! Could it be some kind of freakish coincidence? Possibly. Such things happen.

My grandfather, I should add, was nothing like my soulmate.

Siberys wrote:But I will mention one thing that's a bit off topic. Naffnuff, you have 3 posts in a row above. Please use the edit feature instead of double posting, even if they're hours apart.

Sorry about that! Do you want me to edit them now?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:And what is Guido's reaction? Has I hurt his feelings too? I will send each of them a copy of "Causality and Complementarity". Do you think that would cheer them up?

Well, it would be a start. That, plus a dozen red roses, and an autographed picture of Fabio. Just make sure it's in a plain box. The penguin mustn't catch on. He may be three sheets to the wind, but he's still jealous as only a small monogamous penguin can be.

And then, after euphoria has abated, a relationship depends on mutual tolerance of imperfection.

I see the two as going hand in hand, but that just may be me. The euphoria can return from time to time, and it's possible to summon it. But whether it exists or not, that tolerance is invaluable, and it's just not part of any starry-eyed Heathcliff/Catherine package.

That, plus a dozen red roses, and an autographed picture of Fabio.

Fabio the Fabio-lous or Fabio the Football-ous?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Fabio the Fabio-lous or Fabio the Football-ous?

Well, we know how you spend your evenings. Fabio, the Cover Model for Soft Porn Romance Novels My Wife Reads.