Dr.Alan wrote:I have not made this up, as I guess you would like to believe that I have.
I don't want to believe you made up anything. However, I think someone else made it up, and you now believe them. That's much the same thing really.
In any case, in neither of your quotes was the genesis
of 'mind' discussed. You can't derive a justification for your Dualism from those quotes - both of which are consistent with the idea that the 'mind' is physical/material.
Dr.Alan wrote:All scientific instruments only enhance information brought to the five sense organs. Scientific instruments do not have consciousness. They need a conscious being to use them and receive information from them.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with your earlier point about Dualism. The real question is whether Consciousness arises separately from brain activity, and I don't think you have established this at all.
Dr.Alan wrote:If you have any scientific instrument which can connect with the mind - you had better let the scientists know about it. They have wanted, in vain, such a thing for a long time.
You're already assuming that the "mind" exists separately from the physical body. Why? What makes an 'ancient' book any more authoritative than 'modern' Science/Philosophy in any case? Also, I don't remember any Scientist of the last 150 years or so pining after an 'instrument that connects with the mind'. As I said before, the Dualism/Monism debate was settled long ago - it doesn't make sense for Scientists to look for something for which (it has been shown) there can never be
Dr.Alan wrote:All the while your mind is attached to your senses and your body (believing that is what you are)- you will never be able to read and understand the writings of people who have seen beyond these things.
Can't you see that this just begs the question? Who says those people saw "beyond these things"? They did! Your point is no better than someone's when they say the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Surely you have a better reason than this?
Dr.Alan wrote:If you do not believe that there have been people who have seen beyond these things then you would be better giving up your involvement with this subject
I don't see the connection. If you're saying that it's necessary to believe these people when they say they have "seen beyond" in order to understand that they "saw beyond" that is just circular. Moreover, do you really mean to suggest that the only
way to approach this subject is from a point of complete acceptance of the propositions contained therein? You stifle discussion this way. In fact, it's a rather doctrinal view of the subject. If you only permit one line of inquiry into a subject, why bother with discussion at all?
Dr.Alan wrote:and wait until later in your life when you start to become more reflective about the prospect that your body will some day die - and what that might mean.
Again, what is the connection? Many people consider the fact of death - that doesn't imply anything about the validity of the claims in these 'ancient' books. Do you really want to say that your beliefs are merely based on an attempt to rationalise the inevitable demise of your body? I would like to think that, as generally inquiring people, we might be able to find a better foundation for our beliefs.
I find it somewhat humorous that after all our exchanges, you still assume I haven't been reflective enough on the subject of my death. I'm not drawing the same conclusions from that reflection as have you, but that doesn't say anything about the quality or rigour of my reflection.