Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <587@opus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 05:12:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.587
Posted: Tue Jul  3 05:12:02 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 03:51:16 EDT
References: <569@ihuxj.UUCP> <93@mouton.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 36

>OK, gang, let me bounce this one off y'all:
(I'll take it as intended - sort of a what-do-you-think.)

>Shirley MacLaine's latest autobiography deals with a lot of this
>reincarnation/mind/soul/God stuff.  I'm not sure I swallow it
>whole but, she has some very interesting ideas, and her theories
>are pretty much self-consistent.
But do they have any connection with the real world?  I haven't read much
of it, but I haven't read any that touches reality very well.

>Second, on the existence of the mind or soul, independent of the
>brain.  (This, again, is not MacLaine, but another character speaking.)
>
>	Some of our scientists suspect this energy is there but
>	they can't measure it because it is not molecular.  They say
>	there's an energy that fills interatomic space, but they don't
>	know what it is.  Even they call it the cohesive element of the atom,
>	which they term 'gluon'...
It's always interesting to see what happens when a lay person picks up two
or three sentences of tough scientific material, removes it from context,
and extrapolates wildly.  Now, I've seen actors take on more unlikely roles
(:-), but Shirley MacLaine as a particle physicist???

>	...it is this subatomic energy that makes up the Source...
>	...This energy is the energy that makes up the soul...
I thought it was the Force, not the Source.  Oh, sh*t, no wonder I haven't
been able to levitate!

>This is interesting because it is a synthesis of religious and
>scientific ideas which reconciles the conflict without contradicting
>either...
Perhaps, but only to the extent that it doesn't even enter the domain of
science.  Hey, enjoy her humor but don't take it seriously...
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.