Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The Science of "Souls"
Show More
Loading...
Flag Curious_Soul February 21, 2010 12:20 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:09PM, Wendyness wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Curious_Soul wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 11:39AM, Wendyness wrote:


"Like a tired wandered who had sought nothing in the world apart from her, shall I come closer to my soul.  I shall learn that my soul finally lies behind everything, and if I cross the world, I am ultimately doing this to find my soul.  Even the dearest are themselves not the goal and end of the love that goes on seeking, they are symbols of their own souls.


My friends, do you guess to what solitude we ascend?


I must learn that the dregs of my thought, my dreams, are the speech of my soul.  I must carry them in my heart, and go back and forth over them in my mind, like the words of the person dearest to me.  Dreams are the guiding words of the soul. Why should I henceforth not love my dreams and not make their riddling images into objects of my daily consideration?  You think that the dream is foolish and ungainly.  What is beautiful?  What is ungainly?  What is clever?  What is foolish?  The spirit of this time is your measure, but the spirit of the depths surpasses it at both ends.  Only the spirit of this time knows the difference between large and small.  But this difference is invalid, like the spirit which recognizes it./


The spirit of the depths even taught me to consider my action and my decision as dependent on dreams. Dreams pave the way for life, they determine you without you understanding their language.  One would like to learn this language, but who can teach and learn it?  Scholarliness alone is not enough; there is a knowledge of the heart that gives deeper insight.  The knowledge of the heart is in no book and is not to be found in the mouth of any teacher, but grows out of you like the green seed from the dark earth.  Scholarliness belongs to the spirit of this time, but this spirit in no way grasps the dream, since the soul is everywhere that scholarly knowledge is not.


But how can I attain the knowledge of the heart?  You can attain this knowledge only by living your life to the full.  You live your life fully if you also live what you have never yet lived, but have left for others to live or to think".


 


Carl G. Jung, THE RED BOOK


The topic is "The science of the soul", in order to understand the "science" of the soul we must also observe and acknowledge the "language" of the soul.




The following is taken from Conversations With God by Neale D Walsch
(Page 3/4)


(Some of God's(or the God in his head) words to Neale in this conversation)
"We are immediately constricted by the unbelievable limitation of words. For this reason, I do not communicate by words alone. My most common form of communication is through FEELING.
FEELING IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE SOUL.......


I also communicate with thought. Thought and feelings are not the same, although they can occur at the same time. In communicating with thought, I often use images and pictures. For this reason, thoughts are more effective than mere words as tools of communication.
In addition to feelings and thoughts, I also use the vehicle of experience as a grand communicator.


And finally, when feelings and thoughts and experience all fail, I use words. Words are really the least effective communicator. THEY ARE MOST OPEN TO MISINTERPRETATION, MOST OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD.


And why is that? It s is because of what words are. Words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts, and experiences. They are symbols. Signs. Insignias. THEY ARE NOT TRUTH. THEY ARE NOT THE REAL THING.


Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know.......


Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God and so little on the experience......




"My speech is imperfect.  Not because I want to shine with words, but out of the impossibility of finding those words, I speak in images.  With nothing else can I express the words from the depths".


Carl G. Jung THE RED BOOK






:) well played!!


I'm at a loss for words lol

Flag Wendyness February 21, 2010 12:27 PM EST

Curious-Soul,


"The sum of life decides in laughter and in worship, not your judgement.  I must also speak the ridiculous.  You coming men!  You will recognize the supreme meaning by the fact that he is laughter and worship.........Those who know this laugh and worship in the same breath."


 


Again,


Carl G. Jung THE RED BOOK

Flag Curious_Soul February 21, 2010 12:42 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:27PM, Wendyness wrote:


Curious-Soul,


"The sum of life decides in laughter and in worship, not your judgement.  I must also speak the ridiculous.  You coming men!  You will recognize the supreme meaning by the fact that he is laughter and worship.........Those who know this laugh and worship in the same breath."


 


Again,


Carl G. Jung THE RED BOOK




 


Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children.
Kahlil Gibran



Flag Wendyness February 21, 2010 12:45 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Curious_Soul wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:27PM, Wendyness wrote:


Curious-Soul,


"The sum of life decides in laughter and in worship, not your judgement.  I must also speak the ridiculous.  You coming men!  You will recognize the supreme meaning by the fact that he is laughter and worship.........Those who know this laugh and worship in the same breath."


 


Again,


Carl G. Jung THE RED BOOK




 


Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children.
Kahlil Gibran

 




LOL more truths! YES!  


 

Flag teilhard February 21, 2010 12:58 PM EST

But all of this can -- SHOULD -- be Reduced to a Set of Equations, right .. ???

Flag Wendyness February 21, 2010 1:01 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:58PM, teilhard wrote:


But all of this can -- SHOULD -- be Reduced to a Set of Equations, right .. ???





ROFLMAO!  

Flag Curious_Soul February 21, 2010 1:02 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:58PM, teilhard wrote:


But all of this can -- SHOULD -- be Reduced to a Set of Equations, right .. ???




www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EDYHnMgJJw 




Nash: Thank you. I've always believed in numbers and the equations and logics that lead to reason. But after a lifetime of such pursuits, I ask, What truly is logic? Who decides reason? My quest has taken me to the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back. I have made the most important discovery of my career - the most important discovery of my life.>>>> It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reason can be found.<<<< I am only here tonight because of you
[looking at and speaking to Alicia]
Nash: You are the only reason I am. You are all my reasons. Thank you.
[applause from audience]


__A Beautiful Mind

Flag Wendyness February 21, 2010 1:11 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Curious_Soul wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 12:58PM, teilhard wrote:


But all of this can -- SHOULD -- be Reduced to a Set of Equations, right .. ???






Nash: What truly is logic? Who decides reason? My quest has taken me to the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back. I have made the most important discovery of my career - the most important discovery of my life.>>>> It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reason can be found.<<<< I am only here tonight because of you
[looking at and speaking to Alicia]
Nash: You are the only reason I am. You are all my reasons. Thank you.
[applause from audience]


__A Beautiful Mind




A "beautiful mind" knows that life without LOVE is empty and meaningless.  

Flag Blü February 21, 2010 4:41 PM EST

So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.

Flag teilhard February 21, 2010 4:46 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.



Nope ... I'm talking about the Hebrew word, "nephesh," which means "living soul" or "living creature" ...

Flag ozero February 21, 2010 6:06 PM EST

Ok, Blu, I don't think I want to do this, but will anyway.  Here are your issues with dualism:


So who's the best defender of dualism?


Me, of course.


Who's given credible  answers to the following questions?


Let's call the  'immaterial part' or 'soul' or 'mind' or whatever name one might use for  the non-body element in dualism the IP -

* What's a definition  of 'immaterial', suitable for use in science and distinguishable from  'imaginary' and 'non-existent'? 


A physical entity, based on our current knowledge, made of silicon, that exists outside the current reality we are experiencing.  In the future, it could be anything real.  In my opinion it is what is left of us that was once carbon based, as we think of ourselves today.  It does not play in our world, it experiences our world through us.  In other opinions, it is any being with greater technology than we have that is researching us by creating a simulation.  (Google "living in a simulation")


* What reasoned hypothesis  gives meaning to the expression 'objective existence outside of nature'?


If we are in a simulation, then that which creates and controls the environment of the simulation is "outside of nature".  At least outside the nature that we percieve. It is the same as the idea that both you and the computer are outside the nature of a video game you might play.


*  If the brain can’t make choices, how can the IP make choices?


The brain in a simulation can make choices, in my version, the brain is a subsystem of the IP.


*  If the brain can’t be conscious, how can the IP be conscious?


I would think that the IP can maintain consciousness even when the brain cannot.


*  If the brain can’t think, how can the IP think?

By magic?


Yes, if by magic you mean any technology sufficiently higher than ours.


*  What is the IP?


An expanded brain, more capable and more reliable than what we have.


* Where is it?


In a box, just like our brain, but almost certainly with more I/O ports and, unless this is something only *I* do (a possibility), it is connected with many other IPs.


* If science can’t  find it, why not?


If science found it, it would defeat the purpose of the simulation and the simulation would terminate.  End of the world.  I think this will happen on Dec 21, 2012.


* What does it do?


Other than spending vast amounts of time entertaining itself by playing us in a reality game, it looks for and considers new information it might encounter.  Since the safest place for such IPs to exist is outside of the chaos of galaxies and in superconducting cold space, there is probably little to observe.  But over a few billion years, I assume that just about everything worth discovering would be discovered.  I would think that these IPs might come close to inhabited planets in order to get new ideas from fiction stories to use in their simulations.  Close for us being outside the oort cloud and near enough to recieve TV/Radio/Internet.


* Why does it  need a brain to do it?


The brain is handicapped to have less intelligence than the IP so that it could experience a greater variety of emotions, especially fear, joy, terror etc, which would be less powerful if one could understand them completely.


* What does it use the brain for?


To experience the simulation.


*  How does it communicate with the brain?


The brain is a part of the IP brain, but it is kept in the dark, so to speak, to get the full experience of the simulation.  The communication is one way: brain to IP.


* Why don’t we find  physically uncaused physical phenomena in the brain representing the  (physical) brain’s interaction with the (immaterial) IP?


Because it is not there.  Our world is not "real".


* By  what means does it get its equivalent of sensory data about reality?


In a simulation, the IP probably has access to much more sensory data and does live in a "real" reality. I do not think that there would be a "higher reality" than the IP.  It wouldn't make sense.


*  How does its memory work?


Beats me.  Based on current knowledge, probably like a DDR3(,000) chip. If it's an alien of some sort, however alien memory works.


* Why does the brain need such  functions as interpretation of sense data, memory, thought, language,  reasoning &c  if the IP can do those already?


For the experience.  The experience of interpreting data, thinking about it, communicating what you found is one of the more enjoyable and exciting experiences of this life.


* How (being  immaterial) does it stay with its brain as the brain turns with the  earth, rotates around the sun, moves with the rotation of the galaxy,  moves in relation to other galaxies &c?


Obviously, you have defined the IP differently than I have.  In my simulation, the sun, moon and galaxies are also fictions, though I would guess they would be based on the real thing. 


* What happens to  it when the brain ceases to function?


GAME OVER.  YOUR SCORE FOR THIS LIFE IS 200 quatloos.  You, as the IP, probably spends some time analyzing the life to see if there was anything new to be learned.  But, face it, after a few billion years, one life is kind of like that game of Space Invaders you played on an Atari 2600 back in the 80's.


* How do you show it’s not  imaginary?


You can't and if you did, your simulation experience would terminate.  You would die. There would be no good reason to continue the game.

* And how did it evolve?


Initially following the rules of mutation and natural selection.  At some point we would take over for ourselves seeking to preserve our individual selves rather than our species.  We have done something similar in our past with loss of hair, use of clothes.  If we could use electronics (or whatever advanced form) to think with, then we could live virtually forever, with little fear of death or discomfort except as we create it for our own amusement. 


OK, I answered your questions.  I don't need a detailed answer, but would appreciate any specific problems you see with anything I posted.  Just take on the most obvious screw-up and let me know.  This really is a dualism, though more like the idea of merging with god, I guess or the idea that we are god.  If one can think of their favorite theology in the above terms, it does put a different spin to it.   It isn't very mystical, I'm afraid.  Just normal everyday living in eternity. 

Flag Jcarlinbn February 21, 2010 6:12 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:

So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it. 


As you define the soul as dualistic, you tautologically get into the logical problems of dualism.  If the soul is defined as the natural expression in the human mind/brain of that which is commonly referred to by religious terms and usurped by shamans to continue beyond death to give them power over said soul, you have allowed dualistic religious definitions to prevent investigation into what is a natural and intrinsic function of the human mind/brain.


That part of the mind/brain which creates and defines the concept of self as opposed to all other, Descartes "Cogito ergo sum," is as far as I can tell an intrinsic function of the functioning human mind/brain.  This is the function of the mind/brain which interprets all sensory input as being relevant to self or not. It defines what music I like, what will stimulate feelings of transcendence and awe, what concepts will affect my thinking and what mores will affect my behavior.  


If you don't like the term soul for this function you make up a new term, which if you let them the shamans will hijack just as they hijacked the soul to promise pie in the sky after you die.  Or they will say that it really is not a natural function of the mind/brain but is the way God imposes Herm will on humans.  


I do not give shamans or Gods any power at all over my soul or whatever you want to call it.  It dies when I do, and so far God has never been able to use it to impose as much as a feeling of awe.  God's holy books have imposed other feelings on other parts of my mind/brain, but that is a different thread maybe titled retch centers in the brain.  


 

Flag Blü February 21, 2010 10:11 PM EST

J'Carlin


As you define the soul as  dualistic, you tautologically get into the logical problems of dualism.


I advertised that in advance and received no demur.  So I proceeded on that basis.  Calling the body / soul distinction 'dualism' isn't tautological, merely naming the category appropriate.


 


If the soul is defined as the natural expression in the human  mind/brain of that which is commonly referred to by religious terms and  usurped by shamans to continue beyond death to give them power over said  soul,


Eh?  Do you meant that the soul's what the brain imagines is its own immortal part?  A concept without an objective counterpart?


If so, it's in the basket with all the other things, supernatural, fictitious, useful, &c whose only known kind of existence is as something imagined.


 


you have allowed dualistic religious definitions to prevent  investigation into what is a natural and intrinsic function of the human  mind/brain.


If we remove the supernatural trappings from the notion of 'soul', then we're back to discussions of brain research and more precise words than 'soul' will be available to us.  Speaking of which, I was interested to see Faustus' posting of the links to articles on consciousness here.


 

Flag Jcarlinbn February 21, 2010 10:52 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 10:11PM, Blü wrote:

Eh?  Do you meant that the soul's what the brain imagines is its own immortal part?  A concept without an objective counterpart?


No, it is the natural part of the mind/brain that the religions promote as the immortal part.  It is easy for them to do so as it is such a critical mind/brain function that it is hard for the mind to contemplate its termination.  "That which is the essence of you can live forever, just buy this God I have here and "you" will have eternal life." If that function of the mind/brain/consciousness didn't exist what would you sell eternal life to?  Some Christians try to sell bodily resurrection, but that doesn't work too well.  The other religions extract the essence of "you" for reincarnation, eternal life, or eternal torture.  But if the essence of "you" didn't already exist, they would have nothing to sell. 


 

Flag Jcarlinbn February 21, 2010 11:05 PM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 10:11PM, Blü wrote:

If we remove the supernatural trappings from the notion of 'soul', then we're back to discussions of brain research and more precise words than 'soul' will be available to us.  Speaking of which, I was interested to see Faustus' posting of the links to articles on consciousness here.


If we remove the supernatural trappings we are left with something and perhaps the research on consciousness will help shed some light on just what those supernatural trappings are attached to.  I personally doubt they will come up with a better term than (naturally existing) soul.  The term has been around for a long time and with or without supernatural trappings everybody has a referent for soul.  With or without supernatural trappings it means everything that it is to be me.  Not only the ego, but everything else that goes into the definition of who I am, what makes me what I am and what can affect what I am.  


The 60 papers in self consciousness from Faustus' link might be relevant.  I recognize a few of them as useful.  

Flag exploringinside February 22, 2010 4:10 AM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 6:06PM, ozero wrote:


Ok, Blu, I don't think I want to do this, but will anyway.  Here are your issues with dualism:


So who's the best defender of dualism?


Me, of course.


Who's given credible  answers to the following questions?


Let's call the  'immaterial part' or 'soul' or 'mind' or whatever name one might use for  the non-body element in dualism the IP -

* What's a definition  of 'immaterial', suitable for use in science and distinguishable from  'imaginary' and 'non-existent'? 


A physical entity, based on our current knowledge, made of silicon, that exists outside the current reality we are experiencing.  In the future, it could be anything real.  In my opinion it is what is left of us that was once carbon based, as we think of ourselves today.  It does not play in our world, it experiences our world through us.   In other opinions, it is any being with greater technology than we have that is researching us by creating a simulation.  (Google "living in a simulation")


* What reasoned hypothesis  gives meaning to the expression 'objective existence outside of nature'?


If we are in a simulation, then that which creates and controls the environment of the simulation is "outside of nature".  At least outside the nature that we percieve. It is the same as the idea that both you and the computer are outside the nature of a video game you might play.


*  If the brain can’t make choices, how can the IP make choices?


The brain in a simulation can make choices, in my version, the brain is a subsystem of the IP.


*  If the brain can’t be conscious, how can the IP be conscious?


I would think that the IP can maintain consciousness even when the brain cannot.


*  If the brain can’t think, how can the IP think?

By magic?


Yes, if by magic you mean any technology sufficiently higher than ours.


 


* And how did it evolve?


Initially following the rules of mutation and natural selection.  At some point we would take over for ourselves seeking to preserve our individual selves rather than our species.  We have done something similar in our past with loss of hair, use of clothes.  If we could use electronics (or whatever advanced form) to think with, then we could live virtually forever, with little fear of death or discomfort except as we create it for our own amusement. 


OK, I answered your questions.  I don't need a detailed answer, but would appreciate any specific problems you see with anything I posted.  Just take on the most obvious screw-up and let me know.  This really is a dualism, though more like the idea of merging with god, I guess or the idea that we are god.  If one can think of their favorite theology in the above terms, it does put a different spin to it.   It isn't very mystical, I'm afraid.  Just normal everyday living in eternity. 




Ozero - you should at the very least receive some applause for this lengthy effort; unfortunately, since having a stroke 3 years ago that paralyzed the right half of my body, I have only been able to offer as a tribute to others, the sound I make while using my one functional hand to clap.


It's a very odd thing to claim one is going to defend Dualism and then begin by assuming that duaalistic entities exist. Please pardon me for wondering but does the defense of a concept begin by assuming the concept is true?? The assumption that something is true does not appear to lend itself to any form of a logical argument:


[Reformulated slightly] the question, dialogue and potential argument could be approached using "If/Then Analysis" e.g.,


1. If Souls exixted, then, what would they be or be like and how would one know?


2. If "suppernatural entities/deities" existed, then why should such "things" require our worship?


3. etc, etc


This is "the major screw-up;" assuming Dualism is "true" and then trying to prove it.

Flag ozero February 22, 2010 7:49 AM EST

EI: "...does the defense of a concept begin by assuming the concept is true??"


It can, yes.  That is the defense of a concept, not the thing itself.  I was only defending the concept, I don't "believe" it.  I "think" it probable.  I don't know how probable because I'd need something like the Drake equation for ET to determine it, but I do think it is probable.  The simulation concept is a lot like the concept of ET somewhere out there.  To defend a concept, one need only show that it is possible and reasonable.  You can approach it by assuming that the concept is true and then finding a reason why it isn't.  That doesn't prove a concept is true, only that it is possible and cannot be rejected out of hand.  In this case, to show that dualism in its short form definition cannot be ruled out.  Start adding conditions to it and you make it more difficult to defend.  I do not think that the concept of a YEC god can be defended, but the short form concept of a god (supernatural being capable of doing some god-like things) can be.  For this one need only look at what is theoretically possible in reality and what severe limitations we live under.  If one asserts that something IS true, one is supposed to show evidence why it is.  But to show that something MIGHT BE true, one need only show that it is possible - but then one cannot expect others to accept it just because you say it's true.  I don't.  I'm still looking for a good reason why the concept is not possible.  I have one, but it's very weak.  I invite you to play along. 

Flag teilhard February 22, 2010 11:06 AM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 10:11PM, Blü wrote:


J'Carlin


As you define the soul as dualistic, you tautologically get into the logical problems of dualism.


I advertised that in advance and received no demur.  So I proceeded on that basis.  Calling the body / soul distinction 'dualism' isn't tautological, merely naming the category appropriate.


 


If the soul is defined as the natural expression in the human mind/brain of that which is commonly referred to by religious terms and usurped by shamans to continue beyond death to give them power over said soul,


Eh?  Do you meant that the soul's what the brain imagines is its own immortal part?  A concept without an objective counterpart?


If so, it's in the basket with all the other things, supernatural, fictitious, useful, &c whose only known kind of existence is as something imagined.


 


you have allowed dualistic religious definitions to prevent investigation into what is a natural and intrinsic function of the human mind/brain.


If we remove the supernatural trappings from the notion of 'soul', then we're back to discussions of brain research and more precise words than 'soul' will be available to us.  Speaking of which, I was interested to see Faustus' posting of the links to articles on consciousness here.


 



Indeed the either-or Dualism is a False Choice ... Rather -- MUCH more Realistic !!! -- is The Hebrew Understanding ...

Flag exploringinside February 22, 2010 2:36 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 7:49AM, ozero wrote:


EI: "...does the defense of a concept begin by assuming the concept is true??"


It can, yes.  That is the defense of a concept, not the thing itself.  I was only defending the concept, I don't "believe" it.  I "think" it probable.  I don't know how probable because I'd need something like the Drake equation for ET to determine it, but I do think it is probable.  The simulation concept is a lot like the concept of ET somewhere out there.  To defend a concept, one need only show that it is possible and reasonable.  You can approach it by assuming that the concept is true and then finding a reason why it isn't.  That doesn't prove a concept is true, only that it is possible and cannot be rejected out of hand.  In this case, to show that dualism in its short form definition cannot be ruled out.  Start adding conditions to it and you make it more difficult to defend.  I do not think that the concept of a YEC god can be defended, but the short form concept of a god (supernatural being capable of doing some god-like things) can be.  For this one need only look at what is theoretically possible in reality and what severe limitations we live under.  If one asserts that something IS true, one is supposed to show evidence why it is.  But to show that something MIGHT BE true, one need only show that it is possible - but then one cannot expect others to accept it just because you say it's true.  I don't.  I'm still looking for a good reason why the concept is not possible.  I have one, but it's very weak.  I invite you to play along. 




Ozero, my friend


I don't play "probabilities or possibilities;" nor do I play "unlimited potentialities" when "working" within the subject areas of Reality, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics.


When a concept does not concern or refer to a "real thing," we are then in the area of Fiction and Fantasy; in this realm anything that can be conceived is but a mere thought from becoming existent, Subjectively. I exit this realm when waking up after sleeping and dreaming. I do not allow fictional concepts free reign within my waking and Real world.


Showing something "might be true" is a poor use of the laguage and a poorer use of one's time -  "true" or "false" are the conditional states of being in actuality [true/not-true]. How does one properly assign value to something that "might be true?"


One of my wives invented the concept "flustrated;" it is essentially the description of an emotional state where a person is so frustrated that they also become flustered at the same time. What's the value of such a concept? For me it was a "sexual thermometer" - if she used the word "flustrated" more than once in a sentence, I knew I'd receive more sexual excitement from a Latin translation of War and Peace than I was going to get from her that night.


We were discussing Dualism? Have you actually offered a defense of Dualism or have you been defending the "argument style, you'd wish to employ? I'm looking back over everything and I don't yet see "Dualism" being defined or defended.


Wink




 

Flag Curious_Soul February 22, 2010 3:09 PM EST

 


 


Damn, messed that up lost my whole post somehow!


Ozero, i'll join El in giving you a clap...enjoy hearing your thoughts on those possiblities!


Had a reply where i put my spin on it with God instead but dont feel like redoing it...


Basically i share the same belief regarding the possible 'reasons' for the purpose of creating this reality... fiction.... simulation ...


For entertainment and experiential purposes..... but i believe we are eternal souls/spirits/beings of light etc....and that in the spiritual realm the range of emotions wasnt as yin yang.....only yin which is null.....eg eternal continous joy is just null without comparison


plus being eternal kinda sucks...so we created the illusion of death to fill the void!


had more silly delusions but hate losing posts...... not in mood now....

Flag ozero February 22, 2010 3:39 PM EST

EI, do you reject out of hand the existence of creatures on other planets than earth?


Do you reject Dark Matter and Energy?


Do you reject the Big Bang?


Membranes or String theory?


Etc.  None of the above has any proof.  They can be said to have a certain probability of being true based on other evidence.


Do you reject out of hand: Santa Claus, Easter bunny, fairies?  I do.  The probability of their existence is so low that they can safely be rejected.  Other things, while they cannot be demonstrated, are of high enough probability that they merit consideration rather than rejection.  I include the concept of a simulation in that list.  I don't mean to tell you how to think.  Lots of people reject all that cannot be shown to have evidence supporting their existence.  There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong with that.  I just don't do it personally.  I enjoy entertaining other ideas and putting a probability on their validity.   ET visiting earth?  Low probability.  ET existing elsewhere?  High.  If you are uncomfortable with that, fine.  I'm not preaching anything.  (Unless, of course, you're buying.  Then send me $25 and a stamped envelope...)


Oh, by the way:


Dualism:


1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
 —
duyalyist   \-list\ noun


Is that ok?  I can accept it.  From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate dictionary.


The actual discussion here is not really dualism, but the nature or existence of a "spirit", right?  (My probability meter reads very low probability for this.)


And elsewhere we have discussed dreams, since you mentioned them, as an example of dualism where the person dreaming is different from the person who is in the dream.


 


 

Flag Wendyness February 22, 2010 4:10 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 3:39PM, ozero wrote:


EI, do you reject out of hand the existence of creatures on other planets than earth?


Do you reject Dark Matter and Energy?


Do you reject the Big Bang?


Membranes or String theory?


Etc.  None of the above has any proof.  They can be said to have a certain probability of being true based on other evidence.


Do you reject out of hand: Santa Claus, Easter bunny, fairies?  I do.  The probability of their existence is so low that they can safely be rejected.  Other things, while they cannot be demonstrated, are of high enough probability that they merit consideration rather than rejection.  I include the concept of a simulation in that list.  I don't mean to tell you how to think.  Lots of people reject all that cannot be shown to have evidence supporting their existence.  There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong with that.  I just don't do it personally.  I enjoy entertaining other ideas and putting a probability on their validity.   ET visiting earth?  Low probability.  ET existing elsewhere?  High.  If you are uncomfortable with that, fine.  I'm not preaching anything.  (Unless, of course, you're buying.  Then send me $25 and a stamped envelope...)


Oh, by the way:


Dualism:


1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
 —
duyalyist   \-list\ noun


Is that ok?  I can accept it.  From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate dictionary.


The actual discussion here is not really dualism, but the nature or existence of a "spirit", right?  (My probability meter reads very low probability for this.)


And elsewhere we have discussed dreams, since you mentioned them, as an example of dualism where the person dreaming is different from the person who is in the dream.


 


 




The person dreaming is not different from the person who is in the dream.  Everything you dream is you.  Dreams are the language of symbols, which is a lost language in modern day.

Flag Blü February 22, 2010 5:36 PM EST

ozero

So, you say, the only way we can have souls is if we live in a particular kind of simulation?

Fair enough.

My first two axioms rule out living in a simulation by identifying as reality the universe detected by the senses.  That's to say, I rule out the simulation hypothesis by nothing other than assumption to the contrary.  But that's just me.


And it occurs to me that one way to test your hypothesis would be to examine the properties of a soul, and that would require us first to identify and isolate one.  So until then we haven't really come far.


Nonetheless, if those who assert the dualism of body and soul are prepared to accept your hypothesis then we can all go home.

Flag Curious_Soul February 22, 2010 6:09 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 3:39PM, ozero wrote:


The actual discussion here is not really dualism, but the nature or existence of a "spirit", right?  (My probability meter reads very low probability for this.) 




 


why if we, as evolved physical entities, constructed this 'simulation' from our true reality.....would we include the NDE'S like this....


www.near-death.com/experiences/storm02.h...


or in your idea, did we not control the possible outcome(s)...in your idea can we alter this reality from the 'true' reality? or only true control of our fake selfs?


 


I think .......spirit - soul - being of light    .... is best explanation

Flag exploringinside February 22, 2010 6:43 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 3:39PM, ozero wrote:


EI, do you reject out of hand the existence of creatures on other planets than earth?


Do you reject Dark Matter and Energy?


Do you reject the Big Bang?


Membranes or String theory?


Etc.  None of the above has any proof.  They can be said to have a certain probability of being true based on other evidence.




Think, my friend - your self-appointed job was to come to the defense of Dualism. Does any of the above list of things provide you a Defense of Dualism? You haven't yet offered even a drip of a defense of Dualism. I can't even ask you to stay on Topic because you haven't been near to the topic, yet. [I have some minature gerbils that I trained and outfitted to check my large colon for obstructions....do you need to borrow them?]


 


Feb 22, 2010 -- 3:39PM, ozero wrote:


Do you reject out of hand: Santa Claus, Easter bunny, fairies?  I do.  The probability of their existence is so low that they can safely be rejected.  Other things, while they cannot be demonstrated, are of high enough probability that they merit consideration rather than rejection.  I include the concept of a simulation in that list.  I don't mean to tell you how to think.  Lots of people reject all that cannot be shown to have evidence supporting their existence.  There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong with that.  I just don't do it personally.  I enjoy entertaining other ideas and putting a probability on their validity.   ET visiting earth?  Low probability.  ET existing elsewhere?  High.  If you are uncomfortable with that, fine.  I'm not preaching anything.  (Unless, of course, you're buying.  Then send me $25 and a stamped envelope...)



I didn't think anyone would ever get me to put "the suit" back on during my post holiday retreat but your challenge is accepted; the Flying Pink Elephant Aspect of me was returned Through the Looking Glass....I am now returned: I am the one true Santa Claus; I have the legal documents, the photos and witnesses to prove it in a court of law; [just ask the girls in my lap if I'm "Real" or not.] However, wasting "Moi Time" to prove that I exist in order to placate you non-believers, isn't worth the spit of a gnat. So, "stuff it under your shirt!!"


 


Oh, by the way:


Dualism:


1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
 —
duyalyist   \-list\ noun


Is that ok?  I can accept it.  From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate dictionary.


The actual discussion here is not really dualism, but the nature or existence of a "spirit", right?  (My probability meter reads very low probability for this.)


And elsewhere we have discussed dreams, since you mentioned them, as an example of dualism where the person dreaming is different from the person who is in the dream.




 


I read the line you wrote - "I [ozero] will defend Dualism." And now you want to somehow slink out of the Arena of Ideas with your self-respect intact??


OK; fine with me.   Laughing

Flag ozero February 22, 2010 7:29 PM EST

Blu:



ozero

So, you say, the only way we can have souls is if we  live in a particular kind of simulation?

Fair enough.


*I didn't say that.  It's the only thing that I can think of and, presently, accept to any degree. 


My  first two axioms rule out living in a simulation by identifying as  reality the universe detected by the senses.  That's to say, I rule out  the simulation hypothesis by nothing other than assumption to the  contrary.  But that's just me.


*That is fair enough.  One of the problems that shows up all the time in these discussions is the failure to agree on definitions before we start ranting about what other people believe or think.  I think I was obviously not trying to contradict your basic arguments.  I agree with them for the most part.  But "dualism" does have a definition and it is not quite what you think it is.  I definitely wasn't trying to defend the traditional, religious concept of dualism which is what you were attacking.



And it occurs to me that one  way to test your hypothesis would be to examine the properties of a  soul, and that would require us first to identify and isolate one.  So  until then we haven't really come far.


*I would think that the "soul" or IP would prevent that.  And, as I said, figuring out what's going on would defeat the purpose of the simulation.  It might be an interesting mind game, but I think it would be as fruitful as finding a religiously defined soul. I think we could assume that the IP is so far advanced from our current selves that it wouldn't have a lot of trouble keeping the truth a secret. I never said that I expected us to come far.


Nonetheless, if those  who assert the dualism of body and soul are prepared to accept your  hypothesis then we can all go home.


*No, we couldn't.  They would want to turn it into a religion and start piling all sorts of nonsense on it.  That seems to be human nature.  Look what they do to ET, even when none have been confirmed.  There will always be a place for healthy skepticism.


CuriousSoul, I would think that an NDE would be an interesting experience.  Ever notice that virtually all NDEs are within the context of a person's culture or religion?  They come from the brain.


EI, I'm not slinking away from anything.  I can defend my concept of a simulation just fine, thank you. If you don't think that's dualism, then also fine.  It fits the dictionary definition.  As you said, the thread has been diverted.  So either I avoid further diversion or I slink away.  Is that right?  Can you slink back, too.  I'd be glad to continue the discussion elsewhere.  And, btw, you may like things as true/not true or yes/no, but science is all about probabilities.  It has NO true/not true statements, only probable statements - this is one of the things that drives creationists nuts. The topic is "science" of souls. 


 


 


Flag Jcarlinbn February 22, 2010 8:34 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 7:29PM, ozero wrote:

The topic is "science" of souls. 


And as long as you insist that the soul has some supernatural part that survives death you have nothing.  No science, no probabilities, just hand waving and God beliefs.  Look for the referent in reality. It is a mind/brain function.  You might want to call it the whatchamajigger instead of the soul. But if you are going to talk about science you have to look at the whatchamagigger.  


 

Flag exploringinside February 22, 2010 9:06 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 7:29PM, ozero wrote:



EI, I'm not slinking away from anything.  I can defend my concept of a simulation just fine, thank you. If you don't think that's dualism, then also fine.  It fits the dictionary definition.  As you said, the thread has been diverted.  So either I avoid further diversion or I slink away.  Is that right?  Can you slink back, too.  I'd be glad to continue the discussion elsewhere.  And, btw, you may like things as true/not true or yes/no, but science is all about probabilities.  It has NO true/not true statements, only probable statements - this is one of the things that drives creationists nuts. The topic is "science" of souls. 





Ozero, my friend


......and now you've taken up juggling...how brave of you!!


At a "Loggers Festival" in Forks, WA I saw a guy juggle 4 chainsaws at one time that were on and running  [and were rigged to run until turned off, intentionally.] He could also do 6 double-headed axes at one time, but that I could not watch.


Simulation is not real, therefore, not applicable to a "real" defense of Dualism. ["Simulation of real things" is good in a few respects; I am grateful that the pilots of the Commercial Airlines I use, must pass many hours simulation of both training and testing modes.


Do you attempt to flit like a moth from light to various light as you think it somehow enhances your arguments? So now you want me to bend over and be "whipped" by "the science of souls??"


Imagine Chef's School: you are given a large empty platter and told the main course woud be roasted Tri-tip and you are expected to have the Main Course prepared to serve in 3 hours. What is wrong with this "Simulation?"


If you guessed "no meat," collect your gold star.


And in order to have a "science" that is "real"it must be applied to something that is a real thing or entity. Put a "soul" on the platter, marinate it, stuff it, cook it, carve it......there's still nothing there to eat!!!!


 


 

Flag ozero February 23, 2010 6:04 AM EST

j'carlin: "And as long as you insist that the  soul has some supernatural part that survives death..."


But I insist on no such thing.  I rarely "insist" on anything, especially like this.  I also suggest that the "supernatural part" is not actually either unreal or above what we consider real, that is it is subordinate to the physical laws of nature and is not, in any way, divine. I certainly haven't mentioned or suggested any type of god involved.  It's just us, as we could be in a few hundred years - shorter time if science continues to progress as fast as it is.  We have made great strides in nerve-computer interfaces and in analyzing how the brain functions.  So, I ask you.  What is the probability of ET's existence somewhere?  Is that science?  Is the Drake Equation science? Does it attempt to determine the probability of life elsewhere?  How is it different from what I am suggesting?


EI, sorry but you seem to have gone off the deep end.  "Simulation is not real"?  Where have you been the last 20 years?  Oh, yeah, in some hut in Washington watching chainsaw juggling.  The simulation of a plane flight is cool, virtual reality engaging, now 3 and working on 4 senses is way beyond flight simulation.  What I'm talking about is just a few natural steps beyond that. You seem to just want to banter.  If you can come up with something other than lame analogies, I'm waiting.  Till then we're just wasting our own and other people's time.  I have no objection to reasoned opposition to my ideas.  You haven't offered any.

Flag Blü February 23, 2010 6:50 AM EST

ozero


I didn't doubt for a second that you were playing devil's advocate.


I hope I didn't convey any suggestion that I thought you were in fact serious about that stuff - at least in any other capacity than as DA.

Flag teilhard February 23, 2010 12:15 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 4:10PM, Wendyness wrote:


Feb 22, 2010 -- 3:39PM, ozero wrote:


And elsewhere we have discussed dreams, since you mentioned them, as an example of dualism where the person dreaming is different from the person who is in the dream.


 



The person dreaming is not different from the person who is in the dream.  Everything you dream is you.  Dreams are the language of symbols, which is a lost language in modern day.



The Dual-istic either-or Mind-Set has DIFFICULTY even DREAMING of The Possibility that perhaps the MOST "Real" Understanding of "Reality" is NOT Un-Interpreted "Facts," but rather "Story" ...

Flag Jcarlinbn February 23, 2010 12:42 PM EST

Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:15PM, teilhard wrote:

 The Dual-istic either-or Mind-Set has DIFFICULTY even DREAMING of The Possibility that perhaps the MOST "Real" Understanding of "Reality" is NOT Un-Interpreted "Facts," but rather "Story" ...


But to properly understand the reality that can be found in story it is necessarily to recognize the fact that it is story.  All good stories probably tell more about reality than either science or history, as long as one does not confuse the story with the reality it is telling about.  


 

Flag teilhard February 23, 2010 1:00 PM EST

Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:15PM, teilhard wrote:

 The Dual-istic either-or Mind-Set has DIFFICULTY even DREAMING of The Possibility that perhaps the MOST "Real" Understanding of "Reality" is NOT Un-Interpreted "Facts," but rather "Story" ...


But to properly understand the reality that can be found in story it is necessarily to recognize the fact that it is story.  All good stories probably tell more about reality than either science or history, as long as one does not confuse the story with the reality it is telling about.  


 


Yes ... We Human Beings do the best we can, and so use EVERYTHING at our disposal, trying to Understand ...

Flag Wendyness February 23, 2010 1:42 PM EST

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:00PM, teilhard wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:15PM, teilhard wrote:

 The Dual-istic either-or Mind-Set has DIFFICULTY even DREAMING of The Possibility that perhaps the MOST "Real" Understanding of "Reality" is NOT Un-Interpreted "Facts," but rather "Story" ...


But to properly understand the reality that can be found in story it is necessarily to recognize the fact that it is story.  All good stories probably tell more about reality than either science or history, as long as one does not confuse the story with the reality it is telling about.  


 


Yes ... We Human Beings do the best we can, and so use EVERYTHING at our disposal, trying to Understand ...




Reason alone is not enough for human beings to become WHOLE.

Flag teilhard February 23, 2010 1:56 PM EST

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:42PM, Wendyness wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:00PM, teilhard wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 12:15PM, teilhard wrote:

 The Dual-istic either-or Mind-Set has DIFFICULTY even DREAMING of The Possibility that perhaps the MOST "Real" Understanding of "Reality" is NOT Un-Interpreted "Facts," but rather "Story" ...


But to properly understand the reality that can be found in story it is necessarily to recognize the fact that it is story.  All good stories probably tell more about reality than either science or history, as long as one does not confuse the story with the reality it is telling about.  


 


Yes ... We Human Beings do the best we can, and so use EVERYTHING at our disposal, trying to Understand ...




Reason alone is not enough for human beings to become WHOLE.



A Fully HUMAN Being is NOT just a Logic-Machine ...

Flag Christianlib February 23, 2010 1:58 PM EST

As someone who long made his living at the junction of Art and Commerce, let me agree with BOTH Wendy and T, here.

Flag ozero February 24, 2010 6:47 AM EST

Blu, devil's advocate?  Yes and no.  No, in that I really think living in a simulation is probable.  The idea has apparently come a long way since I started thinking about it about 10 years ago.  It's now in Wikipedia.  It's still, in my opinion, "clean" - few or no mystical connotations. The list of people considering it is more impressive than when I first started.  The list of Steves is well over 1.  2, in fact, if I counted right.  I still differ with them in that I have a natural progression from where we are to where we might be if what they are describing turns out to be true.  I haven't found a decent forum yet in which to discuss it. They are, at least, now talking about brain-computer interface.  That's where I began.


Yes, in that if you can reduce any concept to reality, you weaken the mystical approach.  Other self, external to you?  Yeah, sure. Probably. So what?  "So what" is for some reason not something mystics what to hear.  Of course, they have a "so what".  They start with their favorite "so what", then prove by assumption their dualism or other mystical idea.  But if dualism can be described in mundane, physical terms, it sort of takes the fun out of it.  One of the reasons I like to compare Simulation to ET is that most scientists accept the probability of ET.  Yeah, so what?  There are believers out there who don't want to accept the probability of ET, they want to consider it proved and then they want to claim that ET has the following agenda.... etc.


Reduce the concept of god to reality and you have to start asking what kind of thing is it?  What can it do?  If conscious, what does it think?  If you do it honestly, you end up with something entirely different from any religion.  Humanity takes a religion and creates a god, they don't take a god and figure out what that might mean.


 


 

Flag newchurchguy February 24, 2010 5:37 PM EST

Feb 22, 2010 -- 6:43PM, exploringinside wrote:


Think, my friend - your self-appointed job was to come to the defense of Dualism. Does any of the above list of things provide you a Defense of Dualism? You haven't yet offered even a drip of a defense of Dualism. Dualism:


1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
 —
duyalyist   \-list\ noun





exploring,


I think Ozero has a point.


With some consideration that there may be an excellent argument to support your point of view - I think that the definition of dualism above would acknowledge a dualism of virtual (simulation) and real (bricks and mortar) domains.


I would further suggest - that a soul created by a thinking animal - can be viewed as a virtual self.  Most people think of a soul as not having a beginning, an external something, rather than a virtual self is created by each person.  As the living being observes itself and replicates a new self - a sim - of its physical processing self - well that sim is a virtual being. 


The physical self dies, but what kills the virtual sim - if it has a source of data flow still available in the "infosphere".


Hypothetically speaking.


I think that Ozero is speaking more about a outside controled simulation - such as the Matrix - but same principle.

Flag Wendyness February 24, 2010 8:56 PM EST

"The fact that a metaphysics of the mind was supplanted in the nineteenth century by metaphysics of matter, is a mere trick if we consider it as a question for the intellect; yet regarded from the standpoint of psychology, it is an unexampled revolution in man's outlook upon the world.  Other-worldiness is converted into matter-of-factness; empirical boundaries are set to man's discussion of every problem to his choice of purposes, and even to what he calls "meaning".  Intangible, inner happenings seem to have to yield place to things in the external, tangible world, and no value exists if it is not founded on a so-called fact.  At least, this is how it appears to the simple mind."


 


MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL, Carl Jung

Flag Blü February 25, 2010 12:56 AM EST

ozero


No, in that I really think living in a simulation is probable.


I don't think it's probable, but neither can I think of any prediction it makes that would allow us to test it.  (Perhaps if we invent a doomsday machine - improving on the prediction that the LHC would crack open and destroy the universe - the Supervisors might step in rather than lose all their work?)



They are, at least, now talking about brain-computer interface.


Let me know when they develop that testable hypothesis.



if you can reduce any concept to reality, you weaken the mystical approach.


Yes indeed.  And as you say, not always winning friends in the process.  I'm still danged if I understand why no organized body of theists is studying the theory and practice of magic so that we too can create the electro-magnetic spectrum with a well-chosen phrase, or turn water into wine with a tap of the finger.



If you do it honestly, you end up with something entirely different from any religion.


You think so?  I think we end up with dream images from ourselves - the same sorts of things that SETI fans look for.

Flag newchurchguy February 25, 2010 9:42 AM EST

Feb 24, 2010 -- 8:56PM, Wendyness wrote:


"The fact that a metaphysics of the mind was supplanted in the nineteenth century by metaphysics of matter, is a mere trick if we consider it as a question for the intellect; yet regarded from the standpoint of psychology, it is an unexampled revolution in man's outlook upon the world.  Other-worldiness is converted into matter-of-factness; empirical boundaries are set to man's discussion of every problem to his choice of purposes, and even to what he calls "meaning".  Intangible, inner happenings seem to have to yield place to things in the external, tangible world, and no value exists if it is not founded on a so-called fact.  At least, this is how it appears to the simple mind."


 MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL, Carl Jung



Wendy,


I think that quote "nails it".  Thanks for posting it to the forum.


On the other hand - there is little philosophical progress, reaching the awareness of the general public --> on the meaning and root cause of "meaning''.


I am going to bump an old thread, on this subject, maybe you would comment there.


 

Flag Wendyness February 25, 2010 10:32 AM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 12:56AM, Blü wrote:


ozero


No, in that I really think living in a simulation is probable.


I don't think it's probable, but neither can I think of any prediction it makes that would allow us to test it.  (Perhaps if we invent a doomsday machine - improving on the prediction that the LHC would crack open and destroy the universe - the Supervisors might step in rather than lose all their work?)


They are, at least, now talking about brain-computer interface.


Let me know when they develop that testable hypothesis.


if you can reduce any concept to reality, you weaken the mystical approach.


Yes indeed.  And as you say, not always winning friends in the process.  I'm still danged if I understand why no organized body of theists is studying the theory and practice of magic so that we too can create the electro-magnetic spectrum with a well-chosen phrase, or turn water into wine with a tap of the finger.


If you do it honestly, you end up with something entirely different from any religion.


You think so?  I think we end up with dream images from ourselves - the same sorts of things that SETI fans look for.




The body of theists that have practiced and studied the theory are called ALCHEMISTS.

Flag Wendyness February 25, 2010 11:44 AM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 9:42AM, newchurchguy wrote:


Feb 24, 2010 -- 8:56PM, Wendyness wrote:


"The fact that a metaphysics of the mind was supplanted in the nineteenth century by metaphysics of matter, is a mere trick if we consider it as a question for the intellect; yet regarded from the standpoint of psychology, it is an unexampled revolution in man's outlook upon the world.  Other-worldiness is converted into matter-of-factness; empirical boundaries are set to man's discussion of every problem to his choice of purposes, and even to what he calls "meaning".  Intangible, inner happenings seem to have to yield place to things in the external, tangible world, and no value exists if it is not founded on a so-called fact.  At least, this is how it appears to the simple mind."


 MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL, Carl Jung



Wendy,


I think that quote "nails it".  Thanks for posting it to the forum.


On the other hand - there is little philosophical progress, reaching the awareness of the general public --> on the meaning and root cause of "meaning''.


I am going to bump an old thread, on this subject, maybe you would comment there.


 




Jung further states:


"When the spiritual catastrophe of the Reformation put an end to the Gothic Age with its impetuous yearning for the heights, its geographical confinement, and its restricted view of the world, the vertical outlook of the European mind was forthwith intersected by the horizontal outlook of modern times.  Consciousness ceased to grow upward, and grew instead in breadth of view, as well as in knowledge of the terrestrial globe.  This was the period of the great voyages, and of the widening of man's ideas of the world by empirical discoveries.  Belief in the substantiality of the spirit yielded more and more to the obtrusive conviction that material things alone have substance, till at last, after nearly four hundred years, the leading European thinkers and investigators came to regard the mind as wholly dependent on matter and material causation.


We are certainly not justified in saying that philosophy or natural science has brought about this complete volte-face.  There were always a fair number of intelligent philosophers and scientists who had enough insight and depth of thought to accept this irrational reversal of standpoint only under protest; a few even resisted it, but they had no following and were powerless against the popular attitude of unreasoned, not to say emotional, surrender to the all-importance of the physical world.  Let no one suppose that so radical a change in man's outlook could be brought about by reasoning and reflection, for no chain of reasoning can prove or disprove the existence of either mind or matter.  Both these concepts as every intelligent man today man ascertain for himself, are mere symbols that stand for something unknown and unexplored, and this something is postulated or denied according to man's mood and disposition or as the spirit of the age dictates.  There is nothing to prevent the speculative intellect from treating the psyche, on the one hand, as a complicated biochemical phenomenon, and at bottom a mere play of electrons, or, on the other, from regarding the unpredictable behavior of electrons as the sign of mental life even in them."


Carl Jung


MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL

Flag ozero February 25, 2010 11:45 AM EST

blu: "You think so?  I think we end up with dream images from ourselves - the  same sorts of things that SETI fans look for."


SETI fans, yes.  SETI scientists, no.  They're just looking for evidence of life outside of earth.  I think they'd be just as excited today to find a planet outside our solar system with evidence of oxygen in their atmosphere (meaning life elsewhere) as they would finding an interesting radio signal.  I don't think any of the scientists have a preconcieved notion of what ET should look like, though they play with the concept.


As to dream images of ourselves in simulations - very likely.  As to predictions, the only predictions I can think of is the stages of progression to a simulation.  We've already passed one: the connection of neurons to a computer.  We've even demonstrated that a monkey can open a door remotely just by thinking about it.  We're well on our way to fixing eyesight by direct connections to the optic nerve.  Still, there's a long way to go and skepticism is very much warrented.  The big prediction would be if we can do part or all of our thinking electronically.  If our thinking can survive the death of our carbon body, I think that would pretty much confirm the probability of a simulation.  It would not, however, provide any evidence that we are actually living in one now - just that we could be.


This is where I lose the religious people.  I think our brain is just a computer - albeit a very nice and fancy one - but just a computer and, with enough study, we can can duplicate its functions. 


And blu, if you don't agree with what I say, I declare you an athema.  I'm not sure what one of them athema things are, but I think you're one of them.  Man, I'd make a good religious leader.


 

Flag Wendyness February 25, 2010 11:51 AM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 11:45AM, ozero wrote:


blu: "You think so?  I think we end up with dream images from ourselves - the  same sorts of things that SETI fans look for."


SETI fans, yes.  SETI scientists, no.  They're just looking for evidence of life outside of earth.  I think they'd be just as excited today to find a planet outside our solar system with evidence of oxygen in their atmosphere (meaning life elsewhere) as they would finding an interesting radio signal.  I don't think any of the scientists have a pre-concieved notion of what ET should look like, though they play with the concept.


As to dream images of ourselves in simulations - very likely.  As to predictions, the only predictions I can think of is the stages of progression to a simulation.  We've already passed one: the connection of neurons to a computer.  We've even demonstrated that a monkey can open a door remotely just by thinking about it.  We're well on our way to fixing eyesight by direct connections to the optic nerve.  Still, there's a long way to go and skepticism is very much warrented.  The big prediction would be if we can do part or all of our thinking electronically.  If our thinking can survive the death of our carbon body, I think that would pretty much confirm the probability of a simulation.  It would not, however, provide any evidence that we are actually living in one now - just that we could be.


And blu, if you don't agree with what I say, I declare you an athema.  I'm not sure what one of them athema things are, but I think you're one of them.  Man, I'd make a good religious leader.


 




LOL, "dream images from ourselves". " Why is it we cannot pick our own dreams?  Tonight, I think I'll dream of Johnny Depp.  No matter how much I (the ego) may wish to dream of Johnny, in all probability it is highly unlikely it will happen (our soul gives us the dream we need). 

Flag teilhard February 25, 2010 12:06 PM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 11:45AM, ozero wrote:


And blu, if you don't agree with what I say, I declare you an athema.  I'm not sure what one of them athema things are, but I think you're one of them.  Man, I'd make a good religious leader.




I think I remember having once been told that I read that "Athema" is The Male CounterPart to "Athena" ... ( or did I dream that ... ??? ) ...

Flag Christianlib February 25, 2010 3:34 PM EST

(our soul gives us the dream we need).


 


Wendy,


That little parenthetical statement of yours is perhaps one of the most profound things I've read on b'net.  Thank you.

Flag Wendyness February 25, 2010 4:10 PM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 3:34PM, Christianlib wrote:


(our soul gives us the dream we need).


 


Wendy,


That little parenthetical statement of yours is perhaps one of the most profound things I've read on b'net.  Thank you.




Thank my wonderful Jungian therapist LOL!! He just told me that yesterday.  Would love to take credit for that but I'm far too honest.Wink

Flag Blü February 25, 2010 5:28 PM EST

ozero


If our thinking can survive the death of our carbon body, I think that  would pretty much confirm the probability of a simulation.  It would  not, however, provide any evidence that we are actually living in one  now - just that we could be.


I'm curious as to the connection between biological thought and binary processing.  Biological thought is analog, and integrated to a breathtaking degree not only with its own immediate neurotransmitters but with the body's chemicals generally - adrenaline, testosterone, estrogen, insulin, thyroxine &c &c &c.


So while I think there's an analogy between computers and central nervous systems, I also think there's a lot of difference.  If we imagine that in future we can make a perfect digital simulation of not only each of these elements but their interplay, to the extent where no objective or subjective difference can be discerned between biological and binary thought, the question may boil down to one of economy - is the biological machine simply more efficient at being a biological machine than the simulation machine is?


Which suggests cyborgs.  Which leads us straight to Terminators and Daleks, of course.


O brave new world, that hath such creatures in't!

Flag ozero February 25, 2010 6:21 PM EST

Blu, BINGO!  You win.  That is the major problem that I have with the whole concept.  But I don't think it rules it out.  You're right.  That which makes us human is the fact that we can't think straight - our thoughts are screwed up with dozens of chemicals in an infinite variety of dosages.  I would think that any auxiliary thinking device we might come up with would not have that feature.  We would rather be Spock than McCoy.  But we'd have a drink with and be friends with McCoy and engage Spock for his thoughts.  But I think that if we do develop an auxiliary thinking device and actually use it so much that we can't tell the difference between it and the biological brain, especially if our bio brain was failing us or seemed to fail us more and more, then, when the bio brain died, we probably would want to keep on going.  Maybe not, because it's possible that our desire to live long and prosper is just the mixture of certain chemicals.


As to whether we can duplicate the brain's way of thought - for computation and reasoning, I think yes.  A lot of computer scientists say that virtually anything that can be described, especially mathematically, can be modeled in a computer.  We could have an adrenaline subroutine that would activate certain processes in the presence of the right conditions.  Most other chemicals have causal factors that could be identified and "virtual chemicals" could be released.  I'm not sure it would be enough to keep people wanting to live, but I think so.


You can't fight it, Blu.  You will be absorbed.  You will be electrical.  It is useless to be a resistor.  Maybe a capacitor...


 

Flag Blü February 25, 2010 6:39 PM EST

ozero


I would think that any auxiliary thinking device we might come up with  would not have that feature.


Careful, careful.  If you invent thinking machines with no sense of humor, they'll all become fundamentalists.

Flag ozero February 25, 2010 7:36 PM EST

No, blu.  they are "THINKing" machines.


They might be republicans.

Flag Blü February 26, 2010 2:08 AM EST

ozero


I stand corrected.


But I'm still unhappy.

Flag ozero February 26, 2010 5:27 AM EST

blu: "But I'm still unhappy."


There are certain chemicals that can help with that.  See what you can do to release them to the brain. 


(Uh, I'm talking about chocolate, guys.)


 


 

Flag teilhard February 26, 2010 11:31 AM EST

Feb 25, 2010 -- 6:21PM, ozero wrote:


Blu, BINGO!  You win.  That is the major problem that I have with the whole concept.  But I don't think it rules it out.  You're right.  That which makes us human is the fact that we can't think straight - our thoughts are screwed up with dozens of chemicals in an infinite variety of dosages.  I would think that any auxiliary thinking device we might come up with would not have that feature.  We would rather be Spock than McCoy.  But we'd have a drink with and be friends with McCoy and engage Spock for his thoughts.  But I think that if we do develop an auxiliary thinking device and actually use it so much that we can't tell the difference between it and the biological brain, especially if our bio brain was failing us or seemed to fail us more and more, then, when the bio brain died, we probably would want to keep on going.  Maybe not, because it's possible that our desire to live long and prosper is just the mixture of certain chemicals.


As to whether we can duplicate the brain's way of thought - for computation and reasoning, I think yes.  A lot of computer scientists say that virtually anything that can be described, especially mathematically, can be modeled in a computer.  We could have an adrenaline subroutine that would activate certain processes in the presence of the right conditions.  Most other chemicals have causal factors that could be identified and "virtual chemicals" could be released.  I'm not sure it would be enough to keep people wanting to live, but I think so.


You can't fight it, Blu.  You will be absorbed.  You will be electrical.  It is useless to be a resistor.  Maybe a capacitor...


 



... an "electron" ... ??? ( What-EVER an "electron" REALLY Is ... !!! ) ...

Flag teilhard February 26, 2010 11:33 AM EST

Feb 26, 2010 -- 5:27AM, ozero wrote:


blu: "But I'm still unhappy."


There are certain chemicals that can help with that.  See what you can do to release them to the brain. 


(Uh, I'm talking about chocolate, guys.)


 


... YES ... !!! 


Just so ... TASTE The Chocolate ... !!!   DARK Chocolate will give you LIGHT ... !!!

Flag Wendyness February 26, 2010 12:18 PM EST

 


 


"It is only our doubts as to the omnipotence of matter which could lead us to examine in a critical way this verdict of science upon the human psyche."


Carl G. Jung 

Flag teilhard February 26, 2010 12:29 PM EST

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:28PM, teilhard wrote:


One of the Reasons I have SO long deeply LOVED The Life Sciences ( Biology and Its Kin ) is ( in part ) that Life Sciences are ALL  ABOUT The Scientific Study of "Souls" ... !!!


In The Primordial History Universal Deep Mythological Creation Stories, EVERYTHING that has "The Spirit-Breath of Life" ( Genesis 1:30; 2:7 ) IS a "Living Soul" ( Heb., "nephesh" ) ...


In The History of Living Things on The Earth, we see ( EXPERIENCE !!! ) The History of "Souls" ...


In Ecological Sciences, we come to Understand The Ongoing DEEP Relationships of "Souls" ...


Discuss ...





Flag teilhard February 26, 2010 12:30 PM EST

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:


"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways.  Observance is a word from ritual and religion.  It means to watch out for but also to keep and honor, as in the observance of a holiday.  The-serv-in  observance originally referred to tending sheep.  Observing the soul, we keep an eye on its sheep, on whatever is wandering and grazing---"


CARE of the SOUL by Thomas Moore



... yes ...

Flag Blü February 26, 2010 5:42 PM EST

ozero


Chocolate?  Haven't you tried rum?

Flag Jcarlinbn February 26, 2010 7:21 PM EST

or

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:

"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways. 


Soul is not a thing in the usual sense of the word, but it is an intrinsic function or property of the human mind/brain.  And Moore is quite correct that we must be aware of the soul and cherish it as the most valuable and personal possession we have.  Like all valuable possessions others will want to steal it and use it for their own selfish ends.  God is the usual suspect through that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who will insist that your soul isn't really yours, but was loaned to you by God and that God will take it away from you.  Resist this thought.  Giving ones soul to God is giving oneself to that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony, who will abuse you, take your money and time, and leave you with nothing when you die but a promise.  If you don't like the game don't play.  You spent your whole life to adulthood developing and refining your soul.  Don't give it away for a promise. Or even for chocolate or rum.

Flag Wendyness February 26, 2010 8:02 PM EST

Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:21PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


or

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:

"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways. 


Soul is not a thing in the usual sense of the word, but it is an intrinsic function or property of the human mind/brain.  And Moore is quite correct that we must be aware of the soul and cherish it as the most valuable and personal possession we have.  Like all valuable possessions others will want to steal it and use it for their own selfish ends.  God is the usual suspect through that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who will insist that your soul isn't really yours, but was loaned to you by God and that God will take it away from you.  Resist this thought.  Giving ones soul to God is giving oneself to that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony, who will abuse you, take your money and time, and leave you with nothing when you die but a promise.  If you don't like the game don't play.  You spent your whole life to adulthood developing and refining your soul.  Don't give it away for a promise. Or even for chocolate or rum.




I am not familiar with a God that insists that my soul does not belong to me.  My soul is mine and mine alone, it is up to me to nourish and observe what grazes in my soul.  My soul is my responsibility, not the responsibility of God.

Flag teilhard February 28, 2010 8:33 AM EST

Feb 26, 2010 -- 8:02PM, Wendyness wrote:


Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:21PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


or

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:

"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways. 


Soul is not a thing in the usual sense of the word, but it is an intrinsic function or property of the human mind/brain.  And Moore is quite correct that we must be aware of the soul and cherish it as the most valuable and personal possession we have.  Like all valuable possessions others will want to steal it and use it for their own selfish ends.  God is the usual suspect through that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who will insist that your soul isn't really yours, but was loaned to you by God and that God will take it away from you.  Resist this thought.  Giving ones soul to God is giving oneself to that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony, who will abuse you, take your money and time, and leave you with nothing when you die but a promise.  If you don't like the game don't play.  You spent your whole life to adulthood developing and refining your soul.  Don't give it away for a promise. Or even for chocolate or rum.




I am not familiar with a God that insists that my soul does not belong to me.  My soul is mine and mine alone, it is up to me to nourish and observe what grazes in my soul.  My soul is my responsibility, not the responsibility of God.



I AM a Living Soul ... My "Soul" IS "Me" ...

Flag Wendyness February 28, 2010 11:16 AM EST

Feb 28, 2010 -- 8:33AM, teilhard wrote:


Feb 26, 2010 -- 8:02PM, Wendyness wrote:


Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:21PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


or

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:

"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways. 


Soul is not a thing in the usual sense of the word, but it is an intrinsic function or property of the human mind/brain.  And Moore is quite correct that we must be aware of the soul and cherish it as the most valuable and personal possession we have.  Like all valuable possessions others will want to steal it and use it for their own selfish ends.  God is the usual suspect through that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who will insist that your soul isn't really yours, but was loaned to you by God and that God will take it away from you.  Resist this thought.  Giving ones soul to God is giving oneself to that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony, who will abuse you, take your money and time, and leave you with nothing when you die but a promise.  If you don't like the game don't play.  You spent your whole life to adulthood developing and refining your soul.  Don't give it away for a promise. Or even for chocolate or rum.




I am not familiar with a God that insists that my soul does not belong to me.  My soul is mine and mine alone, it is up to me to nourish and observe what grazes in my soul.  My soul is my responsibility, not the responsibility of God.



I AM a Living Soul ... My "Soul" IS "Me" ...




The "Soul" is the essence of who we are.

Flag Blü February 28, 2010 8:42 PM EST

Seems no one's interested in developing a science of souls.


We couldn't even agree on what we wanted a science of.


I guess the attractive things about souls is, they're a shifting whispering concept that's as warm as it is fuzzy.  You can say anything that takes your fancy at the moment.

Flag ozero February 28, 2010 8:56 PM EST

But we do know what to feed the soul...


soul food, of course.


The definition of a soul is right up there with the definition of god, spirits, angels, devils... whatever one wants it to be.


 

Flag Wendyness February 28, 2010 11:07 PM EST

Feb 28, 2010 -- 8:42PM, Blü wrote:


Seems no one's interested in developing a science of souls.


We couldn't even agree on what we wanted a science of.


I guess the attractive things about souls is, they're a shifting whispering concept that's as warm as it is fuzzy.  You can say anything that takes your fancy at the moment.




LOL "...souls is, they're a shifting whispering concept that's as warm as it is fuzzy".  The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and fuzzy".  

Flag Blü March 1, 2010 6:32 AM EST

Wendy


The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and  fuzzy".


Depends what you mean by 'soul', of course.

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 10:56 AM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Blü wrote:


Wendy


The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and  fuzzy".


Depends what you mean by 'soul', of course.




 


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light.

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 11:20 AM EST

Blu,


The soul is the essence of who we are.  

Flag teilhard March 1, 2010 12:09 PM EST

Feb 28, 2010 -- 8:42PM, Blü wrote:


Seems no one's interested in developing a science of souls.


We couldn't even agree on what we wanted a science of.


I guess the attractive things about souls is, they're a shifting whispering concept that's as warm as it is fuzzy.  You can say anything that takes your fancy at the moment.



I'll re-up my Initial Post, which is ABOUT The Science of "Souls" ...


I DO understand that some of our Siblings want to TRY to "Reduce" EVERYTHING -- even "God"(!!!) -- to "Physics" ... But there are other Opinions ...

Flag teilhard March 1, 2010 12:10 PM EST

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:28PM, teilhard wrote:


One of the Reasons I have SO long deeply LOVED The Life Sciences ( Biology and Its Kin ) is ( in part ) that Life Sciences are ALL  ABOUT The Scientific Study of "Souls" ... !!!


In The Primordial History Universal Deep Mythological Creation Stories, EVERYTHING that has "The Spirit-Breath of Life" ( Genesis 1:30; 2:7 ) IS a "Living Soul" ( Heb., "nephesh" ) ...


In The History of Living Things on The Earth, we see ( EXPERIENCE !!! ) The History of "Souls" ...


In Ecological Sciences, we come to Understand The Ongoing DEEP Relationships of "Souls" ...


Discuss ...





Flag Curious_Soul March 1, 2010 1:36 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Blü wrote:


Wendy


The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and fuzzy".


Depends what you mean by 'soul', of course.




 


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light.




 


She waved her hands. "I am Kali, and I am Krishna. I am noble, and I am wretched. I am beautiful, and I am ugly. I am dark, and I am light. I am the divine spirit that creates all of these. You are, too,"


__Child of the Dawn(fiction)__Gautama Chopra

Flag teilhard March 1, 2010 1:42 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:36PM, Curious_Soul wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Blü wrote:


Wendy


The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and fuzzy".


Depends what you mean by 'soul', of course.




 


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light.




 


She waved her hands. "I am Kali, and I am Krishna. I am noble, and I am wretched. I am beautiful, and I am ugly. I am dark, and I am light. I am the divine spirit that creates all of these. You are, too,"


__Child of the Dawn(fiction)__Gautama Chopra



Ying and Yang ... Animus and Anima ...

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 3:24 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:42PM, teilhard wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:36PM, Curious_Soul wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Blü wrote:


Wendy


The soul has a dark side that I can assure you is far from "warm and fuzzy".


Depends what you mean by 'soul', of course.




 


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light.




 


She waved her hands. "I am Kali, and I am Krishna. I am noble, and I am wretched. I am beautiful, and I am ugly. I am dark, and I am light. I am the divine spirit that creates all of these. You are, too,"


__Child of the Dawn(fiction)__Gautama Chopra



Ying and Yang ... Animus and Anima ...




The conscious, the unconscious create a whole which is very "scientific" (alchemy is science of the soul).

Flag Christianlib March 1, 2010 4:04 PM EST

"Now I am become Death", he   told the human, "destroyer of worlds.".


 


--Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the words of the Hindu god Vishnu, as he recalled the test of the first atomic bomb.

Flag Blü March 1, 2010 4:12 PM EST

Wendy


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and  contains both dark and light.


So by 'soul' here you simply mean 'the mood of one's brain prevailing from time to time' or something like that.  Wouldn't it be clearer just to say so than to try to sex it up with wafty words like 'soul'?

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 4:16 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 4:12PM, Blü wrote:


Wendy


Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and  contains both dark and light.


So by 'soul' here you simply mean 'the mood of one's brain prevailing from time to time' or something like that.  Wouldn't it be clearer just to say so than to try to sex it up with wafty words like 'soul'?




It is not a mood it is the essence of who we are which contain both dark and light, conscious and unconscious.

Flag Jcarlinbn March 1, 2010 4:47 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:

Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light. 


Perhaps, but if you break the religious leash on the dark side, you may find that it is relatively easily controlled if not completely eliminated.  The first step is to realize that almost all people are good people most importantly yourself.  That way when the religious guru tries to help you control the dark side, you may properly ask what dark side? The guru will say the dark side we all have, and you can properly say speak for yourself.  Depending on the religion the guru will say all are sinners, or all have the yin and the yang, and you have every right to use the tiresome atheist mantra: Prove it.  The guru is making a positive assertion and the default is that it is false.  Pointing to the occasional bad guy doesn't cut it.  You may properly ask to show your dark side, hesh did say all after all.  


A person starts with total control over herm soul. It has no sides or points.  Your parents and family will normally help you shape it into the benevolent and beneficent soul that is your birthright.  Don't sell it to the devil guru who will inevitably shape it to herm needs, not yours.   


more on Blue Roads

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 5:19 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 4:47PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:

Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light. 


Perhaps, but if you break the religious leash on the dark side, you may find that it is relatively easily controlled if not completely eliminated.  The first step is to realize that almost all people are good people most importantly yourself.  That way when the religious guru tries to help you control the dark side, you may properly ask what dark side? The guru will say the dark side we all have, and you can properly say speak for yourself.  Depending on the religion the guru will say all are sinners, or all have the yin and the yang, and you have every right to use the tiresome atheist mantra: Prove it.  The guru is making a positive assertion and the default is that it is false.  Pointing to the occasional bad guy doesn't cut it.  You may properly ask to show your dark side, hesh did say all after all.  


A person starts with total control over herm soul. It has no sides or points.  Your parents and family will normally help you shape it into the benevolent and beneficent soul that is your birthright.  Don't sell it to the devil guru who will inevitably shape it to herm needs, not yours.   


 


 


 




The dark side can never be fully eliminated because it is impossible to be a fully conscious human being and we do have our "shadow".   

Flag steven_guy March 1, 2010 9:52 PM EST

Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 9:57 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 

Flag steven_guy March 1, 2010 10:04 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 





Including picking one's nose, watching and remembering the jingles from TV advertisements and scratching one's bum?

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 10:08 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:04PM, steven_guy wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 





Including picking one's nose, watching and remembering the jingles from TV advertisements and scratching one's bum?




Yep. That's why it's important to observe what grazes in your soul.  I can assure you that I certainly would observe a man that watches TV and remembers the jingles, picks his nose and scratches his bum and conclude that he's not for me.  I prefer a kleenex, toilet paper wiping kind of guy, better yet don't let me catch you doing it too often.

Flag steven_guy March 1, 2010 10:18 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:08PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:04PM, steven_guy wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 





Including picking one's nose, watching and remembering the jingles from TV advertisements and scratching one's bum?




Yep. That's why it's important to observe what grazes in your soul.  




Oh, I've managed to live quite well without a "soul" or any other pretentious idea of the value and quality of an individual human being. I am simply a man, a reasonable one, I hope, and one who gets one with life, enjoying the amazing things other people sometimes manage create.   

Flag Wendyness March 1, 2010 10:22 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:18PM, steven_guy wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:08PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:04PM, steven_guy wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 





Including picking one's nose, watching and remembering the jingles from TV advertisements and scratching one's bum?




Yep. That's why it's important to observe what grazes in your soul.  




Oh, I've managed to live quite well without a "soul" or any other pretentious idea of the value and quality of an individual human being. I am simply a man, a reasonable one, I hope, and one who gets one with life, enjoying the amazing things other people sometimes manage create.   




I hope you are "reasonable" enough to use kleenex and toilet paper when available.  

Flag teilhard March 2, 2010 4:38 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 5:19PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 4:47PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 10:56AM, Wendyness wrote:

Every hear of the "dark night of the soul"?  The soul is "whole" and contains both dark and light. 


Perhaps, but if you break the religious leash on the dark side, you may find that it is relatively easily controlled if not completely eliminated.  The first step is to realize that almost all people are good people most importantly yourself.  That way when the religious guru tries to help you control the dark side, you may properly ask what dark side? The guru will say the dark side we all have, and you can properly say speak for yourself.  Depending on the religion the guru will say all are sinners, or all have the yin and the yang, and you have every right to use the tiresome atheist mantra: Prove it.  The guru is making a positive assertion and the default is that it is false.  Pointing to the occasional bad guy doesn't cut it.  You may properly ask to show your dark side, hesh did say all after all.  


A person starts with total control over herm soul. It has no sides or points.  Your parents and family will normally help you shape it into the benevolent and beneficent soul that is your birthright.  Don't sell it to the devil guru who will inevitably shape it to herm needs, not yours.   


 


 



The dark side can never be fully eliminated because it is impossible to be a fully conscious human being and we do have our "shadow".   



Our "Materialist" Siblings seem to feel that THEY can subdue and tame and extinct The Existential Questions ...

Flag teilhard March 2, 2010 4:42 PM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:52PM, steven_guy wrote:


Is not the idea of a "soul" one of those vague and meaningless concepts from the past that should have died out with the idea that the organ which pumps blood around the human body is the origin of emotions?




Indeed a more inclusive-unified Understanding of a Human Beiong as a "Soul" will "get" the Biological Reality of a Human Being AS a "Being" whose muscular Blood-Pump ( "The Heart" ) DOES respond to Feelings, Thoughts, Influences, Stimuli that ARE Existential in Character and AREN'T  ABOUT simply simple Circulation of Fluids through Bio-Pipes ... Exactly ... !!!

Flag Eudaimonist March 10, 2010 7:09 AM EST

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:

The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life.




If you mean that the soul is someone's psyche, that's fine with me. I sometimes use the word "soul" in that way.


Even so, I'm not in favor of any substance dualism, so don't take what I say that way.


 


eudaimonia,


Mark

Flag Blü March 10, 2010 5:57 PM EST

Wendy


So you're proposing we define the soul in a non-supernatural (ie non-dualistic) way?


As something like, the sense of self, memories and personality of an individual ?


We already have a science of that / those.

Flag teilhard March 10, 2010 6:00 PM EST

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:28PM, teilhard wrote:


One of the Reasons I have SO long deeply LOVED The Life Sciences ( Biology and Its Kin ) is ( in part ) that Life Sciences are ALL  ABOUT The Scientific Study of "Souls" ... !!!


In The Primordial History Universal Deep Mythological Creation Stories, EVERYTHING that has "The Spirit-Breath of Life" ( Genesis 1:30; 2:7 ) IS a "Living Soul" ( Heb., "nephesh" ) ...


In The History of Living Things on The Earth, we see ( EXPERIENCE !!! ) The History of "Souls" ...


In Ecological Sciences, we come to Understand The Ongoing DEEP Relationships of "Souls" ...


Discuss ...



^bump^

Flag williejhonlo January 26, 2011 7:50 PM EST

I believe Teilhard described it correctly, the soul is an existential reality. Science deals with objects that the senses can perceive but the soul from the vedic perspective says it is a nonmaterial infinitesimal particle of concentrated consciousness. It is a pure reality consisting of being, being has no duality of inner or outer perception. Our perception of inner and outer self is due to the soul accepting the body as a self. This is a perception arising from us being conditioned by our embodiment.

Flag Roymond November 18, 2014 3:29 AM EST

Feb 19, 2010 -- 11:59AM, Christianlib wrote:


As usual, I see much more in the way of semantics and misunderstood communications that I see substantive points in the previous discussion.


Small example, you two are using "doubt" in completely different ways, then each arguing over the fact that the other isn't using the term exactly as you use it.


The English language is SO ambiguous at times.  That is why Mathematics is the language of science.  Precision.




I can't pass this up....


My older brother, once a mathematician and now some esoteric combination of mathematician, computer programmer, computer engineer, and systems analyst, once commented that in Heaven there will be only two areas of knowledge left:  mathematics, which describes everything created, and theology, which describes everything uncreated... except that in Heaven we will be with God, so theology won't be necessary, leaving mathematics to reign supreme.


Sealed

Flag Roymond November 18, 2014 3:38 AM EST

Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.




Dualism is a logical problem only to those whose geometry of reality is constrained by too few dimensions.

Flag Roymond November 18, 2014 3:58 AM EST

Feb 26, 2010 -- 8:02PM, Wendyness wrote:


I am not familiar with a God that insists that my soul does not belong to me.  My soul is mine and mine alone, it is up to me to nourish and observe what grazes in my soul.  My soul is my responsibility, not the responsibility of God.




Unless we are a simulation in the mind of God.



But then He gets the chocolate and the rum, and we only get a simulation.

Flag Roymond November 18, 2014 4:08 AM EST

After reading the entire thread, and reading every instance where tielhard repost his opener, I've decided that I'm not convinced that the opener even means anything.  It's more a tautology than anything, which means that there can't be any science of it in any sense of the word.  Unless the term can be given some actual meaning, we're just going to keep spinning wheels as we have been.

Flag JCarlin November 20, 2014 11:00 PM EST

Nov 18, 2014 -- 3:38AM, Roymond wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.




Dualism is a logical problem only to those whose geometry of reality is constrained by too few dimensions.



Thanks for picking this thread up.  I think adding

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:

The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 


to the Blü dualities, we can essentially pick one or two and run with them.  The Wendyness definition is most relevant to modern usage, although it would confuse believers.  Believers may accept the common definition but add one of the dualities as per their dogma. 


Other than her Jungian graft of light/dark duality I have no objection to her quoted definition of soul.  It is in fact what is left after we die, but only in the memories of those whose lives we affected while living. 

Flag Curious_Soul February 6, 2015 5:45 PM EST

Nice trip down memory lane, to see what sort of nonsense i was peddling 5 years ago...



Not much changed haha



Great bunch of people there

Flag teilhard February 8, 2015 2:32 PM EST

Anyone who has ever had a long-term intimate relationship with another person (including non-human "companion animals") ... has an intuitive experiential (Empirical) existential understanding of *what* a "Soul" is about ...


Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:28PM, teilhard wrote:


One of the Reasons I have SO long deeply LOVED The Life Sciences ( Biology and Its Kin ) is ( in part ) that Life Sciences are ALL  ABOUT The Scientific Study of "Souls" ... !!!


In The Primordial History Universal Deep Mythological Creation Stories, EVERYTHING that has "The Spirit-Breath of Life" ( Genesis 1:30; 2:7 ) IS a "Living Soul" ( Heb., "nephesh" ) ...


In The History of Living Things on The Earth, we see ( EXPERIENCE !!! ) The History of "Souls" ...


In Ecological Sciences, we come to Understand The Ongoing DEEP Relationships of "Souls" ...


Discuss ...





Flag Karma_yeshe_dorje May 2, 2015 7:06 PM EDT

I recently read that 39% of psychology research studies were replicated.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook