I Am Soul

[breathe]

I hear alot of what Navigator is saying and sure ego circulates in this realm too but not in the sense you are suggesting at all.

and
Paulhoff wrote

Soul explains nothing, so-called god explains nothing, end of story.

Paul


__________________
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

Paulhoff your own blurb suggests that this is not what you really think at all............

as always PERHAPS

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I Am Soul

I am Legend!

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Did I say that I think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon?

That was a misunderstanding on my part, sorry for that. I though you meant that consciousness was an emergent property of the universe, apparently this interpretation is wrong. If I understand you correctly, you do not think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the universe, you think consciousness was even prior to that. So, how did consciousness come to be then?

Do you often read your own meaning into what another has said. Read again what I said, also note the bit about my views on argument.
Remember too, when you have strong beliefs, these can often muddy the waters of communication because one tends to define another by ones own expectations.

No, but when someone is justifying their arguments by such an example as “the universe seems to have had a beginning and thus something caused that effect”, it’s kind of self evident that they don’t have any actual reasons for their assertions. In short, it’s probably one of the vaguest justifications I have ever encountered. You might as well settle for a truism like: “because I think so.”

About beliefs, well, it’s my impression it’s you who appears to think you’re in the know here, thus probably why your reasoning is so vague and muddy, and started out as a monologue in an interactive setting (but at least that’s settled for now). Even though I assert the opposite – that the corporeal has created consciousness, based on what current evidence seems to suggest – it doesn’t mean that this belief is engraved in stone, it’s just that reason and evidence seems to suggest that, and evidence to the contrary seems to be completely lacking. For me to confirm your view despite the evidence would be naïve.

Do you think that consciousness is an idea created by human imagination? Why?

I think the soul is created by human imagination because it appears that such a thing has only been manifested in narratives, especially in religious ones. But since you equate soul with consciousness we seem to be speaking about different issues here. Hence, I think consciousness can be explained by physical processes in such a way as when the brain is altered or damaged, consciousness therein changes (we have much evidence about this). When the corporal body dies, it seems that consciousness in that body also ends. Either way, consciousness does not seem to be a phenomenon that can exist without physical processes.

The universe didn't just once upon a time happen of its own volition. The universe is an effect that something caused. My assertion is that consciousness was that cause, but if you have another assertion to the cause, do share.

Why would you even think there was any kind of volition involved, isn’t that a tad anthropomorphic? I don’t have to speculate about what the cause of the universe was because I have no knowledge about that, albeit the science involved is interesting. There’s certainly no reason to invent another variable like consciousness as being even prior to everything else; it doesn’t really add anything useful. We would then, again, have to ask what caused consciousness.

Something caused the effect, that much is evident. Certainly there is no evidence to support that consciousness didn't create the universe. You know that.

I suppose you know about the issue with proving a negative. So why do you even bother with such silliness? Navigator, I think your way off course here anyway, especially since the things we know about consciousness is closely linked with brains, or to behaviour at the very least (depending on definitions). You can of course think anything you wish, but that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable or even worthy of taking seriously. The way you suggest consciousness being a priori, would at the very least require a new definition of ‘consciousness’.

platitudes...it has been said

A platitude is simply a truth repeated till people get tired of hearing it.

I’m afraid it looks like the truth here is probably more about your ego’s imagination that anything else.

How do you know you are without soul?

Well, I’m conscious; there’s your potential ammunition for twisting that into meaning me having a soul. The way you define these things is so vague that you could even say I am reality or I consist of reality or any such pomposity, devoid of practically any communicative meaning.

 

[Paulhoff]

I hear alot of what Navigator is saying and sure ego circulates in this realm too but not in the sense you are suggesting at all.

and
Paulhoff wrote


Paulhoff your own blurb suggests that this is not what you really think at all............

as always PERHAPS

Oh, and no Peter Pan, Tinkerbell, etc.

Paul

 

[Navigator]

I’m afraid it looks like the truth here is probably more about your ego’s imagination that anything else.

Originally Posted by Navigator
How do you know you are without soul?

Well, I’m conscious; there’s your potential ammunition for twisting that into meaning me having a soul. The way you define these things is so vague that you could even say I am reality or I consist of reality or any such pomposity, devoid of practically any communicative meaning.

This is where communication often fails.
You can’t help it?
You have to make presumptive assertions yourself and speak of ego as if it were some taint of human experience?
There is no soul but there is ego, and it will look for ammunition and twist your meaning into something that I want it to mean?
Then there is your reference to pomposity. You say that I am devoid of practical communicative meaning.

Is your stance and use of words practical as a device for communicating?
It appears to be like unto preaching, finding things you consider to be faulty in others.

Often when I encounter such personalities, I see in their own judgments, a clear indication of how they themselves possibly are.

Okay, since there is this shadowy thing called ego, would it be your own ego that allows you the right to presume that the evidence put forth while a long way from complete, is enough for you to decide there is no soul?
But...

...there is ego.

Or are you without that too?

Is it truth based on evidence, or on your ego choices which entitles you to react as you have?




Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

There is no soul but there is ego, and it will look for ammunition and twist your meaning into something that I want it to mean?
Then there is your reference to pomposity.

Ego is just a word like soul; they are linguistic abstractions, and frankly, kind of useless. I might as well have said that: “I’m afraid it looks like the truth here is probably more about your imagination that anything else.” I think we can speak about someone having a big ego if we think that someone is in a state that resembles some kind of hubris (like saying they are reminding people of truths that they do not want to hear).

You say that I am devoid of practical communicative meaning.

No, I don’t say that about you, you seem to be a nice person full of life. I say that about using definitions that are so broad that they do no mean anything anymore in the practical sense; equating consciousness with soul might be such a case. Thus, if you ask me if I’m conscious, I would have to say yes. But when you ask me if I have a soul, I would have to say no. However, since you have equated those terms, you can now interpret my answers as me having a soul because I’m conscious. A nifty trick, but devoid of communicative meaning since anything I would say would add up to me having a soul anyway (according to your perspective).

Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

Of course the universe can exist without consciousness, although no one would be here asserting that (or what you said). When you say that consciousness comes before the universe, then, what created consciousness?

 

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Navigator
How do you know you are without soul?



This is where communication often fails.
You can’t help it?
You have to make presumptive assertions yourself and speak of ego as if it were some taint of human experience?
There is no soul but there is ego, and it will look for ammunition and twist your meaning into something that I want it to mean?
Then there is your reference to pomposity. You say that I am devoid of practical communicative meaning.

Is your stance and use of words practical as a device for communicating?
It appears to be like unto preaching, finding things you consider to be faulty in others.

Often when I encounter such personalities, I see in their own judgments, a clear indication of how they themselves possibly are.

Okay, since there is this shadowy thing called ego, would it be your own ego that allows you the right to presume that the evidence put forth while a long way from complete, is enough for you to decide there is no soul?
But...

...there is ego.

Or are you without that too?

Is it truth based on evidence, or on your ego choices which entitles you to react as you have?




Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

For your consideration,

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-27.html#feature


The article is entitled, Consciousness is Nothing but a Word.


M.

 

[Navigator]

I think the thing with ego is that it allows for the individual to personify their existence, in a way which is useful to external influences.
Those responses to the external influences are a product of the individuals sense of self which has largely been bestowed on the individual by the influence of external opinion.
External opinion largely consists of other individuals shaping the attitudes and opinions of the less informed, and this starts from a very early age.
The information which seeks to tell an individual who they are is one of the most powerful manipulative devices available.
This method of influence is not used only by the religious sector. It is used by every sector.
Also, when different types of individuals gather in one place, discussion is not so much the order of the day. The motivation is to express the particular entity each ego associates with, and often it is about winning other individuals over by convincing them that they are wrong about what they think of as their self, and that the group they support is…. and out comes the list of historical evidence of wrongdoing…

This is a constant thing, evident in daily activity, and certainly evident on the internet.

It may be no thing more than an expression of a basic need for survival.

No individual is untouched by this external influence. Every individual can, if they want to, choose to step out from the shadow of such influence and examine in their own way, the methodology of external influence, and in doing so uncover the motives for such behavior.
This does not mean that the individual will then be untouched by external influence, but it does mean that the individual is less likely to be directly influenced by it.
There will be those who understand fully what I am saying here. There are others who will understand what I am saying, but only in terms of having had to go through such a process in disengaging from the manipulations of their initial influence, by being convinced by another entity, of those manipulations.
They are thankful toward that entity which helped free them and do not see this new group is also manipulating them, because in a sense it saved them from something that was using them.
What occurs then is a transferal of an individuals supportive energy from one entity to another and a change in the way the individual now sees the self, and others.


There is a passenger (soul) which directly observes and experiences the ripple effect of the choices made by the individual, but does not directly impose upon the individual any particular influences. Not because it can’t, but because it has no use for such manipulations.
This passenger, simply by being intimately connected to the individual IS that individual, but is not that individual’s personality. The individuals’ personality is the product of external influences and is not connected directly to the reality of the passenger.
Not that the individual can’t connect but the individual is influenced by the voice of externals to the degree where such connection is not even an option to consider.

The voice of externals is real and provable and thus, it is the first thing an individual must rely upon. Individuals are free to change alliances to better reflect how they see themselves and to garner support from and offer support to that belief system.

This process can continue throughout a life time. The individual has a sense of self which is largely formed by outside influences. The individual may not even be aware that how they see their self is a product of these external influences.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Has anyone seen a fact? I dropped one here somewhere.

 

[Navigator]

Ah words.

So many differing meanings, interpretations, that it makes language a tool of limitation rather than one of communication.

Linguistic abstractions. Interesting.
Should we use them at all? Well we use them don’t we, to explain or identify abstracts. Ego Soul Consciousness.

Is there a list?

You have no soul why? Is it something you have explored within your self or does the external evidence convince you that there is no need to go looking and what do you really think of those that do look and say they have found and do you really want to be like that?
In other words, are your perceptions of those who think soul exists such that you wouldn’t want to even go there of your own volition least you might become like them?
What I am saying is, look at your attitude toward those you don’t agree with and ask yourself honestly if those attitudes have a bearing on your choices.

There is collective evidence which can be objectively explored.

Then there is the reality of an individual life experience – subjective, personal and no less real or truthful.

Still, I accept you are trying to show me the error of my communications, and use of words.
It is interesting.

If I was to say “I Am”
The reply might be “You are what?”
Then I could put in any kind of linguistic abstract and the reply would be “no you are not”
Then I might receive an explanation as to why I cannot possibly be who I say I am.
Then I might get a suggestion that I am stardust, or organic or some such other objective response.
You think you are whatever your thoughts might imagine you are, but you are not that, you are this.
Why?
Because your thoughts are based on imaginative abstracts, egotistical disorders and also you are not like me, and I am correct, and only want you to be correct too.

So I am Soul, so say I – and the connotation is immediately picked up as I am religiously inclined.
This attracts opposition and support.

How fun! Mind games! Word games!
But wait! It is noticed that there is an organized initiative to expose fraudulent beliefs and the members of this organization have everyone’s best interests at heart!
And what kind of a world would it be if such silliness as imaginative beliefs were extinguished from the minds of the multitude?
Is this kind of world even imaginable?


Are the edges blurred somehow? Is the professed desire to expose fraudulent personalities who take advantage of the innocently naïve, encroaching into, spilling over into the arena of personal choice?
Suddenly the watchdog has snowballed itself into something that wants to expose individuals to their own fraudulent beliefs in order to – lets be honest – save them from themselves, and increase the numbers – spread the word etc…

If this is the incentive, it is based on wishful thinking

 

[Navigator]

Here is another linguistic abstract offered for consideration

Paranormal

 

[Navigator]

Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

Of course the universe can exist without consciousness, although no one would be here asserting that (or what you said). When you say that consciousness comes before the universe, then, what created consciousness?

Bearing in mind that consciousness is nothing but a word, I can of course no longer reply to this.

Ah well – whatever – It is likely a word that is used to describe many things, some which are at odds with others – all lumped together in a convenient package to be used willy nilly by the simplistically lazy.

How then could I rephrase my statement that less confusion is attained?

Could I say – “Without the ability to acknowledge the universe as existing, the universe cannot exist.”?

Nope that wouldn’t work because it could rightfully be retorted that while I might not have the ability to acknowledge the universe someone else will have, and therefore can verify that the universe does exist.

Could I say – “The ability to acknowledge the universe is what makes the universe exist.”?

In order for something to exist, it has to be acknowledged and since it is acknowledged as existing, it therefore exists?
If it couldn’t be acknowledged, then it simply doesn’t exist.

What then is doing the acknowledging? Something that has the ability to assert?
As you suggest:

“Of course the universe can exist without consciousness, although no one would be here asserting that”

Would…

“Of course the universe can exist independently of anything in it which is able to acknowledge or verify it.”

…be an acceptable alternative in expressing what you are trying to convey?

Edit - nope that is not right either.

“Of course the universe can exist even if there is nothing in it which is able to acknowledge or verify it.”

That is better...will it do?

 

[PBTree]

Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.


?

Let me see if I have got this right using an old saying;

"if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it and nobody is there to hear it. did it really fall?",

you are saying it couldn't have fallen!!

 

[Navigator]

Let me see if I have got this right using an old saying;

"if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it and nobody is there to hear it. did it really fall?",

you are saying it couldn't have fallen!!

No PBTree

(you might have worked this out since posting)

We are trying to clarify now before I can give an answer, because apparently the word "consciousness" among other words is too ambiguous

Language consensus of sorts. Splitting hairs maybe, but worth a shot.

I can say though, that in light of the new development, it is not been said that the tree has not fallen, it is being said that there is no thing in the universe that can even describe “tree” or “fallen”
Therefore the tree not only did not fall, there was no tree, or forest for that matter.

What I am saying in this light is that if there is nothing in the universe able to acknowledge the universes existence, then the universe does not exist.
Which refers back to something in a previous post of mine, which had the words…

“As Consciousness is the only thing which recognizes Itself and all other things as Itself, it is Consciousness alone which decides What It Is.”


Of course the word consciousness, while generally accepted in the way I have used it, seems to now be one of those fluffy mis-understood ones.

 

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Navigator
How do you know you are without soul?
Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

First, you have to prove the soul thing. And the universe existed way way before any consciousness, none was needed for it to be.

Paul

 

[Navigator]

..

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

In order for something to exist, it has to be acknowledged and since it is acknowledged as existing, it therefore exists? If it couldn’t be acknowledged, then it simply doesn’t exist.

There has to be something in order for us to be able to acknowledge it as existing in the first place. If, as you say, consciousness came before the universe because you say that obviously something must have caused the universe, then by the same kind of reasoning, something must have caused consciousness. Navigator, what might that be?

“Of course the universe can exist even if there is nothing in it which is able to acknowledge or verify it.”

That is better...will it do?

Do you disagree with that?

 

[breathe]

the driver may be stuck on auto pilot in the scenario you outline but they may also be beginning to hear the passenger and therefore the intellect/mind is facing many tests constantly...as such education and solitude seem like the only answer you have...

which again contrasts your earlier statements that one should have fun to the max

how can one have fun if they are constantly doubting everyone they are with... that is if every association is plotting to use the individual, how can one have faith ? i think it is extremely borderline and impossible for most to understand what you are saying Navigator

 

[Navigator]

First, you have to prove the soul thing. And the universe existed way way before any consciousness, none was needed for it to be.

Paul

What soul thing?

I thought it has been established that words like soul and consciousness and paranormal etc.. are not really words which are agreeable?

Okay, maybe I jest.

But seriously Paul, how is it provable that the universe didn't need umm...anything in which to define its existence, before it became, if it even became at all?

Once we can agree, we can move on into the next level of discussion.
Then again, maybe we can agree to allow for common understandings of words, and clarify or come to the table when there is a bit of a dispute http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3468664#post3468664

 

[Navigator]

In order for something to exist, it has to be acknowledged and since it is acknowledged as existing, it therefore exists? If it couldn’t be acknowledged, then it simply doesn’t exist.

There has to be something in order for us to be able to acknowledge it as existing in the first place.

When you say something, are you also including nothing?

If, as you say, consciousness came before the universe because you say that obviously something must have caused the universe, then by the same kind of reasoning, something must have caused consciousness. Navigator, what might that be?

lupus_in_fabula did you read my posts going through the different examples you gave as to how the universe might have come to exist?
One of those situations you offered which I was happy to agree with, was that the universe has always existed.

That which is able to acknowledge its own existence didn’t come from anything, it has always existed, and needs nothing outside itself to acknowledge its existence., or to explain to it what it is.
There is no evidence cut and dried which can categorical prove that matter begat that which then acknowledges it.
Matter cannot create something to acknowledge its existence, any more than a vehicle can create something to operate it. This is because it doesn’t even know it exists, let alone has the ability to create something which is able to acknowledge it does exist.

It is that which is able to acknowledge itself and everything else, which is able to create.

Like I said, I like your offering of the universe that has always ever been. Hand in hand as one thing, that which is able to recognize itself has ever always existed.



“Of course the universe can exist even if there is nothing in it which is able to acknowledge or verify it.”

Do you disagree with that?

I think it is impossible, but this might be one of those fluffy words.

For now I will go along with agreeing that if there is nothing that can acknowledge the universe as existing, then the universe would not exist.