I Am Soul

[arthwollipot]

Are we talking about logical positivism here? Or just solipsism? Or both?

 

[Navigator]

Are we talking about logical positivism here? Or just solipsism? Or both?

Everything

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

When you say something, are you also including nothing?

No.

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.

How convenient!

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 seems that acknowledging ends when creatures die, it also seems that acknowledging begins when creatures are born. About matter not being able to create something that acknowledges its existence, well, you will have to say why you think that, especially since there’s much support to suggest otherwise (like yourself, your brain, and all other brains).

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.

That position couldn’t be more anthropomorphic. I’m sure many have also been convinced that the world will end when they die, yet it didn’t, they just died.

 

[arthwollipot]

Everything

Oh, that's helpful!

 

[Tricky]

Are we talking about logical positivism here? Or just solipsism? Or both?

Everything

Okay, let's run with that. If you are talking about "everything" then that means that "the number of things you are talking about" is a limit that approaches infinity. So what does this imply? If the number of things you are talking about approaches infinity, then the amount that you can positively say about each single thing you are talking about is a function defined by some positive number over infinity. The limit of any positive number over a function that approaches infinity is a value that approaches zero.

Therefore, if you are talking about "everything" then what you are saying about "anything" is zero.

That sounds about right.

 

[Paulhoff]

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?

Oh seriously, because it was around for most likely a billion years or so before anything was there to define existence, stars, planets, moons etc were coming and going without that need.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the universe has "basic operating instructions," wouldn't that count as a soul?

Basic operating instructions of the universe? Like the laws of physics (tlop)? No, that wouldn't count as soul. At least not for any meaningful definition of "soul".

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

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.

Unsupported assertion.

And the internal logic is flawed: If the universe cannot exist without "something" acknowledges it as existing, then how can "something" exist without "something else" to acknowledge its existence? And if "something else" exists what exists to acknowledge that it exists. Etc, ad infinitum.

Hans

 

[Tricky]

Unsupported assertion.

And the internal logic is flawed: If the universe cannot exist without "something" acknowledges it as existing, then how can "something" exist without "something else" to acknowledge its existence? And if "something else" exists what exists to acknowledge that it exists. Etc, ad infinitum.

Hans

It's existential turtles all the way down...

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Unsupported assertion.

And the internal logic is flawed: If the universe cannot exist without "something" acknowledges it as existing, then how can "something" exist without "something else" to acknowledge its existence? And if "something else" exists what exists to acknowledge that it exists. Etc, ad infinitum.

Well, for that there’s this convenient assertion:

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.

It seems that the exception is consciousness, for a self-referential reason of some sort.

 

[Navigator]

lupus_in_fabula
Triky
Paul
Et al

It appears difficult for you to focus on the content of this thread, no doubt in part due to you slipping in and out of many threads offering your opinions.
You are, after all, only human.

Are we talking about logical positivism here? Or just solipsism? Or both?

Everything

Oh, that's helpful!

When I said “Everything” I was including me in with the “we” talking – excuse me, my bad…you were just trying to label something and asking your fellows “are we”.

Okay, let's run with that. If you are talking about "everything" then that means that "the number of things you are talking about" is a limit that approaches infinity. So what does this imply? If the number of things you are talking about approaches infinity, then the amount that you can positively say about each single thing you are talking about is a function defined by some positive number over infinity. The limit of any positive number over a function that approaches infinity is a value that approaches zero.

Therefore, if you are talking about "everything" then what you are saying about "anything" is zero.

That sounds about right.

yes, everthing including witless sarcasm!
Seriously, as I said – it was my bad, and in answering a question which I thoughtlessly included myself in the ‘we’ mentioned, I was ‘talking about’ the universe, practically from post 1 of this thread.
Like I said, my bad…I will try to be more careful in future and learn to discern.

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?

Oh seriously, because it was around for most likely a billion years or so before anything was there to define existence, stars, planets, moons etc were coming and going without that need.

Paul

Most likely? Have we not already discarded that the universe began at all?
Of course, I see what you are saying regarding the ‘before anything was there to define its existence’ may be referring to the evidence you know exists, which is ‘Human Beings on Planet Earth’
Unfortunately, that is, in relation to the vastness of the universe we acknowledge here – subjective evidence, don’t you agree?
I agree though – that was a silly word for me to use…the word ‘need’.
How can something that has no ability to acknowledge itself possibly have ‘needs’

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.

Unsupported assertion.

And the internal logic is flawed: If the universe cannot exist without "something" acknowledges it as existing, then how can "something" exist without "something else" to acknowledge its existence? And if "something else" exists what exists to acknowledge that it exists. Etc, ad infinitum.

But really?
(I have forsaken the use of the word ‘consciousness’)
That which is able to acknowledge its own existence, does not require anything outside itself to verify that it does indeed exist.
Yes – it remains a subjective observation on the part of that something, but what of that?
As long as IT agrees that IT exists, then that is all that is required to verify its existence.
The “something” is that which is able to acknowledge its own existence.
My assertion was that if there was nothing (at all) in the universe that was able to acknowledge the universe, then the universe would not exist. This is because there would be an absence of that which can verify that it does exist.

In order for anything to exist, there FIRST need to be something which is able to acknowledge it.
This ‘something’ first needs to be able to acknowledge the existence of itself.
Then it can acknowledge the existence of the universe at large.

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.

It seems that the exception is consciousness, for a self-referential reason of some sort.

What is consciousness’?

 

[Navigator]

When you say something, are you also including nothing?

No

It is possible that there is no such thing as nothing, but we may reach that conclusion later.
For now, imagine your ability to acknowledge existence is placed somewhere where there is nothing.
It is not possible, because that which is able to acknowledge existence even when in a place where there is absolutely nothing else, there is still something.
That something is ‘that which is able to acknowledge itself as being’

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 seems that acknowledging ends when creatures die, it also seems that acknowledging begins when creatures are born. About matter not being able to create something that acknowledges its existence, well, you will have to say why you think that, especially since there’s much support to suggest otherwise (like yourself, your brain, and all other brains).

I agree “it seems” is an honest way to describe a creatures death. The ability of that creature to be able to acknowledge anything seems to end.
Likewise with the born.
When you say to me ‘like yourself’ what do you mean? What is The Self?
(Can we agree that the Self may be used to describe “that which is able to acknowledge”)? Self is less the mouthful.

My (self) has a brain

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.

That position couldn’t be more anthropomorphic. I’m sure many have also been convinced that the world will end when they die, yet it didn’t, they just died.

“So it seems”

As I agreed back in my post where I was trying to avoid the use of words that can be taken the wrong way….you know – words like soul, consciousness, ego, paranormal…this is part of what I said…

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.


I am not talking about individual ability. I am asserting that if there was NO thing which was able to acknowledge the existence of its self and everything else – then the universe would not exist.

Because there is nothing to acknowledge that it exists.

 

[cyborg]

Because there is nothing to acknowledge that it exists.

STX ACK NUL BEL BEL BEL NAK NUL ETX

 

[Navigator]

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

I will ponder this today breathe.

 

[Paulhoff]

lupus_in_fabula
Triky
Paul
Et al

It appears difficult for you to focus on the content of this thread, no doubt in part due to you slipping in and out of many threads offering your opinions.
You are, after all, only human.

No, when looking thru glass, what you have to say that is, it is very clear to us you have nothing new to say.

Paul

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Basic operating instructions of the universe? Like the laws of physics (tlop)? No, that wouldn't count as soul. At least not for any meaningful definition of "soul".

Hans

To me, that is the best definition of the soul. I know I am going to be blasted for this... but... like the soul of a shoe, the sole does not have to be everything, it just has to be the most important part.
At least by most standards.
I think, the soul has to be something that has been here from the very start. Something that everything else came from, and operates through. Since the inorganic gave rise to the organic, it has to be something that includes them both.
I can even see where some might think that consciousness has been around from the very beginning. Because while the evolution of life may be somewhat random, the evolution of the stars, of matter, seems far less so. Something that can make it seem as though it had at least a conscious start. Though, of course, once the process found/stumble on right mode of operation, all its workings after that could have just unconsciously fallen into place... naturally.

 

[Navigator]

Greetings breathe

I am not sure it is so much ‘auto pilot’ because the driver still makes choices.
Also, while I did say in an earlier post that the passenger is just the observer and doesn’t manipulate the driver, (this is true) it will prompt the driver.
For example, if the driver starts thinking ‘what is life and what is the point of my life?’ the passenger will accept this as a question which it will be able to answer.
Dreams, imagination, intuition and aligning events all play a part in this gradual introduction of the driver to the passenger.
It is not limited to intellect/mind but includes emotions/attitude -
Education and solitude are important, but science can be fun yes?
There is something about being able to learn the art of aloneness which gives the individual a sense of self worth which is non dependant on the opinions of others, but often ‘rubs off’ on others.
In this way breathe, one has a kind of faith in oneself, which again, rubs off onto others.
One begins to look for strengths in others which one can encourage those others to build upon, rather than looking for weaknesses which can be exploited.
This is not all that impossible for most to understand, but I concede that for some groups and individuals it is undesirable to think and have others thinking along these lines, and be sure, they can be quiet aggressive in finding distracting ways to try and shut individuals up, who counsel such wisdom.
This is because self empowerment works in opposition to the business of manipulation and exploitation.

 

[arthwollipot]

There's definitely words here, and grammar, but damned if I can find any actual meaning!

 

[breathe]

I agree that it is not all that impossible to fathom - but i was responding as well as i could at the time, given that you were delivering knowledge with a jarring force. You see I am not convinced by your arguments and definitions at all, but as subject of importance for the future of our species and the planet, I think what you are suggesting is far easier to gather now than earlier and i thank you.

 

[Navigator]

Mucking about with words...

There's Deed definitely Referee words Thinly here Ohs and Writs grammar Dram but Nag damned Ram if A I Ban can Dictum find Fined any A actual Facade meaning Main Tingly Nun
, , !
Throat Pillow
Leg Gig