I Am Soul

[Ateius]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=real-outof-body-experiences
http://www.geocities.com/satanicus_2/GodHelmet.html

Thank you. The first one is especially fascinating. I'm curious, however, how the "God Helmet" separates these "magnetically induced" experiences from plain old sensory deprivation - wasn't covered in the article.

 

[Tricky]

articulett
There is only one truth and that's LOVE.

That is sophomoric BS. What's 2+7? Love? What is the boiling point of water? Love? What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Love?

You remind me of the suposedly true courtroom scene.

Judge: Defendant, all you answers must be oral, do you understand?
Defendant: Yes, your Honor.
Lawyer: Where were you on the day of the murder?
Defendant: Oral.

 

[Wings]

That is sophomoric BS. What's 2+7? Love? What is the boiling point of water? Love? What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Love?

You remind me of the suposedly true courtroom scene.

Judge: Defendant, all you answers must be oral, do you understand?
Defendant: Yes, your Honor.
Lawyer: Where were you on the day of the murder?
Defendant: Oral.

Oh god!

 

[arthwollipot]

A brain cannot live outside its body. It cannot exist on its OWN without the body.

Technically speaking, since the brain is connected to the nervous system, and the nervous system is made of the same kinds of cells as the brain, and the nervous system spreads throughout the entire body, it can reasonably be said that the brain is the body.

Oh....

Well, in that case... should I bring a bottle or something?

More popcorn would be good. I've run out.

 

[Wings]

Technically speaking, since the brain is connected to the nervous system, and the nervous system is made of the same kinds of cells as the brain, and the nervous system spreads throughout the entire body, it can reasonably be said that the brain is the body.

You know, I didn't know that. Thanks!

Edit: Nevermind, took the question out. I looked it up since it seemed so interesting.

 

[Navigator]

That is sophomoric BS. What's 2+7? Love? What is the boiling point of water? Love? What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Love?


Can't resist

I love a hot cuppa and mashed spuds, I love number nine and as of course I love number six and I love the way a swallow moves through the air.

what is the gulp speed of a ladened swallow?

 

[Navigator]

Technically speaking, since the brain is connected to the nervous system, and the nervous system is made of the same kinds of cells as the brain, and the nervous system spreads throughout the entire body, it can reasonably be said that the brain is the body.

Ahhhh...............that explains everything! NOW I see where you guys and things are coming from!

Oops...nope...my bad.

 

[Navigator]

Articqulate

Aside from Tom Cruise Syndrome, you seem to have made some observation between the man thing and the wooman thing...

Um...do you thing maybe men and woomen have different types of brains?

Do you think there might be a propensity for one group to believe in things like fairies and magic and flying broomsticks and prince charming and unicorns’ and happy families while the other group believes in things like trucks and buildings and spaceships and guns and ships and adventures?

Oh...and btw...you seem to have some popcorn stuck between your teeth...

 

[maatorc]

Religion and Philosophy » I Am Soul

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
A check of a dictionary reveals that the incessant attacks against 'woos' by pseudo-skeptics on this site bespeaks a deep psycho-sexual hangup.

Just to keep everybody happy and focussed -
The 'woo' as an object of attack and derision, is the personification of the pseudo-skeptical denial of energy-libido-sexuality-creativity-love-art-science-transformation-mind- consciousness.
Hence, anyone who disagrees with pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism, and who to all appearances to the world at large is a quite normal person, must be denied by employing the astonishingly unconscious irony of 'woo' as in desire, court, ask in marriage, seek to win, and pursue.

 

[articulett]

Here's what I think of brains... it was posted by another forum member... I think woos are just above bigots and below Bonobos...

 

[Wings]

Just to keep everybody happy and focussed -
The 'woo' as an object of attack and derision, is the personification of the pseudo-skeptical denial of energy-libido-sexuality-creativity-love-art-science-transformation-mind- consciousness.
Hence, anyone who disagrees with pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism, and who to all appearances to the world at large is a quite normal person, must be denied by employing the astonishingly unconscious irony of 'woo' as in desire, court, ask in marriage, seek to win, and pursue.

OW! My brain!

 

[articulett]

It appears that the biggest woos are guys... the ones with the messiah complex, I mean. Sylvia Browne is an exception... I think women are more prone to confuse confidence with competence and to believe in woo... but it's usually it takes a guy to do the Deepak Chopra, Tom Cruise, Fred Phelps thing where they imagine themselves as prophets of sorts... people with special communications from divine sources... We have women believers here, but few of them seem to imagine themselves as delivering cryptic messages from the gods or whatever... they are more likely to do the love bombing vapidity thing like edge... though edge appears to be a guy... the woo guys are a-holes for the most part from what I see--not anyone I find inspirational... kind of "crazy" really... or just stupid seeming... That goes for the conspiracy nuts the christians... the new age believers and the assortment of self appointed experts whom you really can't quite tell what they believe but they aren't impressed with things like evidence, science, empiricism, logic, and facts.

I like most of the people here and they seem really smart and funny and interesting... and then there are some that I can take or leave... and then there are the woos/woo apologists/vigilantes that seem to imagine themselves as having valuable things to teach us skeptics... but no one seems to know what it is or why the hell we should care about their opinions more than they care about ours. Their favorite posters appear to be themselves. They have no curiosity in what others believe or know but they appear to think we should be listening with bated breath to their garbled messages of nothingness.

Not all of them suck, but you can't really converse WITH them... they suck at dialogue and are the least likely to imagine that the cause is them. So it's fun to talk about them... goad them... play with them... they entered the skeptic playground willingly to spout woo... they deserve it. It helps me treat the woo in my every day life a lot nicer, so it's a public service.

What does one make of someone who goes to a skeptics forum and starts a thread entitled "I am soul". Why would an intelligent person not realize that they may as well have said "I am an OT7"?

And when has maatorc ever engaged in successful dialogue with anyone... on a skeptics forum? I'm a skeptic... I don't believe he can. I don't think most woo can... they are too sure that they already know everything important... they think they have something important to teach and nothing at all to learn.

Could you please try and succinctly clarify for us why you think that we should be more respectful of what you have to say on the topic of "soul" than Tom Cruise has to say on the Topic of whatever he was talking about in that clip (suppressive people and and scientology being the experts on minds, etc.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Just to keep everybody happy and focussed -
The 'woo' as an object of attack and derision, is the personification of the pseudo-skeptical denial of energy-libido-sexuality-creativity-love-art-science-transformation-mind- consciousness.

Um, what?

Hence, anyone who disagrees with pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism, and who to all appearances to the world at large is a quite normal person, must be denied by employing the astonishingly unconscious irony of 'woo' as in desire, court, ask in marriage, seek to win, and pursue.

AHH! Bingo! The penny drops. I understand perfectly now.

You're actually making no sense at all! It's all so clear now.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

… and it appears that such experiences cannot have happened without the body in the first place.

Cannot have happened?

Yes, it appears that way; the experience of being outside the body still seems to be created by the brain, in the body. What differs from ordinary experiences appears to be how real it feels and how much dissociation is involved.

A brain cannot live outside its body. It cannot exist on its OWN without the body.

Yes, it seems that way… precisely like the case with the phenomenal self: It seems that “it”, in turn, cannot exist without the brain.

To be more specific: “it” = the process that creates the sensation of the phenomenal self.

The varification of the universe cannot have happened without the body in the first place.

Nouns cannot exist without the brain, but verbs can? Is that what you are implying?

I’m saying that explaining phenomena in terms of verbs/processes can be more accurate than nouns/things when dissecting highly abstract phenomena (like the self). Thus I have no problem using ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘me’ or ‘we’ when talking about everyday experiences, but when speculation about the nature of self (by “itself”), then it seems more meaningful to continue in terms of processes.

I think we hit the wall somewhere around the abstraction level of self (in and of itself): We can continue in terms of processes, in relation to something less abstract creating the self (e.g. the brain), or we can start to define the self with yet a new abstraction (like the soul). The first option seems much more fruitful than the second one. Ultimately it’s about which direction on the “abstraction ladder” one is willing to take the discussion. [FONT=&quot]Or as a scientifically minded person would utter: in what direction evidence seems to point (hopefully downwards on the abstraction ladder).
[/FONT]

 

[articulett]

Navigator, do you understand maatorc? Are you trying to sound like him? It might help if we could condense the crazy into one voice...

State your point... your reason for posting perhaps. What it is you believe or are trying to convey and why we should believe it or respect it or find it as useful or true as you do. Use plain language with normal syntax, verbs, and nouns. I think you are trying to convey a belief that you are a soul... that is that you will have consciousness even when you no longer have a body with a brain. That's fine. That's a belief. That is not a belief that is supportable by evidence. It is a belief that is supported the way woo beliefs are supported--by "signs" and stories and anecdotes. But whenever we try to scientifically test these things... like see if someone who claims to astrally travel or to have had an OBE can tell us something they could only have viewed from above, it doesn't pan out. There are operating rooms set up with images facing up up high that people should be able to describe if they actually leave their body... we can run the JREF test in this manner any time... but no one seems to be able to leave their body and tell us anything when we actually test for it. See. So that makes us think that you believe you are leaving your body... but it's an illusion... like the one described in the article linked. We have no good reason to think otherwise. You shouldn't have to "believe" in something in order to have it proven. We don't need to believe that airplanes can fly for them to do so.

 

[articulett]

Um, what?

AHH! Bingo! The penny drops. I understand perfectly now.

You're actually making no sense at all! It's all so clear now.

Word salad-- yum!

 

[maatorc]

...And when has maatorc ever engaged in successful dialogue with anyone...

One cannot engage in a successful dialogue with one like you who is incapable of engaging in a successful dialogue.

 

[maatorc]

Um, what?
AHH! Bingo! The penny drops. I understand perfectly now.
You're actually making no sense at all! It's all so clear now.

If you cannot understand what I have said, which is quite elementary, that is your problem. Do not blame someone else.

 

[articulett]

I think there's evidence of successful dialogue between myself and others is all over this forum... but I guess evidence doesn't matter when you have faith that you "know" stuff, eh?

Say, is there any evidence that you can engage in enjoyable discussions and dialogue with people or do most people just have you on ignore by now? I think I'm going to do that... yes... it makes the whole forum seem so much smarter.

 

[Wings]

If you cannot understand what I have said, which is quite elementary, that is your problem. Do not blame someone else.

I disagree.

I feel it is the responsibility of the person speaking (or typing) to make their messages clear, concise, and easily understandable. If people have trouble understanding you, it isn't their fault.

I don't expect you to have to decode what I say - if I write something that makes no sense to you - I should expect it to be my responsibility to clear it up, not you.