I Am Soul

[Paulhoff]

Well, I'm not writing about souls. I'm talking about the experience of having a personal identity. It may well be a brain process, but as far as I'm aware neurologists have not yet tracked it down.

Nick

Helloooooo, there are other people here who are.

Paul

 

[articulett]

Nick can you differentiate what you are saying from what Ramachandran is saying... or from what navigator is saying. It sounds like you are agreeing with Ramachandran while using words to infer a soul of the type navigator is talking about.

As to churches... they exist... people build them for subjective reasons or beliefs... but they objectively build them and it's objective to say they build them because of what they believe. It doesn't make what they believe objective. You seem to be using words to infer something but not really say anything. What exactly is your point?

Do you think that consciousness is dependent upon a material living brain or not. If not, can you propose any evidence which would lead to this conclusion?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The universe is a concept. I like things, and dislike them.

Nick

Isn't Nick right? We are part of a universal process... the conscious part... the part trying to put what it thinks, and what it feels. And isn't the feeling there long before it can be put into words?

 

[Navigator]

A fact does not HAVE to be verified by others to be true, but it has to be possible to do so for it to be a fact. It is a fact that you exist, even if no one knew you existed, your existence would still be a fact.

If you alone existed, what else but your own ability to verify that fact makes it fact?

"The accused was sure he was innocent."

The accused KNOWS he is innocent.

You seem to be implying that a fact is not a fact if it cannot be verified by anyone else.
In the case of OBEs – the fact that it happens at all can only be verified by those who have themselves experienced such.

And here’s the confirmation for the allusion I was making: For you to make sense of the experience, the only way possible for you to achieve this, it seems, is by equating subjective experience with objective truth, and furthermore, by equating belief with knowledge – thus you say you ‘know’ rather than that you ‘believe’. And herein rests the core of the communicative problem of course: denying any room for interpretation of the experience.

I understand your assumption

Do you think that consciousness is dependent upon a material living brain or not. If not, can you propose any evidence which would lead to this conclusion?

The brain is the likely creator of identity, because it exists, all hypotheses on any phenomena can be directed to, and sourced at the brain.
The buck stops there.

One can thus only hypothesis within the boundaries of what can be observed.

I ask again. Why then is there a forum provided for the discussion of philosophy and religion? It is clearly seen that the first criteria for any hypothetical discussion has to originate with the brains hypothetical ability to create all subjective experience.
Anything outside this criteria is wooism…

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

People frequently make core decisions in life, such as deciding who to go out with or what job to go after, not through logically evaluating the choices, but through following the thought which seems to be the most "theirs." What's also evident through examining this closely is that the presence of repressed conflicts appears to drive this process. We are subconsciously attracted to situations where there is the liklihood that repressed dramas can be made manifest. The underlying drive, at an unconscious level, is towards greater self-awareness.

Isn't Nick right? We are part of a universal process... the conscious part... the part trying to put what it thinks, and what it feels. And isn't the feeling there long before it can be put into words?

I would say that we are becoming more aware of total fields through extensions of our senses (as in technologies, information, communications etc.). It’s a process where semantics turns into syntax at an increasing rate. We are pattern-seeking animals in this sense, but still we have the urge to interpret changes in patterns by anthropomorphising them into chunks of meaning – yet not fully recognizing what McLuhan phrased as “the medium is the message”, albeit we are starting to realize this in a more intuitive way. That is not to say, however, that there must be some universal principle that is becoming aware of itself thou.

The world might have been felt as unfathomably big at some point in history, when there wasn’t any intuitive way of comprehending it as a whole system. Today it seems like a tiny prick at the edge of a lonely galaxy – a pale blue dot (as Sagan so strikingly showed us). A friend living on the other side of the planet is just a mouse click away. Faced with the cognitive tension of making sense of such metamorphosis that the extension of our senses are putting us through, we constantly seem to fall back on thinking about there being something guiding this kind of evolution. We are constantly confusing our abilities to create narratives with the narrative itself.

 

[Wings]

If you alone existed, what else but your own ability to verify that fact makes it fact?

Fortunately, I do not exist in that sort of universe. In that case, objectivity would be impossible for me to establish and so I would not be able to establish any facts. But, this does not change the definition of what makes something factual. Also, this situation does not exist in this universe so we CAN establish what is factual here and declare facts through objective and verifiable testing.

The accused KNOWS he is innocent.

And I can KNOW that if I jump off a building, I will fly. My KNOWING does not make something factual. Knowing does not make something a fact.

You seem to be implying that a fact is not a fact if it cannot be verified by anyone else.
In the case of OBEs – the fact that it happens at all can only be verified by those who have themselves experienced such.

It MIGHT be possible for OBEs to be factual, but it has not been established as a fact, so we can not call it a fact at this point in time. Just because something might be a fact, does not make it a fact. This is why we have such words as "possible" and "maybe".


Cliffnotes:
I am saying two things. The first being that a fact will be a fact regardless of my existence. But that we can not verify and declare a fact without being able to establish it as a fact via the criteria of what a fact is.

 

[articulett]

Isn't Nick right? We are part of a universal process... the conscious part... the part trying to put what it thinks, and what it feels. And isn't the feeling there long before it can be put into words?

Actually, we appear to feel, react, choose, etc. like other animals and then tell ourselves why we've done so... we experience ourselves. We feel anxiety and attach a reason to it... it might be the real reason our brain tossed out the hormones that produced the anxiety, or it may not. We can induce the same feeling with drugs or electrical stimulation.... but the person reporting the experience will confabulate a reason for the feeling when they are unaware of the real reason. We tell stories to ourselves to make the world make sense. We perceive ourselves as doing things for reasons, but many times the reasons are made up by us to make sense of what we do or prefer or believe or feel. The human brain as an "interpreter" that fills-in-the-blanks when it doesn't understand something so that it can get the confidence of understanding rather than the anxious feeling of not knowing.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

One can thus only hypothesis within the boundaries of what can be observed.

I ask again. Why then is there a forum provided for the discussion of philosophy and religion? It is clearly seen that the first criteria for any hypothetical discussion has to originate with the brains hypothetical ability to create all subjective experience.
Anything outside this criteria is wooism…

We can hypothesize whatever we wish, but obviously there are going to be arguments for and against. It’s not difficult for me to think about myself as having a soul in the metaphorical sense; I have no problem with that at all. The discussion can take a hostile tone here, which is unfortunate, and sadly I’m not immune to react in such a way myself. But in the end, I still enjoy good arguments, and it’s interesting to see how other people justify their arguments. We are all trying to make sense of the world around us; we are in the same boat although there’s some quarrel about how to navigate; and no one really knows the end destination either.

I agree with you in the sense that there are experiences we don’t know much about and much is yet to be experienced, we simply differ in the approach of how to understand and explain them. There’s no doubt you have experienced something that many perhaps could wish to have experienced themselves.

 

[articulett]

Yes, your belief that you are having OBE's is just a belief absent evidence. I you can't prove that you are astrally projecting then we have no way of determining whether you are or whether you are delusional. Lot's of people have feelings that feel like OBE's, but when tested, we find that they are delusions of perception... nobody left the body they were in.

ETA-- a discussion about philosophy and religion on a skeptics forum is not a place to try to convert skeptics or make claims about having some "truth" for which you have no evidence.

We have to be on the same page regarding language and reality before we can communicate successfully. We have to understand each other's points-- and if you don't feel understood, it should help you understand how we feel when we engage in conversation with people like yourself.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, your belief that you are having OBE's is just a belief absent evidence. I you can't prove that you are astrally projecting then we have no way of determining whether you are or whether you are delusional. Lot's of people have feelings that feel like OBE's, but when tested, we find that they are delusions of perception... nobody left the body they were in.

ETA-- a discussion about philosophy and religion on a skeptics forum is not a place to try to convert skeptics or make claims about having some "truth" for which you have no evidence.

We have to be on the same page regarding language and reality before we can communicate successfully. We have to understand each other's points-- and if you don't feel understood, it should help you understand how we feel when we engage in conversation with people like yourself.

I get the impression that you have unresolved issues with what you identify as being ‘wooism’ and that these issues are active within your emotional makeup.
You have a need to use derogative labels and your pronouncements regarding those who come to convert blur into fiction when related to this thread.
Not that I am saying that it isn't evident that there are those who use this forum to try and convert…in some ways, offering the hypothesis of ‘we are the product of our brains’ is a form of belief and using derisive language seems a no less desperate attempt at – if not trying to convert, certainly belittling the unconverted.
To belittle something often reflects the need to raise oneself up in the eyes of oneself – at the expense of others…
…a form of wooism in itself perhaps.

If all things might originate in the brain, then why is the behavior of women evidently different from that of men?
The evidence suggests that wooism is a predominantly female insistence.
The belief in fairytale.

 

[Paulhoff]

If all things might originate in the brain, then why is the behavior of women evidently different from that of men?
The evidence suggests that wooism is a predominantly female insistence.
The belief in fairytale.

So you are that naive, it is called sex hormones, you may of noticed the differences in other parts of the bodies between men and women too.

Paul

 

[articulett]

I get the impression that you have unresolved issues with what you identify as being ‘wooism’ and that these issues are active within your emotional makeup.
You have a need to use derogative labels and your pronouncements regarding those who come to convert blur into fiction when related to this thread.
Not that I am saying that it isn't evident that there are those who use this forum to try and convert…in some ways, offering the hypothesis of ‘we are the product of our brains’ is a form of belief and using derisive language seems a no less desperate attempt at – if not trying to convert, certainly belittling the unconverted.
To belittle something often reflects the need to raise oneself up in the eyes of oneself – at the expense of others…
…a form of wooism in itself perhaps.

If all things might originate in the brain, then why is the behavior of women evidently different from that of men?
The evidence suggests that wooism is a predominantly female insistence.
The belief in fairytale.

We've already substantiated that no one but you takes your impressions seriously. From my perspective you are the one being pedantic, offering beliefs as claims of fact, being unclear, belittling others, and not really saying anything at all. It is not a belief to reject the notion of there being disembodied forms of consciousness any more than not believing in astrology or Xenu is a belief. As such, there is nothing to convert anyone to. It's the one presuming the facts not in evidence that would need to establish what the hell they are talking about and then prove it. Otherwise, there is no difference between your words and Tom Cruise's words or Breathe's words. It's just mumbo jumbo... the only thing it's communicating to us is this sense that you believe yourself to have access to "divine truths" or special experiences. Just like Tom Cruise believes, right? Someone can come here and tell us how important it is now that Jupiter is in the house of Mars and say that we are belittling him... but it doesn't make it so, nor does it make the woo he's proffering true.

Men tend to be the leaders of woo overall--especially religious woo.... they write it, star in it, make their gods male, their prophets are male, and their saviors and infallible spokespeople too. And perhaps more women do believe... but I think this is because they mistake confidence like you exhibit with competence in whatever the hell they are talking about (see President Bush) and all the religions have built in punishments for women who "bite from the tree of knowledge" so-to-speak. When the people in charge sound like you, the women who survive the best and pass on their genes are going to be the ones who "go with the flow" not against it.

BTW
Women and men have been brain differences... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm


Can you just make a point without all the riff raff and nothingness. We'd be glad to believe that consciousness can exist absent a body should anyone anywhere provide measurable evidence for such.... you know, the kind we use to understand reality... like DNA. You can only learn so much about imaginary things, you know?

ETA-- women are generally more trusting than men too... oxytocin appears to play a strong role in this behavior in both sexes. I think the tools of skepticism are especially for women so that they aren't taken in by woos like you using pedantic "shame" language to manipulate compliance.

Step right up ladies and goad the woo! You too can join in.... and they can't throw anything at you through cyberspace.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If all things might originate in the brain, then why is the behavior of women evidently different from that of men?

Because their brains are different?

The evidence suggests that wooism is a predominantly female insistence.

What evidence?

The belief in fairytale.

Most of the worlds major religions are male dominated, yes?

 

[Navigator]

So you are that naive, it is called sex hormones, you may of noticed the differences in other parts of the bodies between men and women too.

Paul

Oh...so the sex hormones have an effect on the brain.

The brain is essentially the same but reacts differently to the hormones.

 

[articulett]

Yes, that's correct... the hormones build the brain... both in utero and out... testosterone shapes a male brain and males. Our genes code for our hormones and sex specific genes for maleness occur on the Y chromosome... without a Y, you are a default female-- though you need a second X to be a fertile female. If you are an XY but lack androgen receptors or androgen sensitivity (sometimes an X linked disorder) you look female but have the genotype of a male.

 

[Paulhoff]

Oh...so the sex hormones have an effect on the brain.

The brain is essentially the same but reacts differently to the hormones.

Sex hormones, like other hormones, effect the body and they do not effect all parts the same and/or the same way.

And another thing you seem not to understand straw-man is that dogs have brains too, and act differently from humans.

Paul



It's true.........

 

[Navigator]

Ariticulate

Show me where I have made any personal references/ derogative labels about your person.
If you don’t like it pointed out, then resist using it at all

So – the brains are different.
As are the brains of Dolphins?
As are male brains in general, when compared to female?

Interesting.

Men tend to be the leaders of woo overall--especially religious woo.... they write it, star in it, make their gods male, their prophets are male, and their saviors and infallible spokespeople too. And perhaps more women do believe... but I think this is because they mistake confidence like you exhibit with competence in whatever the hell they are talking about (see President Bush) and all the religions have built in punishments for women who "bite from the tree of knowledge" so-to-speak. When the people in charge sound like you, the women who survive the best and pass on their genes are going to be the ones who "go with the flow" not against it.

So this observation in part tends to acknowledge that Women are created differently, and this ‘go with the flow’ is a form of submission.
However, it may have something more to do with the ability to understand what it is like to ‘be a god’ in the sense of having life form within life – in the womb.
The connection between child and mother is strong.

The influence of the mother on children is strong.
Nursery rhymes, fairly tales, Santa Clause, etc….Jesus had a Mother…

The seeds of wooism are sown early, and may indicate a controlling aspect within the Female to dominate the thinking of the offspring to a point where she is literally worshipped.
She is real.
God is not.
She is Female.
God is not.
She cannot control events through sheer force but is able to control through other means.
Males perpetuate the learned influence of wooism, even to the point of worshiping Females.

 

[articulett]

Yep, and female dogs act differently than male dogs.

 

[articulett]

I'm not going to seek out info. for you navigator... you have shown no ability to understand basic communication nor evidence and you think you already know it all any way. You don't care what we have to say or what the evidence is or isn't-- your just a woo without a clue who thinks they know more than everyone else. No one but you thinks you are saying anything of value. I engage in regular successful communication, so I am quite confident that the problem isn't me or my being a woman or whatever else you are mumbo-jumboing about.

I don't care if women believe more or less woo than men-- I care that I have found the tools to keep my own thinking free from it, and I aim to give those tools to others.

And I don't really mind you pointing out whatever the hell you think you are pointing out. It's clear that you are the only one taking you seriously any how. The same for maatorc. Why would I possibly consider your belittlement of me or anyone to have meaning? You made reference to things you imagine I am doing, but I pointed out that the evidence shows that those traits are more in line with your behavior as evidenced by this thread and the commentary therein.

 

[Navigator]

Since the brains are different, how is one to trust the objective truth of the brain?
There is dualism already.

Is it really wooism that is the cause of war?

If so, does war have to do with security of territory? (nothing to do with ‘god’ more to do with…

…Is a female able to sacrifice her children to keep other females and their children at bay?
Is it an important aspect of emotional control that the children believe in monsters which can and will eat you up?
The monsters are actually the enemy, or potential enemy, which can undermine and even devastate the physical reality of the female, and her offspring.
Therefore it is important to make sure that the enemy is understood as the real threat that it is.

The ‘demon’s are transferred into the real world through the belief in the woo-world.

articulett
You have the tendency to speak on behalf of 'we' .

I don't think you speak on behalf of all other skeptics at all.

Nor does your reply acknowledge your propensity to use derogative labels which is a form of demonizing – a wooish tool.