I Am Soul

[Navigator]

You clearly introduced the idea that women are more susceptible to superstition in post 308. Articulett responded to this in post 312 (note that her post comes after yours) by pointing out, quite reasonably, that most religions are, and long have been, dominated by male authorities. Prior to post 308 there was no mention by Articulett of any male/female role in superstitious belief at all. If I am mistaken I welcome you to link to the relevant post. You then made your "evidence suggests" statement.


Could you point that out please? I saw nothing that could be termed "evidence" to support your assertion.

And I find the repetitive use of "woomen" to be childish and border on misogynistic.


No. As I pointed out, you introduced the idea in post 308. If you wish me to believe otherwise then please point out a post prior to post 308 in which Articulett introduces the idea that gender effects tendencies to superstitious belief.


Are you suggesting that we are employing some sort of organized attack on you? That sounds a bit paranoid to me, or at least a form of defensive rationalization.


This sounds like just the sort of extraordinary claim that could earn you $1,000,000 and assure your place at the forefront of the certain to be new field of OBE science. You are claiming that you have an ability that can access information otherwise unavailable to you. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to demonstrate this ability for the world to see? Will you take the Challenge and demonstrate this ability in a controlled setting? Otherwise, I'm afraid your claim can bear no greater weight than "I can dowse for gold", "I saw Bigfoot" or "I was abducted by aliens".


What stuff? The fact that you cannot explain how your soul can supposedly "see" while separated from your body, yet people are unable to use their souls to "see" for them after going blind. You hadn't thought of that, had you? Now that it has been brought up you seem reluctant to address it. If you had responded with something like "Hmmm... That is something I'd not considered before. I admit that it is a problem I will need to address before going on with my claim" then I would have been convinced of the intellectual honesty of your search for knowledge. Your determination to dismiss the issue suggests to me that you have decided on the conclusion you want to reach and are determined to select only that evidence which you feel will lead you there.

Classic.

Yes I gave my reasons.

As far as being "misogynistic" - well I think that means something like "A man who hates women"
Find me a similar word that pertains to 'a woman who hates men' and I might carry on with this subject.

I am not interested in the million bucks nor do I claim any paranormal abilities (by anyone's definition)
I don't believe in the paranormal.

I have said that the soul is a passenger in the human instrument. I can only speak of my own experience and don't know why consciousness can do what it does. I hav'nt heard any strong mind changing evidence that explains my experiences.

 

[Wings]

Yes I gave my reasons.

As far as being "misogynistic" - well I think that means something like "A man who hates women"
Find me a similar word that pertains to 'a woman who hates men' and I might carry on with this subject.

Misandry. But, just like misogyny, either sex can be the discriminator against women. Or in the case of misandry, men.


Also, you stated in the above post that you "do not believe in the paranormal". So, can I take that to mean that when you say soul, you are NOT referring to the part of ourselves (as accepted in specific religions and in various supernatural beliefs) which survives death?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes I gave my reasons.

No, no you did not.

As far as being "misogynistic" - well I think that means something like "A man who hates women"
Find me a similar word that pertains to 'a woman who hates men' and I might carry on with this subject.

A misogynist can be a man or a woman.

I am not interested in the million bucks nor do I claim any paranormal abilities (by anyone's definition)
I don't believe in the paranormal.

I've seen many people claim to have an extraordinary ability, only to back out when offered the chance to prove it. That evidence of your abilities that I asked for: You demonstrating them under controlled conditions would be what I'd need to see. You claim that you knew the weather only as a result of your ability to leave your body, yet when asked to demonstrate this you say you can't be bothered. What am I to make of that.

I have said that the soul is a passenger in the human instrument. I can only speak of my own experience and don't know why consciousness can do what it does. I hav'nt heard any strong mind changing evidence that explains my experiences.

You have said a number of things and offered no evidence that they are true. A number of good arguments for doubting your claim have been raised, you have simply chosen to ignore them.

 

[Tricky]

I have said that the soul is a passenger in the human instrument. I can only speak of my own experience and don't know why consciousness can do what it does.

In a sense, you are correct. The "soul", like the "mind" are both concepts which have variously defined characteristics and that arise from the human body. As such, you could colorfully call them "passengers". I wouldn't argue with that term. Some call them "emergent properties". But however you define them, I think it can be said that no reasonable evidence of their emergence has ever been shown from anything other than a large-brained organism.

If you are really interested in learning more about consciousness, most psychologists I have spoken to agree that Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained is the best text for laymen.

I haven't heard any strong mind changing evidence that explains my experiences.

We can't give evidence, since that would require personal knowledge of your experience. We can only say what ideas have been put forth in the past to explain these things, many of which have a great deal of evidence. I think it is doubtful that you will ever accept these explanations because the are not as personally satisfying as your beliefs. They are mundane and totally without magic. They are muggle explanations.

When it comes to tales of mystery and supernatural phenomena, we skeptics are a dreadfully boring lot.

 

[Navigator]

Misandry. But, just like misogyny, either sex can be the discriminator against women. Or in the case of misandry, men.

Excellent – thanks for the heads up – I have been looking for that word for a while now.
Interestingly enough, while it is common to find the word misogyny in most dictionaries, the word misandry is much less common.

Also, you stated in the above post that you "do not believe in the paranormal". So, can I take that to mean that when you say soul, you are NOT referring to the part of ourselves (as accepted in specific religions and in various supernatural beliefs) which survives death?

Soul, as an abstract like consciousness.

If consciousness is able to survive individual death, I wouldn’t consider that to be ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal.
So far there is no evidence either way, as far as things can be categorically stated as fact.

 

[Wings]

Exactly what do you mean by "as an abstract like consciousness"?

 

[articulett]

Excellent – thanks for the heads up – I have been looking for that word for a while now.
Interestingly enough, while it is common to find the word misogyny in most dictionaries, the word misandry is much less common.



Soul, as an abstract like consciousness.

If consciousness is able to survive individual death, I wouldn’t consider that to be ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal.
So far there is no evidence either way, as far as things can be categorically stated as fact.

Yes and there's no evidence either way as to whether fairies exist or thetans or hobgoblins either. The thing about things that exist--they are measurable in some way. They effect the other things that exist, ya' know? Not so, with imaginary things.

Just because something may or may not exist, does not mean there is a 50-50 probability that it does.

 

[Tricky]

If consciousness is able to survive individual death, I wouldn’t consider that to be ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal.

Have you ever seen a dead person or any non-living thing that displayed anything that could reasonably be called "consciousness"? If so, please describe.

So far there is no evidence either way, as far as things can be categorically stated as fact.

There is a great deal of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (or more correctly, the human body, but mostly the brain). You can easily test (like in the suggestions above) the connection of the physical body/brain to consciousness. As far as I know there are no tests that show a connection of consciousness to dead/nonliving things, to formerly living things, or to disembodied phantoms. The evidence for consciousness being a natural, normal phenomenon is truly overwhelming. I know of no reliable evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

 

[Navigator]

I've seen many people claim to have an extraordinary ability, only to back out when offered the chance to prove it. That evidence of your abilities that I asked for: You demonstrating them under controlled conditions would be what I'd need to see. You claim that you knew the weather only as a result of your ability to leave your body, yet when asked to demonstrate this you say you can't be bothered. What am I to make of that.

Listen if you will.
I don’t consider (anymore – once I used to) what happened to me to be extraordinary or ordinary. It just happened. Nor is it something I have snapped my fingers and there it is, so I wouldn’t be able to simply agree to any controlled experiments because I do not understand exactly how to do it.
The first time it happened, I had some assistance – and it was because of this that I became aware that it could happen, which is why I eventually decided to see if I could do it without that assistance.
Even this took a long time from when I first decided to try to the actual time of it occurring, so how would I be able to arrange a timeframe?
Your needs, while understandable, are not mine and we both have different ways of doing things.
It is not about me ‘not being bothered’ – Believe this if you will, but not everyone is attracted by monetary reward.
I am happy with MY life experience, and I would think that if or when such a controlled experiment is proved to be genuine, this will change the way people think about a lot of things. One thing would not change for me at least. It will still be natural, like everything which is scientifically proved without doubt to be true.

You have said a number of things and offered no evidence that they are true. A number of good arguments for doubting your claim have been raised, you have simply chosen to ignore them.[/

I have said and will continue to say that I don’t care that you don’t know what I say is true. My life experience is true only to myself. You may of course deduce what you will, but what you deduce may not be factual.
That has no bearing on my life as an individual.
‘Good’ is in the eye of the beholder, and while I have found the hypothetical arguments to be interesting, they have not at all convinced me of the need to change my own understandings.

 

[Navigator]

Exactly what do you mean by "as an abstract like consciousness"?

Oh that harkens back to a conversation within this thread...abstract words which are used to convey abstracts

 

[Navigator]

Yes and there's no evidence either way as to whether fairies exist or thetans or hobgoblins either. The thing about things that exist--they are measurable in some way. They effect the other things that exist, ya' know? Not so, with imaginary things.

Just because something may or may not exist, does not mean there is a 50-50 probability that it does.

What about the mind, consciousness...things I have been told hereabouts are abstracts...like 'self'?
Do these things have any effect on the things that exist?


Probabilities cease to be important once you're sucking your final breathe I don't doubt.
Maybe then it is just down to 'maybe you will or maybe you won't'...carry on as a conscious reality aware of your self.

That would be interesting to watch.

 

[Navigator]

Have you ever seen a dead person or any non-living thing that displayed anything that could reasonably be called "consciousness"? If so, please describe.


There is a great deal of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (or more correctly, the human body, but mostly the brain). You can easily test (like in the suggestions above) the connection of the physical body/brain to consciousness. As far as I know there are no tests that show a connection of consciousness to dead/nonliving things, to formerly living things, or to disembodied phantoms. The evidence for consciousness being a natural, normal phenomenon is truly overwhelming. I know of no reliable evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

I don't think there is such a thing as a dead person that could be seen. I realise that is not exactly what you are asking. I think you are asking have I ever seen something living that was once dead, or something living which is not like anything seen on earth?


What exactly do you mean by "disembodied phantoms"?
I don't think I have suggested consciousness was anything but a normal natural thing.
I think a 'non living thing' lacks any consciousness. That is why it is non living.


I did suggest that it might be responsible for the universe, but why would that suggestion be taken as consciousness being abnormal or unnatural?

 

[Navigator]

And I find the repetitive use of "woomen" to be childish and border on misogynistic.

I will ask you now.

If you use or observe others using the derogative woo repeatedly, do you consider yourself or others to being ‘childish’ and bordering on hatefulness?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

1...Where, when, and by whom was it proven that mind is brain?
2...There is nothing else in the universe but mind-energy, of which all is an expression.

Must we go back to this silliness? I and many other have already explained why it seems more plausible to think that they are the same, almost all research seems to point towards such an interpretation. If something is defined as everything, then it’s nothing – it would still be necessary to then distinguish different kinds of “mind-energy”.

Maatorc, your attempt at guerrilla ontology is failing miserably here. Not only do you run away at the wrong moment – usually when asked for even the tiniest bits of evidence; you run away before saying what you mean with your obscure suggestions; and most importantly, rather than showing an alternative view of reality that might introduce some kind of cognitive dissonance in the current perspective, you’re just giving the impression of being helplessly confused yourself.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc
1...Where, when, and by whom was it proven that mind is brain?
2...There is nothing else in the universe but mind-energy, of which all is an expression.

1...Must we go back to this silliness? I and many other have already explained why it seems more plausible to think that they are the same,
2...almost all research seems to point towards such an interpretation.
3...If something is defined as everything, then it’s nothing – it would still be necessary to then distinguish different kinds of “mind-energy”.
4...Maatorc, your attempt at guerrilla ontology is failing miserably here. Not only do you run away at the wrong moment – usually when asked for even the tiniest bits of evidence; you run away before saying what you mean with your obscure suggestions; and most importantly, rather than showing an alternative view of reality that might introduce some kind of cognitive dissonance in the current perspective, you’re just giving the impression of being helplessly confused yourself.

1...Plausibility is not proof.
2...You mean some minority belief systems such as reductionist scientism think mind is brain.
3...Refer to the infinite universal energy spectrum.
4...As many do here, you are looking in a mirror and projecting your inability to explain yourself on to others..

 

[Tricky]

I don't think I have suggested consciousness was anything but a normal natural thing.
I think a 'non living thing' lacks any consciousness. That is why it is non living.

Well then I am confused. Just earlier you said this:

If consciousness is able to survive individual death, I wouldn’t consider that to be ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal.

The only way I can see to interpret that is that you do believe consciousness can exist "beyond death", implying a non-living thing would have consciousness. I'm afraid you're not making your position very clear.

I think you are asking have I ever seen something living that was once dead, or something living which is not like anything seen on earth?

What exactly do you mean by "disembodied phantoms"?

You know, ghosts, spirts etc. Things that many people consider conscious but non-living beings. Things where the consciousness has survived death. These are the things that I am saying there is no good evidence for. You seem to be stating the contrary, but I confess I'm having a difficult time understanding you.

I did suggest that it might be responsible for the universe, but why would that suggestion be taken as consciousness being abnormal or unnatural?

Because it would have to exist apart from a biologic organism, something that has never before been observed in nature. I would consider that "supernatural". That is, in fact, what the word means.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

1...Plausibility is not proof.
2...You mean some minority belief systems such as reductionist scientism think mind is brain.
3...Refer to the infinite universal energy spectrum.
4...As many do here, you are looking in a mirror and projecting your inability to explain yourself on to others..

...as anticipated, still noting of substance in what you're trying to communicate. Did you have some evidence to show?

 

[Moochie]

I have said that the soul is a passenger in the human instrument. I can only speak of my own experience and don't know why consciousness can do what it does. I hav'nt heard any strong mind changing evidence that explains my experiences.

Well, your testimony about your experiences doesn't amount to evidence either, so basically this thread is about a fiction.

M.

 

[Navigator]

Well, your testimony about your experiences doesn't amount to evidence either, so basically this thread is about a fiction.

M.

I accept that it can be no other way for individuals.
Events that happen in peoples lives must be fiction for others, especially when those events others cannot verify.

This is the reason why skepticism will not amount to a world changing tool of enlightenment.
Religion and Culture are here for the long haul.

Look at it this way. Culture has invented something called xmas and the central figure is something called Santa Claus. (a popular wooish male figurehead)
What chance does skepticism have of enlightening the masses to the truth of this institution? Even when adults (who formerly believed) have come to understand that there is no truth in it, they still encourage their offspring to believe it is truth.

There is little chance of skepticism educating the masses about this folly. There is pretty much nil chance of skepticism educating religions and cultures that have been a part of the human journey for much longer than the Jolly Red One

At least a skeptic can take someone by the hand and lead them through all the reasons why Santa does not exist.
It is impossible for a skeptic to do the same regarding the invisible reality that individual’s experience.
So far science might seem to be a tool which ‘strongly suggests’ that there are more appropriate explanations – all of which are ‘likely’ a function of the brain, this amounts to moving mountains with a spoon….it will bend the spoon. Forgive the pun.

 

[Navigator]

I think a 'non living thing' lacks any consciousness. That is why it is non living.

Well then I am confused. Just earlier you said this:

If consciousness is able to survive individual death, I wouldn’t consider that to be ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal.

The only way I can see to interpret that is that you do believe consciousness can exist "beyond death", implying a non-living thing would have consciousness. I'm afraid you're not making your position very clear.

What exactly do you mean by "disembodied phantoms"?

You know, ghosts, spirts etc. Things that many people consider conscious but non-living beings. Things where the consciousness has survived death. These are the things that I am saying there is no good evidence for. You seem to be stating the contrary, but I confess I'm having a difficult time understanding you.

I think the misunderstanding comes from our individual ideas about the difference between ‘life’ and ‘death’
If for example, upon your body actually dying, you left that body conscious of the fact that your body has died, you might think to yourself “I am dead”.
In this you would be misunderstanding yourself.
So – although as you say, ‘many people consider so-called ghosts/spirits/etc…to be conscious non living beings, these people misunderstand.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did suggest that it might be responsible for the universe, but why would that suggestion be taken as consciousness being abnormal or unnatural?

Because it would have to exist apart from a biologic organism, something that has never before been observed in nature. I would consider that "supernatural". That is, in fact, what the word means.

The word ‘supernatural’ is even more of a linguistic abstract than the word ‘consciousness’.
The understanding of things as being ‘supernatural’ comes from the misunderstanding mentioned in the previous paragraph I wrote.

“Conscious non-living” is a contradiction.

Now as for the sighting of apparitions, again – this is something of a subjective experience which is why it cannot be sighted through scientific devices… at least there are no such devices at present which have detected conclusively such things…

…albeit ‘something that has never before been observed in nature’, even if these things do exist, does not make them ‘unnatural’.

Further more – those who profess to have seen such things, even if these things are a creation of the brain, these things are still natural, as surely as the brain is natural.

I have only observed one such apparition, and this was the thing which allowed me to realize it was possible for consciousness to exist outside of the body.
To be sure…IF it was the brain which created the whole apparition, then I would have to examine possible reasons why the brain would do this, and also I would have to acknowledge that my brain (and maybe everyone’s brain) is capable of so much more than what is, within the descriptive boundaries, presently regarded as ‘natural’.