I Am Soul

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

You forget the bigger picture completely: You only have to look back a few hundred years to see how much actually has changed, which is quite an enormous change for the time frame in question, not to mention in comparison to how long humans have existed overall.

 

[Navigator]

You forget the bigger picture completely: You only have to look back a few hundred years to see how much actually has changed, which is quite an enormous change for the time frame in question, not to mention in comparison to how long humans have existed overall.

This in relation to my comments about skepticism?

Perhaps the real question is:

“Just how big IS the bigger picture?”

And in relation to that:

How much of the picture do human beings (as subjective specie from their collective subjective pov) actually see?

The bigger picture that you are stating I have forgotten completely, is really that infinitesimal part of the whole isn’t it.

Life on Earth.

The Jolly Red One is here for the long haul too. The best YOU can do, especially as a skeptic, is never be tempted to tell anyone that Santa exists.
Such an institution is really using the innocence of childlike trust to pressure people to conform to status quo in order to finance the institution that created the concept of xmas.

Shop till you drop…

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

This in relation to my comments about skepticism?

Yes.

Perhaps the real question is:

“Just how big IS the bigger picture?”

And in relation to that:

How much of the picture do human beings (as subjective specie from their collective subjective pov) actually see?

The bigger picture that you are stating I have forgotten completely, is really that infinitesimal part of the whole isn’t it.

Life on Earth.

Yes, it’s small in comparison to life on earth an even smaller compared to the whole universe, but astonishingly big in regards to being a ‘tool of enlightenment’ (albeit ‘enlightenment’ might seem a bit pompous – more like ‘weeding out unnecessary confabulation’).

Scepticism works both ways: It’s a decent tool for dusting away the obvious misinterpretations, thus giving a clearer picture about what we are actually looking at. By limiting the total landscape of interpretations we can construct perspectives, ideas and things that make it possible to look at the picture even more clearly. Thus, it’s also a tool for realizing the picture being much bigger than previously understood.

The Jolly Red One is here for the long haul too. The best YOU can do, especially as a skeptic, is never be tempted to tell anyone that Santa exists.
Such an institution is really using the innocence of childlike trust to pressure people to conform to status quo in order to finance the institution that created the concept of xmas.

Shop till you drop…

Santa can stay; he’s a nice guy anyway! There’s a difference in playing along with an obvious symbolic character than making ontological claims about reality. I also enjoy movies even though I know people in them are just acting.

 

[Paulhoff]

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

Maybe you wouldn't, but everyone I know would, or maybe magical do it for you.

Paul

 

[maatorc]

...as anticipated, still not(h)ing of substance in what you're trying to communicate. Did you have some evidence to show?

To cut to the chase:
Human beings have a mental body which approximates the form of the physical body.
We transmit and receive information unrestricted by time and space.
A useful material analogy is a thinking, feeling, transmitting, receiving television station.
When we 'die' it is a natural cyclical change and we do not 'go' anywhere because time and space as we understand them materially do not exist for the mental body or affect its operations.
In due time, governed by our natural cycles, we work with a new-born human infant and experience another cycle of material life.
The purpose of these cycles is to perfect the functioning of the mental body which in all of us is at a different stage of unfoldment.
When the mental body is perfected it can function consciously and at will outside the physical body during our material life cycles.

 

[Paulhoff]

To cut to the chase:
I call it: cut to the magic.

Paul

 

[Tricky]

To cut to the chase:
Human beings have a mental body which approximates the form of the physical body.

How do you know this? Is it something that can be detected? If so, then simply explain how.

If it cannot be detected or you cannot explain how it can be detected, then this "mental body" has all the same traits at things which are purely imaginary.

We transmit and receive information unrestricted by time and space.

The information we "transmit" is very much restricted by time and space. I challenge you to transmit something in the year 1900. I challenge you to transmit something from the Crab Nebula.

A useful material analogy is a thinking, feeling, transmitting, receiving television station.

You're fairly new here, so I can't expect you to know, but the "station" analogy has been suggested here many many times. It is an analogy that seems to make sense, superficially, but upon examination, it is badly flawed. If you want to persist in making it, we will patiently point out those flaws again.

When we 'die' it is a natural cyclical change and we do not 'go' anywhere because time and space as we understand them materially do not exist for the mental body or affect its operations.

Our body does not "go" anywhere when we die, but the thing that you call "self" or "soul" or "consciousness" is no longer present because the body/brain that was generating it has permanently ceased to operate. When a television station permanently ceases to operate, it can no longer accurately be called a television station.

If something exists "beyond time and space" then you cannot possibly know about it, mired as you are in time and space. Since you have no evidence for any of these things, this concept has traits which can only be described as imaginary. That's great if you're writing science fiction. In the real world, we expect evidence of such claims.

The purpose of these cycles is to perfect the functioning of the mental body which in all of us is at a different stage of unfoldment.

Since you cannot even show the existence of a "mental body" I'm dubious as to your ability to show or defend the purpose of these "cycles", much less what perfection of the mental body would entail. Perhaps Deepak Chopra would believe you. Few rational people will.

When the mental body is perfected it can function consciously and at will outside the physical body during our material life cycles.

Please demonstrate an example of this.

 

[maatorc]

How do you know this? Is it something that can be detected? If so, then simply explain how......

My summary is the antithesis of your reductionist scientism position concerning which can you provide any proof other than ritual denial of what you reject?
The proof of what I say comes from those who have perfected the mental body.

 

[Paulhoff]

The proof of what I say comes from those who have perfected the mental body.

That seems to leave you out.

Paul

 

[maatorc]

That seems to leave you out...

The mindless self-demeaning trivia which kills this site: deriding people, not discussing ideas.

 

[Paulhoff]

The mindless self-demeaning trivia which kills this site: deriding people, not discussing ideas.

So, I wait for you to show a idea, that has a backing.

Paul

 

[Hokulele]

How do you know this? Is it something that can be detected? If so, then simply explain how.

If it cannot be detected or you cannot explain how it can be detected, then this "mental body" has all the same traits at things which are purely imaginary.

Minor nit-pick, there really is such a thing as a "mental body". To most people, this is known as a body image (technical term, proprioception), and it really can do some very strange things.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf6.html

Unfortunately for maatorc, it very much is limited to the brain and one's internal map, and is very limited in time. There are no current studies or experiments showing people using their own body image to communicate with another person.

For those interested in this, here is noted neurologist Oliver Sacks' book on the same topic, but interestingly from a patient's perspective (following an accident Sacks suffered while hiking).

http://www.amazon.com/Leg-Stand-Oliver-Sacks/dp/0684853957

And here is a description of what happens when one loses their body image completely.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/philosophy/Personnel/susan/WebpagesSCATS0506/JamesG/christina.html

 

[Paulhoff]

We transmit and receive information unrestricted by time and space.

When they write like this, there is no getting anywhere that matters with them.

Paul



If that was true they could take a 1,000 question test in no time at all.

 

[Tricky]

My summary is the antithesis of your reductionist scientism position concerning which can you provide any proof other than ritual denial of what you reject?

You are the one making the claim. Yours is the burden of evidence. Hokulele has rightly said that there is such a thing as a mental map of the body, which can be shown through experimentation. Certainly we have (and can demonstrate) things called proprioception and kinesthetic sense but it is not anything like what you describe.

I am not denying the possibility of what you say exists. I am asking you to provide evidence. If you cannot do so, then there is no good reason for me to accept it. Would you accept anything anyone told you without evidence? I'm betting not.

The proof of what I say comes from those who have perfected the mental body.

If you could provide one of those people for our study and let us test their "perfection", then that would be evidence. As an unsupported claim, it would be foolish to call it "proof".

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
My summary is the antithesis of your reductionist scientism position concerning which can you provide any proof other than ritual denial of what you reject?

1... You are the one making the claim. Yours is the burden of evidence......
2... I am not denying the possibility of what you say exists. I am asking you to provide evidence. If you cannot do so, then there is no good reason for me to accept it. Would you accept anything anyone told you without evidence? I'm betting not.

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The proof of what I say comes from those who have perfected the mental body.

3... If you could provide one of those people for our study and let us test their "perfection", then that would be evidence. As an unsupported claim, it would be foolish to call it "proof".

1... This old saw does not work: The claims of negatives, which characterize pseudo-skeptical arguments, have an equal burden of proof.
2... This is a reasonable comment. Knowledge and experience of its truth such as mine is not evidence of the type you are looking for. The problem is the evidence can only come from those this knowledge comes from.
3... The MDC or other displays of their attainments does not interest such personalities. I agree it is a very difficult subject. There are interesting comments on it in <http://perillos.com/gabalis.html>, to name one of many. However, interesting as it is, this type of literature is not put forward as proof, merely as something approved of by those who have attained to it.

 

[PBTree]

creakfreak started a thread some time ago that (in his words) proved the existence of the bigfoot. It went for page after page.

Based upon what I see as your thinking in this thread, you believe him? I mean we couldnt prove he hadn't seen one (logic not withstanding) but he couldn't prove (as you can't with your soul) he had, so to all intents and purposes it must be true, he said so?

Case solved I think.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

To cut to the chase:
Human beings have a mental body which approximates the form of the physical body.
We transmit and receive information unrestricted by time and space.
A useful material analogy is a thinking, feeling, transmitting, receiving television station.
When we 'die' it is a natural cyclical change and we do not 'go' anywhere because time and space as we understand them materially do not exist for the mental body or affect its operations.

I think Tricky already commented in much the same way I would have, i.e. asking for evidence to support your assertions, thus giving us any reason to interpret the known facts in such a fashion – yes, the onus seems to be on you, and no, your assertions are not facts. But hey, at least we now know a little bit about what you have been alluding to!

There’s actually very little to say unless you give some clarifications about why you think those are reasonable interpretations worthy of any serious consideration. At this point there seems to be none.

In due time, governed by our natural cycles, we work with a new-born human infant and experience another cycle of material life.

The purpose of these cycles is to perfect the functioning of the mental body which in all of us is at a different stage of unfoldment.

When the mental body is perfected it can function consciously and at will outside the physical body during our material life cycles.

It’s one thing to claim that some interpretations about stuff better fit the known facts than other interpretations; it’s a completely different ball game to anthropomorphise them and claim to know any purpose to them. Unless you have evidence for your aforementioned assertions, it certainly looks like you have created those in order to suit this particular teleology, which so far seems to be a complete confabulation. I somehow supect you have just added details (q #1) to this particular plot line (q #2). I guess only evidence will tell.

 

[Navigator]

Santa can stay; he’s a nice guy anyway! There’s a difference in playing along with an obvious symbolic character than making ontological claims about reality. I also enjoy movies even though I know people in them are just acting.

Nice.

Would your assessment about the Santa myth being okay have anything to do with your personal experiences?
I guess it is okay by your own estimates for some myths to being perpetuated and used for talking advantage of gullible individuals.

Now here’s a list of (some say) mythological identities. Would you assess for me the following list and give your opinion as to whether any, like Santa, are okay to stay or not.
Could you give a short reason for your choices on each as well?

Thanks.


Satan
Buddha
Muhammed
Jesus

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Would your assessment about the Santa myth being okay have anything to do with your personal experiences?

Nope, Santa didn’t play a major role in my upbringing; I remember there was always some funny thing about how adults used to talk about Santa – as if they talked about him in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. Long before entering elementary school it was obvious that Santa wasn’t real, and for those who still did believe in Santa at that time, well, their naïveté was destroyed quite quickly – no one wanted to be the fool still believing in Santa.

I guess it is okay by your own estimates for some myths to being perpetuated and used for talking advantage of gullible individuals.

Nope, I’m saying there’s difference between obvious symbolic characters and religious idolatry that adult people don’t seem to be able to shake off. Now, if people would talk to their children about religious icons in the same way as they talk about Santa… that would be a good start. Do you really think people would suddenly stop buying gifts if the myth would be dissipated (although in my family we only tend to buy gifts to children, adults just enjoy each others company and food)?

Now here’s a list of (some say) mythological identities. Would you assess for me the following list and give your opinion as to whether any, like Santa, are okay to stay or not.
Could you give a short reason for your choices on each as well?

Don’t be silly Navigator, Santa being a ‘nice guy’ or ‘my pal’ was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark. You missed the message by only looking at the messenger. Children can believe in fairies, some have imaginary friends, some believe in Santa… such is the case that these fantasies are gone by the time they reach early teenage years. That can not be said about religious idolatry, or even worse, dogmatic interpretation of scriptures. Is the Santa myth necessary? No. Should the Santa myth be eradicated? Perhaps. Do I think the Santa myth is something that should be compared to adult religious idolatry? No.

 

[Paulhoff]

1... This old saw does not work: The claims of negatives, which characterize pseudo-skeptical arguments, have an equal burden of proof.
2... This is a reasonable comment. Knowledge and experience of its truth such as mine is not evidence of the type you are looking for. The problem is the evidence can only come from those this knowledge comes from.
3... The MDC or other displays of their attainments does not interest such personalities. I agree it is a very difficult subject. There are interesting comments on it in <http://perillos.com/gabalis.html>, to name one of many. However, interesting as it is, this type of literature is not put forward as proof, merely as something approved of by those who have attained to it.

That may work on woo-woo magical forums, but here it doesn't.

Paul