• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

I Am Soul

Oh, come on. There are so many people like this...they are all the time "prove it, prove it." Their basic life position is they are afraid. They are afraid of irrationality, they are afraid of having too many feelings. It's totally understandable but it is a fear reaction. They like objectivity, because objectivity hardens up the borders of personal identity, creates a sense of separation from the fear. It's ok but you cannot base your life upon this, it totally demeans experience of actually being alive.

Nick
Gee, then I should have been afraid of loading nukes on B52's in So. Dak. U.S.A. and have been afraid of loading 33,000 bombs on B52's in Thailand, yes I should have been very afraid.

Paul

:) :) :)


BS
 
They are afraid of irrationality, they are afraid of having too many feelings. It's totally understandable but it is a fear reaction. They like objectivity, because objectivity hardens up the borders of personal identity, creates a sense of separation from the fear. It's ok but you cannot base your life upon this, it totally demeans experience of actually being alive.

Just the opposite. We no longer have to fear demons and evil spirits, we understand the effect of micro organisms and their role in illness.
We don't have to fear the storm gods anymore. We have a better understanding of the electromagnetic force.
Sience doesn't create fear, it alleviates it in many instances.
The scientific method isn't perfect, but it goes a long way to minimize the effect of emotion and bias in scientific study.


Yes, you like huddling in the centre of the room. But this actually does not prove anything so much about the nature of reality, merely that you like huddling together with people with a similar belief system.
Look at your choice of words. "Belief systems" are over-rated. It's what woo's mainly use to understand the world. Scientific conclusions that are open to exploration and change are more helpful in understanding reality than belief systems.
And no, I'm not talking about "belief systems" of known processes such as an automobile starting system. Yes, there are people who do not understand the path of primary and secondary ignition, thus they have "faith" the car will start. The difference being someone does understand the process, it's describable and demonstrable.

At some point this can also get a little dull.

I trust you probably do not appreciate the irony in that statement.

I'll rate it fairly high: 7.54
 
Yes, there are people who do not understand the path of primary and secondary ignition, thus they have "faith" the car will start. The difference being someone does understand the process, it's describable and demonstrable.


Logic; who would have thought.

Now if we could just see that from a believer. I would even consider 'turning'.

;)
 
I think it's a delusion that the woo have--this idea that rational folks don't have the same feelings or depth of feelings or fun that they have... we do, guys... we just don't attribute it to supernatural things... we have "out of body experiences" we just don't really think we left our body... we understand that our mind can fool us. We have transcendent feelings and poignant thoughts... as Dawkins notes-- understanding how a rainbow makes light doesn't make it less beautiful.

Understanding the facts behind the feelings at what we perceive and interpret--the objective truth and how we misperceive it-- IS exciting... to some of us it's more exciting than imaginary mystical "truths". I like that I CAN understand reality... that I can understand how people can believe things very strongly that are not true based on feelings and indoctrination and "signs" that they consider proof. I can have all the same feelings... I just don't conclude the same things about what they mean or what they are.

And if you've ever been to TAM, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a livelier, funnier, more depth-filled intelligent, heartfelt group than those "skeptics". I think they are among the finest human beings I have ever met-- and not at all fearful or any of the adjectives that maatorc, nick, and etc. label us with. I think they use these labels so they can imagine they have a superior or better way of interpreting or seeing the world. It may be better for them... but I like the truth. I like reality. I find no wisdom in self described mystics or gurus.
 
Lets hear it for reality. yayy

As my wife says to people who visit. If you would like a quick dose of reality, talk to the happy old chappy in the corner.

:)
 
Nick227 said:
Oh, come on. There are so many people like this...they are all the time "prove it, prove it." Their basic life position is they are afraid. They are afraid of irrationality, they are afraid of having too many feelings. It's totally understandable but it is a fear reaction. They like objectivity, because objectivity hardens up the borders of personal identity, creates a sense of separation from the fear. It's ok but you cannot base your life upon this, it totally demeans experience of actually being alive.

Such is your assertion, but let’s not pretend it must be the case. On the contrary, it certainly looks like a therapist seeing patients everywhere – it’s simply a foolish point of departure to life. People interested in finding out how stuff works must adhere to the principle of objectivity (as in independent from one single observer). That’s how we know things, and on those principles we construct stuff that works – like your computer. The best proof is that stuff actually works as anticipated.
 
But there is no good evidence that consciousness continues after the death of the "human instrument". What other scenarios for which there is no evidence should we prepare for? Should we study Hades in case the Greek scenario of the afterlife is right?

I study myself and my experiences regarding my OBE.
I suspect that the scenarios handed down from the ancients are more products of control than likely hereafter realities.

I do not see from your evidence that any sort of non-corporal experiences exist. All I see is a human who has a very corporal brain that does some odd things sometimes. There is a great deal of evidence for this. There is none for non-corporeal experiences.

While this is true for you, I am not the kind to believe in what you don’t see as being something I should convert to.


Yet you believe that the even more complex creator could exist without itself being created? Careful, Navigator. That argument is one that is is extremely easy to counter. I don't think you want to go there.


It appears that complex consciousness tends to create images in its likeness, and humans will continue to carry on this trait because that seems to be almost an impulsive drive.


The odds for other complex life forms existing are quite good. The odds of encountering them are not nearly as good.

Hard to say. How advanced are we talking?


To you, perhaps, yet you cannot show them to anyone else. Remember, your brain is very good at fooling you. That is why real evidence is objectively observable.

Because real evidence is incapable of fooling the brain?

No, I haven’t heard an explanation as to why the brain needs to fool the consciousness it supposedly created.


I suppose you could say that "anything is possible". But there are so very many "anythings" to choose from. How do you decide which ones are likely? As it turns out, there is a way that has proved to be reliable time and time again. Evidence.



Well, the universe seems to be (there is no word for the sheer size) and there seem to be (there is no number for how many) galaxies, and within each galaxy is the possibility of (there are no words to describe the possibilities) so I guess, even in this physical reality, anything is possible, although it is likely everything possible is complex. So the likelihood of a spaghetti monster is pretty slim, but the likelihood of a monster spaghetti is plausible.

Then why are you preparing for it?

Because it is a possibility. And OBE might be the tool for the job of preparation – speaking as I do, subjectively.


Natural things have evidence. But it is pure hubris to think that the only way complexity could arise is through consciousness. And again remember, turtles all the way down, i.e. what created the consciousness?

Pride? Pure? I don’t understand how you could deduce this from the hypothsis that complexity needs a creative consciousness to bring it into being.

Consciousness created consciousness. Indeed, IF consciousness created this universe, then it would have to be complex (in context this word is inadequate) itself – Furthermore, IF a complex consciousness created this universe, then there is no way it could dwell with human form unless it was considerably toned down – Therefore IF consciousness created this universe, then it would have to create a series of ‘instruments’ in order to ‘devolve’ enough to inhabit physical form.

The universe could well be the brain of this creative consciousness.



I am sure you are not physically injured. I suspect that you believe that your arguments have not been countered by better arguments. Such is the nature of forums. But I find it highly unlikely that your arguments have convinced anyone here.


It is not my intention to convince anyone here.

All that I ask is that you stick to the same definition within the scope of a thread. What we call consciousness in humans is nothing like the description of consciousness in some proposed creator.

No – it is something like it. A part of it – a fragmented part of it. A teeny tiny bit of a part of it.

Every played hide and seek?



Actually, the scientific method is quite good at this sort of thing. In fact, it helps people prevent themselves from being misled by their brains. If the evidence doesn't fit what your brain wants to believe, then you must accept the likelihood that your brain was wrong.

Naughty brain bad brain tricky brain false brain lying brain.

My brain and your brain may well be wrong.

My brain enjoys the company of consciousness.

Each person who is not you is an "outside intelligence". They don't have to be god-like beings. If something is observable by you, but not by the outside intelligences of other people, then the strongest possibility is that it is purely internal to you.

Oh – what’s a ‘god like’ being then?
Every outside intelligence might be a god like being.

From what I have read about god around here, things seem to grind on about the god of the bible and him being a he and all.
That is kinda small, as far as I can ascertain. Kinda distracting.
More likely that particualr god is one of those devolved consciousness I mentioned earlier in this post – and I think that god is very misrepresented (in the bible) at that.


Why do brains think? It is just what they do. In the light of natural selection, I suspect it has survival value. We are a problem-solving animal. It has worked well for us.

Yes.


Yes, it can be defined, but have you actually conceived of nothingness? What is is like? And how big is infinity?

:) The thing about nothingness is that consciousness can’t actually go there.


Unless you can demonstrate that an actual journey to another realm/plane/existence occurred, then no, I have no reason to believe it happened anywhere other than in your mind. Your incredibly complex, incredibly inventive, incredibly tricky mind. I am open to further evidence.

I don’t think you are open to any evidence. I think you are content knowing that your brain tricks you (and therefore everyone’s brain tricks everyone) and because any OBE you might be able to accomplish, and any exploration you might be able to do OOB would only be figured in as evidence to you that your brain is tricking you.

But gosh, if it can be measured by scientific instruments on this side, then how can it really be the other side? Do you see the paradox of trying to defend the supernatural?

uh uh – now you’re being tricky Tricky. In context I have already said that ‘paranormal’ etc…is not something I believe exists.
Everything that exists, seen or unseen – even IF that ‘other side’ proves to exist (and instruments are eventually created able to ‘take a picture’ for you to see as evidence) then it is as natural as everything else that exists.


This is what is know to students of logic as a "false dichotomy". It is not a case of "If not #1 then it must be #2. Honestly, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.

Yeah I just threw that in for the heck of it really – I think I was interested in whether you were able to think things are possible without any evidence, if it could be restricted to the physical world…


But yes, there are many privately-funded groups which try to bend science to their particular brand of mythology.

Not exactly what I asked, but it shows me at least that you categorically believe there is NO such thing as consciousness being able to exist outside of a human instrument of its own accord, independent of a body.
Therefore it can never be provably shown to be factual certainty ever, not one day not ever.

Or am I reading you incorrectly?


And there's nothing to be ashamed about for being afraid of death. Death is damn scary. What is (I think) a shame is to escape into fantasy to avoid being scared by death. Bravery is not being unafraid. Bravery is facing reality in spite of your fear.

That is hard. What is it to you or your opinion of anyone, that they might not be brave, that you would see them as shameful?


What you are seeing here on these forums is but a tiny fraction of a poster's full humanity. We laugh. We love. We create. We cry. For these things, you don't need double-blind experiments. We're really not so bad when you come to know us.

I agree. Very human, we are all very different, which is pretty much the nature of this universe.
Everything is unique.


So lets be serious here, skeptics know they are wormfood at the end, so fear of being dead has gone out the window for most of us. Fear of not continuing this life, or being with loved ones is still there but thats standard human behaviour, nobody want's to die.

That is interesting and contrary to death.
What is it within the human being which doesn’t want to die?

Maybe it is simple something that knows it can’t die mixed with something that thinks it will die?
 
Or maybe it's your brain tricking you... your consciousness being able to understand that it will not exist but not being able to really understand itself "not existing". The human brain is smart enough to realize that it will die... no other animal can extrapolate that far--they just need a blind will to live and fear of things that cause death.... they don't have to name it... just prefer things that promote living and avoid things associated with death before reproducing. But humans can.

All scientists are open to evidence that consciousness can exist absent the body. But we don't imagine or hope that it can just because we want it to be so or because people believe they have left their bodies. If people are really leaving their bodies they should be able to demonstrate it. If it's not indistinguishable from a delusion of leaving a body... then it's safe to treat it as a delusion. You can't treat delusions as real if you want to hone your understanding. If we could prove that they were more than a product of the mind we could refine our understanding... control it... leave our bodies at will... use it to discover things... burial sites... lost kids... whatever... but to believe it is happening or that souls are hovering or that dead people are communicating or that this world was created consciously by a conscious being without a material brain is really stretching the bounds of credibility when there is no evidence except the words of people like you.

Words that are as sincere and depth filled and ultimately meaningless as Tom Cruise's words regarding his beliefs. It's nice and seems to make you feel special--but there is no reason for anyone else to believe that either you or Tom Cruise or maatorc or Nick has tapped into some "higher truth" or spiritual realm or left your body or will reincarnate or whatever it is you believe. Do you believe each other? Do you believe in body thetans? Do you believe in "suppressive people" per Scientology teachings? That is all your words can be to a skeptic... whatever those words are to you. Sure, to you it's real. To me it's just another that someone really, really, believes is true, but for which there appears to be no measurable objective evidence. I'm sure the hijackers on 9-11 really really believed in what they were doing and really really believed that they would be rewarded in the next life.

But even if their family members have dreams of their loved ones talking to them from heaven... it doesn't make me believe any of it. And for the same reason, I can't believe you. Believers never test themselves to see if they might be deluded--they only think that those "others" are-- Tom Cruise, the hijackers, etc. ... they don't allow for that possibility that their human mind might trick them in the same way. Science always includes that possibility... that is what double blind studies are for... science takes into account the known ways humans fool themselves... it has an error correcting mechanism. Faith doesn't. You just "gotta believe". Scientists know they are right after they try their best to prove themselves wrong and the airplane still flies and the computer still works and the theory still is the best explanation for understanding what we observe. When you are right or on the right track more information accumulates (e.g. DNA). Truth still stands even when you don't believe in it. Not so with delusions. No evidence ever amasses... just anecdotes indistinguishable from delusions and myths and misperceptions and magician tricks.

If you have to believe in something for it to be true... than it's probably a product of wishful thinking. And if you are afraid to see or admit that you could be deluding yourself then you would rather believe a lie than find out what is true. And that is not something I find admirable nor is it skeptical. All your arguments are designed to prop up your belief that you really left your body. A skeptic would do their best to prove that it was a delusion... and only if there could be no better explanation would they then begin to design a way they could prove it... not fling ad homs, change the subject, play semantic games or expect others to believe just because they did. If they couldn't demonstrate it, they would admit to themselves that it was a brain trick...

If I really believed I could do it, I would perfect it until I could prove it... but just like the people who take and fail the MDC-- you are nothing but excuses.

Your word that you believe you left your body is as useless as your excuses for why it cannot be demonstrated the way real phenomenon is. X-rays claim to see through people-- whoa-- they do. Imagine that. You claim to leave your body... but amazingly ... just like everybody else you can't or won't demonstrate us... you just want to blame us for not having faith in your delusion.

We don't deny that it can happen... we just concede that it appears an awful lot like other woo in that it doesn't make any real sense with what we know about the world, and it is never able to be demonstrated, refined, or honed because we can't even conclude that it really happens. If there was the remotest evidence that it was real, you can bet people would be using and refining that knowledge to a very profitable degree.
 
You are sure of a lot of things. You are so sure that you are comfortable with putting everything into its own little box altogether.
The things you are sure of.
This ‘next life reward system’ is nothing I have spoken of or even hinted at.

You are sure that I am trying to get you to believe me. Even when I have said that this is not so, you are sure anyway that it is, and that I will never get you to believe me.

You do make me think though – claims that skepticism has made the world a better place. I am skeptical too, but I think when some people call themselves ‘Skeptic’ they are wishing to be identified to a particular group under that particular label.
And labels are important to most people – a sense of solidarity and belonging.

Then the arguments and hostility. Woow! That hostility takes the K out of Skepticism.


The ‘why are you here in OUR forum – this is for skeptics This is OUR holy of holies and YOU are defiling it’ type attitude.
That got me wondering. What if say a Christian forum made a place for individuals to discuss Skepticism and then complained and vilified and made derogatory remarks about individuals they didn’t agree with?

I have been reading different sub forums and topics in this forum and in general it is a fine place to hang ones coat. Discussion doesn’t have to fall beneath the etiquette of polite respectful interaction.
With you it does, and you justify yourself that this is a good and acceptable thing to do.
It is like, you know you can’t convince (convert) the ‘deluded’ the error of their ways, so derogatory expression becomes the order of the day.
Now if I were deluded to thinking ALL skeptics are basically this way, I would have no qualms fleeing from this circus, but I would be fleeing from an illusion.

As for my beliefs – I believe everybody has the right to believe what they will and I am not here to flame them or otherwise crap on them,
I see your propensity to suggest/demand that those you proclaim as ‘woo’ do as you ask and look at each other and see the crazy there. See it as you see it.

Well, I allow.

They are individuals and their journey is theirs. I am sure we each and all have our particular focus and certainly our particular way of expressing.

You would like us to be arguing with each other – flaming and hostile? A bit of entertainment for you perhaps?

I don’t think that will happen – at least I have no interest in that, whatever a person’s belief might be.

See the interaction between Tricky and Navigator.

Pretty much different points of view and obviously not in much agreement.

Does that mean we have to resort to all out crapping on each other? Nope. We might fling a bit of good natured stuff in each others general direction, but there appears to be no need for either of us to use emotive vilifying tactics.

IF our communications were even to look like devolving onto some kind of slinging match where insults are exchanged and battle lines drawn…well it wouldn’t devolve that far, because I don’t buy into such energy wasting distractions.

I do however, from time to time – take the opportunity to point out when an individual is consistently derogatory, and you are.
While your behavior may find the support of others, and others also do this type of thing, this in no way convinces me that such tactic is standard Skeptically inspired behavior.

Why do I think this? Because all over the net and all over the world, in almost every type of group, regardless of what these groups might profess to believe or not believe in, there are those who enjoy the shade of such groups in order to practice their hostility.

A tiny part of the big picture, but important to identify and control in ones self. That is the most effective antidote.
 
I think all your words are a way for you to keep from understanding that you may be tricking yourself. You spin your own view -- "subjective truths". It's your story. You want to see me as hostile so you don't have to examine whether you came here speaking as though you thought yourself some prophet of wisdom and got made when we didn't accept your OBE's as being as real as you are convinced they are. You don't want to see if it may have been an illusion. So you put down others who suggest that. And why not... you have no evidence. It's easier to see the faults in others than to listen to what they say and have your important view of yourself as "wise being" thrown into question.

You aren't fooling anybody except your self with your inner dialogue. You came here to "preach" and are because we didn't find you as prophetic and enlightening as you imagine yourself.

Rest assured, your opinions of me matter as little to me as the opinions and experiences of others matters to you.
 
But Artie, in all fairness, if you are sceptical enough, you eventually have to adhere to the principles of The Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal.
 
What you consider has no effect on reality (though your actions which could be based on that consideration might). Reality is what it is regardless of your personal evaluation of it.

Depends what you consider reality. Like I say it's personal choice. I figure "reality" is a priori non-dual and that objectivity arises as a result of some brain process which neurologists have yet to grasp. This seems to me pretty much realistic. Some other monists might claim that objectivity is a priori real, in that the experience of personal selfhood appears natural. However, without a brain process to create it, this seems to me pretty weak. I'm more objective about these things!




True, but the alternate is solipsism, which while not disprovable, is not a particularly useful philosophy.

God, I get so bored of these Jrefers who think that the only alternative for objectivity is solipsism. It's ****ing pitiful. It's precisely this kind of woeful reasoning that makes this list a mockery. Go read..... non-dualism.

Nick
 
I think what your missing is the fact that most believers are the ones who are fearful, that is why they need a belief.

For sure, I agree. But objectivity is also just a belief system. The notion of personal selfhood is a concept, an untested belief, an assumption, albeit an enduring one until it is thoroughly examined.

Nick
 
Look at your choice of words. "Belief systems" are over-rated. It's what woo's mainly use to understand the world. Scientific conclusions that are open to exploration and change are more helpful in understanding reality than belief systems.
And no, I'm not talking about "belief systems" of known processes such as an automobile starting system. Yes, there are people who do not understand the path of primary and secondary ignition, thus they have "faith" the car will start. The difference being someone does understand the process, it's describable and demonstrable.

I would dispute that objectivity offers any possibility to understand reality. It offers the possibility to change how we experience our environment. I like objectivity, but for me it is not about investigating the nature of reality, it's about changing stuff. I like it.

Nick
 
Such is your assertion, but let’s not pretend it must be the case. On the contrary, it certainly looks like a therapist seeing patients everywhere – it’s simply a foolish point of departure to life. People interested in finding out how stuff works must adhere to the principle of objectivity (as in independent from one single observer). That’s how we know things, and on those principles we construct stuff that works – like your computer. The best proof is that stuff actually works as anticipated.

I am not in the slightest against objectivity, as I often point out. I like objectivity. It's just that many of the debaters here seem to me to considerably stuggle with being objective about objectivity itself. To them, objectivity seems to be some kind of back door by which they can escape themselves. This is not what it is, not to me anyway.

Someone claiming that the alternative to objectivity is solipsism is an excellent example of this. Such a person is not concerned with finding any truth, they just want to keep inside a protected mental world. Like I say, it's a fear position.

Nick
 
Last edited:
Depends what you consider reality. Like I say it's personal choice. I figure "reality" is a priori non-dual and that objectivity arises as a result of some brain process which neurologists have yet to grasp.
Objectivity is a brain process? How many brains does it take to cause objectivity? Perhaps I don't understand your definition of objectivity. Damn those stupid neurologists!

This seems to me pretty much realistic. Some other monists might claim that objectivity is a priori real, in that the experience of personal selfhood appears natural. However, without a brain process to create it, this seems to me pretty weak. I'm more objective about these things!
Again, you must be defining things in a way I have not heard because this makes no sense.

God, I get so bored of these Jrefers who think that the only alternative for objectivity is solipsism. It's ****ing pitiful.
Poor thing. We've bored him.

It's precisely this kind of woeful reasoning that makes this list a mockery. Go read..... non-dualism.
I have. Do you agree with this?
Nondualism superficially resembles solipsism, but from a nondual perspective solipsism mistakenly fails to consider subjectivity itself. Upon careful examination of the referent of "I," i.e. one's status as a separate observer of the perceptual field, one finds that one must be in as much doubt about it, too, as solipsists are about the existence of other minds and the rest of "the external world." (One way to see this is to consider that, due to the conundrum posed by one's own subjectivity becoming a perceptual object to itself, there is no way to validate one's "self-existence" except through the eyes of others -- the independent existence of which is already solipsistically suspect!) Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment.
I cannot see that this in any way negates the need for objective observation in verifying what is real. Maybe you could explain that.
 
Nick227 said:
I am not in the slightest against objectivity, as I often point out. I like objectivity. It's just that many of the debaters here seem to me to considerably stuggle with being objective about objectivity itself. To them, objectivity seems to be some kind of back door by which they can escape themselves. This is not what it is, not to me anyway.

I have the weirdest feeling that you look at objectivity as a ‘personal experience’ rather than as a ‘methodological tool’ for investigating stuff. Is that correct?

Someone claiming that the alternative to objectivity is solipsism is an excellent example of this. Such a person is not concerned with finding any truth, they just want to keep inside a protected mental world. Like I say, it's a fear position.
Okay, let’s try to outline what the other alternatives are, logically. What alternatives do you suggest there are?
 
Art, please, my kidneys...

ROFL...

Damn... I hate that I forget to proof before posting... that one, I can live with.... "made"... "mad"... just pretend I'm being poetic and deep... yeah... I meant to do that... --but the rest was sloppy. And it's too late to change. My typos are there for all to see. My tail is between my legs...

Perhaps it's time for me to take Lupus' advice and check in with the: The Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom