• 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

Former dualist here. At the end of the day there is no reason to suppose that there is a ghost in the machine. There is no homunculus. I came to my decision by trying to convince others that there was and finally realizing that there is just no evidence for it. Attacking materialism because it can't explain consciousness doesn't give justification to believe in a soul. There might be a soul but then there might be a leprechaun under my bed and that is why my socks disappear.
 
I don't care what you "believe" anymore than you care what I believe Navigator. I can't even make sense of what you are saying most of the time. I can understand most of the other forum members just fine. Nobody seems to be following you, but you don't seem concerned or aware of this. When I point it out, you say things like this:

I think the difference between you and I is that I can stand on my own, were you need to bring others in.

You explain away the faults in yourself and your communication by blaming others. And when it is pointed out that no one is following you and you are dodging attempts to pin you down you state how you don't care about what we think and more blather.
If you don't care what others think of your communications, then that makes it a monologue. If you aren't having a dialogue than why are you posting? Clearly it's to spin the truth you want in your head-- your "subjective truth". But your "subjective truth" is the same as a belief or an opinion. It does not get elevated to the kinds of thing that is true for everyone just because you really believe it. Moreover, objective truths don't change just because you call them "beliefs". You call our disbelief of your claims a "belief". You do this so you can pretend your "subjective truth" is on par with our "belief". But opinions are NOT on par with facts no matter how you try to make them all fuzzy with semantics and poor analogies.

Here's the post with dglas http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3494801&postcount=274

To me, and I suspect to others he clearly tries to have a dialogue with you and he's very, very smart-- and you pull this pedantry blather that comes across in every post. You sound like you think of yourself as some enlightened guru. It's affected. Off putting. Incoherent. Self aggrandizing. And useless for others except as fodder for amusement. What else is there? It's not like you think you have anything you can learn here. You have your "subjective truth" and that is that.
 
Former dualist here. At the end of the day there is no reason to suppose that there is a ghost in the machine. There is no homunculus. I came to my decision by trying to convince others that there was and finally realizing that there is just no evidence for it. Attacking materialism because it can't explain consciousness doesn't give justification to believe in a soul. There might be a soul but then there might be a leprechaun under my bed and that is why my socks disappear.

What is the leprechaun using those socks for... ?

(or were you gone during the thread this alludes to)

To catch up... Navigator started the "I am Soul" thread and believes he is having out of body experiences. Nick believes that the brain filters the "collective consciousness" the way lungs filter air... he claims to be a "non-dualist". Maatorc is his usual new age "love is energy is all" complete with his slams to "pseudoskeptic materialist reductionists"... Edge is some kind of fundamentalist Christian who pops in to push his woo and call us all angry-- and the rest is self explanatory... and the usual...

and I think that you have the gist, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I was gone. I'll confess I read the first post and only scanned a few others.

Thanks for the update.

The human mind is a curious thing. I've been here since 2001 and I've seen all kinds. Why it is so difficult for many to question their held assumptions and adopt critical thinking is beyond me. What's even more difficult to understand is why anyone would come here expecting to convert skeptics from critical thinking to magical thinking. Of course many of these folks will give those of us who do chose to view the world objectively a lecture about being closed minded or having science as our faith.

What is one to do?
 
I have no doubt the brain is capable of creating experiences that feel more real than the ”normal” reality we encounter everyday. I also have no doubt it’s possible to induce states of “consciousness” where we pick up signals that usually passes unnoticed. There’s quite a bit of information available on the net in this regard.

Here’s one: Horizon: Psychedelic science by Bill Eagles.

One interesting DMT study was done by Rick Strassman, where people regularly reported OBEs and alien contacts. Here’s a short interview. As with many such studies, intent seems to be important in how the experiences are interpreted. For instance, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis attributed much of his scientific breakthrough to LSD, especially in the way of having the intent to understand DNA while tripping.

But with all such experiences, there’s a huge difference in taking those experiences at face value or translating them into something meaningful outside one’s own subjective context. Thus a visionary insight still require some kind of critical thinking in order to make sense, otherwise it remains a fairytale – only real in the sense that it actually happened within the narrative. It seems somewhat clear that extraordinary states of consciousness are reflections of what’s happening in the brain, what we make of them, how we interpret and translate them is the tedious part. Sometimes people become so attached to their whole experience that they refuse to translate them altogether – and that’s shame, because there might have been some insight of value for everyone else. It’s kind of like mistaking a metaphor for the real thing.
 
........Moreover, you are hostile that we don't believe this any more than we believe the weird stuff maatorc says.....
You sound like someone who thinks of themselves as some sort of enlightened master... like maatorc ......

Your triviality and mindless hostility to all and sundry is removing any credibility possible for your pseudo skeptic nonsense.
 
I was gone. I'll confess I read the first post and only scanned a few others.

Thanks for the update.

The human mind is a curious thing. I've been here since 2001 and I've seen all kinds. Why it is so difficult for many to question their held assumptions and adopt critical thinking is beyond me. What's even more difficult to understand is why anyone would come here expecting to convert skeptics from critical thinking to magical thinking. Of course many of these folks will give those of us who do chose to view the world objectively a lecture about being closed minded or having science as our faith.

What is one to do?
"One" would like a single example of a practical difference between the world as a "materialist/rationalist/atheist" sees it, and whatever load of BS they claim. When you ask for something concrete, they cower behind all sorts of nonsensical excuses, showing how deeply full of crap they are.

Here's the thing: the world that they claim exists is completely different from the one I experience day in and day out. It wouldn't take much to convince me that I'm looking at things the wrong way. The moment they can read MY mind, or do some remote viewing based on what I'M looking at, I'll take them seriously. Until then, they are pretty obviously all frauds, liars, and/or mentally ill.
 
...Maatorc sounds...

The real problem with this thread is it is beginning to sound like in-articulett sounds: No wonder it is in such a mess! She hates everyone under the guise of reason and friendship with those she sucks up to get agreement with her trivial ramblings.
 
I have no doubt the brain is capable of creating experiences that feel more real than the ”normal” reality we encounter everyday. I also have no doubt it’s possible to induce states of “consciousness” where we pick up signals that usually passes unnoticed. There’s quite a bit of information available on the net in this regard.

Here’s one: Horizon: Psychedelic science by Bill Eagles.

One interesting DMT study was done by Rick Strassman, where people regularly reported OBEs and alien contacts. Here’s a short interview. As with many such studies, intent seems to be important in how the experiences are interpreted. For instance, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis attributed much of his scientific breakthrough to LSD, especially in the way of having the intent to understand DNA while tripping.

But with all such experiences, there’s a huge difference in taking those experiences at face value or translating them into something meaningful outside one’s own subjective context. Thus a visionary insight still require some kind of critical thinking in order to make sense, otherwise it remains a fairytale – only real in the sense that it actually happened within the narrative. It seems somewhat clear that extraordinary states of consciousness are reflections of what’s happening in the brain, what we make of them, how we interpret and translate them is the tedious part. Sometimes people become so attached to their whole experience that they refuse to translate them altogether – and that’s shame, because there might have been some insight of value for everyone else. It’s kind of like mistaking a metaphor for the real thing.

It's kind of like mistaking a simile for the real thing. It is mistaking a metaphor for the real thing. ;)
 
Not if I was simply TOLD. If I was shown, then I would have to adjust my beliefs.
You can't envision anyone else's arguments being more convincing than your own? Well, that is a problem and, I'd have to say, a pity.

Yes I know. But does your value system invalidate mine.
Invalidate? I'm not sure what you mean. Value systems can be in conflict when they don't agree. As a hypothetical example, let's say a person has a value system that says it is okay to murder. My value system (and probably yours) says that it is not okay to murder. Is that person's value system invalidated? It is, after all, still a value system that could be followed, but it is in direct conflict with my value system. I will do everything I can to prevent him from following his value system.

But of course, if you're talking about correct versus incorrect (scientifically speaking) the way to tell which model is more correct is with evidence.

Is that science or personal opinion?
Logic. If you are saying something, then the logical conclusion is that you wish to be heard. For what possible reasons could you wish to be heard?

Do you think that people are so predictable?
I don't think it takes a lot of predictive skill to say that most people would not hold beliefs that they know to be incorrect.

What is it to you or your opinion of anyone, that they might not be brave, that you would see them as shameful?
I'm not sure what you're talking about or how this relates. But yes, as a general rule, I believe cowardice is shameful. It's part of my value system.

Tricky said:
That’s what I like about my sense of individuality.
Lucky for you. It would be very sad if you didn't.;)
Lucky?
You did see the smilie, right?

But to get to the point, this verifies exactly what I was saying. Of course you like your own "sense of individuality" or your value system or your arguments. You wouldn't keep them if you didn't think they were good, and you wouldn't post them if you didn't think they were worth reading.

I was hoping my little jest would convey this message. I guess I need to be more clear.
 
Maatorc is his usual new age "love is energy is all" complete with his slams to "pseudoskeptic materialist reductionists"...

Articulett- you'll have to forgive Maatorc. Judging by his screen name and by his writings, it would appear that he's read too many books by Drunvalo and Gurdjieff and can't seem to understand that they're works of fiction. And, because he considers himself the keeper of the flame, he has to write like them too.
 
I was gone. I'll confess I read the first post and only scanned a few others.

Thanks for the update.

The human mind is a curious thing. I've been here since 2001 and I've seen all kinds. Why it is so difficult for many to question their held assumptions and adopt critical thinking is beyond me. What's even more difficult to understand is why anyone would come here expecting to convert skeptics from critical thinking to magical thinking. Of course many of these folks will give those of us who do chose to view the world objectively a lecture about being closed minded or having science as our faith.

What is one to do?


Yeah, I find sticking to the facts (that everyone can see and verify for themselves) so much more satisfying than trying to bolster fantasies that have nothing but anecdote and opinion to stand on. Sticking to the facts so far as we know them gives me a sense of groundedness that I never got from the religious blather I was taught when I was a child. All it (the religious blather) actually did was scare me a little, because there was nothing -- NOTHING -- to actually pin the nonsense to in the real world. IMO teaching this nonsense to growing young persons has the potential to be harmful. It both amuses and saddens me when I see some of my peers believing in the untenable and unsubstantiated nonsense that is religious scripture.


M.
 
One interesting DMT study was done by Rick Strassman, where people regularly reported OBEs and alien contacts. Here’s a short interview. As with many such studies, intent seems to be important in how the experiences are interpreted. For instance, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis attributed much of his scientific breakthrough to LSD, especially in the way of having the intent to understand DNA while tripping.

But with all such experiences, there’s a huge difference in taking those experiences at face value or translating them into something meaningful outside one’s own subjective context. Thus a visionary insight still require some kind of critical thinking in order to make sense, otherwise it remains a fairytale – only real in the sense that it actually happened within the narrative. It seems somewhat clear that extraordinary states of consciousness are reflections of what’s happening in the brain, what we make of them, how we interpret and translate them is the tedious part. Sometimes people become so attached to their whole experience that they refuse to translate them altogether – and that’s shame, because there might have been some insight of value for everyone else. It’s kind of like mistaking a metaphor for the real thing.

A factor that Strassman didn't go into, if I recall from his book, was the reliability of subjective description of the event...after it had happened. Based on my own fair share of drug experiences and altered states, I'd say that this issue is a big, big factor. You're out of it somewhere, what you experience in this altered state is being created by your mind based on what it believes anyway, even at the time. But, afterward, your mind, reined in by the ego, is trying to translate this experience into everyday language. It's a borderline futile endeavour if you ask me. Plenty of times I've come round thinking "well, how the **** do I express that?!" I know it's pointless, but at some point if my ego needs a boost I can create some meaningful-sounding description of what happened and tell people all about this amazing experience I had!

Another related factor that skews things, if you ask me, is that people just are not familiar with non-duality. Faced with the option of describing their experience either as (a) my soul was radiating light and I became one with the universe, God's presence was everywhere...or (b) I experienced baseline reality for the first time...the ego tends to go for the first option.

People spend so much time feeling bad about themselves that any possibility to feel special is grasped with both hands.

Nick
 
Last edited:
Now if you don't understand how that comes across or why it's similar to the way Tom Cruise sounds or Maatorc sounds... or if you think that I am the only one perceiving this as obnoxious... then I don't think you are capable of having any real dialogue with anybody here. Instead you are having long monologues to prop up your beliefs -- and yes, that's my opinion. Try and respect it the way you want your platitudes (as shown above) respected.

I think lots of people have been trying to tell you this or trying to pin you down or get your message or communicate... but how is someone supposed to communicate with utterances like that? It's smarmy.

I don't think most skeptics are interested in your beliefs any more than you are interested in theirs (and I see no interest... I see you labeling things as "beliefs" that you want to be "beliefs" while refusing to admit your OBE is a "belief" that has not been substantiated in any way...) we can not distinguish your OBE from a woo claim such as Tom Cruise's claim that "Scientologists are the experts in the mind". We have no reason to treat your assertions different than we would treat such a claim by Tom Cruise... nor is it a statement that invites discussion or discovery... just like Tom Cruise's. It's a statement of your beliefs stated as fact and in a way that makes it clear that you expect to define your beliefs as facts... and other peoples claims--which they even provide evidence for-- as "beliefs".

I don't know how most people feel towards you. You seem to be engaging in sermons and monologues not dialogues from what I see, and lots of people are trying to show you this. As, I said, I cannot tell your monologues from Tom Cruise's or Maatorc's or Edges. I know that you believe all the stuff you are saying just like they do... I just see no reason to treat it differently than you treat their claims or the claims of others. You just sort of dismiss others opinions as "nothing" while asserting yours as something we should "respect" or be interested in or be eager to hear. You certainly don't invite discussion. Like Edge you have your "personal truth". There's nothing to indicate that you are willing to actually discuss anything. You have your and are pissed that we (I) find in as laughable or incoherent as Tom Cruise's "truth". But I'm not the only one. Your first responses all generated show this reaction and affect. You appear oblivious to it.

So you have your "subjective truth" Big deal. So does everyone. What's new? I'm as interested in yours as you are in mine. I treat your opinions with the same respect you show other opinions that differ from yours. Where are you ever showing the respect of opinion that you seem to want for yours? Where do you see yourself as being coherent and clear and "to the point"? You ignore all attempts at clarification or dismiss queries with wordy spiritual nothingness like the above. Who in the world can respond to that and what would make them think dialogue was possible? And why would they want to. You are hear to preach. Those types do not change and cannot learn... so we (I) play with them. What else is there to do?

Just to point out that you mention Tom Cruise in this post I believe 6 times. This must be some kind of record, even for you, especialy when he has apparently nothing to do with the OP. What is it all about? Why are you seemingly so obsessed with Tom Cruise?

Nick
 
Nick227 said:
A factor that Strassman didn't go into, if I recall from his book, was the reliability of subjective description of the event...after it had happened. Based on my own fair share of drug experiences and altered states, I'd say that this issue is a big, big factor. You're out of it somewhere, what you experience in this altered state is being created by your mind based on what it believes anyway, even at the time. But, afterward, your mind, reined in by the ego, is trying to translate this experience into everyday language. It's a borderline futile endeavour if you ask me. Plenty of times I've come round thinking "well, how the **** do I express that?!" I know it's pointless, but at some point if my ego needs a boost I can create some meaningful-sounding description of what happened and tell people all about this amazing experience I had!

I agree; it seems to be a reliability problem lurking there. But since we can probably agree about the fact that it’s the brain creating the all those experiences as well as experiencing them, it is a peculiar situation in the sense that it’s something like projecting a bunch of stuff that wouldn’t ordinarily surface at the wall and looking at them for the fist time, from a new perspective. Whether it makes sense right there might not necessarily be the point at all, the point might be that there are obviously new connections being created between synapses which might turn out to be beneficial later on.

The fact that the brain is running havoc also means that when people are back to their senses, some reminiscent between some new connections can remain, thus creating a new potential way of seeing new relations between stuff. It might even be so that a new idea or solution to a problem can surface years later, which doesn’t seem to have any connection with the previous altered state of consciousness. An established new route created years before might be the actual reason it’s now utilized in a seemingly different context, with success. There are many examples of scientists, computer visionaries and artists who have managed to transform extreme experiences into something awesome, whereas other have become stuck with the experience itself, they can’t seem to get over that, or find avenues for utilization.

I believe this could be the difference between people who utilize altered states of consciousness in a successful way and the unfortunate fool who might not make any sense. It’s not necessarily about directly translating the experience – vision by vision – but to somehow manage to use that experience in a new intuitive and implicit way, possibly in a completely different area in life. Provided there’s anything of value in those experiences in the first place. That’s also a kind of translation. Obviously the brain is sensitive to a variety of molecules, so the potential is built in already.
 
Nick227 said:
nother related factor that skews things, if you ask me, is that people just are not familiar with non-duality. Faced with the option of describing their experience either as (a) my soul was radiating light and I became one with the universe, God's presence was everywhere...or (b) I experienced baseline reality for the first time...the ego tends to go for the first option.

…or interpretation (c) there was an experience without the sensation of self being present (the process was excluded from the sensory map, for some reason). Whether one calls that a state of non-duality in the sense that it’s the baseline experience of reality is a matter of preference I think.
 
I mention Tom Cruise because he is clearly doing the Messiah Complex thing in his clip... he really really believes his "truth" but he conveys nothing. I wish... oh how I wish... the people I see as similar would explain to me why they see themselves as different? I want to hear their opinions of the tape, so I can show them THAT is how they are coming across to me-- that is why their conversations are so hopeless.

I am presuming most people understood this. I'm presuming the ones who didn't have some sort of cognitive dissonance going on where they are thinking that Tom Cruise sounds crazy... but not realizing how similar they sound to him.

At least to me they do. And they seem to generate the same sorts of responses. Who can have dialogue with a self-appointed messiah who "knows" his own "personal truths" --and no amount of evidence can deprogram him.

Wow... they counted the number of times I mentioned him... and didn't absorb a clue at all. Interesting.
 

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