• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I Am Soul

Oh, I’m not complaining about any rules as such, it’s merely an observation, formalized in a way that could pull you away from what seems to be some kind of interactive indifference. ;)

Dancing David had some questions for you in post #54, 59 and 67. Perhaps you could start with answering those first? That would clarify your position far better than detached preaching.

But I can also start with one question arising from a tiny thing you mentioned:

Navigator said:
It is plausible that the Human Form has been created specifically for its unique abilities and that these abilities will be utilised by Soul to create forms which are less susceptible to the abrasive qualities of the physical universe…
Click to expand...

Given it’s only speculation (as you also recognized); it could still be meaningful to speculate about why you think that’s plausible. I.e. what evidence makes you think the Human form is created to be utilized for the Soul, rather than the other way around? That is to say: Isn’t it more plausible, in terms of the evidence we currently have, that human corporeal consciousness through interactions with other human consciousnesses, have given rise to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, which also gives rise to the idea of a Soul, and thus also gives rise to the narrative about there being some kind of steered conscious evolution? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse in your speculation about what’s plausible here?
 
Oh, I’m not complaining about any rules as such, it’s merely an observation, formalized in a way that could pull you away from what seems to be some kind of interactive indifference.

So your mere observation sees what seems to be, and you react impulsively.

Dancing David had some questions for you in post #54, 59 and 67. Perhaps you could start with answering those first? That would clarify your position far better than detached preaching.

Dancing Dave can speak DD’s self yes? If DD has issues with Navigator DD can say so for DD’s self yes?
I don’t preach but your demands are like unto preaching in their own way. I have explained my, what you see as ‘detached’ already.


But I can also start with one question arising from a tiny thing you mentioned:
Originally Posted by Navigator
It is plausible that the Human Form has been created specifically for its unique abilities and that these abilities will be utilised by Soul to create forms which are less susceptible to the abrasive qualities of the physical universe…



Given it’s only speculation (as you also recognized); it could still be meaningful to speculate about why you think that’s plausible. I.e. what evidence makes you think the Human form is created to be utilized for the Soul, rather than the other way around? That is to say: Isn’t it more plausible, in terms of the evidence we currently have, that human corporeal consciousness through interactions with other human consciousnesses, have given rise to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, which also gives rise to the idea of a Soul, and thus also gives rise to the narrative about there being some kind of steered conscious evolution? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse in your speculation about what’s plausible here?

lupus_in_fabula

Many things are speculation yes?

The universe seems to have had a beginning and thus something caused that effect.
That is enough evidence for me to allow my thoughts to create new paths to explore.
As far as evidence goes, I suggested that the human species is still young and brash and impulsive and prone to making assertions and then falling into the static routine of proclamations based on evidence, but still too immature to realize that it only knows a part of all that is.
All the evidence is not in yet, and remaining static is not the best way to procure more.
As far as putting the cart before the horse, no I am not, unless of course human beings were here before the rest of the universe.

If the minds of many want to believe that corporeal created the idea of consciousness (what I call soul), then that is their right to believe, but they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.
If the minds of many want to believe that consciousness created the corporeal then that is also their right to believe, and they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.

It is not a case of ‘more plausible/less plausible’ at least not for this individual.
I do read the interactions of opposing thoughts and see similarities in the way those ideas are presented. It is almost as if the act of argument creates in the both opposing camps a purpose to hold tightly to their beliefs.

I could be sad about that but am too busy having fun.
 
Navigator said:
Dancing Dave can speak DD’s self yes? If DD has issues with Navigator DD can say so for DD’s self yes?
I don’t preach but your demands are like unto preaching in their own way. I have explained my, what you see as ‘detached’ already.
Click to expand...

Unless you missed it, DD already spoke. Care to give an answer? That would further clarify your position. That’s all.

Navigator said:
The universe seems to have had a beginning and thus something caused that effect.
That is enough evidence for me to allow my thoughts to create new paths to explore.
As far as evidence goes, I suggested that the human species is still young and brash and impulsive and prone to making assertions and then falling into the static routine of proclamations based on evidence, but still too immature to realize that it only knows a part of all that is.
All the evidence is not in yet, and remaining static is not the best way to procure more.
As far as putting the cart before the horse, no I am not, unless of course human beings were here before the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...

So, the universe appears to have started, which is enough evidence for you to assert almost anything. Hmm, care to say why that has anything to do with why you think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon?

Navigator said:
If the minds of many want to believe that corporeal created the idea of consciousness (what I call soul), then that is their right to believe, but they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.
If the minds of many want to believe that consciousness created the corporeal then that is also their right to believe, and they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this seems to be more drivel and not an answer. Of course we have the right to believe anything, that wasn’t the point thou. The point was, who/what created what, i.e. why do you think the soul is something other than an idea created by human imagination?

On another note, thinking appears to be a property of the brain (there’s quite a bit of evidence about that actually), thus the idea about a soul seems to be evidence of such a narrative. Why do you think it’s plausible that consciousness created the corporeal, other than arbitrary exploration of ideas?

Navigator said:
It is not a case of ‘more plausible/less plausible’ at least not for this individual.
I do read the interactions of opposing thoughts and see similarities in the way those ideas are presented. It is almost as if the act of argument creates in the both opposing camps a purpose to hold tightly to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well, you started out with “it’s plausible to that the Human Form…”. Why do you think it’s plausible if the contrary seems more plausible (especially in terms of evidence, and in a situation where there’s complete lack of evidence for consciousness having created the corporeal)? That was my initial question.

It appears you haven’t actually answered anything, merely projected platitudes. Why?
 
I have already answered your question regarding DD

care to say why that has anything to do with why you think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon?

Did I say that I think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon?

So, the universe appears to have started, which is enough evidence for you to assert almost anything.

Do you often read your own meaning into what another has said. Read again what I said, also note the bit about my views on argument.
Remember too, when you have strong beliefs, these can often muddy the waters of communication because one tends to define another by ones own expectations.

Sorry, but this seems to be more drivel and not an answer.

More defining: sigh...
You are wanting to argue your beliefs against mine. Sad and funny at the same time.

The point was, who/what created what, i.e.

I already said what

why do you think the soul is something other than an idea created by human imagination?

Do you think it isn't? Why?
Do you think that consciousness is an idea created by human imagination? Why?

Why do you think it’s plausible that consciousness created the corporeal, other than arbitrary exploration of ideas?

I gave you an answer. The universe didn't just once upon a time happen of its own volition. The universe is an effect that something caused.

My assertion is that consciousness was that cause, but if you have another assertion to the cause, do share.

...there’s complete lack of evidence for consciousness having created the corporeal

Something caused the effect, that much is evident. Certainly there is no evidence to support that consciousness didn't create the universe. You know that.

platitudes...it has been said

A platitude is simply a truth repeated till people get tired of hearing it.

Why?

Because they don't want to?

Regardless, I am merely exploring different paths. Platitudes likely come from those who are stuck in their ways.

Whatever.

How do you know you are without soul?
 
SezMe said:
Party pooper time: I was really disappointed. Seemed like a cold rehash of GEB with little added value.

To each his own, I guess.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but since I hadn't read GEB, I didn't have to deal with repetition. On the other hand, Navigator fails to evoke any "read another" response thanks to faliures in style and organization.

GEB in on the list, after a few other titles.

DR
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Oh, I’m not complaining about any rules as such, it’s merely an observation, formalized in a way that could pull you away from what seems to be some kind of interactive indifference.

So your mere observation sees what seems to be, and you react impulsively.

Dancing David had some questions for you in post #54, 59 and 67. Perhaps you could start with answering those first? That would clarify your position far better than detached preaching.

Dancing Dave can speak DD’s self yes? If DD has issues with Navigator DD can say so for DD’s self yes?
I don’t preach but your demands are like unto preaching in their own way. I have explained my, what you see as ‘detached’ already.


But I can also start with one question arising from a tiny thing you mentioned:
Originally Posted by Navigator
It is plausible that the Human Form has been created specifically for its unique abilities and that these abilities will be utilised by Soul to create forms which are less susceptible to the abrasive qualities of the physical universe…



Given it’s only speculation (as you also recognized); it could still be meaningful to speculate about why you think that’s plausible. I.e. what evidence makes you think the Human form is created to be utilized for the Soul, rather than the other way around? That is to say: Isn’t it more plausible, in terms of the evidence we currently have, that human corporeal consciousness through interactions with other human consciousnesses, have given rise to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, which also gives rise to the idea of a Soul, and thus also gives rise to the narrative about there being some kind of steered conscious evolution? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse in your speculation about what’s plausible here?

lupus_in_fabula

Many things are speculation yes?

The universe seems to have had a beginning and thus something caused that effect.
That is enough evidence for me to allow my thoughts to create new paths to explore.
As far as evidence goes, I suggested that the human species is still young and brash and impulsive and prone to making assertions and then falling into the static routine of proclamations based on evidence, but still too immature to realize that it only knows a part of all that is.
All the evidence is not in yet, and remaining static is not the best way to procure more.
As far as putting the cart before the horse, no I am not, unless of course human beings were here before the rest of the universe.

If the minds of many want to believe that corporeal created the idea of consciousness (what I call soul), then that is their right to believe, but they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.
If the minds of many want to believe that consciousness created the corporeal then that is also their right to believe, and they have no evidence that this is the truth. It is an idea which can be explored.

It is not a case of ‘more plausible/less plausible’ at least not for this individual.
I do read the interactions of opposing thoughts and see similarities in the way those ideas are presented. It is almost as if the act of argument creates in the both opposing camps a purpose to hold tightly to their beliefs.

I could be sad about that but am too busy having fun.
Click to expand...


Item 1. Speculate:
v. spec·u·lat·ed, spec·u·lat·ing, spec·u·lates
v. intr.
1. To meditate on a subject; reflect.
2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence.


Item 2. Made-Up:
–adjective 1. concocted; falsely fabricated or invented: a made-up story.
2. being in makeup; wearing facial cosmetics.

I think you will find Navigator that nearly all conversations that revolve around godly stuff, souls etc etc, are initiated by people doing Item 2, as Item 1 requires EVIDENCE, inconclusive or no. Seeing as how nobody has every produced even a smidgen of EVIDENCE to justify any of it, then SPECULATE shouldn't be the term used. Made-Up should.
;)
 
Navigator,

Soul of the Universe? Universal soul? What then of your pitiful ego spewing forth egotistic BS in this place?

All evidence I have suggests we're star dust. Star dust that has consciousness when configured in this (human) way.

What's wrong with returning to eternity without egoistic consciousness when we die?


M.
 
Last edited:
Soul of the Universe? Universal soul?

All evidence I have suggests we're star dust. Star dust that has consciousness when configured in this (human) way.

What's wrong with returning to eternity without egoistic consciousness when we die?


M.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with what you term ego consciousness? Are you unhappy with being this thing?

There is no returning to eternity - we are already experiencing it.

I am not sure where you get the idea I think there is anything wrong with either points of view.

You can believe you are stardust and that somehow stardust created consciousness. I believe I am consciousness experiencing human form, which is a magnificent tool for exploration, if somewhat limited.

Whatever
 
Navigator said:
The universe is an effect that something caused.

Hokulele said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...

You have another way of seeing it?
Click to expand...


Sure, I can think of several other ways of seeing it.

1) The universe is the totality of all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. Speaking of a cause is non-sensical.

2) The universe just happened. It did not require an outside "something" to cause it.

3) This is merely one universe of many, cause and effect are so closely intertwined, it is hard to separate one from the other.

Unlike you, I am not claiming that any of these points of view is necessarily correct. Since you are claiming your point of view is correct, I would like to know how you know it to be so.
 
Sure, I can think of several other ways of seeing it.

1) The universe is the totality of all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. Speaking of a cause is non-sensical.

2) The universe just happened. It did not require an outside "something" to cause it.

3) This is merely one universe of many, cause and effect are so closely intertwined, it is hard to separate one from the other.

Unlike you, I am not claiming that any of these points of view is necessarily correct. Since you are claiming your point of view is correct, I would like to know how you know it to be so.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that these other ways of seeing things are incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Soul explains nothing, so-called god explains nothing, end of story.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
SezMe said:
Party pooper time: I was really disappointed. Seemed like a cold rehash of GEB with little added value.

To each his own, I guess.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I personally thought that it was written with a lot more maturity of style. I found that it elaborated on points which were originally brought up in GEB, rather than merely rehashing them. Anyway, I enjoyed it.
 
Sure, I can think of several other ways of seeing it.

1) The universe is the totality of all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. Speaking of a cause is non-sensical.

2) The universe just happened. It did not require an outside "something" to cause it.

3) This is merely one universe of many, cause and effect are so closely intertwined, it is hard to separate one from the other.

Unlike you, I am not claiming that any of these points of view is necessarily correct. Since you are claiming your point of view is correct, I would like to know how you know it to be so.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that these other ways of seeing things are incorrect?

I would like to know why you think your way is correct.
Click to expand...

Example (1) (all that is in totality = the universe) Why is speaking of a cause to the type universe non-sensical?

Example (2) Why would this universe ‘just happen’

Example (3) I am not separating cause and effect. In any case, cause is never far from effect.

In your three examples of how one might possible see things, two things remain the same.
1. The Universe Exists.
2. Consciousness Exists.

All you are suggesting is that there are other ways of seeing things.

I understand that you are saying that I should not say ‘this is how it is’.

The thread of my posts is in fact saying “This is who I am” and I don’t apologize for that.
I said it from the start I AM SOUL and continued to say that soul= consciousness.
I state that one real thing caused another real thing. The only difference in perception is which came first the consciousness or the universe.

If the universe has always existed then this does not prove that consciousness came later. It can as easily suggest that they both have always existed and are in essence the same thing. I have made it plain that the universe is like a body to the consciousness – a thing to wear, a vehicle to experience through. – although I have focused on the human instrument and the fragmentation (gearing down) of consciousness through levels/layers in order to experience the multitude of vehicles consciousness can reside within.

Therefore this way of seeing things does not negate the main points of my assertion. The universe exists and consciousness is the thing which acknowledges that existence.
The only difference in (1) is that one did not create the other – they have always ever being.
Without consciousness the universe cannot exist.

I am happy to discuss this bold assertion.

So you might agree, the (1) only changes slightly the way I have chosen to present my understanding of self.

Example (2) is just example (1)

Example (3) I like because it has helped me to further elucidate. Cause and effect are one and the same in this example and one without the other is impossible.
Which is like (1) but adds the flavor of other universes.

That is why they exist – only in this situation one would have to say “That is why It exists” because there is no distinction.

(there is also the holographic universe, but again this does not negate consciousness, or the proposal that consciousness created the holographic universe….)
Give me an example which negates consciousness and universe.

Now – you have offered a few other ways of seeing things, and I have discovered that these other ways are not really too different from one another as to the fact that universe and consciousness exist together.

I have also shown that in each example, simple uncomplicated adjustments to ‘how things are seen’ do not negate or contradict what I have been saying overall.

Therefore, I am correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom