I Am Soul

[lupus_in_fabula]

I agree “it seems” is an honest way to describe a creatures death. The ability of that creature to be able to acknowledge anything seems to end.
Likewise with the born.

That acknowledging ends with a creature’s death is by far the more likely scenario; evidence supporting such a conclusion are plentiful whereas there’s no evidence to support the hypothesis that acknowledging continues after death, or that there has ever been any kind of acknowledging before sufficient conditions for life had manifested.

When you say to me ‘like yourself’ what do you mean? What is The Self?
(Can we agree that the Self may be used to describe “that which is able to acknowledge”)? Self is less the mouthful.

My (self) has a brain

With “yourself” I mean you, including self-awareness. Self-awareness or the “phenomenal self” does not necessarily mean that it’s something special; something necessarily other than a linguistic abstraction; a persistent sensation or though; a self-referential quality of the neural system that makes it possible for a particular corporeal creature to claim identity, or to even fantasise about that sensation being able to survive death (perhaps as a soul).

Our brains are capable of phantasmagoria: Self is one of those persistent effects that appear to be static, although constantly changing, disappearing and reappearing when closely examined.

Brain has (the ability to create) self… which then makes it possible to say: my brain has self… which then makes it possible to say: my self has brain. Hence a virtual reality about identity is created that can be so convincing that it claims ownership of it’s creator, and other more or less whacky ideas like acknowledging (or consciousness) being eternal or a fundamental property of the universe etc.

I am not talking about individual ability. I am asserting that if there was NO thing which was able to acknowledge the existence of its self and everything else – then the universe would not exist.

Because there is nothing to acknowledge that it exists.

I know you’re not talking about individual ability. But if you’re not talking about individual ability, then how and where does acknowledging take place? What I’m suggesting is that there’s no acknowledging without sentient boundaries (which makes distinguishing possible), and consequently no sentient boundaries without the physical universe in the first place. That’s why I think you’re putting the cart before the horse when you say that acknowledging determines existence. Something makes acknowledging possible so that we can speak about it as ability distinct from other abilities. There cannot be acknowledging without ability, and no ability without something.

[FONT=&quot]If NO thing lacked the ability for acknowledging… then that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the universe wouldn’t exist, it would simply mean that there wouldn’t be acknowledging (plain and simple). There’s simply no need to make that extra leap you’re taking and assert that the universe wouldn’t therefore exist – there’s no necessary connection there, that connection exists only in your head. As far as I know, the only think you can say is that: Without acknowledging, the universe wouldn’t exist in the same way as it exists now. Perhaps that’s what you mean?
[/FONT]

 

[Navigator]

So then.

That which is able to acknowledge existence is the first cause of existence being anything at all.
Within the human instrument, this ability is mostly limited to the sensory system of the instrument, although not completely.
There is the passenger and the passenger is connected to a vaster reality than meets the human eye.

Staying with the concept that the universe has always ever existed, it is not so easy to discount the possibility of that which is able to acknowledge existence having always ever existed too. They are inseparable – one and the same thing.
One – the universe with all its physical characteristics is the vehicle or body of the other, that which is able to acknowledge itself as existing. (= consciousness in some peoples understanding)
If these two things are aspects of the one whole thing, then the universe is a living thing aware of itself and everything about itself.

It is also easier to understand how rock water fire and gas came to create something as complex as a human instrument and imbue this with an ability to acknowledge existence, both self and everything else it could through the sensory channels of this instrument.

To be sure, if anyone were to tell me that something which has no ability to think of its own accord (essentially lifeless), could create something complex enough to have the ability to think for itself and acknowledge existence I would have to wonder why that someone was trying to goof with my thinking processes and what use I might be to that someone if I were to believe such nonsense.

 

[Paulhoff]

Navigator, you are going to navigate some so-called god of some type into this in the end.

Paul

 

[Navigator]

I agree “it seems” is an honest way to describe a creatures death. The ability of that creature to be able to acknowledge anything seems to end.
Likewise with the born.

That acknowledging ends with a creature’s death is by far the more likely scenario; evidence supporting such a conclusion are plentiful whereas there’s no evidence to support the hypothesis that acknowledging continues after death, or that there has ever been any kind of acknowledging before sufficient conditions for life had manifested.

From the perspective of those still alive, I agree that there is 100% evidence which seems to support that Elvis has left the building. In fact the human instrument is lifeless, and even the physical characteristics have altered since the life has left the container.
All that remains is the remains, which rapidly decomposes.

When you say to me ‘like yourself’ what do you mean? What is The Self?
(Can we agree that the Self may be used to describe “that which is able to acknowledge”)? Self is less the mouthful.

My (self) has a brain

With “yourself” I mean you, including self-awareness. Self-awareness or the “phenomenal self” does not necessarily mean that it’s something special; something necessarily other than a linguistic abstraction; a persistent sensation or though; a self-referential quality of the neural system that makes it possible for a particular corporeal creature to claim identity, or to even fantasise about that sensation being able to survive death (perhaps as a soul).

So we can put ‘self’ on our list of linguistic abstractions, and try to avoid using these words at all.
Self
Ego
Consciousness
Paranormal
(don’t be shy – contribute to the list)

Should we include

We
Us
They
Them
Me
My
I
You
Yours
Hmmm…we (oops) can see how hard it would be to communicate anything without these linguistic abstractions – but if you (oops) were to remain true to your (oops) belief, (your) claim of identity is as purposeless as (your) creators.

Our brains are capable of phantasmagoria: Self is one of those persistent effects that appear to be static, although constantly changing, disappearing and reappearing when closely examined.

self the concept of, is a creation of Our brains?

Brain has (the ability to create) self… which then makes it possible to say: my brain has self… which then makes it possible to say: my self has brain.

(I) think that (you) are suggesting that (your) brain created (your) sense of (self.)?

(we) are talking of an extremely complex instrument The Brain. This was produced by something essentially dead (the universe without the ability to acknowledge itself as existing)

The brain (which exists but didn’t always exist) – was produced by a lifeless thing, and now is able to acknowledge existence AND give itself a sense of self, albeit an illusory one.

Hence a virtual reality about identity is created that can be so convincing that it claims ownership of it’s creator, and other more or less whacky ideas like acknowledging (or consciousness) being eternal or a fundamental property of the universe etc.

Wow

Identity – the ability to acknowledge “I am” is a product of a brain, which essentially tricks it(self) into thinking it is a self (has identity) but is in ‘reality’ a virtual ‘reality’
Huh? Virtual = essential, near, practical, effective, implicit, fundamental.
Anyway…

Am I understanding (you) correctly?

You are saying that the brain (which has no sense of self) somehow pulls the rabbit of the sense of self out of the hat, creating that sense of self in order that those with brains realize that they are brains, and that this is the self, but is not really because the self is an illusion created by the brains ability to create illusions. The brain of an individual is not the self, but is able to convince itself that it is a self.

That is wack.

(We) are communicating brain to brain, under the illusion that (we) are self’s communicating.

If the brain is capable of such trickery, then the universe might not even exist, because it is the brain which creates the illusionary concept of being able to acknowledge itself and everything else.
The universe in this way may also be a trick of the brain. A pretty picture that it wants itself to see, because this is preferable to total nothingness but the illusion of self.
I can see why people with such beliefs are mostly in favor of the belief in the completeness of death.
(I) will get back to (you) on the rest of (your) post.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

That which is able to acknowledge existence is the first cause of existence being anything at all.
Within the human instrument, this ability is mostly limited to the sensory system of the instrument, although not completely.
There is the passenger and the passenger is connected to a vaster reality than meets the human eye.

Nope. Acknowledging has nothing to do with any first cause of existence, acknowledging is an ability to distinguish different aspects of the universe. The ability to distinguish different aspects of the universe or lack thereof is irrelevant to the overall existence of the universe.

There’s no passenger distinct from the vehicle; the passenger is a property of the vehicle’s behaviour.

Staying with the concept that the universe has always ever existed, it is not so easy to discount the possibility of that which is able to acknowledge existence having always ever existed too. They are inseparable – one and the same thing.

Whether the universe has always existed or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that (1) at some point conditions for potential life arose and continues to do so, under extremely specific circumstances and places in the universe; (2) much, much later, conditions for sentience arose, again in extremely specific circumstances within the characteristics of living things.

They are inseparable only in the way that acknowledging cannot exist without the universe, but the universe can very well exist without someone/something acknowledging it – acknowledging is merely a late addition to the universe. What you find difficult to discount is indeed as easy to discount as deciding not to put the cart before the horse.

One – the universe with all its physical characteristics is the vehicle or body of the other, that which is able to acknowledge itself as existing. (= consciousness in some peoples understanding)
If these two things are aspects of the one whole thing, then the universe is a living thing aware of itself and everything about itself.

There’s no other, consciousness seems to be a tiny subset of the whole cosmos. Consciousnesses flair up in some extremely specific circumstances and end in other circumstances, i.e. conditions has to be right, otherwise no conscious activities going on.

t is also easier to understand how rock water fire and gas came to create something as complex as a human instrument and imbue this with an ability to acknowledge existence, both self and everything else it could through the sensory channels of this instrument.

Perhaps ‘easier’ as in ‘solace’! It’s still wishful thinking thou, devoid of realistic explanatory property.

To be sure, if anyone were to tell me that something which has no ability to think of its own accord (essentially lifeless), could create something complex enough to have the ability to think for itself and acknowledge existence I would have to wonder why that someone was trying to goof with my thinking processes and what use I might be to that someone if I were to believe such nonsense.

My dear Navigator, to think that something can think of its own accord without conditions for such ability being in place a priori, is nonsense; way off course… as in a boat resting in the middle of a desert.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, you are going to navigate some so-called god of some type into this in the end.

Paul

I don't know Paul

What do you mean when you use the word "god"?

At present, IF God = The ability to acknowledge self and everything else, then God = the brain, but is an illusion of itself.
Or something like unto thee

 

[Navigator]

I am not talking about individual ability. I am asserting that if there was NO thing which was able to acknowledge the existence of its self and everything else – then the universe would not exist.

Because there is nothing to acknowledge that it exists.

I know you’re not talking about individual ability. But if you’re not talking about individual ability, then how and where does acknowledging take place? What I’m suggesting is that there’s no acknowledging without sentient boundaries (which makes distinguishing possible), and consequently no sentient boundaries without the physical universe in the first place. That’s why I think you’re putting the cart before the horse when you say that acknowledging determines existence. Something makes acknowledging possible so that we can speak about it as ability distinct from other abilities. There cannot be acknowledging without ability, and no ability without something.

The advent of sentient ability was essentially an accident – because premeditation is a sentient ability.
If the universe lacks sentient ability how then did sentience derive except by accident?
The cart is lifeless, the horse is sentient.

If NO thing lacked the ability for acknowledging… then that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the universe wouldn’t exist, it would simply mean that there wouldn’t be acknowledging (plain and simple). There’s simply no need to make that extra leap you’re taking and assert that the universe wouldn’t therefore exist – there’s no necessary connection there, that connection exists only in your head. As far as I know, the only think you can say is that: Without acknowledging, the universe wouldn’t exist in the same way as it exists now. Perhaps that’s what you mean?

You do mean if NO thing HAD the ability….
Yes – it is imaginable that the universe would still exist EVEN if no thing about the properties of said universe were able to acknowledge that it existed.
So on those grounds, is it also conceivable that there IS the existence of say, another universe/reality which exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged or not by that which cannot observe it?

 

[Navigator]

Staying with the concept that the universe has always ever existed, it is not so easy to discount the possibility of that which is able to acknowledge existence having always ever existed too. They are inseparable – one and the same thing.

Whether the universe has always existed or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that (1) at some point conditions for potential life arose and continues to do so, under extremely specific circumstances and places in the universe; (2) much, much later, conditions for sentience arose, again in extremely specific circumstances within the characteristics of living things.

They are inseparable only in the way that acknowledging cannot exist without the universe, but the universe can very well exist without someone/something acknowledging it – acknowledging is merely a late addition to the universe. What you find difficult to discount is indeed as easy to discount as deciding not to put the cart before the horse.

Life.
Living things
As opposite to death and dying things?
Nope – one and the same.
But, one thing maybe has always been and maybe will always be, regardless of whether sentience exists or not.
The universe.
Interesting.
It is not the universe which sees itself as existing, but the living/dying things created by the ‘thing that exists’, only according to the living/dying things.
It does not exist, according to itself, because it has no ability to accord anything to itself or anything else.
It is not a self. It is a something, but only according that which thinks it is a something.
Its conditions managed to create things within itself which DO accord things to things, and also accords existence to it.

One – the universe with all its physical characteristics is the vehicle or body of the other, that which is able to acknowledge itself as existing. (= consciousness in some peoples understanding)
If these two things are aspects of the one whole thing, then the universe is a living thing aware of itself and everything about itself.

There’s no other, consciousness seems to be a tiny subset of the whole cosmos. Consciousnesses flair up in some extremely specific circumstances and end in other circumstances, i.e. conditions has to be right, otherwise no conscious activities going on.

Yes – in relation to the size of the universe, the only provable (to us) flair up of consciousness seems to be on this planet.
Therefore we are altogether unable to appropriately explain ourselves in an objective manner, due to the fact of our condition.
There is no outside consciousness which can assist us in helping explain or give another point of view to our reality.
Therefore, as a collective thing, we are totally subjective, and can only explain our existence from that collective subjective reality, or belief system.

t is also easier to understand how rock water fire and gas came to create something as complex as a human instrument and imbue this with an ability to acknowledge existence, both self and everything else it could through the sensory channels of this instrument.

Perhaps ‘easier’ as in ‘solace’! It’s still wishful thinking thou, devoid of realistic explanatory property.

Why would anyone who thinks themselves as a product of the illusory properties of brain functions care about or even trust the value of the properties of so-called ‘realistic explanations’
After all, the explanation of self as an illusion caused by the brain rips away the veil to expose the said illusion. Unless of course the illusion itself gives the illusion of self value.
That illusion of value of self might well be very handy in upholding the illusion of value in others, especially those close to that self.

To be sure, if anyone were to tell me that something which has no ability to think of its own accord (essentially lifeless), could create something complex enough to have the ability to think for itself and acknowledge existence I would have to wonder why that someone was trying to goof with my thinking processes and what use I might be to that someone if I were to believe such nonsense.

My dear Navigator, to think that something can think of its own accord without conditions for such ability being in place a priori, is nonsense; way off course… as in a boat resting in the middle of a desert.

Hmmm…but what is doing the thinking? And is it of its own accord?
It can’t be the ‘self’ which is thinking for itself, because the self is an illusion created by the brain to give it a sense of ‘self’.

I think therefore I think I am.

“I” being the brain which thinks that it is.

Brain thinks, therefore brain thinks that it is.

 

[Paulhoff]

I don't know Paul

What do you mean when you use the word "god"?

At present, IF God = The ability to acknowledge self and everything else, then God = the brain, but is an illusion of itself.
Or something like unto thee

I quess "Some type of so-called god" confused you.

Paul

 

[Navigator]

I quess "Some type of so-called god" confused you.

I guess "What do you mean when you use the word "god"?" confused you

 

[Paulhoff]

I guess "What do you mean when you use the word "god"?" confused you

Must we now buy you a dictionary.

Paul

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The advent of sentient ability was essentially an accident – because premeditation is a sentient ability.
If the universe lacks sentient ability how then did sentience derive except by accident?

Obviously there’s a potential for sentience, we are examples of such manifestation. We also know that such conditions are rather specific; data about how specific is accumulating at an ever increasing rate. Will we figure out precisely how specific? I don’t know. Just because we recognize a phenomenon now, doesn’t mean it must always have existed.

You do mean if NO thing HAD the ability….

Yes

So on those grounds, is it also conceivable that there IS the existence of say, another universe/reality which exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged or not by that which cannot observe it?

If there would be another universe, would that universe combined with this universe – regardless of us being able to acknowledge it – still be one and the same universe? If by universe we mean everything.

Why would anyone who thinks themselves as a product of the illusory properties of brain functions care about or even trust the value of the properties of so-called ‘realistic explanations’
After all, the explanation of self as an illusion caused by the brain rips away the veil to expose the said illusion. Unless of course the illusion itself gives the illusion of self value.
That illusion of value of self might well be very handy in upholding the illusion of value in others, especially those close to that self.

Realizing the self to be a just notion (with evolutionary advantage for associated entity) is not such a big deal. In fact, experiences of non-duality or no-self are quite common, as are alterations in self awareness through drug use etc.

Hmmm…but what is doing the thinking? And is it of its own accord?
It can’t be the ‘self’ which is thinking for itself, because the self is an illusion created by the brain to give it a sense of ‘self’.

You’re searching for ownership where there’s ultimately only process, i.e. you’re searching for a noun where there’s ultimately only verbs.

 

[edge]

Skeptics God = science, but they refuse to acknowledge their God when it supports the one Gods proof of soul.
I can't figure it out their reasoning?
I can offer proof of how their science proves it though.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen02.html

The odd thing is this is where they don’t have faith in the machines that science is dependant on.
Dead is dead right this is what they use to determine that.

Here are the cases as described down the page.
http://www.near-death.com/origen.html

It doesn’t have to be a Christian site, google it for medical reasons and proof.

 

[Paulhoff]

No edge it is you that can't figure it out. You have already prove that and you know who I heard that from.

Paul



god is a three letter word for, I am too lazy to read and learn.

 

[edge]

Well I never!
Were you been Popoff?
So you mean to tell me what that the machine says your heart stopped and the other machine says you are brain dead dosen't count even for days let alone hours?
That science is flawed?

 

[edge]

have already prove that and you know who I heard that from.

Let me guess your God J.R.?

 

[Ashles]

That's funny, someone said to me today "You are soul".

At least I think that's what he said.

Even 4 pages in I really must interrupt to say bravo Robin. I enjoyed that.

 

[Paulhoff]

Well I never!
Were you been Popoff?
So you mean to tell me what that the machine says your heart stopped and the other machine says you are brain dead dosen't count even for days let alone hours?
That science is flawed?

Please keep posting, I can use the laughs.

Paul

 

[Navigator]

Obviously there’s a potential for sentience, we are examples of such manifestation. We also know that such conditions are rather specific; data about how specific is accumulating at an ever increasing rate. Will we figure out precisely how specific? I don’t know.

Did I mis-understand you about your belief that the brain is the creator of the sentient concept of the self?

Just because we recognize a phenomenon now, doesn’t mean it must always have existed.

This in reference to the universe?

So on those grounds, is it also conceivable that there IS the existence of say, another universe/reality which exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged or not by that which cannot observe it?

If there would be another universe, would that universe combined with this universe – regardless of us being able to acknowledge it – still be one and the same universe? If by universe we mean everything.

And if by everything we mean also that which is not directly observed or acknowledged by us.

 

[edge]

I found this one and have not read it yet but it may be a more neutral one.
There are plenty.
http://www.thepsychictimes.com/articles/atwater.htm

Oh by the way Paul so am I!