I Am Soul

[articulett]

Objective truth is the stuff that is true even if no one believes it or knows it or understands it. We objectively have DNA in our cells, and we did even when we didn't know what the hell a cell was. That's objective truth.

Opinions--such as you spout regularly--are not truths. They are subjective... they are opinions... they only exist in the human mind. Your opinion of me exists in your mind... whether any other human shares that opinion in their mind depends on the evidence that is objectively observable --things I say and so forth.... those things have been written or said in the context they were written and said in and no amount of belief can change it... However, humans can peruse it or not and develop opinions about it that exist in their own head and nowhere else. What I've said is objectively observable. Whether I believe I said it or not is irrelevant. Whether anyone knows I wrote these words is irrelevant to the fact that I did. But people can form their own subjective opinions about my words and yours. The opinions don't exist separately from the people having them.

Boy are you really mixed up between objective facts and subjective perceptions. It's hard to converse with people who seem so very unclear on the difference. You state opinion as facts and disregard facts as though they were opinions. And no amount of correction from any poster has gotten you to see this, though pretty much every one is telling you this.

And I say "we", because it seems to me that the vast majority of skeptics on this thread are saying what I am saying... all except you and breathe and maatorc. They are free to weigh in otherwise and to confirm or deny my opinion of you or your opinion of me. I understand everyone but the 3 I mentioned, and I suspect the same goes for them, though I'm sure others will say so if not.

 

[articulett]

What is your point navigator... forget the tangent about boys and girls... if you believe that consciousness can exist absent a brain... what is your evidence?

I don't think you are really up to speed on evolutionary psychology or neurology and can't imagine having a fruitful discussion on that topic. Why don't you stick to one point at a time. What did you hope to achieve by posting "I am soul"... why should we care... what did you want this discussion to be about?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm still curious to know what evidence suggests that superstition is a predominantly female insistence.

 

[joobz]

I'm still curious to know what evidence suggests that superstition is a predominantly female insistence.

Thinking that only women are superstitous sounds rather superstitous to me.

 

[Navigator]

It has already been established that abstracts are not realities – at least not realities everyone can agree to.

I have only moved to your reasoning because YOU brought up the boy/girl thing on your rant against wooism and how MEN are evidently the culprits.
Your use of derogatory name-calling betrays something about you which has nothing to do with skepticism.
It has more to do with unresolved issues, and it is these unresolved issues which effect the way you choose to respond to others, and it is this that I am saying has little to do with anything constructive in communication.

It is designed more to build barriers.

It can now be hypothesized that because male brains are different from female, neither can actually be thought of as a useful accurate tool for gaining truth.

Because of the obvious dualism.

Also – you mention language as if it is possible for everyone to be at the same level, and this is not the case.
If communication was merely a language thing, then what hope have you in any effort you make to convince those you believe are woo, when it is so obvious that your tolerance for such ignorance is next to zero?

All that is left to you is mockery. Your opinion once stated, is wooism by your own definition of the word.
Maybe it is that propensity within yourself which you can’t resist, which makes you annoyed and instead of changing your behavior, you transfer it out to those you see as being wooish.

What I have experienced is hypothetically impossible for you to experience.
You cannot leave your body because you do not have a soul.

I am not afraid of death or an end to my life. I am – because of my experience – allowing for the possibility that once my body has expired, I will continue.

This in no way means there must be a god, heaven, hell, nirvana or reincarnation or any particular other of that type of next life situation.
From my own experience, I cannot say for sure that there is or isn’t.
I can say for sure that I have experienced what it is like to leave my body.
If this were merely a trick of the brain then where did the brain get its information on what it would be like to leave the body when it has never and will never be able to do this.
The imagination?

Nope.

What was experience was actually more real than being in the body is. While the brain might be able to make a mockup of what it experiences in reality, it has what proven ability to make the real more real?

What do I mean by more real?

Like the feel of the wind with clothes on and then the feel of the wind without clothes on.

Same wind….different experience.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Actually, we appear to feel, react, choose, etc. like other animals and then tell ourselves why we've done so... we experience ourselves.

Yes, reality is an illusion... but collective experience (and the scientific method) tell us that some of that stuff has bases for belief. And even if we do not believe all of them, some or worthy of making note of... like the possibility of a creator.

We feel anxiety and attach a reason to it... it might be the real reason our brain tossed out the hormones that produced the anxiety, or it may not. We can induce the same feeling with drugs or electrical stimulation....but the person reporting the experience will confabulate a reason for the feeling when they are unaware of the real reason. We tell stories to ourselves to make the world make sense.

While an animal may not understand that they are being fired at by a rifle, a human may. Because of their brains, humans can make better sense of what is... or what is most likely to be.

We perceive ourselves as doing things for reasons, but many times the reasons are made up by us to make sense of what we do or prefer or believe or feel. The human brain as an "interpreter" that fills-in-the-blanks when it doesn't understand something so that it can get the confidence of understanding rather than the anxious feeling of not knowing.

Lucky for the scientific method then... and the fact that... with somewhat of an education, most of us can put two things together.

 

[Navigator]

I'm still curious to know what evidence suggests that superstition is a predominantly female insistence.

Aside from your Tom Cruise syndrome, you seem to have made some observation between the man thing and the wooman thing...

Um...do you thing maybe men and woomen have different types of brains?

Do you think there might be a propensity for one group to believe in things like fairies and magic and flying broomsticks and prince charming and unicorns’ and happy families while the other group believes in things like trucks and buildings and spaceships and guns and ships and adventures?

 

[maatorc]

......It's clear that you are the only one taking you seriously any how. The same for maatorc. Why would I possibly consider your belittlement of me or anyone to have meaning?......

Your endlessly rambling unconsciously self-referencing belittling of all who do not agree with you here is clearly the only reason you are on this site.
You do not have a clue about most of what you pass yourself off as an authority on.
'You' are the 'woo' in the 'mirror' of your endless attentions, denial, and derision.

 

[articulett]

We've already substantiated that no one but you takes your impressions seriously. From my perspective you are the one being pedantic, offering beliefs as claims of fact, being unclear, belittling others, and not really saying anything at all. It is not a belief to reject the notion of there being disembodied forms of consciousness any more than not believing in astrology or Xenu is a belief. As such, there is nothing to convert anyone to. It's the one presuming the facts not in evidence that would need to establish what the hell they are talking about and then prove it. Otherwise, there is no difference between your words and Tom Cruise's words or Breathe's words. It's just mumbo jumbo... the only thing it's communicating to us is this sense that you believe yourself to have access to "divine truths" or special experiences. Just like Tom Cruise believes, right? Someone can come here and tell us how important it is now that Jupiter is in the house of Mars and say that we are belittling him... but it doesn't make it so, nor does it make the woo he's proffering true.

Men tend to be the leaders of woo overall--especially religious woo.... they write it, star in it, make their gods male, their prophets are male, and their saviors and infallible spokespeople too. And perhaps more women do believe... but I think this is because they mistake confidence like you exhibit with competence in whatever the hell they are talking about (see President Bush) and all the religions have built in punishments for women who "bite from the tree of knowledge" so-to-speak. When the people in charge sound like you, the women who survive the best and pass on their genes are going to be the ones who "go with the flow" not against it.

BTW
Women and men have been brain differences... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm


Can you just make a point without all the riff raff and nothingness. We'd be glad to believe that consciousness can exist absent a body should anyone anywhere provide measurable evidence for such.... you know, the kind we use to understand reality... like DNA. You can only learn so much about imaginary things, you know?

ETA-- women are generally more trusting than men too... oxytocin appears to play a strong role in this behavior in both sexes. I think the tools of skepticism are especially for women so that they aren't taken in by woos like you using pedantic "shame" language to manipulate compliance.

Step right up ladies and goad the woo! You too can join in.... and they can't throw anything at you through cyberspace.

Yes, reality is an illusion... but collective experience (and the scientific method) tell us that some of that stuff has bases for belief. And even if we do not believe all of them, some or worthy of making note of... like the possibility of a creator.

While an animal may not understand that they are being fired at by a rifle, a human may. Because of their brains, humans can make better sense of what is... or what is most likely to be.

Lucky for the scientific method then... and the fact that... with somewhat of an education, most of us can put two things together.

Yes, I think I agree for the most part. I wouldn't say reality is an illusion, I'd say our perception of reality is prone to interpretation, limitation, and or misperception--and that the scientific method is the best tools we have for teasing out the objective truth from the subjective interpretations.

But I don't understand anything that navigator, maatorc, or breathe are saying, do you? I mean, I know that navigator thinks he astrally travels... but do you give that credence? Do you see any evidence that consciousness can exist absent a brain? I understand why people think that and why people want to think that and why they explain certain perceptions with those terms... but I don't see any evidence that this is possible... I just see a defensive reaction when I express my doubts at the truth of such claims.

It just seems that if something is true, the evidence amasses... like it does for all the other things we've discovered... why wouldn't it?

 

[Tricky]

While an animal may not understand that they are being fired at by a rifle, a human may. Because of their brains, humans can make better sense of what is... or what is most likely to be.

Usually animals are pretty good at understanding obvious things. Even smaller animal brains are able to figure out guns pretty quickly. And other weapons too. Did you ever fake throwing a rock at a dog or cat that lived outside? They cringe and run, right? They make use of the same evidence that we use, even if they don't understand it fully.

While our big brains may be a boon as to figuring things out, they may also be so powerful as to imagine solutions to problems that don't exist. Do you think animals invent gods? I think that they just make basic, but reasonable interpretations of evidence. They run from human hands making rock-throwing motions. They don't run from Gods throwing rocks. Only humans do that.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Yes, I think I agree for the most part. I wouldn't say reality is an illusion, I'd say our perception of reality is prone to interpretation, limitation, and or misperception--and that the scientific method is the best tools we have for teasing out the objective truth from the subjective interpretations.

Indeed. No it's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far. Naturally, woo's don't care for it because their claims tend to vanish when studied under the protocols of the scientific method.

-H "Ultimately all awareness is a consciousness of vibrations" S.

PS: I think your avie is speaking to me. It must be a sign.

 

[articulett]

It IS a sign... it's a sign that paulhoff is good at doing clever things to avies. (I think your avie is pooping at me--)

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Acknowledged.

(Don't mind my avie, it's specifically aimed at popinjay's)






tee-hee!

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

But I don't understand anything that navigator, maatorc, or breathe are saying, do you?

Okay... yes... yes I do. I think I understand what navigator is saying-or trying to say-when he says "I am soul." Some of that stuff is just hard to put into words, and I don't think that I am going to do much better... but here I go. I AM SOUL appears to me to be describing the moment "the process" began its work. Hindsight easily shows that from the moment of the "big bang" things had to turn out the way they did. Not necessarily with humans, but with intelligent life.
I mean, we see the baby when it comes out, but from the moment "the process" started, it was destined to be. If it could speak at the moment it started, I think it would say something like "I AM." Instead, it has to wait until it is able to talk.

I mean, I know that navigator thinks he astrally travels... but do you give that credence?

No, but I can't rule it out.

Do you see any evidence that consciousness can exist absent a brain?

No. Very sadly no. And I so wanted that. But the feeling/longing for continued existence will be what drives science to make it happen. So much of science already has to do with prolonging life, and consciousness is only in the head after all. Just look at how much humans want to leave the planet, and how much our physical body is not up to the task.

It just seems that if something is true, the evidence amasses... like it does for all the other things we've discovered... why wouldn't it?

Lack of evidence may be due to the limits of technology.

 

[articulett]

Well okay...

But since there is no evidence, it's better to talk about it as if were like all the other things for which there is no evidence. I don't think a newborn baby is conscious enough to think "I am" ... consciousness emergences and they don't realize they are separate from their caregiver until around 8 months (and they get separation anxiety)-- they start to learn that they operate their body at about 5 months when they realize they are the ones working their hands... they start pointing around a year showing that they have a theory of mind... they look where we point and point to show us where to looks (dogs look where we point too-- cats don't).

So it seems that people fade into consciousness, and I suspect they fade out for the most part just as they fade off to sleep... language activates the narrator in their mind... they have instincts and they and we explain it through language and stories. Humans evolved to be programmed by their environment-- when language centers of the brain are destroyed so is thinking about the future and passed... We use our past to "program" or examine possibilities of the future. We only "know" of our consciousness and can't imagine not having such. As long as we have memory of the past we use it to project the future... we are always learning and sifting through data and making memories so that we might utilize it in the future... we might learn from our mistakes and move "forward" and pass our learning on to others who will take it further.

Myself, I'm much more interested as to why someone would come to a skeptics forum and say something like "I am soul" which is clearly a belief... not an objective fact... I am interested in what makes people believe as they do and why they don't see themselves as similar to other people who proffer equally bizarre beliefs as though they were fact.

In the Tom Cruise video circulating the internet and linked in this thread, he is talking to others who believe as he does--people who use the same jargon and describe things the same way. So they can get meaning out of it even if it sounds crazy to the rest of us. But navigator should know that the audience here doesn't believe as he does... he's not speaking the same language or using words in the same way. And yet he's mad when WE don't understand him.

When we attempt to explain how to use language so we are all talking about the same thing he goes off on more tangents.... so it just sounds like he's endlessly defensive because we don't believe what he believes. In his mind he is the guy who knows he is innocent while everyone says he's guilty... but in our mind, he's guilty but in denial of the facts... we see that he's too "out there" to realize just how guilty he is and why the facts don't support his alternative explanation.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Usually animals are pretty good at understanding obvious things. Even smaller animal brains are able to figure out guns pretty quickly. And other weapons too. Did you ever fake throwing a rock at a dog or cat that lived outside? They cringe and run, right? They make use of the same evidence that we use, even if they don't understand it fully.

I am not taking anything away from the brains of other animals, humans just have a more developed version.

While our big brains may be a boon as to figuring things out, they may also be so powerful as to imagine solutions to problems that don't exist. Do you think animals invent gods? I think that they just make basic, but reasonable interpretations of evidence. They run from human hands making rock-throwing motions. They don't run from Gods throwing rocks. Only humans do that.

Yes, thinking big does have some drawbacks. Anyone want to trade brains with another animal?

 

[Navigator]

Listen if you will Articulett

I prefer compassion to the growly thing.
I love human beings, as well as all life, and the experience I am having on Earth.
I think of the whole specie as being one.
Women – Men – sure there are differences – sure there are similarities. I couldn’t imagine an existence without these contrasts.
I appreciate the skeptic. I don’t appreciate the way language devolves into slinging matches because I don’t see this as a sign of real intelligence.
I am guilty too of such practice, and apologize for my part in this and will seek to stay at the very least – civil.

The link you gave has to do with how females and males use the brain differently. I am wondering if the brain of a female is physically different to that of the male.

As to my having experienced OBE, I could attempt to give some kind of a narrative about it, but I don’t think that will be any use to you or anyone else.
Unless you yourself experienced it, you have no information to go by, and are predisposed already to:
1: ‘Believe’ such a thing is impossible.
2: Agree that hypothetically the brain is most likely responsible for ALL experiences of this nature.
3: Under the impression that such experiences are a result of delusional individuals with mental health issues.

Such a system has already made up its mind, and can therefore only respond with derision – or so it would seem.

 

[Navigator]

When we attempt to explain how to use language so we are all talking about the same thing he goes off on more tangents.... so it just sounds like he's endlessly defensive because we don't believe what he believes. In his mind he is the guy who knows he is innocent while everyone says he's guilty... but in our mind, he's guilty but in denial of the facts... we see that he's too "out there" to realize just how guilty he is and why the facts don't support he's alternative explanation.

To me this is someone saying that should anybody choose to come to this forum as I have done they shouldn't complain when derision is used against them.
Your use of the expressions ‘we’ ‘us’ ‘our mind’ ‘everyone say’s’ are denoting that there is a group who are like you, derisive and perhaps guilty of being in the rut of status quo.
Is it worthwhile for me to then see anyone who acts this way towards me from this forum, is of the group you seem to be speaking on behalf of?

You use the same type of mechanism to group me, and others…because we sound the same? I would not speak for them, (or anyone) - I don’t necessarily agree with *them (but would rather converse with skeptics than be distracted by *them) and can assure you that none of *those you name together are even conversing with me – publicly of otherwise.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well okay...

But since there is no evidence, it's better to talk about it as if were like all the other things for which there is no evidence. I don't think a newborn baby is conscious enough to think "I am" ...

The feeling might be there though. Like people feeling that they are connected to everything without being able to explain why.

So it seems that people fade into consciousness, and I suspect they fade out for the most part just as they fade off to sleep... language activates the narrator in their mind... they have instincts and they and we explain it through language and stories.

They have feelings before they are able to explain them.

Humans evolved to be programmed by their environment-- when language centers of the brain are destroyed so is thinking about the future and passed... We use our past to "program" or examine possibilities of the future. We only "know" of our consciousness and can't imagine not having such. As long as we have memory of the past we use it to project the future... we are always learning and sifting through data and making memories so that we might utilize it in the future...

So consciousness is information. Is passing it on is a way of making others conscious of us?

we might learn from our mistakes and move "forward" and pass our learning on to others who will take it further.

That sounds like DNA.

Myself, I'm much more interested as to why someone would come to a skeptics forum and say something like "I am soul" which is clearly a belief... not an objective fact... I am interested in what makes people believe as they do and why they don't see themselves as similar to other people who proffer equally bizarre beliefs as though they were fact.

I can only speak for myself, knives are sharpened against grindstones. As for bizarre, that applies to most new ideas.

In the Tom Cruise video circulating the internet and linked in this thread, he is talking to others who believe as he does--people who use the same jargon and describe things the same way. So they can get meaning out of it even if it sounds crazy to the rest of us. But navigator should know that the audience here doesn't believe as he does... he's not speaking the same language or using words in the same way. And yet he's mad when WE don't understand him.

Me, I would learn from the experience, regroup, and come back. That is, if I thought what I was saying still had any merit. Personally, I think he has some. I am thinking that the creation of matter from energy gave rise to information, and with that the bases for consciousness. I am still working on it though.

 

[articulett]

Information is more like directions that are encoded in matter-- in books, genes, stories, etc. Information exists in codes... all of our words are coded in 26 letters of the alphabet and from that an infinite variety of stories can be created... and nonsense too. All of life is coded in 4 basic chemicals... from that all life on our earth is built. But I wouldn't say energy gave rise to information... not in our books or in our cells... unless you mean forces that act on the environment... I think the evidence show that our basis for consciousness lies within language and emotions involved in story telling... it was the best way to teach each other and pass on information prior to being able to draw or encode words with meaning or numbers with meaning. We have brains that evolved to associate correlation with causation and to see agency even when it isn't there, because people who had these tendencies preferentially survived.

We don't really know if matter ever was "created" or if it just always existed... or what form it was in prior to the big bang... we don't know enough about our universe to posit what happened prior to the moment of the big bang or even the words to describe it if we did know... but consciousness evolved over time in creatures for whom increasing "consciousness" offered a survival advantage... no more and no less... and from there we adapted our intelligence for our own uses beyond survival and reproduction--because we could. We could enjoy things as a byproduct of evolving to prefer certain things and to seek those things and learn how to create more such things in our lives. If we are to posit more than that, we'd need some sort of evidence to back it up... something we could test... a reason to believe that someone had taken human knowledge a step further...