I Am Soul

[Moochie]

Yes... Nick... clarify... no one but you seems to be understanding what you are saying. How are you defining objectivity and how are you understanding things differently? And while your at it, why don't you explain what your sig line means to you in terms that we might all be able to understand using words as they are commonly understood. Do you believe that consciousness of some sort can exist separate from a brain that generates it... absent a material brain?

You criticize us JREFers who don't understand you or supposedly bore you... but you haven't really been very successful at making yourself understood. Like Navigator, you seem to have a lot of beliefs and ideas that you "believe strongly in"-- but whatever they are, they are coming out as garble and insults of "objectivity". If what you are saying cannot be made more clear than what Tom Cruise is saying or Navigator is saying, then is it really our fault if we find you as incomprehensible as them? Can you sum up what those guys are saying? Can you sum up what your point is? Can we hear some substance rather than all the ways those that don't "buy into" your communications are afraid and boring and addicted to objectivity?

We already understand all the ways you think people suck for not treating your claims and beliefs as seriously as you do. Part of it may because we can't understand what the hell you are actually saying. Part of it may be because you aren't saying anything while imagining you are (as Tom Cruise appears to be doing in his clip). The only way we can know your point is if you use regular language to lay it down.

Methinks the writer you're responding to has found some intellectual quicksand and appears to be sinking.

For anyone interested, here's a site about a documentary of the "body farm," where it's possible to witness the "afterlife" in real time.

http://www.hbo.com/autopsy/forensic/the_body_farm.html


M.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator,


If you aren't a believer then I stand corrected and apologise but you appear from your posts to be a believer of sorts. Articulett has pointed out several times that believers seem to think that theirs is the only belief that is valid and asked, "why is it"? Tom Cruise etc...

My point is: why is someone's belief any different from that hag's (had to be insulting there because she is one)? This woman actually has a following who believe that she has a connection with the christian god and he supplies her with powers. She can also talk to souls (the point of this thread) who have departed and does have OBEs of her own.

There is also a mountain of evidence that show her to be a callous liar and a fraud who takes money under false pretences. But she still insists that god is with her and on her side. He has even blessed her son with the same powers.

ergo; Her's must be the true god and all others are nonsense. She has demonstrable power, nobody else does.

I have not said that what I believe is valid over all other beliefs.
I have only said that it is valid for me.
In general, and notwithstanding what some sKeptics say they believe about the brain, I don't not believe or disbelieve others beliefs.
I simply observe, gather the information and use it to navigate with.

In answer to your question re 'this hag' I would have to observe what she is saying, and assimilate the information into my own experience.
I would then ponder on things a bit and ascertain how she presents herself in terms of attitude and reaction to others.

This will form in me some type of personal opinion, but my opinion may not be appropriate to divulging.



As to the point of this thread – it simply states “I am Soul” but the first few post annoyingly proclaim as a matter of fact, that by default ‘we are souls’

Hehe.

Furthermore I more than hints at ‘we are really the one soul, fragmented into individual human instruments – having an experience within an animal form’

Predictably this it meet with ‘show us the evidence’ which of course NO ONE can do, for anyone else because of the nature of the illusive thing being spoken of.

But as can be seen through this thread, lots of interesting responses and reactions come through, which is all for my own learning – at least principally so, but undeniably others will learn whatever they choose, depending on their particular understandings.

It appears to me (and I said as much to begin with) that we – altogether as a species are young, brash and full of ourselves, which does tend to lead to conflict, whether with words or weapons - we are too young (as a specie) to realize that about ourselves to any degree that might change our collective course away from conflict, but as individuals it is possible to accomplish this, although this may involve stripping off our weaponry and standing naked before all foe.

Whatever.

AS to the mountain of evidence about this ‘hags’ lying abilities and money stolen under false pretences – all in the name of a god – can I ask…Is it somehow more obscene for someone to be fraudulent by using the name of a god, than just your everyday garden variety type shyster?

Am I understanding you correctly – you and articulate – that you require me to have a look at Tom and Sylvia and get back to you with an opinion on what these two are doing, so that (depending on my opinion) you can tweak your opinion of me?

In my own time

 

[Nick227]

So essentially, non-dualism proposes that there is no such thing as an individual self, that it is just an illusion?

Essentially yes, though there are different strands of thought on this one. Some would say that this is so, certainly those from the hardline Advaita Vedanta camp. Personally, I would say that the experience of having an individual self is created by the mind (or brain if you prefer) from non-dual sensory experience. It's not an illusion to me, rather a construct. It is not a priori real. It is not primary.

Of course, these are minor differences. There isn't any actual "I." It is just the brain, a machine, attempting to give itself a heightened sense of individuality.

And therefore there is nothing besides this universal mind, so nothing to have "objective" viewpoints that differ from that of the universal mind? Am I summarizing correctly?

I would say rather that there is no place outside of non-duality from which to make an objective statement. The objective statement is simply arising like everything else. It has no validity, though of course the experience of believing is has validity may also arise!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

But it's wrong, because brains are interpretors of sensory input for the bodies that possess them... there is no consciousness out there to filter... our interpretation IS the consciousness.

Non-duality would say that it is all just happening. The experience of there being a brain, the notion of filtering, the thoughts passing through the mind creating the interpretation.

However, the brain is also constructing the notion "I" at the same time. The experience of "I" is not intrinsic in the way that sensory information is intrinsic. There is no actual "I." No one has ever objectively proven it. Neither has anyone yet discovered a brain process which creates it. We all experience it, and most people assume it's a priori, that it's intrinsic to existence. It's not, at least no one's proven it to be.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

That sounds scary Tricky

I think its about realising the vastness of what we face and in turn allowing a deeper understanding of one's unique capacity in the milieu to evolve. Eventually, furthering awareness of the subject matter that most occupies ones time.

It's about dealing with the reality that actually there is no "I" inside of you. This is a machine processing thoughts. Another machine calling itself Breathe will read those thoughts and other thoughts will be stimulated. None of this has any actual personal identity associated with it whatsoever.

This is non-duality. (Fun, isn't it?) It's actually about as rational as you can get, if you ask me.

Nick

 

[articulett]

Am I understanding you correctly – you and articulate – that you require me to have a look at Tom and Sylvia and get back to you with an opinion on what these two are doing, so that (depending on my opinion) you can tweak your opinion of me?

In my own time

No... it's just that you are coming off as clear as they are. We can only take you as seriously as you take them for the same reasons. If your goal is to sound more coherent or to convey more meaning than they are, you are failing. Give us a reason to care about what you have to say more than what they have to say. Or not. It's your choice, of course.

 

[Navigator]

It's about dealing with the reality that actually there is no "I" inside of you. This is a machine processing thoughts. Another machine calling itself Breathe will read those thoughts and other thoughts will be stimulated. None of this has any actual personal identity associated with it whatsoever.

This is non-duality. (Fun, isn't it?) It's actually about as rational as you can get, if you ask me.

Nick

If I understand ‘you’ ‘you’ are saying there is no ‘I Me My We Us They Them You’?

If so, then would it be more accurate to say

It’s about dealing with the reality that actually there is no "I”, and delete the “inside of you” bit?

(_) agree that the human instrument is a machine of sorts – biodegradable and not the most promising container for intelligent awareness to experience through.

(__) are saying none of this (the mechanics of the machine) has any actual personal identity associated with it whatsoever?

(_) = 'this ID'
(__)= 'that ID'

 

[articulett]

People say and believe a lot of things... they make a lot of claims. Most people here use the tools of skepticism to find out what is worth pursuing and what is just "woo". Give us a reason to put you in the former category--what distinguishes you from he latter from your perspective?

 

[Nick227]

If I understand ‘you’ ‘you’ are saying there is no ‘I Me My We Us They Them You’?

If so, then would it be more accurate to say

It’s about dealing with the reality that actually there is no "I”, and delete the “inside of you” bit?

(_) agree that the human instrument is a machine of sorts – biodegradable and not the most promising container for intelligent awareness to experience through.

(__) are saying none of this (the mechanics of the machine) has any actual personal identity associated with it whatsoever?

(_) = 'this ID'
(__)= 'that ID'

That's right. It's true. But I'm not so much trying to make some absolutely non-dual-correct statement, as get a point across.

Also, the exciting thing I find about non-duality is that actually it sets you free. Non-dualism, as a philosophy, is so rigorously effective in its demolition of limited selfhood, that it demolishes the pretext all concepts and philosophies are founded on, including that which it sits on. It is a self-invalidating philosophy. You are just left with yourself, whatever that is conceived to be.

Nick

 

[Navigator]

People say and believe a lot of things... they make a lot of claims. Most people here use the tools of skepticism to find out what is worth pursuing and what is just "woo". Give us a reason to put you in the former category--what distinguishes you from he latter from your perspective?

‘What is worth pursuing’ is really what?

Worthy of investigating, in terms of what ‘most people here’ have decided, based on a shared reality which is able to be measured and verified.

That is fine and understandable if very narrow. People’s beliefs cannot be verified in the same way.
Therefore it makes no sense at all if as you say – ‘we skeptics’ have a certain way of looking at our collective lives, and focus only on that which can be verified before we believe in it – makes no sense to have a sub forum inviting discussion on religion and philosophy.

It makes no logical sense because those things are non verifiable, and can only be labeled as ‘wooism’ and set upon by the individual who believes that religion (especially) is non verifiable in terms of the objective method.

The only sense this makes to me, is that the forum exists to entice the unconverted believers in ‘woo’ in the hopes that these types will denounce their silly un-provable beliefs and join hands in the fellowship of skepticism, that a sane world may one day be a reality.
If they continue to resist, we will do our best to send them packing from our temples, using disruption and discrimination and derrogative methods if necessary (usually necessary)

Or something along those lines.

However, I don’t want to belong to any particular system that tells me I have to accept them and their beliefs before they can accept me.
I don’t care what they call themselves or even that they are in complete opposition to each other, as far as beliefs go, if they proclaim or otherwise infer or behave as if I have to accept them and their beliefs before they can accept me, then they are – as far as I am concerned – the same thing wearing a different costume.

The best policy for me is to enjoy the reality of my individual life, and honor individuality by proving for myself what ‘is’ and what ‘isn’t’

This does not exclude any particular notion or belief or idea etc…it just does not allow for me to accept that (for example) just because I have had a few OBEs doesn’t mean I have to believe what someone else says about them.

If someone says that I shouldn’t leave my body because some other entity might take it over, or that God is telling me it is time to come home soon or that aliens are abducting me and making me think I have left my body or that if I don’t stop goofing with that kind of thing I will be sent to hell or that it is just my brain tricking me into thinking I can exist independently…etc…I might say “show me the evidence” (which only limits me if I ‘know’ they can’t,) or they might show me some evidence which is more physical (like the brain is tricking you hypothesis) and say this is the ‘most likely’ truth – but so far no evidence or lack of evidence has convinced me enough to drop everything and jump on the wagon denouncing everything else not of it.

That’s what I like about my sense of individuality.

 

[Moochie]

I reckon it's deja woo woo all over again.


M.

 

[Paulhoff]

Therefore it makes no sense at all if as you say – ‘we skeptics’ have a certain way of looking at our collective lives, and focus only on that which can be verified before we believe in it – makes no sense to have a sub forum inviting discussion on religion and philosophy.

Yes, it should be done away with.

Paul



Because why think, it may hurt your brain, just woo-woo it all.

 

[Navigator]

That's right. It's true. But I'm not so much trying to make some absolutely non-dual-correct statement, as get a point across.

Also, the exciting thing I find about non-duality is that actually it sets you free. Non-dualism, as a philosophy, is so rigorously effective in its demolition of limited selfhood, that it demolishes the pretext all concepts and philosophies are founded on, including that which it sits on. It is a self-invalidating philosophy. You are just left with yourself, whatever that is conceived to be.

Can you pretend I am a child and reword this in a way which might help me understand a little better what you are saying…I kinda grok it but not clearly.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, it should be done away with.

IF

the forum exists to entice the unconverted believers in ‘woo’ in the hopes that these types will denounce their silly un-provable beliefs and join hands in the fellowship of skepticism, that a sane world may one day be a reality.

THEN

I agree with you Paul, because it makes skeptics dishonest and untrustworthy and paints the whole thing with the same brush.
It makes skeptics to be exactly what they appear to be proclaiming intolerance towards.

 

[Nick227]

‘What is worth pursuing’ is really what?

Worthy of investigating, in terms of what ‘most people here’ have decided, based on a shared reality which is able to be measured and verified.

That is fine and understandable if very narrow. People’s beliefs cannot be verified in the same way.
Therefore it makes no sense at all if as you say – ‘we skeptics’ have a certain way of looking at our collective lives, and focus only on that which can be verified before we believe in it – makes no sense to have a sub forum inviting discussion on religion and philosophy.

It makes no logical sense because those things are non verifiable, and can only be labeled as ‘wooism’ and set upon by the individual who believes that religion (especially) is non verifiable in terms of the objective method.

The only sense this makes to me, is that the forum exists to entice the unconverted believers in ‘woo’ in the hopes that these types will denounce their silly un-provable beliefs and join hands in the fellowship of skepticism, that a sane world may one day be a reality.
If they continue to resist, we will do our best to send them packing from our temples, using disruption and discrimination and derrogative methods if necessary (usually necessary)

Personally I like JREF and I'm not a skeptic.

(Well, actually, I'm skeptical of the ability of quite a few Jrefers to actually string a coherent argument together much of the time, or apply objectivity to their own beliefs.... but that's just me being childish.)

Besides, there are a lot of good people on this list and you can gain awareness.

The best reason to take part though, if you ask me, is that it's very healthy to have your own pet ideas subjected to the scrutiny of a frequently unthinking skeptical gaze. It helps break down some of the identification. You have to look, is this belief of mine actually rational, or just some fantasy that's being identified with because I don't want to feel something? The ones that survive are usually pretty strong.

Nick

 

[edge]

Hey Navigator, since you are proficient at getting out try this as I was also proficient at it and there is so much to learn.
I had gotten all I needed by roaming this world out of body; I had actually stopped doing it but have also had regrets that I didn't go out and away from the planet at the time I stopped.

One day while traveling down the road I had an accidental OBE and went with it, and I was very aware to try what I didn't try in the past.

I headed toward the constellation of Orion toward the center of what would be it's/his belly.
You'll have to go very fast, faster than you ever have.
If you would go there and tell us what you find there I’ll fill in the blanks by some ones else’s OBE of the past linked to mine. I can’t put any other information in your mind or it won’t work.
I know what I experienced; it will be interesting if our stories match.

 

[Nick227]

Can you pretend I am a child and reword this in a way which might help me understand a little better what you are saying…I kinda grok it but not clearly.

A philosophy needs a place from which to view life objectively. It presupposes that you can "stand outside of the system" and observe things dispassionately, or relatively dispassionately. This is of course presumed to be the individual observer. Non-duality hammers this idea, because nothing is outside of the system. So what you create a philosophy? It's utterly meaningless because the primary principle on which its based, that there exists a detached point from which to observe, is non-existing.

Of course, another issue arises here. Non-dualism is itself a philosophy. It is attempting to assert "how things are," yet if you follow non-dualism you must concede that there is no way to make such a statement.

Nick

 

[Navigator]

Personally I like JREF and I'm not a skeptic.

(Well, actually, I'm skeptical of the ability of quite a few Jrefers to actually string a coherent argument together much of the time, or apply objectivity to their own beliefs.... but that's just me being childish.)

Besides, there are a lot of good people on this list and you can gain awareness.

The best reason to take part though, if you ask me, is that it's very healthy to have your own pet ideas subjected to the scrutiny of a frequently unthinking skeptical gaze. It helps break down some of the identification. You have to look, is this belief of mine actually rational, or just some fantasy that's being identified with because I don't want to feel something? The ones that survive are usually pretty strong.

Nick

I doubt very much Nick that the religion and philosophy section will be dumped, mainly because I don't believe that it is intended to bait or otherwise entice.
That is my impression anyhoo.

Therefore those woo do use it for such purposes are really doing no favors to their professed creed.


I agree (it is evident) there are a lot of good people on this list and you can gain awareness.

 

[Navigator]

Hey Navigator, since you are proficient at getting out try this as I was also proficient at it and there is so much to learn.
I had gotten all I needed by roaming this world out of body; I had actually stopped doing it but have also had regrets that I didn't go out and away from the planet at the time I stopped.

One day while traveling down the road I had an accidental OBE and went with it, and I was very aware to try what I didn't try in the past.

I headed toward the constellation of Orion toward the center of what would be it's/his belly.
You'll have to go very fast, faster than you ever have.
If you would go there and tell us what you find there I’ll fill in the blanks by some ones else’s OBE of the past linked to mine. I can’t put any other information in your mind or it won’t work.
I know what I experienced; it will be interesting if our stories match.

Edge.

Are you speaking of the constellation of Orion in terms of where it looks to be in the sky, or where it actually is?

Even if I were able to do this, I am more interested in a bit of a study of Earth, hereabouts, and would likely centre my attention hereabouts for the time being.

Even if we both were able to conrrelate our experiences, this would not mean diddly squat to others who can't varify it, not that that signifies anything overly important mind you.

 

[Tricky]

Non-duality would say that it is all just happening. The experience of there being a brain, the notion of filtering, the thoughts passing through the mind creating the interpretation.

However, the brain is also constructing the notion "I" at the same time. The experience of "I" is not intrinsic in the way that sensory information is intrinsic. There is no actual "I." No one has ever objectively proven it. Neither has anyone yet discovered a brain process which creates it. We all experience it, and most people assume it's a priori, that it's intrinsic to existence. It's not, at least no one's proven it to be.

Nick

It sounds as if you're saying that the existence of "self" is but a persistent illusion. I can see how this differs from solipsism which says that the existence of others is but a persistent illusion. If this illusion is generated by the brain, well so be it. It wouldn't be the first "concept" that was generated by the brain. It is there. Ignore it at your own peril.

What I don't see is how this is better than objectivity. If self is a persistent illusion, well it is at least persistent. I do not know of a single coherent person who does not experience this "illusion". So if two people perceive a thing differently, you might be able to speak the words, "Actually that's just two bits of the the same thing perceiving differently". In what functional way is that different from objectivity? You've still got fundamentally different observations that must be resolved. Adding an "overmind" and calling the objectivity something else is simply adding an unnecessary layer to the sharing of information between two "perceptions".

And of course you note the problem of not having any evidence for this part of the brain that understands the lack of self. It is quite clear through experimentation that illusion of self is a very fundamental part of our mind. It can be damaged or manipulated and it can disappear when the brain stops functioning, but it is there in almost all people. Nothing similar can be said for the "illusion of no-self". As such, it loses almost all explanatory power it might have.