The Soul

[Jozen-Bo]

Souls are exquisitely beautiful to look at when you see them for the first time...like radiant crystal light beacons...breath taking to gaze upon.

 

[Myles]

Do we have souls?

This is my idea on souls.

We live in this physical world, material world. It has its certain methods of operation and its certain laws, etc.

Consciousness is perception through a brain by a soul.

Let me clarify; the soul exists, and operates and is alive (within this world) via our bodies. The reason I can sense this world is because my soul resides in a body that can. If one body is blind, his soul shall not see.

The organs, excluding the brain, exist to keep the body alive, of course, and to keep the brain alive, etc, you know the story, to keep us alive and do their jobs, in this material world.

The brain, on the other hand, is a complicated network, with all sorts of chemicals and areas and etc, but just like our senses, it exists to allow the soul to perceive.

For instance, when we are happy, the endorphins and everything, it's entirely physical, in order to allow for the soul to feel happiness within the body. When we eat, the physical brain, via the free will of the soul, and to keep it alive, does the physical work.

Basically, to make it simple, the brain operates as hardware, hardware that operates within a certain place. The soul, or the software, however, exists independently of the hardware. However, you might say "well the software only runs if the hardware runs"

~That's true. However, that doesn't mean they have to be one in the same; i.e, the software is being run in a different place, in a different way, and the hardware in the other place, is running it. We are conscious through the brain, but the conscousness isn't caused by the brain, and the consciousness exists independently. ~

It makes no sense that any amount of complexity will lead to consciousness, the sense of "me" or of being.

Your idea on souls is nonsense. You keep returning to these same issues in which you offer nothing but speculation, worse still, speculaqtion that is not in formed by knowledge of any kind. Go read a few books !

 

[spidergoat]

I would agree, except that the software in this case depends entirely on the hardware, it is generated by the hardware, and is inseparable from it. The soul, or illusion of the soul, is an emergent property of the brain, a kind of mathematics. It doesn't really exist, it's a state, it's a process.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Your idea on souls is nonsense. You keep returning to these same issues in which you offer nothing but speculation, worse still, speculaqtion that is not in formed by knowledge of any kind. Go read a few books !

What is speculaqtion? Is that like lactating breasts that think about being sucked?

As to speculations, what is so wrong with one speculating, speculations are not worthless, all scientists do it, and just about anyone I can think of does it to. This is pseudoscience, though to say that Norsefire has no knowledge is to undermine his experience of living. I am certain he went to school, he has most likely read many books, just not the ones you have. Your prodding and making fun of him for questioning such issues is rather dour. Why not expand your range of materials...broaden your narrow minded views a little...if I had to guess, I'd say you probably have squinting eyes from being so narrow.

Clarity, depth, and broadness are three different things, yet all of them are needed to acquire a better understanding of reality, self, and life. It is often easy to gain one at the expense of the others...for example, scientists tend to have deep reaching views in their areas of focus while such a view is narrow, they are closed minded to any other possible views that don't conform to their path of "objective" observation of reality. This can easily extend into the realm of priests as well, for the same reasons with different focuses.

One can also cover a broad range while never gaining a deep understanding of any of the materials they covered, though they still tend to have more clarity in life about knowing life then those of narrow limitations. No one have a full range of both...time makes this impossible (who could honestly master every given subject...going deep into all of them). The combination of a broad range of study and a deep range is the resulting clarity, though that also comes from other elements as well, such as, gaining many rich experiences in life. If you tell Norsefire to go read some books, assuming your more intelligent then he is (which is insulting and undignified of yourself), then perhaps you should be told to BROADEN your range of study. Even if you close your mind to this, others will read it and their understand will gain or be reinforced.

The choice is yours.

 

[Myles]

What is speculaqtion? Is that like lactating breasts that think about being sucked?

As to speculations, what is so wrong with one speculating, speculations are not worthless, all scientists do it, and just about anyone I can think of does it to. This is pseudoscience, though to say that Norsefire has no knowledge is to undermine his experience of living. I am certain he went to school, he has most likely read many books, just not the ones you have. Your prodding and making fun of him for questioning such issues is rather dour. Why not expand your range of materials...broaden your narrow minded views a little...if I had to guess, I'd say you probably have squinting eyes from being so narrow.

Clarity, depth, and broadness are three different things, yet all of them are needed to acquire a better understanding of reality, self, and life. It is often easy to gain one at the expense of the others...for example, scientists tend to have deep reaching views in their areas of focus while such a view is narrow, they are closed minded to any other possible views that don't conform to their path of "objective" observation of reality. This can easily extend into the realm of priests as well, for the same reasons with different focuses.

One can also cover a broad range while never gaining a deep understanding of any of the materials they covered, though they still tend to have more clarity in life about knowing life then those of narrow limitations. No one have a full range of both...time makes this impossible (who could honestly master every given subject...going deep into all of them). The combination of a broad range of study and a deep range is the resulting clarity, though that also comes from other elements as well, such as, gaining many rich experiences in life. If you tell Norsefire to go read some books, assuming your more intelligent then he is (which is insulting and undignified of yourself), then perhaps you should be told to BROADEN your range of study. Even if you close you mind to this, others will read it and their understand will gain or be reinforced.

The choice is yours.

If souls float your boat, fine. For my part I'll go with neuroscience.

If you wish to think about it, can you explain how a soul, which is immaterial, interacts with a brain , which is material ? It is a failure to recognize such problems that I regard as wild speculation.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

If souls float your boat, fine. For my part I'll go with neuroscience.

If you wish to think about it, can you explain how a soul, which is immaterial, interacts with a brain , which is material ? It is a failure to recognize such problems that I regard as wild speculation.

Fair enough.

I am wondering...didn't Bentheman start a thread based on the idea that photons are immaterial? Isn't it a known fact that electromagnetic energy interacts with matter? Have you ever had a sun burn?

Not to say I agree with the idea that photons are immaterial, I find it a little silly, but supposing or speculating that he is correct in his assumption or speculation, would this not be a good example that the two, material and immaterial, do indeed interact? Also, you might note that I said when you can at long last see a soul, it appears as light...so this being the case it seems much easier to consider the possibility that A; the immaterial interacts with the material all the time; and B, that a soul being composed of an unidentified light of sorts can also interact with the material world and does also do so all the time.

 

[Myles]

Fair enough.

I am wondering...didn't Bentheman start a thread based on the idea that photons are immaterial? Isn't it a known fact that electromagnetic energy interacts with matter? Have you ever had a sun burn?

Not to say I agree with the idea that photons are immaterial, I find it a little silly, but supposing or speculating that he is correct in his assumption or speculation, would this not be a good example that the two, material and immaterial, do indeed interact? Also, you might note that I said when you can at long last see a soul, it appears as light...so this being the case it seems much easier to consider the possibility that A; the immaterial interacts with the material all the time; and B, that a soul being composed of an unidentified light of sorts can also interact with the material world and does also do so all the time.

Sorry but you are simply indulging in wooly thinking. Photons are not immaterial, so your analogy makes no sense. The mistake being made here is to suggest a soul may exist and then guess what it might be composed of. If , as you suggest, it consists of some sirt of light then it would be detectable. This is not so.

A better procedure is to find evidence of something which we cannot yet explain. Collect as much data as possible and then try to determine what we are dealing with. As you will see, this is the opposite way round from what NF is doing.

 

[Goodvibes]

I have to go with Jozen on this one. I dont see why people come into a pseudoscience forum and start demanding proof of peoples speculations. The whole idea of pseudoscience is to explore what we may never know using our minds and based loosely at best on what we think we know. Speculation is drawn from the imagination and intuition, which can be in tune with the great consciousness that we all are part of.

I think this forum would be much better off if people temporarily abandoned their own ideas and adopted a new perspective, that of the author say, and try to elaborate on his views as opposed to argue and demand proof for his beliefs. Each one of our beliefs has importance no matter who we are. I would rather hear an infinite number of ideas from others than to assert my own on anybody. That is how I learn through the combined wisdom of all the intelligent people I have met. I'm sure theres a nugget of truth in there somewhere and at some stage I would like to have been able to comprehend it, whether I accept it as true or not

 

[Oli]

I have to go with Jozen on this one. I dont see why people come into a pseudoscience forum and start demanding proof of peoples speculations.

Maybe because
A) them's the rules

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

from the Forum Rules and Regulations and
B) if there isn't any supporting evidence it isn't science.
Maybe we should just have a "Pseudo" forum or a "Total Bollocks" one.

The whole idea of pseudoscience is to explore what we may never know using our minds and based loosely at best on what we think we know.

No the main idea is to see if there's sufficient validity to turn it into real science.
Otherwise you're just flapping your gums.
What you're describing is called "philosophy".

Speculation is drawn from the imagination and intuition, which can be in tune with the great consciousness that we all are part of.

"The Great Consciousness" that we are all part of?
Do tell.

I think this forum would be much better off if people temporarily abandoned their own ideas and adopted a new perspective, that of the author say, and try to elaborate on his views as opposed to argue and demand proof for his beliefs.

If the guy can't provide any convincing evidence for his belief then it's a delusion surely?
So you're advocating we all become voluntarily delusional?

Each one of our beliefs has importance no matter who we are.

Most of them are important only to ourselves.
And not all beliefs (no matter how strongly held) have equal value.

I would rather hear an infinite number of ideas from others than to assert my own on anybody.

You want ideas or baseless speculation?

at some stage I would like to have been able to comprehend it, whether I accept it as true or not

So you accept things as true when you don't comprehend then?
On what basis?

 

[Myles]

I have to go with Jozen on this one. I dont see why people come into a pseudoscience forum and start demanding proof of peoples speculations. The whole idea of pseudoscience is to explore what we may never know using our minds and based loosely at best on what we think we know. Speculation is drawn from the imagination and intuition, which can be in tune with the great consciousness that we all are part of.

I think this forum would be much better off if people temporarily abandoned their own ideas and adopted a new perspective, that of the author say, and try to elaborate on his views as opposed to argue and demand proof for his beliefs. Each one of our beliefs has importance no matter who we are. I would rather hear an infinite number of ideas from others than to assert my own on anybody. That is how I learn through the combined wisdom of all the intelligent people I have met. I'm sure theres a nugget of truth in there somewhere and at some stage I would like to have been able to comprehend it, whether I accept it as true or not

I was not aware that , in order to make a contribution on this thread, it was necessary to abandon reason. So what you are saying is that any nonsense should go unquestioned. How do you envisage a meaningful discussion taking place, if dissenters are not allowed to take part ?

 

[electrafixtion]

Oily, you R baseless speculation. A memorandum on wheels. A self important tree fort hugger and a self appointed knowitall that actually doesn't know squat from apple butter. Back that up with science bitch. ROTFLMAO. You ain't worth the spit it takes to fill a five gallon bucket.

 

[Oli]

Oily, you R baseless speculation. A memorandum on wheels. A self important tree fort hugger and a self appointed knowitall that actually doesn't know squat from apple butter. Back that up with science bitch. ROTFLMAO. You ain't worth the spit it takes to fill a five gallon bucket.

Trolling still are you?
Back what up with science?
But apparently worth following round in attempts to insult, eh?

 

[Myles]

Oily, you R baseless speculation. A memorandum on wheels. A self important tree fort hugger and a self appointed knowitall that actually doesn't know squat from apple butter. Back that up with science bitch. ROTFLMAO. You ain't worth the spit it takes to fill a five gallon bucket.

I'm glad to see we are back on track with science again.

 

[(Q)]

Souls are exquisitely beautiful to look at when you see them for the first time...like radiant crystal light beacons...breath taking to gaze upon.

I haven't seen one, could you post a picture, please?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

That is an excellent question. I think it might have to do with self referential feedback loops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

I don't see how that would make consciousness, get a system with as many feedback loops and monitoring windows as possible, it still wont have conscious awareness. You can have 10 billion computers networked monitoring/sending/recieving information and they still wont aquire consciousness.


peace.

 

[Myles]

I haven't seen one, could you post a picture, please?

I am posting this picture of a soul just for you. As you will see it is well worn because of countless incarnations but beautiful nonetheless.














The presemt owner of the soul shown in the above picture tell me it once belonged to a number of illustrious people, his favourite being Damocles.
BTW , the blue tint shows it to be a male soul.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Sorry but you are simply indulging in wooly thinking. Photons are not immaterial, so your analogy makes no sense. The mistake being made here is to suggest a soul may exist and then guess what it might be composed of. If , as you suggest, it consists of some sirt of light then it would be detectable. This is not so.

A better procedure is to find evidence of something which we cannot yet explain. Collect as much data as possible and then try to determine what we are dealing with. As you will see, this is the opposite way round from what NF is doing.

First...tell that to Bentheman (or is it Bent Heman?). If you would have read more carefully, you would have noted that I was referring to what he is speculating (without proof or a means to test that's all it is).


Myles, you assume WAY TOO MUCH. As if scientists know everything...get fucking real...My god...why do they go on searching to perfect their knowledge? Hmmm...let me think...maybe it's because they know enough to know they DON'T know everything, or that they haven't detected every force there is?

They can't even say just exactly what light is...and there are bits that just don't add up...somethings missing and they know it. I know what I saw, maybe I don't know what exactly it is made out of, but it looked like a solid glowing holographic beaming source of light, like the kind people describe in near death experiences as they go through a tunnel of light. I saw this in everyone I looked at for a period of 2 days, emanating from theirs centers. Even birds and dogs and trees...it looked somehow as if it was both solid and astral or such, as if it combined the states of both worlds while defying them too.

I honestly doubt science will find this soon, if ever. But just because it can't doesn't mean it's not there...I know this far better then you yourself are capable of...after SEEING IT. You would gain far more CLARITY if you stopped worshiping science and bending over to the one-sided objective world...because there is also a subjective side to life whether you like it or not!

 

[Jozen-Bo]

I haven't seen one, could you post a picture, please?

This is the closest image I can find, but its still not close to what I saw, which was perfect, flawless, incredible, more fragile and yet indestructible, impossible to summarize...also, there was no spiral, only light beams emanating from a center, billions more then in this picture, finer...brilliant...magnificent!!!

 

[Myles]

First...tell that to Bentheman (or is it Bent Heman?). If you would have read more carefully, you would have noted that I was referring to what he is speculating (without proof or a means to test that's all it is).


Myles, you assume WAY TOO MUCH. As if scientists know everything...get fucking real...My god...why do they go on searching to perfect their knowledge? Hmmm...let me think...maybe it's because they know enough to know they DON'T know everything, or that they haven't detected every force there is?

They can't even say just exactly what light is...and there are bits that just don't add up...somethings missing and they know it. I know what I saw, maybe I don't know what exactly it is made out of, but it looked like a solid glowing holographic beaming source of light, like the kind people describe in near death experiences as they go through a tunnel of light. I saw this in everyone I looked at for a period of 2 days, emanating from theirs centers. Even birds and dogs and trees...it looked somehow as if it was both solid and astral or such, as if it combined the states of both worlds while defying them too.

I honestly doubt science will find this soon, if ever. But just because it can't doesn't mean it's not there...I know this far better then you yourself are capable of...after SEEING IT. You would gain far more CLARITY if you stopped worshiping science and bending over to the one-sided objective world...because there is also a subjective side to life whether you like it or not!

Your argument is as old as the hills. Scientists can't prove X , so there must be a supernatural explanation. Reason is all thet seperates us from the other animals. Try and cultivate yours. If you succeed , you will talk less bollocks.

 

[Myles]

This is the closest image I can find, but its still not close to what I saw, which was perfect, flawless, incredible, more fragile and yet indestructible, impossible to summarize...also, there was no spiral, only light beams emanating from a center, billions more then in this picture, finer...brilliant...magnificent!!!

Indestructible ? Did you try testing it to destruction ? Go write some bad poetry !