It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Traffic "emerges" as a result of these completely disparate systems coming together, and does not resemble any one of them as the unique system that it is.
Ok so your saying that the conceptual ideas, thoughts, theories, descriptions of emergent systems, are not the same as the actual system. Correct?
Each human being is a unique and inimitable emergent system, possessing both informational and dynamic (event centric) properties due to the way that the brain system functions in direct response to all the other systems that combine with it to create the emergent human being. This is an epitome survival response system, and it isn't primordial at all. In fact, it's an ultimate achievement within any physical reality confine that it appears within.
IS there room in your theory for this?
I've seen each individual to be a non-local unit of consciousness (soul), which is operating a Physical vehicle (Body & Mind), and because the majority 99.9% are not aware of their true existence as a pre-existent & eventual post-existent Soul, they instead in ignorance & forgetfulness (Perhaps on purpose), take themselves to only be a body and mind and only this physical realm, ideas, rules, and thoughts, all of which inherently do exist, however that part of reality is just a tiny snap shot of all there is.
Those non-local units of consciousness are for the most part inherently trapped inside of these physical vehicles until the vehicle passes away or until the individual, through wisdom and meditation, can loosen this consciousness freeing itself from the body, gaining the ability to see the other realms.
These individual units can me ascribed as drops of water that have as their source, an infinite Ocean of water (Absolute Beingness/Consciousness)edit on 2-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)
Memories are subjective, and are vulnerable to external influence and manipulation.
Trillions per year in wealth and the power it gives those promoting the myths based on the concept of prior-living souls is obvious,
The fact that a person's memory can become profoundly manipulated under conditions when that person is in a subjective state of mind (like hypnosis - which is very similar to a meditative state, and similarly "open") is very well documented
I believe that you truly remember being a discarnate soul prior to this specific incarnation, but the rest of physical reality (of which you belong, as the corporeal human that you are) insists, by its very rigid structure, that this could not have been the case
Again, this is not a statement that I can't back up with an extremely lengthy presentation that details the precise factors that come together to force this truth to ultimately become self-evident.
However, it is an extremely lengthy presentation, and the market doesn't yet exist for it as an available syllabus.I'll let you know if that ever changes.
Human perception is 100% subjective, and that's all it can ever be.
This is why reality anchors - available only within the material realm (which is 100% objective)
Sentience is perception translation. No two perceptive minds "see" the same thing, and we all know that this is true.
And if someone writes a book at some point in human history that he possesses the one and only way for a seeker of truth to force his perception to transcend the one and only fundamental tenet of perception itself (its capacity for subjectivity), why is it that anyone should believe him that he's actually transformed the basic nature of human perception? Because he claims that it's true?
Seriously. Oh, and nothing that is physical is capable of transforming itself from existing as Relative to existing as Absolute.
And if it cannot become Absolute - which it can't - it can't experience an Absolute state of being in any sense whatsoever.
Do some non-spiritual reading about what being states are and how they establish primordial identity, and you'll understand why this is impossible.
No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.
Just like traffic (which is not similar to a car, or a driver, or an asphalt street surface, or a Tuesday afternoon) is irreducible, the human being itself is irreducible.
The brain's structure and function, the life span of that brain, the society of other brains that shape that brain over the lifespan of that brain, the body that the brain serves, and the emerging mind that "reaches back" and affects how that brain develops and responds to that development are just some of the component "parts" that can't be accurately representative of the human being that will eventually emerge whole and fully viable when the entire "gestation" process has completed.
What you're describing is based on Greek philosophy - the "soul operator" of the human body. They invented this notion hundreds of years before the Romans took that concept and created the most successful religion to ever exist on this planet.
The idea of "non-local units of consciousness trapped inside physical vehicles" is nothing other than a modernized phrasing of the very same myth that Plato and his contemporaries invented when they were forced to confront the fact that they were able to observe themselves in the act of observing.
My understanding of the human being's place within physical reality is not as materialistic or reductionistic as you might think. In fact, it's likely that reality is a lot more of a blend between what you believe and what you regard as traditional materialism than you'd ever suspect.
Originally posted by OOOOOO
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
I would just like to say I understand what you are saying but I think there is a little more to this than what has been said.
If we are God what the Hell have we done to the Earth and it Creatures.
You know the Singularity, is coming to a Planet near you soon.
We are Satan! If there is one.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Seriously. Oh, and nothing that is physical is capable of transforming itself from existing as Relative to existing as Absolute.
Who says there is only material and physicality? These are just theories and ideas right now. Not Absolute Fact. We don't yet know everything, so your limiting "everything."
And if it cannot become Absolute - which it can't - it can't experience an Absolute state of being in any sense whatsoever.
You use ears to hear, a body to touch, a mind to think, a tongue to taste, eyes to see, logic and reason to make sense. To experience the Absolute, requires an entirely different Organ of experience, yet One that is present within all. Some say intuition, some say the heart, others say transcendence, while others still say awareness.
Note, that the tools which you yourself use to formulate your theories, to make your points, and to vehemently defend them, are themselves tools which cannot be used to experience the Absolute.
Also, are you going to limit the Absolute by saying it can't be experienced by something itself that is not Absolute? Are we adding limits to something that might be Unlimited?
Do some non-spiritual reading about what being states are and how they establish primordial identity, and you'll understand why this is impossible.
I have. Philosophical, theoretical, ontological, and mathematical (see my signature on infinite math). I still do not find this to be impossible, other than some person's theory that it is impossible. Theories are not reality.
For convenience's sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.
However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density. This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist; it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.
Who says it can't be reduced? Some say it can be. Your just stating an idea and more theories/concepts. Where is THE BOOK that says this is so?
Just like traffic (which is not similar to a car, or a driver, or an asphalt street surface, or a Tuesday afternoon) is irreducible, the human being itself is irreducible.
Humans are not traffic
The brain's structure and function, the life span of that brain, the society of other brains that shape that brain over the lifespan of that brain, the body that the brain serves, and the emerging mind that "reaches back" and affects how that brain develops and responds to that development are just some of the component "parts" that can't be accurately representative of the human being that will eventually emerge whole and fully viable when the entire "gestation" process has completed.
Who says that there is only a brain? Is this a rule or is this stated in THE BOOK that we are bodies and brains? This is all just your theories see? Entirely dependent upon what the scientific community discovers about consciousness, and some are already discussing non-locality, which will require a complete redo of your theories if that becomes fact, so you are in limbo.
What you're describing is based on Greek philosophy - the "soul operator" of the human body. They invented this notion hundreds of years before the Romans took that concept and created the most successful religion to ever exist on this planet.
I don't care about what religions, where, what date and what for what reason. I care that I can see for myself if it is so. I found my own non-localized pre-existent soul and have experienced the souls of others' after their bodies have passed away. I could care less about greek anything.
The idea of "non-local units of consciousness trapped inside physical vehicles" is nothing other than a modernized phrasing of the very same myth that Plato and his contemporaries invented when they were forced to confront the fact that they were able to observe themselves in the act of observing.
It's your concept that this is a myth. To me it's experiential and testable. Can't both be right!
My understanding of the human being's place within physical reality is not as materialistic or reductionistic as you might think. In fact, it's likely that reality is a lot more of a blend between what you believe and what you regard as traditional materialism than you'd ever suspect.
I don't view reality as materialistic in the light of quantum physics.
If I recall correctly, emergent systems philosophy relies on physicality/materialism. In the light of quantum findings, there seems to be a schism.
Your left with your own theory being itself an emergent System co dependent on what science discovers, and waiting on more discoveries (some which may not come for another 100 years).
On the other hand, you can use your life time to see if what Buddha, and various others said, is true.
Good luck!
It's not a theory that two things that possess different being states can't interact with or affect one another.
This isn't theoretical. This is how reality works.
I'm not limiting anything. I'm working within the natural limitations that exist, and have been proven to exist.
You - regardless of what you insist - haven't the power to release everything from the limitations that actually allow everything to exist and persist.
You aren't Absolute, and neither am I. We exist in a relative state of being.
You won't win any debate if you insist that the Relative Being State will "release" you to become Absolute in being state.
You will always exist "relative" to that which is NOT you, and this is what it means to exist within a Relative Being State.
What is also true - and you can find plenty of deep and responsible examination online concerning this- is that if you can be identified (which you can) then you can never be Absolute in being state
since the loss of contextual identity (which can't actually ever happen for you, since you're a human being) would result in non-existence, and not Absolute Being State "promotion" for you. Nothing that is physical can survive the complete loss of contextual identity.
The bottom line is that there is nothing that physically exists that is unlimited. Here's a link to a really helpful explanation concerning the possibility of anything physical possessing unlimited qualities or quantities.
I know that some people toss the use of "infinity" as a term within mathematics, ontology, and theoretical physics as proof that it does exist, but this excerpt from Wiki helps clarify how the use of the term "Infinity" is actually used in these cases.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Memories are subjective, and are vulnerable to external influence and manipulation.
That may be so, but there are one's that are true. For example, I remember reading your last post and replying to it, is a true memory, and is proof here on the boards as well.
Various theories and philosophies such as emergent systems are also vulnerable to external influence and manipulation, particularly being bound by the limits of logic & reason.
Trillions per year in wealth and the power it gives those promoting the myths based on the concept of prior-living souls is obvious,
Me remembering having pre-existed, has not added a single penny to any single philosophy or church. You might want to re-think the above sentence.
The fact that a person's memory can become profoundly manipulated under conditions when that person is in a subjective state of mind (like hypnosis - which is very similar to a meditative state, and similarly "open") is very well documented
Hypnosis or not, everyone is operating under Subjectivism.
Yep, that's true. This is why it's so important to understand the role of "reality anchors" (like the provable thread post you replied to my own post with, that you mentioned above) and what they provide to "gestating" human beings within this material realm.
I believe that you truly remember being a discarnate soul prior to this specific incarnation, but the rest of physical reality (of which you belong, as the corporeal human that you are) insists, by its very rigid structure, that this could not have been the case
How does physical reality insist that this is not the case? I don't see reality as physical, but as quantum, nonlocal, and various other ways. Physical reality doesn't insist anything. It's the human mind and it's limited ideas/theories/concepts that are super imposed over a possible Universe that may be 1 amongst trillions.
Quantum is physical. You need to do some reading on quantum physics and lay off the YouTube videos. Seriously. Quantum physics actually established the limitations of physical reality. It didn't expose reality as being limitless. Look it up.
Again, this is not a statement that I can't back up with an extremely lengthy presentation that details the precise factors that come together to force this truth to ultimately become self-evident.
I'm all ears. By the way, the same non-local consciousness "Me" that I remember as pre-existing prior to a physical body, is the same "Me" which at times leaves the body in a non-local fashion at times, while say, washing dishes, meditating, watching TV, (though I have yet to gain a complete control & understanding of this aspect of who I am)
I daydream sometimes too.
Damn, again, I'm running out of room.
Philosophy isn't an objective examination of reality.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Nothing objective about it.
Yes, there are "reality anchors" that exist, and these are what we use to determine what is real.
The human being is very vulnerable to all contributing systems, and this is why what you learn and experience as a "gestating" person is so important to keep an eye on. You'll become what you've made of yourself, and that includes what you've allowed to be made of you by casual default.
Another theory, concept, idea. Who says this is what Life is all about?
This is what "life" is all about for you. The ultimate creation of YOU. My life is about the ultimate creation of ME. It's pretty simple, but the importance of understanding it can't be overstated.
C'mon, you know better that to think I was referring to only your belief in your myths. Really. You know that I was referring to a much larger issue with that statement.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
However, it is an extremely lengthy presentation, and the market doesn't yet exist for it as an available syllabus.I'll let you know if that ever changes.
Use "Occam's Razor" to explain it in the simplest fashion. I don't need books and pages to explain my theory, which basically goes:
The Absolute can be experienced, however it is ineffable. Anything that can be said about the Absolute, is not the Absolute". See!!! Simple!!!
Human perception is 100% subjective, and that's all it can ever be.
What's wrong with subjectivity? Who says it can only be that? Is there some Absolute Rule book that says this is so and is provable by science, logic and reason? Last time I checked, subjectivity is the realm of consciousness, something which has been, until the last 20 years, deemed a taboo area of study for science, which is in its infancy of understanding consciousness/subjectivity.
Ergo, whatever your current theory on Subjectivity is, it will have no choice but to wait on what the experts say and discover about it, over the next few hundred or thousand years. There is a co-dependency.
I don't have a theory on Subjectivity. I don't need one. Subjectivity is what it is. Look up the definition if you need to.
This is why reality anchors - available only within the material realm (which is 100% objective)
Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?
If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.
Sentience is perception translation. No two perceptive minds "see" the same thing, and we all know that this is true.
How is that true? I can ask another, "Do you hear?" and they will say "Yes." I can show other's various experiences that I have had, such as spelunking, and they will come away as also having experienced the same.
If "no two perceptive minds see the same thing", then we would not have mathematics, logic, reason, etc. All systems of thought that are agreed upon by the majority subjective sentience.
We have mathematics because people want to understand Set Logic, and math is how you examine Set Logic. We study math and logic. We didn't invent it.
And if someone writes a book at some point in human history that he possesses the one and only way for a seeker of truth to force his perception to transcend the one and only fundamental tenet of perception itself (its capacity for subjectivity), why is it that anyone should believe him that he's actually transformed the basic nature of human perception? Because he claims that it's true?
Why? Because tenets & principles are testable. Buddhism makes such claims as the one you postulate above. Buddha then says, "Don't take my word for it, see for yourself if this is True." Thousands have come after him and found what he said to be true by various tests, consciousness being the laboratory
Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something. Cold is a relative experience, and it takes a thermometer to test the coldness of something. Countless other examples exist, but I'm out of roo
My Occam/s Razor explanation would be that physical reality (the only kind of reality that exists) consists of only two realms (Material and Information)
Our traditions call the Informational Realm the Spiritual Realm.
Subjectivity is wonderful. It's just not accurate.
Objectivity is accurate. It has no choice in the matter.
.
Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?
If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.
Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Philosophy isn't an objective examination of reality.
Philosophy does not place limits on what can or can't be examined. There are no specific rules. There are no philosophy police than arrest those who ask of there is an objective reality and if that can be examined or experienced.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Nothing objective about it.
It includes the study of "Objective". If there is an Objective reality, or ever present Objective consciousness, then we need philosophy to discuss it.
reply to post by NorEaster
Yes, there are "reality anchors" that exist, and these are what we use to determine what is real.
merely fragments of the whole. The problem here, is that some say that there is an Absolute Beingness that exists, and can be experienced, and is the Ultimate "reality Anchor" that underlines all of reality.
The human being is very vulnerable to all contributing systems, and this is why what you learn and experience as a "gestating" person is so important to keep an eye on. You'll become what you've made of yourself, and that includes what you've allowed to be made of you by casual default.
I can go the other way too. I can begin to strip away what I've made of myself, stripping away all thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, bias, perspectives, and ultimately at the end of that, I will get to the core truth of who I initially was prior to all the "gestating".
This is what "life" is all about for you. The ultimate creation of YOU. My life is about the ultimate creation of ME. It's pretty simple, but the importance of understanding it can't be overstated.
Another theory, concept, idea. Who says this is what Life is all about?
C'mon, you know better that to think I was referring to only your belief in your myths. Really. You know that I was referring to a much larger issue with that statement.
Yeah I knew, but it had to be said because you stereotyped the whole. And my existence and not buying into those structures proves the stereotype wrong
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
My Occam/s Razor explanation would be that physical reality (the only kind of reality that exists) consists of only two realms (Material and Information)
Then that makes you, in a sense, a strict materialist creating a frame worked subjective bias box from which you view everything with these self imposed colored glasses. I was once a strict materialist, and in retrospect of what I have seen and experienced now, it was a dead horse.
Our traditions call the Informational Realm the Spiritual Realm.
What does your "informational realm" consist of? Just thought?
Subjectivity is wonderful. It's just not accurate.
The Above is a subjective opinion. I subjectively adore ambient music of certain zen like amorphous drones of sound. Is this subjective liking not accurate? It feels and seems so accurate to me.
Objectivity is accurate. It has no choice in the matter.
What is objectivity? Careful here with your answer, for anything you label it as, will automatically be imprisoned within the confines of subjective opinion, bringing us right back to square one.
.
Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?
If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.
Quantum physics is showing that there is no material realm, instead a non-local quantum soup may be the case.
Who says that there is only the material realm?
Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.
When you test something, you are experiencing the test, and the results of the test. Everything we're discussing (since we are sentient BEings) is ultimately dependent on Experience. You've failed to to take into account that some tests rely on what the experience will be, such as testing consciousness.
Also what are your theories giving us? Are they solving the wars, rapes, ignorance, greed, corruption of the world? You can publish ideas all day, but so what! You are breaking down the material realm and that's it. My theories not only cover existence, but also bring to light how to solve the world's problems, psychology, philosophy, quantum physics, I got it all coverededit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)
It is not an objective study of anything. Not even Objective reality itself. Hell, if it was an objective examination of anything, then the "ever present" Objective consciousness could not ever be on its list of things to examine.
Some people say a lot of things. You can't experience Absolute Beingness.
You don't exist in an Absolute Being State, and you never will. I can't make that true for you by agreeing with you.
Good luck with that. Obviously I have nothing that I can say that will help you to understand the reality that sets the base for what I've been sharing with you in this thread. Perception is a wondrous achievement, and that's all I have for you.
um...I was letting you in on what your life is about.
You're not required to buy into anything for it to be true. You're free and always will be free to accept or reject whatever you wish. You're a human being, and as a human being, your perceptions will always be the most compelling evidence that you'll ever encounter.
Those structures exist, and if they didn't there'd be no YOU to refuse to buy into them. And it's just that simple.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Some people say a lot of things. You can't experience Absolute Beingness.
Says who, and why not? What if for a moment, the subjective biased experiencer, gets his/her subjecitivty/bias removed, and in that removal, the Absolute is revealed?
Why the rigidness that does not allow for certain things? Clearly your theories need to have flexibility for opposing views or new findings in science.
You don't exist in an Absolute Being State, and you never will. I can't make that true for you by agreeing with you.
You have no way to prove this. "Relative" and "subjective" can very well be illusions of the mind that we ourselves perpetuate and superimpose over a reality that is Already inherently Absolute. You don't have to agree with me, but you can at least admit that you are making absolute statements, one's you can't prove.
I know what you are implying and that's materialist emergence.
It has too many holes and doesn't account for so many aspects of reality, soul, pre-existence, the source of the soul, God, NDE's, Non-Locality in quantum states. Sure you can apply emergence after the fact, but then your philosophy operates on retrospect.
I can comprehend you, but in the grand scheme of things your not really saying anything other than subjective perspective based on conceptual theories non of which are reality itself. Just like the vid you posted that you say you proved Infinity to be false, and then about 5 dozen replies came in to the picture and proved that you did not prove anything other than offer ideas and theories.
um...I was letting you in on what your life is about.
Like you would know that. Do you know yourself? Have you located where Awareness is and what it's nature is? Have you gone within and located the source of thought and consciousness? Do you comprehend why there is a schism in the world between lower nature and higher intellect. Why we're here. Our purpose and design.
Unless you know the things above, then your merely providing a new theory based on patchwork of others. And what are the fruits of your theory? What problems in this world are we solving?
I am still looking for what fruits your philosophy offers other than a strict materialist view, which is on it's way out as the times progress, and all emergence philosophy operates in retrospect to what others find to be true anyway. Yours is a waiting and seeing game. Mine is a go see for yourself right now if its true game.
Just like the thought of a rock, is not an actual rock. So who you think you are, is not who you are.
Information exists - as I did take the time to explain to you - as primarily Residual Information that is a default response to occurrence.
A+B=C therefore C-B=A That's an objective statement. Since each letter doesn't represent anything that actually physically exists, instead representing its own specific contribution to the logical consistency that - as a whole - this statement declares, the statement itself is objective and accurate.
Quantum physics isn't showing that at all. Please provide a link to the paper that's proven this and has been peer approved. Thanks.
Testing brakes isn't the same as testing someone's patience either, so be responsible in your reflexive dependence on semantics when you're feeling cornered. Only simpletons find semantics to be a worthwhile engagement.
Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.
My theory reveals the human being - every human being - as being fully free to enjoy their afterlife as they see fit. To work for and with others, if that's what they want, or to be as fickle as they wish concerning each instant of forever that awaits them.
Reality isn't a democracy. It simply is what it is. An accurate theory requires no flexibility any more than reality requires flexibility.
I don't have to prove it. Its already a proven fact of reality. You really do need to do some reading about all of this stuff. I can teach you about the primordial genesis and progressive development of physical reality, but the existential fundamentals that have already been established are yours to learn for yourself.
Reality isn't something we vote on. Good grief. You're collapsing right in front of me here.
Quantum physics proved physical infinity to be false - as both physics and math agree.
You don't know much of anything about my theory, and yet you declare it full of holes. Maybe your perception of what I'm trying to teach you is full of holes? Maybe there's a lot more to what I know than this thread can possibly contain?
I do know those things above. The beautiful truth is that anyone can succeed without knowing any of what I know.
No one needs to study and strive for enlightenment. There is no enlightenment to strive for.
I guess you'll have to wait and see, then, won't you. If you wanted to, you could "go see for yourself right now" if my theory is true. I don't expect that you will, but the evidence is - right now - sitting right next to you, behind you, in front of you, above you, beneath you, outside you and inside you. It's part of you, even as you're part of it. It's not something you have to wait to discover. It defines you, and allows you to exist - even as you dismiss its existence.
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
You don't know much of anything about my theory, and yet you declare it full of holes. Maybe your perception of what I'm trying to teach you is full of holes? Maybe there's a lot more to what I know than this thread can possibly contain?
We debated about 2-3 years ago and you linked me all your material.
Granted it was an intellectual puke fest that took infinite patience to logically simplify and make sense of. I remember I came to the conclusion that we may be talking about the same thing as far as reality goes, but in different terms and that I concluded that you lacked key experiences available to you through the use of intuition/meditation and therefore your all head based, lacking transcendence, or in a nutshell, using limits to define the unlimited.
I still feel this way. If you were to glimpse the Nondual Absolute state, you'd change your whole theory, or retroactively make it refit what you just experienced.
No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.
And what BOOK are you referring to? You need to keep me informed when you decide to introduce new aspects into our little exchange.
Actually, the emergent info-event hybrid system that is the human being has a similar relationship with the Homo Sapiens brain as traffic (in general) has with the cars that are stuck in that traffic. Research holon theory and emergent systems for more details.
If not for the Greeks, you'd have no concept of the human soul to defend. This is fact, and well established.
Testable? Can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves that souls are externally introduced entities trapped in "physical human vehicles"? I'd love to read that study.
For many decades, consciousness as a research topic was avoided by the majority of mainstream scientists, because of a general feeling that a phenomenon defined in subjective terms could not properly be studied using objective experimental methods.
Starting in the 1980s,an expanding community of neuroscientists and psychologists have associated themselves with a field called Consciousness Studies, giving rise to a stream of experimental work published in books....
No more studies are needed. The fact that emergent systems exist, and the evidence that the human being is an emergent system is overwhelmingly compelling. In fact, this answers literally all questions concerning the many anomalies that have cropped up since our technologies have recently become so advanced as to expose the many weaknesses in our traditional views of reality. It's a new day, and the truth will eventually emerge whole and provable as a result of very new ways of understanding simple things like the very ones we're discussing.