The Properties of Soul

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Firstly I said there are infinite possibilites, yet you personally attacked that using a straw man argument, claiming something I didn't say.

Furthermore, you are presuming soul as conscious memory. Neither you nor any other human knows the reality of 'soul'. So getting your proverbials in a twist because I suggested DNA is capable of storing memory, just because the limited science knowledge currently held by humanity has curbed your belief in possibilities, is very asinine.

Perhaps you should go back and actually read my posts instead of criticizing and using straw man arguments.

Perhaps you would also like to send your criticism to these guys for storing digital data on DNA, because this is obviously is something you find offensive.

physicsworld.com...

If digital data can be stored on DNA, there are infinite possibilities for the marvels that is DNA.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


you personally attacked that using a straw man argument, claiming something I didn't say.

Didn't you say this?


For example, DNA is encoded with memories and specific data

Or this?


DNA is an awesome way of storing memory

That is all I was addressing. You're the one who keeps talking about souls.


Perhaps you would also like to send your criticism to these guys for storing digital data on DNA, because this is obviously is something you find offensive.

I don't find it offensive and I knew it had been done. Digital data isn't human memory.


Perhaps you should go back and actually read my posts

Oh, the irony.

edit on 4/9/13 by Astyanax because: of the irony.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The only person talking about CONSCIOUS human memory was you. Neither me nor any other poster on this thread so far are talking about DNA holding CONSCIOUS memory that I have read.

Therefore do not suggest otherwise.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Greylorn
 


You've described the human body—a highly likely candidate for the soul.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


The only person talking about CONSCIOUS human memory was you.

On the contrary, the OP is clearly talking about memories that are consciously recalled – note what he says about heaven and hell. Besides, his 'conceptual memory' isn't stored in any material medium, so your talk of DNA is utterly irrelevant here, anyway.

In fact, you are the only one using the word 'memory' in the obscure and allusive sense of somatic changes resulting from environmental influences. An example of your kind of 'memory' is – tree rings. No-one but you is talking about anything of that kind.

And nobody but you is talking about DNA at all.

edit on 4/9/13 by Astyanax because: of DNA.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Wondering why you're limiting the question to just the human soul and not other creatures?


  • Only humans demonstrate significant levels of consciousness. I attribute conscious intelligence only to beons/souls, and assume that humans are conscious because of such connections.

  • I wish to distance my theories from the nonsense promulgated by new age religionists, who I regard as nitwits following the teachings of channeled pinheads such as Seth/Kryon.



Originally posted by Prezbo369
My cat has a distinct personality that has grown and changed throughout it's life, as have other pets I've lived with.

It seems like a hopelessly romantic and self centred notion that if souls do exist they are limited to the human race.


Romantic? Please give me a break from emotional responses.

IMO those who appreciate and value animals for the services they can provide, and who give fair exchange for those services, are enlightened human beings, but "animal lovers" are utter nitwits. I do not know or particularly care into which category you fall. If you need help finding a category, animal lovers are those who believe that critters have humanlike minds, and are conscious of their own existence, thereby deserving the right to vote right alongside the illegal Mexicans and folks living off the public teat, voting for more milk. (I can hardly wait until the Hillary administration, where her A.G. will demand that your dogs and cats are allowed to vote without a picture ID card.) Some of these animal lovers, especially the religious types, expect to find their dogs and cats up in heaven with them. Somehow these nits manage to exclude rattlesnakes, rats, flies, mosquitoes, man-eating tigers, and Komodo dragons from their list of heavenly destined beasties. Go figure why?

Of course your cats have limited personalities. If you'll study squirrels, beavers, rats, lizards, and human cretins, you will find that each has a distinct, but limited, personality. You will find the same if you objectively study your friends and work associates. Personality is primarily a function of the brain. Soul/beon has less to do with personality than one's sun sign. Whatever "personality" (an amorphously defined concept) the soul might have is impossible to discern in most people, because most people are driven by their brains. Soul/beon is just along for the ride, in most people.

Kindly note that what I'm doing in this series of threads is expressing, piecemeal, a complete theory that describes the origin of the occasional intelligent, conscious mind; then the origin of the universe, and its purpose; then the origin of biological life, and its purpose; all in the context of classical physics and well-established science. The ideas presented so far are necessarily incomplete. They are fully described in my book.

Your questions invite me to get ahead of myself, in this limited context. I appreciate them, but I do wish to stay within the confines of each OP.


Originally posted by Prezbo369
Also, where are all the new souls coming from? Is the earth being constantly pelted with new souls as the population increases?


I enjoyed the "pelted" notion, but so far it is not a component of Beon Theory. Thanks to you (not really, because I do not need more work) I'm considering the possibility of fetal brains pelted by incoming souls, because it is an interesting notion. Otherwise--

The process that I've envisioned for the creation of souls suggests that a finite, but very large number of them exist. Most have yet to be processed. (Meaning, given a tryout in a suitably designed critter.)

Rather than your interesting "pelted with" idea, I've adopted the opinion that beons/souls are physically drawn to the developing fetal human brain, and become tuned exclusively to that brain during its development. I have no idea as to what the brain/beon mechanism might be, and am confident that research and discovery will follow interest and curiosity.

Few souls are new. Most are recycled. (The common term is reincarnated, but this term has so much religious baggage.) I'd guess that you are a moderately experienced soul/beon, simply because your questions suggest that they may have originated with you, rather than with a doctrinal belief system.


Originally posted by Prezbo369
And can souls get damaged? I've a relative that was in a car accident and received massive brain damage which has changed his personality to the point of being a completely different person.


His/her brain was the source of personality. It got damaged. Soul is now on an attenuated ride.


Originally posted by Prezbo369
Can light be damaged?

Not before its detection (i.e. interaction with something), in which it is obliterated.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Again straw man arguments.

I said DNA stores memory, you presumed CONSCIOUS memory and attacked my post.

My reply originally wasn't to you, you presumed it's content and criticised, you should probably just apologise.

The thread is about SOUL and how it could be attached to the human body, since DNA stores somatic memory and also has the capacity for storage of digital memory, there are many many possibilities for attachment of other storage, for example of a soul.

Seeing as science hasn't any details on the exact capacity of DNA yet, your speculation on it's capacity is unwise.

Furthermore, you attacked my post, which is on topic and valid, for a straw man argument about conscious memory so do not bother replying again, you are being ignored.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
All hail the beon!
A particle hitherto undetected, carrier of a physical force whose existence is not indicated by any known phenomenon and does not fall out of the equations of any physical theory!



Reply 1 of 2
You have already established your disdain for the few of my ideas you've cursorily examined. Why not keep your disapproval at an intellectual, honestly argumentative level? There is no need to stoop to unimaginative sarcasm-- unless you believe that you cannot counter my ideas with intellect and information.


Originally posted by Astyanax
If this is your explanation of singularities, miracles and other physical unknowns, Greylorn, you're a little late to the party. Allow me to introduce you to some of the other guests.

This distinguished-looking Jesuit here is Père Teilhard de Chardin:


Ah-- the appeal to authority figures. Before we play that game I must note that I have no explanation for singularities, since I do not believe in them. They serve one purpose only, which is to show us with impeccable clarity when we've developed an especially stupid theory. I've no need to explain stupidity. Pointing it out ought to be good enough.

Hey, if I'm late to the party, it is only because I was never invited. I'll try to make up for lost party time by being especially obnoxious and correcting the other attendees.


Originally posted by Astyanax

Living systems are dissipative structures that create internal order by expending energy in exchange for a local reduction in entropy... Certain theories posit that such an ordering alters the information state of the surrounding environment such that, for ever decreasing levels of entropy, there is a net local entropy deficit or "information moment" impressed upon the surrounding environment... In this way, the mind, an abstract phenomenon seated in the physical substrate of the brain, may be capable of inducing a local entropic force that, when summed among many minds simultaneously, produces an even more amplified phenomenon known as the noosphere. Wikipedia

Sounds a bit like you and your beons, eh?


Only to someone who does not understand Beon Theory. The noosphere theories of de Chardin et al deal with the ex post facto effects of large numbers of conscious, intelligent human minds. Beon Theory explains how (and why) human minds and bodies came into existence in the first place. In effect, Beon Theory is a metaphysical antecedent to de Chardin's ideas, which make a certain amount of sense.

I had written:
"Beon has essentially one and only one physical property other than existence and a boundary condition. It can be easily described in terms of thermodynamics as a generalized Maxwellian Demon, an entity capable of freely violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the entropy principle) without cost to itself, because it is not itself an energy-being." You replied,


Originally posted by Astyanax
Perhaps you can convince the good Father that your 'beon' is the carrier of his (nonexistent) 'local entropic force'.


Last I heard, the "good Father" died buck naked one Bangkok afternoon in his hotel room's bathtub, electrocuted by an electrical fan thrown into the tub by either:

  • One of the peaceful Buddhist monks participating in his Ecumenical conference, whose desire for ecumenicism de Chardin had sorely misunderstood--

  • A Thai thug hired by the ecumenical Buddhists, who are constrained by their religion from killing, and so have learned the value of contracting their dirty work--

  • A lovely Thai lady of the mid-day who had been stiffed in both ways.


Because the "good" Father is dead I cannot convince him of squat, and would not attempt to do so even if he were alive. His ideas address the power of combined minds at the local (essentially sociological) level, and his physics concepts remain conventional.

Nonetheless I'd be delighted to converse with such a mind. The day might come. At the moment I'm working my way upward. My first topics of choice would be Thai cuisine, then Thai women. After the ingestion of some dressed up ethanol, we might be ready for serious physics-level metaphysics.

(Continued...)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Astyanax

Now here's old Gottfried Leibniz, inventor (along with Sir Isaac Newton) of the calculus. He conceived of your 'beons' way back in the seventeenth century, and gave them the slightly less
worthy name of monads.


Monads are elementary particles with blurred perceptions of one another. (They) are the ultimate elements of the universe. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.

The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small"; e.g., each human being constitutes a monad.


Astyanax,
You are quite the scholar! I've developed my ideas in what would be a philosophical vacuum if not for cursory readings of Descartes. I dislike reading philosophy, because I mentally argue with every concept, but can only voice my objections irrelevantly in the margins of book pages. I also find it extremely difficult to remember the details of an argument which I find to be fallacious. Therefore I only took one philosophy course, post grad, while my first philosophy book was in a publisher's print queue. You appear to be considerably better read in such subjects, and I welcome any relevant input you care to provide.

I'd only known of Leibnitz as the Kraut who independently duplicated Newton's calculus. My courses were in physics, beginning with Newtonian mechanics and derivative ideas. Leibnitz was a footnote in the history of physics. This is the first I've learned of his metaphysical ideas. Thank You!

I'm thinking that the best way for me to deal with these insights is to contrast Leibnitz' ideas, as per your quote, with mine.

"Monads are elementary particles with blurred perceptions of one another."

Beons are not particles. The best word in our lexicon is, IMO, entities. The vast majority of them have no perception of anything at all, much less others of their kind. Highly developed (conscious, intelligent) beons have acute perceptions of one another. Beons at intermediate levels of development have the kinds of perceptions that we see between human friends, enemies, offspring, and spouses.

"(They) are the ultimate elements of the universe. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual,..."

So far, this is a description of Beon Theory from someone who might have been in the process of developing it, but who overthought the idea.

Beon had a beginning. Although our time-concepts are not applicable to that event, the very idea of a beginning implies, not eternal.

Beons are composable, in that they can grow and change, becoming more powerful with experience. If something is composable, it would seem to me to also be decomposable.

"...Individual,..." yes.

" ...subject to their own laws,..."
WTF does that mean?

"...un-interacting,..."
This is an absurd attribute. It certainly does not apply to beons, who interact with one another and with all aspects of the physical universe, at levels more fundamental than those which require the intermediary of a body/brain system.

"...and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). "

This kind of crap explains better than anything why I cannot abide reading much philosophy. What does "reflecting the entire universe" mean? What is this pre-established harmony nonsense? Who established it?

At this point I find myself too thoroughly immersed in absurd verbiage to even bother looking up "panpsychism."

"Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal."

According to Beon Theory, this concept is dreadfully confused. Monads and beons are about as equivalent as The Three Stooges are to Laurel and Hardy. IQs below 100 cannot tell the difference.

Beons do indeed manifest a single force. Their substance consists of the space from which they were formed. The force they manifest is an inherent property of that space.

Space, in the context of Beon Theory, is entirely different from the "space" we are taught about, which is an empty space that has no inherent properties. I see space as something which is filled with a substance that has at least one property of its own (other than existence and a boundary condition).

I've never found an adequate physical description of beon, but now I'm thinking (thanks to your feedback) that they might be well-defined as isolated pieces of a broken space. That space is not the space within which we exist, not the space that we describe as if we fully understand it.

Astyanax, thank you for thoughtful questions!

"...The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small"; e.g., each human being constitutes a monad."

While I love the concept of irreducible simplicity, this statement is an absurd and incompetent example of it. How can a "little mirror of the universe," whatever that means, be simple? Human beings are extraordinarily complex entities, engineered over long periods of time, the result of many experimental adjustments to snippets of DNA in suitably isolated environments. How the hell does someone use the words "human being" and "irreducibly simple" in the same sentence, while keeping a straight face?

If I were teaching a course in Thinking 101, I would use that last idiotic comment about the ontological essence of a monad as a prime example of how to conceal cognitive dissonance within obfuscating philosophical verbiage.


Astyanax
Now, tip your hat to the Mother of All New Age Mumbo-Jumbo, Madame Blavatsky, whose concept of monads was even more like yours than Leibniz's.


According to the emanationist cosmology of Madame Blavatsky all monads emerge from divine unity at the beginning of a cosmic cycle and return to this source at its close.


I only tip my hat to women I respect enough to be willing to wake up in bed with. IMO Mdm.B is as FOS as Seth, Kryon, RamDass, and their glut of New Age religionist followers. I do not follow nitwits. I do not even bother to study their writings past the point at which they demonstrate either cognitive dissonance or their complete ignorance of basic physics.

Your intimidating authorities are merely a gaggle of uninformed crackpots who cannot keep their ideas internally consistent. Nonetheless, your feedback got me thinking again, so I definitely appreciate your contributions to this subject.

You have also done a fine job of spanking a few of the lower level nits who've inevitably popped up on this thread. Thanks! Tigers can enjoy their tangles the better without blow-flies nipping at their butts.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Greylorn
 


I've developed my ideas in what would be a philosophical vacuum if not for cursory readings of Descartes.

Odd. Since your subject is metaphysics I'd have expected you to have performed your due diligence.

You might start here. It is very short, but takes some unpacking.

edit on 6/9/13 by Astyanax because: it's better to be constructive.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn
 


I've developed my ideas in what would be a philosophical vacuum if not for cursory readings of Descartes.

Odd. Since your subject is metaphysics I'd have expected you to have performed your due diligence.

You might start here. It is very short, but takes some unpacking.


My version of due diligence differs from yours. Although my initial insights into these subjects came about 53 years ago, I've but recently put them in the category of metaphysics, because that is the category where those few who are curious about the beginnings of things would look for information.

My ideas belong on the Dr. Caca shows along with other examples of speculative physics.

My diligence involved learning some physics. I figured that if anyone had developed a really good idea, I'd have come across it somewhere. Why go out of the way to research failed philosophical opinions? But just to check things out I bought a set of The Great Books and started reading philosophy. This was a waste of time. These "great" books were full of antiquated intellectual claptrap, ideas that did not work, with their failures evident from the outset. I like things that work, and have no more interest in pursuing the intricacies of a failed metaphysical scheme than I have in learning exactly why the 1937 Packard V-12 engine was a good example of bad engineering. (My guess is that the metallurgy of the day was insufficient to support the design.)

After failing to find a single philosopher with a useful idea except Descartes, I began writing on my own, outside of any pedantic philosophical context, using classical physics as my primary context. I did my "due diligence" in the fields that seemed to me to be relevant to my pursuit of understanding, and philosophy is not relevant.

I have never regretted that decision, and reading Leibnitz' ideas (thank you) has reinforced my choice. There is nothing in the compendium of his beliefs that would impel me to go back into my book and reference a single notion of his. Nor would I give him an iota of intellectual credit. He got it wrong, and self-contradicts (as I noted before).

Examples:

  • 7 conflicts with 10.
  • It is absurd to think that something can change from within, but not be changed from without.
  • 14. Perceptions require outside input. It is not possible to have a perception without internal change.

    This section is the most confusing of Leibnitz assertions. I can only guess that he must have kept pets which he cherished. I can imagine him talking to his dog, and thinking that because the stupid animal cocked its mindless head and looked at him that it understood a word of his speech.

    Here is his most clear separation from Beon Theory. His monads have no existence apart from human bodies. Beons, however, existed long before their connection with bodies.

  • 18 is good.
  • 22 may be an incompetent translation. After this, I quit.


I propose that we terminate any further discussion of Leibnitz' theories. You wanted to make the claim that Beon Theory is a rehash of prior ideas. That is clearly not the case.

Beon Theory is derived from clear principles of classical physics, not from the leftover meanderings of failed philosophers. I do not mean to insult your esteemed friends. They did what they could in their time, as I do what I can in our time.

I chose not to study them, just as I chose not to study phlogiston theory, or learn about old Packard engines because they are not relevant.

But what to do about you? Are you an old guy like me, but wedded to your knowledge of the past? I can understand that. When I go out country dancing, I occasionally wish that the band would play a good Polka, and that there was a woman in the place who could dance it. But the reality is, two-step, waltz, and hope that the one woman in town who knows West-coast Swing shows up and that her husband is busy flirting with someone else when a triple-time beat gets played.

I can only dance to the music that gets played, or devise metaphysical theories that fit within the boundaries of known science. Leibnitz is as relevant to metaphysics as the Charleston is to dance. I invite you to stop comparing Beon Theory to failed ideas that you seem to think are B.T.'s antecedents. They are not. The only philosopher whose metaphysical ideas I respect (while noting and correcting his failures) is Descartes, and I did not study him until about five years after developing Beon Theory. Even he was not an influence.

So what level of participation in the dance of ideas will you choose? Carping from the sidelines, or getting your ideas and style onto the floor?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by greencmp
reply to post by Greylorn
 


This is a fascinating subject that caught my attention last year when I came across a brief mention of it on a science channel show.

It is really rare that main stream (maybe not mass appeal) scientists posit plausible explanations for mysteries of this ilk.


Dr Hameroff holds that in a near-death experience the microtubules lose their quantum state, but the information within them is not destroyed. Instead it merely leaves the body and returns to the cosmos.

Quantum substances form the soul...
edit on 2-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


I like Hammerhoff, mainly because he is thinking around the perimeters of the box, but his ideas still remain with the box defined by this standard: The mind must be entirely a function of the brain. Any other hypothesis is "non-scientific."

My understanding of science is that it is a method for integrating insightful bits of inductive reasoning with the occasional rigorous observation, with the point of discovering what is true, what is real, and how these truths and realities combine to give us an honest picture of the universe, and ultimately of ourselves.

My theories are organized around this understanding of science

If the human mind is a composite of brain and beon, a theory for which I find plenty of evidence, someday a credentialed scientist will perform the rigorous experiments necessary to confirm it. If I am wrong and Hammerhoff is right, science will vindicate his ideas.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Well, you are kind of closing in the parameters on the discussion of the soul by reduction of reason.
While that is how we humans think, there is a fault in that reasoning because we don't know the
parameters. It's like trying to guess the form that an alien species of life may take without an
knowing where animate life can occur in the absence of carbon, oxygen, or water.

I do understand what you're getting at, that the soul must be made of something substantial that
can be detected, but my point is, maybe we don't have the knowledge capable to achieve that yet.

Inre. the soul, my take is something along the lines of the relationship between a radio-controlled
device and the radio. We humans are two separate entities--a carbon based remote controlled
robot, and the signal that controls that robot.


This is a fair analogy, except that beon/soul is the source of the signal, not the signal itself.


Originally posted by rival
IMO, for verity, all life has to factor into this idea as well.

For that reason I leave religion out of the thought process--it is simply too myopic, dogmatic, and
self-righteous.


Generally when someone asserts that they are leaving religion out of the conversation, it means that they are going to sneak their religious beliefs in through the back door.

Your notion that "all life has to factor into this idea..." is your religious credit card, a belief slipping past the back door lock.


Originally posted by rival
I approach the thought process very humbly, realizing I know knowing but what can see.

And here is what I see. Animals possess (come equipped) with verifiable instinct intact from the moment
of birth. Examples are many. The easiest is the mammalian instinct to nurse and find the mother's teat.
But there are many others.


Humility is the first ploy of a good con artist.

Let's cut to the chase. There are better examples of programmed behavior in critters than those you have proposed. Watch a bird build a nest. Watch an old eagle destroy its beak on a rock, then when a new beak has regrown, pluck out its worn feathers and await their regrowth, thereby gaining another thirty years of life.

No outside force is needed to describe such behavior. Neither soul nor beon nor any related concept is needed. One can adopt either of these possibilities:

  • Darwinian principles involving random DNA changes led to such complex behavioral patterns, or,

  • An intelligent entity responsible for the adaptation and survival of various critters writes behavior code patterns that can be used by the relevant critters. Possible mechanisms for the realization of this notion might be the topic for another thread.


Originally posted by rival
Next is observation....

Every time I observe a baby I am struck with the idea that I am witnessing an entity that is struggling
to come to grips with the "new" environment it has found itself in. I see a small entity overwhelmed by
its new senses--light, sound, touch, smell....and I watch curiously, laughing to myself, thinking, it's okay
little friend, take it easy, you'll get it after awhile
.

And then later I begin to see the signs of what we call the personality. Those are the things that
aren't instinctual, but rather, I believe, are indicative of the ethereal being that controls the animal
robot.


My offspring were born and raised in the shadow of my theories. I made observations, but tried not to conflate them with my theories, as you have done. I probably failed as well.

I never saw a child of mine struggling to come to grips with its new environment. I "saw" observation, and a natural desire to play, experiment, and communicate. Later, watching other kids grow, the only "struggles" I observed were those of an independent but undeveloped mind trying to manifest its independence despite parents who wanted to program the little bugger their way.

I saw "personality" as mostly a function of brain. Beon/soul takes a few decades to show its face.


Originally posted by rival
And that's all I have to go on. Other than knowing that I know nothing of the ethereal essence of us.
And that I will likely ride out the lifespan of this robot I am wearing without ever knowing any of this for sure.

But I do love thinking about it.

Sorry If I wound up off-topic but it's hard for me to focus on a destination when exploring
uncharted territory


Despite my criticisms I appreciate your post. Uncharted territory is the source of my OP, and your contribution to this thread is entirely within its context. Thank you!!

And why not figure on riding your bot into a space of deeper understanding? It won't go there on its own, but like a good horse, will carry you wherever you choose, even rattlesnake dens if you insist.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Greylorn
 

Though I hoped for your sake it would be otherwise, I fully expected a response of the type you have provided, Greylorn. Well, at least I can say I tried.


After failing to find a single philosopher with a useful idea except Descartes

You misapprehend the purpose of philosophy, which is not primarily utilitarian.

Regarding your specific criticisms of Liebniz,
  • §7 and §11 of the Monadology do not contradict one another. Despite the warning in my earlier reply to you, it appears that you have not read it with sufficient attention. Still, I salute you for reading it at all.

  • Regarding §14, you are in agreement with Leibniz, although you appear not to know it. Perhaps you haven't quite grasped what is meant here by perception.

  • If '§18 is good', why do you find it a priori absurd that a monad can change from within but not be changed from without?

  • Regarding §22, the translation is exact. You may translate it for yourself if you wish; here's the original.


    Et comme tout présent état d'une substance simple est naturallement une suite de son état précédent, tellement que le présent y est gros de l'avenir; Source


(Leibniz's) monads have no existence apart from human bodies.

On the contrary, all substances are monads in Leibniz's philosophy.


So what level of participation in the dance of ideas will you choose? Carping from the sidelines, or getting your ideas and style onto the floor?

As it happens, I am a musician. I cause others to dance for my entertainment.

edit on 7/9/13 by Astyanax because: there's no need to be obvious.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
>>
  • The soul must be physical.

    Religions teach that the soul is connected with the human body. The body is physical. Anything that interacts with something that is physical is itself physical, pretty much by definition.

    Lots of people use the words "material" and "physical" as synonyms, but that usage is sloppy and incorrect. Matter is both material (by definition) and physical. However, light is physical but not material. Magnetic fields are physical, but not material.

    The soul is clearly not material. If it interacts with the human body in any way, it must, by definition, be physical. (BTW the identical principles apply to any entity or entities who might have participated in the creation of the universe.)
    >>

    We are already starting out with false pretenses here since the definitions of "what is physical" and "what is not" are already FALSE.

    Einstein himself stated that there is nothing but ENERGY in various states. Even "the physical" is energy, what he refers to as "frozen" energy.

    Atoms, photons etc. . in whatever form...is various states of energy. The idea of "the physical" where electrons revolve around a nucleus in an observable and measurable way is outdated since we know about Quantum physics. "The physical" as such does not exist. The idea of an atom and what exactly is "physical" or "material" is only that.. an idea and a false one. Proof: Heisenberg....

    From that point of view, your question is already bound to create problems (due to this problem)..and of course what you say that interaction in any way must mean the soul is physical. Are my thoughts "physical"? Would you deny that thoughts (which in a classic sense would be considered "non physical" are capable to interact with "the physical"? Things can interact with other things in various ways. Since the concepts of "physical" and "non physical" are obviously false, your problem has been solved anyway.


    >>
  • The soul must be capable of retaining information. In other words, it requires a memory.

    Religions teach that a soul will go to heaven or hell according to its behavioral transactions. What would be the point of that in the absence of any memory?
    >>

    Where's the problem? Of course the soul has "a memory". What religions "teach" is irrelevant. I don't believe in lies. The idea of a soul whose purpose is to retain a memory just to be judged or rewarded..is HIDEOUS


    >>
    If the soul is to survive in a meaningful manner, it must be that mind, or the entity that contains the properties of mind.
    >>

    Major problem here, the "soul" *IS* us, it is our "over-ego", it is what we are. Our physical is only a tiny aspect of our greater "over-ego", or soul. With physical death, of course the soul "survives", it's not the soul which dies, it's the body.


    >>
  • But wait a moment! The perfessers tell us that the brain is responsible for thought, that brain is the organ of mind. Do we have a contradiction here, or what?
    >>

    Neurology and even most advanced science can NOT explain how the brain functions. This is still a mystery and the idea of an "organ which produces the mind" is wrong. There is no evidence this is the case. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the soul is independent from the brain. The brain is a RECEIVER which allows our soul/over-ego to enter a physical body and live-out physicality. The brain is not "creating" our soul or consciousness, in the same way as a TV is not "creating"..a TV show or movie.
    What the brain does is to "harbor" our soul, during this existence. Not even THAT I would say is 100% accurate, whether our "over-ego/soul" really requires the brain is just speculation. It could as well "attach" to our physical body via other means and have it's place/origin somewhere else, not necessarily the brain. (See eastern philosophies, concepts like chakras etc.)

    >>
  • By interacting with the human brain, the soul gives some of us the power to think creatively, to invent things and devise ideas that a brain without soul could not do. The soul is what makes some humans what we like to think of when we use the word "human."
    >>

    This is actually correct. Our over-ego/soul may be "interacting" with the brain. But it only can do this (in this physical, human body) as far as the brain ALLOWS. In other words: A brain is also limiting our capabilites. The soul/over-ego is much more than what our brain is capable to process and express. Often, we need to extend our limited ways how the brain works (via other states of consciousness) to be able to get a glimpse of the greater reality around us.



  • posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 12:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Greylorn
     


    Aah so this is just an exercise of your own personal imagination wherein you make the rules and you can change anything at any given time?

    What good can come from this? apart from sales of your 'book'?

    What you have presented is far from a theory (in this context), but is in fact a mere daydream.

    What a complete and utter waste of time........(I shouldve known better due to the lack of response to a criticism of your previous thread).



    posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 01:59 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
    >>
  • The soul must be physical.

    Religions teach that the soul is connected with the human body. The body is physical. Anything that interacts with something that is physical is itself physical, pretty much by definition.

    Lots of people use the words "material" and "physical" as synonyms, but that usage is sloppy and incorrect. Matter is both material (by definition) and physical. However, light is physical but not material. Magnetic fields are physical, but not material.

    The soul is clearly not material. If it interacts with the human body in any way, it must, by definition, be physical. (BTW the identical principles apply to any entity or entities who might have participated in the creation of the universe.)
    >>

    We are already starting out with false pretenses here since the definitions of "what is physical" and "what is not" are already FALSE.

    Einstein himself stated that there is nothing but ENERGY in various states. Even "the physical" is energy, what he refers to as "frozen" energy.

    Atoms, photons etc. . in whatever form...is various states of energy. The idea of "the physical" where electrons revolve around a nucleus in an observable and measurable way is outdated since we know about Quantum physics. "The physical" as such does not exist. The idea of an atom and what exactly is "physical" or "material" is only that.. an idea and a false one. Proof: Heisenberg....

    From that point of view, your question is already bound to create problems (due to this problem)..and of course what you say that interaction in any way must mean the soul is physical. Are my thoughts "physical"? Would you deny that thoughts (which in a classic sense would be considered "non physical" are capable to interact with "the physical"? Things can interact with other things in various ways. Since the concepts of "physical" and "non physical" are obviously false, your problem has been solved anyway.


    >>
  • The soul must be capable of retaining information. In other words, it requires a memory.

    Religions teach that a soul will go to heaven or hell according to its behavioral transactions. What would be the point of that in the absence of any memory?
    >>

    Where's the problem? Of course the soul has "a memory". What religions "teach" is irrelevant. I don't believe in lies. The idea of a soul whose purpose is to retain a memory just to be judged or rewarded..is HIDEOUS


    >>
    If the soul is to survive in a meaningful manner, it must be that mind, or the entity that contains the properties of mind.
    >>

    Major problem here, the "soul" *IS* us, it is our "over-ego", it is what we are. Our physical is only a tiny aspect of our greater "over-ego", or soul. With physical death, of course the soul "survives", it's not the soul which dies, it's the body.


    >>
  • But wait a moment! The perfessers tell us that the brain is responsible for thought, that brain is the organ of mind. Do we have a contradiction here, or what?
    >>

    Neurology and even most advanced science can NOT explain how the brain functions. This is still a mystery and the idea of an "organ which produces the mind" is wrong. There is no evidence this is the case. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the soul is independent from the brain. The brain is a RECEIVER which allows our soul/over-ego to enter a physical body and live-out physicality. The brain is not "creating" our soul or consciousness, in the same way as a TV is not "creating"..a TV show or movie.
    What the brain does is to "harbor" our soul, during this existence. Not even THAT I would say is 100% accurate, whether our "over-ego/soul" really requires the brain is just speculation. It could as well "attach" to our physical body via other means and have it's place/origin somewhere else, not necessarily the brain. (See eastern philosophies, concepts like chakras etc.)

    >>
  • By interacting with the human brain, the soul gives some of us the power to think creatively, to invent things and devise ideas that a brain without soul could not do. The soul is what makes some humans what we like to think of when we use the word "human."
    >>


  • NRA,
    I won't argue much with you, since in a broad sense your statements agree with my theories. You have already reached many of my conclusions. (E.g. your HIDEOUS statement.) Remember, please, that what I am trying to do here is to present the essential contents of my book in bits and pieces. Many of your ideas are similar to those I've yet to present, but which appear in my book.

    I'd argue only with your misunderstanding of the word, "physical." You seem to regard it as synonymous with material, a common mistake made by those not educated in physics. Otherwise, we mostly agree. After tidying up your physics understanding we can iron out details. Good post! Thanks!



    posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:10 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Prezbo369
    reply to post by Greylorn
     


    Aah so this is just an exercise of your own personal imagination wherein you make the rules and you can change anything at any given time?

    What good can come from this? apart from sales of your 'book'?

    What you have presented is far from a theory (in this context), but is in fact a mere daydream.

    What a complete and utter waste of time........(I shouldve known better due to the lack of response to a criticism of your previous thread).



    Sorry about your disappointment, but not surprised. There is but one of me, dealing with a few dozen individuals posting to my threads, plus other interesting threads. I do not have the time to answer everyone.

    So what I try to do is reply to the most thoughtful and intelligent posts. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I often make the mistake of thinking/hoping that the person to whom I am responding is personally thoughtful and intelligent, as I did in your case.

    I keep a list of nitwits to whom I no longer waste time responding. Any response failure on my part (within 4-5 days) is because the poster has made it onto my S-list. I invite you to keep an S-list of your own, and place me atop it-- or at the bottom if you prefer.



    posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:42 AM
    link   
    Was that your admission that this along with all of your threads is just a flight of fancy, an exercise of your imagination?

    Nothing useful in any way can come from it, apart from the few sales of your book perhaps from the credulous ATS members (of which there are plenty).

    But you're well aware of this and react to criticism like any charlatan with insults and derision.

    There are many such posters here on these boards attempting to peddle their baseless imagination to the masses, and you are no different.

    And they too are of no use to anyone



    posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 09:15 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Greylorn
     


    The soul is made up of three distinguishable aspects; but operates as a unity of one.
    ESSENCE
    SPIRIT
    TAU

    THE SOUL IN MYSTICAL COSMOLOGY:
    Christianity: Father. Son. Holy Spirit.
    Yoga: Brahman. Vishnu. Shiva.
    Islam: The Lord of men. King of men. God of men.
    Theosophy: The Adept. The Goddesses. The Master.
    Buddhism: The Buddha. The Sangha. The Dharma.

    The three structures of the soul are represented in trinities across the entire spectrum of spiritual cosmologies. All these trinities are reflections of this inner world of the soul. The designation in Christian theology, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is, for example, not applicable to “God” but the soul. The trinity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva is not a trinity related to the deity per se, it is a Hindu doctrine that is not necessarily related to a transcendent God, only as a triad of action: creator, destroyer and preserver that is relative to the soul.

    In perfection, in which humans have lost, the soul operates as a perfect energy machine that outputs perfect perception and feeling free of suffering and negative energy.

    There are 32 states of consciousness within this soul trinity

    ALL the goal of spirituality is to regain the perfect soul in macrocosm and microcosm.

    Another fine point is that of these 3 elements of the soul it is the ESSENCE that has been corrupted.



    new topics
    top topics
     
    8
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join


    ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 11 minutes remaining).
    ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live - SE4 EP5

    atslive.com

    hi-def

    low-def