I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby davidm on February 2nd, 2019, 1:30 pm 

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
charon liked this post


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 2nd, 2019, 1:37 pm 

David -

The evidence suggests it is flat -- infinite -- but there is nothing conceptually incoherent about a finite but unbounded universe.


Okay, but I'm bound to ask, if there's no evidence for finite/unbounded and evidence to the contrary, why are we bothering with it?

Einstein


Ah, well, he had a habit of being right. Mind you, your link did the disc explanation so it looks like we're back to square one.

However, the link's explanation by someone else refers to a 2D disc in 3D space. The unbounded stuff presumably refers to walking around on the disc. What about the 3D space? Where did that come from?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby davidm on February 2nd, 2019, 1:43 pm 

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
charon liked this post


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 2nd, 2019, 2:05 pm 

I have to do other things at the moment but I've looked briefly at the Einstein link. There's constant reference to the sphere idea, which is fine, but it seems everything is being related to the people living on it. Agreed, from their point of view there's no limit. For them, their world is an unbounded fact whilst remaining on a finite surface.

But is that the universe in the sense of 'everything'? I'd maintain that not only do we not know everything but that it might never be possible to know everything.

I'm also quite sure there's more to existence than the tangible. Otherwise we're not much better off than those who thought the sun moved round the earth simply because it seemed that way.

Now I will be absent for some time :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 3rd, 2019, 2:19 pm 

They've vanished, presumably fallen off the edge of the flat universe :-)

And, of course, it's well known that we only understand about 4% of the universe anyway. Or think we do.

Anyway, getting back to the immortal soul, science, naturally, will have no truck with that idea. Look where they may there's not a soul in sight...

Or one could say the word only means a person, as in '50 souls were lost at sea'.

The various main religions of the world and many prominent philosophers, ancient and modern, maintain that there is certainly a soul and that all living things have one, or are part of one. And presumably not all of these people were blind fools. There are also many scientists who hold traditional religious beliefs and who, presumably by default, believe in the soul.

So either they are right and science ignorant or vice versa. Which is strange.

The one exception to all this is Buddhism. They don't deny the psyche may survive death but they do deny the existence of anything permanent in a person. So any attributes which may transcend physical death are not in themselves everlasting.

So it's all a bit of a mish-mash, isn't it? :-)
Last edited by charon on February 3rd, 2019, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 3rd, 2019, 6:17 pm 

charon » February 3rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

Anyway, getting back to the immortal soul, science, naturally, will have no truck with that idea. Look where they may there's not a soul in sight...


The Origin for the English word "soul" is the same word for "breath". As such it refers to our very Being. We possess our soul in the same way we possess our life, so you would be correct to say "50 souls lost at sea" as there are now 50 less "persons" existing in this physical sphere of existence. I say this just to clarify the word, in the same context I would say "I am Brent", "I am a living Being", or "I exist", so it is that I am a soul.

A rock is never said to posses a soul, it is not a person, and what is a person above all else, it is a self-aware Identity. Hence it can be said dogs (animals) are part of a soul, as they know themselves to be dogs, driven by what we might refer to as natural instincts, but a human being might possess their own soul as they can reflect upon their individual identity. As you have rehearsed the beliefs of varying religions, such could be their guidelines, at least originally with their founders.

Now you and I possess our each "I am", as our memories begin at birth, this "I am" tends to identify with our physical existence, thus I am Brent. But is this "I am" an effect of the body, or does it exist on a superior plane, one of consciousness. So does consciousness exist separate from the physical matter of the universe.

What if we ask, "does matter/chemistry create consciousness, or has consciousness created matter?"
Which is superior?
Or perhaps, "Does matter create the universal constants, or do the universal constants create matter?"

Ultimately "information" drives the phenomenal universe, matter, gravity, etc..., so there is a superior and an inferior coordination to the universe, so to do I draw a line between consciousness and my physical body, as have the mystics of old.

Can we logically assume that consciousness exists independent of the material substance of the universe, just as information does???? And is it possible my individualism does as well?



Or one could say the word only means a person, as in '50 souls were lost at sea'.

The various main religions of the world and many prominent philosophers, ancient and modern, maintain that there is certainly a soul and that all living things have one, or are part of one. And presumably not all of these people were blind fools. There are also many scientists who hold traditional religious beliefs and who, presumably by default, believe in the soul.

charon » February 3rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

The one exception to all this is Buddhism. They don't deny the psyche may survive death but they do deny the existence of anything permanent in a person. So any attributes which may transcend physical death are not in themselves everlasting.


One might see that Siddartha, the Buddha, sought to pull people away from all the imaginative blind worship of the many gods of India, ideally focusing on teaching people NOT what to think, but HOW to think. Zen as maintained this more purely as Buddhism in its religious form, has fallen back into the variegated structures presented in the Vedic literature.

In teaching people HOW to think, there is a strong emphasis to break the mind from its PRE-conceptions. Such preconceptions are illusions, including the one of self as it is attached and identifies with the physical existence. The first step in spiritual awakening is the realization that I am a soul, independent of my physical existence, so yes, we must put to death, as it were, this present identity we hold as we have been conditioned in our self awareness by this life. This can be confusing in Buddhism as there is a death to self, but only to recognize a higher self, and not the Pop New Age kind. "Inner self" or that which is consciousness itself would be more apt.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 3rd, 2019, 7:55 pm 

Brent -

The Origin for the English word "soul" is the same word for "breath".


Sorry, no.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/soul#etymonline_v_23918

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul

You're confusing it with 'life'. And then only from the 13th century.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/breath# ... ne_v_17083

A rock is never said to posses a soul


I don't know about soul but there is strong body of thought that would say rocks, and not only rocks, have consciousness.

Hence it can be said dogs (animals) are part of a soul, as they know themselves to be dogs


Do they know themselves to be dogs? I doubt it. How do we know? But they may have a group consciousness. They've done experiments with other animals where, in teaching something to one group, another group suddenly knew the answer too, implying non-physical transference between them.

Also, it's well known that animals display what may be called a psychic ability.

you and I possess our each "I am"


I doubt that, I think it is learned. The idea of 'I am' doesn't exist unless one thinks about it. There's awareness of the physical body but even that comes and goes. One can easily forget all about the body in certain circumstances. Similarly, the 'I' doesn't exist except in thought. If we never thought 'I' or 'me' it wouldn't exist.

Can we logically assume that consciousness exists independent of the material substance of the universe


We can't assume anything.

And is it possible my individualism does as well?


What individualism? We have separate bodies but that doesn't make us individuals. Psychologically, at the human level, we are the same as each other. If you go to a psychologist he doesn't have to begin again. You're human, you have human psychology.

Such preconceptions are illusions, including the one of self


Absolutely - see points above. Especially individualism. If there's no self except in thought where is individuality? And where is the immortal soul?

I think we're fundamentally selfish and it's selfishness that invents the soul because it grants us a way out of death, of which we're frightened. If there were no death at all, and therefore no fear of it, we wouldn't bother with soul because it would become redundant.

"Inner self" or that which is consciousness


But that consciousness is universal; it's human, not individual.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 3rd, 2019, 10:25 pm 

charon » February 3rd, 2019, 7:55 pm

Sorry, no.


Nephesh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‬ is literally “soul”, although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] A view is that nephesh relates to sentient being without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh.

Spirit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology
The word "spirit" came into Middle English via Old French. The distinction between soul and spirit also developed in the Abrahamic religions: Arabic nafs (نفس) opposite rūħ (روح); Hebrew neshama (נְשָׁמָה‬ nəšâmâh) or nephesh נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬ nép̄eš (in Hebrew neshama comes from the root NŠM or "breath") opposite ruach (רוּחַ‬ rúaħ). (Note, however, that in Semitic just as in Indo-European, this dichotomy has not always been as neat historically as it has come to be taken over a long period of development: Both נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬ (root נפשׁ‬) and רוּחַ‬ (root רוח‬), as well as cognate words in various Semitic languages, including Arabic, also preserve meanings involving misc. air phenomena: "breath", "wind", and even "odour")


Even in Greek it is the word "Pneuma" as in pneumatic, perhaps this is what Vat referred to as you do not bother with the rigor of taking a moment to research. By the time you get the word to Latin and beyond as in the 13th century you find definitions that are not pure but rather influenced by doctrine.

charon » February 3rd, 2019, 7:55 pm

I don't know about soul but there is strong body of thought that would say rocks, and not only rocks, have consciousness.


charon » February 3rd, 2019, 7:55 pm

Do they know themselves to be dogs? I doubt it. How do we know?.............Also, it's well known that animals display what may be called a psychic ability.


(Brent) you and I possess our each "I am"

(Charon) I doubt that, I think it is learned. The idea of 'I am' doesn't exist unless one thinks about it. There's awareness of the physical body but even that comes and goes. One can easily forget all about the body in certain circumstances. Similarly, the 'I' doesn't exist except in thought. If we never thought 'I' or 'me' it wouldn't exist.


(Brent) Can we logically assume that consciousness exists independent of the material substance of the universe

(Charon) We can't assume anything.


(Brent) And is it possible my individualism does as well?

(Charon) What individualism? We have separate bodies but that doesn't make us individuals.


I am sorry, for the most part I can find nothing except your need to be contrary, furthermore your views on Buddhism seem to come from a very New Age perspective or contemporary books ABOUT Buddhism rather than a true study of the discipline and to correct you further would be off topic.

I get it, you think we are animals, selfishly driven, lacking any individuality, and since there is no you and no me, I find no use having a conversation with myself, I think we are done.

Rocks? Really?
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 4th, 2019, 7:41 am 

Brent (whether you're here or not - and you will be, I know that) -

I find no use having a conversation with myself


Quite right. That's what I thought you were doing before.

Yes, it started with the Greek word psyche (breath) which was a translation of the Hebrew Nephesh. But Nephesh meant several things, not just soul: self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion.

The English word 'soul' (which is what you asked) didn't come from that, it came from words pertaining to the sea. That's in the links I gave and also in Wiki.

But all this is beside the point; it's merely a distraction. We're not discussing the history of the word but asking about the reality of such a thing. The word soul, at least these days, means something spiritual, the part of a person that is eternal and survives death, hence 'immortal soul'.

But that's been answered. Science can't find one. Other than that it's a theory and a theory is neither here nor there.

So I'm suggesting that we - it doesn't have to be you - discuss consciousness. In any case you spent some time in your first post equating soul with consciousness so I don't see the problem.

Up to you, it's not my problem really.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby TheVat on February 4th, 2019, 10:26 am 

Do they know themselves to be dogs? I doubt it. How do we know? But they may have a group consciousness. They've done experiments with other animals where, in teaching something to one group, another group suddenly knew the answer too, implying non-physical transference between them....



It's my impression this was debunked as a fabrication some time ago.

http://skepdic.com/monkey.html
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 4th, 2019, 10:28 am 

The one I thought of was with rats. I'll try to find it.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 4th, 2019, 12:20 pm 

charon » February 4th, 2019, 7:41 am

But all this is beside the point; it's merely a distraction. We're not discussing the history of the word but asking about the reality of such a thing. The word soul, at least these days, means something spiritual, the part of a person that is eternal and survives death, hence 'immortal soul'.


For clarification's sake, as you are misrepresenting what I have said, and I will again try to build a picture or context.

There is an Infinity of ONE, beside which nothing else can exist, hence Divine Being

Other than that lies an infinity of "Nothing", lets call this vast sea, an ocean of potentiality.

Every "THING" that we experience as existing from stars to ants arises from this sea of potentiality, if it helps you can imagine this as the layers of quantum waves from which particles arise.

The dimensions are also brought forth from this ocean, length, breadth, and time, and these dimensions ALLOW for the expression of multiplicity, in short "Things"

A rock is one physical thing, a tree another, but within the subtle layer of consciousness that is also part of this universe, just as planets have condensed from the material gases, so IDENTITIES have condensed within the cloud of consciousness, an "I am" over here and another over there. There multiplicity alone testifying to the fact that they are part and parcel of the sea of potentiality and not of the Infinite Oneness that lies beyond.

These points of condensations are souls, it might be said they exists from the beginning until the end, for this sea of potentiality might not always be being stimulation to bring forth what we see and experience as this universe, but they are NOT immortal. Existence DEPENDS upon the dimensions that are now manifest.

So, the soul, although superior to the physical, can far outlive it, when this sea of potentiality is not longer agitating, and all "things" dissolve back into the nothingness from which they have arisen, so there will be no time and space, no here and there, whereby condensation can happen.

Just because something is larger than what we are capable of measuring does not make it endless, and doctrines also of differing faith have made the mistake of applying immortality (endless existence) to the soul simply because it is said to survive the death of the body. Further they does not correctly understand the Oneness inherent in a true Infinity, something which manifest no limits, no edges, no "others".

And so according to the nature of INFINITY, which is often misunderstood as never-ending as opposed to a true timelessness, so the multitude of identities (souls) exist only so long as the universe with its inherent dimensional qualities, without which there is no CONTEXT to exist.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 4th, 2019, 12:44 pm 

TheVat » February 4th, 2019, 3:26 pm wrote:
Do they know themselves to be dogs? I doubt it. How do we know? But they may have a group consciousness. They've done experiments with other animals where, in teaching something to one group, another group suddenly knew the answer too, implying non-physical transference between them....



It's my impression this was debunked as a fabrication some time ago.

http://skepdic.com/monkey.html


Absolutely. I can't find the rat thing although Sheldrake's morphic resonance rings a bell. But I'm not sure that was it either. This was years ago so maybe the memory's playing tricks. I'm sure there was something about it though, we'll see.

I'll keep looking. You never know :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 4th, 2019, 1:37 pm 

Brent -

God almighty, where do you get this stuff from? I'm just a simple fellow!

I don't know if your post is your own private philosophy or you got it from somewhere else. I can also foresee myself going through it bit by bit and doing a lot of work, only for you to shut down if it's contradicted or denied.

I mean, there are an awful lot of assumptions and conclusions in there that aren't factual. I agree there's only one thing, which we might call 'everything'. There can obviously be only one 'everything' so I'll go with that.

However, it's a big jump from that to 'Divine Being'. Are you saying that this 'everything' is divine? What does that mean exactly? A lovely hot bath is divine!

Now you say there's also - as well as this 'everything' - an infinity of nothing. I'm sorry, but what does that mean? What is an infinity of nothing? Apparently you posit two infinities, one of everything, the other of nothing.

I'm not being difficult, it just doesn't make sense to me. It would require a lot more very clear explanation from my view anyway.

Then we're into souls and condensation, whatever that is, and you make definite statements about souls. I'm sorry but none of that is proven. Put it into simple everyday language; that would be easier to understand, wouldn't it?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 4th, 2019, 3:30 pm 

charon » February 4th, 2019, 1:37 pm

Brent -

God almighty, where do you get this stuff from? I'm just a simple fellow!

I don't know if your post is your own private philosophy or you got it from somewhere else.


Study and observation, on the theological side, ancient world scriptures as opposed to books ABOUT religion, this takes a mind trained to read symbolism and context, symbolism being its own language. Observation through science and generally the world around us.

charon » February 4th, 2019, 1:37 pm

Now you say there's also - as well as this 'everything' - an infinity of nothing. I'm sorry, but what does that mean? What is an infinity of nothing? Apparently you posit two infinities, one of everything, the other of nothing.


Let me just stick with the two infinities right now.

This can be understood mathematically by a zero and a 1, not "1 of" but 1 as in only 1. These are the only two symbolic concepts that can lend their attributes to an Infinity, boundless, endless, or how ever we would define what a true infinity would be.

Each is ultimately indivisible yet each infinity expressed different attributes. The 1 we can do nothing with, within that concept there is simply nothing else, it stands alone and exists as the absolute of Being, it IS simply what is. As it is indivisible, it is something "other" than what we experience in this universe, it is beyond our state of being so we can set it aside for a moment.

Looking at the infinity of zero, pure nothingness, from this we can see the rise of this universe. HOW, is reflected even in this universe. "Sound" has been the universal theological theme as regards the beginning of the universe throughout most every religion, so lets look at the context of sound as it arises from silence.

Within the narrow context of this "sense", silence appears as a universal, and infinite nothingness, APPEARS. Sound is produced by the compressing of that medium (air) and a sound arises. Each sound manifesting the same attributes of finitude, a beginning and an end. With vibration comes a "thing", a definable "thing", a measurable "thing". Likewise all "things" that make up this universe are inherently simply vibrations. This should not be hard to grasp as it is the bases for modern physics.

As silence appears as a nothingness and sound as a something, one arising from the other, the finite from an infinite, so this is mirrored across the board in all senses. Light and darkness, Heat and cold (lack of heat), even knowledge and ignorance, and most apparently in truth and lies. In our perception heat, light, sound, information appear as "things", and so we measure and define them. Ultimately infused with "being" as we see them as the realities despite their temporal nature.

But which is the true REALITY, the sound, which lasts only for a moment, or the silence which is pervasive and enduring, swallowing each sound that comes forth to interrupt it. Our minds are conditions not to see REALITY but rather only that which obstructs reality, we don't devalue the silence while placing all value on the sound, men claim "the sound is real, and this is reality all around us, we can measure it and define it and so it is real".

Now I know there is no absolute silence in this universe, no absolute darkness, at the level of the quantum field there is always some vibration, some heat and light, so there is no need to argue minutia, but this manifestation of "something verses nothing" WITHIN the universe, MIRROR the creation of the universe itself.

In my opinion.

So out of the sea of potentiality, out of the silence, finitude springs forth, heat, light, sound, and temporal existence. Yet even for all this potentiality to arise, this universe that appears as if it is something, so beyond this zero there must exist a true 1, "Something" must BE, before even that which appears to BE can exist.

One more note regarding reaching infinity, the contrast between what is (1) and what seems to be (0) can be seen in act of counting as regards multiplicity. Even if we count forever we would not reach an infinity, counting would go on endlessly but there would always be something uncounted, infinity and finitude cannot exist in the same realm of existence, if you have infinity there is completeness, but in a finite sphere, completeness is always unknown until every "thing" returns to the nothingness from which it arose.

Most people are concerned with the "things" of the universe, and so we are addressing "souls", or atoms, photons, or Kelvins as the case may be, I tend a little more outside the block. I cannot prove these higher realities of course, but I present my logic from the philosophical observations.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby TheVat on February 4th, 2019, 5:27 pm 

Charon, the rat network thing does sound like Rupert Sheldrake (who is an odd duck). And I don't dismiss some sort of rat frequency on which they all connect somehow (though it strikes me as low probability). The debunking of the 100th Monkey report doesn't constitute a discrediting of all possible forms of paranormal animal communication. My sense is that, at our present state of knowledge, there is a lack of evidence and of coherent hypotheses.

Brent, i truly don't know what you are talking about. You seem to have some sort of personal intuition about metaphysical questions of soul and divine entities that seems rather ineffable and outside philosophical discourse. In that way, it seems derived from leaps of faith that might be more at home in the Religion forum.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 4th, 2019, 8:01 pm 

Vat -

I'd agree. Sheldrake was a friend of Bohm's, of course, and they both began to function outside the box. It probably was Sheldrake I was after.

I've no doubt animals do have their own subtle forms of communication and and owners usually say their pets can sense things before they happen, and so on. But I'd agree that scientifically it would have to be a lot clearer.

I won't answer Brent till we know what he's doing.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 5th, 2019, 12:10 am 

VAT,

I'm not sure what to say, here I am in the philosophy forum on a thread discussing the immortal soul and how that might relate to eternity/infinite reality, laying down a context for existence whereby the soul might exist, and further even drawing examples from realities which are apparent in this universe as foundations for that logic. After all, the subject of existence is clearly define as an exercise of philosopher.

We each have different minds, different styles of thinking, as a natural philosopher I tend to think deeply about subjects like "how is it we exist or anything for that matter". I am not sure how much scientific experiments on the psychic abilities of dogs and rats relates to the OP, or how much of a conclusion about consciousness one can draw from such experiments, but I would think your different style of thinking gravitates towards such kinds of experiments and such.

I am on subject with the OP, and speaking through the discipline of philosophy, not dogma or doctrine, this thread seems to be where I, if I exist, belong.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 8th, 2019, 7:58 am 

Brent -

As there's no word as to whether you're staying or going, I'm taking it that you're staying. Which, as it happens, I agree with. Your posts are philosophy and science as well as religion.

I'm not trying to be an administrator (I couldn't do it anyway and wouldn't want to) but, whereas it's true that we all have different styles, you may want to ask yourself why your posts tend to read like fundamentalist tracts. Don't say they don't , they do! And it's virtually impossible to have a discussion with a fundamentalist tract.

So now here's a short answer to your post.

Let me just stick with the two infinities right now.

This can be understood mathematically


Sorry, I don't want to understand life mathematically. You can prove 2+2=5 mathematically. And, as far as I can see, there aren't two infinities from where I'm standing, just the one.

If there is another one it's completely invisible - to all of us.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 8th, 2019, 12:29 pm 

charon » February 8th, 2019, 6:58 am

Brent -

As there's no word as to whether you're staying or going, I'm taking it that you're staying. Which, as it happens, I agree with. Your posts are philosophy and science as well as religion.

I'm not trying to be an administrator (I couldn't do it anyway and wouldn't want to) but, whereas it's true that we all have different styles, you may want to ask yourself why your posts tend to read like fundamentalist tracts. Don't say they don't , they do! And it's virtually impossible to have a discussion with a fundamentalist tract.


I will accept your perception, my perception would be you are generally a contrary, this is to say you seek to excel by diluting the other side of the debate, thus it is just as difficult to have a "profitable" conversation. Now that we understand each other......

charon » February 8th, 2019, 6:58 am

So now here's a short answer to your post.

(Brent)Let me just stick with the two infinities right now.

This can be understood mathematically


(Charon)Sorry, I don't want to understand life mathematically. You can prove 2+2=5 mathematically. And, as far as I can see, there aren't two infinities from where I'm standing, just the one.

If there is another one it's completely invisible - to all of us.


In science, as in communication, clear definitions are a must. If we are going to consider what an "Infinity" is, then it must be clearly understood by its attributes.

There has been the notion around of a flat universe, this I do not disagree with as all the information needed for our present dimensions can be contained there within. And it is speculated such a flat universe might be infinite in size.

The logical malfunction in this theory resides in the fact that an Infinity would be boundless, more distinctly "without any boundary whatsoever" in EVERY dimension. It would be as tall as it is wide as it were. Translated into the dimension of time it is not time that would simply continue forever but rather timelessness, always complete.

Any reality wherein could be found an infinity, furthermore, leaves room for nothing else, that include you and I much less the variegated multiplicity of "things" we find in this universe. The indivisible nature an attribute of an Infinity does not allow it to be made up of parts. We cannot say there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of me(s) and so forth as has been postulated anymore than you can reach infinity by counting, you will be forever counting and never reaching.

Infinity, or any true sense of one, is simply beyond what we know of this universe. So a hard line must be drawn between an Infinity, and what we see and experience as "existence" within this universe. We cannot understand how a soul, or any "thing" can exist until we understand how our existence is different than any context of infinity.

Now consider the universe we live in, it is defined by math, trying to dilute it by referencing mathematical tricks as it 2+2 could ever equal 5 is dishonest, without math as it describes and defines dimensions you have no geometry, no physics, and ultimately no universe or the existence of anything.

You and I both live by the CERTAINTY of math whether we are balancing our checkbooks or steering our cars so our turn does not go wide and we slam into a pole. But there is no math or dimensions to the infinite, in order for an infinity to exist you would have to melt all of math, time, space, geometry, distance, fractions, the very context of existence into a single point, One.

(note: understanding does not infer subservience of any kind, merely an acknowledgement of probable realities)
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 8th, 2019, 1:51 pm 

Brent -

my perception would be you are generally a contrary


What's wrong being a contrary? Are you suggesting that I agree with things I don't agree with? I don't do it for fun, I do it because I don't agree.

If we are going to consider what an "Infinity" is, then it must be clearly understood by its attributes


Finite means limited, therefore infinite means unlimited.

it is not time that would simply continue forever but rather timelessness, always complete


Absolutely. Timelessness is now, not a continuity in time. I agree, it's a common misunderstanding.

Any reality wherein could be found an infinity, furthermore, leaves room for nothing else, that include you and I much less the variegated multiplicity of "things" we find in this universe. The indivisible nature an attribute of an Infinity does not allow it to be made up of parts. We cannot say there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of me(s) and so forth as has been postulated anymore than you can reach infinity by counting, you will be forever counting and never reaching


Okay, I go with that.

Infinity, or any true sense of one, is simply beyond what we know of this universe


I'm not sure we do know. In fact, don't they claim it's finite? I think Einstein said that too. I wouldn't agree with it personally because I think maybe they've limited their concept of the universe. In short, I think it's our minds which are limited, as they are now.

what we see and experience as "existence" within this universe


Yes, our perceptions are necessarily limited since we are not all-knowing.

Now consider the universe we live in, it is defined by math, trying to dilute it by referencing mathematical tricks as it 2+2 could ever equal 5 is dishonest, without math as it describes and defines dimensions you have no geometry, no physics, and ultimately no universe or the existence of anything.


It's defined by some math. I don't think mathematics can grasp the real nature of existence. Can mathematics measure love or beauty? I'd say maths is limited in its scope.

You and I both live by the CERTAINTY of math whether we are balancing our checkbooks or steering our cars so our turn does not go wide and we slam into a pole. But there is no math or dimensions to the infinite, in order for an infinity to exist you would have to melt all of math, time, space, geometry, distance, fractions, the very context of existence into a single point, One.


Absolutely, that's what I'm saying too.

So where are we now?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 8th, 2019, 3:11 pm 

charon » February 8th, 2019, 12:51 pm

(Brent) Infinity, or any true sense of one, is simply beyond what we know of this universe


I'm not sure we do know. In fact, don't they claim it's finite? I think Einstein said that too. I wouldn't agree with it personally because I think maybe they've limited their concept of the universe. In short, I think it's our minds which are limited, as they are now.


Since "Relativity", which infers a Block universe where even time is a fixed dimension, a finite universe has been the standard, but attempts are made by some to integrate an infinity to it, so the debate goes on even as speculation abounds.

But even philosophically we can address the properties of a system, if everything we see in the universe is finite, every sub-atomic particle popping in and out of existence, then is it safe and logical to assume the whole system is finite. After all does not Like beget Like. A tree might by appearance look different than the wood fibers that make it up along with its other constituents, stars might look different from atoms, but at the factual reality as things are made from things, the whole cannot be greater than its parts.

(I grant a tree can have a "function" that none of the parts alone can accomplish, but function exists within a narrow band, its particular dimension as it were. This explanation would take us into "motive" as in "why the universe exists, that is beyond the scope of this discussion of "How".)

So the universe is comprised of "things", one of which we will call a "soul". As a tree is made of cellulose, chlorophyll, etc...and yet provides a "function" beyond any of its parts, then can we think of the soul as a function, something ATTAINED as it were, this would seem to negate the very definition of soul as "essence".

The "essence" of the physical body are the many atoms that make it up. But in regards to our consciousness, the soul is said to be the essence of our selves. But whereas the body is comprised of many "things", the soul is indivisible, it is one "thing".

In a sea of atomic particles the physical body is condensed into a single unit as it were, its identity being that of Brent, but in the ocean of consciousness, there is a condensation point, a gravity well in the vast expanse of consciousness, that becomes my "I", as I recognize my own "I", as I acknowledge my own existence, I think "I am".

So even if the soul is "One", it is still one "thing" among many, thus it bears the properties of finitude, if it were infinite in duration, it would have to be infinite in all dimensions such as space and then you would not exist nor anyone else and I would be God;)

So you can see how I explore the parameters of "Being",




charon » February 8th, 2019, 12:51 pm

(Brent) Now consider the universe we live in, it is defined by math, trying to dilute it by referencing mathematical tricks as it 2+2 could ever equal 5 is dishonest, without math as it describes and defines dimensions you have no geometry, no physics, and ultimately no universe or the existence of anything.


It's defined by some math. I don't think mathematics can grasp the real nature of existence. Can mathematics measure love or beauty? I'd say math is limited in its scope.


Love and beauty are subjective experiences, values which we CREATE in our minds, in truth a flower exists, it is neither beautiful or ugly, it simply IS, as we are talking about existence, namely as regards the soul, the qualities of good or evil need not apply. Math though can definitely help with the pure fact of existence.

charon » February 8th, 2019, 12:51 pm

So where are we now?


Finite universe, produces finite "things", in physicality the body, in consciousness the soul and Identity,

And so I experience myself as an ageless mind, trapped within an ever aging body.

And wondering perhaps just how separate and independent consciousness may be from the physical. Am "I" more than "function"
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby PaulN on February 8th, 2019, 4:45 pm 

... in order for an infinity to exist you would have to melt all of math, time, space, geometry, distance, fractions, the very context of existence into a single point, One.


Like several things you address in your posts, this seems to be an assertion unsupported by an argument that would have a foundation in math or physics, nor do I find the kind of logical analysis that philosophy requires.

Philosophy is not profound intuitions - rather, if someone has an intution, it is the job of philosophy to subject it to rigorous analysis and precise definitions and see how it fares.

Your postulate that a universe cannot be infinite because "like begets like," i.e. it can't be composed of finite elements (subatomic particles, for example) has no support at all. It seems to rely on a poetic association between prior assumptions. Nor do you really grapple with the thread problem - how does one demonstrate that a complex physical system like a neural network somehow have a nonphysical (i.e supernatural) aspect to it. Most of your posts are tangents and flights of personal fancy.
PaulN
 


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby Brent696 on February 8th, 2019, 5:57 pm 

PaulN » February 8th, 2019, 3:45 pm

...(Brent) in order for an infinity to exist you would have to melt all of math, time, space, geometry, distance, fractions, the very context of existence into a single point, One.


(Paul) Like several things you address in your posts, this seems to be an assertion unsupported by an argument that would have a foundation in math or physics, nor do I find the kind of logical analysis that philosophy requires.


"""""(Wiki) Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number. Philosophers have speculated about the nature of the infinite, for example Zeno of Elea, who proposed many paradoxes involving infinity, and Eudoxus of Cnidus, who used the idea of infinitely small quantities in his method of exhaustion. Modern mathematics uses the general concept of infinity in the solution of many practical and theoretical problems, such as in calculus and set theory, and the idea is also used in physics and the other sciences.

In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as either a natural or a real number.""""

I am speaking or reality, as in existence, not mathematical tools that exist only as potentialities.

PaulN » February 8th, 2019, 3:45 pm

Philosophy is not profound intuitions - rather, if someone has an intution, it is the job of philosophy to subject it to rigorous analysis and precise definitions and see how it fares.


"Intuition" refers to knowledge presumably acquired without the senses and generally relies on feelings. To observe something as a pattern, and make inferences from it is not intuition.

PaulN » February 8th, 2019, 3:45 pm

Your postulate that a universe cannot be infinite because "like begets like," i.e. it can't be composed of finite elements (subatomic particles, for example) has no support at all. It seems to rely on a poetic association between prior assumptions.


Case in point, life begets life, consciousness begets consciousness, apple trees apple trees, oranges oranges, if you have any examples of life or consciousness arising from anything other than that which is living and conscious, feel free to share. I find this principle universal, even obvious, if you desire to eat steak for dinner, you don't put bananas in the oven.

Mathematics, just as Physics, is the exploration of unseen realities based upon reliable patterns presents as phenomenon.

Even in the realm of what is called "creativity" it is impossible to create anything NEW, all we can do is create "Relationships" between "things" that already exist. When addressing the soul, it is not understood to be a composition but a single entity, therefore one must explore how does any "thing" exist, period.

But you may feel differently

PaulN » February 8th, 2019, 3:45 pm

Nor do you really grapple with the thread problem - how does one demonstrate that a complex physical system like a neural network somehow have a nonphysical (i.e supernatural) aspect to it.


Not recently and not in the post you are responding to and neither is that the sum of the OP.

But, think hardware, software, operator

PaulN » February 8th, 2019, 3:45 pm

Most of your posts are tangents and flights of personal fancy.


If that's the way you feel, then it is best not to respond, unless of course you actually have a positive argument or rebuttal instead of an intuitive exercise in degradation.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby ronjanec on February 8th, 2019, 7:17 pm 

If an immortal soul does in fact exist in the first place: my best guess is that it is a non physical spirit, non particulate, and probably not subject to any of the physical laws.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby DragonFly on February 8th, 2019, 7:45 pm 

The part of a human being regarded as immortal would be that of the Totality of the One Something that is the only Real Thing—that which transforms and ever changes in a continuous transition giving rise to transitory penultimate events such as humans, trees, worlds, and all; however, they all perish—the humans and all such temporary happenings; only the immortal One remains, with neither beginning nor end, coterminal with all goings on but not consubstantial with them. As much as the One changes, it remains the same.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby ronjanec on February 8th, 2019, 7:50 pm 

DragonFly » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 pm wrote:The part of a human being regarded as immortal would be that of the Totality of the One Something that is the only Real Thing—that which transforms and ever changes in a continuous transition giving rise to transitory penultimate events such as humans, trees, worlds, and all; however, they all perish—the humans and all such temporary happenings; only the immortal One remains, with neither beginning nor end, coterminal with all goings on but not consubstantial with them. As much as the One changes, it remains the same.


Nah. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby DragonFly on February 8th, 2019, 8:27 pm 

More accurately, the maybe-soul is implanted by the perhaps-God for possible-immortality in a could-be-Heaven.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby charon on February 8th, 2019, 8:29 pm 

Brent -

speculation abounds


That's what I think!

the properties of a system


Is 'everything' a system?

So the universe is comprised of "things"


Only things?

But whereas the body is comprised of many "things", the soul is indivisible, it is one "thing".


You're presupposing the soul again.

Love and beauty are subjective experiences, values which we CREATE in our minds


Are they? Is love a thing of the mind?

And wondering perhaps just how separate and independent consciousness may be from the physical


Don't wonder, find out!

(I see I'm going to have to edit this to keep it simple!)
Last edited by charon on February 8th, 2019, 8:53 pm, edited 5 times in total.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: I think I might know what the immortal soul is.

Postby ronjanec on February 8th, 2019, 8:38 pm 

DragonFly » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:27 pm wrote:More accurately, the maybe-soul is implanted by the perhaps-God for possible-immortality in a could-be-Heaven.


I hope so DF.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron