charon » January 30th, 2019, 5:54 pm
(Brent)In speaking of a soul we have to negate the body, to say we did not exist once is merely to say we do not remember existing beyond the programming of this physical machine as the soul has come to reside in it presently
You're assuming a great deal here. You're right that it's 'merely to say we do not remember existing beyond the programming of this physical machine'. But when you talk of the soul, that may be unproven.[/quote]
We are all assuming since the very subject here is soul, those pro as well as those against. To speak of the soul is to speak of consciousness itself, and if that consciousness support "identity" beyond this physical existence. The claim by some (generically) that a lack of proof automatically denies its existence is oxymoronic, so lets consider the problem.
If you want to prove water exist in a room, you look for a puddle, stick your hand in it (feel it), perhaps taste it. All this information is received through the physical senses, if you want to prove humidity exists in the room you need a finer set of detectors, yet such realities and their proof is coming from outside the senses.
The soul, if it exists, does so behind the senses, it is made up of consciousness itself, it is the "observer", the invisible one who stands behind the senses, so proof cannot be found on a scale, by refraction, or mathematical inference. The soul, the "identity" which made up of consciousness, can only be measured by consciousness.
Ok, so some continue that our conscious identity is merely a result of chemical and neurological processes in the body, the problem with this is that Einstein's relativity and quantum physics has been ripping this away for nearly a century as consciousness is now beginning to be recognized as if it is a wave dimension of its own. If the universe is set in a block, including the dimension of time, then it is only consciousness as a living principle that is moving. The universe does not change but rather we experience change as consciousness moves ACROSS time just as we move across space and encounter different vistas.
So we have consciousness like an ocean, like a quantum wave throughout the universe and time, and somewhere within the ocean there appears a mirror, like steam condensing into a droplet, like the gaseous clouds in space condense into stars, consciousness condenses into the "identity" of a self. But is that "self", the gravity well, a
product of the physical body, or does the architecture and complexity of the brain simply allow such a gravity well of consciousness to interact, like DOS beneath Windows.
I might pose the question here, does a random collection of matter produce gravity, or perhaps does a spinning vortex produce smaller vortexes into which matter accumulates to form planets. In my understanding of the universe, matter itself is inert in that it does not produce anything, weight, volume, etc... are external EFFECTS and the universe is produces by vibration through geometry. In short, what is seen is a product of what is unseen. So the idea that physical body, which even nuerologicolly is still chemical, can
produce that which is of greater subtly and dimension, whether I speak of consciousness, or that "self" that has condenses within it.
But perhaps I assume too much.
That is the mystery of consciousness, not the soul. The soul is a religious belief which may, or may not, have reality.
The "soul" is simply the "self" as the one who contemplates, with or without any religious affiliations, the Id and the Ego, I am not sure how we can separate the "self" as a mystery of consciousness from the soul which has the same definition. In Hebrew the soul is Nephesh, and is used interchangeably often with "life" as it speaks of the "living force" within one. In Greek it is Pnuema
"" pneu·maDictionary result for pneuma
/ˈn(y)o͞omə/Submit
nounPHILOSOPHY
noun: pneuma; plural noun: pneumas
(in Stoic thought) the vital spirit, soul, or creative force of a person.
Origin
Greek, literally ‘that which is breathed or blown’.""
The word "soul" might take on some ideological concept through religious doctrine, but the word itself is generic.
(Brent) this is also true of animals
No, we cannot say what goes on in a dog's mind. It undoubtedly has consciousness because it has memory, is responsive, etc, but whether it
knows that it knows is highly questionable. In fact, no one has any idea.[/quote]
Since I am a being, conscious even as I am made of consciousness, and supposedly a little bit superior to a dog's, then I have the instrumentation within my mind to contemplate and decipher what limits a dog might possess. Like any other "proof", one determines such by the effects, to say no one has any idea what goes on in a dog's mind is a cop out, when I hold a biscuit in front of my dog I know exactly what she is thinking. Consciousness is consciousness, a dog does not think Differently, just simply limited to the capacity I can. In short, I can think everything a dog can, but he or she cannot think everything I can.
I'm glad you said 'theologically'. Theologically is not fact, much less proven fact. It's merely a belief.
Everything is "belief", but I suppose you believe differently.
(Brent) But with man each man would possess his own soul, his own sense of self, his own mirror. Consciousness provides the light, in this light the self is illuminated, and the "self" is the acknowledgement of our own individual "I am".
You're quoting something.[/quote]
No, but for reference, to the eyes, the flower does not exist until the light illuminates it. In consciousness the self does not exist, unless it is first illuminated, and I cannot determine how the chemical reactions within the physical body can illuminate the much subtler form of the self as it is made of consciousness.
I see no use to move back to the subject of Infinity, diluting everything is not truly a thoughtful response. I have no more weight of proof than you do of disproof, so we have both given our opinions.