₦airaland Forum

Racoon:
Did you see me responding to the senselessness of the zombie?

It was cringeworthy.

jaephoenix:
Did it occur to you, pharmacological agents like hallucinogens can also make one to have 'personal experiences' which s/he can use to make topics on Nairaland and call them facts?

Sure. No one doubts that. However this does not mean that drugs or other chemical agents are responsible for every paranormal experience.

sapele914:
Who told you she was not aware? Mind you the honorable minister of finance is responsible for fiscal policy, whilst the CBN deals with monetary policy.

She said so on National Television, when the policy was announced, she said she heard of it on the news like everyone else.
Secondly, regardless of the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy, it is absurd that she would not be aware - that shows the depth of non-consultation of stakeholders - it also makes it evident that not even the Board of the CBN was carried along, because the Ministry of Finance is on that Board.

DeLaRue:
You people just don't understand.

Even if the Supreme Court made a mistake, only the Supreme court can reverse itself.

No other court in the land, no government official or institution, or the President can override the Supreme court's judicial pronouncements.

But we are close in the country to becoming a lawless state.

How else can one explain a CBN saying a Supreme Court order does not affect it because it was not joined in a suit in which the Federal government was ordered to maintain a status quo

1. How can one explain a CBN Governor joining a political party and campaigning for the office of president?
2. How can one explain a change of currency policy which the Minister of Finance of a country is completely unaware of?

You see, Nigeria is the greatest country in the world. It makes magic and miracles possible every day.

LordReed:
The part where you ignored the bolded. LMFAO!

I have not ignored it at all! Rather the whole statement shows that even if you point out, for example as you did, that we are using a common language, we still do not have the same experience!

As it says - we all live in different worlds!

LordReed:
I am laughing at you telling me that subjectivity of experience means we have no common experience while reading and understanding the words I am typing. That my good sir is the terminus for me. LMFAO!

Does it miss you that we have even different perspectives on what you have written? Does it miss you that I am reading this from the top of a tree while you are writing it from the top of a mountain?

Look, the fact that we can communicate through common denominators does not translate to common experience especially when we are speaking about something as nuanced as the matter of the inner being - the soul!

If you revert to the post of yours which originated this question of common experience you will see that there is no cause for you to laugh. The sort of common experience you are looking for is simply misplaced. Because I mentioned that I have unique paranormal experiences I cannot relate and it would be useless to do so. You then said, no, there must be something common since we all are said to have souls. And I say no, each soul's experience is of course unique.

This is not the sort of thing you can compare with mere common denominators such as a written language or traffic signs on a road. You have to agree its far more subjective.

LordReed:
LMAO! It's OK, I think I'll get off the ride here.

The subjectivity of experience is elementary - and you are here laughing at it?

Subjective character of experience implies that the perception of all things, concepts, and "truths" in the universe differs between individuals: we all live in different worlds, each of which may have things in common, because of our unique perspectives on our worlds. The only thing to which one can hold oneself is something one has experienced or perceived. Until someone has had an experience of something the object or concept within itself is not "real." Someone in Africa is aware of the existence of fire and sees it but for an Inuit who has never seen fire before the fire does not exist in the same way. The idea of the subjectivity of one's "reality" also hints at an aspect of moral relativism, that each person's opinions are the only things they can hold themselves to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_character_of_experience#:~:text=Subjective

Is the above what you are laughing at ? ? ? ? ? ?

LordReed:
LMAO! It's OK, I think I'll get off the ride here.

I just don't understand what you are laughing at here. Do you mean to tell me you don't understand the subjectivity of experience?

LordReed:
What I want to know is what you mean by intertwined. How can taking a drug make you lose control of your body when there some independent aspect of you in control? How can sensory deprivation cause effects that soul cannot bypass? I am assuming you believe the will is housed in the soul so why does it get overridden by the body under the influence of chemicals and other external inputs (or lack thereof)?

I really don't know what else to say other than that everything is intertwined. The soul is not a material thing, and it requires the body to act in the world of matter. Material factors can inhibit the functions of the body and to that extent limit the access the soul has to the world of matter and even how it can act therein. One can go on to describe many other such necessary results of the interconnection, but its as simple as that really. Everything affects everything else and thus there is no point seeking to isolate one thing and query why it should be "overridden" by another thing. Everything has an effect on everything else.

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! This is very amusing. You are reading the English words I am typing out and understanding them yet you say we have no common experience. This has to be a massive joke. LMFAO!

It is not a joke. It is perfectly serious. Each experience is unique to the experiencer.

Let us take an example. You and I are sitting at a theatre watching the exact same movie at the exact same time.
You tell me - is it the same experience?

Another example. You and I observe a murder scene.
You tell me - is it the same experience?

Yet another example. You and I eat the same Tobblerone White Chocolate.
You tell me - Is it the same experience?

LordReed:
This is the problem. You assert that you and I have something in common, souls, therefore there must be a way for us to both experience the same thing. You can't say you have a unique experience that I don't have and attribute it to souls, it doesn't cut it. If as you assert we all have souls then there must be a common denominator experience or whatever that we cal use to arrive at the same conclusion.

I am sorry my friend, don't be mistaken: we have no common experience whatsoever! All experience is unique!

LordReed:
@DeepSight

I dunno if I have asked you this before but have at it if I haven't: why does sensory deprivation lead to psychological effects? How does having a soul explain this phenomenon?

Everything is intertwined, so I dont see the problem here. This is natural. This is the same way taking a certain drug can alter your mood or even temperament or even make you see things. Dopamine & Seratonin for example, are neurotransmitters that affect your state of mind. A deprived body would necessarily lack the physical energies required to hold the ghost within, and that ghost will bolt if a minimum threshold is not sustained.

LordReed:
But you seem to treat your personal perception as fact!

To a certain degree, this is unavoidable for virtually everyone everywhere.

If you see something, you experience something, you believe it, it is a fact for you. Someone else can ask you for evidence, and you simply cant provide same. Thus it is not a fact for that person, but it will always be a fact for you.

In this way, I have deliberately refrained from bringing up again many of the things that make me know for a fact that the soul is real. These include various paranormal experiences, relating which, would be useless to anyone who didnt experience same himself.

This is a good juncture for me to say something important to those who keep saying "provide your evidence" - as though this is a matter of science. It is not a matter of science. Science deals with the physical, the observable. This matter is beyond science. Asking one to "provide evidence" is much like asking a person to provide evidence that he dreamt about exactly what he said he dreamt about last night. The subject is simply not suited to the misplaced shouts to "provide evidence." Indeed anyone shouting this must have badly misconceived the subject altogether. It is not a Physics class.

This does not mean that I do not believe that there is indeed much evidence, in addition to that which may be sensibly inferred both logically and experientially.

LordReed:
Then how do you distinguish what is what? What are the soul's properties and functions?

I can only render my personal perception in this regard and this is not evidence of anything to anyone. My perception is that the soul is the real inner being, the root personality that is you. Your mind is that property interwoven twixt your body and soul which enables your apprehension of the world, or your consciousness therein. It will house your day consciousness, your memories, thoughts et al. Your body, is, of course, your body, and is energized by your soul.

peepydelano:
Men wey sabi. You can’t help but love baba Buhari

You can say this even at this horrible and dangerous time in this country? With the cash and fuel scarcity that is almost leading this country to implosion? Are you cursed or something?

LordReed:
So you agree the mind and body are interwoven? If that is the case where does the soul come in? What it is functions? How is it independent from the body?

No one has ever denied that the mind, body and soul are interwoven.

LordReed:
I noticed you didn't answer this question: What do you think accounts for the kind of trauma people undergo from losing bodily functions? Can you give an answer to it?

Well there is physical pain, loss of ability, limitation and probably also a sense of being hobbled in any respect. Why do you ask this. No one denies that the body is critical and that feelings are intermixed with its functions.

LordReed:
You are funny. How can you recognize self without the body? When you look in the mirror or an image of yourself do you say that's my body or do you say that is me? There is no self without body, mind can not exist without body. They are inextricably linked. One of the ways of testing cognition is if the individual can self recognise in a mirror. Can a soul recognise itself without the body?

Let me ask you a little question. Or rather, two little questions. They might seem strange, but bear with me.

1. In the absence of mirrors, do you believe men would lack self cognition.

2. In your dreams, do you ever see yourself? Think about this one carefully. I mean actually see a visual of yourself.

KnownUnknown:
Lazy!!! How dare you!!!
I am currently using Newton’s superseded theories of time to create a Bible Chronology like he did. Afterall, he was infallible.

This attempt at jocular sarcasm doesnt work.
I retire.

KnownUnknown:
Much verbosity but not much substance andof course no evidence. Just like intangible, spaceless, timeless, immaterial McMIckie who sits on my shoulder.

Plain simple laziness. Nothing else describes this.

LordReed:
You can't accuse me of absurdifying the discussion when you are the one who made the statement. It is up to you to clarify which you did so you can stop harping on that now.

Very well.

It's more than a tool, it's a part of the self.

I had to do a double take at this. No known proper understanding of the "self" will admit of this. The "self" is, in all serious schools, a deeper precept. Even within the psychology of the being, you have Freud's ID, Ego and Super Ego. And within that set up, only the ID is considered the real self. It is bizarre to me that you can describe a hand as part of the self. I can't relate with this kind of "self."

My hand has no autonomy apart from my own will

This statement is damning enough.

I never said people experience themselves as only body. People experience themselves as a mind and body unit not as a disembodied mind inhabiting a body

This is confusing and contradictory. A mind inhabiting a body cannot be said to be disembodied, can it?

jaephoenix:
Lol. I argue from a scientific standpoint. You argue from,… well… not even personal, but from a cretarded standpoint.
Science deals in evidence. You or your cohorts haven't dropped a shred of evidence here

Hahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
This is truly comic!

jaephoenix:
… and I have seen nothing in your response to further consider any inputs to your cretarded topic

1. It is not my topic. Not surprising that that would miss you. Just shows up what I already guessed - that you do not read.

2. You never made any input not to speak of "further" consideration of inputs.

3. Believe you me, you will not be missed.

Scamper along, little mouse. Go look for a school. You need one.

Badly.

LordReed:
Well if you see absurdity then maybe you should address it because it's coming directly from what you said. You said: Mere matter is dead. You provided no distinction.

So do you seriously propose, in line with the Chucky example, that you would consider it legitimate to inquire why computer software cannot function on a bare piece of wood or plastic? Seriously?

I did plead with you not to absurdify the discussion because that is very discouraging in terms of continuing the discourse.

Still don't understand what you mean. If I slap you across the face with my hand would you say it was my hand that slapped you or I who slapped you?

Of course you have slapped me using your hand. And I have said repeatedly that that hand is a tool. And is it not?

Not sure how this addresses what I asked. Why do you think we would only experience ourselves as brains only if souls didn't exist? Brains can't even feel themselves so I puzzled why you said "Not even as a brain, no."

Good. No so this again underscores the point that no one experiences themselves as a body. People experience themselves as an intangible person with a body.

Not seeing the distinction. Body is part of identity. If your hand was amputated would you not consider that you have lost part of yourself?

I would consider that I have lost part of my body.

KnownUnknown:
A soul is the intersection and interface of the terrestrial with the intangible sublime thereby giving rise to consciousness. The Heisenberg model of consciousness and the almost complete Standard Modelof the universe predict that the frequency of the wave is the dimensionless number 1/137 and the weight of the particle is also the dimensionless number 1/137. The collapse of the wave particle duality gives rise to the soul. Physicist Richard Feynman, who knew a thing or two about it, called it “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding.

This is just childish mockery and it is a frank waste of time.

See, I can write pseudo-profound bullshit that is even more impressive than A001’s and also supported by quantum woo woo. I even included a quote from an authority in physics to burnish the nonsense.

A001 put forward something worthy of thought - particles/waves and I might also recalibrate the issue into matter and energy or even further on, into hardware and software. None of this is nonsense sire. It is all worthy of consideration and thought. Lightly dismissing a thing with a wave of the hand without pointing out why it should be dismissed and then proceeding to claim that its just words is just lazy and even unworthy.

A proper response, for a serious a discussant will go along the lines of stating exactly what is wrong with the analogy he made rather than putting up the insulting gibberish you have just written up there and claiming that "anyone can write such" - to paraphrase you.

When you say "hook, line..." you are just wasting your time. I have posted actively on this forum for 14 years and have interrogated ideas of too many complexions to give any moment to such a silly accusation. You can repeat that a zillion times, it simply can't stick.

What “serious thought”? Serious thought would be going beyond silly superstitions and antiquated beliefs that have been shown to be the musings of people who did not understand the world as we do. They did the best with the information they had at the time, but that doesn’t mean we should hold on to the dregs of their knowledge.

Knowledge builds upon knowledge - even, and I dare say particularly, with the proper and logical rebuttal of previous assumptions.

You said it’s an ancient belief. So what? Did the antiquity of the Hebrew juju (it rhymes lol and it’s my new name for abrahamic nonsense. Juju from the French “Jou Jou” meaning plaything. If this Europeans can reduce other people’s beliefs to “plaything”, I’ll gladly refer to theirs and that repulsive jew shit as juju) stop you from discarding it? Did antiquity stop you from discarding indigenous gods and beliefs?

Perhaps you miss the significance of my reference to antiquity. You see, I think you jump too fast. You are the one, in one of your earliest interventions in this discussion, who attempted to make a mockery of the idea of the soul by rereferring to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. If you are honest, you will admit that this was an attempt to make the very concept of a soul appear something queer, fringe and even laughable. This is the specific context in which I referred to the antiquity of the concept of a soul. And yes, there is a place for ancient ideas in studying these matters. Because the truth is that certain things come to mankind from time immemorial as a matter of genuine intuition and it would be both thoughtless and shallow to lightly dismiss them.

As I said, even in the development of further (and better) knowledge, that which has gone under the bridge is helpful because it serves well to rebut such in coming to a deeper understanding. In this way, Newtonian physics has given way to Quantum physics, but I sincerely cannot imagine what serious thinker would have dismissed the thoughts of Isaac Newton (and his cardinal importance in the development of physics) on such a light note as you do. I would never take such a person seriously and frankly, no serious person would. In fact, let me go further to tell you that if you were a serious thinker, you would not dismiss even myth and legend so lightly and so quickly - and certainly not without some level of reflection - because even in absolute fairy tales and folklore often rests many nuggets of truth being described in a non-literal way.

I think there has to come a time when you start being intellectually honest with yourself and also begin to see that you might just be a very intolerant person - and nothing can be worse than being intolerant of philosophical thought. Because the truth again is that if anyone came up and made a simple declaration such as "only the physical exists" - I see you taking such a shallow and self evidently false position seriously. I am certain, and I could bet my left testicle that you would never mock such a position. Whereas if anyone asserts the contrary - that there are intangible aspects to our reality - a thing which is undeniable and provable - you immediately mock and laugh and call such "bullchit" - to be frank, I find your position comical.

The complexity of the question of consciousness is so profound that it is a wonder that anyone could laugh at the idea that there is an intangible aspect to it - as I have said repeatedly - even if they disagree with it. Such a person just comes across as shallow and lacking in thought.

I truly don't think you are serious yet.

jaephoenix:
That is the summary of all: Your personal conviction, without a shred of evidence

Of course. Just as surely as yours are yours. Goodnight.

Maynman:
An atheist is someone that doesn’t believe in a deity or deities.
An atheist can be anything he wishes outside of that.

You conjoining words together doesn’t make you smart.

I struggle to see any claim on my part to being "smart."

jaephoenix:
What is the mind?

I have seen nothing in your posts to deserve serious consideration.
You can make up you mind as to what the mind is.

KnownUnknown:
Hook, line…….

I think at this point you have devoted yourself to mockery of serious thought. That is your affair.

A001:
I don't know that. But I know the souls of humans have frequencies that lie within a certain range with upper and lower limits sufficiently out of the scope of the human eye and perception.

People operate at certain wavelengths, which can become manifest when two or more people agree on some issues.

I know that the soul exists because I've had many travels in my astral or soul body (known as spirit) where the soul floated out of the body.

That's a personal experience (lucid dreams involving flights) I've had countless number of times over the years, which occurred naturally without using any substance like psychedelic or entheogen.

That's from my personal experience.

Then based on my research which I engage in as a pedagogical effort to understand the soul, I know the soul exists as a wave because every matter has a wave aspect and a particle aspect via the wave-particle duality.

In the case of living things, this wave aspect is called the soul.

Well, you might not like that term anyway, but you can't deny the fact that every matter can behave as a wave sometimes and as a particle some other times.

Unless you understand what consciousness is deeply, you shouldn't say with certainty that the soul doesn't exist.

That the soul exists doesn't mean all the things said about it in various religious texts are true as many of them are based on superstition.

To understand reality deeply, one needs to be able to see things in terms of waves, energy, and frequency.

The atheist still needs to understand that there are still tons of mysteries in nature that scientists don't know yet before he makes certain claims with certainty.

Brilliant again.

Workch -

PS: In this sort of discussion there are also problems describing the mind as "an ability". . . . it is a thing of itself, and not a "capacity" anymore than an ability to walk is what you would describe your legs as. Your legs exist even if you become paralyzed.