₦airaland Forum

Workch:
do you want to create another one that will suit your own opinion? Since you cannot provide evidence

My friend, your definition is but a sub-set of what mind is (even by the Google snapshot you sourced).

But more to the point, you need to understand that your definition should be contextual for this discussion: thus you should be speaking of what mind is at an existential level. By your simplistic definition a person who does not think (say an unconscious person, or a sleeping person) does not have a mind. And a person incapable of rationalization (say a re.tarded or otherwise mentally challenged person) also does not have a mind. Its not good enough to simply run to Google and vomit the first thing you see there into a nuanced and intricate discussion on a nuanced and difficult matter. This is why I said you are lazy, and this is why I said you are yet to pass Kindergarten questions.

The first quality of mind in this sort of existential discussion is more deeply related to sentience. The second extends to personality.

Workch:
the mind is the ability to think as a person. To rationalize things.

How does that relate to a soul?

This is one of the worst definitions I have ever seen in my life.

Workch:
do you have evidence for soul?

Why do you lots just argue endlessly on this space for what you do not have evidence for?

There is abundant evidence but if you can't face the the Kindergarten questions, sorry, you cant graduate to primary school.

Workch:
I don't have strength for long arguments, do you have evidence that souls exist. Please put it forward, don't ask me loaded questions

"Loaded questions?" Lazy man.

You see, this is just as expectedly lazy as those opponents of Intelligent Design who look everywhere in the world, and behold the most baffling and intricate spectacles, such as the super computer that is the human brain - and then declare - "there is no evidence for design anywhere! If you have the evidence, present it!"

Workch:
Definition of soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

Nope, there's no evidence that such phenomenon exist

Let's leave out the "immortal" aspect - because that is something which will remain well beyond knowability even if one were to agree that souls exist. Lets just consider the question: given the nature of the human being, and the nature of human experience -

1. Does it stand to reason to suggest that the functions of the human body work for the human body itself - and not for an experiencing being therein?
2. Does it not stand to reason to say that there indeed must be an intangible (non-physical) aspect to the human being?
3. And that such an aspect is the inward, or inner being or mind?
4. And thus that the experiential aspect of being human renders such a notion probable and plausible?

Let me ask you something simple and direct. Do you have an inner mind?
A place within you where ideas, thoughts, emotions, dreams and hopes form and dwell?

Let me just add that being an atheist does not mean that one must necessarily be a strict materialist - that is, one who says that only the physical exists. There are many thoughtful atheists who are not strict materialists.

A001:
Yes. Reality is multidimensional (not just four dimensional) existing in layers just like an onion has layers. The soul is the innermost layer or the core of a living being with the outermost layer (the body) a mere projection of the soul.

Applying the concept of wave-particle duality to a human (as an example of matter), the soul is a distinct kind of wave or radiation that vibrates at a specific range of frequencies in higher dimensions with the body (particle) its spatio-temporal (4D) component or projection.

The soul exists, but it's one of the vast amount of things that are filtered out by our sense organs from our perception. Thus, we're only aware of minute aspects out of the vast amount of information (data) in our surroundings.

Due to these natural limits, there are many waves (such as the soul), particles, and radiations in our immediate surroundings we can't see or hear.

Beautiful.
And when one considers the experiential aspect of our existence, it is baffling that anyone would laugh or mock the idea of the existence of a soul - even if they don't agree with it. They should at the minimum see that there is a serious question there to be dwelt upon.

LordReed:
You are very correct, soul should be able to possess a Chucky type doll. In fact soul should be able to possess any matter for that matter. (Pun intended) Based on your assertion that dead matter needs soul to live, why can't any matter suffice?

This is too funny for me to properly respond to. I can only say that the fact that one believes in the existence of a soul does not mean that one subscribes to voodoo or magic. I will also plead with you not to absurdify the discussion. Because there is nothing wrong in saying that there are certain requirements for a body which a soul can inhabit, just as surely as there are certain requirements for the sort of computer hardware that the software can operate in. You are virtually asking why computer software cannot operate on a bare piece of plastic or wood.

So souls have levels and what distinguishes these levels?

This is my personal perception. Just as the software which may be required to operate a small machine like a Gameboy will be different from that required to operate Deep Blue or a Space Mission. In the same way, the intangible software of an ant is unlikely to be of the same cadre as that of a man. Again, just my personal perception.

I don't understand what you mean by "We experience ourselves as a personality, as a personal being, and as a living and feeling mind." As far as I know we don't see ourselves as only disembodied minds, we see ourselves as both mind and body.

You dont see your hand, for example, as a part of your inner personality. It is a tool, and you know it.

And why would you think we would only experience ourselves as a brain if souls don't exist?

Frankly, I dont even think it is possible to conceive of one existing at all without the fundamental inner aspect of being.
Without that, everything physical would at once be meaningless.

As opposed to what? If you assumed there was no soul how would we address our bodies if not "my body"?

You would address it as "me" or "I".
But there is a sense of ownership over it by your inward mind, and thus you will see it as "yours" - - - you will address it as "my" body.

KnownUnknown:
Thetans emanate from the essence of existence that permeates all things.

Emis evolve out of the quintessence of being.

Lukas are derived from the eternal substrate of the whole.

Rashis are radiated from the Core that exudes life.

Buutkus is a natural phenomenon of the quiddity of reality.

https://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.

Perfect. Happy?

Look, mockery is easy. Serious engagement and interrogation is not.

PS: That question did not emanate from you, and I would not in a zillion years have addressed that answer to you. That answer was not an answer that discusses the topic here as a matter of fact.

Sadly, you begin to remind me of a poster years ago called Logicboy. Everything for him was mockery and derision. Unfortunately I am not able to engage at that level (even where the mocker is right). There was another one called Mudley who had a similar attitude.

You are a much more serious mind than either of those and it would be a pity to see you decide to reduce serious discourses to that level alone.
Enjoy.

jaephoenix:
So who created the souls(if it existed)?

Souls emanate from that primordial living substance which is at the root of reality.

LordReed:
I ask the question because you say dead matter needs some kind of indwelling before it lives, if that was the case then life wouldn't require the chemical functions, the so called soul should be able to power a body without them shouldn't it?

This is still weird. A body consists of chemical functions. Unless you are speaking of a rubber doll, what we are talking about by definition consists of chemical functions. So your question, via a loose analogy, sounds like asking if a man can drive a car that has no engine. By definition, cars have engines. This does not mean that men do not drive cars.

Save this, your suggestion would amount to suggesting that a soul should be able to power a rubber doll and bring it to life, abracadabra, without any chemical processes. My brother, with respect, what you would then be looking for is Chucky or Chucky's bride.

When we say that a soul indwells a body, there are existential, experiential, philosophical and scientific questions at play. We are not suggesting the sort of magic you allude to here whereat one seeks Chucky.

Also another corollary would be so do you think multicellular microscopic organisms have a soul or do you consider them as non living things?

Every living thing has some level of soul or the other however minute or differentiated in terms of specie.

I don't understand what you mean by "None of us experiences ourselves as a body". I've never heard anybody describe their experiences as something exclusively happening to their body but not to them unless the person was feeling some sort of detachment. Are you saying feeling a sense of detachment is what everybody feels normally?

No one experiences themselves as a body. We experience ourselves as a personality, as a personal being, and as a living and feeling mind. Not even as a brain, no.

Of course, we feel our body, but this is always a question of my body, or your body. You see that? - There is a sense of ownership. It is a thing that we experience ownership of. It is quite external to our sense of personality and personhood.

BTW I think we have discussed this before, there is no "physical seat of consciousness" its an irrelevant question once you understand that consciousness is an emergent property that is based largely about the brain but is an amalgation of all the body's biological functions.

Very well, lets leave this for now.

LordReed:
Can the human body cease all chemical functions and continue to be alive?

This an an odd question. Or perhaps you have phrased it oddly. For no one who believes in the existence of the soul says this. Chemical functions, as you know, continue even when the body is six feet under! - Through the process of decomposition!

What people who believe in the existence of a soul say is different and simple - that the soul exists beyond and after the death of body. This is because the body is seen as a mere physical tool for the soul. I personally see it as a clothing. An advanced biological one, yes, but a covering all the same.

When one looks at all the senses, this becomes very obvious. They exist evidentially to serve, not themselves, but to serve a being.

Another thing - and this I would have liked to mention to KnownUnknown also, save that I got tired very quickly when he said that I believe everything, hook line and sinker. This is the thing - the experiential factor. None of us experiences ourselves as a body. We simply do not. We experience ourselves as a being, a being with a body.

Save one wishes to say that the brain is the being - and this is a very vexatious thing to argue - virtually every single part of the body can be replaced and the being remains. In fact, much can happen to the brain itself and the being remains. The precise physical seat of consciousness is not known and this is partly why we still have the hard question of consciousness.

There are obviously many deep existential questions at play here and thus the minimum that those of you who are being serious and honest as discussants in this matter can do is to accord the discussion the seriousness it deserves rather than be offhand with it and act as though those who discuss a soul are either iidiots or lunatics.

PS: Reed - I do not say you have been offhand. I cant recall you treating the matter with mockery.

KnownUnknown:
I have read your posts longer than you know and it’s the same old shit. The only update is nomenclature.

That only makes a stronger case that there cannot possibly be anything new to add.

KnownUnknown:
And it’s not surprising that you swallow everything hook, line, and sinker. I don’t care how many men or women of all ages have believed in a soul just like I don’t care show many have believed in gods, demons, and spirits. Just because people believe things doesn’t make them true.
You can make a thousand and one claims but you can never prove them and have to rely on gullibility and credulity.
Show me the so called Soul that powers “dead matter” then I’ll show you the Rumbum that powers the earth and keeps it spinning. Lol
“Bullshit” is always “intangible”, “ non physical”, “spaceless, timeless, and immaterial” but somehow it’s controlling everything in the physical world that doesn’t need it to function.

If with our interaction on this forum you consider me as one of those who "swallows everything hook line and sinker" - - - I can only conclude you have not been reading my posts and for that reason there would be scarce point attempting the discourse.

KnownUnknown:
I won’t mince words. The soul is bullshit. Superstition. Figment of your imagination. Let me present L Ron Hubbard, a man who had a very active imagination and a talent for writing. His ideas led to the religion of Scientology and most modern people dismiss him as a charlatan and his religion as manipulative and authoritarian bunkum. Ironically, members of the abrahamic faiths and other older faiths also view Hubbard and his religion as nonsense even though their beliefs are just as valid, or invalid, as his!!

If Jesus were a real person and lived in modern times he would be viewed the same way as Hubbard. All the creators of these faiths will be viewed as charlatans too if they were to pop up now and their ideas including “soul” would be dismissed as unfounded rubbish.

What’s the difference between a soul and a thetan?

Thetan, in Scientology, the authentic spiritual identity of an individual. It is similar to the soul, whose existence is taught by many religious traditions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/thetan

In order for them to manipulate and bamboozle you, they have to create all manner of nonsense that don’t exist.

The god who is the boogie man, the sin that is the crime, the cure for the sin, and the entity (soul, thetan, spirit) that will suffer for the sin. All bullshit and that’s why they reside in the “non-physical” realm.

It is disappointing for you to have to reach as far as such a fringe modern sect in order to fully ground your ad hominems against the ancient and timeless concept of a soul.

The soul is the intangible inner aspect of man, and this is also not a foolish concept because men of all ages have recognized that mere matter cannot, of itself, be a conscious and living being. Mere matter is dead. The body is a self evident and obvious tool for an indwelling being. Every function of the body attests to this, including all the senses as well as the very facts of birth and death.

Biodun556:
Whoever believes that naira swap will curb vote buying is myopic.

Because it is not only money that can be used to buy vote

Naira is not the only currency that politicians can use to buy vote. They use dollar also.

They even use the simplest currency of all: food.

Maynman:
We don’t need to say anything is right and wrong, we will reject it because no one can know. Their explanation of the universe is wrong from their first statement because no one can know.

I dont understand what this means. Break it down/.

Maynman:
Then any explanation that tries to explain the universe will be automatically wrong and rejected, because no one can know.
I’m an atheist because I’m agnostic.

If we dont know, we cannot say anything is right or wrong.
We should simply say we dont know, end of.

KnownUnknown:
Okay, I’m not a theist or atheist or deist or pantheist.
What do you mean by god?

Lets keep it this simple.

Gnostic - "I know."
Agnostic - "I don't know."

End of.

LordReed:
Well some scientists conceive of time the same way and I do agree, time has to be independent of motion or else any motionless system would also be timeless.

We are getting somewhere.

LordReed:
What is time?

Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

KnownUnknown:
McMickie is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial………but he is mutable, so he probably caused the multiverse. Mutability is his nature and that’s probably why he gave this attribute to the universe and all other realities. I call him he but that doesn’t mean she has a gender, just calling her that for convenience. He is also not a deity.

Just a note: This sort of mockery of the conversation is disrespectful - not to me - but to the very ideas being discussed.
PS: I saw you mention somewhere "scientific" investigations or so, of the multiverse. There is no such thing because science is based on observation and no one has, and no one can, observe any such "multiverse."

Words like "multiverse" sit well with you - as unobservable as any such thing is, as purely hypothetical as it is. And yet you get furious when someone says there must be a timeline and space outside this universe. Weird.

A001:
These days, this sort of argument looks boring to me.

Any discussion or debate on the origin or source of existence is more or less based on speculation, philosophy, and metaphysics since there has been no scientific breakthroughs in the endeavor to know the source of all things in existence.

The more one delves into certain aspects of Physics, the more one realizes our ignorance of our "tiny" planet Earth and the unimaginably large Universe.

That's why I think the best and most honest answer to the question, "What's the origin of existence?", is "it's unknown".

Hence, the agnostic position, in its basic form, is the best.

Any other thing apart from this is mostly speculative, though I must say some approaches to the question of our source of existence such as Otemic or Atumic approach has a lot of depth.

IMO, that could be the correct (or close to the correct) answer.

I said so because that approach captures the concepts of first cause and nothing (something arising ex nihilo).

In particularly, the Otemic approach postulates that in some realms of existence, time doesn't exist, which is scientifically plausible.

That establishes that the first cause has no cause.

Still, this is purely philosophical, and with time, I believe scientists will make breakthroughs in these areas (though it may not be in this lifetime).

Very well said, old friend.
How you dey? Long time.

KnownUnknown:
if asked for an example of a necessary thing apart from your god, you will draw a blank.

I have not drawn a blank. How many times, and how carefully, have I mentioned infinite space and infinite time as necessary things.
You have not addressed yourself to those and you keep talking.

PS: It is well to keep interrogating the views of others on the mystery of existence. May I ask - what is your own view on the matter of our existence?

jaephoenix:
… and Lord MadMax turns up and talks gibbr, as usual

I dey tell you. Babanla gibberish.

LordReed:
Of course I accept that the universe is expanding, what I don't accept is that it is expanding into another "space". The scientific explanation is a bit confusing to me so I can't really say I accept it but what I do know is it is beyond investigation at this point so yeah you can choose to speculate on its nature but my methodological naturalist brain cannot give credence to something that has no substantive backing.

Pls see my post to KnownUnknown above where I touch some more on this matter of expansion.

KnownUnknown:
The CAUSES of day and night are the the rotation of the earth on its axis, the eccentricity of the earths orbit around the sun and the obliquiity of the earth contribute to the length of daylight, the composition of the atmosphere that gives the earth its hue and blocks out other stars, and photons from the sun.

I am mildly surprised if you think you have said anything of import here.

That infinite regress is your problem actually because there is no need to regress. The universe itself could be uncaused and the infinite regress problem is for people who want to arbitrarily terminate the regress at the notion of god. Their particular god. There is this particular Jew in my neck of the woods who uses the same “there can be no infinite regress” argument except he terminates the regress at the Hebrew god. Oh, what a surprise!!

The universe could not be uncaused, because for the umpteenth time, nothing physical can be uncaused: to be without cause is to be self existent in a way that is fundamental and does not require trigger, change, cessation, collapse, regeneration or indeed any other factor of a material thing.

Your allusions to "a particular god" are quite tiresome please, as you well know I allude to none, save a necessary founding existential principle, which of course, you may call what you wish, so long as you do not do so simply for light mockery targeted at distraction.

The problem with your “self existent” things is that there is none you can point to. If “self existence” means independent function and existence then the universe fits the bill. If it means something different, give an example other than saying it’s “intangible and immutable”, which describes NOTHING.

This is odd, especially when I specifically pointed to infinite time and infinite space as self existent things.

This analogy does not make sense.

This statement makes me lose substantial hope in the possibility of having a useful conversation. Its quite a simple enough analogy, if you go back to the question it was given in response to. It simply says, yes, much may exist outside what we know or where we live. How is that a problem?

I have no reason to think this reality is likely a simulation. I mean, what is it simulating?

Fair enough. We can leave that as a subject for another day. I will only hint that there are clear signs even within physical matter that we may well be dwelling within a sophisticated hologram. But this is neither here nor there for the subject at hand, so some other time.

Its unfounded when you mean to create an argument for god. When astronomical discussions about what is beyond the universe occur, astronomers are careful to call the multiverse an hypothesis and try to support it with the scientific method not arbitrary speculation.
The expansion of the universe doesn’t mean that it is expanding into a container (that you call “real time”) but that spacetime itself is expanding. However, I understand what you mean because colloquially expansion requires space. But this “expansion” is different than what we are used to. Since we are just second hand users of this knowledge, let’s try to get an explanation from the people who brought it to our attention.

I am sorry but the expansion of the universe is a real thing and the standard scientific answer which attempts to escape the question as to what the universe is expanding into is nothing but cheap and escapist. They simply say that its expanding in itself and not necessarily into anything! With respect, thats pure bunkum. Voodoo at its worst. You guys accuse religious people of believing in voodoo and then come up with worse voodoo. Even with the standard balloon model (where space is being created in an inflating balloon - such a balloon will still get bigger and bigger and must occupy more space within the spectrum it occupies. Anything less is pure voodoo and attempts to suggest that the balloon is not occupying any space anywhere but is existing in pixieland and expanding into Alice's wonderland. Nothing could be more unscientific.

This is not just a matter of the colloquial meaning of the word "expand" - because the universe is in fact physically and evidentially expanding. Galaxies are speeding away from one another at a speed greater than the speed of light. Indeed for this exact reason the future universe will be darker as light will not be able the cross the chasms created. This is not something to gloss over with cheap pseudo science such as claiming that the only space being created is within the universe. The balloon model - which is what they use - is enough to tell you that even a balloon which is being inflated will need space outside it in order to inflate.

And if you don't see how that ties into what I am saying, that is mildly disappointing. I left off the same subject with Maynman because I felt that we had hardly interacted and as such we may not understand one another, but you, I expect to understand what I am saying (even if you disagree with it - at the minimum you should understand it). I will go over it briefly again:

The whole question arises from the cosmological question of the origin of the universe - It is said, for example, by current scientific models that time and space were "created" at the moment of the big bang. The truth is that this is impossible - rather, the words being used as time and space there really refer to something else entirely. What is being called time there is a dimension of motion and not real time, and what is being called space there is the material of this physical universe, not real space. Both real time and real space are intangible and incapable of being either created or destroyed, or even changed. Neither can "commence" at any point or "cease" at any point, or have a "border" or a "limit" in the way that is said of spacetime as described by scientists. Neither is a "fabric" of any kind, however loosely or metaphorically one may in an escapist manner try to suggest that word is used.

And there are grounds for asserting these:

1. If the big bang occurred it, was an event. An event cannot occur without a pre existing timeline. It can only occur within already existing time. Thus it is paradoxical to say that time was created at the moment of the big bang as scientists currently say.

2. In the same wise, the big bang was an expansion from a point, bro, you can't escape the question of what the substance of that point was expanding into. It is a simple and logical question which should not be fobbed off with pseudo scientific escapisms. .

Both of these factors lend us to know that there clearly exists a timeline beyond this universe and space beyond this universe - which is what I refer to as infinite/ real space and time - those intangible factors into which events and things are interpolated - and which are self-existent by reference to their fundamental existential nature.

Those are the factors which I say form a part of this principle of self-existence and you are free to make a caricature of it as you wish, and call it "god" or "Yahweh" - that is your business, for I am speaking at a philosophical level and I simply call it the self existent source.

Maynman:
spacetime in the presence of masses is curved due to gravity. Any mass in a region of spacetime will lead to a distortion / curvature of space-time.

Read your OWN link and stop cherry picking parts, material fabric bwahahahaha.

Brother, I am tired of saying lets leave it. I have said so almost ten times now. If you think I have no point, I have also said thats fine. I have said no issues, and I appreciate your input. However I will just leave one last question - its a repeated question.

Can a non material thing curve?

This is a simple question. If you dont appreciate why I ask it, thats also fine. If you think its a meaningless question, that too is fine.
I shall not be able to proceed further though, unless something truly tangible, no pun intended, curves in, no pun intended again.

Maynman:
No it was not described as a material thing, according to the link you sent.
“Einstein saw gravity as the result of curved space. He said that all objects in the universe sit in a smooth, four-dimensional fabric called space-time.“

I guess a thing can curve without being a material thing?
Let it go. Its inconsequential.

I really appreciate your input. Cheers.

Maynman:
You are grabbing to anything right now.

Its no worries my friend. Its not that important.

Maynman:
What exactly is the argument?

Well I'd really prefer that you write, because the attachments cant show up in my responses.

At all events, from your attachment, please note carefully, spacetime was indeed described as a fabric (and yes we get its not ankara). But a material thing nonetheless.

I strongly suggest we leave this discussion because I think it will be very hard for us to even understand what I am attempting to say. Which takes some describing when starting from scratch. To pursue this discussion with you will be torture. I really cant. I thank you all the same.

Maynman:
Read slowly.

I could say the same to you my friend. Its fairly difficult discussing with you.
Anyhow, nevermind.

Some of the ideas I am talking about have taken years to put across to others here. So maybe its not right to expect that we understand one another so quickly or so easily. Cheers again.