WTF is a soul anyway ?

"The conceptual mind" being the part of the mind that demands evidence for beliefs?

"Physical senses" being the portion of your conciousness that receives empirical proof?

 

Demanding evidence for one's beliefs is not a problem. The conceptual mind, however, is lazy. It's used to achieving instant gratification through mental acuity. The process by which one obtains evidence for the existence of metaphysical phenomena is often arduous and long, and requires the devotion of one's entire being. If one is dependent upon the conceptual mind, unwilling to venture beyond it's boundaries, then evidence for the existence of metaphysical phenomena will always remain out of reach.

Empirical simply means derived by observation, so this would depend on your definition of observation. "Proof" of the existence of metaphysical phenomena is in some sense derived by observation, but not the type of observation that your physical senses are capable of. So, no, I wouldn't necessarily equate the physical senses with the portion of one's consciousness that receives empirical proof.

Travis

 

Quantum Mechanics being a sub category of Quantum Physics, a pretty big one too - It explains a HELL OF A LOT. It's been verified by experiment for over 50 years. It's been verified by experiments meant to disprove it. It's not theoretical, it's been used in experiment after experiment and to design the next experiment. Every hear of the Large Hadron Collider - Experimental Quantum Physics in action.

You know that thing you are looking at right now - your computer - Quantum Mechanics made that possible.

So the "it's almost entirely theoretical" is a bunch of pure shit.

I personally don't like String Theory. I think it's too complex. They make the math work, but haven't been able to extract and predictions to do experiments on (from what I know). That makes it OBVIOUS why there isn't full consensus on that theory, it's not a FULL theory. It doesn't predict yet. They can extract answers and equations for current experimental data, but not for new experiments to try.

Unified field theory??? This one is even less than String Theory. There is NO equation for it. NO ONE has a UFT equation. How the hell are we supposed to agree on something no one can give us? You are coming off as REALLY bad at science.

Besides - Very little consensus is called scientific research of the poorly understood. Get lots of theories, start testing and whittling them down. Then Excellently supported theory. Victory for science. But - In you babbling, you fail to understand that Quantum Physics has had MANY such victories and MANY things are VERY WELL explained (mostly understood) by the various categories of quantum physics.

Did you know that how the sun works is explained by quantum mechanics?

Now - Heisenberg uncertainty principle... If YOU had ever studied Quantum Mechanics, you should know that the HUP is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN to be true. There is no doubt, no question, all (good?) scientists that work on QM agree, this is a fact. ALL evidence supports it. Everything. And you try to bullshit us with "very little consensus"? If you knew anything about it, you should know it is rock solid. It's not just scientific fact (Everything supports and goes with it so until we get something repeatable and contradictory, we assume it's not changing), it is a mathematical fact, it has a proof. I know, I've done the gawd damn proof. I don't remember it, but I know I did it.

"amongst its practitioners" - They are called researchers. I think you've watched 'What the bleep do we know?' a few too many times. (Never seen it myself, I've been instructed to slit my wrists if I ever do).

You are obviously quite ignorant of quantum mechanics, quantum physics and possibly science in general.

Yea - I tend to go a little overboard when someone mis-uses physics (science in general, but I know physics best) - I'm sick of it. I actually had someone tell me they are a 'practitioner' quantum mechanics. She wasn't a scientist. It's really fucking bad that people listen to the worthless drivel of people who have no qualifications to be talking about the subject. What the bleep and Expelled are both examples of propaganda pieces by religious movements.

I'm gonna stop before I get on a rant about other things.

It's called a hallucinogenics.

Shame on me for wanting evidence. I am terrible for thinking that something that has an effect on the physical realm should be detectable on the physical realm.

If it has no effect on the physical realm, then why can't it all be explained as 'something in your head'?

We aren't limited by our physical senses, we are limited by the physical world... the only world we can (currently?) do any type of detection on. This is where the limit is. (mostly) No one here will say that there ISN'T (100%) a separate plane of existence or a soul or any of that. There is just NO evidence.

What are these "necessary properties for existence"? If you define something outside the physical realm, then you are defining something untestable and as such, can't be used in a logical argument without making it a beginning assumption, which, when not accepted, ruins the entire logical argument.

I can conceive of a 4 dimensional sphere. I even found the volume of space contained in the corner of a 4 dimensional cube the same diameter of the 4 dimensional sphere with the sphere inside (so the space between the N points touching the walls). Actually, I made it generalized so it works in any number of dimensions, but...
If it's more abstract than our ability to conceive of, how is it relevant. "It's so awesome we can't know it"... what good does that do?

What non-physical senses do you use to gain your vast "knowledge?"

If we are willing to stop thinking logically and rationally, then yes, most anything can have explain things really well. Except - not logically or rationally.

You need to know your audience. Those of us not raised atheist - generally got here by using logic and reason and lack of evidence... if you try to convince us of something without using any of those 3 things - You can expect to meet with failure, and after continued attempts - rudeness and lack of respect.

If you want to use the meaningless feel good words to explain things and 'support' your position - go somewhere people won't question and require proof for them.

 

Advanced forms of physics, mathematics or medicine can take decades to truly understand. Scientists in those fields don't seem to have all that much trouble coming up with evidence for their theories. How come your side doesn't come up with anything good? What, your own team doesn't have people dedicated enough to find the evidence?

 

I think what he is trying to say is that If you aren't actively seeking truth then you won't find it. It's a journey to be taken by your self, without any outside influences,

Disregard anything I say that doesn't resonate with you

 

I make a distinction between Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics -- and since I'm the one who brought up the subject as an analogy, I get to set the precedent for the subject matter. This naturally invalidates the rest of the portion of your post dedicated to exposing my apparent lack of knowledge.

Yes, and this ^^^ is called meanlingless fixation on semantics.

Sounds like you're afraid of something. Instructed to slit your wrists? Wow, is that some sort of new atheist tenet? Sounds like you folks have really got a monopoly on that whole happiness thing.

You are obviously entrenched in an ego-paradigm that depends upon assumption and dogmatic thinking in order to be sustained.

Hallucinogens are one legitimate way to induce the state of consciousness necessary for communion with soul, but they are by no means the only way.

So in addition to a suicidal mentality, is shame another quality that's valued by atheists?

Because it's not localized to your head. In your current state of consciousness, you're unable to distinguish between your body and the consciousness that your body acts as a vessel for. Just as you can make the physiological distinction between your body and the clothes that adorn it, so to can higher consciousness allow you to experience your body as nothing more than a temporary garment for your soul.

No physical evidence, maybe. But I've never made a claim to the contrary.

I said it's more abstract than your ability to conceive of it. Big difference.

Intuition. Energetic attunement. Direct perception, unobscured by the conceptual mind.

Oh it's logical and rational alright. It just isn't exclusively logical and rational.

I've met many atheists, and have had many debates with them. You are not representative of most atheists, who in my experience almost never resort to personal attacks or condescending attitudes, as you have. So you might not want to speak for the entire idealogy to which you so rigidly adhere. Your fellow atheists might be offended.

Hey, it's not like I put up flyers advertising a lecture on the properties of soul. You asked some questions about the nature of soul (which at this point have been revealed to be disingenuous), and I'm simply answering them to the best of my knowledge and abilities. If you want to get adversarial and belligerent, it's you who needs to go elsewhere.

Travis

 

You mentioned Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - THAT is quantum Mechanics, so you included quantum mechanics in your quantum physics category. You did set the precedence, I showed evidence you were incorrect in at least 1 assumption.

It's not semantics. When someone doing acupuncture or Raiki tells me they practice or are a practitioner of quantum mechanics - it goes from semantics to a HUGE difference. That's why like the distinction, because one implies (at least to me) a lack of understanding.

So from science related stuff you jump to atheism as the reason? Anyway - It's a joke from when I was in Quantum Mechanics - Our prof told us to slit our wrists if we ever watched that movie. Was very amusing. I think the same day he told us to stick a shotgun in our mouth if our Hamiltonians did not commute. One of the best profs I ever had. Head of the dept.

You asked about shamans - and they are a traditional method - or starvation and sleep deprivation... smoke inhalation causing oxygen deprivation...

One is in the physical realm, one is not. One science can test, one it cannot.

Isn't that they only type of evidence science can use?

Never claimed to be. I don't put it in all my posts because I hate repeated quantifiers - My statements are meant to be "in general". That's why I don't say all or every often when talking about things.

But you did exhibit a lack of understanding by your use of heisenburg, thus - What I said was an observation. There may have been other random rudeness too... but that goes to knowing your audience.

I wasn't. I was speaking about us in the forum sense. This forum is your audience, We are who you should phrase your arguments for.

I was belligerent? I know I had a bit of sarcasm (poor text imparting)... but didn't intend the billigerent, but it can happen on bad days. OH - on the science stuff... Yea - ... Fuck yea I'm adversarial and belligerent on that. Misused science pisses me off. Misunderstanding is one thing, but something so core as the HUP being misrepresented - that just pushes it to the point of appearing intentional and when it's intentional, Then I become as you described.

 

The fact that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is Quantum mechanics doesn't change the fact that there is lack of consensus within the scientific community regarding its application. Einstein was one of the theories' major opponents.

So, more evidence of the nature of your ego-paradigm then, eh?

A college professor who makes light of suicidal scenarios. How charming. And how appropriate that you found it amusing. Your lack of character is now speaking louder than you are.

You've been unable to comprehend the vast majority of my statements, this one included. To recap the exchange, you asked how does a shaman communicate with soul? I said, why don't you learn to commune with souls shamanically and find out? Then you made a sarcastic remark about hallucinogens, which (characteristically) didn't really address my response. I was simply bringing the focus back to the initial topic by mentioning the fact that hallucinogens can be used to commune with soul, with the proper intentions. Starvation and sleep deprivation? Smoke inhalation? No, these are not legitimate shamanic practices.

I'll let good ol' Al answer this one for me:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

-Albert Einstein

Maybe this statement represents the crux of your inability to grasp the knowledge I'm attempting to impart. This has never been a conversation about science. To reiterrate for the 3rd time now (not counting the other people who have reiterrated for me), science is limited by the knowledge one can gain through reliance upon their physical senses. Metaphysics (by definition) is about transcending this dependency on the physical senses.

You said "those of us raised atheist...". You were speaking for an entire idealogy. I was simply pointing out that, fortunately for all of us, not all atheists behave as you do.

You don't write very well, especially for a supposedly scientifically-minded individual. "But that goes to knowing your audience" is a garbled, gramatically incorrect sentence, and it's certainly not the first one I've encountered in your rambling, lumbering, and largely incoherent responses. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to the fact that you've clearly been phased by the content of my posts.

How convenient that you failed to specify this in your initial statement. And you've got it backwards, my friend: if you ask the question then it's you who needs to conceptually accomodate the language and stylistic approach of the person kind enough to answer your questions. Either that, or stop pursuing the subject. Pretty much common sense, no?

You're not adversarial and belligerent because of my apparent "misuse" of science (which is a joke -- I mentioned it in one sentence as an analogy that you completely failed to understand), you're using this scenario (which incidentally is a fictional, projected scenario that exists only in your mind) as an excuse to vent the hatred and frustration of your daily life. But, perhaps you'll find solace in the fact you're simply one of thousands of individuals who engage in the same petty, depraved behavior on a daily basis by using the internet as a medium of expression. I hope you were able to achieve the shallow sense of gratification that your subconscious was seeking.

Travis

 

The soul is a contrivance of the ego in order to believe we,as ourselves,will continue on after the body has turned to dust.Used as a power source by those with the lust for riches and control of minds.Works quite well.

 

When soul consciousness is realized, the egoic manifestation of ourselves, the aspect of ourselves that exists in denial of its own mortality, must by definition be relinquished. It is this paradigm shift that allows for the experience of a consciousness that can be sustained following physical death. So really, what you've described is the antithesis of soul.

Travis

 

And the proof is?

 

I'm generally not a big fan of the bible, but there are a few passages in there that are quite profound. One of my favorites (and forgive me, I've forgotten what the exact verse is):

"Faith is the evidence of things unknown and the substance of things unseen".

In other words, you'll never have proof unless you are willing to stop demanding it.

Travis

 

Yes,I'm not a fan either,but it seems when I read it with a friend years and years ago,somewhere in there it said--"all is given."Now that's profound to me.It meant the answers to everything we need or want are within our grasp if we just ask the right questions,look in the right places and don't stop questing.

 

Absolutely. But there's an inevitable point in the quest of every soul when the only way to continue is to abandon the desire to do so.

Travis

 

Hey,don't switch levels on me.

 

Sorry, I can't help it -- it just comes naturally.

Most people don't even recognize my level switching, though, at least not consciously. Nice job.

Travis

 

You are arguing outside the bounds of science. I think that's pointless.

If it is outside the bounds of science then it can't be tested/repeated by others in a measurable fashion.

You make multiple appeal to authority arguments, and using Einstein as an argument against QM is pretty bad, 'cause it's been shown he was wrong about thinking QM invalid or incomplete. (How Einstein though QM was incomplete would require QM to be WRONG, not just incomplete)

What I said about atheism/t was following me saying you need to know your audience. I probably shoulda been clearer who that audience is, was, whatever. I make some assumptions and sometimes people reading don't get that same assumption, it happens.

And you are quite right - I don't write particularly well; It's not a strong point of mine. This is a non-formal communication method, and I use notepad++ to write my responses. So I don't really care about proper grammar. I use slang and abrv of words that don't actually abbreviate.

Rambling and lumbering is a very good description of my non-formal writing, and sure, that often makes it much more difficult to understand.

And no, I'm not phased by your content. I write like that. It's bad. Really. I know it, and when I have proper motivation to write along proper english guidelines, I do. I also use bad grammar at times to attempt to 'lessen' what I might see as harsh words, and make it more better friendly.

Since you are arguing in a context with assumptions that I don't accept as valid, and aren't supporting those assumptions in a context I find valid; and apparently still confusing what science is (application is not theory, a questionable application says nothing about validity of the theory); Sure, I'm out.

Though - Fuck up the science again, I'll probably jump back in and just confine it to your science statements.

Sound good?

 

Thanks,but as you may have suspected,I was talking more about the potential scientific advances relative to human evolution such as the study of the brain,plants that heal rather than the use of lab created,space travel,the care and feeding of humans now here,the obvious need for population control--you know,the things that would enhance everyones' lives toward a rational balance.The soul ,I can't be too concerned about because what is,is and what will be,will be.My place in this world is approximately zero.No more or less important than anyone else,with the exception of "those who make and enforce the rules'.They are much more important than me only in that "they"could make this earth a paradise.I can actually see how this could work and I ,my friend ,am just a dumb-ass roofer.Oh,Ive had some ESP experiences--some things seen out of the corner of my eyes and a friend who was frighteningly precient,not to mention psychdelic experimentation that allowed me to see beyond what seems to be.But I could be wrong--maybe altruism is bullshit.--------And so it goes.

 

Yes, of course. I must admit, however, that I find it a shame that you're unwilling to step outside the safety net of science that you've established for yourself. As far as your repeated accusations that I've "fucked up" science go, I still think you're missing my point. Remember, I brought up quantum physics as an analogy. Both Quantum Physics and Metaphysics have a lexicon that often accompanies their discussion. You took issue with words that are commonly accepted within spiritually oriented communities -- I was just pointing out that science relies on similar terminology in order to convey its subject matter. That was it. Period. There were no other intentional references to science other than those that you projected onto my statements (excluding, of course, my attempts to diffuse your confrontational mentality by clarifying my examples).

Also, if you're truly interested in increasing your understanding of the nature of reality, then I'd recommend that you honestly question your motives for starting this thread. I'm the only one who has offered comprehensive and concrete answers to your questions, which is difficult to do when discussing a subject as abstract and experiential as the soul. Were you really interested in broadening your perceptual horizons? Based on the dogmatism that your responses exhibit, I must admit that the possibility that your intentions were sincere seems quite slim. It seems much more likely that you were simply interested in reinforcing a somewhat narrow-minded conceptual framework by using its contents to oppose the existence of concepts and phenomena that exist beyond its boundaries. This is something most commonly practiced by fundamentalist Christians (subtly forceful conversion techniques), but it can certainly be applied to atheism as well, as you have demonstrated.

As far as your strict adherence to science goes, I would only encourage you to keep in mind that science is a wonderful toolset for explaining phenomena that are confined to the physical realm of our existence, but is not, however, capable of addressing issues that have no physical manifestation (in its current state at least -- although I have little doubt that science and spirituality will become more and more integrated in the coming decades). Can science measure the degree of an individual's suffering? How about one's capacity for creative ingenuity? How about the presence of love? These are issues that have to be approached through direct experience that bypasses the conceptual mind. Experiences that require the humility to suspend disbelief and presumption and the courage to forge new paths into unknown frontiers.

Travis

 

Yes, but it's the the willingness of certain extraordinary individuals to align themselves with the intentions of their souls that acts as the impetus for the scientific breakthroughs that benefit humanity. The soul, or the spiritual realm, is the source of creativity. Do you really think that we would have a population problem if there were more individuals on earth dedicated to living a soulful life?

You do yourself an injustice with this type of self-deprecating thinking. If you are indeed an authentic agnostic, willing to admit that your understanding of the nature of reality is insufficient to warrant a full-fledged pursuit of a spiritual path, then you are much more evolved than the the average representative of the mass consciousness. This type of mentality, if sincere, requires a level of humility not often found in your average human being. That's not to say that you're at the pinnacle of course, but all things considered, you're no doubt well on your way.

Travis