Tippaporn

Any product claiming to be No. 1 is obviously lying. Pure marketing. LOL Good analogy! Though, could the cook by the source?

Subjective reality is the source, and the creator of, objective reality. Full stop. That is the bedrock reality of our condition which thus far has gone unrecognised. And even when pointed out goes unaccepted. Now here's where I see the trouble many have. Subjective reality is translated into an objective universe. This does not happen magically. There is a definite and practical process by which this occurs. We have been able to recognise portions of these processes. Science has been instrumental in uncovering many of these processes. For instance, how stress releases certain hormones which then have a particular effect upon the body. Where it all goes wrong is that these mechanistic processes, the release of certain hormones in this example, are then believed to be the primary cause rather than merely the mechanistic vehicle of translating subjective reality into objective reality. The true cause of any detrimental effects on the body is the stress, which is subjective. The hormonal aspect is merely the functional aspect; the vehicle. This misunderstanding is what leads to a view of our reality as purely mechanistic, and therefore deterministic. Deterministic for the reason that it is the mechanistic, objective process which determines experience and not the subjective reality. Which then feeds the idea that people are powerless to determine their own experience. It's a wonderful illusion. You, Hummin, are struggling with this illusion. You recognise the fact of physical effects and therefore cannot deny that they play a role in the creation of our reality. If you drink bleach you will most certainly die, for instance. That is most obviously the undeniable physical effect of drinking bleach. What I believe you are missing, Hummin, or fail to include into your equation, is that there must be a trigger which initiates the act of drinking bleach. That trigger is an idea. The source is first and always subjective; the idea to drink bleach, which only then gets translated into an objective reality via taking action on the idea. Action is an idea in motion. Full stop. As much as one insists that ones ideas are correct, though they may not be, if they are not then the solution is to suspend the current beliefs long enough to play around with other ideas. The process doesn't require the abandonment a belief forever whilst playing with another idea. Only a temporary suspension. My advice is to play around with the idea that subjective reality is the source of objective reality. Pretend for awhile that this is the case, that this is how it works. Only then will you allow yourself to see what your current beliefs keep hidden from you.

"Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist." The science-minded love to throw out Russell's Teapot as their definitive argument to "prove" the non-existence of a God since the existence of a God cannot be proved using scientific methodology. You might want to read a good Wiki article on Russell's Teapot before claiming it's "water tight" logic to be irrefutable. From the Analysis section (bolded text is mine): In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters. Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Now here's the closed-loop quandary which folks who outright reject even the possibility of the existence of a God unwittingly place themselves in. As long as one believes that something does not exist then for all practical purposes it does not exist for them (do keep plausibility in mind - purple elephants are a ludicrous, and deceptive, analogy). No one attempts to find something they believe does not exist. Furthermore, and importantly, any evidence which suggests the existence of what they believe does not exist will in one way or another be rejected. Either by ignoring the evidence, discounting it, or using fallacious logic to negate it. Put in other words, as long as one insists that something is either true or false they will not consider any evidence or argument to the contrary, no matter how real, sound or logically valid it is. They literally become irrational and yet can't recognise that irrationality within themselves. In my most humble opinion, Purdey, you are caught in this closed-loop predicament. "First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." " I understand that you do not have any familiarity with me and so you couldn't therefore be aware of any of my earlier scribblings. I have stated many times to many posters that I am not religious. I understand, too, that because I speak in defense of the existence of a God people will then automatically assume, incorrectly, that I am therefore religious. The two should not be conflated. One fact does not logically lead to the conclusion you assume. I do appreciate your raising the point of "the right one" for that provides the perfect segue into an important issue which lies at what I believe to be the heart of so many discussions here. "The right one," otherwise known as the "truth," would be the actual laws of nature. There are many laws of nature which are well known. Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the law of attraction, polarity, rhythm, relativity, cause and effect, perpetual transmutation of energy. and so on. The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws. Full stop. And while some laws are clearly recognised and thoroughly understood, such as gravity, there exist many other laws which are yet unknown. I am not interested in what I "believe" to be right but rather I am focused on learning what the actual laws are which govern use. Those laws are irrefutable and eternal. They are what one might call bedrock reality. Like them or not. Agree with them or not. They are what they are and they are immutable. So to be wise and pragmatic my sage advice is to learn what those laws are and then play the game of life according to the actual "rules" rather than false rules made out of whole cloth out of an ignorance of what the real laws governing our existence are. Now I could continue addressing the rest of your excellent post but I fear it would become so long that it would deter anyone from reading the length of it. So I'll address the rest in subsequent posts.

I just had an Exorcist moment today. I've got a case of food poisoning. Had major runny sh!ts all day yesterday and again today. You know the type . . . there's no chance in hell holding it in when it first knocks on the back door. My wife gave me some elixir to drink to feel better. A 1/2 litre glass full, As it doesn't taste too good I guzzled the whole thing in one shot. Took about a minute before I felt hurricane grade swells in my stomach. I knew that my levee of will wasn't big enough and raced to the john. I started spewing just before I got to the toilet bowl. And then another uncontrollable heave all over the commode. And another. And yet another. Ah well, too late to kneel down in prayerful fashion now. Thank God for these practical Thai-style bathrooms. Just hose the whole frickin' thing down!! Clean up was a piece of cake. Image a pristine U.S. or European style bathroom replete with a throw rug. What a nasty chore that would be, sopping it all up with paper towels and wringing out the throw rug. My wife asked me how I felt. In all seriousness I told her to call the electric company. My battery had drained completely in an instant. I didn't have enough juice in me to fire up even one of those little hallway night lights. Starve a cold and feed a fever. Or do I have it reversed? I dunno but I'm not putting the slightest morsel in my gullet until my system has been flushed like a car radiator. Anyway, back to power lifting and a 20 km sprint tomorrow. I think. I hope . . . Sorry to have to gross everyone out. But it was fun!!!

Sorry Woof. My memory isn't that short.

Well, Hummin, maybe I am. And if so then my apologies. I've become thoroughly disillusioned with science these days, especially since Covid. Science has turned a very dark corner on that count. My disillusionment with science has equaled my disillusionment with organsied religion. And despite that I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I remain an ardent proponent of true science. And my gratefulness of science's accomplishments and it's advances in many areas of life is undiminished. When I popped a fingernail science was there to put me on the mend. When I caught a case of the shingles science was there to arrest it. I never attempt to negate those things simply because I see science's flaws at the same time. All the same, I still think the tweet I put up is spot on in it's portrayal of the current state of science. Too much tabloid science where even reading the headline is too much.

People will make statements as fact here. I tend to ask a lot of questions if I don't agree with someone's statement of fact. The questions are meant to bring out the logical flaws in the statement as I see them. Some take that questioning as an attempt to make them look stupid and to deliberately embarrass them. Not knowing you other than seeing you around this site I didn't want my questioning to be misinterpreted in that way by you. So I flat out stated it to preempt any misinterpretation on your part. I guess my intention didn't work out as planned. I admit I had reservations when I worded it but concluded it was worded well enough. Utter fail, huh? No offense meant, Neeranam.

Wrong. From that tweet we can see that almost anything can stop a heart. I'd love to see a study on how many hearts are stopped every year due to breakups in relationships. What's the ultimate point, though? If it's to protect against heart attacks during solar flares/storms should we institute public solar flare or solar storm health warnings? Warning: Remain inside for the duration of this solar event. Only go out with proper protection? I guess more than a mask would be required? And what about masks? Do they really protect against Covid? Science speaks out of both sides of it's mouth on that one. Which is the real science? As you say, too, it's only a "solar storms theory." Is it theory or fact? How was the study designed? Were there human trials? Are there any deaths which are positively confirmed to be caused by a solar storm? I'd ask a whole lot more questions than you seem to be asking. Are you asking any questions or is it that there's a modicum of rationale to the theory and since it's Scientific (capital "S") then sure, you've gotta believe it. Makes perfect sense, right? Now I could say that nobody dies unless they're ready and every death could technically be considered a suicide since death is always chosen and never forced unto anyone by any other power. I could even go into great detail using rationale and logic in my explanations of why those statements are true. But I don't get a sense that we could ever get to be on the same page with those types of ideas. What can I say, Hummin? If that's what you want to believe then you don't need my blessings nor approvals. Believe it.

To say that the dead are communicating to us earthlings is a bridge too far for some. But yes, it is as I stated it. For those who do not believe that life continues on after our earthly demise, or that we were alive before we entered this world, then there would be no acceptance of Seth in that group. For the belief that death is the end-all would make the existence of a Seth an impossibility. In wish case Seth is only rubbish. And perhaps rubbish of the worst kind as it would lead away from true answers, which can only be had using the scientific method. Why, it may even lead to self delusion! Now if one believes in life after death / before birth then it would only be logical that, well, if the deceased is no longer here then they must be elsewhere. If they must be elsewhere then it would logically follow that here, then, is not the only here of existence. And also, if continued existence is to be believed then again it would logically follow that consciousness is not dependent on form. And if existence continues and that continued existence is not here then, again, speaking logically, there must exist a pathway for the dear departed to move themselves (not their physical possession, we know ) from here to wherever there is. And if this move is not a physical one (again, all your money stays here . . . with your relatives - love 'em or not) then it is only logical that we are in truth formless creatures. And if a pathway exists for us to move from here to there then what prevents someone from there coming to here? Or communication from there to here? And vice versa? If pathways exist between our reality and another reality then that would open up questions regarding information. Does information only exist in physical reality? Or does it also exist in other realities? And if it does exist in other realities then is there a flow of information unbeknownst to us that occurs regularly between realities? Okay, so here is something to ponder then. If the above is true - we survive death, other realities therefore exist, pathways therefore exist, and information naturally flows between realities, then it begs the question, regarding Seth, that if someone were to communicate back to us then what might they have to say? These were questions I dealt with before I began reading what this someone, who calls himself Seth, might have to say. And since I have a fondness of logical thought the possibility then occurred to me that if this someone, Seth, had a perspective borne out of a much greater awareness then the information he was passing on to those who would read his words would be a literal gold mine. Especially for those seeking answers to the nature of ourselves and the nature of our reality. Since there was no fear on my part of getting misled by a bunch of nonsense I thought, given the potential involved, it would certainly be worth the while to check it out. Cost to me . . . the price of a book. If it was all a bunch of nonsense then I wouldn't feel too bad about losing a few dollar investment. Now far be it from me to try to twist anyone's mental arm to do or think anything other than what they want to do or think. I am, though, aware that there are always those kindred souls out there who might be grateful for the suggestion. Perhaps you. Perhaps not. But certainly only up to you. In the meanwhile, all of my posts on this thread are based on the information Seth conveys. If my posts come across to you as the incomprehensible ramblings of an idiotus stultus then stay away from Seth. If my posts seem intriguing, or even sensible, then you might want to give Seth a read.

Why wouldn't an insect have a soul? What precludes them from having a soul? What rationale do use base that conclusion on? What assumptions are being made? Which forms of life then get souls and which do not? Given by whom? Based on what criteria? Criteria created by whom? Are those criteria written down anywhere? Or are they available in some other form or medium? Ants are a consciousness, are they not? What differentiates their consciousness from that of an ape? Or a human? Or any other life form? What about plants? Microbes? Viruses? Elephants? Dogs? Cats? Which ones do or don't have a soul? I'm not trying to embarrass you with these questions, Neeranam. But if you do not have answers to them then you are merely expressing an unexamined belief. My questions are geared towards examining that belief, putting it under a microscope so as to discern it's validity or not. My answer is thus: Ants are just another form which consciousness takes. Like the form of an ape. Or a man or woman. Again, I wouldn't frame the question in terms of possession as possession implies something that is either to be had or outright owned and is also apart from one's self. You are a soul. I could copy and paste from some of my recent posts but it would be easier to ask you to read them.

Yes. Wrong. You seem to not have understood anything I've written. If you had understood then you wouldn't have written what you did.

If you want to get really deep take it from somebody who has been here and has moved on and now has an expansive awareness to the degree that few humans have. Seth. Free downloads here.

Science has created an enormous quandary for itself when it made the decision to ignore a good portion of reality. In truth, the most important part. They have made the decision to not include the whole in their attempt to explain the whole. Please explain that supreme irony. You are truly an enigma, Hummin. You come across as an ardent supporter of science in their dismissal of subjective reality and yet are fond of expressing your connection to the subjective aspect of nature when you are within it's midst. Consider trying to understand the true reality and functioning of the human body in purely mechanistic fashion where the human residing in it has naught to do with the body's reality or functioning? Science's approach in large measure has been to completely disconnect the subjective experience and reality of the human from the very corporeal image which the human has himself created. How the f do you ever expect science to succeed in gaining any sort of understanding of the human body through examination of only it's individual parts as they cut off it's subjective head? You seriously need to reconcile that insane approach with yourself. Science's completely inane approach thus leads to the insane theories of what causes heart troubles as shown in the tweet I posted. "Solar storms may cause up to 5500 heart-related deaths in a given year." Come on, Hummin!!! Do you seriously claim to believe that? And if you don't then doesn't it at least force the question in your head as to how science could be so completely off the rails to even have such a preposterous theory published? And if that inanity is subscribed to by at least a portion of scientists then what other inanities have they been convincing you of? Like, masks work!! LOL

The idea that the offender is hanged before the crime was committed can be confusing, to say the least.

Was that all written before the first cup of java?

You are spot on, mauGR1, on the point of being unprejudiced. Beliefs can be the very definition of prejudicial.

Thanks for clarifying, Hummin, and I quite understand now what you are saying. You didn't quote me and thus I'm assuming that you were referring to my post here: Correct me if my assumption is in error. The point of that post was to simply point out that there are many who willy nilly accept anything that science declares with doing a thorough examination themselves. Or, for that matter, what anyone declares so long as they wear the cloak of "authority." People tend to slap the label of "trusted source" on sources they have come to trust and then trust without question thereafter. Never realising that a once trusted source can morph into an untrusted source, as illustrated by the accompanying tweet to my post. Or, never reconciling the fact that a trusted source can at the same time be an untrusted source. Many here are very much aware of those science minded folk who are quite sensitive whenever the failings of science, or the darker side of science, is brought to their attention. One gets the feeling that they are dismissive of those types of facts precisely because it would destroy their chosen belief that science is only altruistic. When that dismissiveness occurs then they become biased and lose their ability to be objective. So my post below is an explanation of what can happen. and often does happen, when people accept beliefs indiscriminately. It is not intended as a vehicle to assign blame or judgement to folks for believing what they believe. I know you believe in science. I do so myself and have stated that admission quite often. Yet I do not accept their every pronunciation as bed rock truth and so I look at science with an objective eye. I applaud their successes and accomplishments while at the same time pointing out their many shortcomings. So I don't agree with your interpretation in this instance. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with you on the concept of a mirror effect. Here's what happens when you don't understand what beliefs are . . . you're apt to believe anything that has even a scintilla of rational behind it. Especially if the beliefs come from "experts" or "science" all citing "studies." There's no questioning "experts" or "science." You wouldn't question God, would you? Now that would be silly. For the science minded here, or those who blindly accept every word or study science produces as valid, I'll tell ya, given all of the known instances of whoring themselves out for money, compromising their integrity over ideologies, undermining their trust over conflicts of interest and even going so far as to be outright deceptive at times the institution is absolutely destroying their credibility. I remember in the 60's when a product bore the label "Made in Japan." it may as well have read "Junk." Because at that time the two were synonymous. These days whenever I hear the words science or experts I roll my eyes. Science as an institution has totally lost it these days. Anyway, I laughed my ar$e off watching this. So true, so sad.

The soul is quite simply who we are. To expand on that would automatically lead to an explanation of who we are. To put it simply we are a gestalt consciousness. Here's the dictionary definition of gestalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. Consider our bodies. That our bodies are alive is unquestionable. That our bodies have component parts is also unquestionable. A cell, for instance, is a consciousness which has it's own identity and it's own individuality. As does every other component. Our bodies are literally a collection of individual consciousnesses come together in a joint, cooperative, organisational venture to create the form which we identify with. Our consciousness is at the helm. Speaking in our terms we ourselves are a component, a part, of an even more expansive gestalt. That more expansive gestalt goes by many names, which no doubt are the cause for much confusion. The names are unimportant but some may refer to this more expansive gestalt as one's greater self, or higher self, or inner self. Or soul. Or spirit. Even as a cell has it's own identity, it's own inviolate individuality, it's own awareness of itself as itself, it's own eternal reality though it dies in our terms, and is itself a consciousness with the freedom to choose and direct it's experience . . . all despite being a component of a greater body consciousness . . . so it is for us. All of the preceding applies to our human consciousness. Which explains the intuitive feelings that man so often expresses when he speaks of the feeling that there is more to him that what he sees reflected in the mirror. Or his belief in a God. And more specifically in the sense that "we are all part of a whole." Our source is outside of physical reality. That more expansive self does not reside here. Our world is not it's native environment. And yet it is our source and the source of the entire physical world as well. So you might ask what this world is about and why we find ourselves here. What are we doing here? And why aren't we aware of that more expansive self which is our source? To answer that, at least partially, I'll quote myself from an earlier post: Basically, consciousness seeks to know itself in as many ways as possible through it's experiential expression of itself in as many ways as possible. What would it be like to be a doctor? A lawyer? A politician? An athlete? A musician? A bricklayer? A garbageman? A mundane floor sweeper? A famous scientist? Each occupation in these examples provides for a different type of experience and through that experience consciousness knows itself in ways that were previously unknown to it. A floor sweeper is no more higher or lower than a renowned and accomplished scientist in those terms. What would it be like to be a bat, a cat, a rat, a gnat? An amoeba, a fly, a plant, a fish? A rock, a hat, a mountain, a table, a planet, an atom, a cell? Each form which consciousness takes provides for a new and different experience and thus a greater knowing of itself. No different than any desire we may have to experience flying, or playing a guitar, or performing card tricks, or visiting another country. There's no hierarchy within any of that. No up or down, higher or lower, better or worse, more advanced or less advanced. One of the aspects of consciousness is creativity. We inherently possess infinite creativity. And we seek infinite ways to express ourselves. We can express ourselves using the medium of physical reality; and we certainly and obviously do. Yet just as a great artist can express himself in the medium of a canvas and paints he has available to him other mediums for self expression. Clay or sculpture, for instance. And so, too, physical reality is but one medium in which consciousness chooses to express itself. There are an infinite number of other mediums which exist, each one created by us, just as the painting on canvas is the artist's creation. Yet it goes beyond mere self expression. It is also a means to know ourselves in experiential terms. One might imagine what it's like to be a doctor if he is not, or a famous entertainer if he is not. Or what it might be to be a bird or a tree or a rock. But the imagination alone can't provide the experience of being that. And so consciousness literally immerses itself into the experience. And then knows itself in a way that it otherwise would not be able to know itself. And thus it also adds to itself. For our experience here to be real to us we purposely then, as a practical necessity, closed ourselves off to much awareness of our greater selves. Given that experience is infinite we've embarked on that particular course of experience for our own specific reasons. There comes a time, though, when, just as some may waken in a dream to the realisation that they are dreaming, we must awaken to an understanding of our greater being and come to the realisation of our own self created world for what it is. Now the above should provide you with the answer to your two questions. But just in case then I'll state unequivocally that we do survive the death of our corporeal form. Consciousness is independent of form. And consciousness is eternal.

The only thing that's hard about it are the current misconceptions which folks have, over time, come to adopt as true. Learning is easy. Unlearning can be very difficult.

On the other hand, if you think a soul is something apart from you then you'll be searching a long, long time for proof.

I don't mean to barge in, mauGR1 but this one's pretty easy. The definition of soul varies from individual to individual. Christianity holds that we have a soul, as though it were some thing. To me the definition of soul is that we are a soul. We are a soul garbed in flesh, blood and bones. Therefore the proof is staring at you right in the mirror.

Well, to be honest, there ain't a one of us that's not guilty of blinding following both on many issues and at one time or another. I freely admit guilt. So given that I can't be too harsh on them else I come off as holier than thou. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I'm not sure they'd be so dumb as to deny subjective reality. It's not at all subtle, though. I'd say kinda in yer face.

Correction: There is no proof which is acceptable to you. If you want to crown yourself sole arbitor of what is proof and what is not then you are out of your purview. And your self appointed authority carries no recognisable weight. Now if you attempt to defend your belief that proof must meet your standard of proof before it can be considered proof by citing the scientific method then you believe in a fallacy. The scientific method can only be applied to the ojective universe. It is utterly useless when dealing with subjective reality. Your scientific gadgetry can never find the soul within the brain. Or would you be so brash and foolish as to deny sujective reality any true validity? Making such a claim would truly be what you call fanciful and more than slightly cracked.

That went over my head. Care to rephrase?