Tippaporn

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?

Absolutely they can. One of the greatest fallacies taught is that answers aren't available. The belief that man cannot understand who he is and his reality acts as a literal blinder which prevents you and all others subscribing to that belief from accessing the answers. That belief produces a result. The result is blindness to finding answers. Here's how it works. You start by looking for answers. You belive that you cannot find answers. You do not find answers which then reaffirms your belief that you can't find answers. You again look for answers, still believing that you cannot find them. And again you don't find answers. Your belief is then reaffirmed. You repeat the exact same process over and over again. Eventually you convince yourself of the reality you've unwittingly created for yourself and then come onto a forum and express your "truth." "These questions cannot be answered by man." All that you've done is enter into an endless loop for which there is no way out as long as that belief is maintained. The only way . . . the only way out . . . is to change the belief. Change the belief and the results change. Just as the old belief produced results which mirrored the belief perfectly so too will a new belief produce results which mirror that belief perfectly. Do you now see how it works? Didn't Einstein famously quip that doing the same thing while expecting different results is the definition of insanity? You can look for an eternity for answers yet if the input remains the same . . . I can't find answers . . . then the output remains the same . . . I can't get any answers. What I've described above is a process. Every idea returns a result. I'll go further and say that this processs is the same for every and all issues. In reality all issues are the same for they all work using the exact same process. Every idea returns a result. Beliefs are oft repeated ideas. Therefore every belief returns a result. The sooner folks understand that the sooner they will be able to actually direct their lives on a conscious basis. For as long as that process is not understood you will not pay attention to the beliefs you hold for you will believe that ideas and beliefs do not produce effects. You will not understand how it is that you create. And you will therefore be at best half conscious. Ask yourself these questions: What are ideas? What do ideas do? What effects do ideas produce? What are beliefs? How do beliefs function? What effects do beliefs produce? The correct answers to those questions are critcal for anyone wishing to understand how it all works.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ had his second coming and spoke the truth he'd be crucified again in a New York minute. By the same people who so anxiously awaited his return as their savior, too. Because his truths would run counter to their false beliefs.

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.

If man creates hierarchy then surely it exists. All I'm saying is that hierarchy is not an inherent feature of reality. And perhaps, too, when observing animals what appears to be a hierachal order may be nothing of the sort. Only interpreted as such through belief. Glad to hear from you again, mauGR1.

I just had a conversation with a friend whose current view is that "indeed EVERYTHING has a level of consciousness," as stated in his own words. My reply to him is perhaps a better and more detailed explanation of the point I made in my above post on the perception of someone having a holier than thou attitude towards others. So here it is. Thoughts are always welcome. I would say that there are no levels of consciousness. Consciousness is what we are. There are obviously infinite types of consciousness. The consciousness of a man is not the same as that of a cat, or dog, or plant, or rock. They are different types to the end that each type of consciousness provides for a different kind of experience. Man has a penchant for making comparisons. And in making comparisons he can't help but categorize. And so he may attempt to categorize the various aspects of consciousness by intelligence, for example. Higher intelligence then being erroneously thought of as an indication of a greater degree of consciousness and so on. And his comparisons then also extend to making comparisons and categorizations of different consciousnesses of the same type. Usually in terms of higher and lower as promoted by currently held ideas about evolution. There is no such hierarchy in real terms. That is a man made construct. 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. And so it is, too, in the pursuit of knowledge.

I, myself, wouldn't be interested in hearing what Sheldrake thinks about my criticism. I would, though, be interested in a discussion with him. But that will never happen. I listened to the entire talk, including the Q & A. During which he revealed that he's since become a Christian and even attends mass. He'd have to have a mass conversion before he would accept any Sethian concepts, LOL. I believe Sethian concepts would be a bridge too far. Also considering his profession. He's already taken a lot of heat for changing his stance from one of materialism to that of panpsychism. Everyone has a different level of understanding regarding who we are and how the world works. (And just to ensure that no one takes that statement as a holier than thou attitude I'll point out that life isn't about climbing up the rungs of the ladder towards any kind of enlightenment where those nearer the top look down on those below. That's a childish perception usually stemming from a lack of self worth which I hope folks here don't buy into.) There are many explanations of reality out there; from watered down versions to in-depth versions. People will gravitate to whatever degree of expansiveness of an explanation that best suits their own purposes. Which is why I began by applauding Sheldrake and do not poo-poo him even though in my opinion he misses much. As you mention, Sunmaster, he opens people up to think differently about how the universe is constructed and he does take them in the right direction. Nothing but kudos for Sheldrake from me. As to the world not being ready for Seth's explanation of ourselves and the self created reality we find ourselves in. I share your sentiment . . . sometimes. Only when I feel frustration, though. For one, I recognise that statement as a belief and not a condition of reality. For another, I know also that it is not within my purview to decide such things. One the other hand I do admit that I yearn for more kindred souls.

Okay!! Shall we begin with a headbanger? I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed. Here are my comments and observations. My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up. I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism. He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious. Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much. From the video description: The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world. The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits. Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants. Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea. The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory. Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps. And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed. For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model. Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part. I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model. What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality. Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world? Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism. All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model. My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons. For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind. Consciousness is what we are. The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality. Consciousness creates the mind. The reverse of what panpsychism assumes. For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one. And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality. As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness. I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind. And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is. Or mentality, for that matter. These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are. And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about. From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality. There is also a definite and very real subjective reality. The source of objective reality is subjective reality. It's the other way around from the accepted view. Subjective reality creates objective reality. Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist. Consciousness creates form. Again, not the other way around as is supposed. With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else. Cohesion. When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting. For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science. Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted: "The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”" —NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975 What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought. I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true. And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well. Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation. The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none. A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience. And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly. I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order. And that source is not of this world. At least no longer. But only in our terms. Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk. Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon.

And my dear Norwegian friend.

I see a familiar face lurking below. Someone with the keen eyes of an owl.