Do you think you have a soul?

[Blaidd Drwg]

"For me... I just feel like ....souls need to be real so my cultural nursery rhymes make sense..."

Where is it?
What's are its properties? Gas, semi solid? How old is it, did it exist before you, what's its half life after your meatsuit expires?
Is it intrdimensional? How many dimensions ? How does it propel itself?
Why does it need a meatsuit to communicate but not to "exist"
How do you know it's your soul?
How far canIs it like a ghost that gets stuck in specific location it time? Who organized the soul's travel needs across dimensions?
Is it a wave a particle or a beam of energy? If made of energy what prevents it from dissipating?
do souls have a smell?

Where do you think these questions lead? What if you asked the same questions about beauty, a promise, laughter, your toothache, my toothache, fear, integrity, causation, squats, dreams, gravity, quantum entanglement, what existed beofre the big bang, what there is before the universe expands into it? You can measure aspects of some of these, or define them, or talk about their perceived effects, but it's not them themselves, which is what your questions ask about. All of those things are different from a kettlebell or perfume or pretzels or music, but just because you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch them simply leads to a new series of questions.

That doesn't mean your conclusion about the soul is wrong but it means that you're asking the simple questions The hard question is whether anything exists beyond what we can see, smell, hear, taste, or touch. Are they real or are they simply convenient explanations or lies? And then the hardest question is how to act if everything but materiality means nothing.

No you silly twat. The answers to all of your above examples can be answered in a satisfactory way that is both independently verifiable.. (what is a toothache where is it) and in a way which does no harm to the underlying notion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc ( backed by millions of years of natural selection towards certain types of morphological symmetry)

But when you ask the most basic questions about nonsense ideas like a soul... you get handwringing shitbags claiming it to be real based on a wager, a feeling or a desire.

Soul is just an idea to describe a sensibility. About things that you wish were true....like justice . It doesn't exist but it's a useful fiction for manipulating the narrative.

[Hebrew Hammer]

"For me... I just feel like ....souls need to be real so my cultural nursery rhymes make sense..."

Where is it?
What's are its properties? Gas, semi solid? How old is it, did it exist before you, what's its half life after your meatsuit expires?
Is it intrdimensional? How many dimensions ? How does it propel itself?
Why does it need a meatsuit to communicate but not to "exist"
How do you know it's your soul?
How far canIs it like a ghost that gets stuck in specific location it time? Who organized the soul's travel needs across dimensions?
Is it a wave a particle or a beam of energy? If made of energy what prevents it from dissipating?
do souls have a smell?

Where do you think these questions lead? What if you asked the same questions about beauty, a promise, laughter, your toothache, my toothache, fear, integrity, causation, squats, dreams, gravity, quantum entanglement, what existed beofre the big bang, what there is before the universe expands into it? You can measure aspects of some of these, or define them, or talk about their perceived effects, but it's not them themselves, which is what your questions ask about. All of those things are different from a kettlebell or perfume or pretzels or music, but just because you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch them simply leads to a new series of questions.

That doesn't mean your conclusion about the soul is wrong but it means that you're asking the simple questions The hard question is whether anything exists beyond what we can see, smell, hear, taste, or touch. Are they real or are they simply convenient explanations or lies? And then the hardest question is how to act if everything but materiality means nothing.

No you silly twat. The answers to all of your above examples can be answered in a satisfactory way that is both independently verifiable.. (what is a toothache where is it) and in a way which does no harm to the underlying notion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc ( backed by millions of years of natural selection towards certain types of morphological symmetry)

But when you ask the most basic questions about nonsense ideas like a soul... you get handwringing shitbags claiming it to be real based on a wager, a feeling or a desire.

Soul is just an idea to describe a sensibility. About things that you wish were true....like justice . It doesn't exist but it's a useful fiction for manipulating the narrative.

Ok, humor me. Limiting your self to material evidence, how can I be certain you have a toothache and aren't faking it? How would you describe what existed before the big bang? or what it is that the universe expands into? This doesn't go to proving souls exist, but shows how shallow and superficial pure materialism is. Your definition of beauty is a doozy - natural selection and morphological symmetry. Sounds kind of like weak, reductionist, speculation to me. And it sure doesn't correspond to my sense of what artists do or what folks respond to as beautiful in art and nature.

[Testiclaw]

"For me... I just feel like ....souls need to be real so my cultural nursery rhymes make sense..."

Where is it?
What's are its properties? Gas, semi solid? How old is it, did it exist before you, what's its half life after your meatsuit expires?
Is it intrdimensional? How many dimensions ? How does it propel itself?
Why does it need a meatsuit to communicate but not to "exist"
How do you know it's your soul?
How far canIs it like a ghost that gets stuck in specific location it time? Who organized the soul's travel needs across dimensions?
Is it a wave a particle or a beam of energy? If made of energy what prevents it from dissipating?
do souls have a smell?

Where do you think these questions lead? What if you asked the same questions about beauty, a promise, laughter, your toothache, my toothache, fear, integrity, causation, squats, dreams, gravity, quantum entanglement, what existed beofre the big bang, what there is before the universe expands into it? You can measure aspects of some of these, or define them, or talk about their perceived effects, but it's not them themselves, which is what your questions ask about. All of those things are different from a kettlebell or perfume or pretzels or music, but just because you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch them simply leads to a new series of questions.

That doesn't mean your conclusion about the soul is wrong but it means that you're asking the simple questions The hard question is whether anything exists beyond what we can see, smell, hear, taste, or touch. Are they real or are they simply convenient explanations or lies? And then the hardest question is how to act if everything but materiality means nothing.

No you silly twat. The answers to all of your above examples can be answered in a satisfactory way that is both independently verifiable.. (what is a toothache where is it) and in a way which does no harm to the underlying notion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc ( backed by millions of years of natural selection towards certain types of morphological symmetry)

But when you ask the most basic questions about nonsense ideas like a soul... you get handwringing shitbags claiming it to be real based on a wager, a feeling or a desire.

Soul is just an idea to describe a sensibility. About things that you wish were true....like justice . It doesn't exist but it's a useful fiction for manipulating the narrative.

Ok, humor me. Limiting your self to material evidence, how can I be certain you have a toothache and aren't faking it? How would you describe what existed before the big bang? or what it is that the universe expands into? This doesn't go to proving souls exist, but shows how shallow and superficial pure materialism is. Your definition of beauty is a doozy - natural selection and morphological symmetry. Sounds kind of like weak, reductionist, speculation to me. And it sure doesn't correspond to my sense of what artists do or what folks respond to as beautiful in art and nature.

1) Pain sensors inside of nerves and nerve bundles receive stimulus, usually air or substances of varying temperatures, and send electronic action potentials to the brain, and areas of the brain associated with pain and pain response are triggered both releasing messengers to receptor sites and electronic activity. That's measurable.

2) Before the Big Bang? Well, there are a few answers, the first one, right now, is: We Don't Know. And that's okay, because we're trying to find out. When we don't know something, we don't know something. So we work. It's also possible that time began with the big bang, but I'll leave that to a physicist to discuss. Are you a physicist?

3) What is the Universe expanding into? We Don't Know. Again, ask a physicist. They don't have a problem saying that they don't know something when they don't know something: a flaw that you so readily share at your convenience.

[Turdacious]

It seems that one of your core premises is that Jews and Papists are uncomfortable with science and the scientific method. Am I right on that?

[Blaidd Drwg]

It seems that one of your core premises is that Jews and Papists are uncomfortable with science and the scientific method. Am I right on that?

This Jew is particularly stupid for one. As you have often pointed out, papal teaching is more accepting of the scientific method.

testis demolition of HH is probably sufficient for now... but whinging about the inadequacy of knowledg about the Big Bang in a discussion about ghosts is just rich. We know enough to estimate and confirm some pretty phenomenal observations in the universe and HH can't even tell me whether the souls has a smell or what it's made of or any material or interesting fact about it.

[Hebrew Hammer]

"For me... I just feel like ....souls need to be real so my cultural nursery rhymes make sense..."

Where is it?
What's are its properties? Gas, semi solid? How old is it, did it exist before you, what's its half life after your meatsuit expires?
Is it intrdimensional? How many dimensions ? How does it propel itself?
Why does it need a meatsuit to communicate but not to "exist"
How do you know it's your soul?
How far canIs it like a ghost that gets stuck in specific location it time? Who organized the soul's travel needs across dimensions?
Is it a wave a particle or a beam of energy? If made of energy what prevents it from dissipating?
do souls have a smell?

Where do you think these questions lead? What if you asked the same questions about beauty, a promise, laughter, your toothache, my toothache, fear, integrity, causation, squats, dreams, gravity, quantum entanglement, what existed beofre the big bang, what there is before the universe expands into it? You can measure aspects of some of these, or define them, or talk about their perceived effects, but it's not them themselves, which is what your questions ask about. All of those things are different from a kettlebell or perfume or pretzels or music, but just because you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch them simply leads to a new series of questions.

That doesn't mean your conclusion about the soul is wrong but it means that you're asking the simple questions The hard question is whether anything exists beyond what we can see, smell, hear, taste, or touch. Are they real or are they simply convenient explanations or lies? And then the hardest question is how to act if everything but materiality means nothing.

No you silly twat. The answers to all of your above examples can be answered in a satisfactory way that is both independently verifiable.. (what is a toothache where is it) and in a way which does no harm to the underlying notion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc ( backed by millions of years of natural selection towards certain types of morphological symmetry)

But when you ask the most basic questions about nonsense ideas like a soul... you get handwringing shitbags claiming it to be real based on a wager, a feeling or a desire.

Soul is just an idea to describe a sensibility. About things that you wish were true....like justice . It doesn't exist but it's a useful fiction for manipulating the narrative.

Ok, humor me. Limiting your self to material evidence, how can I be certain you have a toothache and aren't faking it? How would you describe what existed before the big bang? or what it is that the universe expands into? This doesn't go to proving souls exist, but shows how shallow and superficial pure materialism is. Your definition of beauty is a doozy - natural selection and morphological symmetry. Sounds kind of like weak, reductionist, speculation to me. And it sure doesn't correspond to my sense of what artists do or what folks respond to as beautiful in art and nature.

1) Pain sensors inside of nerves and nerve bundles receive stimulus, usually air or substances of varying temperatures, and send electronic action potentials to the brain, and areas of the brain associated with pain and pain response are triggered both releasing messengers to receptor sites and electronic activity. That's measurable.

2) Before the Big Bang? Well, there are a few answers, the first one, right now, is: We Don't Know. And that's okay, because we're trying to find out. When we don't know something, we don't know something. So we work. It's also possible that time began with the big bang, but I'll leave that to a physicist to discuss. Are you a physicist?

3) What is the Universe expanding into? We Don't Know. Again, ask a physicist. They don't have a problem saying that they don't know something when they don't know something: a flaw that you so readily share at your convenience.

OK. Now 1 wouldn't prove to me you have a toothache, it would just be those electrical discharges. The material correlate are different from the thing itself.

As to 2 and 3, "I don't know" is the answer that scientists seem to give. Yet that doesn't stop the massive field of theoretical physics that tries to explore the questions. It's informed speculation. It may or may not be able to tested. It may or may not be able to be demonstrated speculatively in mathematics in a manner that's consistent and fully explanatory. So the language of exploration goes beyond materialism without a blip.

As to the soul, the absence of material we can't sense doesn't end the discussion. It moves it to a different discussion with different reasoning. The reasoning as to whether God and the soul exists are steps removed from what the reasons exploring whether the Big Bang existed, but materialism itself doesn't argue against God and the soul -- it simply argues that the material is all there is and that it's meaningless to discuss the existence of anything not material.

[Blaidd Drwg]

You used God and reasoning. In the same paragraph...Jog the fuck On.

If you'd have just said...I think this, believe it and I require it to be true for me....Fine. Believe what you will. It's not reason, it's not rational but many fine things are not. I have an irrational desire to drive vehicles very very fast. I have a response to an experience you do not...probably one you physically cannot. I cannot call this a universal "experience"..it's in my head.

Let's go back.

You report a toothache.
I probe it with a pick...you have an autonomic pain flinch.
Your BP is elevated, pulse quickened. You have visible sweat.
I observe the nerve pathways light up on an FMRI machine indicating strong neural responses up and down line in the trigeminal nerve.
It's no longer not possible you don't have a toothache as you report. Is the experience real? Absolutely. is the Pain real? Observably so....The toothache is your description of the neurological experience. It's observable, repeatable and real.

You say you have a soul......ok..what are the physical signs and indicators other than you are conditioned by culture to believe in horsehsit?

You observe something to be beautiful, rhapsodic, inspiring...your body floods with endorphins (measurable) pupils dilate (measurable)...face flushed BP raised.....You are experiencing what you call beauty....You just so happen to be in a Black Baptist Church revival. I stand next to you observing the same things...I have no such response.

Are we witnessing beauty? No...we're witnessing a trained response to stimulus. Neurons that fire together wire together and you dance like a little puppet to the "beauty" Yet...there is no actual beauty. There is just you having an endogenous drug trip.

Your soul is not REAL...your experience of wishing to have one is.

[Sangoma]

There are lots of questions that cannot be answered in the scientific way. An example from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - what's quality? Everyone knows what it is yet it is difficult to precisely define it. From A Guide For The Perplexed by Schumacher: what makes things alive and/or conscious? Inorganic matter can contain the same molecules of nitrogen, carbon etc. as living organisms yet it is not alive. How come? Is the symphony only different from the traffic noise by the order of the frequency signals? How come some music is awesome and survives centuries and another is forgotten in two weeks? Same with literature and art.

My simplified answer is that some of it connects us to God and some doesn't. God not being the guy with the beard sitting on the cloud (Terra's idea of it), but the very essence of everything, the proverbial ocean rom which the waves appear. What is meant when they say "there is nothing but God". What all the stuff in the Universe is made of.

[Sangoma]

If G-word is making one cringe it can be substituted by other definitions. For example, one Donald Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at the University of California, mathematically arrives to the idea that everything is made of consciousness.

Physics from Consciousness

Abstract
Scientific investigation of the classic mind-body problem has failed to produce a viable theory. As McGinn puts it, "We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be." I propose that the obstruction is commitment to a physicalist ontology: It is not possible to obtain consciousness from unconscious ingredients. I propose instead the ontology of conscious realism: Consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Matter, brains, and space-time are among the contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their existence. For a conscious realist the mind-body problem is to show precisely how conscious agents construct the macroscopic and microscopic physical world. I propose a mathematically rigorous account of conscious agents and their dynamics, and of their construction of the physical world. In particular, I propose that the physical world is a species-specific user interface, and that quantum physics represents properties of the stable dynamics of conscious agents. Symmetries of these stable dynamics are the source of the symmetries studied in quantum physics. I present a concrete dynamics for pairs of conscious agents that exhibits SL(2,C) symmetry, and from this obtain a physical representation of the dynamics in terms of relativistic spin half particles. This representation allows one to canonically associate a discrete patch of Minkowski space-time to each such pair of conscious agents, and suggests that, at the smallest scale, space-time is discrete. This suggestion comports well with current approaches to quantum gravity.

[Turdacious]

It seems that one of your core premises is that Jews and Papists are uncomfortable with science and the scientific method. Am I right on that?

This Jew is particularly stupid for one. As you have often pointed out, papal teaching is more accepting of the scientific method.

testis demolition of HH is probably sufficient for now... but whinging about the inadequacy of knowledg about the Big Bang in a discussion about ghosts is just rich. We know enough to estimate and confirm some pretty phenomenal observations in the universe and HH can't even tell me whether the souls has a smell or what it's made of or any material or interesting fact about it.

Religious Papists and Jews invented modern science and the scientific method (mostly to counter a Kardashian of rationalist perspectives), and the Monsignor LeMaitre's theory(yes, the originator of the big bang theory was a priest) is not inconsistent with either a Jewish or Catholic understanding of the soul.

I've read some of the philosophers you like, and have generally only seen a superficial and often dishonest understanding of the more classical religious perspectives. They miss a lot, and given your interest in philosophy, so are you. I recommend starting with Michael Polanyi.

[nafod]

There are lots of questions that cannot be answered in the scientific way. An example from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - what's quality? Everyone knows what it is yet it is difficult to precisely define it. From A Guide For The Perplexed by Schumacher: what makes things alive and/or conscious?

Not saying Christopher Alexander is right, but if you are entertaining ideas from the two guys you listed above, you should browse these four books. Full of fascinating ideas.

Christopher Alexander is the architect who came up with the idea of pattern languages, that was adopted by the computer science community. I used the ideas from his work to do the design for the addition to my house, which I think came out alright. He took a big leap downrange with his 4 books on The Nature of Order.

Volume 1 attempts to define "life" in the built environment and determine why one built environment may have more life than another. Important to this idea is his notion of centers:

Centers are those particular identified sets, or systems, which appear within the larger whole as distinct and noticeable parts. They appear because they have noticeable distinctness, which makes them separate out from their surroundings and makes them cohere, and it is from the arrangements of these coherent parts that other coherent parts appear. The life or intensity of one center is increased or decreased according to the position and intensity of other nearby centers. Above all, centers become most intense when the centers which they are made of help each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Order

[Blaidd Drwg]

There are lots of questions that cannot be answered in the scientific way. An example from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - what's quality? Everyone knows what it is yet it is difficult to precisely define it. From A Guide For The Perplexed by Schumacher: what makes things alive and/or conscious?

Not saying Christopher Alexander is right, but if you are entertaining ideas from the two guys you listed above, you should browse these four books. Full of fascinating ideas.

Christopher Alexander is the architect who came up with the idea of pattern languages, that was adopted by the computer science community. I used the ideas from his work to do the design for the addition to my house, which I think came out alright. He took a big leap downrange with his 4 books on The Nature of Order.

Volume 1 attempts to define "life" in the built environment and determine why one built environment may have more life than another. Important to this idea is his notion of centers:

Centers are those particular identified sets, or systems, which appear within the larger whole as distinct and noticeable parts. They appear because they have noticeable distinctness, which makes them separate out from their surroundings and makes them cohere, and it is from the arrangements of these coherent parts that other coherent parts appear. The life or intensity of one center is increased or decreased according to the position and intensity of other nearby centers. Above all, centers become most intense when the centers which they are made of help each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Order

Pattern Language is a fantstic book. It does not favors for those wishing to rise above their basic carbon form but he's a fantastic storyteller.


Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

[Turdacious]

Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

Polanyi and LeMaitre were both 20th century thinkers.

I'm reading this as-- disagree with it, haven't studied it, don't understand it, and don't want to. That's cool, but it really limits your ability to criticize it effectively.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

Polanyi and LeMaitre were both 20th century thinkers.

I'm reading this as-- disagree with it, haven't studied it, don't understand it, and don't want to. That's cool, but it really limits your ability to criticize it effectively.

Wrong. there's not need to rehash College reading. Philosophy is fascinating, it does fuck all in most cases to answer factual questions. Ergo...I have no need to criticize it. It's not remotely relevant. You mistake my affection for the just so stories of Jordna Peterson as evidence I'll buy any old fairy tale. I've read portions of The Soul's upward Yearning...it is a fascianting little tale...it says NOTHING USEFUL about the facts that might underpin the existence of a soul...just the standard discussion of "feelings" that portends most people's beginning and end analysis of what is....Not Good Enough.

Alchemy was a science before we had chemistry. Astrology was the current thinking before we had reliable astronomical instruments. Most of your philosophical machinations get shit out the leaf blower now that we have FMRI.

[Turdacious]

Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

Polanyi and LeMaitre were both 20th century thinkers.

I'm reading this as-- disagree with it, haven't studied it, don't understand it, and don't want to. That's cool, but it really limits your ability to criticize it effectively.

Wrong. there's not need to rehash College reading. Philosophy is fascinating, it does fuck all in most cases to answer factual questions. Ergo...I have no need to criticize it. It's not remotely relevant. Alchemy was a science before we had chemistry. Astrology was the current thinking before we had reliable astronomical instruments. Most of your philosophical machinations get shit out the leaf blower now that we have FMRI.

You can skirt around it all you want to, but your criticism of Christian and Jewish concepts of the soul is based on your ignorance of them. If you want to go after the world's largest religion, you need a better ammunition.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

Polanyi and LeMaitre were both 20th century thinkers.

I'm reading this as-- disagree with it, haven't studied it, don't understand it, and don't want to. That's cool, but it really limits your ability to criticize it effectively.

Wrong. there's not need to rehash College reading. Philosophy is fascinating, it does fuck all in most cases to answer factual questions. Ergo...I have no need to criticize it. It's not remotely relevant. Alchemy was a science before we had chemistry. Astrology was the current thinking before we had reliable astronomical instruments. Most of your philosophical machinations get shit out the leaf blower now that we have FMRI.

You can skirt around it all you want to, but your criticism of Christian and Jewish concepts of the soul is based on your ignorance of them. If you want to go after the world's largest religion, you need a better ammunition.

The staggering arrogance of that statement...you're presumption that this is an on the one hand versus on the other...you're relying on baseless wishing. I'm simply relying on self correcting system of thought...non denominational and irrespective of your desires.


Let's tackle your essential argument...

"Your critique of phrenology is baseless, Sir."

I don't need to criticize it... in fact, I'm not. I'm denying there's a basis for the argument beyond I wish this were true. People wish a great many things, the trick is to recognize that wishing has fuck all to do with reality.

[Sangoma]

There are lots of questions that cannot be answered in the scientific way. An example from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - what's quality? Everyone knows what it is yet it is difficult to precisely define it. From A Guide For The Perplexed by Schumacher: what makes things alive and/or conscious?

Not saying Christopher Alexander is right, but if you are entertaining ideas from the two guys you listed above, you should browse these four books. Full of fascinating ideas.

Christopher Alexander is the architect who came up with the idea of pattern languages, that was adopted by the computer science community. I used the ideas from his work to do the design for the addition to my house, which I think came out alright. He took a big leap downrange with his 4 books on The Nature of Order.

Volume 1 attempts to define "life" in the built environment and determine why one built environment may have more life than another. Important to this idea is his notion of centers:

Centers are those particular identified sets, or systems, which appear within the larger whole as distinct and noticeable parts. They appear because they have noticeable distinctness, which makes them separate out from their surroundings and makes them cohere, and it is from the arrangements of these coherent parts that other coherent parts appear. The life or intensity of one center is increased or decreased according to the position and intensity of other nearby centers. Above all, centers become most intense when the centers which they are made of help each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Order

Thanks for that, I will definitely check this out.

[Blaidd Drwg]

This thread highlights why using faith as a benchmark for discourse.

The faithful across this board fail to recognize no one needs play with their particular franchised tar-baby.
Produce evidence of your notion or jog the fuck on. Absent any evidence and any methodology for investigating, experimenting or developing evidence... then there's no need to take anything they say seriously.

[buckethead]

I find a couple things interesting about this long discussion. First, it seems in just about every case where proponents argue for something "soulful", it has to do with ethics. What guides us on how to live in this life - actions, behavior, emotions, aesthetics.

And I would agree that science has fallen flat on its face so far in this arena. It's no small fact that Isaac Newton's theory of aether-based optics sounds absolutely retarded 300 years later but Epictetus is as relevant as ever. Some say that as soon as science cracks consciousness, all that will change, and there's no reason to doubt this - but it is easy to doubt it.

In fact, if scientific history holds true and there's no intrinsic meaning to anything, then it, by definition, would require stories and myths to create meaning in one's life.

On the other hand, everything else people have spouted here are just that - stories. I forget who said it, but a great though experiment is if we had collective amnesia tonight and woke up tomorrow with absolutely no knowledge, language, books, or internet. Assuming we start building from square one, it's reasonable to believe that science will come around again and, if it does, we will have the exact same explanations that we are certain of today - electricity, magnetism, gravity, statics/dynamics, etc...

However, it is also reasonable that we would have wildly different myths and religions and concepts of meaning, origin, beauty, society, etc...

[Turdacious]

This thread highlights why using faith as a benchmark for discourse.

The faithful across this board fail to recognize no one needs play with their particular franchised tar-baby.
Produce evidence of your notion or jog the fuck on. Absent any evidence and any methodology for investigating, experimenting or developing evidence... then there's no need to take anything they say seriously.

Calm down Hazel Motes- the only one in this discussion using faith as a benchmark is you.

[dead man walking]

Calm down Hazel Motes

hazel fucking motes!

citing flannery o'connor is either brilliant or as loopy as one of her characters.

[Sangoma]

This thread highlights why using faith as a benchmark for discourse.

The faithful across this board fail to recognize no one needs play with their particular franchised tar-baby.
Produce evidence of your notion or jog the fuck on. Absent any evidence and any methodology for investigating, experimenting or developing evidence... then there's no need to take anything they say seriously.

Do you reckon everything can and has to be methodologically proven? I don't. For example, practicing Buddhists have way more insight into the workings of the mind by observing their own on regular basis, without systematic measurements and statistical analysis.

[Sangoma]

Turd,

You do realize at a certain point in Western Civ, it would have been incredibly rare for anyone with the basic education necessary for rational discourse to be anything other than a priest, rabbi or imam? The contortions needed to stitch our modern body of knowledge back to it's initial adherents shows a pathological lack of contextual thinking on your part. At one point, everyone was a writer of just so stories...(Alexander above is a great example)...that should chasten us but never hinder us shrugging off the detritus of our past.

Polanyi and LeMaitre were both 20th century thinkers.

I'm reading this as-- disagree with it, haven't studied it, don't understand it, and don't want to. That's cool, but it really limits your ability to criticize it effectively.

Wrong. there's not need to rehash College reading. Philosophy is fascinating, it does fuck all in most cases to answer factual questions. Ergo...I have no need to criticize it. It's not remotely relevant. You mistake my affection for the just so stories of Jordna Peterson as evidence I'll buy any old fairy tale. I've read portions of The Soul's upward Yearning...it is a fascianting little tale...it says NOTHING USEFUL about the facts that might underpin the existence of a soul...just the standard discussion of "feelings" that portends most people's beginning and end analysis of what is....Not Good Enough.

Alchemy was a science before we had chemistry. Astrology was the current thinking before we had reliable astronomical instruments. Most of your philosophical machinations get shit out the leaf blower now that we have FMRI.

I think you are being one-sided. The origins of astronomy lie in cosmological, religious, mythological and other practices, including astrology, and observations of the skies for purposes of astrology helped create astronomy as the science. The same with alchemy, which methodologically studied the properties of the substances, that part of it being nothing other than chemistry. I also think philosophy gets us closer to understanding of consciousness and human nature than science. Of course, fairy tales won't cut it, but I also think that most important and often most basic concepts cannot be conveyed in words. Only experience and eventually knowing. What's gravity? What's time? Space? Quality? Kindness? Compassion? Which, funny enough, comes back to support your view: reading someone else's ideas about soul is pretty useless, as - again - they cannot be adequately expressed.

[davidc]

Yeah, I do. I think we all have something near to whatever your definition of a soul is.

And this is about as mystical as you'll ever hear me get.

Because I tell stories for a living, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the concept of story. On those occasions where I'm paid to teach writing, I teach story. A story is a lens through which we apprehend our world, our circumstance. Everyplace I go --- and I've gone to well over 100 countries --- I ask about the local creation myth. It is always, of course, a story.

We Homo sapiens told stories --- I'm assuming --- from our earliest days on earth. We told stories around the campfires, Homer spoke his epic poems, Guttenberg allowed us to widely disseminate stories and we read stories on the internet.

Telling stories is what humans do to make sense of our world. Your ancestors were good hunters and gatherers, otherwise, you wouldn't be here. And if we listen to the stories of hunter-gatherers --- those of the Australian Aboriginals, for instance --- we hear explanations of why we exist, why certain trees bloom in certain parts of the year, and how a geological formation came to be.

Stories are baked into our DNA.

In my mind, I have always envisioned a blinding curve of energy, a great story arc in the sky.

When I write, the first 20 minutes or so is generally throw away stuff. But as my friend Richard Wheeler (author of 60 novels) says, "it is like a rusty old outdoor water pump. You work the handle and all you get at first is rusty muddy water. But if you keep pumping, the water runs clear and clean."

So it is with writing. If you are working well, sometime in that first 20 minutes you forget yourself. The prose becomes cleaner, the story sharper, elements you hadn't even considered in your outline enter the flow and those annoying loose ends begin the tie themselves up into neat little knots.

Meanwhile, you may have been sitting there for 3 hours, but it seems like you've only been working for 30 minutes. You went somewhere for a while and there you consulted the Great Story Arc and it was there that the stories of our history on earth lit you up and informed the best of your writing.

I know you've all had roughly similar experiences writing, even for some essay project in school. Couldn't get the damn thing started and now it's four in the morning and, damn, this isn't bad.

I think the act of losing yourself in the work is much akin to Eastern Meditative states.

I am not alone in this thought. In 1990, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the Hungarian psychologist, and (at the time) University of Chicago Psych professor wrote a book entitled Flow, the Psychology of Optimal Experience. He found that painters, for instance, experienced flow states while working. A musician writing a passage on paper may not hear the doorbell ring. A neurosurgeon may experience a complex five hour operation as 15 minutes of work. A ballerina, on the other hand, may sense that two seconds of movement have slowed down to two minutes. An athlete in the flow is said to be "in the zone."

Csikszentmihalyi described the flow as "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost."

Some folks use meditation to get to that state of ego-less flow and what I think of as "creatural" thinking (rather than thinking in the ordinary brooding mode). Without self critical thought or ego, these folks may feel they've begun the perceive the meaning of life.

I think a basketball player in the zone shares some of that comprehension. I mean, I guess you can get there doing a Buddist "stare at the wall for a day" exercise. Some of us just need a little harder bump.

Which brings us back to the soul.

When I'm writing and in the flow, I often have no idea where that element of the story just came from and why the piece wants to finish the way it demands to finish. I just pulled that stuff down out of that blinding curve of energy, the Great Story Arc.

And what that has to do with the soul is this: you are part of it. I am part of it. Every human being is part of it. As soon as you are born, your parents start telling your story. And as a child, you will skin your knee or walk naked into your parent's dinner party, you'll suffer a broken heart, hit the zone in your chosen sport, have children of your own. And that all becomes part of the human story. It folds into the Great Story Arc and alters it if only very slightly. And there it is --- in that blinding curve of energy that lasts forever --- that is where your soul resides.

That was a blessing. Thanks for sharing it.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Yeah, I do. I think we all have something near to whatever your definition of a soul is.

And this is about as mystical as you'll ever hear me get.

Because I tell stories for a living, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the concept of story. On those occasions where I'm paid to teach writing, I teach story. A story is a lens through which we apprehend our world, our circumstance. Everyplace I go --- and I've gone to well over 100 countries --- I ask about the local creation myth. It is always, of course, a story.

We Homo sapiens told stories --- I'm assuming --- from our earliest days on earth. We told stories around the campfires, Homer spoke his epic poems, Guttenberg allowed us to widely disseminate stories and we read stories on the internet.

Telling stories is what humans do to make sense of our world. Your ancestors were good hunters and gatherers, otherwise, you wouldn't be here. And if we listen to the stories of hunter-gatherers --- those of the Australian Aboriginals, for instance --- we hear explanations of why we exist, why certain trees bloom in certain parts of the year, and how a geological formation came to be.

Stories are baked into our DNA.

In my mind, I have always envisioned a blinding curve of energy, a great story arc in the sky.

When I write, the first 20 minutes or so is generally throw away stuff. But as my friend Richard Wheeler (author of 60 novels) says, "it is like a rusty old outdoor water pump. You work the handle and all you get at first is rusty muddy water. But if you keep pumping, the water runs clear and clean."

So it is with writing. If you are working well, sometime in that first 20 minutes you forget yourself. The prose becomes cleaner, the story sharper, elements you hadn't even considered in your outline enter the flow and those annoying loose ends begin the tie themselves up into neat little knots.

Meanwhile, you may have been sitting there for 3 hours, but it seems like you've only been working for 30 minutes. You went somewhere for a while and there you consulted the Great Story Arc and it was there that the stories of our history on earth lit you up and informed the best of your writing.

I know you've all had roughly similar experiences writing, even for some essay project in school. Couldn't get the damn thing started and now it's four in the morning and, damn, this isn't bad.

I think the act of losing yourself in the work is much akin to Eastern Meditative states.

I am not alone in this thought. In 1990, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the Hungarian psychologist, and (at the time) University of Chicago Psych professor wrote a book entitled Flow, the Psychology of Optimal Experience. He found that painters, for instance, experienced flow states while working. A musician writing a passage on paper may not hear the doorbell ring. A neurosurgeon may experience a complex five hour operation as 15 minutes of work. A ballerina, on the other hand, may sense that two seconds of movement have slowed down to two minutes. An athlete in the flow is said to be "in the zone."

Csikszentmihalyi described the flow as "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost."

Some folks use meditation to get to that state of ego-less flow and what I think of as "creatural" thinking (rather than thinking in the ordinary brooding mode). Without self critical thought or ego, these folks may feel they've begun the perceive the meaning of life.

I think a basketball player in the zone shares some of that comprehension. I mean, I guess you can get there doing a Buddist "stare at the wall for a day" exercise. Some of us just need a little harder bump.

Which brings us back to the soul.

When I'm writing and in the flow, I often have no idea where that element of the story just came from and why the piece wants to finish the way it demands to finish. I just pulled that stuff down out of that blinding curve of energy, the Great Story Arc.

And what that has to do with the soul is this: you are part of it. I am part of it. Every human being is part of it. As soon as you are born, your parents start telling your story. And as a child, you will skin your knee or walk naked into your parent's dinner party, you'll suffer a broken heart, hit the zone in your chosen sport, have children of your own. And that all becomes part of the human story. It folds into the Great Story Arc and alters it if only very slightly. And there it is --- in that blinding curve of energy that lasts forever --- that is where your soul resides.

That was a blessing. Thanks for sharing it.

That was Garbage.