Does energy need a purpose? It's energy. It is. When I say life, I mean something that can move of its own accord, that can reproduce, that can consume and grow and that responds to stimulus, etc. And by theory I mean a hypothetical principle/explanation that is based on observation. I suppose I would know more about it if I were to observe the behavior of proteins after an organism dies.
What is the soul?
- Thread starter Xgen
- Start date
Well, sure, OK, that is your way of approach. I would call tat way being objective....you empirically looking at matter/energy...through your microscope?
But there is also a looking that way in a different mode, so to speak. in an ecstatic way where inner feelings are allowed to play...
But there is also a looking that way in a different mode, so to speak. in an ecstatic way where inner feelings are allowed to play...
But to completely separate the two only creates a rift between science and your feelings. If you're comfortable with expressing both not only can you balance your mind, but you can better communicate with everyone. It's an ideal situation (in my opinion) when you can consider both. For example: taking the belief I have in the soul and attempting to communicate that feeling to a scientific community.
Ahhh!!! Vat dis Soul???
I wrote a poem years ago:
So what is this thing called soul?
Soul is a metaphor for all that you are.
It is what gives value to the material.
It is your way of loving, it is the expression of your love.....
I wrote a poem years ago:
SOULS THAT TOUCH
A hand extended
Though out distant time
You look, you find,
The hand reaching for your’s is mine
You see it, you understand,
You know what to do.
You feel within
The hand extended loves you true
Your feelings try hard,
They fight to have a say.
Your thoughts, your thinking
Only stand in the way.
A step towards the unknown
With love as the guide.
You’re scared, you’re thrilled
You want to laugh, you want to hide.
Your hand is shaking
As it draws near
Our touch is soft
Dispels all fear.
Our hands clasped firmly
As we draw each other close.
Our souls entwined, Oh joy of
Meeting, a celebration, a toast.
With love as the grounding
Awareness enhanced
Horizons, worlds expanded
As our twin white flames sing and dance
A continued journey of immeasurable
Time, of bliss, pure love as such
An incredible joining again
Of souls that touch…..
A hand extended
Though out distant time
You look, you find,
The hand reaching for your’s is mine
You see it, you understand,
You know what to do.
You feel within
The hand extended loves you true
Your feelings try hard,
They fight to have a say.
Your thoughts, your thinking
Only stand in the way.
A step towards the unknown
With love as the guide.
You’re scared, you’re thrilled
You want to laugh, you want to hide.
Your hand is shaking
As it draws near
Our touch is soft
Dispels all fear.
Our hands clasped firmly
As we draw each other close.
Our souls entwined, Oh joy of
Meeting, a celebration, a toast.
With love as the grounding
Awareness enhanced
Horizons, worlds expanded
As our twin white flames sing and dance
A continued journey of immeasurable
Time, of bliss, pure love as such
An incredible joining again
Of souls that touch…..
So what is this thing called soul?
Soul is a metaphor for all that you are.
It is what gives value to the material.
It is your way of loving, it is the expression of your love.....
Wings,
Nothing material moves, consumes, grows etc... of its own accord IMO. It is only while we are alive we can experience. When the body is dead....end game. Even though the entire body may still be present before observers, there is no life, because it has no consciousness.
Life is plentiful, it comes and goes relatively easily. So what is it that makes life possible? If it were some natural, mechanistic process, I'm sure with all the brilliant minds, both past and present, with all the funding, all the technological advancement, there would have been some breakthrough. But the truth of the matter is we are no closer now to the question of origin from nature herself, than we was from the time of the ancient greeks.
Unless you can experience the whole process of life, including death..... totally objectively...... without attachment to these experiences.... your endeavors are always going to be, pure speculation, which is of no use to anybody, in important matters such as these. You, me, and everybody has an innate understanding of what life is, and we must firstly develop this understanding, through science, art, philosophy, and religion.
Jan Ardena.
Nothing material moves, consumes, grows etc... of its own accord IMO. It is only while we are alive we can experience. When the body is dead....end game. Even though the entire body may still be present before observers, there is no life, because it has no consciousness.
Life is plentiful, it comes and goes relatively easily. So what is it that makes life possible? If it were some natural, mechanistic process, I'm sure with all the brilliant minds, both past and present, with all the funding, all the technological advancement, there would have been some breakthrough. But the truth of the matter is we are no closer now to the question of origin from nature herself, than we was from the time of the ancient greeks.
Unless you can experience the whole process of life, including death..... totally objectively...... without attachment to these experiences.... your endeavors are always going to be, pure speculation, which is of no use to anybody, in important matters such as these. You, me, and everybody has an innate understanding of what life is, and we must firstly develop this understanding, through science, art, philosophy, and religion.
Jan Ardena.
Last edited:
What is the soul?
I like to think of it in these terms although I accept it is only my interpretation. My body is the hardware and the soul is the software that gives the hardware the instructions based upon the input (decision making) of my spirit i.e. the end user.
The soul (software) processes the input according to the type of software it is. Different souls process the same input differently, so one soul might take an instruction from the spirit such as 'Listen to Music' and process the instruction as 'listen to blues music because that's what I am pre-programmed to like' another soul might be pre-programmed to like some other type of music.
Simplistic and probably 'romanticised' but it helps me to seperate out what I perceive to be different elements of the whole.
peace
c20
I like to think of it in these terms although I accept it is only my interpretation. My body is the hardware and the soul is the software that gives the hardware the instructions based upon the input (decision making) of my spirit i.e. the end user.
The soul (software) processes the input according to the type of software it is. Different souls process the same input differently, so one soul might take an instruction from the spirit such as 'Listen to Music' and process the instruction as 'listen to blues music because that's what I am pre-programmed to like' another soul might be pre-programmed to like some other type of music.
Simplistic and probably 'romanticised' but it helps me to seperate out what I perceive to be different elements of the whole.
peace
c20
I'm sorry Duendy, perhaps I should have phrased my questions a little better. I was really just looking for more information on the idea that "all nature is soul." It is by far and away, an interesting concept. If you have an example or two that would better help me understand, I would appreciate it.
Jan, I agree that it would be difficult to comprehend the soul while maintaining life. What about near death experiences? What do they have to say on the subject? Or sleep (when the human body is closest to death)? Are these too far from the real thing to be considered? As for the innate understanding what life is: I agree we have an innate concept that tells us some things are alive, but children often think that only animals are. They only learn later on that plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. can also be considered alive. Perhaps this is what you mean by developing understanding? But I agree that the development you speak of is absolutely essential.
Jan, I agree that it would be difficult to comprehend the soul while maintaining life. What about near death experiences? What do they have to say on the subject? Or sleep (when the human body is closest to death)? Are these too far from the real thing to be considered? As for the innate understanding what life is: I agree we have an innate concept that tells us some things are alive, but children often think that only animals are. They only learn later on that plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. can also be considered alive. Perhaps this is what you mean by developing understanding? But I agree that the development you speak of is absolutely essential.
(Q),
This is a deep insult (Q), what are you trying to achieve?
I do not share the same opinion, and have given my reasons why. Why can't you accept that?
Maybe you're right, and if you are....why beat me over the head with it?
This is outright wrong.
Please apologise at once.
Jan Ardena.
This is a deep insult (Q), what are you trying to achieve?
I do not share the same opinion, and have given my reasons why. Why can't you accept that?
Maybe you're right, and if you are....why beat me over the head with it?
This is outright wrong.
Please apologise at once.
Jan Ardena.
Xgen said:
Each person has to make up their own minds as to what they believe it is for it cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
The beauty of the scientific method is that it pushes the burden of proof upon those who wish to prove. One cannot say, "You cannot prove that said item or concept does not exist, therefore it does." Since it is impossible to prove that anything does not exist, it is therefore, logically, the duty of those who claim something does exist to prove so.
Example: I would like to put forth the hypothesis that God exists and that "He" is a giant guppy. Can you prove I am wrong? If not, does this make a valid arguement because you cannot disprove it? Or, does it not make more sense for me to present a giant guppy scale that refuses to conform to the laws of the universe? So, it is obviously illogical for me to make a claim such as "God is a guppy." and take your inability to disprove my arguement as proof of my arguement. Therefor the burden of proof MUST fall upon those who make a claim that something exists.
Why would this be any different for someones claim in the existance of a soul? THe default is lack of existance. If you wish me to believe, burden of proof falls upon you.
Now, for what I wish...or what I like: I prefer Quantum Quack's statment that "the soul is a metaphor for all that you are." Thank you.
- KitNyx
Example: I would like to put forth the hypothesis that God exists and that "He" is a giant guppy. Can you prove I am wrong? If not, does this make a valid arguement because you cannot disprove it? Or, does it not make more sense for me to present a giant guppy scale that refuses to conform to the laws of the universe? So, it is obviously illogical for me to make a claim such as "God is a guppy." and take your inability to disprove my arguement as proof of my arguement. Therefor the burden of proof MUST fall upon those who make a claim that something exists.
Why would this be any different for someones claim in the existance of a soul? THe default is lack of existance. If you wish me to believe, burden of proof falls upon you.
Now, for what I wish...or what I like: I prefer Quantum Quack's statment that "the soul is a metaphor for all that you are." Thank you.
- KitNyx
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
40 years ago, Feinman in one of his lectures asked the question: "What is chair?" It's impossible to come up with the precise physical definition of even simple chair. Sure, philosophers may waste entire their lives trying to embody their subjective opinions into fancy words. However, whom they are kidding.
World is messy and uncertain. We will never understand it fully, we will never split it in exact pieces with exact definitions attached. I stopped looking for exact definitions of vague things, there are none. Just get general idea, that's all we humans can come up with, that's all we need to make an existence more bearable. You'll not have eternity to torture yourself with definition questions, don't worry about them
World is messy and uncertain. We will never understand it fully, we will never split it in exact pieces with exact definitions attached. I stopped looking for exact definitions of vague things, there are none. Just get general idea, that's all we humans can come up with, that's all we need to make an existence more bearable. You'll not have eternity to torture yourself with definition questions, don't worry about them
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
These are some posts i had in another forum debating a similar topic. In the following i talk of the soul being consciousness, or sub-consciousness.
I’ve recently had advancing thoughts on the subject of consciousness after learning that consciousness is just white noise. When an embryo develops in the womb, it has no consciousness until the brain reaches a certain point in development. Once it reaches this point, white noise begins to circulate through the neuronal pathways of the brain. It is as if the brain were a receiver for consciousness.
(talking about near death experiences) i've never really had an experience like that before, but i have spent long hours thinking of things like this and it sort of fits into a theory i had; that there is some global consciousness or something of the sort that we are all unconsciously part of, and our brain is really a reciever for this consciousness. the human brain is tuned into the electrical waves of this consciousness like a radio tunes into a station.
i started thinking about this after i read that brain activity is really just white noise. there is no jump start to consciousness in an embryo. as soon as the brain is developed enough, electrons start bouncing around and automatically produce thought. people in vegetative states are in those states because their brain was damaged and can no longer tune into the right frequency for consciousness.
there are many questions that this would answer, but even more questions that it would give rise to. does this cosmic consciousness include other earthly forms of life? it would be logical that it would, yet how could something like a plant or an amoeba be included? would it only include organisms with neurons? are neurons then the receptors of nature? or is the connection in the moving electrons? is there an inherent tie to consciousness in every bit of matter, in every atom in the universe? is then god just a collective subconscious will of the entire universe? i guess i'll just have to wait till i die to find out. i'm in no hurry, there's all the time in the universe.
The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) Basically this project uses hundreds of random number generators that work based on White Noise. The random number generators have been seemingly proven to be affected by changes in human emotions both on many small and large scale situations. now if what I've been talking about is really true--white noise being the source of consciousness--then that would explain the phenomena described in the findings of the GCP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise
I’ve recently had advancing thoughts on the subject of consciousness after learning that consciousness is just white noise. When an embryo develops in the womb, it has no consciousness until the brain reaches a certain point in development. Once it reaches this point, white noise begins to circulate through the neuronal pathways of the brain. It is as if the brain were a receiver for consciousness.
(talking about near death experiences) i've never really had an experience like that before, but i have spent long hours thinking of things like this and it sort of fits into a theory i had; that there is some global consciousness or something of the sort that we are all unconsciously part of, and our brain is really a reciever for this consciousness. the human brain is tuned into the electrical waves of this consciousness like a radio tunes into a station.
i started thinking about this after i read that brain activity is really just white noise. there is no jump start to consciousness in an embryo. as soon as the brain is developed enough, electrons start bouncing around and automatically produce thought. people in vegetative states are in those states because their brain was damaged and can no longer tune into the right frequency for consciousness.
there are many questions that this would answer, but even more questions that it would give rise to. does this cosmic consciousness include other earthly forms of life? it would be logical that it would, yet how could something like a plant or an amoeba be included? would it only include organisms with neurons? are neurons then the receptors of nature? or is the connection in the moving electrons? is there an inherent tie to consciousness in every bit of matter, in every atom in the universe? is then god just a collective subconscious will of the entire universe? i guess i'll just have to wait till i die to find out. i'm in no hurry, there's all the time in the universe.
The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) Basically this project uses hundreds of random number generators that work based on White Noise. The random number generators have been seemingly proven to be affected by changes in human emotions both on many small and large scale situations. now if what I've been talking about is really true--white noise being the source of consciousness--then that would explain the phenomena described in the findings of the GCP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise
I actually like this approach to the question. It is easy to picture what you are saying....c20H25N3o said:
hmmmmm...I wonder what sort of operating system we are running.
This is a deep insult (Q), what are you trying to achieve?
You didn't understand boris' post - how is that insulting to you? It is insulting to our intelligence that you can so easily dismiss it without understanding it.
I do not share the same opinion, and have given my reasons why. Why can't you accept that?
You gave no reasons - you were muddled under the quagmire of semantics, again. Nothing new there.
why beat me over the head with it?
Perhaps, to knock some sense into you? Nah, that won't work either.
This is outright wrong.
Please apologise at once.
Forget it, not until you apologize for dismissing boris post as you did.
You didn't understand boris' post - how is that insulting to you? It is insulting to our intelligence that you can so easily dismiss it without understanding it.
I do not share the same opinion, and have given my reasons why. Why can't you accept that?
You gave no reasons - you were muddled under the quagmire of semantics, again. Nothing new there.
why beat me over the head with it?
Perhaps, to knock some sense into you? Nah, that won't work either.
This is outright wrong.
Please apologise at once.
Forget it, not until you apologize for dismissing boris post as you did.
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
i read it, and i know how unstable the theory is. but it wasnt really vital at all to my own theory which i was relaying in the post, it was just evidence to further it, same as near death experiences. our level of understanding of the human mind isnt advanced enough to answer some of the questions i was asking. do you have anything to say about my idea other than critisizing the GCP? maybe i should just take that last part out, it was just an interesting coincidence anyways.(Q) said:
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
thats kind of like what i was thinking in a nutshell.c20H25N3o said: