The soul is meant to be like consciousness, right? A thinking thing? So if we strip away all the senses belonging to the body, all we’d have is thought trapped in a vacuum of nothingness. It’s through the body we see, taste, hear, feel and move. The soul would be nothing but a free-floating pile of thoughts with nowhere to go and nothing to do for all eternity. Within merely a million years, a short time in eternity, it would have gone mad.



So what do believers in the soul do? They claim it has all the attributes of the body with no evidence to support this whatsoever. It quickly becomes clear from all ancient descriptions of the afterlife and the soul that what is going on here isn’t spiritual, but psychological. Psychological in the sense that we’re all aware that one day we shall probably cease to exist, which is terrifying. The afterlife is generally nothing but all the “great” parts of this life thrown together and perfected. It’s man’s desire, man’s craving, man’s need for stability and to survive.



I had a dream. I watched a pile of bodies lie on the floor as shining souls rose out of them and floated towards this tunnel. A particularly beautiful soul, this gorgeous girl, waved me goodbye. I’ve always had a fear of death and she looked exactly like a human but glowing and see-through, not exactly what you would think a soul is.



I woke up from this dream and for awhile I actually believed it. I actually believed in an afterlife. And it was really strange because I could see this belief distort and actually pervert and devalue my current situation and this life. I don’t believe in an afterlife, although I know I could be wrong and sometimes hope I actually am. But it’s not likely and I curse parents who teach their children that they’ll never die. I curse them for teaching their child that this life doesn’t matter because it’s a dot in infinity and that it’s nothing but preparation for the next life. I curse them for distorting their worldview, not letting them see that this world, with all it’s perversion and suffering, is not so bad and that it is a tough world, but it’s the only world we have and you can get off on it and have a good time.



In short, there is a war going on in my mind. A virus was implanted by my parents, who should not be blamed because it was done to them too, and I hope that one day I can strip myself from all of it. Consciousness, in a sense, is a curse that doesn’t allow us to experience this as it is happening and really enjoy the world. I’m rambling now, but these are just some thoughts I had about the soul today.

Everyone thinks they are right.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Everyone thinks they are right.

You've evidently not read many of my posts, otherwise you would know that I don't believe we can obtain absolute truths, only probabilities, that I admit there is always a chance I am wrong and that this is merely how I perceive the world.

It's simply annoying have to say that all the time. I guess I should have a note I paste to the bottom of every post, so I don't have to keep explaining myself.

I have read many of your posts, and I knew your thoughts on the matter when I posted it.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I have read many of your posts, and I knew your thoughts on the matter when I posted it.

Thanks for wasting server space.

NEXT!

The soul isn't "like" conciousness, it is conciousness.

If you don't possess any senses then your soul isn't constricted to any sort of system whatsoever, and thusly your thoughts would be totally pure and free. You would be completely enlightened.

Likely though, you would also be dead.

Nothing in the body can account for the "I", that little voice in your head...the true you.

Everything else in your mind is merely the result of enviroment, cause and effect, and the body's desire to live.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-18-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

The soul isn't "like" conciousness, it is conciousness.

Science would say different. And in my opinion, consciousness is useful, but it's also a curse.

quote:If you don't possess any senses then your soul isn't constricted to any sort of system whatsoever, and thusly your thoughts would be totally pure and free. You would be completely enlightened.

Or my description in my original post.

edit - Rizzo, please, if you have nothing to say, don't do what you did last time in the thread on nihilism and continue replying, therefore ruining this thread.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-18-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

The soul isn't "like" conciousness, it is conciousness.

If you don't possess any senses then your soul isn't constricted to any sort of system whatsoever, and thusly your thoughts would be totally pure and free. You would be completely enlightened.



!!Thought experiment!!

Take the second paragraph you wrote and replace "soul" with consciousness (you said this could be done), and you'll quickly realize that without senses, your "soul" wouldn't exist at ALL ... not just in some free-floating chasm where it is "unrestricted by systems and bowled over with enlightenment".

You wouldn't LIKELY be expired, you'd DEFINITELY be expired. You wouldn't be totally pure and free, you'd be deader than a doornail! You wouldn't be completely enlightened. You'd be as enlightened as a box of permed, blonde hair.

And let's not forget that the "I", the "little voice in our heads", is completely dependent on neurons firing and brain processes and other extremely technical happenings that you and I could not begin to dissect in this thread.

If consciousness is the soul, and consciousness depends on active brain activity, then the soul is useless without the physical body.

Why even call it a soul, then, since the term "soul" tends to call to mind a substance that somehow survives the body?

*scratches head*

quote:Science would say different. And in my opinion, consciousness is useful, but it's also a curse.



Science has no fucking clue what consciousness really is or where it originates from.

quote:Or my description in my original post.

No, not really.

Is someone who is blind any less conscious? No, he just percieves reality in a different way. Your consciousnes percieves reality in a system that is dependent on your body. It reacts to things in terms of sight, sound, taste, etc. Taking drugs alters perception of these senses and thus alters your reality.

In meditation, you're trying to completely detach yourself from the world. Lose all sense, destroy all systems.

Have you ever taken a large dose of a dissociative? You'll know what I'm talking about.

quote:The afterlife is generally nothing but all the “great” parts of this life thrown together and perfected. It’s man’s desire, man’s craving, man’s need for stability and to survive.



Jesus said that you will find the Kingdom of God inside you, not without. Religion is all about "reuniting", or basically about preparing you for death. It's basically telling you, "don't worry, you'll never stop existing, you just won't think in the way you do now, since you won't have a physical body." Of course, if you're an atheist or whatever, you'll view that as negative.

quote:edit - Rizzo, please, if you have nothing to say, don't do what you did last time in the thread on nihilism and continue replying, therefore ruining this thread.



You don't have to respond to me, you know. Don't blame me, this is an open discussion.

quote:And let's not forget that the "I", the "little voice in our heads", is completely dependent on neurons firing and brain processes and other extremely technical happenings that you and I could not begin to dissect in this thread.



Please, explain it, because science can not. Unless you know something no one else does. I'm sure I'll be able to understand it, I don't have a degree in neuroscience or anything, but I read enough about it that I'll be able to grasp it.

Here's a bunch of papers on consciousness:

http://consc.net/online.html

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-18-2007).]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Physical_approaches

Oh, look, they're all theories. I thought science had it all figured out! My bad.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Seriously, do some fuckin' research before you guys go spoutin' bullshit about how science has it all figured out. Don't try to BS neuroscience if you don't know what you're talking about.

Learn what the scientific definition of theory is so we can take you seriously.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Learn what the scientific definition of theory is so we can take you seriously.

I know what a theory is, stop being so self-righteous. We have a Theory of Gravity, but we have no clue what gravity actually is.

All science has proven is that conciousness somehow interacts with the brain. They have nothing even remotely close to an answer. So stop taking everything science comes up with as definitive fact.

Are you even going to refute anything I said? No, you're just going to argue a definition. Oh wow, isn't that what I did in earlier threads, which is what you were just bitching about? Jesus.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-18-2007).]

You've said nothing. You stated what a soul would be like. I agree with you, except that I think it would eventually lead to insanity, but you disagree. You have a different outlook on the Bible's teaching of an afterlife. I think it's negative, you think it's positive. You said science had no fucking clue, but didn't back that up exactly.

quote:So stop taking everything science comes up with as definitive fact.

After so many discussions, you'd think you'd have learned my outlook on life by now.

Remember me stressing probability? And the fact that I consider myself a quasi-phenomenologist and "card-carrying existentialist", for lack of better terms, should prove I don't think science is the answer to everything.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-18-2007).]

quote:You've said nothing.



I am a nihilist, after all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:You stated what a soul would be like. I agree with you, except that I think it would eventually lead to insanity, but you disagree. You have a different outlook on the Bible's teaching of an afterlife. I think it's negative, you think it's positive.



Hey! Do you think maybe that we're...debating (or at the least, arguing) about something?

quote:You said science had no fucking clue, but didn't back that up exactly.



I believe I did:

quote:Neurophysiological studies in awake, behaving monkeys performed by neuroscientists point to advanced cortical areas in prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes as carriers of neuronal correlates of consciousness. Christof Koch and Francis Crick argued that neuronal mechanisms of consciousness are intricately related to prefrontal cortex — the most advanced cortical area. Experimental work of Steven Wise, Mikhail Lebedev and their colleagues supports this view. They demonstrated that activity of prefrontal cortex neurons reflects illusory perceptions of movements of visual stimuli. Nikos Logothetis and colleagues made similar observations on visually responsive neurons in the temporal lobe. These neurons reflect the visual perception in the situation when conflicting visual images are presented to different eyes (i.e., bistable percepts during binocular rivalry). The studies of blindsight — vision without awareness after lesions to parts of the visual system such as the primary visual cortex — performed by Lawrence Weiskrantz and David P. Carey provided important insights on how conscious perception arises in the brain. In recent years the theory of two visual streams, vision for perception versus vision for action was developed by Melvyn Goodale, David Milner and others. According to this theory, visual perception arises as the result of processing of visual information by the ventral stream areas (located mostly in the temporal lobe), whereas the dorsal stream areas (located mostly in the parietal lobe) process visual information unconsciously. For example, quick catching of the ball would engage mostly the dorsal stream areas, and viewing a painting would be handled by the ventral stream. Overall, these studies show that conscious versus unconscious behaviors can be linked to specific brain areas and patterns of neuronal activation.[citation needed]. However, neuroscience only focuses on the neural correlates of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is to explain how all these flows and electrochemical processes in the brain give rise to the inner experience of subjective awareness.



Emphasis added, taken from the wikipedia article I linked to. Also:

quote:Even at the dawn of Newtonian science, Leibniz and many others were suggesting physical theories of consciousness. Modern physical theories of consciousness can be divided into three types: theories to explain behaviour and access consciousness, theories to explain phenomenal consciousness and theories to explain the quantum mechanical (QM) Quantum mind. Theories that seek to explain behaviour are an everyday part of neuroscience, some of these theories of access consciousness, such as Edelman's theory, contentiously identify phenomenal consciousness with reflex events in the brain. Theories that seek to explain phenomenal consciousness directly, such as Space-time theories of consciousness and Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, have been available for almost a century, but have not yet been confirmed by experiment. Theories that attempt to explain the QM measurement problem include Pribram and Bohm's Holonomic brain theory, Hameroff and Penrose's Orch-OR theory, Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and the Many-minds interpretation. Some of these QM theories offer descriptions of phenomenal consciousness, as well as QM interpretations of access consciousness. None of the quantum mechanical theories has been confirmed by experiment, and there are philosophers who argue that QM has no bearing on consciousness.

There is also a concerted effort in the field of Artificial Intelligence to create digital computer programs that can simulate consciousness.



In other words, "lol, maybe this works?"

quote:Hey! Do you think maybe that we're...debating (or at the least, arguing) about something?

Not really… I just wrote down some thoughts I had after awakening from an odd dream and though some people would be interested in reading and commenting. You did just that, but me and you are certainly not debating. I simply put my point of view across and then you asserted yours, you’ve given your perspective and me mine, I used a few basic arguments, you simply asserted opinions.

As for the science bit. There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on at the moment. But hey, you can jump to the conclusion consciousness is an eternal soul if you want, no one is stopping you by stating an opposite opinion.

quote: Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Please, explain it, because science can not. Unless you know something no one else does. I'm sure I'll be able to understand it, I don't have a degree in neuroscience or anything, but I read enough about it that I'll be able to grasp it.

Here's a bunch of papers on consciousness: http://consc.net/online.html

Would you be able to grasp it enough to agree that consciousness isn't really consciousness without being dependent on the brain? That seems to be the standing opinion of most scientists who devote their work to studying consciousness. That's all I was asserting.

quote: Seriously, do some fuckin' research before you guys go spoutin' bullshit about how science has it all figured out.

Ironic how that comment follows a wikipedia article on consciousness http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)) Perhaps you should do some research before spoutin' off about how YOU have it all figured out. I don't think anyone else here even HINTED at the fact that we "had it all figured out".

My sources are:

How the Mind Works (Steven Pinker)

Consciousness Explained (Daniel Dennett)

The Minds "I" (Douglas Hofstadter & Daniel Dennett)

Consciousness: An Introduction (Susan Blackmore)

(^none of whom claim to "have it all figured out")

But maybe I should pull my nose out of books and focus on what Wikipedia has to say regarding consciousness... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote: There is also a concerted effort in the field of Artificial Intelligence to create digital computer programs that can simulate consciousness.

That's a given. But what does that have to do with proving that OUR brand of consciousness cannot reside outside the body? A.I. (as collective data) could not "survive" being outside the machine, so that just seems to lend strength to the "consciousness cannot exist without the brain" hypothesis.

I dont think AI can be classed as consciousness, even if it becomes "self aware" it will only be a simulation.

My money is with the idea that we will need brain-like hardware to create consciousness, and it is dependant on unknown property of the universe which brain hardware evolved to make use of to gain an advantage over slower/less able types of nervous systems.

An electronic network doesn't need to evolve this unless we build it into it (for whatever reason), so even if a program claims to be self-aware it could still just be a simulation that looks like its conscious when in fact it isn't.

When we finally figure out what this consciousness property of the universe is and how it works, i think the most interesting questions will be:

is there an upper limit on the size of a conscious entity?

are we (matter) destined to spend eternity as part of small pockets of subjective experience, or will we eventually join together into a universe sized 'god machine'.

I'm hoping it's the latter, as it's my only shot at heaven.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) at Hare.

Some of Obbes thoughts on the soul:

The 'soul' is consciousness.

Consciousness is not dependent on life, life is merely a vessel for consciousness.

Consciousness is eternal and infinite.

Consciousness has multiple dimensions/'levels'.