triplechoice:


The other parts of my presentation not posted yet, already answered your question.

But since that has not come, I will answer you for now.



The terms, consciousness and mind are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, but they do not actually refer to the same thing.

Consciousness is the entity that inhabits the body at birth to enliven it. It is our true selves which exist as a force field of energy .It is often refer to as soul in religion and in other groups.

while mind is formed from the combination of thoughts this entity, consciousness, generates from the impression received through the brain, and also from the thoughts of others it has received.

Mind once formed, determines or shapens our human personality, the ego self, that we think we are.

Our personalities can change if we generate new thoughts to form a new mind, while the consciousness, our true selves, that forms mind remains what it is. We can become whatever we think different from what our current mind dictates for our brains.


Animals, just like humans also have consciousness. However, the animal consciousness has not evolved to a point where it can generate independent thoughts to form minds ,hence they are ruled mainly by instincts imbedded in their bodies which exert influence on their brains to control behavior. The inability to generate independent thoughts is why animals don't behave individually. They act almost the same, except they are conditioned to behave differently.

So do animals have minds independent of their bodies? I believe my explanation has provided the answer.

In summary, consciousness is what evolved into mind and animals have not yet achieved that evolution? Is their consciousness independent? And which is the one that is independent in humans, consciousness or mind?

TenQ:

Animals have their minds (a subset of their soul) independent from their bodies although without the body the soul is like a software without a hardware.

A software without a hardware is useless: as a soul without the body is useless.
A hardware without the software is also useless: as a body without the software is useless.

Death of animals occur when their soul disconnect from their body

So according to you what happens to the souls of animals when they die?

LordReed:


So according to you what happens to the souls of animals when they die?

Hello
Can I get anything now?

TenQ:

What other means can you know what Jesus said or not said to make this claim?

There is no other way, just be aware its like claiming Chinua Achebe's Okonkwo said, since no one was there recording it. Or better still, the read all about it in the newspaper of today.

Note we also read that he was killed and that he died.

TenQ:
Of course, men can kill the Body.
There is no denial that men has power to destroy and kill the body.

If you kill the body of buda buda will die and no one would be particularly concerned about the spirit of buda if it does not die too, yet as I said, the Spirit of the Christ that we read people were yelling "Crucify Him! Crucify Him" and whom we then read was nailed to a cross and stabbed and poisoned and died, lives in spirit, it is said, and the huge number of people who wake up on Sunday mornings to go worship in temples built to worship His Spirit and hopefully learn from it too testify to this fact. If after you kill the body of buda people build temples and worship buda then buda too will live in spirit, though all the Gods must forbid it, I say.

Personally, I think Jesus would say of some temples, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” But I'm certain he'd temper his rage with the fact that the labourers must eat too.

LordReed:


So according to you what happens to the souls of animals when they die?

The soul expires (becomes non-existent) because a soul need a host body to manifest.

budaatum:


There is no other way, just be aware its like claiming Chinua Achebe's Okonkwo said, since no one was there recording it. Or better still, the read all about it in the newspaper of today.

Note we also read that he was killed and that he died.

You said:

First, Jesus never said. You read it in a book.

How can you say Jesus NEVER said...while you deny compilations of words Jesus spoke?

budaatum:

If you kill the body of buda buda will die and no one would be particularly concerned about the spirit of buda if it does not die too, yet as I said, the Spirit of the Christ that we read people were yelling "Crucify Him! Crucify Him" and whom we then read was nailed to a cross and stabbed and poisoned and died, lives in spirit, it is said, and the huge number of people who wake up on Sunday mornings to go worship in temples built to worship His Spirit and hopefully learn from it too testify to this fact. If after you kill the body of buda people build temples and worship buda then buda too will live in spirit, though all the Gods must forbid it, I say.

Personally, I think Jesus would say of some temples, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” But I'm certain he'd temper his rage with the fact that the labourers must eat too.

I wish I understood what you are saying here but I don't.
Every human being who dies sheds his physical body but retains his spirit body.

triplechoice:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

The scientific method of inquiry,not just using one's senses alone to know things, is what I called a human construct. It was developed by humans. Those who practice science as a discipline are giving rigorous training under this method so they can use it to properly make observation and conduct experiments to confirm what is observed.

First, we are discussing complex things, so however clear you attempt to be will likely hit against my own fallibility. Accept my apologies. I am honoured that you try to make yourself clear.

triplechoice:
The scientific method of inquiry,not just using one's senses alone to know things, is what I called a human construct. It was developed by humans. Those who practice science as a discipline are giving rigorous training under this method so they can use it to properly make observation and conduct experiments to confirm what is observed.

The method of using the senses properly might have been constructed and taught and rigorously trained, triple, but the sense (the eye, for instance, and its ability to be used to see) itself is not a human construct, and it is the use of the senses that they have rigorously trained under this method so they can use it properly. The tautology is intended.

The methodology is a "human construct" that evolved out of the ignorant misuse of the human senses into what it has become today and which we can witness by the numerous human achievements, and destructions I dare add, that are before us.

triplechoice:
The scientific method can't be perfect because as humans we don't know everything about the world we live in to be able to come up with a perfect method to interpret it.

No one is claiming that the scientific method, which is purely a method of using one's human senses, is perfect. Afterall if my eye itself is dim, no amount of method can make me see clearly. However, that same scientific method is what would make me consider the dimness of my eye and find a way to overcome my deficiency of "don't know everything about the world we live" and continuously test my interpretations. The intention after all is to learn about the world, which I would not be doing if I already knew everything about the world. Perhaps I should first use my senses to realise that I should show some humility because I don't know everything about my own little village, not to talk of my state or my country, and the world is big!

triplechoice:
How do we arrive at the conclusion that our world( also the extended universe) and it's contents is only interpreted by our senses which are limited, and the scientific method which trained scientist admit are not also perfect, if not that we believe it to be so?

I do not understand what you've said there. Who is arriving at what conclusion, triple, and what content is being "interpreted by our senses", and what other method or tool would you like to be used, and what the heck is it that "we believe it to be so"?

Personally, I can't see how I can come to a conclusion about the road I am about to cross if I do not interpret its content with my own senses, despite my limitations, because of the scientific method with which I have experimented to determine the best and safest way to cross roads. And I do not merely believe it to be so, for experience as perceived by my very own senses have shown me that it is so such that I can safely say I know how to cross roads safely, despite the limitations of my senses and my ability to use them, I dare add.

TenQ:

You said:

How can you say Jesus NEVER said...while you deny compilations of words Jesus spoke?

I was being pedantic. And I do not deny "compilations of words Jesus spoke". If I denied "compilations of words Jesus spoke" I would not be quoting the words that I read Jesus spoke.

TenQ:
I wish I understood what you are saying here but I don't.
Every human being who dies sheds his physical body but retains his spirit body.

What is a "spirit body"?

budaatum:

I was being pedantic. And I do not deny "compilations of words Jesus spoke". If I denied "compilations of words Jesus spoke" I would not be quoting the words that I read Jesus spoke.


What is a "spirit body"?

Angels, Demons etc have a spirit body by which they have their identities even though they are not physical beings.

Humans are blessed to have in addition to their physical bodies their spirit bodies by which they can have a spiritual expression and identities (just like they used to have their physical identities.)

Therefore at death, a man's soul expression is through his spirit body.

TenQ:

The soul expires (becomes non-existent) because a soul need a host body to manifest.

And how do you know all these?

LordReed:


And how do you know all these?

Reasoning through the bible.
Where Angels, Demons and even God are Spirits. Where humans at death find their expressions as spirits. Where a human is described in a trinity of his body, soul and spirit.

And before you go ranting off the mark, the bible is not a science book.

Do you have another book or source that speaks contrary to this? What does it say?

TenQ:

Reasoning through the bible.
Where Angels, Demons and even God are Spirits. Where humans at death find their expressions as spirits. Where a human is described in a trinity of his body, soul and spirit.

And before you go ranting off the mark, the bible is not a science book.

Do you have another book or source that speaks contrary to this? What does it say?

Where in the Bible does it allude to animals having souls that expire?

Glad you know the Bible is not a science book so you'll not be disappointed when I treat it as the anthology of mythologies and legends it is.

LordReed:


Where in the Bible does it allude to animals having souls that expire?

Glad you know the Bible is not a science book so you'll not be disappointed when I treat it as the anthology of mythologies and legends it is.

I said:

Reasoning through the bible.

You can treat the bible ANY-HOW you want, it's not my business.

LordReed:


Where in the Bible does it allude to animals having souls that expire?

Glad you know the Bible is not a science book so you'll not be disappointed when I treat it as the anthology of mythologies and legends it is.

I said:

TenQ:

Reasoning through the bible.
Where Angels, Demons and even God are Spirits. Where humans at death find their expressions as spirits. Where a human is described in a trinity of his body, soul and spirit.

And before you go ranting off the mark, the bible is not a science book.

Do you have another book or source that speaks contrary to this? What does it say?

I said:

TenQ:

Reasoning through the bible.
.....

You can treat the bible ANY-HOW you want, it's not my business.

TenQ:

I said:



I said:



You can treat the bible ANY-HOW you want, it's not my business.

LoLz. The question was where in the Bible did you get your reasoning from, dunno why you are getting your boxers in a twist.

triplechoice:
Hello

Hello to you too.

I will be stating the "facts" as I know and understand it.

The interesting thing about facts are they are accessible to all so it will be interesting to see what facts you present.

And because it will be a long read, I have decided to divide it into two or three parts. The first is background information and random responses to comments made by others here, while the final part, will contain definitions and explanations for the concept of the "true self" I subscribe to , with evidence not scientific evidence, to identify this self , its emergence, and its relationship with the body it occupies.

Facts are facts they don't need a qualifiers like scientific or otherwise, as long as we are dealing with facts we should be on an even keel.

However, before I proceed, I would like to issue an important disclaimer; that whatever opinions or statements of "facts" that I am going to make is at the discretion of the reader to accept or reject. It would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on others that may result in mental confusion or a distortion of one's personal reality.


In any case, I do believe that my thoughts on the subject matter in this thread would be enough to stimulate further thinking .

Sure, let's ruminate on ideas by all means.

Why is consciousness or mind still a mystery?

Because it cannot yet be studied directly.

Contrary to what has been confidently asserted here and believed by some persons elsewhere, consciousness or what is mind is still not answered by science.They may be far from answering it at the moment.

I don't know what you mean by is not answered by science. If you mean scientists have not studied all there is to know about consciousness then yes there is more we don't than we do but it doesn't take away from what we do know. And that which we do know can be confidently stated.

Neuroscientists have not arrived at any definite conclusion as to the true source of the human consciousness. It's still a mystery to them. They are loath to answer directly the question of what is Consciousness or mind because at the moment, its difficult to localised our subjective experiences to any part of the brain .

The qualifier you use here of true for the source of consciousness is a leading one. It appears as though you already have a conclusion in mind and because science doesn't point to that "true source" you readily dismiss what it does point to. And it points to consciousness arising from the functions of the brain and body. The interacting systems that make consciousness possible are well known. You have your circulatory system, you have your nervous system, you have your endocrine system, combined these are the systems that support consciousness in the human being. Take away any one of these and the human being looses consciousness.

All attempts to do so, using observable brain activities or results from modern brain scanners has not produced the much needed result ,other than an impproved undestanding of how the visible brain works in relation to the other parts of the human body. This is very good and helpful for us at this time.

What much need result? The so called true source of consciousness?

However, insisting that an investigation of the observable activities of the human brain, which are believed to correspond with inner states of consciousness, is enough for a comprehensive understanding of mind or who we truly are, is almost the same as someone who would insist that viewing from their device the life stats of an ongoing football match, without watching the game directly, is enough to know what is actually happening inside the football pitch.

Live football stats for instance, without watching the game directly ,will show a goal has been scored, but will not let you see the exact ball movements made by the players that has led to the goal.

No scientist will claim they have a "comprehensive understanding" of the mind. What they will acknowledge is that their observations so far have provided a working knowledge of consciousness and the mind with many more mysteries to solve. This is evident in the application of many techniques employed in treating mental illness and other frailties of the mind.

Your analogy misses the point. A person who has the stats of the match doesn't need to know all the nitty gritty of what happened on the field in other to appreciate the nature of the result. Some even use these stats to predict the outcomes of future matches quite well.

There's much more going on within our inner world, subjectively, that we ourselves are unaware of, ,not to talk of an outsider who doesn't have any means to directly access it.

This is well appreciated in science which is why no scientist can claim comprehensive knowledge of the mind.

Whatever we say and do proceeds from thoughts that we, the owners of brain( the being within) generate from immpression. received through it. However, thoughts which forms mind is not directly observable nor testable by any known scientific instrumentation, except by alternative methods which are not too "popular" and available to those in the main body of the sciences. except individually

Science as practiced today cannot investigate that which cannot measured, it is an inherent limitation. If there is some nebulous "realm" that science cannot reach then it can't provide any answers there.

So it's difficult , for, instance, to really determine if someone is acting out genuine thoughts or simply faking it. We are all guilty of this at certain times, but some persons have mastered the art of deception so well that even if it were possible to attach a mini brain scanner to their brains to monitor its activity it can't be seen they're living a double live, as the results from the scanner will read the same as that of someone behaving sincerely.

There isn't such a scanner so how can we arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have made up a scenario and concluded that the scenario is true without any real world analog?

LordReed:


LoLz. The question was where in the Bible did you get your reasoning from, dunno why you are getting your boxers in a twist.

Reasoning from the bible.

You don't have to agree with me or the bible. I have told you how I Arrived at my conclusion

TenQ:

Reasoning from the bible.

You don't have to agree with me or the bible. I have told you how I Arrived at my conclusion

Where exactly in the Bible?

LordReed:


Where exactly in the Bible?

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the words REASONING or DEDUCTION!?

TenQ:

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the words REASONING or DEDUCTION!?

And you don't understand the meaning of where. Which scripture passages do you draw your inference from? Such a simple request sees you acting like you can't understand nursery school English.

LordReed:


And you don't understand the meaning of where. Which scripture passages do you draw your inference from? Such a simple request sees you acting like you can't understand nursery school English.

Do Christians think animals will be resurrected?
If their any scripture that suggests that animals will be resurrected?

If there is none, what happens to their souls?

triplechoice:
Continuation,
The inability to observe and test thoughts which exist as thoughtforms; energized thoughts , not directly associated with any particle of matter , is why scientists are blind to the true cause of the placebo effect , as they can't at this time observe firsthand how thoughtforms exert pressure on brains to trigger the placebo response

This seems like a contradiction in terms. How can something be exerting pressure on the brain and not be measurable? This is one of the fundamental problems with proposing some nebulous "realm" that is claimed to be immeasurable but yet exerts influence physically. If something is exerting pressure then that pressure can be observed and measured. You cannot simultaneously be claiming something is immeasurable and at the same time is exerting pressure.

Brain scanners do not show thoughts which form mind, the best they do is to show blood flow in a region of neurons when we , the owner of brains, are thinking. This, together with other brain activities observed ( neural correlates ) is then interpreted as evidence that matter is the source of mind or consciousness.

Yes the operation of the brain is surmised to be the basis of mind, no brain no mind.

The claim that mind or consciousness, is an emergent property of matter or biological processes, is not supported by science The claim is only made on the assumption that electrical charges in our brains, and other factors not yet known, has made it possible for mind to emerge "magically" There's no rational explanation for how this has happened.

It is supported by science, as can be seen here:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region/

We can't see our we are separate from our bodies because most of us have never had any conscious experience of their consciousness operating any where else apart from the bodies they have occupied. But it's possible to separate one's consciousness from the body., while at the same time, still retaining a full awareness of our body

It can be done. In fact, we all do so unconsciously every night when we go to sleep in an experience we have come to describe as dreaming. Some persons who are. proficient at it, can have their consciousness present anywhere outside their bodies whenever they choose to.

This would be very easy to test, I dunno why you say it is not open to measurement. If these proficient people can be put under rigorous testing conditions and have their skill fully demonstrated, I don't see how it is a bad thing or unachievable for that matter. Put a giant cardboard sheet with random information that cannot be guessed in a room beside where this proficient person is without them seeing it visibly, then ask them to go look at it with their separated consciousness or mind. Simple, straightforward.

There are certain phenomena science won't be able to explain. I am not anti science .I rely a lot on the sciences to understand my outer body and the world around me.

The world we live is not exactly what we think it is or may not be what we think it is., and we are also not what we think we are The methodology of science, which is a human construct , and not perfect, is founded on a paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration.

Wrong. It is founded on the paradigm that the only thing that can be reliably studied is either the universe or that which affects the universe. Any nebulous "realms" or phenomenon cannot be reliably studied since most times you can't even define this nebulous "realm" or phenomenon.

The problem with this, is that, if there's a phenomenon whose cause is unknown, or can't be fully observed, we only proceed to work with what is in front of us, which may be effect , that we have mistaken for cause, thereby drawing a wrong
conclusion from what we are only able to observe.

This is acting as if any conclusions reached are set in stone. If a scientist makes a faulty observation or conclusion, the practice is robust enough to scrap the faulty bits and have a do over. Which is why Einstein's theories can supercede Newton's.

Most people who rely completely on the sciences to interpret the world around them are not even aware of its limitations. The ones who pretend that they do, usually betray themselves with comments like , " oh one day science will be able to manufacture a machine that will eventually develop human consciousness with the capacity to think and experience live exactly like humans" .

LoLz. Was this an attempt to strawman what I said? If it is you would do well to go over what I actually wrote. No machine will ever develop human consciousness simply because it is not human. It may develop a form of machine consciousness just as much as animals have their own form of consciousness. You admit that animals do have a form of consciousness so why would it be difficult for you to conceive that machines would develop their own form of consciousness?

The only time the mystery of consciousness would be resolved, would be when science is able to come up with a device to make it possible to observe clearly all that happens subjectively within the human being and also outside of it.

Maybe. However the advances that have been made in understanding consciousness and mind have been quite useful even though the knowledge is far from complete. This is the advantage science provides, reproducible results.

Before I end this part, I would like to respond to the index case of a certain Phineas Gage brought in by someone here to argue against the idea that mind is separate from brains.


My response will be a question to answer back.


If mind is not separate from brains, how can it be explained, the cases of people with distorted personalities, but whose brains are not damaged or defective in any way. Also ,how can it be explained cases of people with brain defects that should normally result in behavior impairment that did not turn out as expected; their personalities remained intact. Neuroscientist in their studies to understand mind, have been observing those kind of cases in different people.

. It is obvious the person who brought in the Gage case to support is argument has not done enough research.

Can you give an example of the kind of people you are referring to?

TenQ:

Angels, Demons etc have a spirit body by which they have their identities even though they are not physical beings.

Humans are blessed to have in addition to their physical bodies their spirit bodies by which they can have a spiritual expression and identities (just like they used to have their physical identities.)

Therefore at death, a man's soul expression is through his spirit body.

But what exactly is this spirit body?

Does it have a function, and where and how can it be found?

TenQ:

Do Christians think animals will be resurrected?
If their any scripture that suggests that animals will be resurrected?

If there is none, what happens to their souls?

Where in the Bible does it suggest that animals have souls in the first place?

LordReed:


Where in the Bible does it suggest that animals have souls in the first place?

The Soul is the unseen Internal or Personal Identity of a being. It is the center of Will, Emotion and Intellect of a being.

Do animals have their Will?
Do animals have Emotions?
Do animals have their Intellect?

If the answer to the three questions above is true, then Animals have their own SOUL!

TenQ:

The Soul is the unseen Internal or Personal Identity of a being. It is the center of Will, Emotion and Intellect of a being.

Do animals have their Will?
Do animals have Emotions?
Do animals have their Intellect?

If the answer to the three questions above is true, then Animals have their own SOUL!

You'll notice that none of your responses so far have quoted even half of a verse of the the bible. So again I ask where in the bible does it allude to any of this?

LordReed:


You'll notice that none of your responses so far have quoted even half of a verse of the the bible. So again I ask where in the bible does it allude to any of this?

Because I am NOT quoting from the bible. I am making deductions from the bible!

Except the definition of the soul has been inconsistent both for humans and animals.

TenQ:

Because I am NOT quoting from the bible. I am making deductions from the bible!

Except the definition of the soul has been inconsistent both for humans and animals.

Oga you can only make deductions from specific bits of information. You cannot see In the beginning god created heaven and earth and deduce animals have souls from it. You have to have seen a specific bit of the Bible that lead you to the deduction.

LordReed:


Oga you can only make deductions from specific bits of information. You cannot see In the beginning god created heaven and earth and deduce animals have souls from it. You have to have seen a specific bit of the Bible that lead you to the deduction.

Sorry bro!
Take it or leave it!
Or
Ask questions!

TenQ:

Sorry bro!
Take it or leave it!
Or
Ask questions!

The simple request I made you could not fulfil. Nay bro, thanks, the convo is over.

LordReed:


Where in the Bible does it suggest that animals have souls in the first place?

This una talk hardly interests me 1%, just curious to know if you now believe in the existence of spirit, soul and body.

Image123:


This una talk hardly interests me 1%, just curious to know if you now believe in the existence of spirit, soul and body.

No I don't believe in the existence of spirit or soul, body is the only well established fact.