KnownUnknown:


Hook, line…….

I think at this point you have devoted yourself to mockery of serious thought. That is your affair.

jaephoenix:

What is the mind?

I have seen nothing in your posts to deserve serious consideration.
You can make up you mind as to what the mind is.

Maynman:

An atheist is someone that doesn’t believe in a deity or deities.
An atheist can be anything he wishes outside of that.

You conjoining words together doesn’t make you smart.

I struggle to see any claim on my part to being "smart."

jaephoenix:

That is the summary of all: Your personal conviction, without a shred of evidence

Of course. Just as surely as yours are yours. Goodnight.

DeepSight:


I struggle to see any claim on my part to being "smart."

You are welcome.

DeepSight:


I think at this point you have devoted yourself to mockery of serious thought. That is your affair.

A soul is the intersection and interface of the terrestrial with the intangible sublime thereby giving rise to consciousness. The Heisenberg model of consciousness and the almost complete Standard Modelof the universe predict that the frequency of the wave is the dimensionless number 1/137 and the weight of the particle is also the dimensionless number 1/137. The collapse of the wave particle duality gives rise to the soul. Physicist Richard Feynman, who knew a thing or two about it, called it “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding.

See, I can write pseudo-profound bullshit that is even more impressive than A001’s and also supported by quantum woo woo. I even included a quote from an authority in physics to burnish the nonsense.

What “serious thought”? Serious thought would be going beyond silly superstitions and antiquated beliefs that have been shown to be the musings of people who did not understand the world as we do. They did the best with the information they had at the time, but that doesn’t mean we should hold on to the dregs of their knowledge.

You said it’s an ancient belief. So what? Did the antiquity of the Hebrew juju (it rhymes lol and it’s my new name for abrahamic nonsense. Juju from the French “Jou Jou” meaning plaything. If this Europeans can reduce other people’s beliefs to “plaything”, I’ll gladly refer to theirs and that repulsive jew shit as juju) stop you from discarding it? Did antiquity stop you from discarding indigenous gods and beliefs?

The fool is mentioning me again with his alternates.

I already unfollowed this thread as I don't have time to read nonsensical posts.

For those ones seeking knowledge, you can't read the histories of religion, study religious texts like Qur'an, the Bible, Avesta, and similar ones, books of philosophy, and history books like Otem's and not realize there are hidden realms 99% of humans are unaware of.

Scientists are still yet to unravel thousands of mysteries of nature.

As stated earlier, there's reason why many great minds in history and in modern times asserted the soul exists.

When you've seen something many times with your two eyes and that thing has a theoretical basis in science, no need wasting time convincing anyone that it exists.

Just give it time.

The theories of science are always changing, and one day, many realms hidden to the average human (who is more or less blind like the fools here) will be discovered by scientists.

The fools think religions like Christianity and Islam have existed for over a thousand years and have millions of followers for nothing.

Well, you're really no different from blind people sha.

You can keep mentioning me again. I'll merely bin your posts using the Report button without reading them.

When you're tired, you'll find something useful to do with your time to better your miserable life other than mentioning me all about with different monikers.

A001:
The fool is mentioning me again with his alternates.

I already unfollowed this thread as I don't have time to read nonsensical posts.

For those ones seeking knowledge, you can't read the histories of religion, study religious texts like Qur'an, the Bible, Avesta, and similar ones, books of philosophy, and history books like Otem's and not realize there are hidden realms 99% of humans are unaware of.

Scientists are still yet to unravel thousands of mysteries of nature.

As stated earlier, there's reason why many great minds in history and in modern times asserted the soul exists.

When you've seen something many times with your two eyes and that thing has a theoretical basis in science, no need wasting time convincing anyone that it exists.

Just give it time.

The theories of science are always changing, and one day, many realms hidden to the average human (who is more or less blind like the fools here) will be discovered by scientists.

The fools think religions like Christianity and Islam have only existed for over a thousand years and have millions of followers for nothing.

Well, you're really no different from blind people sha.

You can keep mentioning me again. I'll merely bin your posts using the Report button without reading them.

When you're tired, you'll find useful to with your time to better your miserable life other than mentioning me all about with different monikers.

Illiterate you are a nobody, who is quoting you with alternative.

Illiterate, study the origin of the religious books you are basing your life on, who wrote it? Who complied it? Who was it complied for? Which agenda was it created for?
If you know that you’ll know they are nothing but edited and forged writings of fellow illiterates like you.
You see why i said agnostics are monotheist sympatizers..
The theory of science has never changed it remains constant, it’s scientist that are learning more about science that’s changing.
Scientists are yet to know some things cause they deal with facts, illiterates like you once thought thunder is as a result of yahweh and allah as stated in their religious books.
I wonder why those “great minds” can’t prove their assertions.

The fool should read how Christianity and islam came to have millions of followers. You just shown you know nothing about what you are talking about, I’m Your father A001, I’ll school you!

You are empty and you can’t even defend your jargons.

Salaro (Aro escapee) all over my mention early on a Monday morning. The deranged fool doesn't sleep, and he lives on Nairaland.

He obviously needs psychiatric help badly.

Post bined. Try again with your other monikers. It will still be deleted again.

A001:
Salaro (Aro escapee) all over mention early on a Monday morning. The deranged fool doesn't sleep and lives on Nairaland.

Post bined. Try again with your other monikers. It will still be deleted again.

illiterates like you once thought thunder and raining is as a result of yahweh and allah as stated in their religious books.
Well, science has unrivaled the “mystery”.

Religious lunatic if you are sleeping why are you on nairaland on early Monday morning?
Why don’t you listen to your advice?

A001:
Salaro (Aro escapee) all over mention early on a Monday morning. The deranged fool doesn't sleep and lives on Nairaland.

Post bined. Try again with your other monikers. It will still be deleted again.

When socrates and plato was alive which religion did they practiced?
Or thousands of people during their time didn’t worship zeus and have religious texts? A001
Why was socrates killed?

When you are born inside yabaleft this is how you behave.

KnownUnknown:


A soul is the intersection and interface of the terrestrial with the intangible sublime thereby giving rise to consciousness. The Heisenberg model of consciousness and the almost complete Standard Modelof the universe predict that the frequency of the wave is the dimensionless number 1/137 and the weight of the particle is also the dimensionless number 1/137. The collapse of the wave particle duality gives rise to the soul. Physicist Richard Feynman, who knew a thing or two about it, called it “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding.

This is just childish mockery and it is a frank waste of time.

See, I can write pseudo-profound bullshit that is even more impressive than A001’s and also supported by quantum woo woo. I even included a quote from an authority in physics to burnish the nonsense.

A001 put forward something worthy of thought - particles/waves and I might also recalibrate the issue into matter and energy or even further on, into hardware and software. None of this is nonsense sire. It is all worthy of consideration and thought. Lightly dismissing a thing with a wave of the hand without pointing out why it should be dismissed and then proceeding to claim that its just words is just lazy and even unworthy.

A proper response, for a serious a discussant will go along the lines of stating exactly what is wrong with the analogy he made rather than putting up the insulting gibberish you have just written up there and claiming that "anyone can write such" - to paraphrase you.

When you say "hook, line..." you are just wasting your time. I have posted actively on this forum for 14 years and have interrogated ideas of too many complexions to give any moment to such a silly accusation. You can repeat that a zillion times, it simply can't stick.

What “serious thought”? Serious thought would be going beyond silly superstitions and antiquated beliefs that have been shown to be the musings of people who did not understand the world as we do. They did the best with the information they had at the time, but that doesn’t mean we should hold on to the dregs of their knowledge.

Knowledge builds upon knowledge - even, and I dare say particularly, with the proper and logical rebuttal of previous assumptions.

You said it’s an ancient belief. So what? Did the antiquity of the Hebrew juju (it rhymes lol and it’s my new name for abrahamic nonsense. Juju from the French “Jou Jou” meaning plaything. If this Europeans can reduce other people’s beliefs to “plaything”, I’ll gladly refer to theirs and that repulsive jew shit as juju) stop you from discarding it? Did antiquity stop you from discarding indigenous gods and beliefs?

Perhaps you miss the significance of my reference to antiquity. You see, I think you jump too fast. You are the one, in one of your earliest interventions in this discussion, who attempted to make a mockery of the idea of the soul by rereferring to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. If you are honest, you will admit that this was an attempt to make the very concept of a soul appear something queer, fringe and even laughable. This is the specific context in which I referred to the antiquity of the concept of a soul. And yes, there is a place for ancient ideas in studying these matters. Because the truth is that certain things come to mankind from time immemorial as a matter of genuine intuition and it would be both thoughtless and shallow to lightly dismiss them.

As I said, even in the development of further (and better) knowledge, that which has gone under the bridge is helpful because it serves well to rebut such in coming to a deeper understanding. In this way, Newtonian physics has given way to Quantum physics, but I sincerely cannot imagine what serious thinker would have dismissed the thoughts of Isaac Newton (and his cardinal importance in the development of physics) on such a light note as you do. I would never take such a person seriously and frankly, no serious person would. In fact, let me go further to tell you that if you were a serious thinker, you would not dismiss even myth and legend so lightly and so quickly - and certainly not without some level of reflection - because even in absolute fairy tales and folklore often rests many nuggets of truth being described in a non-literal way.

I think there has to come a time when you start being intellectually honest with yourself and also begin to see that you might just be a very intolerant person - and nothing can be worse than being intolerant of philosophical thought. Because the truth again is that if anyone came up and made a simple declaration such as "only the physical exists" - I see you taking such a shallow and self evidently false position seriously. I am certain, and I could bet my left testicle that you would never mock such a position. Whereas if anyone asserts the contrary - that there are intangible aspects to our reality - a thing which is undeniable and provable - you immediately mock and laugh and call such "bullchit" - to be frank, I find your position comical.

The complexity of the question of consciousness is so profound that it is a wonder that anyone could laugh at the idea that there is an intangible aspect to it - as I have said repeatedly - even if they disagree with it. Such a person just comes across as shallow and lacking in thought.

I truly don't think you are serious yet.

DeepSight:


This is too funny for me to properly respond to. I can only say that the fact that one believes in the existence of a soul does not mean that one subscribes to voodoo or magic. I will also plead with you not to absurdify the discussion. Because there is nothing wrong in saying that there are certain requirements for a body which a soul can inhabit, just as surely as there are certain requirements for the sort of computer hardware that the software can operate in. You are virtually asking why computer software cannot operate on a bare piece of plastic or wood.

Well if you see absurdity then maybe you should address it because it's coming directly from what you said. You said: Mere matter is dead. You provided no distinction.

Basically you provide no way to distinguish between operations of body with soul and operations of body without soul. You believe there's a soul, I don't, you provide nothing that can help us know who is correct in this matter.

This is my personal perception. Just as the software which may be required to operate a small machine like a Gameboy will be different from that required to operate Deep Blue or a Space Mission. In the same way, the intangible software of an ant is unlikely to be of the same cadre as that of a man. Again, just my personal perception.

So again adds nothing to aid us in determining if souls exist.

You dont see your hand, for example, as a part of your inner personality. It is a tool, and you know it.

Still don't understand what you mean. If I slap you across the face with my hand would you say it was my hand that slapped you or I who slapped you?

Frankly, I dont even think it is possible to conceive of one existing at all without the fundamental inner aspect of being.
Without that, everything physical would at once be meaningless.

Not sure how this addresses what I asked. Why do you think we would only experience ourselves as brains only if souls didn't exist? Brains can't even feel themselves so I puzzled why you said "Not even as a brain, no."

You would address it as "me" or "I".
But there is a sense of ownership over it by your inward mind, and thus you will see it as "yours" - - - you will address it as "my" body.

Not seeing the distinction. Body is part of identity. If your hand was amputated would you not consider that you have lost part of yourself?

A001:

I don't know that. But I know the souls of humans have frequencies that lie within a certain range with upper and lower limits sufficiently out of the scope of the human eye and perception.

People operate at certain wavelengths, which can become manifest when two or more people agree on some issues.

I know that the soul exists because I've had many travels in my astral or soul body (known as spirit) where the soul floated out of the body.

That's a personal experience (lucid dreams involving flights) I've had countless number of times over the years, which occurred naturally without using any substance like psychedelic or entheogen.

That's from my personal experience.

Then based on my research which I engage in as a pedagogical effort to understand the soul, I know the soul exists as a wave because every matter has a wave aspect and a particle aspect via the wave-particle duality.

In the case of living things, this wave aspect is called the soul.

Well, you might not like that term anyway, but you can't deny the fact that every matter can behave as a wave sometimes and as a particle some other times.

Unless you understand what consciousness is deeply, you shouldn't say with certainty that the soul doesn't exist.

That the soul exists doesn't mean all the things said about it in various religious texts are true as many of them are based on superstition.

To understand reality deeply, one needs to be able to see things in terms of waves, energy, and frequency.

The atheist still needs to understand that there are still tons of mysteries in nature that scientists don't know yet before he makes certain claims with certainty.

We measure all sorts of wavelengths with instruments, why is this one eluding us?

What claim have I made with certain that is still a mystery? Are you sure you aren't talking about yourself?

LordReed:


We measure all sorts of wavelengths with instruments, why is this one eluding us?

What claim have I made with certain that is still a mystery? Are you sure you aren't talking about yourself?

Many waves will still be discovered with time. I'm not interested in any further discussion on the subject.

I've said enough.

A001:

Many waves will still be discovered with time. I'm not interested in any further discussion on the subject.

I've said enough.

That's OK but if ever this wavelength you speak of is calibrated do call my attention to it.

LordReed:


Well if you see absurdity then maybe you should address it because it's coming directly from what you said. You said: Mere matter is dead. You provided no distinction.

So do you seriously propose, in line with the Chucky example, that you would consider it legitimate to inquire why computer software cannot function on a bare piece of wood or plastic? Seriously?

I did plead with you not to absurdify the discussion because that is very discouraging in terms of continuing the discourse.

Still don't understand what you mean. If I slap you across the face with my hand would you say it was my hand that slapped you or I who slapped you?

Of course you have slapped me using your hand. And I have said repeatedly that that hand is a tool. And is it not?

Not sure how this addresses what I asked. Why do you think we would only experience ourselves as brains only if souls didn't exist? Brains can't even feel themselves so I puzzled why you said "Not even as a brain, no."

Good. No so this again underscores the point that no one experiences themselves as a body. People experience themselves as an intangible person with a body.

Not seeing the distinction. Body is part of identity. If your hand was amputated would you not consider that you have lost part of yourself?

I would consider that I have lost part of my body.

A001:
The r.etards keep mentioning me to post nonsense.

The other Aro patient keeps sharing screenshots from Quora, yet he's not been able to disprove the definition I gave above.

The clown has no background in Physics and learns it on Quora. Suddenly, he knows more than those trained in the field.

I will always give my opinions on issues discussed on this forum. You'd be foolish to think I've the time to start proving anything to you when that's not the intention of making the posts in the first place.

When you're ready to learn, you'll realize there's a reason why many great minds (much smarter than you'll ever be) know the soul exists.

If you don't wanna prove anything here, no one is forcing you to. But don't open your stinking mouth to say rubbish again and then turn around to throw insults around when such rubbish is scrutinized

DeepSight:


I have seen nothing in your posts to deserve serious consideration.
You can make up you mind as to what the mind is.

… and I have seen nothing in your response to further consider any inputs to your cretarded topic

DeepSight:


Of course. Just as surely as yours are yours. Goodnight.

Lol. I argue from a scientific standpoint. You argue from,… well… not even personal, but from a cretarded standpoint.
Science deals in evidence. You or your cohorts haven't dropped a shred of evidence here

jaephoenix:

… and I have seen nothing in your response to further consider any inputs to your cretarded topic

1. It is not my topic. Not surprising that that would miss you. Just shows up what I already guessed - that you do not read.

2. You never made any input not to speak of "further" consideration of inputs.

3. Believe you me, you will not be missed.

Scamper along, little mouse. Go look for a school. You need one.

Badly.

jaephoenix:

Lol. I argue from a scientific standpoint. You argue from,… well… not even personal, but from a cretarded standpoint.
Science deals in evidence. You or your cohorts haven't dropped a shred of evidence here

Hahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
This is truly comic!

No one here so far has been able to substantiate the existence of a soul.

All evidence that we have suggest that such phenomenon is as vague as flying unicorns.

People just want to believe whatever makes them sleep well at night, irrespective of what evidence says

DeepSight:


So do you seriously propose, in line with the Chucky example, that you would consider it legitimate to inquire why computer software cannot function on a bare piece of wood or plastic? Seriously?

I did plead with you not to absurdify the discussion because that is very discouraging in terms of continuing the discourse.

You can't accuse me of absurdifying the discussion when you are the one who made the statement. It is up to you to clarify which you did so you can stop harping on that now.

Of course you have slapped me using your hand. And I have said repeatedly that that hand is a tool. And is it not?

It's more than a tool, it's a part of the self. It is a part of being. My hand has no autonomy apart from my own will, it's not a tool others can actively use without my participation.

Good. No so this again underscores the point that no one experiences themselves as a body. People experience themselves as an intangible person with a body.

I never said people experience themselves as only body. People experience themselves as a mind and body unit not as a disembodied mind inhabiting a body which is why feeling disconnected or disembodied is not viewed as normal. I think it would be far more normal to feel disembodied if humans were souls inhabiting a body.

I would consider that I have lost part of my body.

You are more stoic than most then. I for one would see at as a loss of part of my being. I have some lingering health effects from an illness and I know how it has affected my daily life not to talk of loosing a limb. I don't see how your sense of self remains unchanged with such changes to your body. What do you think accounts for the kind of trauma people undergo from loosing bodily functions?

DeepSight:


This is just childish mockery and it is a frank waste of time.



A001 put forward something worthy of thought - particles/waves and I might also recalibrate the issue into matter and energy or even further on, into hardware and software. None of this is nonsense sire. It is all worthy of consideration and thought. Lightly dismissing a thing with a wave of the hand without pointing out why it should be dismissed and then proceeding to claim that its just words is just lazy and even unworthy.

A proper response, for a serious a discussant will go along the lines of stating exactly what is wrong with the analogy he made rather than putting up the insulting gibberish you have just written up there and claiming that "anyone can write such" - to paraphrase you.

When you say "hook, line..." you are just wasting your time. I have posted actively on this forum for 14 years and have interrogated ideas of too many complexions to give any moment to such a silly accusation. You can repeat that a zillion times, it simply can't stick.



Knowledge builds upon knowledge - even, and I dare say particularly, with the proper and logical rebuttal of previous assumptions.



Perhaps you miss the significance of my reference to antiquity. You see, I think you jump too fast. You are the one, in one of your earliest interventions in this discussion, who attempted to make a mockery of the idea of the soul by rereferring to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. If you are honest, you will admit that this was an attempt to make the very concept of a soul appear something queer, fringe and even laughable. This is the specific context in which I referred to the antiquity of the concept of a soul. And yes, there is a place for ancient ideas in studying these matters. Because the truth is that certain things come to mankind from time immemorial as a matter of genuine intuition and it would be both thoughtless and shallow to lightly dismiss them.

As I said, even in the development of further (and better) knowledge, that which has gone under the bridge is helpful because it serves well to rebut such in coming to a deeper understanding. In this way, Newtonian physics has given way to Quantum physics, but I sincerely cannot imagine what serious thinker would have dismissed the thoughts of Isaac Newton (and his cardinal importance in the development of physics) on such a light note as you do. I would never take such a person seriously and frankly, no serious person would. In fact, let me go further to tell you that if you were a serious thinker, you would not dismiss even myth and legend so lightly and so quickly - and certainly not without some level of reflection - because even in absolute fairy tales and folklore often rests many nuggets of truth being described in a non-literal way.

I think there has to come a time when you start being intellectually honest with yourself and also begin to see that you might just be a very intolerant person - and nothing can be worse than being intolerant of philosophical thought. Because the truth again is that if anyone came up and made a simple declaration such as "only the physical exists" - I see you taking such a shallow and self evidently false position seriously. I am certain, and I could bet my left testicle that you would never mock such a position. Whereas if anyone asserts the contrary - that there are intangible aspects to our reality - a thing which is undeniable and provable - you immediately mock and laugh and call such "bullchit" - to be frank, I find your position comical.

The complexity of the question of consciousness is so profound that it is a wonder that anyone could laugh at the idea that there is an intangible aspect to it - as I have said repeatedly - even if they disagree with it. Such a person just comes across as shallow and lacking in thought.

I truly don't think you are serious yet.

Much verbosity but not much substance andof course no evidence. Just like intangible, spaceless, timeless, immaterial McMIckie who sits on my shoulder.

LordReed:


We measure all sorts of wavelengths with instruments, why is this one eluding us?

What claim have I made with certain that is still a mystery? Are you sure you aren't talking about yourself?

Don’t worry I already supplied the answer. Frequency 1/137. Mass 1/137. Just don’t ask me to prove it. Lol

LordReed:


You can't accuse me of absurdifying the discussion when you are the one who made the statement. It is up to you to clarify which you did so you can stop harping on that now.

Very well.

It's more than a tool, it's a part of the self.

I had to do a double take at this. No known proper understanding of the "self" will admit of this. The "self" is, in all serious schools, a deeper precept. Even within the psychology of the being, you have Freud's ID, Ego and Super Ego. And within that set up, only the ID is considered the real self. It is bizarre to me that you can describe a hand as part of the self. I can't relate with this kind of "self."

My hand has no autonomy apart from my own will

This statement is damning enough.

I never said people experience themselves as only body. People experience themselves as a mind and body unit not as a disembodied mind inhabiting a body

This is confusing and contradictory. A mind inhabiting a body cannot be said to be disembodied, can it?

Trollronaldo:
No one here so far has been able to substantiate the existence of a soul.

All evidence that we have suggest that such phenomenon is as vague as flying unicorns.

People just want to believe whatever makes them sleep well at night, irrespective of what evidence says

That's why the answer to the OP remains YES and NO

correctguy101:


That's why the answer to the OP remains YES and NO

YESNO or NOYES?

correctguy101:


That's why the answer to the OP remains YES and NO

nope, it's No.
Souls don't exist

KnownUnknown:


Much verbosity but not much substance andof course no evidence. Just like intangible, spaceless, timeless, immaterial McMIckie who sits on my shoulder.

Plain simple laziness. Nothing else describes this.

DeepSight:


Plain simple laziness. Nothing else describes this.

Lazy!!! How dare you!!!
I am currently using Newton’s superseded theories of time to create a Bible Chronology like he did. Afterall, he was infallible.