What is our soul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 07:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have never, ever provided one bit of scientific evidence for your outré claims.

They are therefore criticized, mocked, and dismissed.
This is a topic on philosophy, not science. There is no science as such, there are just scientific fields with their own methods and instruments and their own definitions of evidence.
What you really mean are journal articles. And that's a little different from philosophy or science. It's a community of sorts. You are asking me for a community reference about things you don't understand. Which is great, we rely on community all the time, for the most usual things. But you ask for a reference to community that gets the most of government money, as if that was the only scientific community. I can only tell you that much, inter-community scientific communication is difficult, almost impossible, and there's very little motivation for it. This kind of complicates this sacred cow of yours, which is peer review.
If scientists have different jargon and equipment, they can not be peers and they can't do peer review. They literally can't understand each other. And they don't have to, because it has nothing to do with their funding. If it has, they can even fake the peer review, which sometimes happens.
Which is why there is no single "science", and there is no one scientific community either. Maybe if there was an anarchistic free market, things would be different.

You'd have to be really specific about which field and which kind of evidence do you have in mind, or you won't recognize it as such and I don't have to provide anything. If you can't show with your knowledge where that particular piece of a puzzle would fit, then you probably wouldn't recognize it in the first place.

... It's the GOVERNMENT!!! And lots of muddled thinking.

Lumi for president.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 07:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have never, ever provided one bit of scientific evidence for your outré claims.

They are therefore criticized, mocked, and dismissed.
This is a topic on philosophy, not science.

Any claim for the actual existence of something is a topic for science.

Quote:There is no science as such, there are just scientific fields with their own methods and instruments and their own definitions of evidence.

All sciences agree that evidence consists of objective facts observable by anyone.

Quote:What you really mean are journal articles.

No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for being presumptuous.

Quote:And that's a little different from philosophy or science. It's a community of sorts. You are asking me for a community reference about things you don't understand.

No, I am asking for evidence.

Quote: Which is great, we rely on community all the time, for the most usual things. But you ask for a reference to community that gets the most of government money, as if that was the only scientific community.

No, I am asking for evidence.

Quote:I can only tell you that much, inter-community scientific communication is difficult, almost impossible, and there's very little motivation for it. This kind of complicates this sacred cow of yours, which is peer review.

No, it's about evidence. Peer review is about methodology and conclusions.

Quote:If scientists have different jargon and equipment, they can not be peers and they can't do peer review. They literally can't understand each other.

Not true. The equipment doesn't matter and the language is precise and understandable.

Quote:And they don't have to, because it has nothing to do with their funding. If it has, they can even fake the peer review, which sometimes happens.

Citation required.

Quote:Which is why there is no single "science", and there is no one scientific community either. Maybe if there was an anarchistic free market, things would be different.

There is a single methodology and standard of evidence.

Quote:You'd have to be really specific about which field and which kind of evidence do you have in mind, or you won't recognize it as such and I don't have to provide anything. If you can't show with your knowledge where that particular piece of a puzzle would fit, then you probably wouldn't recognize it in the first place.

If you have evidence, present it - it will be understood.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
15-03-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 06:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Summing things up as a rejection is not the same thing as study.

I never said that it was. Unfortunately, the only thing that Alice Bailey warrants is dismissal.

(15-03-2016 06:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  FYI, karma is described cause and effect.

No, it isn't.

(15-03-2016 06:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't want to sound like a Lenovo commercial, but ultimately, some things are only "for those who do".

[Image: 215499741_EEML7-2100x20000.jpg]

(15-03-2016 06:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I meditate with interest in the :soul" for 10 years (laya yoga, not relaxation stuff) and I found some books useful and others not.

I'm sorry that you wasted so much of your life.

(15-03-2016 06:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What great deeds do you intend to do with things that aren't silly?

Form a rational, useful, correct image of the universe and how it operates.

(15-03-2016 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This is a topic on philosophy, not science.

No, it isn't.

You don't understand what either of those things actually are.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
15-03-2016, 04:13 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(14-03-2016 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I recommend "Soul and its mechanism" by Alice Bailey. It's a bit older, but it's right on topic and it's the best technical definition of soul I've ever seen. The technical side of the soul-world can be roughly summed up as the "electric universe" model hidden in dark matter and interacting with our visible world through living things.

This is quite possibly the worst definition of a soul that I've ever seen. I'll just hit the high points:

- The Electric Universe model is pseudoscience that was debunked when Nixon was president. It's so widely disregarded that you have to go to the disambiguous page on wikipedia to get anything other than music.

- By definition, dark matter doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force. That's why it's dark. Attempting to combine it with the electric universe model is impossible.

- Dark matter doesn't interact with ordinary (baryonic) matter in any way except by gravity. In order for it to interact with you in any meaningful way it would have to mass several trillion tonnes. Unfortunately, this means that it will interact much more strongly with another soul gravitationally than it will with your meager mortal frame. Any time you got within a few miles of another soul you'd both be drawn screaming toward each other with sufficient force to reduce the both of you to roughly the consistency of chunky salsa.

- Since a dark matter soul would be so very weakly bound to you, it would promptly take off in the direction of the nearest large gravity source. The center of the Earth. Now your soul is yo-yoing back and forth through the Earth until tidal forces and chance interactions with other souls either fling it out of Earth's gravity well or bring it to rest near the core.

Are we done being silly yet?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
15-03-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Any claim for the actual existence of something is a topic for science.
Which specific scientific field do you mean? There is no general scientific field. Science, believe it or not, is a philosophical concept. So is existence, defined by ontology. Unless you mention a field, it's philosophy. At most, philosophy of science, but then you'd have to read Thomas Kuhn.

I have a suggestion. You're not really asking for an evidence - that would require an existing theory that YOU have in mind. You're asking for an anomaly from all currently accepted theories. This makes sense, since it doesn't require you to mention a specific theory. You ask for a tangible, measurable anomaly, methodically created of course, but since you can't name a theory from a field, you shouldn't call it evidence.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  All sciences agree that evidence consists of objective facts observable by anyone.
Hardly. Evidence is determined by what we learned to recognize as evidence. Without a mental theory to fit into, such as a periodic table of elements, an element is just a lump of rock. There is no inherent evidence-ness about pieces of metal or machinery. There may be multiple ways to confirm or reject a theory.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:What you really mean are journal articles.
No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for being presumptuous.
My presumption stands, because you didn't say what you DO really mean.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am asking for evidence.
Evidence from which scientific field, in favor of which theory, of what nature? Tangible, measurable, logical, statistical, testimonial, or what?

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not true. The equipment doesn't matter and the language is precise and understandable.
So use it! Tell me what kind of evidence do you ask! You can't ask for evidence if you don't have a clear idea of what you ask for. Otherwise my answer is 42.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you have evidence, present it - it will be understood.
That's begging the question. Without theoretical questions to include them, there are only facts or anomalies, unrelated to a theory for which they could serve as evidence. That's like saying that since the dawn of humanity, people have been walking around pieces of evidence for future theories that weren't formulated yet.

I am pretty sure that you ask for the evidence for "soul" without actually knowing what the "soul" is. Only when the alleged evidence is presented, you will start looking at what the original phenomenon was supposed to be and if it seems to fit the evidence. That's not how a research works, that's just catching up with the news in the field, if you're a very lazy undergrad and can read between lines.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016 05:03 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Any claim for the actual existence of something is a topic for science.
Which specific scientific field do you mean? There is no general scientific field. Science, believe it or not, is a philosophical concept. So is existence, defined by ontology. Unless you mention a field, it's philosophy. At most, philosophy of science, but then you'd have to read Thomas Kuhn.

I have a suggestion. You're not really asking for an evidence - that would require an existing theory that YOU have in mind. You're asking for an anomaly from all currently accepted theories. This makes sense, since it doesn't require you to mention a specific theory. You ask for a tangible, measurable anomaly, methodically created of course, but since you can't name a theory from a field, you shouldn't call it evidence.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  All sciences agree that evidence consists of objective facts observable by anyone.
Hardly. Evidence is determined by what we learned to recognize as evidence. Without a mental theory to fit into, such as a periodic table of elements, an element is just a lump of rock. There is no inherent evidence-ness about pieces of metal or machinery. There may be multiple ways to confirm or reject a theory.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for being presumptuous.
My presumption stands, because you didn't say what you DO really mean.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am asking for evidence.
Evidence from which scientific field, in favor of which theory, of what nature? Tangible, measurable, logical, statistical, testimonial, or what?

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not true. The equipment doesn't matter and the language is precise and understandable.
So use it! Tell me what kind of evidence do you ask! You can't ask for evidence if you don't have a clear idea of what you ask for. Otherwise my answer is 42.

(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you have evidence, present it - it will be understood.
That's begging the question. Without theoretical questions to include them, there are only facts or anomalies, unrelated to a theory for which they could serve as evidence. That's like saying that since the dawn of humanity, people have been walking around pieces of evidence for future theories that weren't formulated yet.

I am pretty sure that you ask for the evidence for "soul" without actually knowing what the "soul" is. Only when the alleged evidence is presented, you will start looking at what the original phenomenon was supposed to be and if it seems to fit the evidence. That's not how a research works, that's just catching up with the news in the field, if you're a very lazy undergrad and can read between lines.
So now your just knocking your own statements now that you acknowledge science is philosophy... so what happened to your philosophy not science complaint.

The problem is there is various descriptions of what the soul was... to some ancient Greek understandings of soul. It's pretty much electric energy. That's part of what the animating force is in living beings they pondered.

Well you can go oh the soul is something else.. well where did that philosophic or other world view idea of soul come from? When did it ever get legs or does it even have them.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Which specific scientific field do you mean?

That depends on your definition of "soul", but once a coherent definition is supplied, it is necessarily true that the question of its existence is one that can be answered by science.

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is no general scientific field.

Only trivially true. In a more accurate sense, "science" is simply applied rational skepticism, and all sub-fields are simply detailing specific methodologies for applying that central concept to specialized phenomena.

You still have to present evidence if you want anything to be taken as true, regardless of the field.

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You're not really asking for an evidence

Yes, we are.

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  that would require an existing theory that YOU have in mind.

No. You're the one advancing the idea of the soul. It is your job to present evidence for it (and a coherent definition).

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  All sciences agree that evidence consists of objective facts observable by anyone.
Hardly.

Yes, it does.

You are flatly wrong.

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So use it! Tell me what kind of evidence do you ask!

Evidence for the existence of a soul.

It's not hard. All you have to do is define "soul", tell us what sort of observable effect it would have, and then show us that effect.

(15-03-2016 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you have evidence, present it - it will be understood.
That's begging the question.

No, it's not. You don't understand what "begging the question" means.

But then, you haven't really understood what anything said in this thread thus far means, so that's hardly surprising.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
16-03-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 04:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So now your just knocking your own statements now that you acknowledge science is philosophy... so what happened to your philosophy not science complaint.

Science is the philosophy of empiricism. Empiricism is defined and proven by more basic things, such as logic, epistemology and ontology, so it's a subset of philosophy. Scientific fields can't be called philosophy, as each has its own jargon and instruments.

(15-03-2016 04:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The problem is there is various descriptions of what the soul was... to some ancient Greek understandings of soul. It's pretty much electric energy. That's part of what the animating force is in living beings they pondered.

Well you can go oh the soul is something else.. well where did that philosophic or other world view idea of soul come from? When did it ever get legs or does it even have them.
I guess most of it is observations in various traditions. Mystery schools were always a thing, not just Freemasons club for the rich in 20th century. The mystery schools were typically in a center of a religion and they were more contemplative, intellectual and practical, than the mainstream dogma. People in the mystery schools were fond of sticking various occult hints into all kinds of art, for their colleagues. We get lots of shared symbolics across various cultures (see the website).

People who were more into religion than others observed, that after enough practice they get strange sensations, as if the inside of their head was itching and hissing, or as if electric current was passing through their body, especially along the spine. In a linear fashion, and hissing, so the snake symbol is obvious. Buddhists call this sound "nada".
Often that was preceded by emotional experiences of some other sensed presence, feeling as if that presence loved them unconditionally and overwhelmingly, etc. This brain-tweaking was so predictable, that the sequence of events became codified into religious stories that people believe literally. Nowadays people think that this feeling of loving presence when they pray is Jesus.

If you're interested, there's a website that offers a plausibly formulated biological hypotheses at what may be happening at such a time.
http://biologyofkundalini.com/.
I've been through most of the stuff described on the website, and more that isn't there. People talk about "energy", but there are many varieties of it, whatever it is. I'm glad if I can reliably identify two or three kinds of sensations.
I'm watching a few groups on Facebook who replicate designs from the "Keshe Foundation". The materials with regular nanoscale structures seem to be the key on how can the crude mechanical world interact with this strange "energy".
This explains why most scientific instruments don't cause any anomalies or strange energy - they're made of non-layered, mostly amorphous metals and stuff. I'd like to get my hands on one of these Facebook-featured devices. The point is, the experience that people report as caused by the "soul" and the sensations that these Keshe nanomaterials give, they seem to be the same thing. Probably some forgotten Tesla-ish form of ambient electricity, that's my guess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(15-03-2016 05:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. You're the one advancing the idea of the soul. It is your job to present evidence for it (and a coherent definition).
No, I'm not advancing the idea. I just listed a couple of sources that advance the idea. It's a classy mystical path of union with the "divine" or the "higher self" as the soul is sometimes called. It's a handy thing to know when talking to religious people. Most organized religions are just empty shells without the actual contemplative practices that used to give them some meaning.
I have little to no experience with the so-called soul. There's something sending a shitload of "energy" to me in meditation, but I don't know what that is. For all I know, it could be the Earth's magnetic field.

(15-03-2016 05:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Evidence for the existence of a soul.

It's not hard. All you have to do is define "soul", tell us what sort of observable effect it would have, and then show us that effect.
That's the lazy consumer approach. If I bring both the concept and the evidence, what's your contribution? What's in it for me?
Do you say, sacrifice your life selflessly for science, so that you can sacrifice nothing, risk nothing, and consume science news?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(16-03-2016 02:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I guess most of it is observations in various traditions.

All of which are made up, yes.

(16-03-2016 02:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you're interested, there's a website that offers a plausibly formulated biological hypotheses at what may be happening at such a time.
http://biologyofkundalini.com/.

I don't think you understand what the word "plausible" means.

(16-03-2016 02:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm watching a few groups on Facebook who replicate designs from the "Keshe Foundation". The materials with regular nanoscale structures seem to be the key on how can the crude mechanical world interact with this strange "energy".
This explains why most scientific instruments don't cause any anomalies or strange energy - they're made of non-layered, mostly amorphous metals and stuff.

...or any of the words you use, come to that.

(16-03-2016 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No, I'm not advancing the idea.

Yes, you are.

(16-03-2016 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I just listed a couple of sources that advance the idea.

Which you apparently take quite seriously.

(16-03-2016 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's a classy mystical path of union with the "divine" or the "higher self" as the soul is sometimes called.

Neither of which are coherently defined concepts.

(16-03-2016 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 05:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Evidence for the existence of a soul.

It's not hard. All you have to do is define "soul", tell us what sort of observable effect it would have, and then show us that effect.
That's the lazy consumer approach.

No, that's the way any given assertion must be supported.

"I could support my beliefs but I won't because there's nothing in it for me" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for an argument.

I'm beginning to see why you have such a reputation around here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: