Where does the soul go when you die?

[ecofarm]

It's a pity that this thread's result will be the same as the prior:

Unanswered questions.

Like your other threads, I told you plain and clear. Soul = influence and it goes into the future. Questions answered.

 

[Tucker Case]

Neuroscience, anatomy, chemistry, case studies of brain damage and drug use.[?QUOTE]

How do they do that?

I'll leave that to those who claim that consciousness exists after death.

Ah, so you weren't being accurate when you said: "when we test that idea or look for evidence to support it and we find NONE then the absence of evidence where we should expect evidence is evidence against the idea."?

What reason/evidence do you have to support your claim that its moved locations?

I'm not making that claim.

Notice you are slipping away from an agnostic position to a specific position by claiming that its changed locations.

Notice you are creating a strawman.

because unless you have absolute 100% iron-clad proof then its just a "could" or "maybe".

I agree, This is why your claim that it ended are faith based.

by your same ultra-skeptical thinking, evolution does not occur either because you haven't witnessed a fish evolve into a mammal before your eyes. :roll:

No, I have seen actual evidence which suggests evolution is the likely explanation for variance in species.

Also my logic would, at most, lead to the conclusion that evolution may not occur, but that it is certainly worthy of belief that it probably occurs.

As an aside, you really should try to avoid those strawmen. It makes your arguments very weak.

I suppose apples may start floating tomorrow in defiance of gravity but such ideas don't merit equal time in a discussion.

I'm not the perosn in this concersaton who believes in the magical land of make believe. :shrug:

There is nothing magical about emergence.

It's a faith-based belief, therefore it is magical, no?

 

[scourge99]

He did not claim it had moved, only that we only have evidence of it not being in the same place after death.

We only have evidence that it ceases to be in the location that it was during life

Not in the same place = moved: changed locations; traveled; etc.

Perhaps you can explain how something does not exist in the same place it once was without moving?

If you are being poetic or metaphorical then its just dishonest semantic games. Say what you mean!


If its not in the same place then are you claiming it has NOT moved?

The evidence only tells us that where there was once consciousness, there no longer is.

I agree with that statement. That is DIFFERENT than saying that its no longer in the same location.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[reefedjib]

Perhaps you can explain how something does not exist in the same place it once was without moving?

After death, consciousness is no longer in the physical world and thus it's physical location makes no sense at all.

 

[scourge99]

How do they do that?

By demonstrating a verifiable and reproducible relationship between cognitive capabilities and the state of the brain organ.

Ah, so you weren't being accurate when you said: "when we test that idea or look for evidence to support it and we find NONE then the absence of evidence where we should expect evidence is evidence against the idea."?

There have been many ideas proposed by those who believe the mind is separable from the body. None have been shown as supported.

E.G., researchers placed very obvious signs on top of high cabinets in ERs where people claim to have floated out of their bodies due to NDEs. None could tell researchers what was on the signs let alone that they noticed them.

People who claim to astral project have also been tested and failed miserably.


Researchers are open to anyone who has an idea they believe can show this link. Exactly ZERO have been demonstrated successfully. A 100% failure rate.

I'm not making that claim.

Not in the same place = moved: changed locations; traveled; etc.

Can explain how something does not exist in the same place it once was without moving?

If you are being poetic or metaphorical then its just dishonest semantic games. Say what you mean!

Notice you are creating a strawman.

It appears that I misunderstand you or you don't understand how your words are interpreted by others differently than you anticipated.

because unless you have absolute 100% iron-clad proof then its just a "could" or "maybe".:roll:

I agree, This is why your claim that it ended are faith based.

so faith is anything that one doesn't have 100% iron-clad proof for? If faith is NOT everything that one doesn't have 100% iron-clad proof for then what I present is not faith-based because I have reason and verifiable evidence for it.

No, I have seen actual evidence which suggests evolution is the likely explanation for variance in species.

And I have seen actual evidence which suggest that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies.

Also my logic would, at most, lead to the conclusion that evolution may not occur, but that it is certainly worthy of belief that it probably occurs.

I agree. Same with my belief regarding the death of the mind when the brain dies.

As an aside, you really should try to avoid those strawmen. It makes your arguments very weak.

You should not take strawmen as something personal unless you think I'm INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting your position. I'm not.

In contrast, you are the one who is purposely misrepresenting my position by saying that its magic. You are being dishonest and flaming on purpose. Which has been reported.

I suppose apples may start floating tomorrow in defiance of gravity but such ideas don't merit equal time in a discussion

I'm not the perosn in this concersaton who believes in the magical land of make believe. :shrug:

this is the flaming I mentioned above.

It's a faith-based belief, therefore it is magical, no?

Its not faith-based therefore its not magical. And I don't even agree that faith-based claims indicate magic in all or even most cases.

 

[reefedjib]

And I have seen actual evidence which suggest that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies.

The mind is NOT consciousness.

 

[scourge99]

After death, consciousness is no longer in the physical world and thus it's physical location makes no sense at all.

Is this your explanation stemming from your whole notion of "where the material world both exists and is an illusion, is itself an illusion. ". Or is this an explanation you provide on behalf of tucker's or andalblue's understanding?

 

[scourge99]

The mind is NOT consciousness.

Can you elaborate on the differences and why those differences are meaningful?

 

[Andalublue]

The mind is NOT consciousness.

Can you elaborate on the differences and why those differences are meaningful?

Yes, Pzycho, please do. I generally find a lot of Buddhist writing horribly impenetrable, but you're explaining it beautifully.

 

[reefedjib]

Is this your explanation stemming from your whole notion of "where the material world both exists and is an illusion, is itself an illusion. ". Or is this an explanation you provide on behalf of tucker's or andalblue's understanding?

We can have altered states of awareness, caused chemically or meditatively. The way we interpret perception defines our reality. Changed awareness changes the way we interpret perceptions. Treating the world as both objectively real and as an illusion of sensory perceptions is hardly a stretch.

Consciousness does not need a physical brain nor its emergent mind to exist. It does not need a physical basis.

Can you elaborate on the differences and why those differences are meaningful?

The mind involves thought, memory, pattern recognition and generative, higher-level, composite thought fields. The mind requires a physical basis of cognition - a matrix within which to perform computations.

Consciousness involves self-awareness, id/ego/superego, subjectivity and unidirectional time-perception. Consciousness does not require a physical basis. Subjectivity and unidirectional time-perception form self-awareness, which forms the id/ego/superego. Perceptions from the mind inform the subjective observer, consciousness, about events influencing the self. It is impossible to have unidirectional time-perception unless the observer, consciousness, is independent of time.

 

[Temporal]

I don't see why any stripe of faith based belief should be applauded.

It's not really about that, at least from my perspective. No one is trying to say that faith based or evidenced based is better. They are just two different ways of seeing the same thing.

Except, of course, that we have a lot of evidence that indicates NOTHING happens after death and zero evidence to indicate otherwise unless you are willing to accept unverifiable testimony and holy book tales.

The absence of evidence is not evidence that nothing happens after death. It means it is unproven. What I accept is that you will not draw a conclusion so long as something is unproven to you - and that's perfectly fine.

At this point the cliche "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is usually parroted, which is inaccurate and false. Its false because if we have a particular idea (E.G., that consciousness exists after death) and when we test that idea or look for evidence to support it and we find NONE then the absence of evidence where we should expect evidence is evidence against the idea.

I would normally agree with this... but there are plenty of anecdotal stories about near death experiences, out of body experiences, and of people being brought back from the brink that it's not completely and utterly unreasonable to believe that there is something after death.

That is why absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence: because there is evidence, however minuscule or non-reproduceable.

This is, of course, assuming that this very mental level discussion is even relevant to the truth of the situation. I am just throwing you a bone. I ultimately have no interest in being right or wrong. :shrug:

Furthermore, if we examine the reverse of the idea, that consciousness ends at death, and test it and look for evidence to support it, we find that we are inundated with evidence that supports it.

What makes you think we are conscious when we are ALIVE?

You can't even prove to me that you exist. You refer to "I", "me", or "what I think"... where is this "you" that you keep talking about?

To believe that what happens after death is unknowable until you die is analogous to believing that its unknowable whether invisible pixies are holding everyone's feet on the ground until you become a pixie.

To believe that your ideas are real is just an extension of the same delusion.

1) what evidence exists to support the idea that consciousness exists after death.

What evidence is there that it exists now, in life? Anything that comes from the outside world is processed by your brain, which then becomes a projection into your own mind and you interpret that as "reality". There is no way for you to objectively prove your own relationship with the concept of your "self" anymore than it's possible for me to prove to you that I am real and I exist somewhere 'out there'.

In another thread you called this awareness of self axiomatic, i.e. it is inherent and self-evident. I completely disagree with that. You are taught the words, "I", "me", etc. and that you are separate and distinct. You believed this delusion from early on without any self-inquiry, and now you persist in forcing this construct unto others.

As an empiricist, you should know that you have never proven yourself to be real to myself or anyone, including yourself. You have an internal narrative (your ego) which has convinced you, over time, that it exists, is tangible, and is real, and because the narrative has repeated enough times you have believed it. Now do the inquiry and find out the truth.

You demand proof continuously. What makes you think that you even matter? You're here one minute and gone the next, just like the very thoughts that flow through your head that you think are real.

God doesn't exist. Neither do you.

2) what evidence exists to support the idea that conciousness ceases after death.

There is none.

In fact, there is no evidence at all that this entire construct isn't just a dream. You relate to it as objective and concrete but that too is an assumption. It's delusional thinking. (I mean delusion in the Buddhist sense, not in the psychiatric sense, as it is not based on notions of normality.)

There is no practical distinction between being asleep and dreaming, and being awake and dreaming. One dream is external and the other is internal - but internal and external are a false dichotomy. Both are "consciousness" in a tentative sense, though in different degrees and in different states.

Life and death operate the same way. When you die, this "you" that you keep relating to - the same "you" that keeps wanting to be right - it will not exist any longer. It does not get carried with you. And when it vanishes, the false dichotomy of life and death go with it, along with all this semantic bull****. Something within you that has never changed since birth - despite all of your bodily changes, knowledge and dramas - that is what continues on. This... essence... shall remain nameless. Once you name it, the understanding of it is gone because you enter the semantic mental realm.

Your problem, scourge, is that you function almost exclusively from the mental. If you were able to learn some kind of meditation technique to quiet your ego and the intellectual mind, you might connect with other ways of knowing that reside within you. We all have these other ways of knowing. If you claim to be a pure logical person with zero intuitive force in your life, you are a liar. Everyone has it. Those other ways of knowing - i.e. your heart centre (the Anahata, not the physical organ) - contain this truth that I am talking about.

The mental/ego body can NEVER understand this, ever ever ever, because it is caught in duality. It lacks the ability to see sameness, so it sees only separation - life and death, conscious and unconscious, me and you. It is the separation that is preventing you from seeing the truth of what you really are - what we all are.

The Visuddha is usually the most difficult for men to open and overcome. It is the mental centre. They get stuck in semantic reasoning and correctness. Beyond the survival and relationship based centres, the ego grasps the most at the visuddha.

Only by learning to dissolve you ego can you understand what I'm talking about. Until then, you will be stuck fighting with others and with yourself, trying to be right. It's that attachment which is most limiting in this lifetime.

Your ego, or as you call your "consciousness", is NOT who you really are. If you can't trust that basic premise, then you also need to do some work on your Manipura. That is why I am reluctant to engage with you any longer... because to do so is to relate to someone who is only in the semantic mental realm. As long as you can't go beyond it - with trust, other insight, or without the need to reign supreme (which is a very Muladhara thing, by the way) - then we will be stuck in circular discussion forever.

 

[reefedjib]

We can have altered states of awareness, caused chemically or meditatively. The way we interpret perception defines our reality. Changed awareness changes the way we interpret perceptions. Treating the world as both objectively real and as an illusion of sensory perceptions is hardly a stretch.

Note that although I do not think I mistakenly said that this dual awareness can occur simultaneously, I wish to clarify that. You can only interpret perceptions in one particular manner at any one time. The world is either real or illusory, not both, to your current level of awareness.

 

[scourge99]

things that have real being whether material or spiritual.



Things that have real being whether material or spiritual.



things that have real being whether material or spiritual.



If they don't exist materially, then what do you think they exist as?



things that have real being whether material or spiritual.



No longer what they once were.




Things that have real being whether material or spiritual.



What other world can something exist in?





How can the exact same concept of a car be recreated by beings that have never encountered our concept of a car?

How can a concept, a thought or idea, be rediscovered? They can either be created or shared.





no, just a descriptive one that explains what happens when concepts are shared and agreed upon.





Then where can it exist?



Concepts and thoughts don't really exist, though. They do not have real being in the material or spirtual sense.




God as a divine being would not need to materially or physically exist, and most religions don't claim that it does. They claim it exissts in another fantasy realm.





It is the only alternative to material existence provided by the defintiion of "exist" I have been using.

The definition of spiritual from the same dictionary that would fit this context is: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit. Since we are discussinga scenario where we agree the spirit itself does not exist, the spiritual could not exist either.






Then where do you believe it to exist?



Not at all like that. That information does exist in a material sense. It is taken by the computer and digitized into agreed upon conventiosn which are then stored within some location on that computer such as a disk. Much like how music gets turned into bumps on a record which recreate vibrations.

Where the illusion comes in is that the computer then translates that information into something which we perceive as objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature. It's actual nature is that it is a series of codes which are arranged in an agreed upon way. You perceive of it as an objectively existing picture.




It exists as a series of shapes which have been agreed upon to represent something.





Prove that such a realm has real being whether material or spiritual.



I recall that. But you are the one saying they do exist. You are asking me to prove that they don't exist. You should know from your plethora of debates on the existence of God that I cannot prove a negative.

therefore the burden of proof is on you, or you must admit that you are merely believing in their existence based on nothing more than faith.



real being whether material or spiritual.






how did you decide that they were layers of the same discussion and at what oint were you planning on separating the concepts to avoid equivocating?



No, I was talking about the specific concept of a specific word? i.e. "car"





Maybe using the reasoning you've invented for me an object that exists in the material world would be an illusion, but that is not my line of reasoning. My line of reasoning is specifically about things which do not exist in the material world.




No, there is defintiely a physical object there.



Again, this is just the strawman youv've invented. It has nothing to do with my actual reasoning.



Objects that have real being whether material or spiritual exist. Cars (the object, not the concept) are objects that have real material being. tehy also do not qualify as illusions using the following definition: perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature

This is becuase there is no misinterpretation of its actual nature.

Let me provide more examples:

Colors are illusions.

Paintings are illusions.

Photographs are illusions.

All of these things fit the definition of "perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature" perfectly.

Colors are simply wavelengths of light. We do not perceive them as this, though,we perceive them as hues.

Paintings are merely globs of paint on a canas, but we perceive of them as representations of some image.

Photopgraphs are globs of color arranged as a representation of something as well. But they are not really that which we interpret them as.




By using an argument you invented in order to argue against it, maybe, but not using my argument.





Start over without using your strawman as a starting point. It'll be easier for you to rebut my argumetns if you are starting with them.




Unfortunaltey, much of the above is based on a straman instead of my argument. you are trying so very hard to make it as though my argumetns, when taken to their conclusion, will lead to things that have real being, whether material or spiritual being perceptions of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of their actual nature, but that is not the case. (I'm using these two definitions for "exist" and "illusion" exclusively from now on in order to illustrate how your portrayal of my arguments s a strawman). But this cannot be using the definitions of the words I have been using from the start.

Your "logical conclusion" is in direct contradiction to the very core of my actual argument. I nother words, the logical conclusion would be the exact opposite of what you claim it is.

But since you are the one making the positive claim, it is relaly your burden of proof to show that concepts and words and this mythical "thought and ideas" are actual things instead of being illusions.

Simply saying "but look, we are using words, and we are discussing thoughts" doesn't cut it becuase the whole crux of my argumen is that we perceive these things as objectively existing (exactly as you claim they do) but that this causses a misinterpretation of the actual nature (i.e. their actual nature of not really existing). thus, you need to show that they have real being, whether material or spiritual. But since our initial premise that triggered this conversation was an agreed upon premise that the spiritual does not exist, you are simply left with showing that they have real material being.

There is a reason why I qualified my initial statement that led to this conversation in the way that I did. That qualification was that the spiritual did not exist. Which leaves only the material, with regard to existence.

If you wish to argue that this so-called realm of thoughts and ideas is in the realm of the spiritual, I would ask you to prove such a claim as I have no evidence that such a realm exists and am taking an agnostic position on it, at the very least.

I have a response half way written but it seems our discussion has degenerated. Nonetheless I'm still curious about a few things:

1) What is the "spiritual sense". You define it as " of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit." This just begs the question of what the hell you mean by "spirit".
1b) if you claim that the spiritual sense does not exist (to quote you: "Since we are discussing a scenario where we agree the spirit itself does not exist, the spiritual could not exist either,") then why do you even mention it as a possibility in our discussion? How exactly am I supposed to recognize in your posts where you are assuming the "spiritual sense" doesn't exist and where you are assuming it does or that it is a possibility?

2) You also started using a new term "real being". What is that?

3) Would you like a complete response to the post above or are you no longer interested?

 

[Wake]

Like your other threads, I told you plain and clear. Soul = influence and it goes into the future. Questions answered.

That's not good enough. You made an unsubstantiated and ambiguous claim. Prove the soul is influence.

You see, this is what's intriguing about those who argue about the soul: the soul can't be scientifically observed. The madness of the people here is astonishing and you're being drawn into this whirling oblivion. You may as well replace "soul" with "magical core".

You're buying into the madness just as the others here are doing.

 

[Temporal]

That's not good enough. You made an unsubstantiated and ambiguous claim. Prove the soul is influence.

You see, this is what's intriguing about those who argue about the soul: the soul can't be scientifically observed. The madness of the people here is astonishing and you're being drawn into this whirling oblivion. You may as well replace "soul" with "magical core".

You're buying into the madness just as the others here are doing.

You demand proof as though the experience of others hinges upon your approval. Only the ego demands approval, but it does not come from a place of compassion or unconditional love. It is selfish and unrelenting. It is the semantic mental realm.

If you were more connected to your heart you would understand your own more subtle natures, and realize that trying to think about them with the mental realm actually subdues and overshadows them. Your mind can never understand it because it exists in the irrational.

Yes, to others it may appear as madness, but that's what lack of duality looks like. In order to understand the Divine you will continually live in paradox, but it makes perfect sense and a return to duality (i.e. proof vs. non-proof, real vs. fake) is what then appears to be madness.

I don't have a distinct soul that is special or unique. When people say "my soul" they are self-referencing ego. When they say "my soul will live forever", they are putting out a wish - however delusional - to continue on as this ego. But it won't happen. The reason is that their "soul" is actually Emptiness. Their ego does not exist in it. Their essence is part of the Universe, which we all are. There is no fundamental separation between any of us. When you die, you return to the Universe, which you are already part of now.

There is no need for another person to prove this to you. If you could quiet your semantic mind, you would see that it is bountifully evident. You'll feel it in your body and your higher centres, not just your mental realm. In fact, your intellectual and semantic centre will never get it.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your ideas. We all have thoughts that flow through our minds. The important thing is to not become attached to those thoughts and begin to identify with them like they're real. Even now, I am talking to you about the soul as though I can see it or something - when actually, I am sitting at a computer writing stuff into a terminal. The semantic takes you away from the present, and the present is where the REAL you always is.

 

[Wake]

You demand proof as though the experience of others hinges upon your approval. Only the ego demands approval, but it does not come from a place of compassion or unconditional love. It is selfish and unrelenting. It is the semantic mental realm.

If you were more connected to your heart you would understand your own more subtle natures, and realize that trying to think about them with the mental realm actually subdues and overshadows them. Your mind can never understand it because it exists in the irrational.

Yes, to others it may appear as madness, but that's what lack of duality looks like. In order to understand the Divine you will continually live in paradox, but it makes perfect sense and a return to duality (i.e. proof vs. non-proof, real vs. fake) is what then appears to be madness.

I don't have a distinct soul that is special or unique. When people say "my soul" they are self-referencing ego. When they say "my soul will live forever", they are putting out a wish - however delusional - to continue on as this ego. But it won't happen. The reason is that their "soul" is actually Emptiness. Their ego does not exist in it. Their essence is part of the Universe, which we all are. There is no fundamental separation between any of us. When you die, you return to the Universe, which you are already part of now.

There is no need for another person to prove this to you. If you could quiet your semantic mind, you would see that it is bountifully evident. You'll feel it in your body and your higher centres, not just your mental realm. In fact, your intellectual and semantic centre will never get it.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your ideas. We all have thoughts that flow through our minds. The important thing is to not become attached to those thoughts and begin to identify with them like they're real. Even now, I am talking to you about the soul as though I can see it or something - when actually, I am sitting at a computer writing stuff into a terminal. The semantic takes you away from the present, and the present is where the REAL you always is.

I read your well-written post. It is abstract.

I feel that when we talk of the soul or consciousness, that we are talking about concepts which have no answers. It is as though we talk of God or morals. Endlessly there are different human perceptions and beliefs about this.

Should one reason like I try to? To cling to no beliefs and always seek absolutely true facts? If I don't, then I can state any flawed perception on an issue out of hundreds. It becomes meaningless, nothingness. To stab at the dark, only to never draw blood. We are only human, yet I refuse to make that human error of clinging to... "beliefs". Perhaps I am "less human" in that regard.

I fear we will never know with absolute surety.

Only to bob and weave on the dark, choppy waters of our obscure existence.

 

[reefedjib]

It becomes meaningless, nothingness.

Why do you think non-empirical claims are meaningless, nothingness?

 

[Wake]

Why do you think non-empirical claims are meaningless, nothingness?

Because, to me, I feel it is no more credible than claiming one can have multiple souls or positive "Chi". All non-empirical claims become equal; absurd claims included.

 

[scourge99]

It's not really about that, at least from my perspective. No one is trying to say that faith based or evidenced based is better. They are just two different ways of seeing the same thing.

When it comes to physical reality, faith-based claims are demonstrably inferior to evidenced based.

The absence of evidence is not evidence that nothing happens after death. It means it is unproven.

I agree to that only if you agree that leprechauns, pixies, and flying invisible universe-creating pink unicorns are unproven.

What I accept is that you will not draw a conclusion so long as something is unproven to you - and that's perfectly fine.

If something is proven to someone else then they should have little or no difficulty providing that "proof" to others. If they can't reproduce said proof then its not proof. Its just their interpretation of a singular event which should set off warning bells in their head that they may have made a mistake in their perception or interpretation of the event.

I would normally agree with this... but there are plenty of anecdotal stories about near death experiences, out of body experiences, and of people being brought back from the brink that it's not completely and utterly unreasonable to believe that there is something after death.

Unverifiable anecdotal experiences are DEMONSTABLY unreliable sources of information. Its your choice to use poor standards of evidence in your decision making process. You can only lead a horse to water...

I ultimately have no interest in being right or wrong. :shrug:

that is quite apparent. I, on the other hand, care quite much whether what I believe is wrong or right. And I seek to rectify my errors.

You can't even prove to me that you exist. To believe that your ideas are real is just an extension of the same delusion.

I cannot absolutely 100% prove anything, nor does anyone need to. Whether "self" is delusion or not, it is nonetheless real, coherent, and consistent. That is all that is required. Philosophers have recognized that for hundreds of years.

The other gobbledygook you speak of--your "essence", "heart centre", and "chakras"--appear to only exist in your head and in like minded believers. I think you've fallen into the trap that 3000 year old texts were something more than primitive, mostly ignorant people (compared to the knowledge available to people today) who were simply trying to understand the world the best they could. Knowledge and understanding has greatly increased since then, nostalgia notwithstanding.

What evidence is there that it exists now, in life? Anything that comes from the outside world is processed by your brain, which then becomes a projection into your own mind and you interpret that as "reality". There is no way for you to objectively prove your own relationship with the concept of your "self" anymore than it's possible for me to prove to you that I am real and I exist somewhere 'out there'.

I'm not going to hold your hand and guide you through the problems of solipsism during your philosophical crisis. It appears every amateur philosopher goes through this phase at some point (I'm told many christian seminary students go through something similar). I've dealt with it myself and with others in too many previous debates. It bores me. You are going to have to figure things out with someone else or go read a book or browse the web.

As an empiricist

I'm not a strict empiricist. My views are more nuanced. You are battling a strawman.

 

[Captain America]

Your soul goes to Motown. That's where all soul comes from.

If not, it probably goes back to the place it was before you were born.

Remember that place?

Exactly.

 

[reefedjib]

Because, to me, I feel it is no more credible than claiming one can have multiple souls or positive "Chi". All non-empirical claims become equal; absurd claims included.

Well, that's bull****. Take the two non-empirical claims of God's existence and Unicorn's existence. There is a qualitative difference between them. Unicorn's are expected to exist in the physical world, yet there is no evidence for them (photographic, archaeological). Claims of their existence in the physical world with no evidence is absurd.

Many concepts of God are related to existence on a spiritual plane, which is related by many to the plane of consciousness. We do not even know how to measure this thing called consciousness, not to mention thought. Most models of God call for faith and observe that no empirical evidence can be provided. So, we do not expect empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not absurd.

We do have reports of subjective evidence. There are even instructions for how one can obtain this sort of evidence. Though it is not as determinant as empirical evidence, it is not meaningless or absurd.

The bottom line is that there are absurd claims and coherent claims. Coherent claims are not meaningless. They are just non-empirical.

 

[scourge99]

Well, that's bull****. Take the two non-empirical claims of God's existence and Unicorn's existence. There is a qualitative difference between them. Unicorn's are expected to exist in the physical world, yet there is no evidence for them (photographic, archaeological). Claims of their existence in the physical world with no evidence is absurd.

Ok, how about unicorns that exist in the non-physical world. Now what?

 

[reefedjib]

When it comes to physical reality, faith-based claims are demonstrably inferior to evidenced based.

This is also the case with regard to non-physical reality, like the topic of conscious observation of perceptions of physical reality. Unfortunately, there is no evidence other than subjective experience regarding this topic. (Note: I do not recognize the rather primitive science of measuring brain activity as very fruitful, given the Orch OR model and such. Orch OR is inherently unmeasurable.)

If something is proven to someone else then they should have little or no difficulty providing that "proof" to others. If they can't reproduce said proof then its not proof. Its just their interpretation of a singular event which should set off warning bells in their head that they may have made a mistake in their perception or interpretation of the event.

Unverifiable anecdotal experiences are DEMONSTABLY unreliable sources of information. Its your choice to use poor standards of evidence in your decision making process. You can only lead a horse to water...

Read Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and Vivekananda's Raja Yoga and follow the instructions to acquire your proof and verify the claims. Horse -> water.

I'm not going to hold your hand and guide you through the problems of solipsism during your philosophical crisis. It appears every amateur philosopher goes through this phase at some point (I'm told many christian seminary students go through something similar). I've dealt with it myself and with others in too many previous debates. It bores me. You are going to have to figure things out with someone else or go read a book or browse the web.

It is supremely amusing to me that for all your demands for evidence and justifiable arguments, that when you are asked to explain your dismissive claims about solipsism, you duck and weave. Talk about unsubstantiated claims!

 

[ADG]

By soul I mean consciousness. Where do we go, when our bodies are no longer able to support our minds?

What are your thoughts?


Tim-

My belief is a bit nuanced. I believe that our energy remains intact and has an experience beyond that of this physical life. I am 99% sure that we do not end at our physical deaths only because I have had personal experience with the paranormal that makes it impossible for me to dismiss something is happening beyond what we can see and touch.

But because I cannot be 100% sure of this I also choose to live my life as if each day is my last. If you look at life as a one time event, and that to die is simply to become worm food, you tend to make every day you live as important as the last. If you feel that you can die and then be transported to some paradise, or come back as another person, then do you really make the most of every day? I didn't until I adopted the former philosophy.

 

[reefedjib]

Ok, how about unicorns that exist in the non-physical world. Now what?

Are their subjective claims of their being experienced? Do they represent a coherent non-physical model? I don't think so. Still absurd.