Minds So Infinitely Small.

According to a variety of responses to my own threads, it has become clear to me that some people who frequent these boards believe themselves to be something other than what they appear to be—a disconcerting conclusion, since what they appear to be and not what they think they are is exactly the object that affects everyone who comes into contact with it. Even though one could have them look at, observe, and prove to themselves via their own experience what they are, the result is not an acceptance of observable evidence, their experience, and thus themselves, but a repudiation of it in favour of…well…you name it.

They are prone to suggest at their own expense that human reason is too limited, nor are the senses powerful enough to view the reality of our self-hood, and our feeble instruments of detection are simply unable to measure the what, the when and the where of our "true" selves, or our “higher” selves as they prefer to call them, which, according to these good people, resembles something like a soul, a spirit, a mind, or any number of entities and substances we’ve postulated to exist within the human being throughout history. I am still unsure if whether declaring the limits of our understanding is a personal admission rather than a universal fact, as it seems that such a claim usually comes from those who avoid the use of common sense in favour of credulity or appealing to authority of some doctrine or other, but this widening of the goal posts is fallacious enough to simply discard it. Of course, if we were to provide a running tally of how many of these selves and substances have been found, validated, and agreed upon as fundamental to a human being, the score would be an emphatic and resounding zero.

In metaphysics, this technique of postulating an immaterial substance or entity within the human being is ancient, but its success rate as a hypothesis, combined with its advocacy by the vast majority of people, has led us further from an understanding of ourselves instead of closer to it. One might conclude based on this evidence that "know thyself" is less important than "preserve thyself", or at least less important than the imperative "invent something that could be preserved if it were to exist".

As an aside, it is usually at around this point in any discussion on these matters that anyone who speaks as I do about these fictions is charged with reductionism or materialism, usually in the pejorative rather than technical senses (for it is rare that they know and understand the technical sense), because anyone who speaks in such and such a way risks offending those who believe in such and such a way, and is therefor, by some stretch of the imagination, evil. But to be sure, what frustrates them is not your ability to attack their ideas, but their inability to defend them. Remember, never did a heretic or a witch put a priest to the pyre.

Let’s examine any and all reality of souls and minds, and compare them to the other, apparently less compelling side of them, their physical body. Of course, the "any and all reality of souls and minds" can only be examined via what is said about them. By a process of deduction, the soul, the mind, the self, and any and all inner worlds, are smaller than the body, given that they are said to exist “within” it. And since these things, substances and places cannot be measured by current technology, it follows that their components, their substances and their particulates are smaller than anything that has been discovered so far. Illuminated in this way, it is safe to say that not only are souls and minds significantly smaller then that which contains it, but are vastly smaller, and I would argue, infinitely smaller. Therefor, anyone who imagines themselves to be this mind, soul or consciousness, has reduced the self further beyond than what any reductionist ever could, to something that is closer to or equal to nothing.

If we were to peel away their body like an onion so as to reveal this self, I wonder what would be left? According to our analysis, not a whole lot, if anything at all. Nonetheless, postulating that there is something of a soul or mind governing every human body, even driving it as if it was a vehicle of sorts (these little selves love the vehicle analogy), or even wearing it as if it was a meaty suit, is the going rate. Of course, upon examining the vehicle there is no little driver, and upon opening the costume, there is no wearer of it. Such metaphorical conceptions are not only fiction, but exceedingly bad fiction, bearing in mind they offer no visceral or sensual imagery to work with. In other words, souls, minds, and consciousness can hardly be imagined, let alone described.

Examining once again what we can examine, namely, what is said about souls and minds, and never souls and minds as they actually are, we can conclude that these minds are so small, even infinitely small, that their causal powers are equally as weak. Since they are without mass, they are also without energy, unable to affect anything. How one can still stir in mind with matter knowing this shows that one is not speaking of any state of affairs when postulating minds and consciousnesses, but is taking an ancient conception, one that was conceived during times when biology was all but condemned, and exaggerating it to conform to their preferable narrative, and thereby living only as if what they were saying was true. But what else can we expect with minds so infinitely small?

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

a reply to: [post=19381990]LesMisanthrope[/post Thanks for the words and your view, reading through it I have to say apart from your personal touch and manners it sounds a lot like authentic Buddhism. Which was without ritual and to dissect was the path of reaching the truth about life. None the less, do I detect an undercurrent of disillusion with others? Those small minded others you mention, filled with bubbles of fantasy, imagination and new age jargon? Is that what you mean? If so I know what you mean, but if not maybe I need a more precise description of where or what you are pointing your pen at. Spill the beans, you know what I mean!


best AT

a reply to: ancientthunder

Thanks for the words and your view, reading through it I have to say apart from your personal touch and manners it sounds a lot like authentic Buddhism. Which was without ritual and to dissect was the path of reaching the truth about life. None the less, do I detect an undercurrent of disillusion with others? Those small minded others you mention, filled with bubbles of fantasy, imagination and new age jargon? Is that what you mean? If so I know what you mean, but if not maybe I need a more precise description of where or what you are pointing your pen at. Spill the beans, you know what I mean!

You are correct, friend. But to be clear, I have no disillusion with others. I love others. I only have issue with their language.

And true, I am a thorough-going नास्तिक

Have you ever tried looking at the vanishing point between two mirrors facing each other?
If you have, then, you would know, its impossible to see, because your head is always in the way.
Same goes for trying to find the mind...

OMG! I can't believe I actually LOVED your post! LOL! Not that I agree with all your points, but I love you for saying it and so beautifully. I was especially enthralled with this paragraph.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As an aside, it is usually at around this point in any discussion on these matters that anyone who speaks as I do about these fictions is charged with reductionism or materialism, usually in the pejorative rather than technical senses (for it is rare that they know and understand the technical sense), because anyone who speaks in such and such a way risks offending those who believe in such and such a way, and is therefor, by some stretch of the imagination, evil. But to be sure, what frustrates them is not your ability to attack their ideas, but their inability to defend them. Remember, never did a heretic or a witch put a priest to the pyre.

Now, for my opinions on some points...

By a process of deduction, the soul, the mind, the self, and any and all inner worlds, are smaller than the body, given that they are said to exist “within” it.

Technically, the phrase "within it" is probably incorrect as far as their spacial location is concerned, if they indeed occupy any space at all. For those who do believe that a mind and/or soul exists, it would be more correct to say they are "connected to" us. For all we know, these "entities" of mind and soul aren't made up of substances and particulates that conform to physical sciences at all, and may be the size of skyscrapers. Like you said, we can't open up a person to discover their soul.

And since these things, substances and places cannot be measured by current technology, it follows that their components, their substances and their particulates are smaller than anything that has been discovered so far.

It could very well be that they are smaller than we have the technology or even the brain power to ever see or measure.

Illuminated in this way, it is safe to say that not only are souls and minds significantly smaller then that which contains it, but are vastly smaller, and I would argue, infinitely smaller. Therefor, anyone who imagines themselves to be this mind, soul or consciousness, has reduced the self further beyond than what any reductionist ever could, to something that is closer to or equal to nothing.

You're stuck in the physical. You're thinking in terms of physical power being associated to physical size. If there is a mind or soul, they are decidedly NOT physical, and cannot be measured using physical sciences or technology. Neither can their power be assumed to be associated with their physical size, as measured by us with our calipers. When people speak of a soul, they aren't speaking if something one can hold in their hand.

In other words, souls, minds, and consciousness can hardly be imagined, let alone described.

With this, I agree completely. If there is more than the physical, we don't know what it is.

But people like to postulate. They (we) identify with our beliefs. Many hold their beliefs so closely and close their minds to any and all who disagree, but I like to keep an open mind. Because if I can't imagine or describe a mind/soul, then I can't say it doesn't exist, either.

Examining once again what we can examine, namely, what is said about souls and minds, and never souls and minds as they actually are, we can conclude that these minds are so small, even infinitely small, that their causal powers are equally as weak. Since they are without mass, they are also without energy, unable to affect anything.

I don't think we can make that conclusion at all. In a spiritual discussion (and that is what we're talking about with a word like "soul"), we can't conclude that the power someone's mind/soul has, is related to the physical size of that mind/soul. At least not with physical science. We'd have to use something like "spiritual science"? Maybe one day we'll have that opportunity.

How one can still stir in mind with matter knowing this shows that one is not speaking of any state of affairs when postulating minds and consciousnesses, but is taking an ancient conception, one that was conceived during times when biology was all but condemned, and exaggerating it to conform to their preferable narrative, and thereby living only as if what they were saying was true.

You may be right on that, Mis. But since cognitive science hasn't yet explained the mind as more than neurons and synapses, and a lot remains unexplained, we can't really say that what they're saying is false, either.

I don't know if what they're saying is true or false. I remain agnostic on the facts of the matter, but I have beliefs. Beliefs are nothing but thoughts. We all have beliefs.

Really excellent post, though!
.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope Are you a Philosopher by trade? Reminds me of Berkeley and Locke.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And yet still I wonder how a neurosurgeon can experience an NDE with a non-functioning neocortex

It must be because he needed to write a book because his job didn't pay enough, or something. Right?

There's *something in the air*, you wont often hear me claim it's invisible or undetectable, but that we're not sure what it is yet? Yep, I'll go that far. At the risk of being scoffed as a druggie (which shows how open-minded one really is), I will say that psychedelics are an eyeopener, not to make oneself believe "this is the work of god!", but to make oneself understand "this is how nature does it!"

Mushrooms talk, not in human language obviously, but they communicate. Nature communicates with spores, why is it so impossibly hard to entertain that maybe, psylocibin is a communication device used by nature, that mankind can use to tap into this stream of communications on purpose?

Who's doing the communicating? "Nature"? Aren't we part of nature? When we consume plants, aren't we consuming a recipient and a transmitter of these communications? You're not just your physical being, you're constantly being fueled by outside sources.

Maybe it's hard to grasp because that would insinuate that we're not confined to these physical bodies?




You can deny the existance of a "soul" all you want, you can't possibly deny the existence of this network of spores that spans the entire planet. I'm not per say claiming this has a daily influence on us, I am saying that, we discover new things every day.


Also, if I ever were to defend the theory of a soul, I would never place it INSIDE the human body, and to be honest, I don't know who you've talked to, but I don't know many people that would? As far as I'm aware, most people who think they have a soul, believe it is bigger than themselves. If I have to conceptualize my soul, it is overlapping with the rest of the world, not confined within me. That thing confined within me is called my ego and it is exactly that which makes people believe they are confined to their own bodies, that they are completely independent, which they're not.




Your post almost read like a rant of sorts, though I enjoyed your wording


EDIT: Re-reading my post I notice I've seemed to drift off-topic, however in writing it I felt it could possibly be of importance, or related. We constantly assume, until we prove ourselves otherwise. I hope the future will decide who of us is right, but a part of me is even skeptical of that reality, perhaps we'll never know, perhaps all we'll ever find out is "these are the rules" and they're still up to interpretation, since the more we learn, the more divided we seem to become anyway...

I think science is slowly showing us all the rules, and the rules are showing us that, well, there are no absolute rules? At least not for everything... Of course, gravity is a constant, and a given, but quantum physics? New ball game, and even if we ever could comprehend it to the fullest, I'm guessing it would remain open to debate

Not everything can be held in ones hand. The ability for someone to perform math cannot be held in hand, the ability to think about the past or ponder the future cannot be held in hand, the ability to imagine anything one desires cannot be held in hand, etc.

The very thing that are your thoughts is what you fail to grasp mentally. Intellect is not physical, yet you seem to be very intelligent despite the fact you deny the immaterial.

Not everything can be seen. The air between you and your computer screen cannot be seen, yet it is there nonetheless, the wind cannot be seen yet it blows and animates the world around it nonetheless. Your soul cannot be seen yet it animates your body nonetheless.

There's more to this existence than can be held in the hand or seen with the eyes. When you think of your mother, is she literally inside your brain? If not then where is that image of your mother located?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

LesMisanthrope: In metaphysics, this technique of postulating an immaterial substance or entity within the human being is ancient, but its success rate as a hypothesis, combined with its advocacy by the vast majority of people, has led us further from an understanding of ourselves instead of closer to it. One might conclude based on this evidence that "know thyself" is less important than "preserve thyself", or at least less important than the imperative "invent something that could be preserved if it were to exist".

I would say what is more plausible is a 'positive' result HAS to happen. This universe is not BUILT upon failure as that idea is relegated simply to cause a change to ultimately gain a positive result. 'To know thyself' will not change this. This system is organized to obtain a positive growth effect (with or without the human) IT DOESNT CARE.

You know how 99.9% of the universe is empty space?

By definition, non-material, just as the soul is classically described.

I think we're all just pretending to be small.

Regress back to your innate instincts
Think back to your Mother's womb
There was a time when you just knew

Free from the lies of indoctrination
You knew you were made from love
Paternal Divine Love fashioned you

Every intricate nuance of your being
You sense an intelligence at work
Precise synchronization

But you are disconnected from God
He is either not there or impotent
He has not heard your prayers

He made Himself inconspicuous to humanity
He left man to backward inventions
He allowed 'science' to grow
And let them think Heaven was a fantasy

# 440

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you LesMisanthrope,

Your honesty is quite refreshing.

If we were to peel away their body like an onion so as to reveal this self, I wonder what would be left? According to our analysis, not a whole lot, if anything at all. Nonetheless, postulating that there is something of a soul or mind governing every human body, even driving it as if it was a vehicle of sorts (these little selves love the vehicle analogy), or even wearing it as if it was a meaty suit, is the going rate. Of course, upon examining the vehicle there is no little driver, and upon opening the costume, there is no wearer of it. Such metaphorical conceptions are not only fiction, but exceedingly bad fiction, bearing in mind they offer no visceral or sensual imagery to work with. In other words, souls, minds, and consciousness can hardly be imagined, let alone described.

The corporeal nature of the soul has two crucial consequences for Epicureanism. First, it is the basis of Epicurus' demonstration that the soul does not survive the death of the body (other arguments to this effect are presented in Lucretius 3.417–614). The soul's texture is too delicate to exist independently of the body that contains it, and in any case the connection with the body is necessary for sensation to occur. From this it follows that there can be no punishment after death, nor any regrets for the life that has been lost.
Epicurus

I can imagine the soul as described in Epicurean philosophy, and yes of coarse if you peel the body away there is no soul revealed. As for the driver of the vehicle, to use the metaphor, that would be none other than the Ego which psychologists speak of. That Ego also does not survive the peeling of the body either.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is so much we can learn from that mind so infinitely small..

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've taken a screenshot for sentimental purposes. As for your points, I do not agree with them, but I love you for saying them.

a reply to: HalfLeaf

And yet still I wonder how a neurosurgeon can experience an NDE with a non-functioning neocortex

It must be because he needed to write a book because his job didn't pay enough, or something. Right?

Compare his story with the doctors who worked on him, the doctors who were conscious, lucid and grounded in reality, and you might understand why.

There's *something in the air*, you'll never hear me claim it's invisible or undetectable, but that we're not sure what it is yet? Yep, I'll go that far. At the risk of being scoffed as a druggie (which shows how open-minded one really is), I will say that psychedelics are an eyeopener, not to make oneself believe "this is the work of god!", but to make oneself understand "this is how nature does it!"

Mushrooms talk, not in human language obviously, but they communicate. Nature communicates with spores, why is it so impossibly hard to entertain that maybe, psylocibin is a communication device used by nature, that mankind can use to tap into this stream of communications?

Maybe because that would insinuate that we're not confined to these physical bodies?

Show me a soul ingesting a mushroom and you might have a point. But only physical bodies ingest physical mushrooms.

Also, if I ever were to defend the theory of a soul, I would never place it INSIDE the human body, and to be honest, I don't know who you've talked to, but I don't know many people that would? As far as I'm aware, most people who think they have a soul, believe it is bigger than themselves. If I have to conceptualize my soul, it is overlapping with the rest of the world, not confined within me. That thing confined within me is called my ego and it is exactly that which makes people believe they are confined to their own bodies, that they are completely independent, which they're not.

Place it where you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not speaking of any soul as such (for if you did, you'd know where it was), but you are speaking about the soul as conceived by ancient men, who possessed little to no knowledge of the human organism. You are speaking of a proposition, one that you were led to believe by way of indoctrination, tradition and custom, not because you have ever come into contact with any soul. I would advise we remember this.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Not everything can be held in ones hand. The ability for someone to perform math cannot be held in hand, the ability to think about the past or ponder the future cannot be held in hand, the ability to imagine anything one desires cannot be held in hand, etc.

What has an ability is the ability. When you’re watching a man throw a ball, you’re not seeing an ability to throw, you’re watching a man throw a ball. I feel like you’re stuck in the language, and it has you dazzled.

The very thing that are your thoughts is what you fail to grasp mentally. Intellect is not physical, yet you seem to be very intelligent despite the fact you deny the immaterial.

It’s just another word. Because it is in a noun form does not mean what it signifies is an actual person place or thing.

Not everything can be seen. The air between you and your computer screen cannot be seen, yet it is there nonetheless, the wind cannot be seen yet it blows and animates the world around it nonetheless. Your soul cannot be seen yet it animates your body nonetheless.

Have you ever seen a bubble? That’s air. Air can fill balloons. Air can be felt. Air can interact with things. And no, the soul has no such causal powers. You’ve made it up.

There's more to this existence than can be held in the hand or seen with the eyes. When you think of your mother, is she literally inside your brain? If not then where is that image of your mother located?

It is not an image.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

So true. But if our eyes faced inward we'd say the same.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is not an image.

So what is it then? I don't mean the physical process, I mean the end result. When you picture something in your head, where is that picture? Can anyone else see it but yourself? If not then where is it?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

for someone who so staunchly declares spirituality a waste of time, you sure do like to post about it. which is, in my opinion, the most interesting take-away observation here. the amount of threads you make concerning something that isnt worth your time. ironically.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So what is it then? I don't mean the physical process, I mean the end result. When you picture something in your head, where is that picture? Can anyone else see it but yourself? If not then where is it?

Seeing involves the eyes. There is no image. You say, "When you picture something in your head", it seems you answered your own question as to where it is.