We are more than just a body

a reply to: artistpoet

Again, you are misusing the word intuition, and ignorance. The earth to them stood still not because of logic, which is a violent stretch of the imagination, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but because the earth does not seem to move.

a reply to: Aphorism

Again, you are misusing the word intuition, and ignorance. The earth to them stood still not because of logic, which is a violent stretch of the imagination, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but because the earth does not seem to move.

You now misuse the word "Violent"
Because the ground beneath them appeared to stand still ... which logically it does unless you have the fuller picture ... then logic being a limited tool is what they applied ... Yet you stated they intuited this ... Intuition can know of things that logic can not ...

A reply to: Aphorism

There are no natural objects and processes called 'relationships' with definable structures and functions.

You mean the relationship between an orbiting body and its primary is not definable? That the structure of a crystal lattice doesn't exist until someone defines it? And that the function of the bile duct is not naturally defined in the structure and function of the liver?

I'm not sure structuralism is taken seriously nowadays.

Not as a fashion in philosophy and the social sciences, certainly. However, it continues to inform the way we think of everything from large bureaucracies to spacecraft design.

a reply to: artistpoet

Intuition is not a knowing, for it is also a not knowing, and it can and has been wrong many times. The brilliant minds didn't use intuition to come up with the heliocentric theory; they used math and logic.

a reply to: Astyanax

You mean the relationship between an orbiting body and its primary is not definable? That the structure of a crystal lattice doesn't exist until someone defines it? And that the function of the bile duct is not naturally defined in the structure and function of the liver?

No, I mean exactly what I said. I explicitly said relationships are abstract ideas. Then I went on to say what you quoted. In other more simple terms, relationships are not concrete entities. Because you can speak of relationships as nouns, does not mean they are persons, places or things. Pretty elementary stuff here.

Imagine; Eye-Mage-In - Eye of the Magician, within(out).

The woods, does a bear sh*t ? - With no ear to hear, the tree fell, no witness account, observer-less action - recount.

Minus the odometer(s) and middlemen - the placeholders and cross reference cataloging , without an order arranged through relative deduction to put us in our perceptible place, what then the sum of a view with no viewer to view?

Upon Earth alone, ponder the vast viewpoints on offer. If one never knew the human experience but came into lucidity 1000's of times over on this same planet, each time experiencing through the respective hardware on offer e.g as a tiny mosquito reality would be vastly different to experiencing the lens of a reptile and so on despite the same parameters bound.

One truth serving many interpretations , interlocked that may co-exist side by side and not even know of it. Fractal service, the recycler of chaos.

Direction; Die-Wreck-tion - Of wrecking 'til Deaths erection.

Refined is the Man's spectra, out of place to his planetary-kin. Locale-unique supposition, the sword edged doubly - is testament to natures reflection, plain sight hidden the door with no locks. Analogous rhythmic cycles rise systems of result. Give way. Pull ebb

We have heightened tools at our disposal in comparison to the fine balance surrounding us. Wherein our balance sway? Once were resilient and tempered, the result of that we resist makes us. So then what resistance sparked the trade-off between being a result of environment to losing those predominant defenses seemingly prompting the trade of hardness for squishyness and a quick-(half/& or dim)wit .

Mediator through sense and harmonious order, we the caretaker of our brethren. Order of the rheotoric initiative - that is those of earth-manifest. Responsible through knowledge - the ambassador between tongues of those with none.

Fall from the seat of innocence, engage the chinese-fingertrap.
Misplacement of the innate, gift from the surrogate tarnished, prolong ever your spin with procession

To neglect the simplistic nature; a fail-safe. Filter of the highest caliber. Bright lights hypnotize - human senses sympathize; forget indulge and serve. High risk and high reward - lady Amnesia libertine of experience guide thy sum; lest I stare too long.

It's not the clothes that make the man, nor the man that makes the observer

a reply to: Aphorism

Intuition can know of things that logic, maths nor science can explain

Here is the definition of Intuition

intuition

noun
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"

synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness;

More
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

plural noun: intuitions
"your insights and intuitions as a native speaker are positively sought"

synonyms: hunch, feeling, feeling in one's bones, gut feeling, funny feeling, inkling, sneaking suspicion, suspicion, impression; premonition, presentiment, foreboding; satori; informal feeling in one's water
"this confirms an intuition I had

a reply to: artistpoet

Yes, but it is often wrong. Wrong wrong, wrong. In other words, not right, false, an error, a mistake, like the flat-earth theory, like the idea the earth stood still. The counterintuitive theories are more often correct.

a reply to: Aphorism

How would you know it is wrong often if you do not use it
I have always found it to be correct

Perhaps you do not like the idea that such a thing can not be explained by science
Perhaps you are thinking intuition is guess work
Perhaps you just want to argue

The reason I have persuade this is
because you sought to undermine 3NL1GHT3N3D1,s idea
of the existence of the soul
with false examples of what intuition is

a reply to: artistpoet

How would you know it is wrong often if you do not use it
I have always found it to be correct

Perhaps you do not like the idea that such a thing can not be explained by science
Perhaps you are thinking intuition is guess work
Perhaps you just want to argue

The reason I have persuade this is
because you sought to undermine 3NL1GHT3N3D1,s idea
of the existence of the soul
with false examples of what intuition is

I have not provided false examples at all. These are well-known historical examples of mistaken intuition:

Many scientific ideas that are generally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be contrary to intuition and common sense.

For example, most everyday experience suggests that the Earth is flat; actually, this view turns out to be a remarkably good approximation to the true state of affairs, which is that the Earth is a very big (relative to the day-to-day scale familiar to humans) oblate spheroid. Furthermore, prior to the Copernican revolution, heliocentrism, the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than vice versa, was considered to be contrary to common sense.

Another counterintuitive scientific idea concerns space travel: it was initially believed that highly streamlined shapes would be best for re-entering the earth's atmosphere.[citation needed] In fact, experiments proved that blunt-shaped re-entry bodies make the most efficient heat shields when returning to earth from space. Blunt-shaped re-entry vehicles have been used for all manned-spaceflights, including the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions.[4]

The Michelson-Morley experiment sought to measure the velocity of the Earth through the aether as it revolved around the Sun. The result was that it has no aether velocity at all. Relativity theory later explained the results, replacing the conventional notions of aether and separate space, time, mass, and energy with a counterintuitive four-dimensional non-Euclidean universe.[5]

Counterintuition

Using intuition to promote a soul hypothesis is no different. A telling example is you using your intuition to defend intuition as a "knowing", when the facts clearly state the opposite. Until conscious reasoning is applied, going on gut instinct is not much difference than guessing. Think of something you might not understand, like the language of bees, and use your intuition to supply your answers. Compare your conclusions to that of real findings.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The abstract is where the soul comes into play. If intuition is "nothing" then how does it have a word attached to it? Even nothing is something, even if just as an abstract idea.

Do you deny the abstract? If not then you should see what I mean by the soul. If don't see what I mean, you are being willfully ignorant to it in the fear of somehow believing in "dogma" and nothing I say will change your mind.

Speaking of willfully ignorant, that's not what I said about intuition.

What I said about your soul idea is that it is derived from dogma, meaning you have no reason to believe in it besides what you have been led to believe, like a horse being led by the reigns. I have no fear of believing in dogma, because I am not persuaded by promises and faith. I am persuaded by evidence and argument. Nothing you say will change my mind because they are poor arguments and backed by no evidence.

a reply to: Aphorism

There is no dogma in my beliefs I assure you, you assume about things you do not understand.

You have yet to say whether you deny the abstract or not. If you believe in abstract concepts and the abstract in general then I see no reason why you have an issue with believing in the abstract soul, where all abstract ideas originate from.

Thoughts are abstract, ideas are abstract, memories are abstract, intellect is abstract, emotions are abstract, just as the source of those things are abstract.

Do I need to look up the definition of abstract for you? It's the opposite of concrete, thus having no place in the physical world. If it is not physical then it has to do with the spiritual. You are completely against anything spiritual because you assume spirituality always has to do with dogma and brainwashing, you couldn't be any further from the truth.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is no dogma in my beliefs I assure you, you assume about things you do not understand.

You have yet to say whether you deny the abstract or not. If you believe in abstract concepts and the abstract in general then I see no reason why you have an issue with believing in the abstract soul, where all abstract ideas originate from.

Thoughts are abstract, ideas are abstract, memories are abstract, intellect is abstract, emotions are abstract, just as the source of those things are abstract.

Do I need to look up the definition of abstract for you? It's the opposite of concrete, thus having no place in the physical world. If it is not physical then it has to do with the spiritual. You are completely against anything spiritual because you assume spirituality always has to do with dogma and brainwashing, you couldn't be any further from the truth.

Yes let's provide the definition of abstract:

abstract
adjective |abˈstrakt, ˈabˌstrakt|
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence: abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
• dealing with ideas rather than events: the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical: we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
• (of a word, especially a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object: abstract words like truth or equality.
• of or relating to abstract art: abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.

In other words, the soul exists nowhere else but in your thoughts. The soul is an idea rather than an event or thing. The soul is not based on a particular instance; it is theoretical. It is a word denoting an idea rather than an object. Abstraction has nothing at all to do with the spiritual. Nothing at all.

The source of abstract thoughts is not abstract. Human beings are the source of abstract ideas.

I am not against anything spiritual. If anything, spirituality has to catch up, to reorientate itself back to reality in order to be real again. I am against the use of spirituality to push dogma and falsities. We can work together on this.

a reply to: Aphorism

You seem to share the same exact ideas and thoughts about souls, consciousness, and the like, as another rather active member here. It's uncanny. Most here have not picked up on who you are...

But I'd wager you are one in the same.

a reply to: WASTYT

You seem to share the same exact ideas and thoughts about souls, consciousness, and the like, as another rather active member here. It's uncanny. Most here have not picked up on who you are...

But I'd wager you are one in the same.

He/she must have good taste. I've written thoroughly on the topic of minds, souls and consciousnesses, probably before anyone else here has.

originally posted by: Aphorism
I've written thoroughly on the topic of minds, souls and consciousnesses, probably before anyone else here has.

Yes the both of you have, it seems.
Lots of threads with the same thoughts, on the same topics, with same view of the world.
Yet neither participate in each others threads. Or in the same threads for that matter
It's interesting.

a reply to: Aphorism

You obviously have a different understanding of intuition than I ...
For the sake of clarity I will explain what I mean by Intuition

Intuition is for I inner tuition
A knowing of things beyond the realms of the sciences

Intuition in my understand is not something which one applies like say logic... Intuition occurs

No one can conclusively prove to another the soul exists or that is does not exist
It is a question that will never go away

If you only believe what sciences prove to be so ... then so be it
Yet science has yet to answer the fundamental question of the source of thought and also the source/cause for the Universe coming into existence.
Both these questions are linked and I personally believe that Higher Intelligence is the key

a reply to: artistpoet

You obviously have a different understanding of intuition than I ...
For the sake of clarity I will explain what I mean by Intuition

Intuition is for I inner tuition
A knowing of things beyond the realms of the sciences

Intuition in my understand is not something which one applies like say logic... Intuition occurs

No one can conclusively prove to another the soul exists or that is does not exist
It is a question that will never go away

If you only believe what sciences prove to be so ... then so be it
Yet science has yet to answer the fundamental question of the source of thought and also the source/cause for the Universe coming into existence.
Both these questions are linked and I personally believe that Higher Intelligence is the key

I personally don't like to speak of science as if it was a person, and that I must listen to this person because his name is science. If you want to treat it like a person, that's fine, but it might serve you better to think of it as a tool of sorts. Science doesn't answer questions. It provides data for us to ruminate on, to consider and to develop further our own ideas. The opinions of scientists vary wildly, and I disagree with most of them, for instance on the topic of mind, on consciousness, and the self etc., and I therefor look at the data before accepting the opinion of who gathered it. I also do not like the prevailing idea that we are "collections of particles", "mostly empty space", biological machines or computers, or embrained rather than embodied beings. You get the drift.

Perhaps one may not prove there is no soul, but one can easily prove the soul hypothesis is an awful hypothesis. For one, there is nothing left for the soul to do. Everything we've once attributed to the soul can be explained by biology. The most damning evidence against the hypothesis is how a non-material soul, with no location in space or time, interact with a particular physical body. If it has no location is space or time, how can one soul differ from another? How can it animate anything given that it is without mass, location or energy? If it can animate the body, it must create energy out of nothing, violating a very well-established physical law. Every physical event has a physical cause wherever we've looked. According to what evidence is a soul any different?

Intuition is a valuable instinct, but only when this "knowing of things" can be validated through further inquiry can it be of any practical use. Just imagine if everyone concluded on gut-instinct alone. The result would be anarchy, violence, racism, and action without thought.

a reply to: Aphorism

Thanks for your response to my post

I do agree with the bulk of what you say

Yes the scientific method is a tool ... a very useful tool for testing out ideas with practical experiment/s

I speak of intuition in the context of knowing things which defy scientific explanation
I have personally experienced such things as have many others.

Perhaps one may not prove there is no soul, but one can easily prove the soul hypothesis is an awful hypothesis. For one, there is nothing left for the soul to do. Everything we've once attributed to the soul can be explained by biology.

I have not come across this hypothesis you mention ... however saying there is nothing left for the soul to do is the opposite of what I understand ... Biology the Human body is unable to perform anything without thought. Also each have their own purpose for being on Earth

The most damning evidence against the hypothesis is how a non-material soul, with no location in space or time, interact with a particular physical body. If it has no location is space or time, how can one soul differ from another? How can it animate anything given that it is without mass, location or energy?

In my view of the soul it is not a non material thing ... there is no such thing as nothing ... nothing is an idea to explain away what can not be observed.
The soul does have a location in space and time ... We are not the temporary body ... our soul is attached to our temporary body for the purpose of interacting with the substances of Earth and our fellow beings ... We are thought beings ... and as such have free choice ... How we interact with Earth and also our fellow beings ... the sum of this is the state of one's soul and all are different in that respect.

If it can animate the body, it must create energy out of nothing, violating a very well-established physical law. Every physical event has a physical cause wherever we've looked.

Energy is not created of nothing it is created out of something by something.
Every physical thing one does requires thought ... the effect of thought can be observed whether in the brain or outwardly manifested in the world by action/s

Yet as I have mentioned in a prior post ... The cause of thought can not be explained satisfactory by scientific method
But my belief is that it is the product of a higher intelligence

Just a footnote ... I believe there are many hidden dimensions and that upon death the soul relocates to an appropriate one depending on the "state" of it

Of course I do not expect you to agree with my thoughts but thought to share them anyway

a reply to: Aphorism

What is a concrete entitiy? In Platonism it is only the approximation of an ideal form, which is the true object. Thus objects are as abstract as structures, at least to people who choose to look at things this way.

But structures are physically present in the real world, just as balls and bishops are, so I'd say it was an open question. One, incidentally, in which I have no great interest.

My own understanding of the world tends to be based on processes, which doubtless you find even more abstract than structures, because processes derive and modify relationships. But my way of working reality serves me very well. How are you doing with yours?