the soul...

[Age]

What are 'memories', exactly?

You don't know what memories, are Age?

Are you telling, or asking?

If you LOOK AT your sentence here, it is another example of the unclear and confusing way 'you', human beings, speak and write to "each other". Although most of 'you' in the days when this was written noticed these nuances.

But, your example here also SHOWS how what 'your', human being, ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, really are, behind your words.

Do you have any; or do you suffer from perpetual amnesia?

ONCE AGAIN, once these people are completely and utterly able to CLARIFY their expressed views, they resort to ATTEMPTS at DECEPTION and DEFLECTION, as SHOWN VERY CLEARLY here.

Also, your two only choices here shows just how limited in 'vision' some people really were, back then.

[Skepdick]

What are 'memories', exactly?

You don't know what memories, are Age?

Are you telling, or asking?

If you LOOK AT your sentence here, it is another example of the unclear and confusing way 'you', human beings, speak and write to "each other". Although most of 'you' in the days when this was written noticed these nuances.

But, your example here also SHOWS how what 'your', human being, ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, really are, behind your words.

Do you have any; or do you suffer from perpetual amnesia?

ONCE AGAIN, once these people are completely and utterly able to CLARIFY their expressed views, they resort to ATTEMPTS at DECEPTION and DEFLECTION, as SHOWN VERY CLEARLY here.

Also, your two only choices here shows just how limited in 'vision' some people really were, back then.

Why can't you clarify the source of your confusion and misunderstanding, Age?

What is confusing you about the common-sense notion of a memory?

Do you have memories; or don't you have memories?

If you want to get more exact than that, please clarity: What is "exactness" exactly?

[Age]

You don't know what memories, are Age?

Are you telling, or asking?

If you LOOK AT your sentence here, it is another example of the unclear and confusing way 'you', human beings, speak and write to "each other". Although most of 'you' in the days when this was written noticed these nuances.

But, your example here also SHOWS how what 'your', human being, ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, really are, behind your words.

Do you have any; or do you suffer from perpetual amnesia?

ONCE AGAIN, once these people are completely and utterly able to CLARIFY their expressed views, they resort to ATTEMPTS at DECEPTION and DEFLECTION, as SHOWN VERY CLEARLY here.

Also, your two only choices here shows just how limited in 'vision' some people really were, back then.

Why can't you clarify the source of your confusion and misunderstanding, Age?

LOL

1. Coming from the one who can NOT CLARIFY the very SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED to you.

2. The ONLY CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING I have here is the one you MADE UP and now BELIEVE there is.

What is confusing you about the common-sense notion of a memory?

NOTHING.

I just ALREADY KNOW what 'memory' is, exactly, and I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION to ascertain whether you KNEW, AS WELL.

your INABILITY to CLARIFY reveals what the Truth is here, exactly.

Do you have memories; or don't you have memories?

Once you LEARN, and KNOW, what 'memories' are, exactly, and who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will REALIZE and KNOW that there is NOT one who 'has' 'memories'.

If you want to get more exact than that, please clarity: What is "exactness" exactly?

WHY?

How would doing 'this' help you in any way coming to terms with your INABILITY to just CLARIFY your OWN personal position here?

'Exactness', by the way, is in relation to not being approximated in any way; precise. and/or the quality of being accurate or correct; precision.

Now, are you able to at least 'try to' CLARIFY and/or ELABORATE on your views here?

[Skepdick]

Are you telling, or asking?

If you LOOK AT your sentence here, it is another example of the unclear and confusing way 'you', human beings, speak and write to "each other". Although most of 'you' in the days when this was written noticed these nuances.

But, your example here also SHOWS how what 'your', human being, ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, really are, behind your words.


ONCE AGAIN, once these people are completely and utterly able to CLARIFY their expressed views, they resort to ATTEMPTS at DECEPTION and DEFLECTION, as SHOWN VERY CLEARLY here.

Also, your two only choices here shows just how limited in 'vision' some people really were, back then.

Why can't you clarify the source of your confusion and misunderstanding, Age?

LOL

1. Coming from the one who can NOT CLARIFY the very SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED to you.

2. The ONLY CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING I have here is the one you MADE UP and now BELIEVE there is.

What is confusing you about the common-sense notion of a memory?

NOTHING.

I just ALREADY KNOW what 'memory' is, exactly, and I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION to ascertain whether you KNEW, AS WELL.

your INABILITY to CLARIFY reveals what the Truth is here, exactly.

Do you have memories; or don't you have memories?

Once you LEARN, and KNOW, what 'memories' are, exactly, and who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will REALIZE and KNOW that there is NOT one who 'has' 'memories'.

If you want to get more exact than that, please clarity: What is "exactness" exactly?

WHY?

How would doing 'this' help you in any way coming to terms with your INABILITY to just CLARIFY your OWN personal position here?

Thanks for your response, but you failed to address every single one of my questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't know what to do next, because asking you clarifying questions doesn't work.

Rather than clarification, you produced obscurement.

[Age]

Why can't you clarify the source of your confusion and misunderstanding, Age?

LOL

1. Coming from the one who can NOT CLARIFY the very SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED to you.

2. The ONLY CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING I have here is the one you MADE UP and now BELIEVE there is.

What is confusing you about the common-sense notion of a memory?

NOTHING.

I just ALREADY KNOW what 'memory' is, exactly, and I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION to ascertain whether you KNEW, AS WELL.

your INABILITY to CLARIFY reveals what the Truth is here, exactly.

Do you have memories; or don't you have memories?

Once you LEARN, and KNOW, what 'memories' are, exactly, and who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will REALIZE and KNOW that there is NOT one who 'has' 'memories'.

If you want to get more exact than that, please clarity: What is "exactness" exactly?

WHY?

How would doing 'this' help you in any way coming to terms with your INABILITY to just CLARIFY your OWN personal position here?

Thanks for your response, but you failed to address every single one of my questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't know what to do next, because asking you clarifying questions doesn't work.

You appear incapable of clarifying anything.

Once more we can CLEARLY SEE how Truly SHORTSIGHTED some of these people REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

[Skepdick]

LOL

1. Coming from the one who can NOT CLARIFY the very SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED to you.

2. The ONLY CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING I have here is the one you MADE UP and now BELIEVE there is.


NOTHING.

I just ALREADY KNOW what 'memory' is, exactly, and I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION to ascertain whether you KNEW, AS WELL.

your INABILITY to CLARIFY reveals what the Truth is here, exactly.



Once you LEARN, and KNOW, what 'memories' are, exactly, and who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will REALIZE and KNOW that there is NOT one who 'has' 'memories'.


WHY?

How would doing 'this' help you in any way coming to terms with your INABILITY to just CLARIFY your OWN personal position here?

Thanks for your response, but you failed to address every single one of my questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't know what to do next, because asking you clarifying questions doesn't work.

You appear incapable of clarifying anything.

Once more we can CLEARLY SEE how Truly SHORTSIGHTED some of these people REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

Back then?

it's still not, Age.

It's always now.

[Age]

Why can't you clarify the source of your confusion and misunderstanding, Age?

LOL

1. Coming from the one who can NOT CLARIFY the very SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED to you.

2. The ONLY CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING I have here is the one you MADE UP and now BELIEVE there is.

What is confusing you about the common-sense notion of a memory?

NOTHING.

I just ALREADY KNOW what 'memory' is, exactly, and I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION to ascertain whether you KNEW, AS WELL.

your INABILITY to CLARIFY reveals what the Truth is here, exactly.

Do you have memories; or don't you have memories?

Once you LEARN, and KNOW, what 'memories' are, exactly, and who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will REALIZE and KNOW that there is NOT one who 'has' 'memories'.

If you want to get more exact than that, please clarity: What is "exactness" exactly?

WHY?

How would doing 'this' help you in any way coming to terms with your INABILITY to just CLARIFY your OWN personal position here?

Thanks for your response, but you failed to address every single one of my questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't know what to do next, because asking you clarifying questions doesn't work.

If you REALLY DO NOT KNOW what to do next, then okay.

Rather than clarification, you produced obscurement.

If 'this' is the ONLY 'thing' you can SEE here, then so be it.

[Age]

Thanks for your response, but you failed to address every single one of my questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't know what to do next, because asking you clarifying questions doesn't work.

You appear incapable of clarifying anything.

Once more we can CLEARLY SEE how Truly SHORTSIGHTED some of these people REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

Back then?

it's still not, Age.

It's always now.

But 'now' is VERY RELATIVE.

Obviously WHEN you wrote 'now' is DIFFERENT to when the "readers" SAW the word 'now'. We're 'you' AWARE of 'this Fact'?

[Skepdick]

But 'now' is VERY RELATIVE.

So it wasn't "NOW" when you wrote that?

Obviously WHEN you wrote 'now' is DIFFERENT to when the "readers" SAW the word 'now'. We're 'you' AWARE of 'this Fact'?

Pretty sure there are timestamps on every forum post, Age.

It was "now" when I wrote this post.
It will be "now" when you respond.

[Walker]

how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

Kropotkin

When that thing exists within infinite potentiality.

When that thing exists only within infinite potentiality, then all the elements in the proper proportions, required for manifestation of the thing, have yet to merge into a manifested situation of which that thing is an element.

For example: a flying machine eternally exists outside of time, within infinite potentiality, but flying machines only manifest within time, when all the elements required for a flying machine, in the proper proportions, are present.

What does this mean in terms of soul? It means that soul is eternal, outside of time, and manifests to form as form.

All things, including some things, imagined and unimagined, exist within infinite potentiality.

[Iwannaplato]

how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

how can something that isn't composed of anything be temporary? The question implies/assumes that the length of time something composed of nothing makes it less or more likely to be possible. I think that's a category error.

I don't think it's clear that either Buddhism or Hume believed in an immortal soul. I think it's controversial either way to assign them a clear position.

[VVilliam]

I tend toward Naturalism rather than supernaturalism or strictly materialism.

Such subjects as souls and afterlife are thus understood that - if real - then they are a natural product of the natural universe and there is no thing which actually resides outside of this said universe,...

I too view the universe in a way that is compatible with the term "Naturalism."

However, I have a different take on the term "supernatural," where instead of it connoting something "ghost-like" or perhaps "not as real" as our everyday world of suns, and planets, and trees, and cars,...

...the word "supernatural" should be read as "Super-Natural" or perhaps "Ultra-Natural."

In other words, it would be more accurate to think of the soul - along with where it finally ends up after death - as being even MORE NATURAL (more "REAL") than this temporary "illusion" we are presently experiencing.

I'm talking about an illusion that, according to physicist and author Nick Herbert's assessment of Werner Heisenberg's theories regarding the quantum realm, is comprised of a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

--From the book -- QUANTUM REALITY: Beyond the New Physics

The bottom line is that just as our post-birth human bodies are no longer a part of the inner reality of our mother's womb,...

...likewise, our post-death souls will no longer be a part of the inner reality of this universe, which, in essence, is simply the "cosmic womb" of a soul (just like us) who has made it to the heights of what all of our souls are each destined to become...



The blurry captions read as follows:

GOD: "You must have a logical purpose that does not diminish when viewed in the light of the eternal perspective. Though it may be difficult to fathom, it is as simple as this: You are my children and you will become like me. Believe it for it is so. That is life's ultimate truth and it is ours to share together forever."

Seed (quoting a metaphysical prophecy): "...In the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished..."(Revelation, 10:7)

How much more "NATURAL" can the truth of reality get?
_______

If I thought of this in the same way as you expressed, I would then turn it around the other way conceptionally and have it that the "supernatural" is anything which product of the natural - thus if the physical universe is the result of the Natural Mind which created it, then it is the universe which is the "super-to-nature" (non-natural/temporal et al) re said Mind.

[VVilliam]

I tend toward Naturalism rather than supernaturalism or strictly materialism.

Such subjects as souls and afterlife are thus understood that - if real - then they are a natural product of the natural universe and there is no thing which actually resides outside of this said universe,...
I too view the universe in a way that is compatible with the term "Naturalism."

However, I have a different take on the term "supernatural," where instead of it connoting something "ghost-like" or perhaps "not as real" as our everyday world of suns, and planets, and trees, and cars,...

...the word "supernatural" should be read as "Super-Natural" or perhaps "Ultra-Natural."

In other words, it would be more accurate to think of the soul - along with where it finally ends up after death - as being even MORE NATURAL (more "REAL") than this temporary "illusion" we are presently experiencing.

But why even look at or consider what could be so-called 'more accurate' when what IS Accurate can be already clearly seen, and known?

Because the mind is not clearly seen and known, other that it too exists. Things which can be seen, can be known that way - measured, evaluated, utilized, et al.

Also, there is no such 'real thing' as 'more real' NOR 'more natural'.

If an experience is experienced as real, one has to evaluate that which is doing the experiencing of said real thing.

If you can not yet see what IS actually Real, HERE-NOW in this one and only eternal and infinite Universe...

It has yet to be established ( as real ) that this universe is eternal (has always existed) and infinite (is without beginning or end).

...within and through a breathing human body, then you certainly are NOT going to see ANY 'thing' afterwards when that body stops breathing and stops pumping blood.

There is no real certainty in that claim.

If the universe is as you say it is, then explain why bodies die.

We know it is real that bodies die, but we cannot say for certain that minds do.

So even if the universe is as you claim ( eternal and infinite ) this in itself means that it has to be a mindful thing, given that we at least know mindfulness exists within it's boundless self.
Therefore, one would be wise not to write-off the idea that there is more to experience for the individual personality, once the body dies.

But then the "wisdom" seen by one, is seen by another as "foolishness" depending on one's particular favored philosophical position...so we critique by way of examining and are able to fall in line with
( establish ) the better overall philosophy. Eventually. Potentially.

[Age]

But 'now' is VERY RELATIVE.

So it wasn't "NOW" when you wrote that?

ONCE AGAIN, we can see a statement or proposition being made and declared, but with a question mark placed at the end.

'Now', was 'this' being done because of CONFUSION, because of SEEKING CLARITY, or because one is just sub or un-consciously their deep-seeded BELIEF on the PRETENCE that they are asking a question?

We will 'now' WAIT, to SEE if Honesty and OPENNESS will prevail.

Obviously WHEN you wrote 'now' is DIFFERENT to when the "readers" SAW the word 'now'. We're 'you' AWARE of 'this Fact'?

Pretty sure there are timestamps on every forum post, Age.

Was a 'Yes' or 'No' ANSWER too hard, to complicated, or to some thing else for 'you' here, "skepdick"?

And, 'the timestamps' just FURTHER SHOWS and thus FURTHER PROVES the DIFFERENCE.

It was "now" when I wrote this post.
It will be "now" when you respond.

To me 'NOW' denotes or refers to the ETERNAL. Whereas, 'now' denotes or refers to the TEMPORARY DIFFERENCES.

Can you SEE how the DIFFERENT USAGES can HELP in and when DISTINGUISHING the DIFFERENT USAGES and DIFFERENT MEANINGS?

[Age]

I tend toward Naturalism rather than supernaturalism or strictly materialism.

Such subjects as souls and afterlife are thus understood that - if real - then they are a natural product of the natural universe and there is no thing which actually resides outside of this said universe,...
I too view the universe in a way that is compatible with the term "Naturalism."

However, I have a different take on the term "supernatural," where instead of it connoting something "ghost-like" or perhaps "not as real" as our everyday world of suns, and planets, and trees, and cars,...

...the word "supernatural" should be read as "Super-Natural" or perhaps "Ultra-Natural."

In other words, it would be more accurate to think of the soul - along with where it finally ends up after death - as being even MORE NATURAL (more "REAL") than this temporary "illusion" we are presently experiencing.

But why even look at or consider what could be so-called 'more accurate' when what IS Accurate can be already clearly seen, and known?

Because the mind is not clearly seen and known, other that it too exists.

BUT, the Mind is VERY CLEARLY SEEN, and KNOWN, although, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET by EVERY one.

Just like the earth revolving around the sun WAS VERY CLEARLY SEEN, and KNOWN, by some one BEFORE "others" could VERY CLEARLY SEE, and KNOW, 'this' AS WELL.

Also, some 'thing' does NOT have to be able to be 'seen' with the physical eyes to be able to VERY CLEARLY SEEN, UNDERSTAND, AND KNOWN.

Once one LEARNS, UNDERSTANDS, and KNOWS how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, and thus can THEN LOOK AT and SEE 'things' Accurately and Correctly, and thus VERY DIFFERENTLY, THEN ALL-OF-THIS becomes MUCH MORE CLEARER.

Things which can be seen, can be known that way - measured, evaluated, utilized, et al.

'you' are LOOKING AT 'this' FROM the VERY SMALL PERSPECTIVE, which is already being held within 'that brain', ONLY.

If, however, 'you' would EVER like to SEE and LEARN MORE here, then just let me KNOW.

SEE, ALL 'things', the physically visible AND the invisible to the physical eyes can ACTUALLY be SEEN, and be KNOWN. AGAIN, AFTER one LEARNS and KNOWS, how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' the Right and Correct way through and from the Mind, and the brain, TOGETHER.

Also, there is no such 'real thing' as 'more real' NOR 'more natural'.

If an experience is experienced as real, one has to evaluate that which is doing the experiencing of said real thing.

NO one said otherwise.

Also, one does NOT 'have to' evaluate ANY such 'thing' as you CLAIM here. Although, and OBVIOUSLY, one is ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE such 'thing', or NOT, if they so WANT TO.

If you can not yet see what IS actually Real, HERE-NOW in this one and only eternal and infinite Universe...

It has yet to be established ( as real ) that this universe is eternal (has always existed) and infinite (is without beginning or end).

1. The word 'eternal' refers to 'temporal' or 'without beginning and end', while the word 'infinite' refers to spatial or 'size without border'.

2. It has ALREADY BEEN PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, and thus ESTABLISHED, that the Universe IS eternal AND infinite.

3. Just like the earth revolving around the sun HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and thus ESTABLISHED, AS REAL, to one, FIRST, and then to "others" LATER, so to has the Universe being infinite AND eternal HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and thus IS ESTABLISHED, to one, BEFORE "others".

4. If some 'thing' is NOT YET ESTABLISHED, TO 'you', then 'this' in NO way means that 'that thing' has NOT been ESTABLISHED to "another".

5. The words 'always existed' AND 'without beginning or end' mean or refer to just about the EXACT SAME 'thing' ANYWAY. Whereas the words 'infinite' and 'eternal' mean and refer to DIFFERENT 'things', as explained above here.

...within and through a breathing human body, then you certainly are NOT going to see ANY 'thing' afterwards when that body stops breathing and stops pumping blood.

There is no real certainty in that claim.

BUT THERE IS.

'you' have just NOT YET BECOME AWARE of 'the CERTAINTY'.

JUST LIKE some people had NOT YET BECAME AWARE of 'the CERTAINTY' that the earth is NOT flat AND/OR does NOT have the sun revolving around it.

If the universe is as you say it is, then explain why bodies die.

BUT 'bodies' do NOT so-call 'die'.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME or ASSUME 'bodies' 'die'?

Also, why could the Universe, Itself, be eternal AND infinite, but yet the so-called 'death' of OTHER 'bodies' NOT happen and occur?

Now, if 'you' COME with some FAR MORE OPEN and thus Truly INQUISITIVE QUESTIONING, then I COULD and WOULD EXPLAIN, EXACTLY, how the Universe IS eternal AND infinite and HOW what 'you' call and say 'bodies die' CAN and DOES, REALLY, occur and happen.

We know it is real that bodies die, but we cannot say for certain that minds do.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

BECAUSE 'we' KNOW that 'bodies' do NOT 'die'.

To 'us' 'we' KNOW that WHEN a human 'body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, for example, has NOT so-called 'died'.

To 'us' 'bodies' do NOT 'die', 'they' ALL just CHANGE, in shape and form.

'you', people, however, may well 'die', but ONLY in a way where 'you' are NOT able to become 'newer' ANY MORE. But 'you' were, and are, NEVER the (human) 'body', anyway.

ALSO, there IS ONLY One Mind, which, AGAIN, is ALWAYS, ANYWAY.

So even if the universe is as you claim ( eternal and infinite ) this in itself means that it has to be a mindful thing, given that we at least know mindfulness exists within it's boundless self.

Okay.

Therefore, one would be wise not to write-off the idea that there is more to experience for the individual personality, once the body dies.

But HOW could an 'individual personality', which, OBVIOUSLY, can ONLY exist WITHIN an 'individual body' 'experience more' when the 'individual experiencing body' does NOT have a 'functioning brain'?

But then the "wisdom" seen by one, is seen by another as "foolishness" depending on one's particular favored philosophical position

WHY do 'you', people, have a so-called 'particular favored philosophical position'?

OBVIOUSLY, ANY 'position', which can NOT be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY EVERY one is NOT True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct, ANYWAY.

So, WHY 'favor' ANY of these MULTITUDE of 'positions'.

...so we critique by way of examining and are able to fall in line with
( establish ) the better overall philosophy. Eventually. Potentially.

AND, as I CONTINUALLY SAY, I SEEK, and AWAIT, TO BE QUESTIONED, and CHALLENGED.

Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'. BUT I do suggest that 'you', or 'they', SEEK OUT and OBTAIN what my CLAIM ACTUAL PERTAINS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST. Or, in other words ACTUAL EXAMINE what I AM SAYING and ACTUALLY MEANING, FIRST.