What is a soul?

[Age]

Therefore like the mountain the soul does not change, but the view of the soul changes according to the individual, whose view may or may not be influenced by his culture.

I'm sorry, but if you are trying to make a point, I don't get what it is.

They are saying the 'soul' is the invisible part of you,

In regards to what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING this is NOT EXACTLY Correct, but its close enough for now,

that is their point...and that's why you do not get it, because you can only get what you know from direct experience, and what you know is that which can be 'looked upon'...you cannot see the looker of the 'looked upon'.

Because the 'looked upon' is both the looker and the seen in the exact same instance of knowing, known by the only knowing there is and that is a conscious feeling sentient being like yours truly, your self.

In reality, there is no invisible you, so do not worry Harbal, you do not have ''to get'' the absurd idea there is an invisible part of you that could be seen as an actual object existing apart from what's looking...because knowing is seamless, there is no break in the perfect symmetry of immediate knowing.

Well considering that it is 'you', "dontaskme", who is making the CLAIM that there is 'an invisible part of you'', then, that that CLAIM is 'an absurd idea' would be a rather VERY FOOLISH 'thing' to now CLAIM. But, please feel FREE to now CLAIM that your OWN idea here is ABSURD, as I TOTALLY AGREE with you on this.

The idea of a 'soul' is just more fictional story telling that's all.

Is 'this CLAIM' here just more fictional story telling itself, as well? Or, is 'this CLAIM' the absolute truth and so NOT just ANOTHER fictional story, at all?

It doesn't actually exist, except as story in this inconceivable conception.

BUT ALL OF THIS has ALREADY BEEN 'conceived', and what you are CLAIMING here is your OWN story, which is ACTUALLY 'fictional', but which you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE and CORRECT.

We need to be careful when contemplating the invisible you, it has a tendency to make insane what is always just pure clarity.

AND, what IS 'pure clarity' here, EXACTLY?

Hope this explanation does not trigger another ..I don't get it.

Thing is, you are it...you do not get it, you are it. You have always been it.

You are nothing more than a mechanical biological computer called a brain that runs on pure electricty, which exists in abundance Harbal...you are the ultimate A.I.

Is this ANOTHER part of the fictional story or ANOTHER fictional story? Or, do 'you', "dontaskme", actually BELIEVE that 'this' is NOT some made up fictional story at all?

Information technology (IT) is the use of any computers, storage, networking and other physical devices, infrastructure and processes to create, process, store, secure and exchange all forms of electronic data.



.

[Age]

The idea of a 'soul' is just more fictional story telling that's all. It doesn't actually exist, except as story in this inconceivable conception.

But this is the point. Some people do believe the soul exists, and they believe it exists in a literal sense, so my aim is to explose what, exactly, the soul could be if it did exist.

Well if ANY one BELIEVES that the 'soul' exists, then I would just ask them to provide the ACTUAL PROOF that they have for what they BELIEVE is true. Usually I like to start by asking them, What is the 'soul', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I also like to ask both of these questions to those people who BELIEVE that the 'soul' does NOT exist.

In case you have MISSED it, I have ALREADY exposed what the 'soul' word could be referring to, EXACTLY, which is STILL OPEN for further exploring and exploration.

[Dontaskme]

who is making the CLAIM

that CLAIM is

to now CLAIM

please feel FREE to now CLAIM

Is 'this CLAIM'

'this CLAIM'

you are CLAIMING

Yes.

[Age]

I would still like to know what a soul is, if anyone has come up with any ideas.

It would also be interesting to know what reason there is to think there even is such a thing as a soul.

'Thoughts' and 'emotions', which are both invisible.

As these two 'things' are invisible, and it is said that the 'soul' is also invisible, and lives on after the body is not alive anymore, then that is the reason that there is a 'thing' as a 'soul'. Among other reasons.

BUT, if one BELIEVES that a 'soul' does NOT exist, then that one will NOT look at, listen to, contemplate, NOR explore 'this'.

[Age]

Anyway, you asked for "ideas" regarding the soul. So, there you go.
_______

Yes, I did ask, so thank you. I can't help but wonder, though, how you, or anyone, could possibly know what you have outlined above.

I will never pretend that I "know" with absolute certainty that what I stated in my prior post is true.

However, the reason why I made those assertions about the soul...

(assertions that I personally believe are quite plausible)

...is a result of many years of obsessive analyzing of a mind-blowing, life-changing epiphany I experienced when I was 20 years old (approximately 53 years ago).
_______

What was the so-called 'life-changing epiphany', EXACTLY, which you experienced previously?

[Age]

I will never pretend that I "know" with absolute certainty that what I stated in my prior post is true.

However, the reason why I made those assertions about the soul...

(assertions that I personally believe are quite plausible)

...is a result of many years of obsessive analyzing of a mind-blowing, life-changing epiphany I experienced when I was 20 years old (approximately 53 years ago).
_______

And does having these beliefs have much influence on the way you live your life, or on how you percieve the world?

YES THEY DO.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED TRUE throughout the writings under the name and label "seeds" here.

[Age]

I will never pretend that I "know" with absolute certainty that what I stated in my prior post is true.

However, the reason why I made those assertions about the soul...

(assertions that I personally believe are quite plausible)

...is a result of many years of obsessive analyzing of a mind-blowing, life-changing epiphany I experienced when I was 20 years old (approximately 53 years ago).
_______

And does having these beliefs have much influence on the way you live your life, or on how you percieve the world?

For me the belief is part of a model, loosely held, that fits experiences I have had that do not fit with the physicalist model of things, including of us. I can't isolate out the idea 'soul' in my life and then look for effects. But given experiences that some would brush off as merely coincidence or say I have confused interpretations, it actually seems better to consider that something does continue on after death and reincarnates or does other things.

What this 'Thing' IS, EXACTLY, is NOT a 'soul', but something else instead.

Of course most skeptics consider my interpretations false/confused. But given what I experienced I began to take seriously a model that is different from the physicalist one. (I don't have some monolith model that I adhere to at all times, I notice that I shift between different models or paradigms).

But WHY HAVE and/or USE 'models', especially when what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, can be LOOKED AT and USED, INSTEAD.

So, this idea of 'soul' is part of a model that has facilitated me actively seeking experiences because I found some of these experiences, that I did not seek but which just sort of happened, useful.

Will you provide ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Taking them seriously seemed, to the best of my knowledge, to make me feel more whole (I know, vague) and at home with myself. Not because 'Oh, now the universe is peachy' but rather that the experiences helped me throw off bad patterns of self-relation, relation to others and so on. I don't feel like trying to convince anyone of this, but I am taking your question as the focus. How did they influence my life? Well, thinking in terms of a model that includes something like a soul gives me a base to then go ahead and try to have more of those experiences. It's not causal, per se, but it's part of the whole direction. It's the thinky portion, the mulling portion, the part where I talk to others about what we are doing/experiencing. There are practices or explorations and these could be engaged in without the word or other words that you might have a similar reaction to. But it's just convenient and I think natural to include them, especially in dialogue with others. Sort of like how 'community' (in the sense of a shared group sense amongst a number of people and the details of that the relations and connections) might be used. It's not easy to point to a physical correlate for community (though I am not making a case that soul and community are ontologically equivalent or as easily demonstrated as each other, just focusing on where a word comes in that you could, in fact, leave out of a neigborhood discussion). But using the word community can be useful.

[Age]

For me the belief is part of a model, loosely held, that fits experiences I have had that do not fit with the physicalist model of things, including of us. I can't isolate out the idea 'soul' in my life and then look for effects. But given experiences that some would brush off as merely coincidence or say I have confused interpretations, it actually seems better to consider that something does continue on after death and reincarnates or does other things. Of course most skeptics consider my interpretations false/confused. But given what I experienced I began to take seriously a model that is different from the physicalist one. (I don't have some monolith model that I adhere to at all times, I notice that I shift between different models or paradigms). So, this idea of 'soul' is part of a model that has facilitated me actively seeking experiences because I found some of these experiences, that I did not seek but which just sort of happened, useful. Taking them seriously seemed, to the best of my knowledge, to make me feel more whole (I know, vague) and at home with myself. Not because 'Oh, now the universe is peachy' but rather that the experiences helped me throw off bad patterns of self-relation, relation to others and so on. I don't feel like trying to convince anyone of this, but I am taking your question as the focus. How did they influence my life? Well, thinking in terms of a model that includes something like a soul gives me a base to then go ahead and try to have more of those experiences. It's not causal, per se, but it's part of the whole direction. It's the thinky portion, the mulling portion, the part where I talk to others about what we are doing/experiencing. There are practices or explorations and these could be engaged in without the word or other words that you might have a similar reaction to. But it's just convenient and I think natural to include them, especially in dialogue with others. Sort of like how 'community' (in the sense of a shared group sense amongst a number of people and the details of that the relations and connections) might be used. It's not easy to point to a physical correlate for community (though I am not making a case that soul and community are ontologically equivalent or as easily demonstrated as each other, just focusing on where a word comes in that you could, in fact, leave out of a neigborhood discussion). But using the word community can be useful.

Thanks for that. I suppose we all try to make sense of existence somehow, and while I couldn't really describe my way of doing it, I can say there is nothing "spiritual" about it; I'm not that sort of person. Even so, I can respect what you and seeds have to say because you both seem to have figured things out for yourselves, rather than adopting an off-the-shelf set of beliefs.

I have never experienced anything in my life that has led to my considering the possibility of the existence of anything that could be called a soul; other than metaphorically, of course. Nothing has ever happened to me to make me wonder if there might actually be a spiritual realm of any kind. Maybe souls really do exist, and I just don't happen to have one.

Thinking or BELIEVING that 'one' HAS a 'soul' will only lead to that 'one' being FURTHER ASTRAY here.

[Age]

Thanks for that. I suppose we all try to make sense of existence somehow, and while I couldn't really describe my way of doing it, I can say there is nothing "spiritual" about it; I'm not that sort of person. Even so, I can respect what you and seeds have to say because you both seem to have figured things out for yourselves, rather than adopting an off-the-shelf set of beliefs.

I have never experienced anything in my life that has led to my considering the possibility of the existence of anything that could be called a soul; other than metaphorically, of course. Nothing has ever happened to me to make me wonder if there might actually be a spiritual realm of any kind. Maybe souls really do exist, and I just don't happen to have one.

That last comment doesn't quite fit with any of my models of reality.

Otherwise, I hear you. If you were curious there might be things you could do to increase your chances of having those experiences, but I understand this may not be the case...and I've gotten the impression it isn't.

But one STOPS being CURIOS once they ASSUME or BELIEVE that they ALREADY know the truth.

So, there we are, each moving forward as best we can.

BUT there are MUCH BETTER WAYS to MOVE FORWARD.

A MUCH BETTER WAY TO MOVE FORWARD is to NEVER USE 'models', but 'each to their own', as some say.

One topic I've thought of bringing up to try to bridge the gap in such situations is
heuristics vs. things in relation to epistemology.

Are you AWARE that your definitions of words here are ALSO VERY DIFFERENT from what "others" are?

Here we have the topic of 'soul'. It could be God or transpersons or ghosts or microaggressions or love or the self, in the sense that these are all nouns.

Many people think of beliefs in terms of nouns. Is X real? The epistemology gets put on table. Demonstrate X exists or X is real. Fair enough. And certainly with the history of some nouns and the role they've played in all sorts of nastiness...well, fair enough.

But THIS WAY is just LUDICROUS and RIDICULOUS.

I suggest DEFINING 'X' FIRST, then, and ONLY THEN, one is ABLE TO SEE if 'X' IS REAL and ACTUALLY EXISTS, or NOT.

UNTIL THEN you are ALL only FIGHTING or ARGUING OVER what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

But often people who expect a great deal of rigor about nouns may not notice how their have less rigor about their own heuristics (or their own nouns, for that matter). I am not thinking of you since you react very gently to most nouns and people, if skeptically.

What do I mean by heuristics here?

A GREAT QUESTION 'you' ask "your" 'self' here.

Well, really it could be anything but it could be in ideas about parenting, choosing the right candidate to vote for, how to get along with others, how to approach the opposite sex, how to be a good worker, how to decide who to challenge and who not to, when to gossip, all sorts of moral applications.

Rules (conscious or unconscious or mixes of both) that guide is in life.

I think people often don't expect (from themselves) as much rigor as they expect others to have around nouns existing as they do around their own heuristics working or being good.

I found that by FINDING OUT what IS IRREFUTABLY True, and which, OBVIOUSLY, WORKS WITH and FITS IN WITH EVERY 'thing' else, FIRST, then one has ALREADY DONE as MUCH 'rigor', of "themselves", NEEDED here.

But these heuristics have all sorts of local and non-local effects on the lives of people and ourselves.

I found the OTHER definition and meaning for the word 'heuristic' WORKS MUCH BETTER here. But, please feel FREE to carry on as you are here now.

Obviously, even if I am correct, none of this demonstrates souls (or communities) exist. Nor is it an argument saying...yeah, so don't criticize my nouns.

It's more like Hey, wait, we're all doing stuff based on best guesses and intuition.

But some of 'us' do NOT use guesses, best or not. We use ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE True, INSTEAD.

And our rigor as far as important stuff, related to how we act and think, may be as intuition-based as that other person who believes in X.

If you ALREADY BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, as you OBVIOUSLY do, then there is NO more 'rigor' NEEDED.

And I think what we're concerned about with nouns is not so much does person B believe X [noun] exists, but what does this lead to in their actions and attitudes.

Then further, yes, it may relate to having very different experiences.

[Harbal]

I would still like to know what a soul is, if anyone has come up with any ideas.

It would also be interesting to know what reason there is to think there even is such a thing as a soul.

'Thoughts' and 'emotions', which are both invisible.

As these two 'things' are invisible, and it is said that the 'soul' is also invisible, and lives on after the body is not alive anymore, then that is the reason that there is a 'thing' as a 'soul'. Among other reasons.

BUT, if one BELIEVES that a 'soul' does NOT exist, then that one will NOT look at, listen to, contemplate, NOR explore 'this'.

When the brain is damaged, it can cause loss of memory, it can cause personality change, and it can cause unconsciousness. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that when there is no brain at all, there can be no memory, no personality, and no consciousness, as these things all seem to be dependant on a functioning brain. If, after physical death, the soul "transcends" to a higher level of existence (heaven), or becomes attached to another living organism (reincarnation), it must proceed without memory, personality, or consciousness. So, without these attributes, what could actually remain?

[Age]

There is no one experiencing what it is like to be or have a 'soul'.
The 'soul' is simply a subjective experience, no one is having.. So no, you haven't got an actual 'soul' that can be experienced as an objective reality, the idea of being a 'soul' is purely subjective. There is no objective reality of 'soul', because objective reality works the same for everyone regardless of what they believe, and the belief in 'soul' obviously doesn't.

A subjective experience refers to the emotional and cognitive impact of a human experience as opposed to an objective experience which are the actual events after they have been defined and quantified.

What is the definition of 'exist' the experience of existing? The answer is to have objective reality or being, which is dependent on us humans, who invented the words, to say so in this conception, aka objective reality. If nobody does that with an object, the object can't even be talked about, imagined, conceived of. If the existence of 'soul' weren't dependent on an observer to say whether it existed or not, then it seems that everything and nothing exists. And no one would be needed to believe or not believe that.

My only point was: I have never seen or experienced anything throughout my lifetime that has suggested the existence of the soul as a possible explanation.

Throughout 'your lifetime' "harbal" what have 'you' been INFORMED the 'soul' IS, EXACTLY?

It's like if someone were to say there is a sort of hedgehog that lives in a hole on the surface of the planet Pluto.

But this is REALLY NOTHING like 'this' AT ALL.

Why would such a thought even cross one's mind,

If one has ALREADY OBTAINED PROOF, then that is WHY that thought would arise.

and what unanswered question would it solve?

An unanswered question that would solve, would be, 'Is there a sort of hedgehog that lives in a hole on the surface of the planet pluto, or not?'

[Age]

My only point was: I have never seen or experienced anything throughout my lifetime that has suggested the existence of the soul as a possible explanation. It's like if someone were to say there is a sort of hedgehog that lives in a hole on the surface of the planet Pluto. Why would such a thought even cross one's mind, and what unanswered question would it solve?

I'm agreeing with you.

Someone saying there is a sort of hedgehog that lives in a hole on the surface of the planet Pluto is purely a subjective idea, and not a proven fact known by all of us, the idea of 'soul' is pure fantasy and imagination, not an actual event known to exist as real.

1. How do 'you' KNOW, FOR SURE, that 'it' is PURELY 'a subjective idea' and NOT 'a proven Fact'?
2. What has, 'by all of us', got to do with what IS ACTUALLY True here? Are you NOT YET AWARE that one person can KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, BEFORE "others" come to REALIZE and KNOW the EXACT SAME Truth?
3. The idea of 'soul' being PURE FANTASY and IMAGINATION could be just your OWN PURELY SUBJECTIVE IDEA, ILLUSION, and FANTASY. ALL made up by the 'you'.

So yes, I agree with your point, why would such a thought even cross one's mind, and what unanswered question would it solve?

WHY did 'this' thought even arise, within 'your' heads, and what unanswered question does 'it' solve?

I agree Harbal. The very idea of a 'soul' is some thing and no thing, only arising as an illusory sense of there being an individual self experiencing itself as a 'soul' ..but it's imagined, not real, it's just a contraction of the same one entity free energy interacting with itself only, there is no individual separate being known as a 'soul' here AT ALL. No more than there is a God here.

You haven't even got a mind. Same goes for that idea that you have a mind, why would the idea you have a mind even be an experience for you, have you ever seen your mind as being a tangible physical object?

[Age]

You haven't even got a mind. Same goes for that idea that you have a mind, why would the idea you have a mind even be an experience for you, have you ever seen your mind as being a tangible physical object?

But I seem to have a mind.

What do 'you' mean by, 'you' SEEM to HAVE a 'mind'?

What is the 'you', which supposedly, or seems, to HAVE 'things'? AND, what IS this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY, which 'you' could HAVE?

And, what is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'you' SEEMING to have a 'mind' and "another" SEEMING to have a 'soul'?

Also, what makes what SEEMS true to 'you' MORE TRUE than what SEEMS true to "another"?

There is an entity of some kind that I call my mind, and that I am aware of.

Now are you willing to answer all of the questions that you ask "others" who say, BELIEVE, or claim that there is an entity of some kind that "they" call 'their soul', that "they" are aware of?

Some could say, and ask 'you', "harbal" here, 'Some people do believe the mind exists, and they believe it exists in a literal sense, so my aim is to explore what, exactly, the mind could be if it did exist'.

Would 'you' be willing to respond and answer this? Especially when that one has already PROCLAIMED that they are just 'passing time' anyway?

Also, if, and when, one was to write, for example, 'I would still like to know what a mind is, if anyone has come up with any ideas.

It would also be interesting to know what reason there is to think there even is such a thing as a mind.'

How would 'you' respond and answer 'this', EXACTLY?

Even if my impression of having a mind is illusory in some way, there is still something underlying the illusion.

And 'that' COULD BE a 'soul' could it not?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE OTHERWISE?

Is YOUR BELIEF that there is NO 'soul' affecting THE WAY you are LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' here?

Also, can there be some 'thing' underlying the illusion of having a 'soul', or does this there MUST BE some 'thing' UNDERLYING YOUR ILLUSION only WORK on YOUR ILLUSIONS and NOT on "other's" ILLUSIONS?

I don't see that as being the case with the concept of the soul.

Have you YET WORKED OUT what is BLOCKING, STOPPING, PREVENTING, and/or DISTORTING WHY you are ONLY ABLE to SEE SOME 'things' and NOT OTHER 'things'?

THE ANSWER REALLY IS VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

[Age]

So when you scratch the back of your hand and experience that sensation, you don't comprehend that you are unique within this universe?

I am aware of being the only thing in the universe that experiences the sensations that come from the back of my hand, but I am not unique in possessing a hand with a back to it, that is occasionally scratched.

Very true, and interesting if we are all individual incarnations of some type of object within this reality .......whether, that when we scratch the back of our hands we all experience the same feeling (in our own instances of existence)

..but yeah...I think the human brain is simply a database with a pointer locating it within spacetime

The KEY is, who or wot owns the pointer?

But HOW EXACTLY is HAVING the IRREFUTABLE ANSWER the so-called 'KEY'?

What does 'that KEY' OPEN, EXACTLY?

[Age]

But I seem to have a mind. There is an entity of some kind that I call my mind, and that I am aware of. Even if my impression of having a mind is illusory in some way, there is still something underlying the illusion. I don't see that as being the case with the concept of the soul.

There is no self, there is no I, there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind, except in this artificial conception, concepts which create the illusion of an individual self called ( I ) which, so it seems, apparently, creates an artificial sense there is an autonomous continuity of ( I ) that does not want to come to an end. So this illusory individual entity known as I believes it is immortal by believing it is a Soul or God. But for this artificial created sense of self. . It's only existence is born of dead memory giving the illusory sense of continuity living now, albeit illusory.

Is this MORE of your OWN 'fictional story telling' "dontaskme"? Or, do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that this is the absolute and ONLY TRUTH?

Only the body is immortal. That which is immortal can never know whether it is dead or alive. Thought is something dead and can never
touch anything living. Thoughts are simply not there in reality. No more than a cat can think itself a cat, because to a cat, the thought I am a cat is not there. It's the same with all living organisms, they have no way of telling themselves they are alive or dead because the body is immortal.

LOL And here we have 'you' here, "dontaskme", continually TELLING "its" OWN 'self' that 'it' IS ALIVE, and continually TELLING "its" OWN 'self' 'it' WISHES 'it' was NEVER born. So, are 'you' SURE that 'living organism' have NO WAY of TELLING "themselves" 'things' like "they" are DEAR or ALIVE?

NOT KNOWING IS YOUR NATURAL STATE

CONFUSING and DISTORTING what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True and Right appears to be A 'natural state' of YOURS "dontaskme". But, then again, 'you' are just expressing and TELLING your OWN 'fictional story' here, correct?

Or, do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here IS TRUE?