Reincarnation

[Dontaskme]

I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

Yup

In the same context, one cannot hammer nails into the sky.

[Age]

How do you define the 'soul' word, EXACTLY, to which you then BELIEVE there is NONE of?

I don't think I can define "soul" when it refers to what we might call the traditional concept of it.

If I can NOT even get just 'you' to enlighten me to how 'you' define the word 'soul', then what chances do you think I will get ANY one to enlighten me to what the 'traditional concept' of the word 'soul'?

Sure, someone might enlighten to me to the so-called 'traditional concept' of the word 'soul', but then it would take one "other" one to TELL 'us' that 'that' IS NOT the 'traditional concept', for me then to be Truly UNENLIGHTENED, AGAIN.

By the way, one of the main reasons WHY I CONTINUALLY ask 'you', posters, here how do 'you' DEFINE the words being USED is to SHOW just how MANY DIFFERENT versions or concepts exist, even completely OPPOSING concepts and versions, which EXPLAINS FULLY WHY SOME people BELIEVE A 'version/concept' EXISTS while SOME BELIEVE ANOTHER 'version/concept' does NOT EXIST.

AND, it is ONLY WHEN people ENLIGHTEN "others" to what 'their' OWN 'version or concept' IS, EXACTLY, then the reason WHY SOME BELIEVE and WHY SOME DO NOT BELIEVE WILL ALSO COME-TO-LIGHT.

Whether it be the soul that leaves one physical body then goes on to inhabit another one,

The ONLY 'things' that leave one physical body and then goes on to inhabit another physical body ARE:

The genes of BOTH the 'woman' AND the 'man' who CREATED that "other" body, which HAPPENS AT 'conception/creation' ONLY. And,

The thoughts WITHIN physical bodies that then go on to inhabit, WITHIN, "other" physical bodies, which HAPPENS continually while the lungs are breathing, the heart is pumping blood, and there is some sort of consciousness/awareness going on, in 'that physical body'.

or the soul that transcends to a higher place (heaven) after the death of the body.

There is NO 'other' place. There is ONLY 'this One and ONLY place', called 'Life', 'Existence', or 'the Universe'. AND, the word 'higher' in regards to 'higher place' just refers to A BETTER, or MORE 'heaven-like place'. Which, AGAIN, CAN and WILL ONLY HAPPEN HERE, in this One and ONLY Place.

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

What WAS or IS WRONG WITH the DEFINITION that I PROVIDED 'you' EARLIER?

Also, what do you FIX OTHER definitions TO, EXACTLY?

FIND OUT what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, then you WILL FIND the ACTUAL 'thing' that ALL definitions, including the definition of the 'soul word, ARE FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

[Harbal]

If I can NOT even get just 'you' to enlighten me to how 'you' define the word 'soul', then what chances do you think I will get ANY one to enlighten me to what the 'traditional concept' of the word 'soul'?

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

What WAS or IS WRONG WITH the DEFINITION that I PROVIDED 'you' EARLIER?

The soul in your definition was metaphorical, and not what is usually meant by the term, "soul". You described a phenomenon to which you gave the name, "soul", and as such, I agree with you that it cannot be refuted, but most people mean something different when they talk of the soul, especially religious or "spiritual" people, and it is their definition I am asking about in this thread.

Also, what do you FIX OTHER definitions TO, EXACTLY?

FIND OUT what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, then you WILL FIND the ACTUAL 'thing' that ALL definitions, including the definition of the 'soul word, ARE FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

I don't understand the question, nor what you said after it; sorry.

[Belinda]

E=M (C squared). Sorry my keyboard does not do indices so I hope you gather what I am referring to.
This is a physicalistic explanation of the lowest common denominator of existence.

[Wizard22]

The word "yourself" is an oxymoron, AND, NO one is born KNOWING thy 'self'.

Coming-to-KNOW thy 'Self' is LEARNED, along the way.

I agree, thy 'Self' is learned over time.

Hence why I tend to agree with Harbal's premise, that Reincarnation is not possible under the condition of "forgetting" one's prior 'Self'.

But it does lead to interesting questions about the nature of memory and consciousness.

[Age]

If I can NOT even get just 'you' to enlighten me to how 'you' define the word 'soul', then what chances do you think I will get ANY one to enlighten me to what the 'traditional concept' of the word 'soul'?

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility.

BUT WHO HAS EVER SAID or STATED that 'the soul' is some so-called 'actual ontological entity'?

And, what does 'ontological entity' here even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

Do 'you' consider 'you' some so-called 'ontological entity'?

If yes, HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then what IS the DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'some soul' WITHIN 'that body'?

So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't,

So, 'you' START a thread here, CLAIM 'reincarnating' IS IMPOSSIBLE and that 'some soul thing' could NOT do 'this', but then CLAIM that you can NOT even DEFINE the ACTUAL words that 'you' USE and CLAIM could NOT even be POSSIBLE.

I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

Did 'you' SEE and/or NOTICED WHERE, EXACTLY, I DEFINED 'it' in A WAY so as to remove ALL DOUBT of IMPOSSIBILITY?

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

What WAS or IS WRONG WITH the DEFINITION that I PROVIDED 'you' EARLIER?

The soul in your definition was metaphorical,

NO 'it' WAS NOT.

MY DEFINITION is A LITERAL EXPLANATION of what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY HAPPENS.

Which WILL BE DISCOVERED IF and WHEN ANY one EVERY QUESTIONED me OR CHALLENGED me OVER 'that DEFINITION' and 'CLAIM'.

and not what is usually meant by the term, "soul".

WHO CARE 'what' WAS meant by THAT term, or ANY OTHER term, FOR THAT MATTER?

OBVIOUSLY 'the terms' PREVIOUSLY USED, WITH 'their' VERY OLD and Inaccurate DEFINITIONS, NEVER FITTED TOGETHER, PERFECTLY, WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, like the way I USE and DEFINE 'terms' and 'words' HERE DOES, IRREFUTABLY, and ACTUALLY.

You described a phenomenon to which you gave the name, "soul", and as such, I agree with you that it cannot be refuted, but most people mean something different when they talk of the soul, especially religious or "spiritual" people, and it is their definition I am asking about in this thread.

Well 'those people', who live IN VERY OLDEN DAYS, to Me, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT MAKE 'their terms' AND 'their definitions' WORK, and STICK, TOGETHER.

Also, what do you FIX OTHER definitions TO, EXACTLY?

FIND OUT what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, then you WILL FIND the ACTUAL 'thing' that ALL definitions, including the definition of the 'soul word, ARE FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

I don't understand the question, nor what you said after it; sorry.

OKAY, and FAIR ENOUGH.

But let us NOT FORGET that it was 'you' who SAID and WROTE here:

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

Which MEANS, and Correct me IF I am Wrong here, that when you try to reduce down, or work out, what 'a soul' COULD BE, ACTUALLY, then you FIND that there IS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL 'left' to 'fix a definition to'.

So, I JUST ASKED you, What do you FIX your OTHER 'definitions' TO, EXACTLY?

What do you think or IMAGINE 'it' IS, EXACTLY, ABOUT THIS QUESTION, which you are NOT UNDERSTANDING here?

See, at the moment, I am NOT SURE HOW to ASK 'it' BETTER, nor MORE SUCCINCTLY, to you.

Oh, and by the way, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'it' IS that 'the soul' IS FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

And BECAUSE 'that' IS IRREFUTABLE, which went EXACTLY AGAINST what you were 'trying to' ACHIEVE here, and had SET OUT TO ACHIEVE here, 'you' just do NOT WANT to FIND absolutely ANY 'thing' to FIX a definition of the 'soul' word TO.

WHICH IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE CONSIDERING 'what' 'you' ACTUALLY SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH here, with this thread.

[Age]

E=M (C squared). Sorry my keyboard does not do indices so I hope you gather what I am referring to.
This is a physicalistic explanation of the lowest common denominator of existence.

AND, so-called "physicists" are just a particular group of human beings who have a particular way of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things', which is OBVIOUSLY NOT the MOST Truest nor Rightest of WAYS.

ALSO, 'e=mc2' does NOT explain Existence, Itself, at the MOST fundamental level.

The VERY REASON for WHY, and for HOW, of Existence, Itself, is NOT explained IN nor WITH 'e=mc2'.

The REASON FOR HOW and WHY is MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER. More or less EXACTLY LIKE HOW Existence IS, Itself.

[Age]

The word "yourself" is an oxymoron, AND, NO one is born KNOWING thy 'self'.

Coming-to-KNOW thy 'Self' is LEARNED, along the way.

I agree, thy 'Self' is learned over time.

Hence why I tend to agree with Harbal's premise, that Reincarnation is not possible under the condition of "forgetting" one's prior 'Self'.

There is ONLY One (True) 'Self'.

ALL of the, supposed, "OTHER" 'self's' are just 'you', human beings, referring to "YOUR" 'selves', INDIVIDUALLY.

HOW 'reincarnation' WORKS, EXACTLY, just NEEDS to be LOOKED AT from NEW or FRESH eyes, as some might say.

But it does lead to interesting questions about the nature of memory and consciousness.

IF 'it', supposedly, does lead TO so-called 'interesting questions', then do you think that it would be a GOOD IDEA to PROVIDE those so-called 'interesting questions' here?

[Harbal]

If I can NOT even get just 'you' to enlighten me to how 'you' define the word 'soul', then what chances do you think I will get ANY one to enlighten me to what the 'traditional concept' of the word 'soul'?

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility.

BUT WHO HAS EVER SAID or STATED that 'the soul' is some so-called 'actual ontological entity'?

And, what does 'ontological entity' here even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

Do 'you' consider 'you' some so-called 'ontological entity'?

If yes, HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then what IS the DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'some soul' WITHIN 'that body'?

So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't,

So, 'you' START a thread here, CLAIM 'reincarnating' IS IMPOSSIBLE and that 'some soul thing' could NOT do 'this', but then CLAIM that you can NOT even DEFINE the ACTUAL words that 'you' USE and CLAIM could NOT even be POSSIBLE.

I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

Did 'you' SEE and/or NOTICED WHERE, EXACTLY, I DEFINED 'it' in A WAY so as to remove ALL DOUBT of IMPOSSIBILITY?

What WAS or IS WRONG WITH the DEFINITION that I PROVIDED 'you' EARLIER?

The soul in your definition was metaphorical,

NO 'it' WAS NOT.

MY DEFINITION is A LITERAL EXPLANATION of what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY HAPPENS.

Which WILL BE DISCOVERED IF and WHEN ANY one EVERY QUESTIONED me OR CHALLENGED me OVER 'that DEFINITION' and 'CLAIM'.

and not what is usually meant by the term, "soul".

WHO CARE 'what' WAS meant by THAT term, or ANY OTHER term, FOR THAT MATTER?

OBVIOUSLY 'the terms' PREVIOUSLY USED, WITH 'their' VERY OLD and Inaccurate DEFINITIONS, NEVER FITTED TOGETHER, PERFECTLY, WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, like the way I USE and DEFINE 'terms' and 'words' HERE DOES, IRREFUTABLY, and ACTUALLY.

You described a phenomenon to which you gave the name, "soul", and as such, I agree with you that it cannot be refuted, but most people mean something different when they talk of the soul, especially religious or "spiritual" people, and it is their definition I am asking about in this thread.

Well 'those people', who live IN VERY OLDEN DAYS, to Me, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT MAKE 'their terms' AND 'their definitions' WORK, and STICK, TOGETHER.

Also, what do you FIX OTHER definitions TO, EXACTLY?

FIND OUT what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, then you WILL FIND the ACTUAL 'thing' that ALL definitions, including the definition of the 'soul word, ARE FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

I don't understand the question, nor what you said after it; sorry.

OKAY, and FAIR ENOUGH.

But let us NOT FORGET that it was 'you' who SAID and WROTE here:

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

Which MEANS, and Correct me IF I am Wrong here, that when you try to reduce down, or work out, what 'a soul' COULD BE, ACTUALLY, then you FIND that there IS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL 'left' to 'fix a definition to'.

So, I JUST ASKED you, What do you FIX your OTHER 'definitions' TO, EXACTLY?

What do you think or IMAGINE 'it' IS, EXACTLY, ABOUT THIS QUESTION, which you are NOT UNDERSTANDING here?

See, at the moment, I am NOT SURE HOW to ASK 'it' BETTER, nor MORE SUCCINCTLY, to you.

Oh, and by the way, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'it' IS that 'the soul' IS FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

And BECAUSE 'that' IS IRREFUTABLE, which went EXACTLY AGAINST what you were 'trying to' ACHIEVE here, and had SET OUT TO ACHIEVE here, 'you' just do NOT WANT to FIND absolutely ANY 'thing' to FIX a definition of the 'soul' word TO.

WHICH IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE CONSIDERING 'what' 'you' ACTUALLY SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH here, with this thread.

Your criticisms have been duly noted, Age, but I am not a qualified philosopher, I am just an ungifted amateur, and this is the kind of thing you must expect from me.

[Age]

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility.

BUT WHO HAS EVER SAID or STATED that 'the soul' is some so-called 'actual ontological entity'?

And, what does 'ontological entity' here even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

Do 'you' consider 'you' some so-called 'ontological entity'?

If yes, HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then what IS the DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'some soul' WITHIN 'that body'?

So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't,

So, 'you' START a thread here, CLAIM 'reincarnating' IS IMPOSSIBLE and that 'some soul thing' could NOT do 'this', but then CLAIM that you can NOT even DEFINE the ACTUAL words that 'you' USE and CLAIM could NOT even be POSSIBLE.

I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

Did 'you' SEE and/or NOTICED WHERE, EXACTLY, I DEFINED 'it' in A WAY so as to remove ALL DOUBT of IMPOSSIBILITY?

The soul in your definition was metaphorical,

NO 'it' WAS NOT.

MY DEFINITION is A LITERAL EXPLANATION of what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY HAPPENS.

Which WILL BE DISCOVERED IF and WHEN ANY one EVERY QUESTIONED me OR CHALLENGED me OVER 'that DEFINITION' and 'CLAIM'.

and not what is usually meant by the term, "soul".

WHO CARE 'what' WAS meant by THAT term, or ANY OTHER term, FOR THAT MATTER?

OBVIOUSLY 'the terms' PREVIOUSLY USED, WITH 'their' VERY OLD and Inaccurate DEFINITIONS, NEVER FITTED TOGETHER, PERFECTLY, WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, like the way I USE and DEFINE 'terms' and 'words' HERE DOES, IRREFUTABLY, and ACTUALLY.

You described a phenomenon to which you gave the name, "soul", and as such, I agree with you that it cannot be refuted, but most people mean something different when they talk of the soul, especially religious or "spiritual" people, and it is their definition I am asking about in this thread.

Well 'those people', who live IN VERY OLDEN DAYS, to Me, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT MAKE 'their terms' AND 'their definitions' WORK, and STICK, TOGETHER.

I don't understand the question, nor what you said after it; sorry.

OKAY, and FAIR ENOUGH.

But let us NOT FORGET that it was 'you' who SAID and WROTE here:

When I try to reduce down what such a soul could be, I find there is nothing left to fix a definition to.

Which MEANS, and Correct me IF I am Wrong here, that when you try to reduce down, or work out, what 'a soul' COULD BE, ACTUALLY, then you FIND that there IS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL 'left' to 'fix a definition to'.

So, I JUST ASKED you, What do you FIX your OTHER 'definitions' TO, EXACTLY?

What do you think or IMAGINE 'it' IS, EXACTLY, ABOUT THIS QUESTION, which you are NOT UNDERSTANDING here?

See, at the moment, I am NOT SURE HOW to ASK 'it' BETTER, nor MORE SUCCINCTLY, to you.

Oh, and by the way, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'it' IS that 'the soul' IS FIXED TO, EXACTLY.

And BECAUSE 'that' IS IRREFUTABLE, which went EXACTLY AGAINST what you were 'trying to' ACHIEVE here, and had SET OUT TO ACHIEVE here, 'you' just do NOT WANT to FIND absolutely ANY 'thing' to FIX a definition of the 'soul' word TO.

WHICH IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE CONSIDERING 'what' 'you' ACTUALLY SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH here, with this thread.

Your criticisms have been duly noted, Age, but I am not a qualified philosopher, I am just an ungifted amateur, and this is the kind of thing you must expect from me.

But I do NOT expect ANY thing AT ALL from 'you', a human being, other than being (JUST) OPEN and Honest here.

[Harbal]

Your criticisms have been duly noted, Age, but I am not a qualified philosopher, I am just an ungifted amateur, and this is the kind of thing you must expect from me.

But I do NOT expect ANY thing AT ALL from 'you', a human being, other than being (JUST) OPEN and Honest here.

I always try to be open and honest, but I don't have the endurance to stay commited when things start to get too complicated or messy.

[attofishpi]

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

I thought I already did.
Not sure why you consider such a concept as an impossibility in the nature of matter, which we are comprised of, basically a shit load of energy within the a shit load of energy (our environment) if you consider that there is an intelligent at the fundamental sub-atomic nature to what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y.

[Harbal]

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

I thought I already did.

I'm not saying anyone did or didn't, I'm just explaining my intention.

Not sure why you consider such a concept as an impossibility in the nature of matter, which we are comprised of, basically a shit load of energy within the a shit load of energy (our environment) if you consider that there is an intelligent at the fundamental sub-atomic nature to what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y.

Well I haven't referred to any scientific authority before arriving at the conclusion that it isn't possible, so let's just say it doesn't seem possible to me. Even if I could concieve of its being theoretically possible, I have no reason to think it is remotely likely, so I'm not really left with the option of believing in souls. I mean, what do we observe in nature, in our lives, in the universe at large, that suggests, or makes us think, that there is this thing that is the soul? What question is there to which the only answer could be, the soul?

[Dontaskme]

This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

I thought I already did.
Not sure why you consider such a concept as an impossibility in the nature of matter, which we are comprised of, basically a shit load of energy within the a shit load of energy (our environment) if you consider that there is an intelligent at the fundamental sub-atomic nature to what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y.

Concepts are fixed objects. They are 'frozen thought' in time and space duality, the dream of separation where there is none, in the realm of language only within the illusion of mentation aka the activity of the apparent brain mind mechanism.


Reality is not like that, reality has no brain,mind or intent, it is always changing and flowing in constant flux ever-changing, where there is nowhere for a concept such as 'soul' to fix itself to. A concept cannot take up any position in a reality that is already this infinite seamless, indivisible, everything, one without a second.

[attofishpi]

Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.