Philosophy Now Forum

Like I said, you are clueless.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:31 am Like I said, you are clueless.

So just say you disagree. You can take up a strong and mighty position in a respectful mature way by just simply and quietly substituting your own idea of God for those that belong to other people, why don't you do that nicely like a good doggy.

Whassup cock, oh does only your shit smell like roses, while you take pleasure in judging other's as if their shit smells like thorns, or what?

If you are so absolutely certain of your truth, then other people are too, why is that you must wonder, well, because they will have got their truth from the exact same place where you got yours from right? but it seems you are too clueless yourself to figure that out.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:45 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:31 am Like I said, you are clueless.

So just say you disagree.

No, I will say what you are when it comes to comprehending God...U R CLUELESS. ..and you haven't read an ounce of what I have been stating re God.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:45 amWhassup cock, oh does only your shit smell like roses, while you take pleasure in judging other's as if their shit smells like thorns, or what?

..that sums you up, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum. U R not even witty.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:45 amIf you are so absolutely certain of your truth, then other people are too, why is that you must wonder, well, because they will have got their truth from the exact same place where you got yours from right? but it seems you are too clueless yourself to figure that out.

..and that """logic""" proves it. Idiot.

What are you here for DAM?...just a typical slag fest clearly.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:03 am
What are you here for DAM?...just a typical slag fest clearly.

I think it's plainly clear for all to see, exactly who is the original ''initiator'' of all slag fest occasions, here at the PNF

And I do hope that you are not using the word 'slag' in 'slang' prose.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:03 amand you haven't read an ounce of what I have been stating re God.

Maybe I have and just don't agree with it.

But does that prompt me to tell you you are a clueless attention seeking spammer? No, I simply do not understand what you are saying or I don't agree with what you are saying, to me, that doesn't mean what you are saying is ridiculous.

I'm just laying out my counter claims to what you are claiming as to what is going on here in life.

Why is that seen as being a slag fest?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:03 am U R not even witty.

Why even mention that about someone? Is witty something you see as being very important and significant that is highly valued, and necessary in philosophy ?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:45 amIf you are so absolutely certain of your truth, then other people are too, why is that you must wonder, well, because they will have got their truth from the exact same place where you got yours from right? but it seems you are too clueless yourself to figure that out.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:03 am..and that """logic""" proves it. Idiot.

I personally happen to think that logic proves that I am smarter and more wittier than you, that's all. But that does not mean you are an idiot.


We just happen to have a different approach as to what the definition of logic is or means, that's all, it's nothing personal.

flying crap bags, DON'T TALK TO ME when I am conversing with others since clearly you don't like my responses. Easy ain't it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:35 am flying crap bags, DON'T TALK TO ME when I am conversing with others since clearly you don't like my responses. Easy ain't it.

More projection, clearly I have never said I do not like your responses, you clearly are sensitive to people not liking your responses, because you have no problem projecting that dislike.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:35 am Easy ain't it.

Yes it's very easy to ignore people whom you deem ridiculous, attention seeking spammers who you take great pleasure in telling them they should not be on this forum...while you afford the privilege for yourself.

Yes, it's very easy just to put those people on ignore list. But it seems you enjoy making it known and clear to other people your big fat opinion about those people you deem as idiots, so it seems,perhaps, you really cannot resist rubbing their own shit in their face, but that only makes you a shitty person, not me.

Easy ain't it, to ignore people, oh wait! not until you have first rubbed their own shit in their face, and felt satisfied and justice is served.

I'm going to have to get a restraining order.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 12:03 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm
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.

Maybe if you had added your last two words here in your opening post here, then you may have got a different outcome here, but this may NOT have been your intention here, from the outset.

I think I was just trying to be provocative when I started the thread. It was only afterwards that I changed my mind and tried to change it to something more reasonable.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 12:03 am

Harbal wrote: 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.

But this would be like SAYING, 'I am NOT going to define the words 'souls', 'gods', nor 'whatsos', and I am NOT going to use nor take ANY one one's definitions either, in ANY way whatsoever, BUT I am just going to CLAIM that I am NOT really left with the option of believing in 'souls', 'gods', nor 'whatsos', AT ALL'.

The traditional concept of "soul" does not seem to have one, universally accepted definition, except for the quite loose definition of being a sort of immaterial entity that resides in a human body until its physical death, whereupon it goes on to reside somewhere else. I don't accept that such an entity exists, but I am still interested in hearing of a definition of such an entity that would allow -to my mind- for the possibility of existence.

What 'I' observe, (in Nature), in your lives, in the Universe at large, that CLEARLY SHOWS and PROVES, well to 'Me' anyway, that there is 'this thing' that that the word 'soul' REFERS TO, EXACTLY, ARE the VERY 'things' that make up 'the soul'.

Although, and OBVIOUSLY, 'the soul', or 'the things', which make up 'the soul', can NOT be observed NOR seen WITH the physical eyes, the 'soul' IS CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED WITH the 'Mind's' EYE.

But, OF COURSE, one would have to LEARN and KNOW what 'That' is FIRST, to then be able to LEARN and USE 'That' properly AND correctly.

You have already presented your interpretation of what a souls is, which I accept as perfectly legitimate, but it is only your interpretation, and is quite different to the more traditional interpretation, which is the one I am more interested in with this thread.

How about, 'What could be A name for the VERY 'thing', which is invisible to the human eyes, but which DOES EXIST WITHING human bodies?'

Or, what about this question, 'What could be A name for BOTH the invisible 'thoughts' AND the invisible 'emotions', WITHIN A human body, which when combined together as one, and which are Truly UNIQUE and INDIVIDUAL to 'that body', but which when A body STOPS breathing and STOPS pumping blood 'that thing' does NOT change, renew, NOR occur ANY more, but which, in ways, are continually being transferred ONTO or INTO 'currently' existing bodies and ONTO or INTO 'newly' conceived and newly forming bodies?'

COULD the ONLY answer to these two latter questions BE, 'the soul'?

Yes, if that is how you define the word, "soul", that is fine, but it is not a definition I am questioning. I accept your definition, and so have no need to question it. It is the definition, or a version of it, that I do question that I am asking about here, in the time when this was being written.

Harbal wrote:

The traditional concept of "soul" does not seem to have one, universally accepted definition, except for the quite loose definition of being a sort of immaterial entity that resides in a human body until its physical death, whereupon it goes on to reside somewhere else. I don't accept that such an entity exists, but I am still interested in hearing of a definition of such an entity that would allow -to my mind- for the possibility of existence.

Immortal soul is possible only if soul is nothing but a bundle of experiences of which death is disentanglement of the bundle. One of the experiences is experience of being a separate person, and this too will vanish. Experience itself, once it has happened, can't possibly vanish, despite that experience does not after death pertain to individuals.

The difference between "real" reincarnation and mystical/supernatural reincarnation, is that the individual person "carries-over" conscious memories into another life.

This is considered Unreal because people do not 'remember' previous lives, supposedly. Some say they do, but this can easily be doubted as delusion or lying.

Thus there is no way to know whether a person has 'reincarnated' when their claims are ruled-out from the beginning.


What would it mean for a "conscious memory" to pass from one life to the next?

Can people share memories, right now? Can I tell you a story of my childhood, and then I passed my conscious memory to you (the Reader)?

If you say yes, then it's arguable whether or not "Reincarnation" can be real. Because what is a conscious memory? And how are they passed? And, what is the Self?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 12:53 amMANY 'names', such as; 'Spirit', 'Age', 'God', 'Enlightenment', or just 'SAGE', as well as 'the Universe', 'the WHOLE', 'ALL-THERE-IS', or just 'Everything', and even just 'Nature', 'Life', and/or 'Existence', Itself, among other words like even 'I', thy 'Self', which is NOT to be MISTAKEN as 'i'.

Those terms are abstractions though.

Is there A 'term' that is NOT 'abstract'?

If yes, then will you name some of 'them'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, is the term 'abstract', 'abstract'?

If no, then what is 'that term', EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am Using an abstraction to define "One True Self" does not help the term, nor does it provide clarity or meaning.

But HOW can ANY one define ANY 'thing' without USING an 'abstraction'?

Did you list 'terms' or 'words' above that are NOT 'abstractions'?

If yes, then I will go through 'that list' and find a 'non-abstract' one to USE to define 'One True Self', okay?

But if you did NOT list ANY 'term' NOR 'word' that is NOT an 'abstraction', then only goes to SHOW and help PROVE that ALL 'terms' or 'words' are just 'abstractions', which is OBVIOUSLY just ANOTHER 'abstraction', though.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am
Yes people use titles to define themselves.

Yes people do MANY, MANY 'things'. But NOT ALL of 'those things' are True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct, correct?

By the way, are 'titles' 'abstractions', though?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am Yes people have separate thoughts and beliefs.

Okay, great.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am These too, define them.

But do 'thoughts' and 'beliefs' ACTUALLY, NECESSARILY, define 'them'?

For example, does the 'thought' and/or 'belief' WITHIN a human body, which, since birth has been 'living' for say 35 years and which was born with female genitalia and has remained with female genitalia, define 'them', IF the 'thought' and 'belief' IS; 'I am a baby boy', or, 'I am a dog named rex'?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am The human specie is a large generalization.

The words or term 'human specie' is a so-called 'large generalization' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am 'Spirit' is an even larger generalization.

The word 'Spirit' is a so-called 'even larger generalization' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am When people define 'Self', it is individuated and necessarily different than others.

And here 'my friends' is WHERE the ACTUAL 'problem' EXISTED.

Individual human beings ACTUALLY 'thought' or 'believed' that 'they', "them" 'self', were some separated, individual, larger, bigger, or just DIFFERENT FROM EVERY, IMAGINED, 'thing' "else".

Which can be CLEARLY SEEN by the USE of the words here; 'When people define 'Self' (capital 'S').

'you', human beings, individually, AND collectively on the whole, are absolutely NOTHING more than just 'another part', or just 'another cog' WITHIN thee One and ONLY True, INSEPARABLE, 'Thing'.

EACH and EVERY one of 'you', individually and collectively, are NO more and NO less special, unique, important, NOR significant than ANY of the "OTHER", apparent 'things', which TOGETHER make up the WHOLE One 'Thing'.

Thee One EXITS, ETERNALLY, with or WITHOUT what are called 'you', human beings, individually or collectively.

Now, here you SAY, 'When people define 'Self', it is individuated and 'necessarily different' than others'. So, SHOW 'us', and thus let 'us' SEE, HOW 'you', the one here known as "wizard22", 'individuate and make 'you', supposedly, 'necessarily different' THAN "others", in a Truly SUCCESSFUL and Correct way.

By the way, capital 'S', 'Self' would also be in relation to capital 'I', 'I'. So, in other words, EXPLAIN to the 'rest of us' WHO and WHAT 'I', 'that Self' IS, EXACTLY? (Which IS, supposedly, individuated AND 'necessarily different' FROM 'us'.)

Also, WHERE did the 'thought' and/or 'BELIEF' COME FROM, EXACTLY, that the DEFINED 'Self' HAS TO BE 'necessarily different'?

WHY is THERE an ALLEGED 'NECESSITY TO BE DIFFERENT'?

And, WHERE did 'it' COME FROM, EXACTLY?

WORK ALL of these 'things' OUT, EXACTLY and Correctly, then 'you' WILL BE A LOT CLOSER to FIGURING OUT and FINDING the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', BEFORE "the others" DO.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am People do not think and believe exactly alike, but there are massive similarities and sameness.

Instead of just SAYING and CLAIMING 'things', which MAY or MAY NOT be 'true', to "others", if 'you' ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT 'what' the ACTUAL 'similarities and SAMENESS' IS, EXACTLY, while, at the same time, EXPLAINING, by 'spelling' OUT, EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'you', human beings, 'think' and 'believe' DIFFERENTLY, then what you SAY and CLAIM here, WILL BE MUCH BETTER HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

By the way, what 'these things' ARE ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS ALREADY KNOWN, well at least by SOME of 'us' ANYWAY.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am People use these abstractions selectively, sometimes wanting to define his/her self as different or the same as others.

Just so 'you' BECOME AWARE feelings of BOREDOM when I continually HEAR 'you', human beings, talking ABOUT or referring to 'just that' what 'you' ALREADY OBVIOUSLY DO.

OBVIOUSLY, some of 'you', human beings, use 'terms', 'words', or 'abstractions', SELECTIVELY, sometimes wanting to define "your" 'selves' as DIFFERENT or THE SAME as, PERCEIVED "others".

'you', adult human beings, have been doing 'this' for millennia hitherto, when this was being written. And, what is just AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that, collectively, 'you' have NOT YET REACHED AGREEMENT.

AND WHY 'this' IS is BECAUSE 'you', human beings, do NOT KNOW WHO NOR WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, YET.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 8:03 am It's based on intent.

So, what is 'your' INTENT, "wizard22"?