Do you believe in a soul?

[Doktor Howl]

Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure?  

Okay, I give up.  You're a retard.  Go on without me, I've exhausted my endurance for this shit.

Christ, I fucking hate new-age hippies.

[Phox]

I was quoting Ronald Pearson.  There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.

Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.

I do it anyway.

Personal beliefs do not equal reality.  If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.

Personal beliefs equal personal reality.  I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.

If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.

It might still matter if I can remember that the question is of philosophical interest to me.

Utter and complete rubbish.  If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive.  Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.

The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe.  It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real firsthand.

Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure?  Maybe the universe does give a shit about what I believe.  I haven't asked.

My question is this:  If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?

Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole.  Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete.  I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share.  And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.

I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.

Personal beliefs do not equal reality.  If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.

Personal beliefs equal personal reality.  I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.

No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.

"Personal reality" = perception of reality.  That's what you have.

The semantic bullshit is going to make my brain asplode!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I was quoting Ronald Pearson.  There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.

Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.

I do it anyway.

Personal beliefs do not equal reality.  If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.

Personal beliefs equal personal reality.  I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.

If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.

It might still matter if I can remember that the question is of philosophical interest to me.

Utter and complete rubbish.  If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive.  Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.

The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe.  It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real firsthand.

Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure?  Maybe the universe does give a shit about what I believe.  I haven't asked.

My question is this:  If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?

Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole.  Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete.  I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share.  And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.

I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.

Personal beliefs do not equal reality.  If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.

Personal beliefs equal personal reality.  I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.

No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.

"Personal reality" = perception of reality.  That's what you have.

[Triple Zero]

Basically it made me realize that (spiritual) energy = memes plus some other unexplained and sometimes supernatural stuff.

I do believe, however that some of this other stuff is real (real in the sense that memes are real), although most of it probably isn't. One of my goals (I set many, many years ago) is figuring out what this other real stuff is. Although I'm betting on it being just something natural, not magickal (in the "doesn't really exist/happen" variety of magick).

Although, memes are a pretty broad definition as well, so once I figure it out, I could classify the other stuff as memes as well (say, hormones, or something). But that doesn't matter, cause if memes include the other stuff, I still need to find out what it is, not just call it "memes" or "energy" with a wavy-hand gesture. Doesn't mean I can't entirely use the terms at all in the mean time, though, at least, I think an honest desire to figure out what exactly it is should be enough.

[Elder Iptuous]

if some degree of handwaving is inevitable, shouldn't it be used to dismiss the concept in total? (in favor of a set of more specific and useful/correct concepts)
if 'soul' is simply a label that is ingrained in us so deeply due to historical precedent, then is seeking for content to fit into the label really admirable?  i mean, it's in there so deeply, that it's hard not to try wrapping it around something, but wouldn't resisting this urge, so that we can eventually extract it from our collective mind be the more virtuous course?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So far in my personal experience.... spiritual "energy" or whatever we want to call it appears to be some combination psychosomatic response as informed by the memetics active on the individual.

For example, I know a guy who is kind of an ass. He loves to tell all about how he was trained by a Martial Arts master who was brought here from China by his Grandmother and how his master made his (whatever they call the snazy little outfits) and his sword... and how he buried those with his Master when his master died. He also knows all about using "energy".

The first time I met this dude, my bullshit detector went off. So the Harbinger and I watched him do his 'energy' work for a bit. When he decided to try it with us, he quickly got confused and then said "Um, this is weird, I can't really ... its like a black hole or something". We smiled and explained that while his energy is based on water or earth or air or fire (which is what he claimed), ours is based on Chaos which is all of that an more, an energy called ChaoKi and practiced only by a few of the Buddhist sects.

Of course, the truth was, we simply didn't give him the unconscious feedback that everyone else was via body language etc. I'm pretty sure he actually believes he's doing something and has trained his brain to process the visual cues as actual 'feeling'. If he'd just been bullshitting us, he wouldn't have been stumped by our lack of feedback.

Either that or we do wield the awesome ChaoKi!

[Telarus]

@ Tosk.

My question is this:  If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?

Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole.  Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete.  I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share.  And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.

Personal beliefs do not equal reality.  If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.

Personal beliefs equal personal reality.  I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.

To point out the flaws in that reasoning, I'll have to quote myself from page 14 of this very thread:

Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.

This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.

'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.

But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.

~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.




~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.

Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.

Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.

SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.

Which leads us to this gem:

So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul.  Now for the brain hurty part of the post.

Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul.  Here is we know from various speculations out there.  Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states.  The body requires energy to function.  When a body dies that energy is gone.  As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent.  Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own.  Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.

Or I could be lying.

What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.

WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.

But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.

Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.

[Telarus]

Oh, and I was completely serious about the mana in the coffee. 

[Kai]

I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". 

[Triple Zero]

if some degree of handwaving is inevitable, shouldn't it be used to dismiss the concept in total? (in favor of a set of more specific and useful/correct concepts)

No, at least, not for that reason alone. There's loads of concepts I can (and do) talk about that, if people would press me for the gritty details, I'd need to resort to hand-waving or "I don't know".

Really, if you'd ask me about how exactly the Internet works, I could tell you a lot of things about it, but if you'd persistently keep up the inquiry, I'd have to either handwave or say "I dont know" at some point (without consulting some reference like wikipedia).

And it's not always better to prefer "I don't know" over handwaving ("It sort of works like this, it just does, bear with me for a moment") because at "I don't know" the explanation stops, while in the case of explaining something complex like the Internet, I might have to handwave some parts, in order to be able to explain other parts which I would again be certain (and correct) about.

Of course that only works if you know that the subject matter is knowable, and there is a single theory (protocol, in this case, even) about how it exactly works, but you just don't know all the details. Lacking that, stopping at "I don't know" might be preferable.

if 'soul' is simply a label that is ingrained in us so deeply due to historical precedent, then is seeking for content to fit into the label really admirable?  i mean, it's in there so deeply, that it's hard not to try wrapping it around something, but wouldn't resisting this urge, so that we can eventually extract it from our collective mind be the more virtuous course?

Depends on what your goal is, really. If it's rational truth, or Science or something, then, yeah I guess. Though if you put it that way, in terms of admirability and virtue, I don't really want that to become my goal then. It sounds kinda dogmatic to me.

However, I was talking about it from an entirely different kind of context. Namely that of communication. I think it's pretty neat that by figuring out a couple of definitions, suddenly a world-view that I thought was rather unbelievable, sort of starts to come together and at least parts of it start making some sense.

And that's a good thing for both parties. One the one hand I learn to look at things in a different perspective (which I enjoy, and occasionally find useful), also I get to understand people with that worldview better. And on the other side, the other person gets some sense talked into them, but not in a bash-over-the-head UR WRONG manner, which usually just causes an adverse reaction and unwillingness to listen further, but by trying to face the same way as them, and bending them to a different course somewhat. Which is much more likely to cause them to investigate their beliefs further, and who knows, maybe they'll start doubting the really nonsensical bits.

[Psychonomaly]

I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". 

Quanta are thoughtforms.

[Telarus]

 

Apples are thoughtforms.

Moon rocks are thoughtforms.

Cuddlefish are thoughtforms.

Lindsey Lohan are thoughtforms.

[Psychonomaly]

Apples are thoughtforms.

Moon rocks are thoughtforms.

Cuddlefish are thoughtforms.

Lindsey Lohan are thoughtforms.

He gets it.

[Kai]

I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". 

Quanta are thoughtforms.

Define "thoughtforms". Taboo the words "thought", "form" or any synonyms.

[Triple Zero]

Thoughtforms are boogflinks elementary connected to zung.