Do you believe in a soul?

[Doktor Howl]

Incidentally,

Ronald Pearson, the Derbyshire scientist who has discovered a structure of the ether that has potential to evolve intelligence. This has provided the mathematics to back up the experiments of Sir William Crookes and Charles Richet. In these experiments, deceased people returned, proving they had survived death.

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp.html


LOL ETHER LOL

HULLO, 1890.

[Don Coyote]

OMFG
NOODLES EVERYWHERE!!!!

[Elder Iptuous]

Cram,
i think you are correct in that personal utility is likely the best measure of validity in these matters...  i mean, really, is there another option?

[LMNO]

WE CAN'T STOP HERE...
   \

   /
...THIS IS ETHER COUNTRY.

[Triple Zero]

I would accept souls as defined:

"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."

Yeah, that. Sort of. But so far the only use for that definition is making sense of people talking about souls.

Coincidentally, I recently realized that if you replace "energetic body" with "memetic body", it generally works out in most of the cases. Except that "energy" (in the spiritual sense) often has a bit broader meaning than just memes. It is usually exactly that broader meaning I have problems with.

For example, somebody dies in a situation of immense emotional stress, and people claim he left behind a "ghost". This (type of) ghost was explained to me as a residue of their "energetic body". Well, if you replace that with "memetic body" (or memeplex, if you like), as the sum of emotions and thoughts and ideas that person caused [also in others] during their life, and especially the turbulent end of it, you can totally make sense of the statement that it is this residue that causes people to see ghosts.

This discussion then led me to the conclusion that, for an "memetic/energetic body" to leave a residue, it needs to be able to take hold in a larger "memetic/energetic body", otherwise it would dissipate. The believing in ghosts/souls/etc person I was talking to did sort of agree that would make sense.

I liked that. The way it enabled me to make some sort of sense of a thing I would otherwise discard as nonsense. It also made the discussion a lot more fruitful (as opposed to an otherwise fruitless argument, we could continue and move on to more real-ish matters without compeltely dismissing all the premises).

[Phox]

OMFG
NOODLES EVERYWHERE!!!!

You need to stop eating noodles, my friend. It will ruin your electronics someday.  

[Doktor Howl]

Cram,
i think you are correct in that personal utility is likely the best measure of validity in these matters...  i mean, really, is there another option?

Yes.

Souls are real things.  Specifically, they're the part of you that God eats when you die.

[Psychonomaly]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.

Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.

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

When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?

When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.

No, not a Hindu (which is a BS classification, anyway.) An "Indopagan". An even bigger BS classification, but hey, it's a free country right?

Whatever. Its the same thing really. Maybe he calls himself an Indopagan because Pagans can afford to waffle on theology and pantheons and stuff.

You got a point there, Blight. Because, it isn't like there are multiple different Veddic religions that have very different customs and practices, a category into which Buddhism falls, though much of the Buddhism we get in America is Chinese influenced. But, don't listen to me. I just studied religions and philosophy for 3 years.  

I'm agreeing (that is the reason they're BS categories), but might as well use the terms interchangeably here, since well...   the whole thing. It's not like he's specifically saying he's a Shaivist.

[Don Coyote]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

wut

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.

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

[Phox]

I'm agreeing (that is the reason they're BS categories), but might as well use the terms interchangeably here, since well...   the whole thing. It's not like he's specifically saying he's a Shaivist.

Oh, I know you are agreeing with me (hence the ). And I'm agreeing with you, as well.  

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.

Imma go run and hide.

[Cramulus]

Coincidentally, I recently realized that if you replace "energetic body" with "memetic body", it generally works out in most of the cases. Except that "energy" (in the spiritual sense) often has a bit broader meaning than just memes. It is usually exactly that broader meaning I have problems with.

For example, somebody dies in a situation of immense emotional stress, and people claim he left behind a "ghost". This (type of) ghost was explained to me as a residue of their "energetic body". Well, if you replace that with "memetic body" (or memeplex, if you like), as the sum of emotions and thoughts and ideas that person caused [also in others] during their life, and especially the turbulent end of it, you can totally make sense of the statement that it is this residue that causes people to see ghosts.

that's a cool observation


the cats who wrote the Art of Memetics have a lot of talk about how they dislike the word Energy as its used in occult circles.

Energy is a great term for describing a very small number of physical events. If we try to use it as a catch-all metaphor to describe how the universe works, it falls short in a number of ways. Newtonian physics is no good for describing stuff like social situations!

In a world of information systems, reputation, influence, flexibility, and signal intensity are much more useful.

[Psychonomaly]

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.