WarpMyMind

We are all on a journey and that which might or might not be our souls , makes us who we are.. wether we return to learn some more, perhaps come back as a slug in the next life I do not know nor do I care.. I know that we all have an "essence" some people have a strong sense of self and some people are just waiting to leave it all behind.... wether this is the soul or not, its the spirit, what makes me me and you you..

aeroue wrote:SubmissMe no need to be calling everyone slow I know for a fact im not.
Besides why should we have to justify to you? Why don't you prove we don't have a soul?
A soul is that part of us which is immortal which lives on when the body dies.
Thats is what it is and what it does.
The proof you have to find for yourself.
Just because you have no experience of something yourself does not mean it does not exist.
Besides you havn't yet contributed anything your just denying what other people say with no evidence.

Greetings Aeroue,

Indeed you are not slow. Far from it. I suspect, however, that you are currently suffering from an excess of patience. How else to account for your putting up with what seems to be a reincarnation of Brad Poe and Brainiac?

I am mightily impressed by SubmissMe. A command of English: sprouting instead of spouting nonsense, realtion iso relation, and seperate iso separate. Are we now forced to add to the empiricist triumvirate? Do Locke, Hume, and Berkeley want the company of SubmissMe?

Aeroue, you may disagree with me on this point. I find that the most meaningful OBE comes between MBE and CBE, but KBE and GBE are even better. I agree with your common-sense observations above. SubmissMe is staking his claim to solipsism via Definition 1: the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. I would suggest that Definition 2 is more appropriate for him: extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's own feelings and desires; egoistic self-absorption.

I have to break ranks and agree with SubmissMe on one point. I like the ring of the phrase "eliminative materialism." Assuming sufficient fibre in the diet, one normally engages in this function once a day. :wink:
.

Before I get going, I'd like to say, Welcome back Sandy

aeroue wrote:SubmissMe no need to be calling everyone slow I know for a fact im not.

Besides why should we have to justify to you? Why don't you prove we don't have a soul?

A soul is that part of us which is immortal which lives on when the body dies.

Thats is what it is and what it does.

The proof you have to find for yourself.

Just because you have no experience of something yourself does not mean it does not exist.

Besides you havn't yet contributed anything your just denying what other people say with no evidence.

Lets take them one at a time

"Besides why should we have to justify to you? Why don't you prove we don't have a soul?"

You can't prove the NON-exsistance of something. This is what religion counts on

"A soul is that part of us which is immortal which lives on when the body dies. Thats is what it is and what it does"

Not exactly. IMO A soul is not immortal. Wait, lets see....A soul is not untouchable. You can corrupt, sicken, twist, damage and scar a soul, but as cruely as it is, you cannot kill one.

"The proof you have to find for yourself."

How is it posible to find proof of your own exsistance? 'I think, therefor I am' is not the same thing as 'I think, therefor I know I am'

"Just because you have no experience of something yourself does not mean it does not exist."

No, it just means you don't know or, quite possibly, believe it exsists

"Besides you havn't yet contributed anything your just denying what other people say with no evidence."

Infact she/he/it/the thing has contributed some ideas and thoughts in Theories about god


Mallic (When you smoke, a kitten dies)

"You can't prove the NON-exsistance of something. This is what religion counts on "

If he asks the impossible so will I. It also happens that you cannot prove the soul in an objective manner. So that is moot.

"Not exactly. IMO A soul is not immortal. Wait, lets see....A soul is not untouchable. You can corrupt, sicken, twist, damage and scar a soul, but as cruely as it is, you cannot kill one. "

"You cannot kill one"....immortal? Or is your definition different.

"How is it posible to find proof of your own exsistance? 'I think, therefor I am' is not the same thing as 'I think, therefor I know I am' "

Yes you can. In what way is I think therefore i know I am different? If you are thinking how can there be any uncertainty as to whether you exist?
The main point I was making is on the existence of the soul anyway not your current self. The only way I know I have a soul is because of lucid dreams, OBE and meditation. Through these experiences I have deduced I most likely have a soul. Of course this is not hard evidence and as I said is subjective.

"Infact she/he/it/the thing has contributed some ideas and thoughts in Theories about god "

True it was a somewhat sweeping statement.

And if a kitten dies each time I smoke then 8O

I think that covers everything.
I would have replied earlier but was enduring curse withdrawal :?

PS Sandy you are a genius

edit: i spelt genius wrong :oops:

No Sandy, you are not a genius. If I make mistakes when I type it should not serve as a deterrant of my ideas.

And no, Solipsism is not something I credit.

However, people can't prattle on about having a soul and then feel that they don't have to justify themselves. A soul is a nonsense idea.

The phrase "I have a soul" is nonsense. It is neither analytical or empirically verifiable and so in the words of Hume we should " comitt it to the flames, as it holds nothing but illusion".

I feel as if I am preaching to a deaf choir here. Sandy, although you obviously have some kind of personal vendetta against me I must say I am quite impressed. You challenged me in knowledge rather than cuss and references to poor spelling (well maybe not the latter.)

In all I feel that I could really use you sandy, that is if you would be willing to help me. I am writing a thesis and I would like you to give me some input. As our ideas differ greatly I feel your ideas would be most welcomed. Do you know of A J Ayer sandy?

you know they say that all in all the smartest people are the ones with the worst spelling problems so perhaps then Sandy is feeling a bit inferior and uses the spelling issue as a way to try to detract from the one who is of the higher understanding on the subject.

I myself don't pretend to have studied this stuff or what other published authors have written. All I know is my experiences and I know that there is indeed something that lingers on after the body is gone and dead. I've converesed with more than a few many years after the body was in the dirt.

Since I started wrting this I forgot what topic I'm on so I'm just going to run with two since they seem to intermingle.

Souls do and don't exist. On the one hand something does linger past but it's stored in the hive mind that we have mostly lost contact with all psychics and mediums do is tap into that lost reserve to bring forth knowledge and power.

I've learned to peek over the edge throug many mental traumas. Say what you want but I've talked with the dead before I was even aware they were dead. I've worn a spoon I bent with my mind as a bracelet. I've seen hints and pieces of the future in my dreams to know what would happen the next day.



Incidently before you start yes I know I'm damned to hell for all eternity for practicing the dark arts... I'm ok with that, the sinners are much more fun and only good die young

Its hardly the dark arts.

Primus, I do suggest that you try and learn more about philosophy. For you I feel you would connect with Rene Descartes and in particular his book Meditations. The Republic by Plato is another option.

However, if you fancy a total opposite I suggest you try my favourite books, LTL and Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus.

Try it and give us some feedback.

Heres a question that I think tips the arguement in the favor of no other minds. Try to describe the colour red without using the name of a colour.

"All the world is a stage." Other minds have to Excise, because as a child I could have never imagined some of the things that have happened, and some of the things that people do.

Mallic

Cheap answer- blood

Somewhat cunning answer- anger

Very nice, but a colour isn't tied to a feeling.

Mallic (This bit here is sometime longer than my post)

It's called synesthesia. Haven't you ever heard the expressions: "I saw red.", "He has a dark(or bleak) future." Or, have you ever heard the song by Minnie Riperton "Lovin' You":

Lovin' you, is easy 'cause you're beautiful
Makin' love with you is all I want to do
Lovin' you, is more than just a dream come true
Everything that I do is out of lovin' you

No one else can make me feel the colors that you bring
Stay with me while we grow old
And we will live each day in spring time

etc.

What's the first color in a rainbow?

green?

RED
ORANGE
YELLOW
GREEN
BLUE
INDIGO
VIOLET

Colour is tied to feeling.

Hence the phrase 'i saw red' as was mentioned

Also if you are in the right state of mind then it is very probable that this link grows even more.

How about " I was in a black mood that day" or " when you walked in the room lit up in your prescence" yep different tones for different feelings... definately.

I think your question really relates to a lack in the english(and probably many other) language. We have words to describe colors, but not the colors themselves, directly. Soft, Sharp, Dull, Bright, Dark, Dim, Cloudy, Opaque, Calming, Soothing, Serene, etc. Now, some/all of the words I listed can describe feelings as well as colors. There are many more, but none of them go directly to the root of what any color -is- or is not.

Colour is tied to a feeling beacuse we tie it to a feeling.Why do we though? Why does red mean anger? Cause it's the colour of blood? Are the colours even the same from person to person? Is the colour I see as red, the colour blue to Missypuss?

I guess that in a way this is about the issue of other minds, so...

That is an extremely good question! I used to be severely stumped on how to figure this out. Then, I figured out a way to test such a question. Wether it be in person, or over long distance(ex: internet), I would find some object/picture with a color on it, write down my observations before hand, ask them to tell me their observations on the specific color... and compare the two.

Also, we must remember that the only ways in which we can communicate(most of us, consciously, without the use of telepathy) are limited to the symbols which have been defined for us by the other people/things around us in our society.

As for tying things we see to things we feel, or things we feel to things we hear, or things we hear to things we see(etc): I think that this comes from the plastisity of our brains and the ways in which we create meaning/memories.

There are five sense, but others have noted that the vast majority of people do not primarily use the senses of taste and smell for organising their experiences other than for appeasing appetites.

I tend to agree with the previous post from Jack ie we do use colour to describe feelings and we learn to do this subconciously from day dot.. however what of the autistic mind? Yes~ I guess my version of red is the same as yours.. but the same as someone who has high functioning aspergers for instance.. now theres a thought.!

Something I haven't encountered before, and thought of testing. I think it would be interesting.

Mallic wrote:Colour is tied to a feeling beacuse we tie it to a feeling.Why do we though? Why does red mean anger? Cause it's the colour of blood? Are the colours even the same from person to person? Is the colour I see as red, the colour blue to Missypuss?

From an early age, we have been tough blood is red, so even if receptors pick up the light differently and fire differently, we still call a color the same basic color, that others will call it.

More and more I meet adults who have only just been diagnosed as a person on the autistic spectrum.. now forgive me if Im wrong but these people dont "sense" anything in the way a "Normal".. human being experiences the world..so yes my Red may be Mallics Blue but what of the autistic..?And wouldnt it be an experience to find out how an autistic views the world in comparison to how we do?
Any one on the spectrum reading this post .. forgive me for my naivity..

missypuss wrote:More and more I meet adults who have only just been diagnosed as a person on the autistic spectrum.. now forgive me if Im wrong but these people dont "sense" anything in the way a "Normal".. human being experiences the world..so yes my Red may be Mallics Blue but what of the autistic..?And wouldnt it be an experience to find out how an autistic views the world in comparison to how we do?
Any one on the spectrum reading this post .. forgive me for my naivity..

I have a slight Autism.

I like your theory Primus, unfortunately you're all just figments of my imagination. :P

goldragon_70 wrote:

Mallic wrote:Colour is tied to a feeling beacuse we tie it to a feeling.Why do we though? Why does red mean anger? Cause it's the colour of blood? Are the colours even the same from person to person? Is the colour I see as red, the colour blue to Missypuss?

From an early age, we have been tough blood is red, so even if receptors pick up the light differently and fire differently, we still call a color the same basic color, that others will call it.

I know, and that is why we will never know.

Mallic wrote:

goldragon_70 wrote:

Mallic wrote:Colour is tied to a feeling beacuse we tie it to a feeling.Why do we though? Why does red mean anger? Cause it's the colour of blood? Are the colours even the same from person to person? Is the colour I see as red, the colour blue to Missypuss?

From an early age, we have been tough blood is red, so even if receptors pick up the light differently and fire differently, we still call a color the same basic color, that others will call it.

I know, and that is why we will never know.

A rose is a rose even by another name. A color is a color, even if it's another name, and everyone would probably still call it by the name everyone knows it by. This neither proves nor disproves a point.

I know it doesn't, but still, it would be interesting to find out this.

Be careful, finding that out is like trying to swim up a hug water fall in summer. If it happens, it means the waterfall has reversed flow, and you have gone insane or you have entered the Twilight Zone.

why alyways the Twilight Zone? what about the other shows of a similar type?

Do not adjust your monitors
We control the Vertical
We control the Horizontal
We control YOU!

Primus wrote:why alyways the Twilight Zone? what about the other shows of a similar type?

Do not adjust your monitors
We control the Vertical
We control the Horizontal
We control YOU!

I was being lazy, and you are entering the outer Limits, just doesn't have the same ring.

You asked a question.
Other minds answered.
You didn't create those answers, did you?
Viola: Other Minds Exist.