This a great forum for researching human nature.

[Carl-NC]

So, since you aren't explaining exactly what you are referring to, I guess the whole "liar" thing was meaning less, huh? An inside joke or something?

EE, there was a reason DJ posted that letter, which obviously had nothing to do with LRLs. The "advertisement" as to why he posted the letter, is contained in the letter itself. Admittedly, some people will be able to read the advertisement, and some will not. This forum will quickly teach you that, if it does nothing else.

Here's a hint...

"Bumblebees can't fly."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

They can too.

Well, not that one I scraped off the windshield, Carl may be onto something.

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

Appears to me that your view of psychology is that of couch-talking med-prescribing psychiatrists. That's too bad.

Appears to me that you didn't read my previous posts.

Somewhere, there are folks doing real and genuine scientific research on brains and behaviors, and trying to figure out what makes things tick, and what makes em go haywire.

And where did you get that notion? From "them"?

Does "somewhere" have a Website? I'd like to check that out sometime!

Like it or not, that's what science is all about.

Now I know you didn't read my previous posts!

1. Per Occam's Razor, why is a "soul" necessary? That is, can walking and talking (and maybe even dowsing) be explained without invoking this concept?

Actually, the concept of the soul is the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It's been around since the Vedas. It's the newer "brain theory" which is way more complex, cannot be demonstrated, and does not really explain much of anything except what I have already noted in my previous posts.

2. Assuming it is necessary, why is it obviously not empirical? Who says it could not be matter or energy?

If it were composed of matter, it would have mass and thus size, and could be located and measured. Have you seen a bucket of souls laying around anywhere? I think, in the thousands of years, that people have been interested in innards and brains and such, someone would have found one by now.

If it was energy, it would have wavelength or flow, and could be located and measured.

OK, I think your use of "psychic ability" is equivalent to "psychical ability," rather than the Miss Cleo type of psychic ability. In that case, yes, walking and talking -- and even dowsing -- is a mental ability. And now we've gone full circle, virtual plastic fork and all.

Not hardly.

Like I said before, there are many types of psychic ability, by definition. A long time ago it was a fairly common practice. But it's to hard to control folks with ability. So it became frowned upon by the power mongers. Poor babies.

 

[EE THr]

So, since you aren't explaining exactly what you are referring to, I guess the whole "liar" thing was meaning less, huh? An inside joke or something?

EE, there was a reason DJ posted that letter, which obviously had nothing to do with LRLs. The "advertisement" as to why he posted the letter, is contained in the letter itself. Admittedly, some people will be able to read the advertisement, and some will not. This forum will quickly teach you that, if it does nothing else.

Here's a hint...

"Bumblebees can't fly."

The bumblebees aren't doing a thing for me.

Is it the book?

 

[woof!]

EE, if it makes you feel any better, it took me awhile to grasp the analogy, too.

Meanwhile,

Actually, the concept of the soul is the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It's been around since the Vedas. It's the newer "brain theory" which is way more complex, cannot be demonstrated, and does not really explain much of anything except what I have already noted in my previous posts.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

* * * * * * *

Metaphysical mystery for today: does a chicken running around with its head cut off have a soul, or not? I won't spend much time trying to figure that one out myself, I'll leave it to the experts to weigh in with their facts.

* * * * * * *

Judy..... popcorn?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

Well, I'm glad that somebody got it, but it went right over my head, and I didn't even feel any wind from it.

The only anaology I see, is it's kind of like the trend of the preceding posts.

And that might be something similar to the bumblebee fallacy.

But I don't see how that is an advertisement.



I suspect that I still don't get it.

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

Metaphysical mystery for today: does a chicken running around with its head cut off have a soul, or not?

The question is: Did it have a soul in the first place?

 

[woof!]

Have you asked it?

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

I did, but it lost it's head before it had a chance to answer.

 

[woof!]

You may not learn much more by asking humans.

 

[Carl-NC]

Actually, the concept of the soul is the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It's been around since the Vedas. It's the newer "brain theory" which is way more complex, cannot be demonstrated, and does not really explain much of anything except what I have already noted in my previous posts.

Do folks who are "brain dead" still have a soul?
Does the squirrel in my back yard have a soul?

If it were composed of matter, it would have mass and thus size, and could be located and measured. Have you seen a bucket of souls laying around anywhere?

Look next to the bucket of neutrinos, which are next to the bucket of Higgs bosons.

 

[EE THr]

Look next to the bucket of neutrinos, which are next to the bucket of Higgs bosons.

Great, I always wondered where those were kept, too.

Do folks who are "brain dead" still have a soul?
Does the squirrel in my back yard have a soul?

Folks never have a soul. Folks are souls. If a soul's body had a dead brain, he would probably just pick up another body. Usually at birth. Wouldn't you?

As for your squirrel, the speculation at this time is there is some kind of lower level soul there. There have been reports of sentient beings using human bodies for awhile, then maybe a horse or something, for a time or two, or whatever, then back to human again. But there isn't a lot of investigation there, as right now mankind is more important. Apparently ants don't have individual souls or minds, but it seems to be one for the whole colony. Data on the animal kingdom is only incidental, however, for the reason I just mentioned. But it's interesting. Sometimes I try to figure out my cat---it's very different, I'll say that.

 

[woof!]

I've been used by cats (yeah, I know, a shameful thing for a dog to say), but the thought that either the cat or myself needed a soul of the reincarnating kind (or of any other kind) in order for that to happen never quite crossed my mind.

The soul theory seems to be able to explain just about anything without falsifiability or predictability-- except that it has a hard time explaining why the brain is the way it is. (Hence "blob of jello" physiology coming from a soul theorist.) It would appear that souls need brains a lot more than brains need souls.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

Folks never have a soul. Folks are souls. If a soul's body had a dead brain, he would probably just pick up another body. Usually at birth. Wouldn't you?

That sure would be a comforting thing to believe in, if one were looking for comforting things. But I'd sure hate to be a stroke victim, wondering where (who?) in the heck part of my soul flew off to, and caused the whole left side to shut down. Then again, that would support the Theory of Soul Division... sure are a lot more folks around than before... but I'd reckon they all have smaller souls.

As for your squirrel, the speculation at this time is there is some kind of lower level soul there.

That's a relief... I would hate to think that squirrel could walk & talk without a soul.

The soul theory seems to be able to explain just about anything without falsifiability or predictability...

Yeah, that was my next question...

 

[EE THr]

Judy---

I've never heard of Rene, but what you described sounds about right.

In terms of physical world terminology, the soul consists of "nothing." But is considered to be something---a soul.

That puts physical science at a loss, because they would, by definition, have no rightful control over it. Therefore, politics can't use them for anything concerning it, except to not mention it. So they have been using religion for denial of it, instead.

 

[woof!]

Judy, I'm not a "Cartesian dualist" but then again, I'm probably not whatever it is that Cartesian dualists have decided the alternative is either. Do dogs even have a philosophy?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

That sure would be a comforting thing to believe in, if one were looking for comforting things. But I'd sure hate to be a stroke victim, wondering where (who?) in the heck part of my soul flew off to, and caused the whole left side to shut down.

An injured body suffers from bodily injury. If a car had a flat tire, would you think it was because part of the driver wandered off somewhere?

The soul concept addresses the person as being a soul. When you say, "My opinion is...," that is you, a soul, thinking it and stating it, via your body. The body is like a gamepiece that you push around, and have it do things, like dance and turn knobs, and such. It's fun. The game does not need to be competitive to have fun, but some people like to engage in competition. It's when they get all serious that they cause themselves the most problems.

People looking for comfort aren't likely to realize what they actually are, and what their actual abilities are. People looking for the truth, in terms of useful, workable information, are more likely to, at some point, realize what's what.

The soul theory seems to be able to explain just about anything without falsifiability or predictability...

That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. From: Falsifiability

This is woven in and out of our posts so far. It's up to the reader to determine if, and how, this applies.

As for predictability, that is also possible, and has been observed, and reported publically, on an ongoing basis over the years, by scientific testing, even by "Them," as I have already mentioned.

I need to add that I don't intend to insist that this is true, or demand that anyone "believe" it. I'm just stating my answer to your question. What you think about it is up to you.

This is something that cannot be proven to others. But it can be proven to oneself.

Be the squirrel, Carl. But don't expect to find out a whole lot from a squirrel's world. And watch out, they're sneaky little rascals, too. But cute sometimes. They are mostly concerned about danger and food. And they don't like to be followed home.

(I don't recommend trying that with an opossum, though. They are very dull, and don't care much about anything.)

 

[fenixdigger]

Descartes ? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a while. Thanks Judy, brings back fond memories. A blast from the past.

I needed that. While everybody is trying to get a iron clad grip on what is or isn't going on, I want to mention again. In the short

time we have had technology to decipher actual "physics", our knowledge is like a grain of sand on the beach. A thousand yrs. would be a good start.
We can't even figure out how the ancients did what they did. Sounds like we are getting less smart in certain areas.

I stopped asking how a long time ago on things that were called natural phenomena. Always sounded like, we don't have a clue.

The 1 that did bug me was, how DID they light the inside of the pyramids?

 

[fenixdigger]

I forgot this. About the soul issue. When you take your last living breath it will be clear to you. It's like a rutabaga sandwich.

You have to taste it to believe it. Anybody on here that has had a T.O.D. understands.

 

[EE THr]

fenix---

Yeah, without leaving any carbon on the ceilings. Hmm.





Do dog's dream?




I guess so....