the soul | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 548 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614125
Today 4
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
the soul
 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 03:59 [#01906574]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



what is it

where is it


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:01 [#01906576]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



it sucks that in the chaos this universe is made up of, our
self concepts are also chaotic


 

offline Mr Brazil from Oh Joan, I love you so... on 2006-05-25 04:04 [#01906577]
Points: 1970 Status: Lurker



Just to let you in on a little secret...

IT DOESN'T EXIST!

We're just a bundle of senses.


 

offline Mr Brazil from Oh Joan, I love you so... on 2006-05-25 04:04 [#01906579]
Points: 1970 Status: Lurker



Wait, was this a music question?


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:07 [#01906580]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to Mr Brazil: #01906579



not a music question, nah


 

offline Falito from Balenciaga on 2006-05-25 04:09 [#01906581]
Points: 3974 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



a.-the soul IS and nothing more.
b.-your mind can not know,dont waste time.

c.-for a good answer for the two questions
i recommend to you meditate,in silence.
everyday almost 30 minutes.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:10 [#01906582]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



If the soul doesn't exist then it's easy to point out why
people want one. It's a part of you that doesn't ever
change. No matter how drastically your life changes, you
still have that concept to grasp on. I guess some probably
look at it as the glue that sticks all your memories
together.


 

offline unabomber from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) on 2006-05-25 04:11 [#01906584]
Points: 3756 Status: Regular



...


 

offline unabomber from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) on 2006-05-25 04:12 [#01906585]
Points: 3756 Status: Regular



maybe he knows!


Attached picture

 

offline clint from Silencio... (United Kingdom) on 2006-05-25 04:13 [#01906586]
Points: 3447 Status: Lurker



On the underside of your foot


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:14 [#01906587]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to unabomber: #01906585



james brown is such a mothufuckin mac daddy


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 04:15 [#01906588]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker



The soul is a misinterpretation of the self. There is no
need to give spiritual weight to an entity within the ether
when you can simply have a self which is something like a
soul but without the religious connotations. When you die
you die, that doesn't destroy any self identity and it
doesn't resign us to the belief that we are simple chemical
reactions, senses and what not. All these things merely add
up to a totality that you can call a self or soul if you
wish to be theistic about it.

Thats my view anyhow!
Read Hegel or Sartre or even Heidegger.


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2006-05-25 04:18 [#01906589]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906588 | Show recordbag



nice one, taff.


 

offline Mr Brazil from Oh Joan, I love you so... on 2006-05-25 04:19 [#01906590]
Points: 1970 Status: Lurker



Falito-Sorry, but that's a bunch of New Age-y nonsense...

Cygnus-I don't know, maybe you should read Hume or somebody
like that. It sounds like maybe you need some kind of
"spiritual connection" to your being...if so, maybe skip
Hume...

But this is a game of semantics, don't confuse the "soul"
for something corporeal. If it's something you can touch
then it's not a soul.

The Big Bang isn't God.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:36 [#01906596]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to Mr Brazil: #01906590



falito said what he had to say, i dont think it's right to
call it nonsense.

i find it impossible to connect 'spiritually', i do not even
know what it means anymore. i've come to a point in my life
where im walking around looking at everything and it's
literally like watching, marbles. youve ever tossed a bunch
of marbles down a slope or a hill? or rolled a bunch of
dice, im just seeing dice being rolled.

you might spark a conversation with a girl across the bar
from you, but if a song comes on the jukebox that you dont
like you might walk over there to change it first, because
it's so fucking bad. by the time you're finished doing that,
the girl you were going to talk to, is gone. you and that
girl might've been a perfect match for eachother and
would've had a 'perfect' relationship after hitting it off
with eachother almost immediately. and that's because of a
thousand different factors that played into the situation.
how would that band have known that skipping those musical
lessons at the age of 9 would have caused a poor dude to
miss out on the relationship of his life. you get what im
saying? how can you say that all of this shit is more than a
basement project.. just a bunch of chemical reactions. yeah
its stupid to dwell on it, but jesus christ, urban society
is ALL OF THAT at a rapid fire rate, and for the love of
god, it is ridiculous.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:40 [#01906598]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



The soul is a misinterpretation of the self. There is no
need to give spiritual weight to an entity within the ether
when you can simply have a self which is something like a
soul but without the religious connotations. When you die
you die, that doesn't destroy any self identity and it
doesn't resign us to the belief that we are simple chemical
reactions, senses and what not. All these things merely add
up to a totality that you can call a self or soul if you
wish to be theistic about it.


that's what im saying. people assign spiritual weight to
things to do just that, make them more weighty. what i find
strange is it happens more with kids. kids are absolutely
more spiritual than kids, they believe in 'luck' and all
kinds of special fortunes. it kidn of dies as they get
older. why is that? modern society is probably fucking us
up. there is just too. much. shit. too fast. i feel perhaps
that if the human race has souls, that in urban areas, the
soul just can't keep up with the body, because of it's
rapid-fire rate of alteration.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:43 [#01906600]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



isn't the big bang a theory? it's the demonstrative theory
but is there any way to be sure of it? no. therefore can one
be critisized for saying they don't believe in the big bang?
just a thought i guess


 

offline felch king on 2006-05-25 04:48 [#01906601]
Points: 257 Status: Lurker



MY BALLS ARE QUITE ITCHY.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:50 [#01906604]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to Falito: #01906581



a.-the soul IS and nothing more.

if it is possible to lose ones self identity then what does
that mean for the soul. does that mean that the soul is
lost

b.-your mind can not know,dont waste time.

my mind cannot know where my soul is, does my soul know
where i am? do you think that it is possible for things in
this realm to come in the way of me and my soul, if i have
one?

can two people connect if they do not have self identities?
what if they do not have souls? is a self identity
prerequisite for meaningful communication?



 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:51 [#01906605]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to felch king: #01906601



MY BALLS ARE QUITE ITCHY.
take a shower and wash all of the bacteria


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 04:52 [#01906607]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker



"i feel perhaps
that if the human race has souls, that in urban areas, the
soul just can't keep up with the body, because of it's
rapid-fire rate of alteration. "

HUH?

You seem to be misplacing alot of the blame onto other
things. Saying someone missed out on the girl of thier
dreams because they changed a song that happened to be on is
utter crap, you totally bypassed any idea of choice and
responsibility. You choose to stand up and change the song,
you are not forced, the circumstance arises form the choice
not the choice from teh circumstance. If that was really the
case no one would be responsible for any action and thus we
would simply spiral into non existence. Throwing marbles and
autonomous actions are completly different things. If you
genuinly feel that is the case then nothing should worry you
because you are responsible for nothing and no action is
yours to take.



 

offline Mr Brazil from Oh Joan, I love you so... on 2006-05-25 04:53 [#01906609]
Points: 1970 Status: Lurker | Followup to cygnus: #01906596



Um, well, I think what you're trying to do--what we all
do--is create the narrative of our life, the mind is just a
story we tell ourselves and yours isn't working out the way
you want it (maybe). And this reality is just a bunch
sequences stemming from a single cause. The band didn't know
shit about their shittyness and the consequences of that
shittyness, what ever started everything is what led up to
your miss-out.

Falito-Sorry, Cygnus is right, I was rude.


 

offline felch king on 2006-05-25 04:54 [#01906612]
Points: 257 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906607



SERIOUSLY MAN. THINK I MIGHT HAVE CAUGHT SOMETHING.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 04:54 [#01906614]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to clint: #01906586



on the underside of your foot

do you know how many nerve endings are on that area of your
body? more than in your penis. that's why so many people are
foot fetishists. it's not because they are 'sexually
deviant' or 'weird'.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2006-05-25 05:05 [#01906624]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906607



i need to sleep up, will get back in here in a few hours


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 05:24 [#01906651]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906588 | Show recordbag



The soul is a misinterpretation of the self

well, that isn't entirely true, now, is it? The soul is a
perfectly valid concept and it's not even unlikely compared
to some of the other theories (like reductionist
neurophilosophy). I'm kind of a (non-reductionist)
functionalist, but I feel it's a bit more complex than
that.. externalism and existentialist thinking is included
in my picture of it.


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 05:30 [#01906658]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906651



Like i say, its my view, of course you can opt for dualism
and ascribe a soul but in my mind its a mistake.

I am not suggesting neurophilosophy (or at least i think I'm
not as i know little about it). I don't think the self is
dictated by its parts but infact dictates the parts
themselves (if that makes any sense).

I am not a fan of functionalism because i don't think
functionalism can work in an aesthist system. I don't think
its possible to ascribe function without a artisan to
initiate that function.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 05:42 [#01906667]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906658 | Show recordbag



neurophilosophy is the stuff that shit ass churchland couple
advocate.

functionalism works perfectly in an atheist system.. I
should know as I really am atheist, and that's where the
externalism comes in. I don't believe it's so that we're
born with the functions (nor that any function is unvariably
bound to a particular part of the brain). the "functions"
(or function) is something we learn how to perform through
the world around us, though it rarely is explicit; one of
the earliest things we learn is how things affect other
things and from that comes reasoning and deduction which we
use in basic forms in connecting (and distinguishing) things
around us, but no-one tells us how to do that.. and, no, I
don't know how we do the initial "thinking" that allows us
to recognise causal links like that, but just because
I don't know (and no-one probably ever will) doesn't
make it not true.


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 05:54 [#01906675]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906667



I;m not suggesting that, but if our function develops soley
in an individualistic sense aren't we self defining? and if
we are self defining doesnt that kind of neuter any need for
functionalism.

If the world around us defines our function then are we not
falling back into the "marbles down a slope" thing? (I'm not
saying that you are suggesting that I'm just asking).

It's like the example of the paper knife (letter opener). An
artisan would not create one by accident it would be created
with the lette ropening function in mind. It can be said
that external circumstances dictate that function, for
instance things such as sharpness, the physical qualities of
paper etc. However the function still is external to the
paper knife itself and predefined. Without a knowledge of
letter opening functions then it would never become a letter
opener.

Maybe I am misreading you. You're obviously more adept to
philosophy than I am, it just somehow feels wrong to suggest
function in an atheistic sense. If we are self defining then
function cannot preceed existence, at least it seems that
way to me.

I hope i made at elast a little bit of sense there.
;)


 

offline unabomber from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) on 2006-05-25 05:56 [#01906677]
Points: 3756 Status: Regular



oh those philos...


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2006-05-25 06:06 [#01906680]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906667



one of the earliest things we learn is how things affect
other things and from that comes reasoning and deduction
which we use in basic forms in connecting (and
distinguishing) things around us, but no-one tells us how to
do that..


I'll contraplex that and move it towards morality, because
that could be how it forms. For instance, the whole basis of
good and evil, that could just be a sense of peace where
symbion can be attained on both sides. But when you dig
deeper into it, some look towards hereditary metempsychosis
where we inherit an inner sense of soul and will through
genetic memory mapping of past reasonings and deductions. I
really have no idea what I'm saying. Chalk it up to
mentalese. I remember the last time I was on shrooms I vowed
never to get into discussions like these again. lol


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 06:07 [#01906682]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to Gwely Mernans: #01906680



haha i love your avatar!
TODAY IS THE DAY!


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2006-05-25 06:09 [#01906684]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906682



maybe next time..


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 06:10 [#01906685]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906675 | Show recordbag



not individualistic: society plays a big role in this, but
that's only later (when we start to grasp the connections
and basics of communication.

and the world around us defines it, yes, but I mentioned
existentialist thinking earlier. choice and responsibility.
these are a sort of function, as we learn how to choose and
how to take responsibility, but we don't learn that we
should always choose the same (a good analogy is the
learning vs memorizing thing. we learn, we don't memorize).

and I'm not talking function as the whole human has its
function, I was more talking about the brain.. I may be
misreading you here, but it seems you're talking about the
first.. in the functionalist view of the mind, the mind is a
function of the brain that cannot be reduced. people
commonly use a sort of computer analogy in that a computer
program or computing function can be performed on lots of
different computers with different internal structures. the
difference between the computers and the mind is that with
computers you can probably figure out (or know) what parts
does what, but that's because we created it, as you say,
with the function we want it to have. with the human brain,
no-one created it, nor does it have any sort of thought
behind it meaning it isn't structured to do one thing; we
can learn how to do just about anything that is physically
and cognitively possible (though what defines the limits for
cognitive potential is vague).

I don't think I'm more adept to philosophy than you, it's
just I've had a bit of philosophy of the mind (next semester
is existentialism! I can't wait!).


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2006-05-25 06:10 [#01906686]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Gwely Mernans: #01906684



I thought it was the 26th today and it was all passed. OMG
hold onto something tight!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 06:14 [#01906691]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Gwely Mernans: #01906680 | Show recordbag



I don't think DNA carries memories contrary to popular
animé belief. DNA controls certain physical aspects of the
body, but you don't inherit your parents' beliefs in any
other way than that you are brought up by them and they are
a part of the society that affects you.


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2006-05-25 06:18 [#01906692]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906691



Well not like actual memory imprints, but definitely
something archaic. The way babies just know that a mothers
tit is their source of food, or baby crabs just know which
way to go when they hatch. Something along those lines.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 06:19 [#01906694]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Gwely Mernans: #01906692 | Show recordbag



that's more like instinct which is separate from the mind
and more physical.. we aren't fully rational beings from
birth...


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2006-05-25 06:24 [#01906698]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906694



Instinct.. now that's something to think about.


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 06:27 [#01906701]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906685



I did philosophy of mind part 1 and hated it (science of
mind was fun with searles chinese room experiment etc). I
did self and authenticity lat term (basically its
existentialism) and it fucking rules. Hegel, Heidegger and
Sartre are the only philosophers i have read that ahve not
only made perfect sense to me but made sense in a practical
manner. Be warned alot of people misunderstand Hegel and i
found that classes involving Hegel meant loads of stupid
people banging on about animal rights "why is human
consciousness seperate form animal consciousness BLAH BLAH".
It got right on my tits.

as to the whole debate i think we are actually saying the
same things but in very polarized way's. When i think of
functionalism i think more of aristotles function arguement.
I'm not sure I'd agree with saying choice and
responsibilitie are functions but that is kind of irrelavant
to the overall arguement.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 06:33 [#01906705]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906701 | Show recordbag



the chinese room argument is good, yeah, but it didn't
really entertain me for long as it just illustrates a good
point and all "replies" miss the point.

I think I'll be onto sartre and kierkegaard.. and probably
heidegger too ("wie steht es um dieses nichts" wasn't that
him?).. hegel was a bit boring when I had about him..
zeitgeist and all that.

yeah, it has nothing to do with aristotle. aristotles
version of function is what we're meant to do, but I'm not
talking about anything like that. I'm just talking about
mind and brain. you can't separate them, and you can't
reduce one to the other; the mind is a function of the
brain.


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-05-25 06:38 [#01906711]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01906705



Heidegger was great i especially like his things on being
towards death. Hegel is great, the actual text is hard as
hell though if you're new to it, i would suggest the
routledge guide. It made it far clearer for me and i began
to really like Hegel, it also helped because when you start
getting the jist of his ideas it becomes much easier to
read.

Yeah so we do agree function wise hehe.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 07:05 [#01906739]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01906711 | Show recordbag



I love anyone who can piss off logical positivists!


 

offline Mertens from Motor City (United States) on 2006-05-25 07:30 [#01906772]
Points: 2064 Status: Lurker



I've got this feeling that it belongs in the same catagory
as knowledge, numbers, information, etc... I think the
physical is a medium through which such things are
expressed.


 

offline Falito from Balenciaga on 2006-05-25 08:25 [#01906808]
Points: 3974 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Cygnus--when i say soul IS i say it cause you ask:
"WHAT IS?" and soul is not what,cause IS.
tha mind can not understand things without size or colour or
tickets.
SOUL IS ETERNITY,NO TIME NO SPACE
where is?
same answer

If you WANT to UNDERSTAND your SOUL
you GOT to UNDERSTAND who is you.

and you is you:)

is weird to explain this cause everyone have an education
and way of see reality so,if we TALK about the SOUL...

it will take for long...but it we feel our soul its
telepathic

i congratulate to you for fire the mind of people on this
board
to search inside they and not outside.

the answer to all is INside us,not OUTside...but
listening to aphex twin,you will fell better and connected.



 

offline Falito from Balenciaga on 2006-05-25 08:29 [#01906810]
Points: 3974 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



this board must have a picture...
we must fight against ignorance!


Attached picture

 

offline plaidzebra from so long, xlt on 2006-05-25 10:59 [#01906898]
Points: 5678 Status: Lurker



sure, if you want to discredit someone, you can just call
them "new age."

what falito is saying is not new.

the soul has no location in space or time.

experience yourself in an egoless state, and you'll come
closer to understanding. right now you're looking for a
quiet melody in a wall of raging static.

these are my two cents.



 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2006-05-25 11:02 [#01906901]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict



the soul sucks. its just a metaphor for your personality


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 11:09 [#01906909]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #01906901 | Show recordbag



no

the personality is only a part of what "soul" denotes.

the soul doesn't even need to be religious,
non-spatial/temporal or supernatural. in that case it
denotes both your rational and your non-rational self.

in the cases where it is a religous concept it is most often
something that can outlive your physical body either as a
separate entity or something that joins a larger thing.

in older times, it was what made men (and sometimes animals)
move; the origin of their actions.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2006-05-25 11:10 [#01906910]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



I prefer to talk about the mind in cases like these (and
when talking about what I think about it), though, 'cause
there's always some science wanker who starts crying when
someone says "soul."


 


Messageboard index