At UD this claim was made:
Neither rocks nor human brains dream. Only the mind/soul dreams. The human body is a diving suit, specifically designed to be operational by conscious/subconscious intent – meaning, an individualized consciousness (mind/soul) can use it to functionally operate in the physical world. A rock has no such capacity for service.
I have to wonder how what this video depicts can be squared with that.
During hypobaric chamber, or altitude chamber training, #14 displayed symptoms of hypoxia, after exceeding his time of useful consciousness (TUC).
What does the (mind/soul) bring to the party that hypoxia disrupts?
I’ve been fascinated by this video since I first saw it. It’s like the mind get’s trapped in a “loop”. But if the physical brain is just being used, hypoxia must somehow be making it’s way “back up” the channel the mind/soul is using and confusing that too? As it’s not as if when normality is restored the mind/soul notices the disruption. It happened on “both sides” exactly the same, or so it seems.
Perhaps our memory of the event is being back-filled after the event. I hope someone more experienced in such matters can enlighten.
Similarly, if your thinking is really going on Somewhere Else, what happens when you bump your head into an obstacle and are knocked out? Does the processing Somewhere Else suddenly get suspended?
I’d also like to know how one makes this mind/soul processing work in evolution. Does a monkey’s brain also have mind/soul processing happening Somewhere Else? How about a mouse? A roundworm? A jellyfish?
(Of course I know that the answer from religious doctrine is that the mind/soul stuff only came into existence with Adam and Eve. But surely at UD they’re purely discussing science, right? And as there is no scientific evidence for the sudden introduction of the mind/soul, they must be open to a discussion of this issue, right?)
The soul can survive anything, including death by nuclear explosion at five paces, but it can’t even keep conscious when the brain it’s somehow coupled to runs low on oxygen, or suffers concussion. It’s like the Designer, competent beyond mere “nature,” yet unwilling to reveal itself (or to save the person) by stepping in when the “natural process” fails.
Because that’s just how it is, and that is the hypothesis. No, it’s not merely an exercise in shielding the a priori assumption from all testing, because that’s also just how it is.
Or something.
Glen Davidson
How does being drunk work WRT the soul?
Results in much improved ability to sing soul!
Richard,
Dualists usually argue that the brain is the interface between the soul and the body, and that anything that negatively affects the brain can potentially garble the signals being passed from body to soul and from soul to body.
For example, the drunk driver’s brain garbles the perceptual signals so that the soul doesn’t see the red light. When the soul is finally aware of the red light and gives the “brake hard” signal to the body, the signal gets garbled on the way and the driver may hit the gas pedal instead.
The problem with this explanation is that it doesn’t take judgment into account. It isn’t just perception and motor control that are impaired. So is judgment.
The drunken guy hitting on his boss’s daughter is suffering from impaired judgment. His perception is correct; he recognizes her. His memory is also correct; he remembers that she is his boss’s daughter. His motor control is working; the verbal come-ons and the lubricious hand on her shoulder are fully intended. What he lacks in his drunken state is judgment.
If dualists (particularly of the religious kind) acknowledge that judgment is a physical function of the brain, then they are in danger of admitting that the soul is not in charge.
William, you made this claim:
If the mind/soul is the immaterial operator of the “diving suit” body, then why is the mind/soul’s judgment affected by the level of alcohol in the “diving suit’s” brain?
That depends. If she’s a fat slob, yes*. On the other hand, if she’s really hot, and continues to be hot when you’ve sobered up, I’d say your judgement can stand a couple of drinks.
*) Although you may unwittingly be doing her a favour and thereby ingratiating yourself with your chef. There are additional considerations here. It really pays to think before taking that first bourbon.
keiths said:
It’s an analogy that describes the metaphysical position. It’s not a claim. There is far more going on than a simple “diving suit” interface. Beyond that analogy, which I think is probably suitable for both KF’s and my views, I’m sure my concept of what is going on greatly diverges from KF’s.
In my worldview, the mind and soul are two different things, and the mind is an incredibly complex and multi-layered phenomena that operates both at a local and non-local level. The soul is an observing intention; the mind, on one level, interprets that intention and then on another manifests a subject/context relationship to serve that intention. On another level, it “inhabits” the localized subjective perspective. The body is a physical tool expressly generated for the realization of the fundamental intention (divine purpose).
The best analogy for my this (in my worldview) is dreaming, where a sort of super/subconscious creates an experience full of avatar representations in what appears to be a physical context. You can dream that you are someone or something else; you can dream from a third-party perspective. You can dream that you have various disabilities, even mental ones. You can dream that you have trouble communicating or performing actions in your dream. Because the avatar in your dream has certain conditions doesn’t mean that the awake you has those conditions. If in my dream I am drunk, does that mean that in my waking state I must be drunk? Of course not.
There is far more to it than I can quickly describe (again, IMO, according to my metaphysics, not according to what I can prove to anyone). The mind is capable of generating all sorts of subject/context relationships in its attempt to serve the divine intention. It can inhabit multiple physical bodies; it can generate physical bodies that act without what appears to be an individuated mind (what I used to call biological automatons.)
So, why do people get drunk, suffer from psychosis, dementia, etc? Because that is what the interpretation & manifestation level of mind generates to be the experience of the “lower” individuated mind (that houses/generates personality, thoughts, dreams, ideas, desires, etc. as product of the higher intention) that we refer to as the individual personality; or, in other cases, generates a biological automaton with those apparent conditions so that other individuals can experience such situational context to serve a divine intention.
IOW, such manifested situations serve a higher intended purpose. We give up, to some degree, some of our operational freedoms when we come here, just as one gives up some of their operational freedom when they sit in the seat of a roller-coaster ride “for the experience”, or when they get on an airplane because they want to get somewhere.
Furthermore, I don’t consider “reality” to be the same for everyone who experiences. I may experience my mother having dementia; that doesn’t mean there is any “soul” in my mother experiencing dementia/alzheimers. If there was another mind personality playing the part of my mother in my reality matrix, she may or may not still be participating.
The usual concepts of reality, soul, mind and body do not apply to my worldview, which is why so many of the challenges and objections here do not apply, and why it is difficult to explain to those who may be intent of framing my statements within a more traditional standard set of concepts, and insist that my answers fit such preconceived notions.
You and Rien Poortvliet would have been great friends. You think up this stuff, he does the illustrations; pure magic.
Seriously, you now have defined two separate identities on top of that which we can readily observe: a mind and a soul. And a whole slew of rules about their interaction to allow for their participation in conscious behaviour. How much more can we expect?
And, if judgement appears impaired (through illness, alcohol, or whatever), what is causing it? Is the soul afflicted? Is the mind? Or is it just the body? What happens to soul and mind if somebody is knocked unconscious? Do other animals have such immaterial components to their consciousness as well? Do Great Apes have souls and minds? What is the substrate for this soul/mind complex? What properties of this substrate allow it its computational and storage functions? And, most importantly: can we use this substrate for military purposes?
Gralgrathor asks:
One might ask the same about biology or cosmology. Would you expect an examination of spiritual existence to be less deep than it is in those other directions?
The difference being that biology and cosmology usually start exploring explanatory devices if and when it is conclusively determined that known principles cannot account for what we observe. No such rule seems to apply to your speculations. Moreover, such explanatory devices are usually constrained by what we could already conclusively say about reality and verify through observations (eg. “dark matter”, if it exists, isn’t going to violate the laws of conservation of mass/energy or special relativity). Again, no such constraints seem to apply to your speculations.
But, for now, why don’t we allow such lliberties, and concentrate on a more rigorous definition of what you propose. Let’s start with the following questions:
If judgement appears impaired (through illness, alcohol, or whatever), what is causing it? Is the soul afflicted? Is the mind? Or is it just the body? What happens to soul and mind if somebody is knocked unconscious? Do other animals have such immaterial components to their consciousness as well? Do Great Apes have souls and minds? What is the substrate for this soul/mind complex? What properties of this substrate allow it its computational and storage functions? And, most importantly: can we use this substrate for military purposes?
But then there are as many worldviews as there are people! Both you and KF cannot both be right! But you seem to have no way of determining who is on the right track as there is literally nothing you can do to work that out. All you can do is preface, as you have done here, your claims with “IMO, according to my metaphysics, not according to what I can prove to anyone)”
So, why should anybody listen to either of you about any of this? You could sit in a room for a billion years discussing it and not come to any conclusions you could explain to a 3rd party about the ultimate nature of reality as neither of you has any basis to show the other is wrong.
Harsh but fair! 🙂
William,
If your assertions are based on a bogus metaphysics that you can’t justify, then why make categorical statements like the following?
Why not preface that by saying “I have no idea if any of this is true, and there’s no reason for you to take me seriously, but I like the way it makes me feel”?
Where did I say anyone should listen to me? Apparently, people do read what I write here, and respond and ask questions. Perhaps you should ask them why they read what I write and respond to it and ask questions.
+1
That’s not what I said. I asked why should anyone listen to you, not that you have said they should. Quite different. Feel free to make any claim or say anything you like. But likewise I will feel free to note that both you and KF cannot be right and likewise you will no doubt continue to ignore that salient fact.
Is there such a thing as a fair die or not?
I’m trying to understand, given competing metaphysics, why one person should be listened to over another from their POV and how they internally resolve such conflicts. What I’m hearing so far is that they don’t care about doing that, each to their own (AKA anything but Darwinism). Which is fine by me.
Your +1 is based on Williams misunderstanding of my statement. Which is also fine.
But perhaps you could say who you find more convincing and why – KF or WJM?
OMagain,
Let me interject and say I read OM as specifically referring to dualism. William has said some sensible things on other matters. Yoghurt, for instance. I’m sourcing the heat pads, W.
As far as I know, there’s no particular reason anyone should listen to me.
Ah come on, William. Just exchanging ideas is worth it.
I admit it was ambiguous; in fact, my +1 was for Williams statement saying he could not explain/was not the person to ask why anyone would reply to him, given his philosophy. Of course, many seem to have more patience for exchanges with him than me.
I don’t find anything KF says worth reading. I use to enjoy WJM and KN’s exchanges, and I still admire WJM’s energy, but for me the conversations with him are now going in circles.
You, like everybody else, can generate original, unique insight into reality. We’re all starting from the same place.
Not that I’m saying you have done that, just that if you are looking for a reason, there it is. Everyone has the same reason to be listened to. When you have nothing new to say, most people won’t bother to respond and this all ends.
When I’m satisfied that I have made you say all I think you should explicitly say/admit about your worldview, then I too will stop responding to you. We’re not that far from that now, even though I thought I’d been there once or twice already.
In the meanwhile, is there such a thing as a demonstrably fair die?
I give WJM credit for espousing his view in what I’m sure would be considered a “hostile” environment by many, but this is tempered by his avoidance of certain issues. For example, the statement was made that mutations are random wrt the environment. WJM responds this the randomness of such not been demonstrated, and notes that asserting it is not demonstrating it. Yet when pressed on this (e.g. is there such a thing as a fair die) he simply ignores it, despite it directly bearing on a claim he has made. He cannot answer it, he knows it, but I will badger him until he does and admits the logical consequences that flow from his other claims.
OMagain, I don’t think William is going to answer that die question until keit answers my questions about what posts of mine he’d seen before repeatedly saying I wanted more moderation.
And why should he?–What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
I’m also curious how one can know that some behavior “requires a genetic explanation” if one doesn’t know what an explanation is. Finally, I’d like to know if a certain poster’s obno behavior here is genetically explicable–whatever that means, exactly.
Why should he? Well it might force him to think about things in a more consilient way. All things are connected. One claim in one area has consequences in related areas.
And if that’s his reason for not answering the question, well, how very convenient. But AFAIK he’s not said that.
I completely agree with you, OMagain. All these questions should be answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Aw-shucks, TSZ’s fetish ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory is there too (along with Dawkins’ ‘memetics!’). = )
I’m curious, Gregory. Do you believe in an immaterial soul? If so, how do you reconcile it with the video in the OP?
walto,
If you’re going to fan the flames of your obsession, could you at least do it in the appropriate threads? Neither of your ‘complaints’ has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Already addressed. Also, I don’t think William is particularly concerned with your obsessive quest.
Well, if you can find someone who believes the former without knowing the latter, then ask him or her.
Your obsession is leading you around by the nose, walto. You’ve even reduced yourself to the grade school tactic of deliberately misspelling my name, as if that could somehow harm me.
I just finished your book, which is filled front to back with exhortations to meditate. Yet you’ve described yourself as a ‘duffer’ when it comes to meditation — someone who only uses the Relaxation Response as a sleep aid.
Why not follow your own advice and give meditation a serious try? Go for a technique that involves mindfulness as well as concentration. It will help with the impulsiveness and the uncontrolled anger.
If the thought of accepting a suggestion from me engenders resistance, then just tell yourself that you already knew that meditation was a good idea and didn’t need that poopy-head ‘keit’ to tell you that.
(And if that suggestion engenders resistance, then you’ll need to find a way to get over yourself.)
Your obsession isn’t making you happy, walto. Why cling to it?
What is Walto’s book? I may wish to partake.
Richard,
The Perennial Solution Center
Wow more lies, keit. You should get help for that. (“Already addressed” is hilarious though. It’s not “addressing” someone’s question to answer some other stuff that you happen to prefer. I guess I’ll have to add “address” to “dismiss” and “explanation” in the list of words you apparently don’t understand.)
And as for your name, I’ve asked you what it actually is so I can get it right, but that’s just one more question of mine you haven’t answered (I’m pretty sure it’s not “keiths”).
Finally, it’s nice that you worry about me. I’d worry about you if you weren’t such a shmuck. Others might too!
Richard, getting a characterization of my book from keit (or whatever his name is) is extremely dangerous. He likes to misrepresent things for weird self-gratificational purposes. Not sure why he gets such a kick from lying on the internet, but I guess some people just do.
I actually DID find someone who fills that bill, if you can believe it! His name is keit or something along those lines, and he posts right here!! I asked this keit fellow what an explanation is, and he really has no idea whatever! But….get this….he nevertheless just knows what does and what doesn’t require a genetic one!!! (I know, I know, it’s almost too silly to believe, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Than lies too!)
Easy there Walto. All he did was provide a link. Deflate your hard on.
William J. Murray,
Making stuff up is fun.
Richard, to William:
This is classic Williamese:
Shorter William: People get drunk, or suffer from Alzheimer’s, because God wants them to.
It works* for him!
*For very low and subjective values of works.
‘My reality matrix’ was top ChopraWoo though. A solid 9/10.
Damn, walto. Keep this up and your impotent rage will consume you from within, like an ichneumonid.
Allow me to quote from your book:
What happened to the walto who wrote that a decade ago? Did something go wrong, or was it just a fantasy even then?
Rabi is often annoying, actually, as his visitors sometimes realize. You must have missed that or merely read the last page. Better read it again.
Also, keit, as you seem concerned about this, I’d honestly find it much more calming, if you’d tell the truth occasionally when people disagree with you, instead of preaching to others about how they should react when you lie about this or that. You take care of you. That’d be best.
Keiths incorrectly paraphrases:
No, that’s not what it means. The interpretation/manifestation level is not god per se (not any more than a rock or a tree is god per se). You, keiths, should know this had you read the book of mine you haved (Instant Enlightenment) and understood it. Under the section “What are we?” starting on page 3, where I detail the difference between the primary “you”, which is the pure observer intent, and the secondary “you”, which is generated by the I/M level of the mind. In any regular use of the terms, I never said or implied that “god wants you to get drunk or have alzheimers”, nor meant anything of the sort.
I don’t think the term “god wants” has any rational meaning. In my view, god is already everything and every experience that could possibly exist, and so there is nothing for god per se to “want”.
Drunkeness is something many people willingly seek out, so we will focus on alzheimers. Does any individual consciously desire to have alzheimers? Let’s say not. So, how does my metaphysics account for the fact that many people do have alzheimers?
1) Nobody may actually be experiencing alzheimers, because not all physical entities that we call humans have a locus of consciousness (biological automatons).
2) If there is a consciousness active in an alzheimer’s patient, we don’t know what they are experiencing – we only know our own mental state in reaction to what we see. We don’t know if the experience inside an alzheimers consciousness is that much different from our own experience, or our experience in a dream state. My mom, for example, seems quite happy and content most of the time.
Now, for example, if a person intends to not have to work, to have others care for them night and day, and want to be happy and free from worldly concerns, it may be that having alzheimers puts them in that state. As I said, we don’t know what having alzheimers would be like from the inside out in any particular case, we only know how we interpret/experience it from the outside looking in.
In my books and in common manifestation literature, the technique of programming the subconscious is often referred to in some terminology or other. Our subconscious is like a huge experience-generating machine which can be programmed consciously over time. I compare it to lucid dreaming; I. the dreamer, the intentional observer, becomes aware in the dream that I am dreaming. I then focus on what it is I want to experience in the dream, and the experience of the dream restructures itself (even though I still do not have total control). Over time and with certain techniques, I can become better at lucid dreaming, and exert better interactions in my dream-state experiences.
You can actually program your mind to guide your dream experiences. Manifestation techniques are based on the assumption that you can also program your mind to guide your “real life” experiences.
Out of interest, what is it that makes the primary “you” necessary in the first place? What is it that prompts you to think this is the way it is?
And furthermore, could that “primary” you also have it’s own “secondary” and “primary” you’s, i.e. is it “you’s” all the way down?
Is it just your need that that this is not all there is or something else?
OMagain asks:
I didn’t say it was necessary. I don’t claim it’s true. It’s a way of conceiving the manifesting process/structure usefully.
I don’t think “it’s the way it is”. It is a useful (to me) conceptualization for (apparently) manifesting an enjoyable experience as a good (enough) person because it seems to work.
It could have any number of things. It could be something completely other than how I organize it in my mind. What it actually is is of no interest to me. Whether or not a particular conceptualization appears to help me acquire my goals is what matters to me.
I don’t need it to be anything. I conceptualize models and see if they work in my experience. If they work, I use them. If they do not, I ditch or change them.
I’m describing/explaining my views, not making a case that they actually represent reality.
William, to me, it sounds like what you are doing is tantamount to reporting a strange dream. You often seem to be arguing, but when asked for support for any of your apparent claims, you deny that you are making any claims. If you have no evidence for anything you say, indeed aren’t even claiming that a single bit of it is true, how can anything you write have any more interest than fiction? And if that’s the case, it should be judged as fiction.
In my own view, it makes an uninteresting batch of short stories. There’s little to hold anybody’s interest, there’s no apparent interest in consistency, the plotting is poor, and characterizations are shallow.
Faulkner it ain’t. Just my two cents.
walto said:
I have consistently explained and reiterated that I’m making no factual claims about reality. That others forget this (or ignore it) the second I don’t provide lengthy and obtrusive qualifications in front of every term or phrase isn’t my problem.
What others outside of my family & friends are interested or not interested in isn’t on my list of concerns.
keiths:
William:
I’ll let you fight it out with yourself. It’s right there in your comment:
Then why are you posting?
walto,
Come on, walto. As Rabi’s speech ends, so does the book:
You’re free to disown the finale of your book, but there it is.