Only three Theories explain the Relation between our Soul and Matter

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Many asked: Is there a soul? If yes, what is its nature and how does it relate to our material world? And what is matter?
Only three theories give possible answers to these questions:

(A) There is no soul and all that is is matter (classic atheism).
(B) A supernatural soul hallucinates the material world and the material world does not really exist, i.e. in form of a substance (visualization theory).
(C) A supernatural soul connects with the material world whereby soul and matter were two different forms of substance (dualism).

One of the main issues I have with B is that it smacks of human projection. It assumes the human mind is somehow the very foundation of the entire universe, which is just nonsensical. It's disrespectful towards other humans and living beings, imagining that they're all fakes and only your mind is real.

I'm going with C. In philosophy, dualism is seen as problematic because how can you have the material and the immaterial, and how do they work together? Many spiritual people seem to think it is problematic too. For me it isn't. I simply do not know how the two interact, they coexist but are separate.

[wstein]

Only 3 huh? Seems a rather narrow perspective.

4. This is a simulation, both soul and matter just a programming constructs.
5. Both the soul and matter are emergent interactive properties of a more fundamental reality, each affects the other but is not fully the source of the other.
6. both soul and matter are part of a 'hallucination' by some other type of being.
7. both soul and matter are part of a fictional story and have whatever attributes and relation the author decides they do in this volume.
8. both soul and matter are labels of convenience to refer to attributes of a holistic system but do not represent actual parts of that system.
9 ....

I think you get the idea

[BigJohn]

.............. we may have been living our whole lives in a dream state.

[r6r6]

Siemens--Many asked: Is there a soul?

Soul { } is synomynous with biological i.e. all biologicals { } are a soul.


D} are natural, yet also a synergetic resultant of Universe/God.

There are no further possibilities.

(Terminology: With soul I refere to the thing outlasts our physical body.)

This is the first error humans make with the term soul { }.


What exists outside ergo beyond our occupied space soul/biological and spirit-2 { fermions and bosoons } is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.


EX concepts of soul spirit, Universe, God, Dogs, Cats, Automobiles, Chocolater Ice Cream.


Occupied space reality has mass, spin, charge etc,

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts have no mass, charged spin, properties.



All occupied space Universe/God, fermions, bosons are complemented by a set of metaphysical-1, shape, pattern, geometry { dynamic and static }.

Gravity and Dark Energy are metaphysical- 2 and 3, but they do occupy space. They exist as what is called the fabric-of-space is Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )(.


Gravity and Dark Energy, unlike fermions and bosons, have never been quantised or quantified.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

One of the main issues I have with B is that it smacks of human projection. It assumes the human mind is somehow the very foundation of the entire universe, which is just nonsensical.

There is nothing nonsensical with the idea that the whole universe is just a projection of the mind! And if B were the case the material universe wouldn’t be the product of just one person but rather a collectively generated dream. If a handful of computer programmers are able to program virtual 3D worlds in animation films like Shrek, Avatar,... within a couple of years, then it's clear that souls – who exist eternal – can program even greater worlds. Just as great like the world we live in now.

Originally Posted by Altair

It's disrespectful towards other humans and living beings, imagining that they're all fakes and only your mind is real.

This isn’t a necessary consequence of the theory. I indeed do not believe that I am the only creature that exists. I rather think that we dream our world collectively. The planet earth might be a global multiplayer computer game.

Originally Posted by Altair

I'm going with C. In philosophy, dualism is seen as problematic because how can you have the material and the immaterial, and how do they work together? Many spiritual people seem to think it is problematic too. For me it isn't. I simply do not know how the two interact, they coexist but are separate.

Give just one reason that makes C more likely than B.

I assume you have non because you – like most people – do not base your convictions on rationality and logic but on wishful thinking.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by neil

Or we are here, so that we can create offspring. Is anyone aware that we were created to be capable of creating children in our own essence.

Creating offspring is just one out of many games we play in material worlds. The value of creating offspring lies in the experience it provides: family.

Originally Posted by neil

"Soooo" why are we here on this planet, instead of starting life, without the flesh & the organic.

We chose this experience just because it is an interesting alternative to life without flesh & the organic. The flesh-experience enables new kinds of development and fun compared to the non-flesh experiences.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

There is nothing nonsensical with the idea that the whole universe is just a projection of the mind!

The height of human arrogance. And what happens when we remove your brain or were to remove all self-conscious beings? The cracker is: the universe would still exist. Reality is there regardless of whether a thinking creature exists or not. If a fully convinced solipsist dies the world still goes on.

Originally Posted by Siemens

I assume you have non because you – like most people – do not base your convictions on rationality and logic but on wishful thinking.

It got nothing to do with ''wishful thinking'', but going by that I'm not really motivated to share any details.

Also, if you want to be rational and logical here, than only option A would make sense. B is nonsensical and most irrational. Where I'm coming from, matter and spirit are profoundly different yet they interact. The how and why is not something I can answer.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by wstein

Only 3 huh? Seems a rather narrow perspective.

4. This is a simulation, both soul and matter just a programming constructs.
5. Both the soul and matter are emergent interactive properties of a more fundamental reality, each affects the other but is not fully the source of the other.
6. both soul and matter are part of a 'hallucination' by some other type of being.


7. both soul and matter are part of a fictional story and have whatever attributes and relation the author decides they do in this volume.
8. both soul and matter are labels of convenience to refer to attributes of a holistic system but do not represent actual parts of that system.

I think you get the idea

You do not really offer new possibilities.

Your (4) says: There is a meta-system that creates our consciousness and matter.
What is the difference between (4) and (B)?

Your (6) says: There is a meta-system that creates our consciousness and matter.
What is the difference between (6) and (B)?

Your (7) doesn’t provide any technical explanation. Who writes the story? How is it implemented? What is the technical source of our consciousness resp. soul? How is matter generated?
The same is true for your (8).

In the best case, I consider your (5) to deserve an extra point but we already had that discussion, see first page of this thread. I'm not totally sure but also this point could probably be subsumed under (A) if reformulated (see first page of this thread).

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

The height of human arrogance. And what happens when we remove your brain or were to remove all self-conscious beings? The cracker is: the universe would still exist.

Yes, I didn’t deny that. It would still exist because there were still other users that play the simulated game.

Originally Posted by Altair

Reality is there regardless of whether a thinking creature exists or not. If a fully convinced solipsist dies the world still goes on.

The same again: It would still exist because there were still other creatures dreaming the planet earth.

Originally Posted by Altair

only option A would make sense. B is nonsensical and most irrational.

You are the one who is irrational. Give me one conclusive argument that makes A more likely than B.
Indeed B is the most likely one and A the unlikeliest – from a mathematical perspective.

[EdmundJohnstone]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Dawkins is, like all atheists, an ignorant. Atheists use this: “I don’t believe in Atheism, I just refuse to not believe in souls or god. Therefore Atheism isn’t a believe but a form of knowing.”-argument. But this argument is faulty.

Interesting, why do you think it's a faulty argument?

Number of Atheists is increasing as there is no accepted evidence for what is spirit and if there is such thing. "We live in 21st century and Robots will soon become like human and take over", they have their empirical proof that humans are just their brains. You'll here from atheists that the term of soul is not accepted as proof, it's just a mere theoretical concept of wishful thinking of those that fear death and cling on to something and hope that there is something after death. Heard some even saying "Do insects also have this soul? What about bacteria and virus, do they have soul?". "How should expect grandmother that died of Alzheimer complication to remember everything after she died?".

For Atheists, there was the Big bang, the Universe was created by this chance, life emerged by chance on this planet starting with bacteria, evolving into marine life then earthly life, and finally flying species. The apes ancestor evolved into humans. What atheists would say is that after we die that's the end as before being born, as it was 13.8 billion years ago, that there is no purpose, life being meaningless. Some atheists just don't want to live anymore after they die, what will be their fate then?

Originally Posted by Siemens

If you ask yourself the question: Is it more likely that what we perceive as matter is
A) a “substance-ish” ultimate reality or
B) a virtual visualization generated inside our souls just like a dream?
What would you answer?

I think, you would say A is more likely. But from an objective and mathematical view this isn’t the case! B is at least as likely as A. If you disagree try to find at least one argument that makes A more likely than B.

The only argument for A to be more likely than B would be: A is empirical proved, as stated before with brain damage, and not recalling how it was before being born (The void), and all Spiritual experiences explained as brain hallucinations or charlatans, as there is no tested evidence, nobody really came from the actual death long enough to say that something is out there.

Originally Posted by Siemens

The empirical data you presented, the correlation between brain damage and loss of consciousness or memories, can appear in both theories. Of course, if the brain were just a virtual construct, it wouldn’t do anything. But it could be part of the game that you loose consciousness if someone hits you on your head. So this brain damages fit perfectly in both theories: A and B! (I myself understand the brain as a kind of a projection (a mock-up) that reconstructs what’s going on in our soul.)

Nothing left to say here. Some say we are the brain and consciousness is brain created and some say brain is just a receiver and consciousness is the signal. I explained why most people think we are brain because of empirical evidence: Alzheimer, brain damage, not recalling past lives, or how it was before being born, everything else being hallucination (Talking with spirits, NDE, etc), such that ancient people invented those Gods, mythological creatures (kraken as they probably saw octopus, or dragon as they probably saw a lizard) and stories as they couldn't explain phenomena.

Originally Posted by Siemens

You can reverse this argument 100%. -> There is no need to believe that matter in form of a substance exists. All we perceive as matter, the whole universe, can be explained in terms of an virtual visualization generated inside our soul. The only things that really exist are our souls. Isn’t this theory at least as frugal as Atheism?

I guess so. For a materialist if they can't see it, well it's not there, if it's not there it doesen't exist, it's just imagination like Santa Claus and his raindeer, or as Tinkerbell in Peter Pan.

Originally Posted by Siemens

Why is it easier? -> Reversion: The theory that matter exists (as real existing substance) is a fairy tale.

Because we can sense matter, everything else could be our brain filling in the gap with hallucinations. You'll often hear that science can provide better explanation with proof rather than stories.