Only three Theories explain the Relation between our Soul and Matter

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:

Short of banging my head against a brick wall, you're still using your egoic mind and reasoning to understand something that's beyond the egoic mind.

Originally Posted by Siemens

(A) There is no soul and all that is is matter (classic atheism).

Classic materialism - the root word being material, as in matter. Not atheism at all.

Originally Posted by Siemens

(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).

In the pecking order supernatural means above/beyond nature or the natural order of things, more often applied to witchcraft, ghosts, demons etc. Still physical and able to interact with matter. The Soul (if we have one) is metaphysical which means above physical/matter/energy, so above supernatural too. The Soul itself has no direct interaction with physical matter, again it's epiphenomenal in the same way consciousness is. The Soul is an individuated aspect of consciousness.
The material world is not hallucinated, hallucinations are a false reality and the material world is very real. High place - jump - splat. Actually the word 'hallucination' is contradictory to many Spiritual teachings that say we create our own reality. What hallucinations people have is reality to them, and please don't tell me you know differently. The material word is emergent of consciousness, which, by the way, means Spirituality is backwards. Genesis (plus a few more creation myths) and quantum theory agree.

Originally Posted by Siemens

(C) A supernatural soul connects with the material world whereby soul and matter were two different forms of substance (dualism).

The Soul is metaphysical and epiphomenonal, you're talking phenomenon here. And no connection, directly anyway. Dualism is not about substances it's a way of thinking. Dualism is good vs bad, Light vs Dark and so on. Theism vs atheism. A different substance is a different substance as much as your backside is not Dualism with the chair.

Originally Posted by Siemens

These three theories give answers to the nature of our soul, matter, and the relationship between.

They're built on flawed premises the same as your other threads of the same vein.

Originally Posted by Siemens

All religions and theories that explain the universe are just variations, e.g. Christianity = dualism C. There are no further possibilities.

The closest you've been so far, but no cigar. Every person on the planet has their own unique perception of the Universe and although there will be some consensus of opinion, they remain unique. There are as many answers as there are people. And cats, and dogs. And my cheese plant.

Originally Posted by Siemens

2 Questions:

Originally Posted by Siemens

1) A, B, and C are not all equally likely. So, how high do you estimate the likelihood of each of them, and why? In sum you have to get 100%.
My own guess:
A ~ 0
B ~ 70%
C ~ 30%

None of the above.

Originally Posted by Siemens

2) In the case of C and B: How are they realized technically?

In you case, this thread for starters.

Originally Posted by Siemens

How does the soul connect to matter in theory C, and where does soul-enwraping matter come from?

It doesn't. Matter doesn wrap consciousness, consciousness is 'above' matter.

Originally Posted by Siemens

How does visualization work in theory B - and if matter is an visualization, is the soul a computer?

Computers and your brain both work with digitised bits of information, and that's obvious in Spirituality. Also known as Dualism - which Spirituality often is ny the way. If you're going to use a computer analogy, the physical mechanism (senses/brain/etc) is the computer and the Soul is the user with his/her/its backside in the chair. The information the user is processing is an individual's reality.

Originally Posted by Siemens

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

In part, yes, but remember that the Soul came before the body.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

@Siemens; Your beliefs rest on the assumption that the world is a dream. Have you any evidence of this? No you do not.

You accuse me of saying things I never said. Look what I wrote yesterday:

Originally Posted by Siemens

...And I never said that I have the proof that we live in a dream-world. I just said it is at least as likely as dualism...

Neither do I believe that we live in a virtual reality – I just say there is a certain likelihood – nor does this estimated likelihood base on assumptions lacking any evidence. There indeed is evidence that the likelihood for us living in a virtual reality is above 50%. (I’ll talk about this later).



At the moment I ask myself if we just talk past each other or if you are somehow... mentally fixed, in the stubborn sense of the word. We had a discussion about pleasure weeks ago where I already noted that you have problems accepting differing views.

Independently of how likely you think it is, can you at least imagine that we theoretically live in a world that is a virtual reality? Or would you say there is at least one argument that rules it out?

Originally Posted by Altair

Mars and Venus ... were already there before animals were, or even conscious ones that can see these planets, i.e. us. Things can simply exist independently of your or a human mind.

Here again your problematic way of reasoning. Look at the second sentence; you say:
“Things can simply exist independently of your or a human mind.”
I never denied that. Some things indeed can exist without the human mind.

But you can’t derive logically that
EVERYTHING can exist independently of the human mind
from the premise that
SOME things can exist independently of the human mind.
Don’t you see that?

Then look at the first sentence; you say:
“Mars and Venus ... were already there before animals were, or even conscious ones that can see these planets, i.e. us.”
Circular reasoning again. Why do you know that mars is anything else than a product of visualization or a dreamed mars?

+ read also what inavalan wrote yesterday, see post below.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by inavalan

[Altair,] How do you know?

If you had this discussion in one of your dreams, what would you think about that now, when you're awake? Is the "material" world form your dream material, made of "material substance"?

How do you know you aren't now in a dream of an "awake" you?

This is totally true!

Originally Posted by Altair

Things exist independently of any separate individual's mind. It doesn't take a perceiver in order for a planet to exist.

There are all kinds of philosophical answers to this, including the one about the branch falling of the tree making a sound or not. The key words are as you say - "separate individual's mind".

There's a consciousness loop going on. Matter is emergent of consciousness - the Bible, quantum theory; consciousness is re-emergent of matter - going from Spiritual zeroes to Spiritual heroes by reading books and arguing in forums. Everything else is 'processing the data' with our own faculties, also known as creating our own realities.

As Alan Watts said, "If you are Spiritual you are God playing at being not-God."

Originally Posted by inavalan

How do you know?

If you had this discussion in one of your dreams, what would you think about that now, when you're awake? Is the "material" world form your dream material, made of "material substance"?

How do you know you aren't now in a dream of an "awake" you?

Don't stop there, you're on a roll kiddo.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Neither do I believe that we live in a virtual reality – I just say there is a certain likelihood – nor does this estimated likelihood base on assumptions lacking any evidence. There indeed is evidence that the likelihood for us living in a virtual reality is above 50%. (I’ll talk about this later).

''Above 50%''

I think you're just conjuring up numbers here...

Originally Posted by Siemens

At the moment I ask myself if we just talk past each other or if you are somehow... mentally fixed, in the stubborn sense of the word. We had a discussion about pleasure weeks ago where I already noted that you have problems accepting differing views.

No, I do not recall that discussion. It's also not relevant to this thread.
Calling me stubborn and ''having problems'' doesn't make your argument in favour of your dreamworld any more real either!

Originally Posted by Siemens

Independently of how likely you think it is, can you at least imagine that we theoretically live in a world that is a virtual reality? Or would you say there is at least one argument that rules it out?

We live in a ''virtual reality''? No, I can't see that happening..
I'm not a video game character, but suit yourself..

Originally Posted by Siemens

Here again your problematic way of reasoning. Look at the second sentence; you say:
“Things can simply exist independently of your or a human mind.”
I never denied that. Some things indeed can exist without the human mind.

I think you said otherwise before, but I cba to re-read every post here..

Originally Posted by Siemens

But you can’t derive logically that
EVERYTHING can exist independently of the human mind
from the premise that
SOME things can exist independently of the human mind.
Don’t you see that?

I gave examples of planets, I don't recall saying everything exists independently of the human mind..
One Our mental states of being obviously can't.

Originally Posted by Siemens

Why do you know that mars is anything else than a product of visualization or a dreamed mars?

Because it was there before humans existed. The fact that you observe it, call it Mars, and have that image in your head doesn't mean humans created Mars. The other part above I quoted is where you said some things do exist without a human mind. It seems to me you're not that convinced either way. Take your time reviewing them.

[Siemens]

Fine, I got you! Here is the point where you start eschewing questions:

I asked

Originally Posted by Siemens

Independently of how likely you think it is, can you at least imagine that we theoretically live in a world that is a virtual reality?

You answered:

Originally Posted by Altair

No, I can't see that happening. I'm not a video game character.

What does “I can’t see that happening mean”?

I did not ask if you can see or have that proof that we are part of a virtual world. I also didn't ask if you believe that we live in a virtual reality.
I asked: Do you think that it is theoretically possible that we live in a virtual reality?

So I ask you again: Is it theoretically possible that you are in a dream right now?

Originally Posted by Altair

The other part above I quoted is where you said some things do exist without a human mind. It seems to me you're not that convinced either way. Take your time reviewing them.

I already said three times that I do not definitely believe that we live in a dream-world. I just consider that it could be the case. I said the likelihood is above 50%.

Originally Posted by Altair

The fact that you observe it, call it Mars, and have that image in your head doesn't mean humans created Mars.

The fact that you can observe Mars and call it Mars doesn't mean that Mars is something that exists outside your mind? Does if? Can’t you observe a dreamt version of Mars in your dreams?

[EdmundJohnstone]

Originally Posted by Siemens

You mean what or where Atheists will be after death? They will be what we all will be: Souls in the beyond. Outside of what we perceive as the material world.

Most atheists would defend A as it would be the easiest to explain as there is just material proof out there.
I heard some atheists just want to be dead and gone after they die, what will happen to them then?

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

I heard some atheists just want to be dead and gone after they die, what will happen to them then?

I already answerd your question (see post #52).

[EdmundJohnstone]

Originally Posted by Siemens

I already answerd your question (see post #52).

I had a look. So you saying that they will still exist despite them not wanting to? Like they will be forced to live on after death?