A logical argument for the soul...

[Surrealist]

Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think. 1. Thought cannot experience thought. 2. Our minds experience thought. 3. Therefore our minds are not thought. A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts. B. Since our minds are not thought... C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts... D. ...then our minds are not only physical. Now to expound on what each one means a little further... now that you see what the conclusion from it all is. 1. Thought, in the way I use it here, means your internal monologue that happens as you think through things... particularly they mean the electronic impulses that get interpreted by your brain as that monologue(and not the monologue itself). Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument. 2. This is a no-brainer... you must experience thought... if you didn't, then you wouldn't even know that you're thinking. Simple enough. 3. This one is a little more complex. Because thought can't experience thought, but you do experience thought, that means that your mind(the observing "you" that I'm talking about) isn't made of thought. This is a solid, logical conclusion from 1 and 2. Believe me... I took logic courses and was the teachers pet... ha ha... A. This is basically stating what scientists collectively believe nowadays... They say that all that is you is just the result of electronic impulses in your brain. Your thoughts are electronic impulses... and even the illusion that "you" are "you" and that "you" observe these thoughts is just made of electronic impulses. The thoughts manipulating thoughts means that when you think about something, and come to a conclusion that makes you angry, then your thoughts are manipulating (causing to change) your thoughts. This is what scientists say... that your mind is just a closed loop, which never really changes based on your will... your will is just an illusion brought upon by thought, which is just purely physical. So basically what they are saying is that only thoughts manipulate or change your thoughts... no new thoughts are created without being created by previous thoughts. Think about it... if a new thought popped into your head without a previous brain-chemical reaction that caused it, where did it come from? Not your brain of course... so this is what scientists are backed into a corner into saying. B. This is reiterating 3 to make it flow a little better. C. Now this is the most controversial of them all. Quantum dynamics says that merely the act of observing something causes it to be changed (and hence manipulated). We've come to the conclusion that every single person alive observes their thoughts (or I at least hope so)... so everyone alive manipulates their thoughts just by observing them. Of course... people do this in other ways... I mean, but that is the controversial aspect. You can't observe thoughts without having the choice to change them or follow them... hence you are constantly manipulating your thoughts. D. Now... since scientists say that only your brain[thoughts] influences your brain[thoughts] (i.e. your brain is a closed system), but our minds (which are not thoughts) can influence our thoughts... then the scientists assumption that the mind is purely physical is false... and our minds have a non-physical aspect. Hope you've enjoyed this mind(ha ha)-bending thought experiment... comments are appreciated.

[roguext22]

wrong statements.. but i greet you very much that you analize.. it helps you to understand more and more.. rather than to ask for others lol.. for answers..

[Surrealist]

wrong statements.. but i greet you very much that you analize.. it helps you to understand more and more.. rather than to ask for others lol.. for answers.. I implore that you expound on what you mean by "wrong statements..." as I am very curious. Dissent is appreciated as with negative and criticizing remarks. I ask that, if you do not agree with the argument to explain why. Understanding doesn't just come from thinking on your own, as you know, but also by understanding other's positions on what you have thought.

[roguext22]

the more you analize it by yourself..the more you get better understanding ( point of view ) I was analizing about who am i.. and i have come to sweet understanding.. at least im happy with it..and its clear for me.. and i dont care what other thinks about it.. it begun with.. a = a ! ( its something like Thought cannot experience thought. ** like thought is not equal to though.. maybe ) then dog is a dog .. dog will always act, respond as a dog, he will never act as a cat..Even if lion will attack a dog, the dog run away as a dog, not like a cat.. and human being acts like a 1000 different people...one time he acts angry in that situation, hurts someone..then he thinks that he acted wrong..so he acts in same situation differently.. so human being is always different, in a change ( i will name it as a MAYBE he will change and become and act like a soul.. but its only notice.. ) human is like body who thinks and forgets everything..always..thats why he acts, responds differently always.. if he just find in some way that he is a soul... hm.. understood anything?

[Surrealist]

the more you analize it by yourself..the more you get better understanding ( point of view ) I was analizing about who am i.. and i have come to sweet understanding.. at least im happy with it..and its clear for me.. and i dont care what other thinks about it.. it begun with.. a = a ! ( its something like Thought cannot experience thought. ** like thought is not equal to though.. maybe ) then dog is a dog .. dog will always act, respond as a dog, he will never act as a cat..Even if lion will attack a dog, the dog run away as a dog, not like a cat.. and human being acts like a 1000 different people...one time he acts angry in that situation, hurts someone..then he thinks that he acted wrong..so he acts in same situation differently.. so human being is always different, in a change ( i will name it as a MAYBE he will change and become and act like a soul.. but its only notice.. ) human is like body who thinks and forgets everything..always..thats why he acts, responds differently always.. if he just find in some way that he is a soul... hm.. understood anything? Yes... I understand. Most of what you said is just a small part of my original post. You have come to pretty much the same understanding as I have, but have not bothered to define every little bit of it and make a solid argument out of it.

[roguext22]

i read few more times your post.. well i must agree you are right in most of it.. my analizing is not to make argument that im right that soul exist..but to find how i can become a soul... I hate just to believe, so i dont believe in anything.. i take some believe as a maybe, and if i like that believe, i go to finding a way to experience, or understand, or become it.. but i prefer even more simple things.. like i wrote a = a so.. a soul is a soul.. and you are not a soul.. you are something of many...many different decisions for same situations, then your mood is different..

[Surrealist]

i read few more times your post.. well i must agree you are right in most of it.. ... so.. a soul is a soul.. and you are not a soul.. you are something of many...many different decisions for same situations, then your mood is different.. Well... why I can't agree with what you said is simple: you are saying that we are merely the product of many decisions we have made... all different in different circumstances, but all leading to the person you are now. I don't know if I don't agree with you, particularly because I can't tell whether or not you are speaking against free will or not. It seems you are, but I am not sure. So, I might or might not agree with you, but I find it hard to understand you fully. You descriptions seem ambiguous at times.

[Carôusoul]

Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think. 1. Thought cannot experience thought. 2. Our minds experience thought. 3. Therefore our minds are not thought. A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts. B. Since our minds are not thought... C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts... D. ...then our minds are not only physical. Now to expound on what each one means a little further... now that you see what the conclusion from it all is. 1. Thought, in the way I use it here, means your internal monologue that happens as you think through things... particularly they mean the electronic impulses that get interpreted by your brain as that monologue(and not the monologue itself). Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument. 2. This is a no-brainer... you must experience thought... if you didn't, then you wouldn't even know that you're thinking. Simple enough. 3. This one is a little more complex. Because thought can't experience thought, but you do experience thought, that means that your mind(the observing "you" that I'm talking about) isn't made of thought. This is a solid, logical conclusion from 1 and 2. Believe me... I took logic courses and was the teachers pet... ha ha... A. This is basically stating what scientists collectively believe nowadays... They say that all that is you is just the result of electronic impulses in your brain. Your thoughts are electronic impulses... and even the illusion that "you" are "you" and that "you" observe these thoughts is just made of electronic impulses. The thoughts manipulating thoughts means that when you think about something, and come to a conclusion that makes you angry, then your thoughts are manipulating (causing to change) your thoughts. This is what scientists say... that your mind is just a closed loop, which never really changes based on your will... your will is just an illusion brought upon by thought, which is just purely physical. So basically what they are saying is that only thoughts manipulate or change your thoughts... no new thoughts are created without being created by previous thoughts. Think about it... if a new thought popped into your head without a previous brain-chemical reaction that caused it, where did it come from? Not your brain of course... so this is what scientists are backed into a corner into saying. B. This is reiterating 3 to make it flow a little better. C. Now this is the most controversial of them all. Quantum dynamics says that merely the act of observing something causes it to be changed (and hence manipulated). We've come to the conclusion that every single person alive observes their thoughts (or I at least hope so)... so everyone alive manipulates their thoughts just by observing them. Of course... people do this in other ways... I mean, but that is the controversial aspect. You can't observe thoughts without having the choice to change them or follow them... hence you are constantly manipulating your thoughts. D. Now... since scientists say that only your brain[thoughts] influences your brain[thoughts] (i.e. your brain is a closed system), but our minds (which are not thoughts) can influence our thoughts... then the scientists assumption that the mind is purely physical is false... and our minds have a non-physical aspect. Hope you've enjoyed this mind(ha ha)-bending thought experiment... comments are appreciated. Define "Thought". Then we'll play.

[roguext22]

are you kidding? if you dont know and understand what the thought is..then i cant help you

[Carôusoul]

are you kidding? if you dont know and understand what the thought is..then i cant help you Are you kidding? I'm not. I understand what the dictionary and accepted definition of thought is. But I don't think that is quite what is being used here. I want to hear what the OP means by a thought in the context. For example he may already be asserting it is a non-physical entity, [among other possibilities] which is assertions on the premise, which could undermine his original argument, I need to know what he means by thought, because it means something different to everyone, it isn't as simple a definition as "chair". It isn't a matter of understanding anything, foo'.

[Surrealist]

Define "Thought". Then we'll play. I thought I had defined it pretty precisely in my OP, but... Thoughts in this context mean any electronic manifestation of your internal brain chemistry. Anything... whether it be an emotion, a "thought"(as in your internal monologue or what have you), or anything that your brain cooks up that gets jumbled around up there as a piece of electronic information. The statement A is exactly what most scientists believe nowadays... it fits exactly with their belief in naturalism. They believe that everything is caused by physical interaction... and that there is nothing that happens that can't be shown to have a natural cause. Therefore... what they extrapolate from that is that only thoughts(the electronic impulses in your brain) can manipulate thoughts(other impulses in your brain). This means that no matter how much you think that you are in control of yourself... you actually aren't, and everything you observe is just an illusion created by your brain and its chemistry. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a better word for you, but as you said... it matters not the word, but the meaning of the word as used in my context. "Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually knows that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he has money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money." EDIT: In effect... I've used the scientist's way of thinking to prove their way of thinking wrong, and in so doing, proving my theory correct... and all just by thinking about it and using cold, hard logic. I'm sure everyone's thought about this on these lines before(or so I hope), but many people don't like there to be a non-physical part to themselves... for whatever reasons they have.

[Surrealist]

I'm double-posting because I think that this is ridiculous. I've gotten two people to respond... one, a person who agrees with me anyways, and two, a person who clearly(based on posts in other threads) doesn't agree with me. The one that doesn't though hasn't responded since I last re-defined the terms that I've already defined... and I re-defined them exactly the same as they had been. What many people on here might not realize is, with this argument still standing, the soul isn't just a well-supported idea... it's a logical fact. I'm just surprised that I can't find anything like this on the Internet myself. Of course, there are some that are real similar, but all of those have really big logical holes in them. Now, while it might seem like I'm egging on you non-believers out there into some kind of flamewar, I'm really not. Your defense might be, "Well, he already 'knows' that there is a soul, so why even try to convince him otherwise?" This is all fine, except that it isn't the whole truth. While I might know that I'm right, that's just because I came up with this argument that has still remained unchallenged for almost 2 years in all the forums and blogs I've posted it in. The only reason I can think of why some skeptic hasn't shot it out of the sky yet is because they find that they can't. Can you? If you can, then put me out of my misery by slaughtering it right here, on this thread. It's not a matter of me winning or losing... I'm putting it up here to test it, to make sure that it is viable. I could really care less if somebody proves this wrong, it really won't hurt my feelings in the least bit... I'll actually applaud you for it. ...Just thought I'd make my intentions clearer...

[roguext22]

1. i feel deeply inside, that i have a soul ( logically this sentence is absurd.. ) 2. then i read carefully your definitions and so on, i can agree with them ( also it is easy to find them absurd.. ) 3. i am the human being, who is very much interested in experiencing the fact about soul..not just to discuss it.. The big thing which doesnt let me to experience is apathy, lazyness.. And i will write here if you add something new here, or just post.. Other people simply dont care about this..

[Surrealist]

3. i am the human being, who is very much interested in experiencing the fact about soul..not just to discuss it.. The big thing which doesnt let me to experience is apathy, lazyness.. And i will write here if you add something new here, or just post.. Other people simply dont care about this.. See... I haven't posted this to discuss the soul, but to state that it exists as fact. Other people should care about this, especially if they are the skeptics who like to debunk people such as me... left standing, this argument goes against their very principles. This argument, in itself, proves the existence of a non-physical soul... without any other evidence or anything. I just find it sad that no one has challenged it so far. No one has even so much scratched at its surface. I guess I'm sad because I expected more from this forum...

[roguext22]

yes, no one is interested in real things..most are only here for sleeping, dreaming, lucid dreaming.. By the way - i feel the fact i will read that the soul exist, doesnt give me any credit, it doesnt touch me..that fact.. But it can be as a support to experience that fact..

[Carôusoul]

Alrightyy then. Sorry about the lack of response; Time zones and school I like your approach to these things; the cold hard logical way is the way. Your argument is valid. I can say this; deductively, it makes perfect sense. My concerns are with the premises. Either way, we'll see how this pans out. I don't want to be hostile; in fact I want to believe in a soul; I just can't right now, thanks to that darn logic. As demonstrated by Hume, the best way to prove your argument beyond any reasonable doubt is to try and defeat it in every way you can; If it can stand up to this, you have suceeded. We'll do this working backwards from your last post on the subject. Thoughts in this context mean any electronic manifestation of your internal brain chemistry. Anything... whether it be an emotion, a "thought"(as in your internal monologue or what have you), or anything that your brain cooks up that gets jumbled around up there as a piece of electronic information. OK. That's the best definition of a thought I can hope for at this stage. They believe that everything is caused by physical interaction... and that there is nothing that happens that can't be shown to have a natural cause. Therefore... what they extrapolate from that is that only thoughts(the electronic impulses in your brain) can manipulate thoughts(other impulses in your brain). This means that no matter how much you think that you are in control of yourself... you actually aren't, and everything you observe is just an illusion created by your brain and its chemistry. Indeed, I agree with this; our minds are essentially brain chemistry; this is best proved by alsymers patients I have studied and other mental disabilities acquired during life. "Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually knows that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he has money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money." {the following in bold is copied from other parts of my analysis, and applies perfectly to this quote on why the mind is not a distinctly seperate entity..Read on...} this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No. The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us. Now, What is the mind. The mind is nothing. The mind is language. The mind is a word we use to vaguely encapsulate everything going on in our brains that give us the experiences we have, the thoughts we have and our interpretation of stuffz. The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences. Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. Ok, though; this post, I accept, apart from the comments I have made I think you're on the right track. What may have slightly more problems to it is the argument itself. Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think. K. 1. Thought cannot experience thought. 2. Our minds experience thought. 3. Therefore our minds are not thought. I have a feeling this is the section in which the flaw is; and I am sure there is a flaw; otherwise I would have been convinced upon first reading. 1. Thought cannot experience thought. WOW. This is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE assertion. OK step 1: What is experience?? What do we know of experience? Experience, as far as we know it; is entirely sensory. ALL of our experience comes from our sense data. Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste, Hear. Hence, the mind cannot experience in the accepted sense of the term, because there are no senses involved. The obvious comeback to this point is clearly: " ahh but I am experiencing my mind right now. When I think of my girlfriend, that is an experience seperate to senses, yet an experience nonetheless!" The problem with this comeback is that, yes, there ARE senses involved. You would have never seen your girlfriend in the first place without sense. You would have no conception of anything whatsoever. In fact there would basically be no "you". Not even a monologue of thought; you are without language or conception of anything to possibly monologue about. This person would not essentially be anyone. Just a body. So here we see, any experience of thought is entirely based on some kind of sensory input to the brain. Where is the soul in all of this? Does this person have no soul because they have no experiences? No, it seems more likely there is no soul to start with; just a montage of our sensory experiences culminating. So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience? How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. Thoughts are not like little sensory things that can see the other thoughts doing their thang off somewhere else. Brain neurons are all interconnected, so it isn't as simple as just we have a load of thoughts seperate from each other, milling around like a herd of sheep in a pen. Its probably something more like a gooey mess of sheep bits all mixed up. 2: OK, so, lets assume thoughts can in some abstract way experience things. Which they cannot [when was the last time you saw an electrical impulese experience something]. So lets say they can. Why on earth does this mean they cannot experience each other in this way?! Descartes tells us as basic foundational rationalism that "I think therefore I am". You probably understand what this relates to and means [if not just ask]; and so you can probably see how this causes problems for the idea that thoughts cannot experience themselves. Well according to Descartes that is just what we are doing when we consider "I think therefore I am". Now the next point I believe is the main failing here: 2. Our minds experience thought. Now, What is the mind. The mind is nothing. The mind is language. The mind is a word we use to vaguely encapsulate everything going on in our brains that give us the experiences we have, the thoughts we have and our interpretation of stuffz. The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences. Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. So, "the mind experiences thoughts"? No. The mind is not seperate to thoughts itself. The mind is thoughts. And thoughts can experience thoughts; as detailed far far above. In fact when you claim "the mind experiences thoughts" you are in fact proving your argument wrong; because the mind in essence is a collection of billions of thoughts. 3. Therefore our minds are not thought. See above. A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts. No. Why should this be so? If my brain is jolted with electrical charges, my thoughts fuck up big style, and I am not me as i am now, because the electrical impulses that make who i am now up have been fucked about with. So right there is something foreign which is by no means thoughts manipulating thoughts.. no? B. Since our minds are not thought... They are. Stop thinking of these as seperate big things. Mind is merely a label given to a coherent mass of thought processes in electrical energy. C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts... Of course, thoughts can manipulate themselves. Just as a society of people manipulates itself, working off each other. D. ...then our minds are not only physical. See much of above text. 1. Thought, in the way I use it here, means your internal monologue that happens as you think through things... I think we should forget this part, as thoughts a clearly not JUST an internal monologue. particularly they mean the electronic impulses that get interpreted by your brain as that monologue(and not the monologue itself). Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument. Much better. Your comparison here is completely invalid. There is no way you can compare something quite as complex as a thought to something as blisteringly simple as a camera. A thought exists only for a split second as a certain combination of billions of certain impulses at the right time responding to sense stimuli and previous experience and other combinations of impulses elsewhere. It just.. cannot be compared to a camera. Seriously. It is so hard for us to really "get" what thoughts are. Because we are but thoughts. Maybe if we had some kind of external being [OH hai there OBE's!] to observe ourselves we could make better judgements about the correlation fo thoughts to brain, but it is currently so hard to comprehend, so we simplify it, as you have done here. 2. This is a no-brainer... you must experience thought... if you didn't, then you wouldn't even know that you're thinking. Simple enough. Refer to the beginning of my post [well, near the beginning]. Experience and thought really are NOT simple. 3. This one is a little more complex. Because thought can't experience thought, but you do experience thought, that means that your mind(the observing "you" that I'm talking about) isn't made of thought. This is a solid, logical conclusion from 1 and 2. Believe me... I took logic courses and was the teachers pet... ha ha... Your logic is very good. I commend this. It is just the premise upon which you build the conclusion I find flawed. As I said earlier, your argument does work. But that doesnt count for anything if the premises are false. A. This is basically stating what scientists collectively believe nowadays... They say that all that is you is just the result of electronic impulses in your brain. Your thoughts are electronic impulses... and even the illusion that "you" are "you" and that "you" observe these thoughts is just made of electronic impulses. The thoughts manipulating thoughts means that when you think about something, and come to a conclusion that makes you angry, then your thoughts are manipulating (causing to change) your thoughts. This is what scientists say... that your mind is just a closed loop, which never really changes based on your will... your will is just an illusion brought upon by thought, which is just purely physical. So basically what they are saying is that only thoughts manipulate or change your thoughts... no new thoughts are created without being created by previous thoughts. Think about it... if a new thought popped into your head without a previous brain-chemical reaction that caused it, where did it come from? Not your brain of course... so this is what scientists are backed into a corner into saying. Your commiting some serious straw man here. [look it up on google, if you dont know what it is]. And I entirely agree with the scientists. Bear in mind my earlier comments. Your brain is NOT A CLOSED OFF LOOP AND SCIENTISTS DON'T SAY IT IS! SENSE DATA PLAYS A MASSIVE ROLE AND FEEDS STRAIGHT INTO YOUR BRAIN AND THOUGHT IMPULSES. So right, their is another foreign influence to thought. [had to stress that.] This foreign influence doesnt have to be an invisible, inprobable piece of fantasy, like say, the soul.. how about the world? Just as exciting to me. This perfectly goes hand in hand with the idea of a guy with no senses too. [see above, far.] It would be nice if there was a soul though. Shame. Sorry how are scientists backed into a corner? Never ever ever be biased against science. I know its tempting in this age of that bad bad evil science. But science is literally the search for truth of reality, through testing and observation, the best way we know how. Don't ever knock that. C. Now this is the most controversial of them all. Quantum dynamics says that merely the act of observing something causes it to be changed (and hence manipulated). We've come to the conclusion that every single person alive observes their thoughts (or I at least hope so)... so everyone alive manipulates their thoughts just by observing them. Of course... people do this in other ways... I mean, but that is the controversial aspect. You can't observe thoughts without having the choice to change them or follow them... hence you are constantly manipulating your thoughts. OK. this fits snugly with my earlier comments on thoughts manipulating and changing themselves, like a closed society can. [bad analogy. forgive me]. Equally, never forget sense input, which plays a mssive role. As I have shown, there would be little to no thoughts or consciousness without it D. Now... since scientists say that only your brain[thoughts] influences your brain[thoughts] (i.e. your brain is a closed system), but our minds (which are not thoughts) can influence our thoughts... Again this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No. The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us. Ultimately, this, is the mind.

[LucidDreamGod]

I have thought very similer things and tried to prove to myself before that there must be something besides my physical body, I still doubt it but only because it seems so unusual and unlike anything I know now, and the way the brain is used and works is still not fully understood by science, and I'm not a real deep thinker about the atonomy of the brain, I always thought because that people soemtimes say we have the astral body, the ethreal body (or whatever it's called) the energy body, and the physical, that all these bodies are copies of eachother in diffrent forms. Like the physical body is modeled after the astral, but the body changes because of the physical world, which purhaps means that the astral body would be modeled after the physical, I'm not sure but it makes sense, even if the physical body did all the work, that the astral body if there was oen could be just a copy, and conscious could be the soul.

[Carôusoul]

I have thought very similer things and tried to prove to myself before that there must be something besides my physical body, I still doubt it but only because it seems so unusual and unlike anything I know now, and the way the brain is used and works is still not fully understood by science, and I'm not a real deep thinker about the atonomy of the brain, I always thought because that people soemtimes say we have the astral body, the ethreal body (or whatever it's called) the energy body, and the physical, that all these bodies are copies of eachother in diffrent forms. Like the physical body is modeled after the astral, but the body changes because of the physical world, which purhaps means that the astral body would be modeled after the physical, I'm not sure but it makes sense, even if the physical body did all the work, that the astral body if there was oen could be just a copy, and conscious could be the soul. Or maybe the fact that "people sometimes say" we have an astral body isn't quite enough to make it true!

[LucidDreamGod]

Hence why I said I doubt it

[roguext22]

Hence why I said I doubt it that means he misread your sentences, like mine.. its party time

[Carôusoul]

that means he misread your sentences, like mine.. its party time Shut up and try responding to my main post, idiot.

[Surrealist]

Shut up and try responding to my main post, idiot. Now, now... let's not get hostile here... The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences. Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. And herein lies the one, major flaw in your argument. You start off right off the bat by stating that the mind is just a word, and that it is nothing but electrical impulses... that it is not separate from the brain. This is the thing which I am going about proving, and you have not proved it wrong by showing my argument illogical... you have just simply stated that it is wrong. Not trying to be a party-pooper here, but you haven't done this in the correct way. I am forced to dismiss everything you have just stated here, since this is just a disagreement to my conclusion, and not a logical way to undermine it at all. I have a feeling this is the section in which the flaw is; and I am sure there is a flaw; otherwise I would have been convinced upon first reading. We'll see... Experience, as far as we know it; is entirely sensory. ALL of our experience comes from our sense data. Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste, Hear. Hence, the mind cannot experience in the accepted sense of the term, because there are no senses involved. Here is where you really start to take a dive. Experience is defined as: 5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality Do you(your mind... the you I'm talking about) directly perceive your thoughts as they run through your head? I thought as much... I'm not talking about merely "seeing" or "smelling" or "tasting" or "feeling" anything... I'm talking about actually perceiving that you are doing such. The mind I refer to is separate in this instance because I'm talking about two entirely different events, and separating them as such. What's wrong with identifying two distinct phenomena and calling them two different things? You have fallen into a rut by categorically denying that they are separate... you can't do that without sounding very illogical indeed. I hope you realize this point. The problem with this comeback is that, yes, there ARE senses involved. You would have never seen your girlfriend in the first place without sense. You would have no conception of anything whatsoever. In fact there would basically be no "you". Not even a monologue of thought; you are without language or conception of anything to possibly monologue about. This person would not essentially be anyone. Just a body. So here we see, any experience of thought is entirely based on some kind of sensory input to the brain. What you fail to realize is that senses are involved, but not in the way in which you would love them to be. Senses are the "thoughts" I'm talking about... they are just electrical impulses in your brain. Thoughts aren't what I am saying the "mind" is though. You have to admit that you perceive thoughts, right? You perceive the act of seeing... if not, then your brain would just see, and you wouldn't even know it. Your brain would see, calculate, and tell your body what to do based on what it sees without "you" even there to experience it at all, am I right? So the part of you that actually perceives it all, that is what I am saying is your mind. I am splitting them up... I have this right because I have created the argument, not you. You have no right to come in and re-define all my terms. You must deal with them in the way I've presented them. Where is the soul in all of this? Does this person have no soul because they have no experiences? No, it seems more likely there is no soul to start with; just a montage of our sensory experiences culminating. Don't get too ahead of yourself... So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience? How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. Thoughts are not like little sensory things that can see the other thoughts doing their thang off somewhere else. Brain neurons are all interconnected, so it isn't as simple as just we have a load of thoughts seperate from each other, milling around like a herd of sheep in a pen. Its probably something more like a gooey mess of sheep bits all mixed up. Your rock example is spot-on... I applaud you for this. You realized what I said in my OP... specifically: Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument. Sensory "thangs," as you put it, are just thoughts themselves. As I defined it, remember, sensory inputs are just electrical impulses. Not even sensory thoughts can experience other thoughts. They are all the same thing: electrical impulses. Now, whether they are a gooey mess of interactivity or not, it doesn't change my argument one bit. I've already mentioned in statement A that, according to scientists, only thoughts can manipulate thoughts... you seem to be trying to turn my own statement against me... to try to make it seem like I'm contradicting myself. I think your problem lies in the fact that you are trying to redefine "thoughts..." I won't stand for people trying to remake my argument into a easier one that they can actually tackle. Let my argument stay the way it was. 2: OK, so, lets assume thoughts can in some abstract way experience things. Which they cannot [when was the last time you saw an electrical impulese experience something]. So lets say they can. Why on earth does this mean they cannot experience each other in this way?! Umm... I almost don't know how to respond to this, because it is so illogical... no offense. Please take note: You yourself said that there would be no way that thoughts can experience thoughts: How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. Don't start contradicting yourself too much... it undermines your attempt at a rebuttal. Descartes tells us as basic foundational rationalism that "I think therefore I am". You probably understand what this relates to and means [if not just ask]; and so you can probably see how this causes problems for the idea that thoughts cannot experience themselves. Well according to Descartes that is just what we are doing when we consider "I think therefore I am". No... you are taking what he said grossly out of context. Where in this statement is the word "thought" or anything like it in the sense that we are using it here? The word "mind," is that anywhere to be found? I believe what you are seeing in his statement is this: I think (which he means is him "experiencing" everything around) therefore I am (therefore I have a mind). It's just a very watered down version of my own argument... don't try and take a smaller version of my argument to try and debunk it, that would be highly illogical to try and do. Take note: Not only that, but this is just somebody's opinion about the issue. This isn't a cold, hard fact in itself. I'm sure you could find many other quotes from modern scientists who all say that there is no non-physical mind, but those are all just opinions too. Let's leave opinions out of this, since opinions in no way can be logical premises. Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. So, "the mind experiences thoughts"? No. The mind is not seperate to thoughts itself. The mind is thoughts. And thoughts can experience thoughts; as detailed far far above. In fact when you claim "the mind experiences thoughts" you are in fact proving your argument wrong; because the mind in essence is a collection of billions of thoughts. I have bolded the main pitfall of yours in your quote above. You are trying to redefine things again. I already told you that I'm not going to stand for it. Redefining what a mind is, and then saying this proves my argument wrong, is a very, very illogical way to debunk it. I'm almost at a loss for words at how appalling this is to me. Wow... Let's look back at my definition of "the mind" for a second: Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually knows that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he has money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money." There you go... the "you" that actually knows what is going on through your brain. That part of you that goes away when you're asleep and not dreaming, and then turns back on when you awake. The part that misses out on all those hours of nothingness that are actually practically filled with electrical impulses. "The mind" doesn't experience any of those impulses... because you are asleep. This is the mind I am talking about.... stick with it, for your sake. Now, as you can see, I am not proving myself wrong in statement 2. I am reinforcing the fact that you can experience yourself thinking. This is a fundamental thing that all humans share (or so I hope)... it isn't something you can trivialize away like it is nothing. No. Why should this be so? If my brain is jolted with electrical charges, my thoughts fuck up big style, and I am not me as i am now, because the electrical impulses that make who i am now up have been fucked about with. So right there is something foreign which is by no means thoughts manipulating thoughts.. no? But... if your brain is jolted with electricity, then an electrical impulse is now sweeping through your brain. According to the agreed definition, it is a thought. So, we still have thoughts manipulating thoughts... sorry... They are. Stop thinking of these as seperate big things. Mind is merely a label given to a coherent mass of thought processes in electrical energy. You should really try to stop doing this... it's unbecoming of you. Merely stating that the mind is such doesn't make it true. You believe everything you are told in school, eh? So because some teacher told you that our mind is nothing but electricity that gives you the right to state that as a fact that debunks my argument? Please... just stop doing this... this is the most pathetic way you could possibly try to debunk me with. I won't even respond to this style of attack anymore... it's just too silly. Of course, thoughts can manipulate themselves. Just as a society of people manipulates itself, working off each other. Just when I got done writing the response to your previous quote, I saw this. It's one and the same... you are redefining "mind," and then using that definition to try and debunk me. Incredible attempt at twisting logic I must say, but it is nonetheless illogical. Much better. Your comparison here is completely invalid. There is no way you can compare something quite as complex as a thought to something as blisteringly simple as a camera. A thought exists only for a split second as a certain combination of billions of certain impulses at the right time responding to sense stimuli and previous experience and other combinations of impulses elsewhere. It just.. cannot be compared to a camera. Seriously. It is so hard for us to really "get" what thoughts are. Because we are but thoughts. Maybe if we had some kind of external being [OH hai there OBE's!] to observe ourselves we could make better judgements about the correlation fo thoughts to brain, but it is currently so hard to comprehend, so we simplify it, as you have done here. They can't be compared to a camera, eh? You have agreed with this statement before. I really hate to use your own quotes against you so much, but here it is: So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience? How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. So you yourself compare them to a rock? Is this any better? You've already agreed with this statement a little ways back in your post, so why are you trying to debunk it now? You make no sense... sadly... Your logic is very good. I commend this. It is just the premise upon which you build the conclusion I find flawed. As I said earlier, your argument does work. But that doesnt count for anything if the premises are false. Well, I'm glad... but you really haven't shown my premises to be false, as I have stated numerous times and given many, many examples above. Please, read over them again and again until you are perfectly sure that you understand me correctly. Your commiting some serious straw man here. [look it up on google, if you dont know what it is]. I am not committing a straw man by creating a premise. I said, "If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts." This is true. If our minds are only just physical, then only the electric impulses can manipulate the electric impulses. This is hard fact right here, no straw man... I think you just got slightly offended because I described what you think exactly. And I entirely agree with the scientists. Bear in mind my earlier comments. Your brain is NOT A CLOSED OFF LOOP AND SCIENTISTS DON'T SAY IT IS! SENSE DATA PLAYS A MASSIVE ROLE AND FEEDS STRAIGHT INTO YOUR BRAIN AND THOUGHT IMPULSES. So right, their is another foreign influence to thought. Sense data is just electrical impulses, which by the definition I have laid out are just thoughts. You can't keep doing this, you know, redefining my words to try and make arguing against me easier... sorry, I had to stress that... it really is beginning to irritate me how illogical you are being. OK. this fits snugly with my earlier comments on thoughts manipulating and changing themselves, like a closed society can. [bad analogy. forgive me]. Equally, never forget sense input, which plays a mssive role. As I have shown, there would be little to no thoughts or consciousness without it This is your rebuttal to the explanation for statement C? Surely, all that you might have thought helped you out in debunking this statement really hasn't. I really implore you to come back into this thread with a lot more patience, a lot more logic, and just a tad bit more humility. I mean, if no one in a debate humbles themselves, then no one even looks at their own arguments logically, am I right? Again this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No. The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us. Ultimately, this, is the mind. And you've done it again... for the last words in your post you attempt again at trying to redefine the words I use in my argument. You can't go blithely milling about my argument and looking for words to redefine to make arguing against it easier. Not to mention the illogical quality of it, but it is just plain wrong. Please, don't do this again. I only want to debate the validity of this argument with someone who can do so logically and maturely. I don't really care what your beliefs are... beliefs don't take down an argument, after all. Beliefs are like opinions, they have no logical truth or falsity to them. Look it up. Just stating that the mind is nothing but electrical impulses (over and over and over again, might I add) doesn't disprove my argument. After all, that is exactly what I am using in my argument in statement A. I have defined repeatedly, over and over, what the mind is in my argument. I must say, in the end, you have not debunked my argument. I say this because the only way in which you have believed to have done so is by redefining the words I use. Since this isn't a valid, logical way to try and show my argument invalid, you have failed to do so.

[Carôusoul]

Now, now... let's not get hostile here... And herein lies the one, major flaw in your argument. You start off right off the bat by stating that the mind is just a word, and that it is nothing but electrical impulses... that it is not separate from the brain. This is the thing which I am going about proving, and you have not proved it wrong by showing my argument illogical... you have just simply stated that it is wrong. Not trying to be a party-pooper here, but you haven't done this in the correct way. I am forced to dismiss everything you have just stated here, since this is just a disagreement to my conclusion, and not a logical way to undermine it at all. We'll see... Here is where you really start to take a dive. Experience is defined as: Do you(your mind... the you I'm talking about) directly perceive your thoughts as they run through your head? I thought as much... I'm not talking about merely "seeing" or "smelling" or "tasting" or "feeling" anything... I'm talking about actually perceiving that you are doing such. The mind I refer to is separate in this instance because I'm talking about two entirely different events, and separating them as such. What's wrong with identifying two distinct phenomena and calling them two different things? You have fallen into a rut by categorically denying that they are separate... you can't do that without sounding very illogical indeed. I hope you realize this point. What you fail to realize is that senses are involved, but not in the way in which you would love them to be. Senses are the "thoughts" I'm talking about... they are just electrical impulses in your brain. Thoughts aren't what I am saying the "mind" is though. You have to admit that you perceive thoughts, right? You perceive the act of seeing... if not, then your brain would just see, and you wouldn't even know it. Your brain would see, calculate, and tell your body what to do based on what it sees without "you" even there to experience it at all, am I right? So the part of you that actually perceives it all, that is what I am saying is your mind. I am splitting them up... I have this right because I have created the argument, not you. You have no right to come in and re-define all my terms. You must deal with them in the way I've presented them. Don't get too ahead of yourself... Your rock example is spot-on... I applaud you for this. You realized what I said in my OP... specifically: Sensory "thangs," as you put it, are just thoughts themselves. As I defined it, remember, sensory inputs are just electrical impulses. Not even sensory thoughts can experience other thoughts. They are all the same thing: electrical impulses. Now, whether they are a gooey mess of interactivity or not, it doesn't change my argument one bit. I've already mentioned in statement A that, according to scientists, only thoughts can manipulate thoughts... you seem to be trying to turn my own statement against me... to try to make it seem like I'm contradicting myself. I think your problem lies in the fact that you are trying to redefine "thoughts..." I won't stand for people trying to remake my argument into a easier one that they can actually tackle. Let my argument stay the way it was. Umm... I almost don't know how to respond to this, because it is so illogical... no offense. Please take note: You yourself said that there would be no way that thoughts can experience thoughts: Don't start contradicting yourself too much... it undermines your attempt at a rebuttal. No... you are taking what he said grossly out of context. Where in this statement is the word "thought" or anything like it in the sense that we are using it here? The word "mind," is that anywhere to be found? I believe what you are seeing in his statement is this: I think (which he means is him "experiencing" everything around) therefore I am (therefore I have a mind). It's just a very watered down version of my own argument... don't try and take a smaller version of my argument to try and debunk it, that would be highly illogical to try and do. Take note: Not only that, but this is just somebody's opinion about the issue. This isn't a cold, hard fact in itself. I'm sure you could find many other quotes from modern scientists who all say that there is no non-physical mind, but those are all just opinions too. Let's leave opinions out of this, since opinions in no way can be logical premises. I have bolded the main pitfall of yours in your quote above. You are trying to redefine things again. I already told you that I'm not going to stand for it. Redefining what a mind is, and then saying this proves my argument wrong, is a very, very illogical way to debunk it. I'm almost at a loss for words at how appalling this is to me. Wow... Let's look back at my definition of "the mind" for a second: There you go... the "you" that actually knows what is going on through your brain. That part of you that goes away when you're asleep and not dreaming, and then turns back on when you awake. The part that misses out on all those hours of nothingness that are actually practically filled with electrical impulses. "The mind" doesn't experience any of those impulses... because you are asleep. This is the mind I am talking about.... stick with it, for your sake. Now, as you can see, I am not proving myself wrong in statement 2. I am reinforcing the fact that you can experience yourself thinking. This is a fundamental thing that all humans share (or so I hope)... it isn't something you can trivialize away like it is nothing. But... if your brain is jolted with electricity, then an electrical impulse is now sweeping through your brain. According to the agreed definition, it is a thought. So, we still have thoughts manipulating thoughts... sorry... You should really try to stop doing this... it's unbecoming of you. Merely stating that the mind is such doesn't make it true. You believe everything you are told in school, eh? So because some teacher told you that our mind is nothing but electricity that gives you the right to state that as a fact that debunks my argument? Please... just stop doing this... this is the most pathetic way you could possibly try to debunk me with. I won't even respond to this style of attack anymore... it's just too silly. Just when I got done writing the response to your previous quote, I saw this. It's one and the same... you are redefining "mind," and then using that definition to try and debunk me. Incredible attempt at twisting logic I must say, but it is nonetheless illogical. They can't be compared to a camera, eh? You have agreed with this statement before. I really hate to use your own quotes against you so much, but here it is: So you yourself compare them to a rock? Is this any better? You've already agreed with this statement a little ways back in your post, so why are you trying to debunk it now? You make no sense... sadly... Well, I'm glad... but you really haven't shown my premises to be false, as I have stated numerous times and given many, many examples above. Please, read over them again and again until you are perfectly sure that you understand me correctly. I am not committing a straw man by creating a premise. I said, "If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts." This is true. If our minds are only just physical, then only the electric impulses can manipulate the electric impulses. This is hard fact right here, no straw man... I think you just got slightly offended because I described what you think exactly. Sense data is just electrical impulses, which by the definition I have laid out are just thoughts. You can't keep doing this, you know, redefining my words to try and make arguing against me easier... sorry, I had to stress that... it really is beginning to irritate me how illogical you are being. This is your rebuttal to the explanation for statement C? Surely, all that you might have thought helped you out in debunking this statement really hasn't. I really implore you to come back into this thread with a lot more patience, a lot more logic, and just a tad bit more humility. I mean, if no one in a debate humbles themselves, then no one even looks at their own arguments logically, am I right? And you've done it again... for the last words in your post you attempt again at trying to redefine the words I use in my argument. You can't go blithely milling about my argument and looking for words to redefine to make arguing against it easier. Not to mention the illogical quality of it, but it is just plain wrong. Please, don't do this again. I only want to debate the validity of this argument with someone who can do so logically and maturely. I don't really care what your beliefs are... beliefs don't take down an argument, after all. Beliefs are like opinions, they have no logical truth or falsity to them. Look it up. Just stating that the mind is nothing but electrical impulses (over and over and over again, might I add) doesn't disprove my argument. After all, that is exactly what I am using in my argument in statement A. I have defined repeatedly, over and over, what the mind is in my argument. I must say, in the end, you have not debunked my argument. I say this because the only way in which you have believed to have done so is by redefining the words I use. Since this isn't a valid, logical way to try and show my argument invalid, you have failed to do so. hm.

[Surrealist]

Arghh, you haven't understood what i was sayinngggg. Im annoyed. im gonna have to write it all again in response to this. in clearer terms maybe. the apparent places i have contradicted myself and etc, are not, ill explain individually, but. urgh. tired. Also. you said lets not get hostile here, but this is a pretty hostile post. But, whatever ill respond. watch this space. I have not gotten hostile... I have just pointed out all the places where your logic has failed. An argument about the logical validness of an argument can't go without pointing out where others have failed in their logic. I understood everything that you are saying... oh, and please... I hope to God that you don't try and redefine things yet again. It could get quite annoying to have to read it all over again if that is the case. Put it this way... the only way that you can logically take down my argument would be to actually take it down using my definitions for the words I used in it. Really... don't try it again... I'll just post more of the "annoying" blather again to illustrate your incompetence to understand what I have just said. EDIT: I see that you have edited your post that I quoted above to all but "hm." Maybe it was in response to this post, or maybe not... or maybe it was because you have finally understood what I was saying. In all possible circumstances though, I find it interesting. Please elaborate.

[roguext22]

okay.. i see you are quite interested in this conversation surrealist.... The best is to experience through :: feel, see, know something about soul... the Maybe's ( many ) *memory:: we always forget everything... at night, we are not aware whats going on near our body.. so at night it could be possible to become aware who we are not - the body.. maybe.. * feeling:: we rarely feel ourself, our body..and so we never feel our soul... so it could be possible ( maybe ) * seeing:: rarely people are developed 3rd eye - so they can see auras..