Human Connection

If I actually knew, really knew this, I would have accomplished the great work.

But to attempt to answer your question, as unsatisfactory as the answer may be... both. To me, the soul is made up of parts, both temporal and atemporal, and multiple of each to boot, all with their own functions.

But thanks for the philosophy channel link, he's a good presenter.


That's a pretty good reply.

I'll let you in on a secret. It ultimately doesn't really matter. Whether the soul is material, immaterial or both. And knowing this doesn't mean someone has achieved some imaginary final goal in the Great Work. After all, conceptual, theoretical knowledge isn't always right to the point of knowing. Great Knowers (so to speak) often know greatly without having a freaking clue (or even interest) in whether the soul is material, nonmaterial or both. But -- in my opinion -- those who are dualists out of cultural habit, and nothing more, must be wrong. And those who are monists, or whatever, for the same reason are wrong for the same reasons.

I'm a philosopher. And so I KNOW that I don't have ultimate knowledge on this or many other matters. Those who are fixated in their supposed knowledge are probably wrong, though. Why? Because there is knowing and then again there is knowing. And there is ignorance and then again there is ignorance.

Ultimate knowledge always brings us deeper into mystery. We can learn how to live in mystery without drowning.
 
Quote:
So ... what is this "soul"? Is it material, immaterial... both? Does it exist outside of time and space as a pure abstraction of the strictly philosophical definition of "abstract" (which is the contrast term of "concrete"?
If I actually knew, really knew this, I would have accomplished the great work.

Indeed - when it comes to metaphysics, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, all any of us can do is conjecture - although a lifetime of study and meditation may lead us to conclusions that we may each find satisfactory on an individual basis. I have come across some ideas that ring true for me - but will not for most others - and, of course, there is no way of proving it one way or the other.

I personally believe that both the "soul" and "real" thought exist outside of time and space. And, in fact, ultimately the phenomenal multiverse of time and space may be thought of as a thought projection. Quantum physics does begin to point down such a path, from a certain perspective.

The brain might be thought of as interchange between the physical body and the soul and real thought - for purposes of interacting within the projection. So, from this perspective, I would guess that even the best AI would always remain "artificial" or an imitation of a real thought - even if a computer appeared to be self aware - but then, who knows - a soul might decide to use real thought to interact with an electronic brain instead of an organic brain.

From a religious or spiritual perspective - the thought projection of a physical universe might be thought of as a separation from Ultimate Oneness (Eastern thought-wise - or "God" in Western thought). Answering the Platonic paradox of "How could a perfect God create an imperfect universe?" - Answer, he didn't - the universe was made as a thought of separation from the Oneness/God. It also answers the age old question, actually a corollary of the Platonic Paradox - "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?". Answer: She doesn't - the physical world exists as a thought of separation from Oneness of God - and is inherently imperfect, encapsulating the idea of separation and all the pain that brings.

Just a few more thoughts for the brew. :)
 
Last edited:
... the physical world exists as a thought of separation from Oneness of God - and is inherently imperfect, encapsulating the idea of separation and all the pain that brings. ....

"Oneness," to me, implies simply wholeness -- or the ultimate non-dividedness of things (and non-things, too, if we must go there). Oneness is a shorthand word for wholeness, in other words. In wholeness, nothing is or can be ultimately set apart from anything else. (Everything exists as one whole expression of unfolding being.)

What we call "the physical world" must, in oneness or wholeness cannot, then, be separated from oneness. It must therefore be an expression of this very oneness (or wholeness).

What I'm describing is cosmological and ontological ... well, oneness. Or, more accurately stated, wholeness -- or undividedness. This indivisibleness of all things can be approached conceptually, intellectually ..., theoretically..., but if it is not felt is will not be embraced and accepted in a whole way. How could it? It is often in feeling that we do not embrace such fundamental wholeness. Or our feeling otherwise can prevent us from having the full conceptual, intellectual insight of it.

Let us keep in mind that in all probability, as evolved animals, we've not been equipped by evolution to recognize "oneness" (wholeness) very readily. We're "programmed" by biological evolution for survival more than for ... "metaphysics". We belong to a species which may well be designed by nature for "tribalism" and associated kinds of identification, such as the narrow self-focus which imagines we're "alone in the universe" (or "separate").

Logic dictates, nevertheless (and all science to this day) that the universe or cosmos is one singular unfolding process, comprised not of separate things but of ... well, relations. "Oneness" is our primary identity. We are simply ... all that is. Our sense of being separate little selves is our secondary identity. In my personal view, neither our primary nor our secondary identity is ultimate. Only the wedding of the two are ultimate. We are BOTH our little biographical selves and our big, cosmic self. There is no need for a contest between these two, since they are two sides of one and the same coin. :p
 
That's a pretty good reply.

I'll let you in on a secret. It ultimately doesn't really matter. Whether the soul is material, immaterial or both. And knowing this doesn't mean someone has achieved some imaginary final goal in the Great Work. After all, conceptual, theoretical knowledge isn't always right to the point of knowing.

I am sorely tempted to address this one sentence at a time but I'm afraid we'd be talking at cross purposes anyway.

I think we may agree that the notion of finality is imaginary, although the goals themselves are not. I'd also say that accomplishing the Great Work means that the conceptual/theoretical has been realised, or actualised, or however you want to say, "no longer theory, but practice" or, "no longer believing, but knowing," and with a quality of knowledge that comes from personal experience, not a book (yes, Robin Williams' speech in Good Will Hunting springs to mind).

But back to a variation of a statement that AI99 made, would a soul choose a robot/android as a vessel? It's really too new of a concept to fathom. I doubt it, though. It's more likely that humankind will use an android as a vessel.
 
I am sorely tempted to address this one sentence at a time but I'm afraid we'd be talking at cross purposes anyway.

I think we may agree that the notion of finality is imaginary, although the goals themselves are not. I'd also say that accomplishing the Great Work means that the conceptual/theoretical has been realised, or actualised, or however you want to say, "no longer theory, but practice" or, "no longer believing, but knowing," and with a quality of knowledge that comes from personal experience, not a book (yes, Robin Williams' speech in Good Will Hunting springs to mind).

Hmm.... I wonder if there is a YouTube clip of that?

Anyway, part of what I was getting at about the material versus immaterial question not being all that ultimately important regards "the great work" was that the more deeply we inquire into matter and mind the more mysterious they ultimately become. This mysteriousness leaves open the relation of matter and mind, for me. It's not theoretically or conceptually simple. It's complex and uncertain -- and it may not resolve into certainty at any point. I think it likely doesn't.

Part of why I say this is that even the word "mind" references many things to many people. For many, mind is imagined to be an immaterial ... something ... which thinks. For others, mind refers to a material process which thinks but also feels, senses, cares (is thus continuous with the concept "psyche".... And that's just barely pointing at the very tippy top of an iceberg of complexity! (Some think all matter has mind, for example!)

I think wonder is virtuous, generally. We'd only be "talking at cross purposes" if you don't share my appreciation and valuation of wonder. Wonder, I think, is right near the very heart of the sort of knowing which I'd associate with what you call "the great work".
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
.
.. the physical world exists as a thought of separation from Oneness of God - and is inherently imperfect, encapsulating the idea of separation and all the pain that brings. ....
"Oneness," to me, implies simply wholeness -- or the ultimate non-dividedness of things (and non-things, too, if we must go there). Oneness is a shorthand word for wholeness, in other words. In wholeness, nothing is or can be ultimately set apart from anything else. (Everything exists as one whole expression of unfolding being.)

River:
What we call "the physical world" must, in oneness or wholeness cannot, then, be separated from oneness. It must therefore be an expression of this very oneness (or wholeness).

Our ontological understandings are somewhat different - but, then, that is not really all that important. Both viewpoints are reflective of very ancient philosophies.

The Hindu understanding of Maya as well as Plato's postulation of the demiurge - later echoed by the Gnostics - all saw the physical universe as a dream or distorted reflection of Ultimately Reality. Not so much as "separate in truth" as "not ultimately real at all" - more like an assertion of our independence from the Oneness by our collective individualties-egos - with only Spirit and Thought possessing Ultimate Reality within the Oneness of Eternity. As Heinlein whimsically puts it in Stranger in a Strange Land :

and the universe is just a little thing we whipped up among us the other night for our entertainment and then agreed to forget the gag.

Other schools, including much of Western thought, pantheism, and nature based spiritualities tend to view the physical world as itself having an concrete Reality, whether as God's Creation or an extension of the Infinite. In one sense, kind of depends upon your angle of view. And, none of us are going to prove the nature of Reality on a poly forum. :)

While metaphysics can be interesting and satisfying, the distillation of my spiritual thought system in practice is simply "be kind". Al
 
Does any existing computer, today, have "thoughts"? In your opinion?

If you mean spontaneous streams of consciousness that is not part of it's programming, then no

I ask in part because I think you're confusing categories. You are calling "feelings" a "type of thoughts".

I'm not confusing anything. Feelings (emotions) are thoughts.

To my mind, thoughts and feelings are deeply interconnected, of course! But to call feelings thoughts goes a step too far.

Then again, I've spent a lot of time deeply and experientially inquiring into the distinction, something which most people have never done, it seems to me.

Or, as seems to be the case here, two people have reached a different conclusion.

Feeling, as I understand it, requires a body. No machine has a living body, or ever has... or ever will. Yes, biological material may eventually blend in with machine parts. But it still won't be a living body, a soma. It won't be a feeling being. A feeling being is a living being.

Interesting. But let's say we can take a brain out of the womb and raise it in a glass jar with no stimulus. Would that brain, made up of somatic cells, have feelings? Would it even be self aware?

Now let's look at the brain as a computer. We could say it is programmed by dna. It processes information. It calculates things based on the environment. It is also programmed by what we call society.

I believe we could approximate this in a computer if it was a very complicated computer. One thing that would be missing are biochemical reactions. It would be extremely difficult to replicate that.

If your argument is simply that we will never turn a computer into a human, then I agree. If you are saying a computer will never have it's own version of thoughts and feelings, I'm not so sure that's true.
Every single actual expert on computers will agree on one thing. Computers are machines, not living beings. What they do is "compute," which is to say that they follow instructions given to them on how to divide this from that in a digital way which resembles nothing if not, in essence, a pair of scissors -- the simplest type of machine. A machine is a lot like a cheese grater or a push lawn mower. It feels nothing, cares for nothing, thinks nothing, does ... a lot. It mows grass.

I think that's a gross oversimplification.
 
I believe we could approximate this in a computer if it was a very complicated computer. One thing that would be missing are biochemical reactions. It would be extremely difficult to replicate that.

It sounds to me like you've bought into the notion that it is the brain which is conscious, and not the whole body. This is a very common belief, but I strongly believe it to be inaccurate. I'm not alone. Many in cognitive science and philosophy of mind take my side on this. (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition ) A brain in a vat, disconnected from a body, would not be at all aware and conscious (even if it could be kept "alive" in there, somehow. Maybe (hypothetically) it would have memories. I don't know, but it certainly would not be having any present moment experiences. Or feelings, I would argue -- for as I said feelings are felt in throughout the body. That's where we "register" them, whether or not we're aware of this fact. (Lots of folks are not aware of this fact and have never explored the question in their own experience much.)

I'm not confusing anything. Feelings (emotions) are thoughts.

Feelings certainly do become thoughts, in a certain specific sense. That is, we have thoughts about our feelings. And our thoughts most certainly influence or affect our feelings. Indeed, thoughts and feelings are often very much in what is known as a bi-directional system of mutual influence. Each influences the other so much that they are interwoven, somewhat.

I want to ask you now, though..., as you see it, are sensations thoughts. That is, are they identical, as you suggested feelings and thoughts are?

In my understanding, feeling is the broader category (set) which includes feelings and emotions. Not all feelings are emotions, in this way of seeing things. And there is simply feeling itself, yet undifferentiated into the plural form of specific potentially nameable "feelings". It turns out to be possible to be aware of feeling, per se, in its undifferentiated form -- but it takes much practice to get there for most of us.

Emotions are those well worn, familiar types with names which allow us to immediately empathize around the name itself: sadness, joy, fear, anger, etc. Not all that we feel is one of these, and so not all feeling/s are emotion, per se. They share the same ground, however.

Particular emotions are like particular waves on the sea shore. Feeling is the water itself. Particular, nameable feelings are of the water, too, of course.

Feeling is experienced as sensation. We can certainly think about these sensations but to say that these sensations are "thoughts" is just weird.

If your argument is simply that we will never turn a computer into a human, then I agree. If you are saying a computer will never have it's own version of thoughts and feelings, I'm not so sure that's true.


Computers have one aspect of "thought" but lack the other one which only living beens such as humans share in common. Much of our human (and animal) thought is, on one level, a form of calculation. This is what we have in common with computers. Computers, including all of the most advanced AI systems, are not aware of their thoughts, however. Nor are they likely ever to be aware of their thoughts -- or of anything. An advanced AI system may have a camera, a rough analogue of a human or animal eye, but it cannot see, per se, because it is not aware. It has no vision, even though it has the visual apparatus of a camera. It has no true hearing, no true sensations, no experience of any kind -- no inner feelings, nothing like a human in any respect! No one is home and there are no lights on -- any more than a simple kitchen appliance like a toaster or a coffee bean grinder. Do you think your electric razor (if you have one) feels all warm and loving toward you and is happy to see you in the morning?

Awareness is actually a great mystery. No one actually knows (in science or philosophy) why (or how!) we are aware, experiencing beings rather than empty of awareness and experience like a toaster. I suspect the answer to this mystery, if ever it will be found, will be found in a new way of understanding life. I suspect we know a great deal about biology, but are lacking a basic understanding, still. Something is missing from what we know about life.
 
Back
Top