the soul...

[VVilliam]

So even if the universe is as you claim ( eternal and infinite ) this in itself means that it has to be a mindful thing, given that we at least know mindfulness exists within it's boundless self.
Therefore, one would be wise not to write-off the idea that there is more to experience for the individual personality, once the body dies.

But then the "wisdom" seen by one, is seen by another as "foolishness" depending on one's particular favored philosophical position...so we critique by way of examining and are able to fall in line with
( establish ) the better overall philosophy. Eventually. Potentially.

Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'.

You have made no supported claims so no critique is necessary. Unsupported claims do not count as actual claims. They are more statements of opinion, something I myself am undistracted by.

However if you were to ever accompany said statements of opinion with actual support, I would certainly examine such support and critique that.

I simply took your unsupported statement of opinion ("claim") and critiqued the philosophy of it and showed its shortcomings.

If you have supporting evidence that it has been established that the universe is infinite and eternal, I am interested in critiquing it and if I find no fault therein, will incorporate that into the larger philosophy I have found to be rational et al.

If you have no supporting evidence, then there is nothing for me to critique or potentially incorporate and your challenge "Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'." remains empty/is transparent/holds no meaning/is a pointless boast et al.

The questions you asked me, I will provide the philosophical answer to in my following post.

[Age]

So even if the universe is as you claim ( eternal and infinite ) this in itself means that it has to be a mindful thing, given that we at least know mindfulness exists within it's boundless self.
Therefore, one would be wise not to write-off the idea that there is more to experience for the individual personality, once the body dies.

But then the "wisdom" seen by one, is seen by another as "foolishness" depending on one's particular favored philosophical position...so we critique by way of examining and are able to fall in line with
( establish ) the better overall philosophy. Eventually. Potentially.

Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'.

You have made no supported claims so no critique is necessary.

1. One does NOT have to make a 'supported' claim for a critique to be made.

2. Claiming that 'critique' is necessary for only 'supported claims' is a Wrong and False 'unsupported claim', itself, on two accounts.
(a) 'Critique' is NOT a necessary part of ANY claim.
(b) A 'supported claim' can NOT, REALLY, be 'critiqued', as the 'supported' part of the 'claim' MAKES 'the claim' NOT able to be 'critiqued'.

3. Therefore, ONLY 'unsupported claims' can be 'critiqued'.

4. So, if ANY one would, STILL, like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'.

By the way I only provide my not yet backed up and unsupported claims here, in this forum. I do this to FIND OUT and SEE who is Truly CURIOUS. And, IF ANY one comes alone, then, and ONLY THEN, will I back up and provide the ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE 'support' for ALL of my claims here.

Unsupported claims do not count as actual claims.

Some of these people, BACK THEN when this was being written, REALLY DID come up with some of the most ABSURD and NONSENSICAL CLAIMS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here, ONCE MORE.

ALL claims can be counted as ACTUAL 'claims'.

This is BECAUSE there is NO ACTUAL NECESSARY part of ANY 'claim' for 'it' to be true, right, nor correct AT ALL for 'it' to THEN BE an 'actual claim'.

ANY and ALL 'claims', in fact, could be UNSUPPORTED, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Even 'your claim' here "vvilliam" is UNSUPPORTED, (besides being OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect), but following on from and with 'your claim', and thus 'your logic', here, then what you said and wrote here is NO an 'actual claim', right?

'you' OBVIOUSLY provided absolutely NO 'support' for what you CLAIMED here.

They are more statements of opinion, something I myself am undistracted by.

So, are 'you' now SAYING that 'your statement' above here is more of a statement of opinion, and something that 'you', "yourself", are so-called 'undistracted' by?

However if you were to ever accompany said statements of opinion with actual support, I would certainly examine such support and critique that.

If 'you' ONLY examine 'things' that 'you CLAIM' are 'statements of opinion' that have so-called said, 'actual support', then this could explain 'your VERY SMALL, VERY NARROWED, and VERY CLOSED views, and opinions, of 'things here.

I simply took your unsupported statement of opinion ("claim") and critiqued the philosophy of it and showed its shortcomings.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TWISTED 'things' SO MUCH here 'you' are now SHOWING and PROVING just how CONFUSED and DISTORTED 'you' REALLY ARE here "vvilliam".

If you have supporting evidence that it has been established that the universe is infinite and eternal, I am interested in critiquing it and if I find no fault therein, will incorporate that into the larger philosophy I have found to be rational et al.

WHY do 'you' USE the 'philosophy' word here?

Do 'you' think or BELIEVE doing so adds 'more weight' or 'more support' to 'your' OWN BELIEFS and 'opinions' here?

By the way, what IS the so-called 'larger philosophy', which 'you' have, supposedly and allegedly, found to be 'rational' anyway'?

What does it actually even mean by just saying that 'you' 'have a larger philosophy' WITHOUT ANY 'actual support'?

If you have no supporting evidence, then there is nothing for me to critique or potentially incorporate

But I do NOT USE 'evidence'. I, INSTEAD, HAVE and USE 'proof'.

Also, absolutely ANY one could CRITIQUE 'me' on ONLY MY CLAIM that 'the Universe IS infinite AND eternal', ALONE. That is; IF they Truly WANTED TO.

Now ANY one could CRITIQUE me on 'this' ALONE by just ASSESSING whether it could be True, or NOT. But if one just BELIEVES that 'it' is NOT TRUE, then OBVIOUSLY they are NOT 'critiquing' and JUST HOLDING ONTO and FIXED TO what they are ALREADY BELIEVING IS TRUE.

See, I am WAITING for those who ARE Truly INTERESTED. I am NOT here, in this forum, to REVEAL the ACTUAL PROOF that IRREFUTABLY SUPPORTS my CLAIMS, that is; BEFORE ACTUAL CLARITY is FIRST SOUGHT OUT.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that I did NOT bring the 'critique' word in here, FIRST, and that it was 'you', "vvilliam", who did this.

and your challenge "Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'." remains empty/is transparent/holds no meaning/is a pointless boast et al.

Now, if absolutely ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on MY CLAIM that 'the Universe is eternal and infinite', then this could be STARTED by just ASKING something like, 'Will you provide ANY ACTUAL evidence or proof for 'this claim'?'

By the way, and let us NOT FORGET, that 'you' TOLD me that, 'If the universe is as you say it is, [that is; infinite and eternal], then explain why bodies die.'

I EXPLAINED WHY is is SAID and CLAIMED 'bodies die', to some degree, again to GAUGE INTEREST here, YET 'you' STILL NEVER 'critiqued' ANY 'thing' I SAID, WROTE, and EXPLAINED.

Now, the Universe IS, EXACTLY, as I SAY 'It' IS here. ALL, supporting, PROOF for 'this ALREADY ESTABLISHED Fact, can be and WILL BE given and provided to those who ARE Truly INTERESTED in KNOWING, and thus BECOMING WISER. Until THEN I have absolutely NO 'need' NOR 'want' to PROVE absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL here.

[Age]

So even if the universe is as you claim ( eternal and infinite ) this in itself means that it has to be a mindful thing, given that we at least know mindfulness exists within it's boundless self.
Therefore, one would be wise not to write-off the idea that there is more to experience for the individual personality, once the body dies.

But then the "wisdom" seen by one, is seen by another as "foolishness" depending on one's particular favored philosophical position...so we critique by way of examining and are able to fall in line with
( establish ) the better overall philosophy. Eventually. Potentially.

Now, if ANY one would like to ACTUALLY 'critique' my CLAIMS, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO 'it'.

The questions you asked me, I will provide the philosophical answer to in my following post.

WHY do 'you' USE the 'philosophical' word here?

1. Is it to come across as though 'your' 'answer' WILL BE somehow MORE ACCURATE, MORE RIGHT, MORE SUPERIOR, or MORE SOMETHING ELSE?

2. What does SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' will provide the 'philosophical answer' ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Just so 'you' are ABSOLUTELY AWARE I SEEK ONLY 'your' FULLEST and Truly Honest and OPEN 'answer/s' ALONE.

Adding the word 'philosophical', to the 'answer' word, is only MORE 'jargon' and only ADDS more LAYERS of UNNECESSARY DISTORTIONS and DISTRACTIONS here.

I AWAIT 'your responses'.

Also, I asked you four questions ONLY, so that should not take you to long to answer, right?

[VVilliam]

We know it is real that bodies die, but we cannot say for certain that minds do.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Those individual personalities who have seen dead bodies and cannot say from that, that the minds of those who occupied the experience of said bodies during the life-time of said bodies, have/have not ceased to continue on as minds experiencing something.

But 'you' were, and are, NEVER the (human) 'body', anyway.

I agree with this philosophy. Thus, a body can die - as in - can no longer serve the purpose it did for the mind which occupied it.

ALSO, there IS ONLY One Mind, which, AGAIN, is ALWAYS, ANYWAY.

Yes. I spoke of this in my prior post when I wrote "I tend toward Naturalism rather than supernaturalism or strictly materialism.

Such subjects as souls and afterlife are thus understood that - if real - then they are a natural product of the natural universe and there is no thing which actually resides outside of this said universe..."

To add to this, the following information re the philosophy I am examining.


This Natural Philosophy presents a holistic perspective on existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It rejects supernaturalism and materialism in favor of its own worldview, which revolves around the concept of the Universal Mind (UM). According to this philosophy, the UM is physical, eternal, and the source of all consciousness and organized matter.

Key principles of This Natural Philosophy include:

Rejection of Supernaturalism:
Supernaturalism is criticized for leading to problems such as infinite regression and the problem of evil. Instead, This Natural Philosophy promotes a naturalistic approach that seeks to explain all phenomena through natural causation.

UM as the Source:
The Universal Mind is considered the fundamental source of all existence. It has the ability to organize unorganized matter into functional forms, and this organization involves the use of sound or frequency.

Purposeful Universe:
This philosophy posits that the universe is purposeful and in a constant state of development. Human experience is viewed as an early stage of this universal development.

Role of ITA: The Intentional Thinking Agent (ITA) within the human instrument is seen as a tool for personality development rather than a permanent entity confined to the instrument.

Death as Natural:
Death of form is regarded as a natural and reasonable part of personality development, not as a result of sin or punishment.

Natural Explanations: This philosophy advocates for natural explanations for all phenomena, dismissing supernatural explanations.

Unity of Minds:
All minds, regardless of their form, are believed to originate from the UM and are eternal.

Rejection of Non-Physical Causes:
This philosophy challenges the idea of non-physical causes leading to physical outcomes.

But HOW could an 'individual personality', which, OBVIOUSLY, can ONLY exist WITHIN an 'individual body' 'experience more' when the 'individual experiencing body' does NOT have a 'functioning brain'?

Since we appear to agree that there is only One Mind, then "how" would have to do with that Mind's capability to "save" minds which have grown personalities through the human experience, and even reuse said personalities in different reality environments ( Functional Forms ). Evidence supporting this concept derives from reports of NDE's OOBE's and other related experiences.

Brains are simply mindless devices - something minds find useful re certain experiences which require biological brains.

WHY do 'you', people, have a so-called 'particular favored philosophical position'?

Everyone, including you have philosophies which they present as their "truth".

So, WHY 'favor' ANY of these MULTITUDE of 'positions'.

I consider there are three main types of philosophy.
1. Materialist Philosophy
2. Supernaturalist Philosophy.
3. Natural - Bridging Philosophy.

3 doesn't reject all concepts from either Supernaturalist or Materialist Philosophies but tests each
sub-category as might arise ( from the multitude ) and critiques accordingly, incorporating that which "passes muster" ( proves to be unable to be critiqued ).

The Natural - Bridging Philosophy is not bias either way.

Re the thread topic... "The Soul", this natural philosophy regards as "The Mind".

[seeds]

I tend toward Naturalism rather than supernaturalism or strictly materialism.

Such subjects as souls and afterlife are thus understood that - if real - then they are a natural product of the natural universe and there is no thing which actually resides outside of this said universe,...

I too view the universe in a way that is compatible with the term "Naturalism."

However, I have a different take on the term "supernatural," where instead of it connoting something "ghost-like" or perhaps "not as real" as our everyday world of suns, and planets, and trees, and cars,...

...the word "supernatural" should be read as "Super-Natural" or perhaps "Ultra-Natural."

In other words, it would be more accurate to think of the soul - along with where it finally ends up after death - as being even MORE NATURAL (more "REAL") than this temporary "illusion" we are presently experiencing.

I'm talking about an illusion that, according to physicist and author Nick Herbert's assessment of Werner Heisenberg's theories regarding the quantum realm, is comprised of a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

--From the book -- QUANTUM REALITY: Beyond the New Physics

The bottom line is that just as our post-birth human bodies are no longer a part of the inner reality of our mother's womb,...

...likewise, our post-death souls will no longer be a part of the inner reality of this universe, which, in essence, is simply the "cosmic womb" of a soul (just like us) who has made it to the heights of what all of our souls are each destined to become...



The blurry captions read as follows:

GOD: "You must have a logical purpose that does not diminish when viewed in the light of the eternal perspective. Though it may be difficult to fathom, it is as simple as this: You are my children and you will become like me. Believe it for it is so. That is life's ultimate truth and it is ours to share together forever."

Seed (quoting a metaphysical prophecy): "...In the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished..."(Revelation, 10:7)

How much more "NATURAL" can the truth of reality get?
_______

If I thought of this in the same way as you expressed, I would then turn it around the other way conceptionally and have it that the "supernatural" is anything which product of the natural - thus if the physical universe is the result of the Natural Mind which created it, then it is the universe which is the "super-to-nature" (non-natural/temporal et al) re said Mind.

You have twisted the point I was making into something other than its intended meaning.

My definition of "Super-Natural" does not mean "super-to-nature" in the way you are framing it, no, it simply refers to a higher version of nature, something that is more in line with the old Hermetic axiom...

"As Below, So Above"

...where the birth of the soul into a higher context of reality is steeped in a similar sense of naturalness as is the birth of the soul's temporary "seedpod" into this lower context of reality...



I know it is difficult, but humans need to understand that, from our present perspective, we are not yet fully born.

Our second and final birth (via the process that we call "death") will represent the completion of the process that began when the zygote was formed in our human mother's physical womb, which, in truth, is simply a fixture of our ultimate mother's cosmic womb...



To discover what God's Obstetrician/Gynecologist found during the above examination, click on the following link...

http://theultimateseeds.com/godvisitsth ... rician.htm
_______

[VVilliam]

My definition of "Super-Natural" does not mean "super-to-nature" in the way you are framing it, no, it simply refers to a higher version of nature, something that is more in line with the old Hermetic axiom...

Thanks for clarifying.

You might agree then, that using the word as a descriptive for a "higher" version of nature, brings with it the implication that one is referring to something which is not "natural".

I consider the use of the word a needless and potentially confusing one. Nature is Nature. The broader mysteries are no more or less natural for that, and describing them as "super" can and does infer something is operating "outside" of nature and "nature" is the result-creation of that "super" thing, when in actually it is one thing, with differing sectors.

"As Below, So Above"

There is no "higher or lower" because there is really only "in and out"
For example, when one goes into the earth, and continues in that direction, one inevitably comes out of the earth.

Up and down are not real things.

Another example.

A person in America is not "above" a person in Australia. Nor would this be true the other way around.

I know it is difficult, but humans need to understand that, from our present perspective, we are not yet fully born.

Our second and final birth (via the process that we call "death") will represent the completion of the process that began when the zygote was formed in our human mother's physical womb, which, in truth, is simply a fixture of our ultimate mother's cosmic womb...

My current understanding is similar.
The human experience is specific to the growing of "human personalities" and this is an initial "phase" of that overall operation.
"Death" is simply transferring the data of experience ( personality initially grown within a human instrument ) into another "phase" which can be experienced because the human instrument the personality was grown in, is no longer useful ( dies ) and this allows the personality the ability to experience more of natures attributes because there is no human instrument blocking that information from getting through.

Some misinterpret such as somehow being "supernatural" simply because - within the confines of the human instrument - such is not usually experienced naturally.

It is an honest enough misinterpretation, but nonetheless the individual is required to correct it ( be correct about it ) when adequate explanation presents itself for the opportunity to do so.

[seeds]

My definition of "Super-Natural" does not mean "super-to-nature" in the way you are framing it, no, it simply refers to a higher version of nature, something that is more in line with the old Hermetic axiom...

Thanks for clarifying.

You might agree then, that using the word as a descriptive for a "higher" version of nature, brings with it the implication that one is referring to something which is not "natural".

Before I can address your subsequent comments, I need for you to give me your personal definition of the word "nature."

I mean, what is "natural" about the world we live in?
_______

[VVilliam]

Before I can address your subsequent comments, I need for you to give me your personal definition of the word "nature."

"Nature" is all that there is and can be experienced.
Therein, we might agree that we do not experience everything ( all that there is ) but that whatever we do experience, including "alternative experiences" are natural experiences derived from Nature and there is no thing which can be experience "outside" of nature, because there is no "outside" of nature.

I mean, what is "natural" about the world we live in?

The world we live in is natural, by nature.

If not, then your question holds no meaning for me, much the same way in which the phrase "life after death" is a strange thing to say, because if a mind/human personality experiences something more after the human body one was temporarily contained within dies, the correct phrase would have to be something along the lines of "life after life" or more descriptively "Continued experience of existing, but in another manner."

[seeds]

I mean, what is "natural" about the world we live in?

The world we live in is natural, by nature.

What's natural about an illusory world that is comprised of energy and information that seems to be "designed" to fool its conscious participants into believing that the illusion somehow created itself?

In other words, say for example, if the characters in this video game...



...somehow became as conscious as us humans, would they be justified in believing that the highly programmed (software-based) virtual world they are experiencing, is natural?

The same situation applies to the universe.

If not, then your question holds no meaning for me, much the same way in which the phrase "life after death" is a strange thing to say, because if a mind/human personality experiences something more after the human body one was temporarily contained within dies, the correct phrase would have to be something along the lines of "life after life" or more descriptively "Continued experience of existing, but in another manner."

Come on now, VVilliam, when humans ask the question: "...is there life after death?..." you know good and well what they mean.

Stop being so nitpicky about our common use and understanding of certain ideas and phrases.
_______

[VVilliam]

What's natural about an illusory world that is comprised of energy and information that seems to be "designed" to fool its conscious participants into believing that the illusion somehow created itself?

In other words, say for example, if the characters in this video game...

..somehow became as conscious as us humans, would they be justified in believing that the highly programmed (software-based) virtual world they are experiencing, is natural?

The same situation applies to the universe.

Not by *the bridging philosophy I am engaged with Seeds.

Clearly we can argue that our universe is a simulation but this in itself does not mean that it is somehow "outside" of that which created it.

With the simulation theory understanding, is that it presents with it the problem of infinite regress, as it opens up the question "if we exist within something which something outside of the universe created, then "what" created that, and what created that... ad infinitum.

Whereas, this is answered by removing the ideas of supernaturalism entirely, and simply replacing those with the idea/philosophy that the Universe has always existed in one form or another and is created from a physical thing which is also a mindful thing and thus also solving the problem of consciousness because

The Source Mind is eternal ( has always and will always exist ) and any functional object which is created, is experienced by said Mind/is the mindfulness of the functional object created to be experienced by said Mind.

And - all this is happening "within" The Source Mind and is Natural for that. It appears as a "simulated" thing because it has been designed as a temporary thing in which an eternal thing can utilize.

The above is a brief overall summary because we are still talking of a very complex thing we are consciously involved with.

Come on now, VVilliam, when humans ask the question: "...is there life after death?..." you know good and well what they mean.

Yes. Generally they mean "some supernatural experience had outside of Nature".

Stop being so nitpicky about our common use and understanding of certain ideas and phrases.

Rather, I am simply applying the concept to the philosophy which best suits it, and therein, see no reason to "stop" doing that, even if it appears to common uses as being "nitpicky".
Use of language internally and externally means in order to get ones point across, one is required to "say" so, and explain "why".

As such, a more comprehensive summary of "*this natural philosophy" can be read here.
( This Natural Philosophy presents a holistic perspective on existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It rejects supernaturalism and materialism in favor of its own worldview, which revolves around the concept of the Universal Mind (UM). According to this philosophy, the UM is physical, eternal, and the source of all consciousness and organized matter. )