the soul...

[Peter Kropotkin]

In reading about the Buddhist, they believe that there is no
such thing as the ''soul''... and that agrees with David Hume,
who also thought that there was no such thing as the soul....

but let us look deeper into this mystery...
what does it mean that we have no fixed, solid soul?
then what is the soul?

thought experiment time....

what if the soul were actually just a place for our own needs and wants...
what we call the soul is actually just our needs and wants and desires in
life... as those needs and wants and desires are quite changeable and
capricious/fickle.. how can we say we have a ''permanent'' soul if we
have a soul that is only engaged in our needs, wants and desires?

so let us follow the Buddhist practice of diminishing or even removing
our needs/wants/desires... what is left of our soul then?
what if, what if in removing the wants and desires and needs of
the soul, we actually find a soul buried somewhere in there?

our soul, instead of being a repository of our needs, wants and desires,
is actually freed up to become what it is...... but we may find
something else, which is the soul in fact, is exactly what Hume
said it was, just passing thing...

he compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity
not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but being composed of
many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements...

if we were to ''peal''' the soul as we would peal an onion,
would we find anything? Hume and the Buddhists would say no...

and yet, both Hume and the Buddhists believe that this ''soul''
is eternal/forever...the soul isn't actually composed of anything
and yet is eternal? quite a tricky problem....
how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

Kropotkin

[Sculptor]

In reading about the Buddhist, they believe that there is no
such thing as the ''soul''... and that agrees with David Hume,
who also thought that there was no such thing as the soul....

but let us look deeper into this mystery...
what does it mean that we have no fixed, solid soul?
then what is the soul?

thought experiment time....

what if the soul were actually just a place for our own needs and wants...
what we call the soul is actually just our needs and wants and desires in
life... as those needs and wants and desires are quite changeable and
capricious/fickle.. how can we say we have a ''permanent'' soul if we
have a soul that is only engaged in our needs, wants and desires?

so let us follow the Buddhist practice of diminishing or even removing
our needs/wants/desires... what is left of our soul then?
what if, what if in removing the wants and desires and needs of
the soul, we actually find a soul buried somewhere in there?

our soul, instead of being a repository of our needs, wants and desires,
is actually freed up to become what it is...... but we may find
something else, which is the soul in fact, is exactly what Hume
said it was, just passing thing...

he compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity
not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but being composed of
many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements...

if we were to ''peal''' the soul as we would peal an onion,
would we find anything? Hume and the Buddhists would say no...

and yet, both Hume and the Buddhists believe that this ''soul''
is eternal/forever...the soul isn't actually composed of anything
and yet is eternal? quite a tricky problem....
how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

Kropotkin

Can you evidence your last paragraph?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In reading about the Buddhist, they believe that there is no
such thing as the ''soul''... and that agrees with David Hume,
who also thought that there was no such thing as the soul....

but let us look deeper into this mystery...
what does it mean that we have no fixed, solid soul?
then what is the soul?

thought experiment time....

what if the soul were actually just a place for our own needs and wants...
what we call the soul is actually just our needs and wants and desires in
life... as those needs and wants and desires are quite changeable and
capricious/fickle.. how can we say we have a ''permanent'' soul if we
have a soul that is only engaged in our needs, wants and desires?

Kropotkin

You are strawmaning Buddhism and Hume.

Buddhism and Hume deny the existence of a 'soul' based on the claims of theists [note Descartes] who insist there is a permanent soul that will survives physical death that can have eternal life in heaven or paradise.

Buddhism and Hume do not deny the idea of a soul or self, but it disappears upon physical death. It is only apparently "permanent" [like a movie] as long as the person is alive.

Note Hume critiqued of permanence;
Hume: “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
viewtopic.php?t=40819

[Iwannaplato]

You are strawmaning Buddhism and Hume.

Buddhism and Hume deny the existence of a 'soul' based on the claims of theists [note Descartes] who insist there is a permanent soul that will survives physical death that can have eternal life in heaven or paradise.

Buddhism and Hume do not deny the idea of a soul or self, but it disappears upon physical death. It is only apparently "permanent" [like a movie] as long as the person is alive.

The concept of anatman is not just about after death. There is nothing like conventional notions of identity or the persistance of the self even through a single lifetime in Buddhism. Bundles of processes, all changing. To think, from a Buddhist perspective, it is still you 20 years later is confused.

[rich]

A brief footnote!

https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato3.htm

[Peter Kropotkin]

I am short of time as I have to work this morning, but
try this:

seek out your own soul... where is it? what does it look like?
what beliefs does the soul actually have? can you pin down the soul to
one substance, and what is that substance? is the soul the same as or
different from thoughts, which have no substance, no there.. there...
can you make a soul/thought physical? How do you know that you
have a soul? what evidence is there for a soul?

Kropotkin

[seeds]

so let us follow the Buddhist practice of diminishing or even removing
our needs/wants/desires... what is left of our soul then?
what if, what if in removing the wants and desires and needs of
the soul, we actually find a soul buried somewhere in there?

our soul, instead of being a repository of our needs, wants and desires,
is actually freed up to become what it is...... but we may find
something else, which is the soul in fact, is exactly what Hume
said it was, just passing thing...

he compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity
not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but being composed of
many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements...

if we were to ''peal''' the soul as we would peal an onion,
would we find anything? Hume and the Buddhists would say no...

In assessing the existence (or lack thereof) of the human self (or, in this instance, the "soul"), in his book -- "A Treatise of Human Nature" -- Hume stated the following...

“...I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement...”

The ironic aspect of that statement is that Hume not only has to rely on the existence of something called the "I" (or the self) to affirm his convictions about mankind, but that this "I" (this inner self) is also apparently capable of "experiencing"...

(as in seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and tasting)

...different "perceptions."

And the point is that it is silly to imagine that you can rule-out the existence of the very thing that is performing the act of ruling out its own existence.
_______

[VVilliam]

so let us follow the Buddhist practice of diminishing or even removing
our needs/wants/desires... what is left of our soul then?
what if, what if in removing the wants and desires and needs of
the soul, we actually find a soul buried somewhere in there?

our soul, instead of being a repository of our needs, wants and desires,
is actually freed up to become what it is...... but we may find
something else, which is the soul in fact, is exactly what Hume
said it was, just passing thing...

he compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity
not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but being composed of
many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements...

if we were to ''peal''' the soul as we would peal an onion,
would we find anything? Hume and the Buddhists would say no...

In assessing the existence (or lack thereof) of the human self (or, in this instance, the "soul"), in his book -- "A Treatise of Human Nature" -- Hume stated the following...

“...I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement...”

The ironic aspect of that statement is that Hume not only has to rely on the existence of something called the "I" (or the self) to affirm his convictions about mankind, but that this "I" (this inner self) is also apparently capable of "experiencing"...

(as in seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and tasting)

...different "perceptions."

And the point is that it is silly to imagine that you can rule-out the existence of the very thing that is performing the act of ruling out its own existence.
_______

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, even that the experiences reported imply otherwise - the implication is not in itself a claim - the experiences folk report are simply different from normal day-to-day ones and often difficult to explain using day-to-day terminology without cascading into claims that these experiences are "therefore supernatural".

Once one realizes this one can argue from that platform rather than be bound to having to argue from the other platforms (materialism and supernaturalism). I find that it acts as a kind of bridging mechanism between those two extremes.

I get the idea that some forms of Buddhism are saying that all experience is natural experience, but draw the line before presuming human personalities ("I") don't experience other things after their current bodies/avatars cease to function.

For this particular ("I") the thinking is that I AM (self identify as being) a personality grown through the human circumstance and that the "soul" aspect is the repository data of experience from each and every life I have possibly experienced, as human or whatever else.
This means that the "personality" mentioned is not just the one being grown/developed here and now, but whole amount of personalities contain in the attaché the "soul" represents.

The data contained in the soul is able to be accessed by the current I AM that I identify as, and as a result, the current I AM is learning to understand itself as being a conglomerate of personality growths altogether representing "ME" and where I understand types of Buddhism warn personalities to remember that they are all "merely" EGOS those egos nonetheless play an important role as a means for the Primary Creator to occupy space time and enjoy the experience - rather than simply "being God" in some perfectly pure state, forever.

Let the egos b-egos. Play with IT. Enjoy its multifaceted company and have fun doing so and remember not to take any THING too seriously.

[Sculptor]

Where does Hume imply this??

Hume and the Buddhists believe that this ''soul''
is eternal/forever...the soul isn't actually composed of anything
and yet is eternal?

[Sculptor]

Rubbish

In His Treatise, Hume far from represents the idea of the couls as presented to us by Kopotkin.
On the contrary Hume remains skeptical of the question:

Thus neither by considering the first origin of ideas, nor by means of a definition are we able to arrive at any satisfactory notion of substance; which seems to me a sufficient reason for abandoning utterly that dispute concerning the materiality and immateriality of the soul, and makes me absolutely condemn even the question itself. We have no perfect idea of any thing but of a perception. A substance is entirely different from a perception. We have, therefore, no idea of a substance. Inhesion in something is suppos’d to be requisite to support the existence of our perceptions. Nothing appears requisite to support the existence of a perception. We have, therefore, no idea of inhesion. What possibility then of answering that question, Whether perceptions inhere in a material or immaterial substance, when we do not so much as understand the meaning of the question? Section V, para 6

THen in colclusion after some debate, his skepticism of the concept remains.

"There is no foundation for any conclusion a priori, either concerning the operations or duration of any object, of which ’tis possible for the human mind to form a conception. Any object may be imagin’d to become entirely inactive, or to be annihilated in a moment; and ’tis an evident principle, that whatever we can imagine, is possible. Now this is no more true of matter, than of spirit; of an extended compounded substance, than of a simple and unextended. In both cases the metaphysical arguments for the immortality of the soul are equally inconclusive; and in both cases the moral arguments and those deriv’d from the analogy of nature are equally strong and convincing. If my philosophy, therefore, makes no addition to the arguments for religion, I have at least the satisfaction to think it takes nothing from them, but that every thing remains precisely as before." Section V, para 35.

DO your fucking homeowork Kropotkin!!

[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?
_______

[Skepdick]

and yet, both Hume and the Buddhists believe that this ''soul''
is eternal/forever...the soul isn't actually composed of anything
and yet is eternal? quite a tricky problem....
how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

This "mystery" disappears when you interpret it from a computational perspective.

Assume the following perspective: Time doesn't exist. It's always NOW. The eternal NOW. This NOW undergoes perpetual reconfigurations/changes from all the various forces which exist. Physical forces, humans, galaxies, the whole thing doing what it does.

Then comes the notion of "memories". The effects of past causes.

So what's the soul? It's memories of you.

Memories of you in your own head - the experiences you acquired since birth.
Memories of you in the heads of other people - the ways you affected other people's lives.
Memories of you in the database of this forum - the ways your thoughts were recorded.
Memories of you in the way you've inspired other people to be more OR less like like you.
Memories, memories, memories.

Your "soul" is the mark you've left on the world; and the mark the world has left on you.
It's that part of you which continues having an impact on the world even after you are gone - because your soul lives on.

[Age]

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.

But why even look at or consider what could be so-called 'more accurate' when what IS Accurate can be already clearly seen, and known?

Also, there is no such 'real thing' as 'more real' NOR 'more natural'.

If you can not yet see what IS actually Real, HERE-NOW in this one and only eternal and infinite Universe within and through a breathing human body, then you certainly are NOT going to see ANY 'thing' afterwards when that body stops breathing and stops pumping blood.

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...

1. Who and/or what is 'the ones', which you claim have 'their souls'?

2. If 'things' are destined to become SOME 'thing', then 'this' WOULD, and WILL, happen HERE in the One and ONLY Universe, and NOT in some made up and believed OTHER universe.

3. Souls will always be a part of the True Reality of this One and ONLY Universe. 'you', souls, will however only come-to-realize 'this Fact' while the bodies that 'you' are all in are 'alive', and 'kicking', as some would say.

4. 'This Universe' is CERTAINLY NOT some so-called 'cosmic womb' inside of some 'other womb' or some 'other reality'. And, wishing, dreaming, or hoping that 'you' will come 'more alive' in some 'other place' after 'that body' stops breathing, and stops kicking, is Truly, literally, just 'wishful thinking', ONLY.

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?
_______

There is absolutely NOTHING that is, supposedly and so-called, 'un-natural' nor 'non-natural'.

And, as I have been SAYING here, What WAS a PERCEIVED 'mystery of God', has ALREADY been 'solved', and thus KNOWN, in this One and ONLY Universe. Just most of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written were just NOT YET AWARE of 'this'. Also, each and EVERY 'mystery' can ONLY become KNOWN while 'you', beings/souls, exist within living bodies. Therefore, once the body stops breathing, kicking, and pumping blood, the conscious one that WAS inside will, FOREVER MORE, NEVER be able to come-to-REALIZE, and KNOW, the ACTUAL Truth OF and ABOUT God, and OTHER 'things'.

[Age]

and yet, both Hume and the Buddhists believe that this ''soul''
is eternal/forever...the soul isn't actually composed of anything
and yet is eternal? quite a tricky problem....
how can something that isn't composed of anything, be eternal?

This "mystery" disappears when you interpret it from a computational perspective.

Assume the following perspective: Time doesn't exist. It's always NOW. The eternal NOW. This NOW undergoes perpetual reconfigurations/changes from all the various forces which exist. Physical forces, humans, galaxies, the whole thing doing what it does.

Then comes the notion of "memories". The effects of past causes.

So what's the soul? It's memories of you.

Memories of you in your own head - the experiences you acquired since birth.
Memories of you in the heads of other people - the ways you affected other people's lives.
Memories of you in the database of this forum - the ways your thoughts were recorded.
Memories of you in the way you've inspired other people to be more OR less like like you.
Memories, memories, memories.

Your "soul" is the mark you've left on the world; and the mark the world has left on you.
It's that part of you which continues having an impact on the world even after you are gone - because your soul lives on.

So,

What are 'memories', exactly?

Who, and/or what is the 'you', which 'you' claim has 'a soul'? And,

What is 'a soul', exactly?

DISCOVER, or LEARN, and KNOW 'these things', exactly, then 'you' will be MUCH CLOSER to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

[Skepdick]

What are 'memories', exactly?

You don't know what memories, are Age?

Do you have any; or do you suffer from perpetual amnesia?