Does The Soul Survive After Death?

[WAB]

'What does it mean to be "consciously aware"'? Is a good question IMO.

It's obviously not enough to be simply "aware", or it wouldn't need the modifier "consciously".

So I am guessing it's a matter of being aware that you're aware.

I'm all of that, and SO much more.

I am often aware that I am aware that I am aware, even as I maintain an awareness of my awareness.
I imagine there are super-beings - gods, if you like - who are constantly aware that they are aware that they are aware, and may even sometimes be aware that that they are aware that they are aware that they are aware!
Maybe ALL things exist on a spectral continuum of awareness, from dust particles to gods, with muons being the least "aware" and gods holding the greatest number of "aware that they are aware"s after their description! That must be really cool if you're a god.

Anyhow, if that's the case then "consciously aware" is just a relative term.

It seems to me I am aware of things happening in my dreams, when I'm dreaming - but since I am not aware that I'm dreaming while I'm dreaming, am I actually aware? Can one be unconsciously aware? Or perhaps we are conscious while we are dreaming?

Awareness is probably just a made-up thing invented by the Hindi to sell more awareness.

I think it's aliens. The reptiley-lizardy ones.

ETA: And they wrote Shakespeare, too.

 

[Learner]

I really need to get into this stuff, there is money to be made.

Quantum Mechanics Proves The Soul Exists
By Steve Bank

Available at a bookstore near you.

Being that we are 'consciously aware, intelligent entities' - one could consider we exist as souls. Broken down to the base fundamentals. Are we particles or waves, or both?

Anyway .. I'd buy your book Steve, but I'd ask you to kindly sign it.

And again what does consciously aware mean?

'Consciously aware' just means being ALIVE! The understanding as we know by the universal common definition i.e. living... which in contrast to non-living, having no will, no concerns,and no thoughts, as do intelligent agents or humans do.

(As with the illustration of a 'conscious entity', used in Christianity for the 'Living' God, who 'breathed the life' into Adams body, made from non-living matter, or dust)

Obviously, it gets a little difficult, between individuals on these topics, when there are various 'takes', on the definitions for soul, which may allure the mind to 'over-philosophise' or 'over- think' certain meanings, when instead... some meanings could conceptually be much simpler to comprehend.

Chimps are aware, and some actually make toold from rocks to crack nuts. It's a skill that is passed by miimickry across generations.

We share genes with chimps, do chimps have souls?

I would say yes, as I mention above. 'Breath of life' is in all creatures.

The verse below gives the context:

Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a 'living soul'.”

Souls of creatures aren't emphasised, or described much as humans, although... animals, which are 'not' sinners, do get mentioned in the 'new earth paradise' like lions (no longer predators) will be laying side by side with lambs.

My sense of ethics would make it uncomfortable for me to write a book about something that exploits those who are susceptible to foolishness.

You equate awareness to soul without defining either.The same way Christians about god.

I used the bible, to help give a definition above - living Souls, that the body can't do without.

 

[Elixir]

Is a virus alive?

 

[Learner]

Good point.

Intelligence is gradient for thinking creatures. Some behave like machines, on auto.
Is a virus intelligent? It doesn't, as far as I know intentionally commits sins.

 

[bilby]

Is a virus alive?

They don't breathe, so Biblically, no.

Viruses are living (or not) proof that "alive/not alive" isn't a categorisation schema that describes a real division between real objects in the real world.

Most categories don't. Particularly dichotomies. Particularly in biology.

But humans love themselves some pigeonholes.

 

[lostone]

Biologists and philosophers have a hard time reaching agreement on the definition of life. There is no conscensus.

 

[Thomas II]

Is a virus alive?

Viruses are obligate parasites in that they can only replicate within a living host cell. Thus the science of virology is largely dependent upon the requirement to be able to grow and propagate such host cells.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326696

 

[Elixir]

Is a virus alive?

Viruses are obligate parasites in that they can only replicate within a living host cell. Thus the science of virology is largely dependent upon the requirement to be able to grow and propagate such host cells.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326696

Zackly. Why I asked.
Creos and their sympathizers like to throw around I’ll-defined words like “life”, “awareness”, “conscious” etc., apparently trying to put them together in sequences that seem to pose problems that can only be solved by positing goddidit.
The actual solution is “that’s bullshit” but I’ve been too easily amused by this thread to say so.

 

[Learner]

Is a virus alive?

Viruses are obligate parasites in that they can only replicate within a living host cell. Thus the science of virology is largely dependent upon the requirement to be able to grow and propagate such host cells.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326696

Zackly. Why I asked.
Creos and their sympathizers like to throw around I’ll-defined words like “life”, “awareness”, “conscious” etc., apparently trying to put them together in sequences that seem to pose problems that can only be solved by positing goddidit.
The actual solution is “that’s bullshit” but I’ve been too easily amused by this thread to say so.

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds, which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

The 'throwing around' different meanings to words, semantically, isn't coming from me. As we see on the thread, there seems to be a granting of license, to come up with any erroneous arguments that's supposedly counters any "goddidit" claims.

Like for example, narrowing down, focusing on the biblical term 'breath of life' - erroneously thinking that this is the means for an argument - like basing it 'around' the idea that humans 'breathe oxygen' - even though plants and trees don't, but they're living too.

 

[bilby]

like basing it 'around' the idea that humans 'breathe oxygen' - even though plants and trees don't, but they're living too.

If you're of the impression that plants and trees don't breathe oxygen, then you're probably not qualified to have any opinion on the matter of what is or is not alive.

Interestingly, the authors of the tale of Noah and his zoo boat clearly agreed with you that plants and trees don't need to breathe air; According to the Bible, after forty days and nights underwater, the plants were all perfectly healthy and green.

I would suggest that this also disqualifies them from having any input into a reasonable discussion about what is or is not "alive".

 

[Learner]

like basing it 'around' the idea that humans 'breathe oxygen' - even though plants and trees don't, but they're living too.

If you're of the impression that plants and trees don't breathe oxygen, then you're probably not qualified to have any opinion on the matter of what is or is not alive.

I was using a convention as the analogy.. plants take-in carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a by-product etc..

Interestingly, the authors of the tale of Noah and his zoo boat clearly agreed with you that plants and trees don't need to breathe air; According to the Bible, after forty days and nights underwater, the plants were all perfectly healthy and green. Only

According to the bible... it rained for forty days and forty nights but Noah and fam still had to remain on the ark for about a year until things settled down.

I would suggest that this also disqualifies them from having any input into a reasonable discussion about what is or is not "alive".

Are there any disqualifications for not reading the bible accurately? Inputting into discussion, misquoted verses?

 

[Elixir]

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds,

Concerns? Who cares about concerns? You can't define awareness, consciousness or intelligence, so any conclusion derived from your "concerns" is bullshit.

which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

Things don't "mean" what you think they "should" - to anyone other than yourself.

A lot of us do rely, for better or for worse, on repeatable observations, science and math, to predict and explain the behavior of the matter and energy that comprise the universe that surrounds us.
We do not rely exclusively on those things in our moment to moment lives of course, because humans are plagued with language.
And our language contains words like "awareness" and "intelligence" that have no rigorous meaning, and therefore do not lend to observation, explanation or prediction of any real phenomena, even if they are useful for communicating subjective things between humans.
The pitfall of discussions like this, is treating awareness, consciousness or intelligence like actual definable things that can be treated with logic to reach reliable conclusions. And that's what you're doing.

I don't mean to be mean, but this thread is utterly devoid of any ACTUAL meaning, no matter what you or anyone else is able to read into it to support religious poppycock. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't entertaining.

 

[steve_bank]

Plant life takes in the C)2 we exhale and prisces O@ We take in O@ and exhale CO2. Not just survce plants, ocean plankton.

Us 'intelligent' humans do not make O2, it is produced by organic plant life.

High school biology.

Do all plants convert CO2 to oxygen?
Image result for plants oxygen co2
All plants, including algae and cyanobacteria carry out photosynthesis. This is a process where CO2 and water are converted to sugars and oxygen. It takes place in special cell structures called chloroplasts which are small organs inside plant cells.

'Human Intelligence' is inescapably human-centric. We pat ourselves on the back and declare superiority over nature.

In the 50s we were taught humans were unique because of articulate speech and language, opposing thumb and forefinger(dexterity), and tool making.

When you broaden the scope of communication and tool making it is not all that clear cut.

So, intelligence is contextual. as is awareness.

I believe the western belief we are special outside of the natural world is a myth with origin in Genesis.

Comsuming until it is unsustainable is intelligent? That is what a bacteria or virus does, expand until the host source expires. Nuclear weapons? Building population centers and ceitical infrastructure at sea level?

From one perpsective we are quite stupid.

 

[bilby]

I was using a convention as the analogy.. plants take-in carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a by-product etc..

You know that's not the whole story, surely?

Surely?

Plants also take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. They respire just like you do - they happen to also photosynthesise when sufficient light is available, but that's not what keeps them alive (it just lets them live without an external food source). Plants survive at night, but they can't survive without a steady supply of oxygen, any more than you can.

This is super simple stuff. If you don't already know and understand it, then you're not qualified to opine on matters biological at all.

 

[Jarhyn]

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds,

Concerns? Who cares about concerns? You can't define awareness, consciousness or intelligence, so any conclusion derived from your "concerns" is bullshit.

which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

Things don't "mean" what you think they "should" - to anyone other than yourself.

A lot of us do rely, for better or for worse, on repeatable observations, science and math, to predict and explain the behavior of the matter and energy that comprise the universe that surrounds us.
We do not rely exclusively on those things in our moment to moment lives of course, because humans are plagued with language.
And our language contains words like "awareness" and "intelligence" that have no rigorous meaning, and therefore do not lend to observation, explanation or prediction of any real phenomena, even if they are useful for communicating subjective things between humans.
The pitfall of discussions like this, is treating awareness, consciousness or intelligence like actual definable things that can be treated with logic to reach reliable conclusions. And that's what you're doing.

I don't mean to be mean, but this thread is utterly devoid of any ACTUAL meaning, no matter what you or anyone else is able to read into it to support religious poppycock. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't entertaining.

Hey now, some of us attempt to enforce rigor in our meanings even for such esoteric ideas as "thought" and "belief" and "intelligence" and "awareness" and "freedom" and "will"...

Usually however, this just contributes to messy arguments with other people who didn't do any of that work to create a rigorous definition, and want to use those terms in foolish ways... Like the way Learned uses them.

 

[Learner]

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds,

Concerns? Who cares about concerns? You can't define awareness, consciousness or intelligence, so any conclusion derived from your "concerns" is bullshit.

which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

Things don't "mean" what you think they "should" - to anyone other than yourself.

A lot of us do rely, for better or for worse, on repeatable observations,
[......]
The pitfall of discussions like this, is treating awareness, consciousness or intelligence like actual def

I don't mean to be mean, but this thread is utterly devoid of any ACTUAL meaning, no matter what you or anyone else is able to read into it to support religious poppycock. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't entertaining.

Hey now, some of us attempt to enforce rigor in our meanings even for such esoteric ideas as "thought" and "belief" and "intelligence" and "awareness" and "freedom" and "will"...

(Responding in no particular order)

Or is it 'rigourously enforcing meanings' ? Which is possibly the case for some.

Usually however, this just contributes to messy arguments with other people who didn't do any of that work to create a rigorous definition, and want to use those terms in foolish ways... Like the way Learned uses them.

Like I use them? You mean unlike the notion, I believe you have, that man-made machines could be similar, in attributes like self-awareness of thinking humans?

 

[No Robots]

Harry Waton:

It was assumed that the soul has a conscious and actual existence separate and apart from the body. Such soul never existed. The soul is an idea of God, and this idea has a conscious and actual existence only in the body. Before the body comes into existence, the soul is only an idea in God; and, when the body dies, the soul again becomes an idea of God; but the soul has then no longer a conscious and actual existence. Finally, the immortality of the soul does not mean that, after the death of the body, the soul goes up to heaven and there continues to exist forever in a disembodied state. Such immortality never existed. The soul as an idea of God is eternal, but its conscious and actual existence continues through reincarnations in human bodies. It is with the soul as it is with the idea of the electric lamp. In the mind of men the idea may exist for ever, but the actual existence and function of this idea begins only when it becomes embodied in a material electric lamp. This is the true monistic view of existence. The idea and its material form are one and the same.

 

[Learner]

I was using a convention as the analogy.. plants take-in carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a by-product etc..

You know that's not the whole story, surely?

Surely?

Yes but I don't think there's an issue here. One could make tons of analogies for a wide range of discussions from the same 'whole story'. In other words, to illustrate a position - in this case, mine was differentiating humans from plants and trees - so just a few lines from the story was sufficient....

....I could have instead, used an illustration, God made hands and feet for humans but not for trees... But they're both alive.

Plants also take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. They respire just like you do - they happen to also photosynthesise when sufficient light is available, but that's not what keeps them alive (it just lets them live without an external food source). Plants survive at night, but they can't survive without a steady supply of oxygen, any more than you can.

This is super simple stuff. If you don't already know and understand it, then you're not qualified to opine on matters biological at all.

A little unnecessary of an overshoot, but kudos for putting in the time.

 

[steve_bank]

Still no explicit definition of a soul that exists post mortem.

The early Chrtian belief is a resurrection of the body in a place called heaven based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Jarhyn]

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds,

Concerns? Who cares about concerns? You can't define awareness, consciousness or intelligence, so any conclusion derived from your "concerns" is bullshit.

which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

Things don't "mean" what you think they "should" - to anyone other than yourself.

A lot of us do rely, for better or for worse, on repeatable observations,
[......]
The pitfall of discussions like this, is treating awareness, consciousness or intelligence like actual def

I don't mean to be mean, but this thread is utterly devoid of any ACTUAL meaning, no matter what you or anyone else is able to read into it to support religious poppycock. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't entertaining.

Hey now, some of us attempt to enforce rigor in our meanings even for such esoteric ideas as "thought" and "belief" and "intelligence" and "awareness" and "freedom" and "will"...

(Responding in no particular order)

Or is it 'rigourously enforcing meanings' ? Which is possibly the case for some.

No. I mean what I said. I enforce rigor in any words I use within argumentation of fact.

If I don't know exactly what I am trying to reference, particularly with those words, I don't argue around or with them.

This is what it means to enforce rigor.

If you would like to present alternative and equally rigorous definitions, I invite you to but you have not.

Usually however, this just contributes to messy arguments with other people who didn't do any of that work to create a rigorous definition, and want to use those terms in foolish ways... Like the way Learned uses them.

Like I use them? You mean unlike the notion, I believe you have, that man-made machines could be similar, in attributes like self-awareness of thinking humans?

See, there you go again, using the word "thinking" as if it's any different what a machine does.

Do you even know what you mean to say with "self awareness" or even the term "aware" or "conscious"?