posted 12-25-2000 07:38 PM            

Right On!

Roman burns both ends of the candle and eventualy he will be caught in the middle.

It's called the Laser Treatment, right Rico?

Happy Holidays.

Satire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RicoLaser:
Roman74 -

I don't get it. One minute you say you're not here to tear anybody down, and the next minute you're saying we're all dumb. Doesn't that qualify as tearing people down? Explain, please.

---

posted 12-25-2000 09:49 PM            

You disagreed with my post regarding us being souls, not bodies, and you stated: "...The ego, or Id, is self-contained in the body. It's the ego that we're referring to here - the emotional identity that at once controls the body and wants to soar above it. Even your brain, where the ego is housed, is made of physical parts and THIS EGO never escapes the body, no matter how much it wants to."

If we are an emotional identity, or ego, which is HOUSED in the brain, then this means that we (the ego) are something DIFFERENT from the brain - something other than the body. In that case, you are actually agreeing that we are NOT our bodies, but rather housed in our bodies.

How is this ego, or Id, or emotional identity, different from a soul?

And what makes you think that we cannot "escape" (or leave) our bodies?

posted 12-25-2000 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by khouriana:
What is your true purpose? Since most people on the board disagree with you, and you seem to be failing miserably at "converting" their beliefs, what do you hope to gain?

And...why do you care? If you don't respect their opinions, and they aren't (presumably) making your car payments or anything, what's it to you if they believe that Santa Claus really did come down their chimmney, and eat those damn cookies? How could it possibly, LOGICALLY, affect your life?

---

Where were you the last hundred posts? I've stated my intentions here very clearly. I'll leave it up to you to find my very clearly stated reasons.

posted 12-25-2000 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
Dear Roman74,

You disagreed with my post regarding us being souls, not bodies, and you stated: "...The ego, or Id, is self-contained in the body. It's the ego that we're referring to here - the emotional identity that at once controls the body and wants to soar above it. Even your brain, where the ego is housed, is made of physical parts and THIS EGO never escapes the body, no matter how much it wants to."

If we are an emotional identity, or ego, which is HOUSED in the brain, then this means that we (the ego) are something DIFFERENT from the brain - something other than the body. In that case, you are actually agreeing that we are NOT our bodies, but rather housed in our bodies.

How is this ego, or Id, or emotional identity, different from a soul?

And what makes you think that we cannot "escape" (or leave) our bodies?

---

EGO: (1) the "I" or self of any person. (2) the conscious, rational component of the psyche that experiences and reacts to the outside world and mediates between the demands of the id and superego.
- Random House Dictionary

Why does this mean it's something different than the brain? That's pure nonsense. The ego is simply another part of the brain ("where the ego is housed"). We are our bodies, AND we are housed in our bodies. Don't complicate this now. You're trying to change my very clearly stated words to suit your own purposes and it simply won't work. Stoduy psychology and then come back to me.

The differences between the ego and (supposed) soul:

1- the ego is in the brain; when you die, your brain and ego die, too.
2- the ego stems from a material object called the brain, and therefore resides in the realm of the physical.
3- the ego is tested and measurable.
4- the (supposed) soul is an ephemeral, non-material substance of some kind.
5- the soul has never been proven, testable, or measurable.
6- Being totally derived of physical parts, and physical parts alone-- we are bound by the limits of physics and the limits of our own bodies. Plain and simple. No leaving the body, and never being whisped away to places, oh so rare!! (woo woo) LOL

posted 12-26-2000 12:22 AM            

OK, let's take it one step at a time.

Your quote:

"EGO: (1) the "I" or self of any person. (2) the conscious, rational component of the psyche that experiences and reacts to the outside world and mediates between the demands of the id and superego.
- Random House Dictionary

Two questions:

1. The first definition states: "The "I" or self of any person."

Which means that it's a PART of the person. What is this person to which that "I" or self belong to?

2. The second definition states: "the conscious, rational component of the psyche..."

It states that the Ego is a COMPONENT of the psyche. What is then the psyche?

My Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary states: "soul."

The rest of your post is not consistent, and actually contradicts these definitions.

By the way, you stated in your first post that you've had some extraordinary experiences yourself. Would you care to share them here?

posted 12-26-2000 12:43 AM            

As you can see, the first definition leads way to more figurative language. As part of a poetic license, figurative language allows different meanings for the same word. The second two definitions are more precise explanations.

I've explained in previous posts how figurative language is often mistaken for literal language. This is the obvious case here. Mind obviously stems physical. But thoughts are often perceived as being "somewhere out there" even though they reside in the head, but even so, mind is placed in with spirit and soul (supposedly non-physical, and lack of form) - all of them, poetically referring to something that leaves the body, but never in precise language.

See, you're still searching, but looking in the wrong places. The bottom line here is you cannot mistake figurative language for exact language, or you're likely to believe all sorts of strange things that only happen in language - not reality.

---
I've actually thought about describing my personal experiences here as a demonstration of rational perceptive skills, but it will take too long to write it all out and judging by the lack of depth of insight here, it would be too disappointing for all of you with all the seemingly amazing things that have happened to me, I don't resort to convenient conclusions or fairy tales to comfort me. It would be like telling a fairy tale but ruining all the clever, imaginative parts and sticking to the hardcore facts.

posted 12-26-2000 09:25 AM            

If you insist on trying to save us from ourselves and educating us on logic and reason even if we're not the least bit interested in what you have to say .... well, I guess I can put up with that. But I have a request to make. Just out of courtesy to me and the rest of the believers here, could you tone down the condescension just a tad? Yours is NOT the only opinion on the planet, and to pretend that it is is an insult to the rest of us.

Courtesy - you've heard of that, right?

posted 12-26-2000 10:15 AM            

I don’t get it. You quoted a dictionary definition to support your position. Now that you are asked to examine that definition, you distance yourself from it by stating that when the dictionary refers to “psyche” as “soul” it’s “figurative language. As part of a poetic license...”

You make sweeping statements about psychology and its “measurable data.” You make psychology sound as if it were a science. It’s not. If psychology were considered a science, university graduates who study it for 4 years would receive a Bachelor of Science degrees. They don’t. They receive a Bachelor of Arts degrees. For good reason. No self-respecting scientist would ever allow him/herself to be associated with the faulty “experiments” and less-than-bright deductions which have come out of this failed attempt to understand what makes us tick.

The word “psychology” has a meaning. “Psyche” means “soul” in its origin. “logy” means “the study of.” Put together, the word means “the study of the soul.” That was the mission of psychology in its inception. Since it has mistakenly assumed the SYMPTOMS of human behavior to be the CAUSE of such behavior, you can easily understand why it has failed in its mission. Now that it has failed so often for so long, it has totaly abandoned its own mission of studying the soul, and decided instead to declare that it doesn’t exit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In an earlier post you suggested that I study psychology. I did. For 3 years, at Hunter College in New York and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I grew increasingly disgusted with the very sloppy methodology and laughable results, and even more laughable conclusions psychologists reached. It’s a sorry excuse for an art, and even sorrier excuse for a science.

If you want to help people feel better about themselves and do better in life, you simply need to look at what makes them feel and do better. Read this string, Roman74. Please read it. And not with distain, as you have, but with curiosity. Look at the extraordinary experiences shared here. And the way people feel about these experiences.

Do people do better in life when they think they are nothing but a piece of meat, or do they do better when they think they are immortal beings, capable of much more than meets the eye?

The truth is indicated by the results because the being seeks to heal itself. If the being, seeking to heal itself, seeks spiritual answers and feels great when finding spiritual freedom, than that is where the truth is.

Let’s acknowlege it.

What is true for you is true for you, Roman74, and you are welcome to believe what you like.

But please don’t invalidate what is true for someone else.

posted 12-26-2000 10:31 AM            

Your response below to Roman is articulate and right on!

I make it a practice not to argue with anyone who defines their own argument.

Roman tried in vain to redefine soul and/or mind to:

Id, Ego...... with no success.

I am sure there are many on this thread that
appreciate your point of view.

Thank you,

Satire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
Dear Roman74,

I don’t get it. You quoted a dictionary definition to support your position. Now that you are asked to examine that definition, you distance yourself from it by stating that when the dictionary refers to “psyche” as “soul” it’s “figurative language. As part of a poetic license...”

You make sweeping statements about psychology and its “measurable data.” You make psychology sound as if it were a science. It’s not. If psychology were considered a science, university graduates who study it for 4 years would receive a Bachelor of Science degrees. They don’t. They receive a Bachelor of Arts degrees. For good reason. No self-respecting scientist would ever allow him/herself to be associated with the faulty “experiments” and less-than-bright deductions which have come out of this failed attempt to understand what makes us tick.

The word “psychology” has a meaning. “Psyche” means “soul” in its origin. “logy” means “the study of.” Put together, the word means “the study of the soul.” That was the mission of psychology in its inception. Since it has mistakenly assumed the SYMPTOMS of human behavior to be the CAUSE of such behavior, you can easily understand why it has failed in its mission. Now that it has failed so often for so long, it has totaly abandoned its own mission of studying the soul, and decided instead to declare that it doesn’t exit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In an earlier post you suggested that I study psychology. I did. For 3 years, at Hunter College in New York and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I grew increasingly disgusted with the very sloppy methodology and laughable results, and even more laughable conclusions psychologists reached. It’s a sorry excuse for an art, and even sorrier excuse for a science.

If you want to help people feel better about themselves and do better in life, you simply need to look at what makes them feel and do better. Read this string, Roman74. Please read it. And not with distain, as you have, but with curiosity. Look at the extraordinary experiences shared here. And the way people feel about these experiences.

Do people do better in life when they think they are nothing but a piece of meat, or do they do better when they think they are immortal beings, capable of much more than meets the eye?

The truth is indicated by the results because the being seeks to heal itself. If the being, seeking to heal itself, seeks spiritual answers and feels great when finding spiritual freedom, than that is where the truth is.

Let’s acknowlege it.

What is true for you is true for you, Roman74, and you are welcome to believe what you like.

But please don’t invalidate what is true for someone else.

---

posted 12-26-2000 10:43 AM            

I don’t get it. You quoted a dictionary definition to support your position. Now that you are asked to examine that definition, you distance yourself from it by stating that when the dictionary refers to “psyche” as “soul” it’s “figurative language. As part of a poetic license...”

You make sweeping statements about psychology and its “measurable data.” You make psychology sound as if it were a science. It’s not. If psychology were considered a science, university graduates who study it for 4 years would receive a Bachelor of Science degrees. They don’t. They receive a Bachelor of Arts degrees. For good reason. No self-respecting scientist would ever allow him/herself to be associated with the faulty “experiments” and less-than-bright deductions which have come out of this failed attempt to understand what makes us tick.

The word “psychology” has a meaning. “Psyche” means “soul” in its origin. “logy” means “the study of.” Put together, the word means “the study of the soul.” That was the mission of psychology in its inception. Since it has mistakenly assumed the SYMPTOMS of human behavior to be the CAUSE of such behavior, you can easily understand why it has failed in its mission. Now that it has failed so often for so long, it has totaly abandoned its own mission of studying the soul, and decided instead to declare that it doesn’t exit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In an earlier post you suggested that I study psychology. I did. For 3 years, at Hunter College in New York and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I grew increasingly disgusted with the very sloppy methodology and laughable results, and even more laughable conclusions psychologists reached. It’s a sorry excuse for an art, and even sorrier excuse for a science.

If you want to help people feel better about themselves and do better in life, you simply need to look at what makes them feel and do better. Read this string, Roman74. Please read it, and not with distain, as you have, but with real curiosity. Look at the extraordinary experiences shared here. And the way people feel about these experiences.

Do people do better in life when they think they are nothing but a piece of meat, or do they do better when they think they are immortal beings, capable of much more than meets the eye?

The truth is indicated by the results because the being seeks to heal itself. If the being, seeking to heal itself, seeks spiritual answers and feels great when finding spiritual freedom, than that is where the truth is.

Let’s acknowlege it.

What is true for you is true for you, Roman74, and you are welcome to believe what you like.

But please don’t invalidate what is true for someone else.

posted 12-26-2000 10:50 AM            

I mean, come on.... You're just upset that all that research has come up invalid in the name of the "soul". All that work, all those years of research, hundreds of dollars of funding, and still no soul.

Get over it, already. Now's the time to figure out the reasons why people feel the need to believe something like that.

posted 12-26-2000 11:00 AM            

The dictionary definition is clearly stated, and based on the info that we have. The research, which you only deny because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, is clearly figurative vs. exact language.

"Mind, spirit, and soul" are song lyrics, not science. If you really want to get into it, material science originally claimed that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain parts - meaning it's an after-effect of certain brain processes. This epiphenomenon theory is what people call spirit or soul. However, in recent years, material science has traced consciousness directly to the internal components of the brain - which means it is not an extension, just another part of the brain.

Epiphenomenalism is the original reason for belief in soul or spirit- the idea that there is this part of us that is sort of trapped into our worldly-body, and only when that body dies does this spirit get released from its prison. This is what early philosophers developed because of lack of precise information and also because they wanted to find a meaning for consciousness as it relates (in a cause/effect kind of way) to the body. Today we have valid experiment and research to state otherwise.

Like I said, denial doesn't make the evidence go away. Get over it.

posted 12-26-2000 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roman74:
Psychology failed its mission in seaking the soul - because it was a false assumption to begin with. Why else would it change it's course?

I mean, come on.... You're just upset that all that research has come up invalid in the name of the "soul". All that work, all those years of research, hundreds of dollars of funding, and still no soul.

Get over it, already. Now's the time to figure out the reasons why people feel the need to believe something like that.

Denial isn't a good enough reason to keep believing. All the effort and research that lay before, definitely is. Get over it.

---

posted 12-26-2000 12:34 PM            

You don't have to re-post the previous post. Most of us can follow a discussion from post to post. Save some space, please, so the rest of us don't have to scroll through the same message two times. Thanks.

posted 12-26-2000 01:37 PM            

Roman74, you stated:

"Epiphenomenalism is the original reason for belief in soul or spirit- the idea that there is this part of us that is sort of trapped into our worldly-body, and only when that body dies does this spirit get released from its prison. This is what early philosophers developed because of lack of precise information and also because they wanted to find a meaning for consciousness as it relates (in a cause/effect kind of way) to the body. Today we have valid experiment and research to state otherwise."

There is no such thing as "valid experiment and research to state otherwise." This is pure fabrication.

Roman74, I know you don't agree with me. It isn't necessary that you tell someone you disagree with that they are in denial. This statement is a putdown and doesn't promote understanding.

By the way - apologies for the double posting above. I had difficulty with the system.

posted 12-27-2000 05:23 AM            

In the meantime I have a question for you: what, in your opinion, would show that indeed we are spiritual beings rather than our bodies?

posted 12-27-2000 08:39 AM            

Right on!

To Pontificate wastes valuable time to meditate.

I certainly agree that Meditation is a good first step.

Thank you.

Satire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enigmagirl:
Phemonena such as OBEs really aren't as mystical and unobtainable as most people think. Meditation is a good first step.

---

posted 12-27-2000 10:20 AM            

Great to hear from you. Congratulations on an awesome performance.

I am not obssessing on changing Roman74's mind. I keep answering him because I don't want people who read this thread to believe the outrageous statements he made.

I am not at all upset with Roman74. He (I assume he's a guy) is a bright person who is strugging with this. I am, however, very upset with the whole psych community, with their "professionals" who keep dishing out this tripe in colleges and universities and saturating our whole society with their junk.

Imagine a bright guy like Roman74, stating: "Perception doesn't count as reality. Even if a million people perceived the same things, those are subjective interpretations."

What?!?!?!

This is what they teach. They teach that what's real isn't real!!!

Pretty soon, their students who don't know any better start believing what they read in those text books MORE than they believe THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES.

Pretty soon people like Roman74, who admits: "...I can personally name more than a few "amazing" experiences in my life..."
invalidate their own experiences as though they weren't real, like Roman74 who said: "... - but yet I don't feel the need to credit them to anything but chance and circumstance, and certainly not to supernatural occurences."

What does chance and circumstance have to do with it?!?!

That's what those psychs have accomplished. They have gotten us to think that what we see and hear and feel with our own senses isn't real.

Those psychs are insane and I hate to see the insanity spread.

I hope Roman74 learns to trust his own knowingness.

Now how about a cup of coffee and those great-looking scones? I'm hungry.

How do you market yourself, Marlena? What's your goal?

posted 12-27-2000 11:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
Roman74, I repeat: there is absolutely no proof anywhere that we are nothing but pieces of meat. NONE. The statement you made was untrue. What studies are you talking about? Post them on this board, along with their conclusions, and let's examine them.

---

Obviously, the studies would be too long and boring for most people on this thread. Start with the paper, "Reconstructing Consciousness in Neurocomputational Terms" by Paul M.
Churchland.

quote:

---

In the meantime I have a question for you: what, in your opinion, would show that indeed we are spiritual beings rather than our bodies?

---

Simple: Pure wishing for it, like we already see here.

posted 12-27-2000 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

PROVING A
NEGATIVE - (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts
that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is
a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

---

posted 12-27-2000 11:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
Imagine a bright guy like Roman74, stating: "Perception doesn't count as reality. Even if a million people perceived the same things, those are subjective interpretations."

What?!?!?!

This is what they teach. They teach that what's real isn't real!!!

---

Clearly, it's what YOU think is real. It's a bold step to stand on a soapbox and declare all the research and experimentation wrong. Think about it, you - the lone person on this thread in the middle of cyberspace, daring to discount the entire field of psychology --- and simply because YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE FOUND. Scientists don't simply make things up because it sounds good, my friend. You are way off base here.

quote:

---

Pretty soon, their students who don't know any better start believing what they read in those text books MORE than they believe THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES.

---

Now I've made it clear a few times that experiences are never being discounted. Reality is there, but supernatural and spiritual PERCEPTIONS are subjectively-tuned from personal emotions and needs. They are in fact, irrational, because they lack better explanation. There are better explanations derived of honest research to purposely dispel ignorant conclusions about how the world works.

No one is discrediting people's experiences, only their interpretations of them. Get this straight, or you won't ever realize my point here. Your belief in the supernatural is a perception, not fact. There is no proof, other than that you simply want to believe in it.

And to further clear your head of misinformation, I don't invalidate my own experiences, I just learn to rationally discern why and how I feel certain ways, and how these experiences place into a consistent world-view. This world-view is also not supernatural or spirit-like in any way because there is no need for it. The world makes perfect sense and operates without the supernatural.

posted 12-27-2000 03:36 PM            

About Roman74, thanks for the warning. I'm sorry to hear he attacked you personally.

posted 12-27-2000 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
Dear Marlena, good luck with the move - it's a biggie. Very glad you'll be here in the U.S. Hope all goes very smoothly for you. And I know your name because I saw it in your other string....

About Roman74, thanks for the warning. I'm sorry to hear he attacked you personally.

---

posted 12-27-2000 03:46 PM            

Seems we are going in circles here.

Psychology is not a science and isn't being regarded as such by colleges and universities. I don't think you read my post above about that. Let's not pretend it's a science.

If it doesn't invalidate people's experiences, just their interpretation of the experiences, what does that mean in real life: that you will not dispute it when I say I'm looking at the sunrise and it makes me feel good, but you will dispute that it is a sunrise, or that it makes me feel good?

As for the "Reconstructing Consciousness in Neurocomputational Terms" by Paul M.
Churchland - bring it on. Let's examine it.
If it's too long, I'll accept your summary of it.

I'm looking forward to it.

posted 12-27-2000 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Route6:
If it doesn't invalidate people's experiences, just their interpretation of the experiences, what does that mean in real life: that you will not dispute it when I say I'm looking at the sunrise and it makes me feel good, but you will dispute that it is a sunrise, or that it makes me feel good?

---

The feelings, my friend, are perception-based, and therefore not objective. The occulting of the sun over the horizon of the earth produces an undoubtable, observable event, but the idea that it makes you feel good is your perception of the event - and therefore is entirely relative and subject to interpretation.

quote:

---

As for the "Reconstructing Consciousness in Neurocomputational Terms" by Paul M.
Churchland - bring it on. Let's examine it.
If it's too long, I'll accept your summary of it.

---

In summary, the experiment isolated the so-called consciousness of one brain to examine perceived cause/effect relationships of the outside (outside the body) world. This experiment was performed by a neuroscientist and is relevant to this discussion because of the similar findings in psychology - that the brain plays tricks, if you will, and without a rational disposition to sort that which clearly exists inside of you (the subjective) from that which clearly exists outside of you (the objective), one will mistakenly think one's own perceptions/interpretations of the world to have some kind of superficial importance onto the outside world. The brain has immediate access to such self-important procedures as security and purpose, and these, in turn seek a meaningful importance for the human in the outside world:

quote:

---

"....I suggest that, where consciousness and other mental phenomena are concerned, we are all characters in our own ironic story. The "inaccessible nature" of conscious phenomena is written clearly in the alphabet of neuronal activity taking place inside one's own brain and nervous system. Moreover, one has continuous access to large parts of that activity right here and now, by way of the brain's auto-connected pathways, and in virtue of the brain's capacity for self-representation. But one fails to recognize the continuing performance for what it is—an exquisite neurocomputational dance...."

---

quote:

---

Francis Crick and Christof Koch hold a related account of consciousness. Theirs is focused primarily on the narrower phenomenon of visual awareness, and they propose that the essential requirement for visual consciousnessis neural activity coordinated at a frequency of 40 Hz in layers five and six of primary visual cortex. As it happens, those are the very layers of the visual cortex that interact with the recurrent loop of the intralaminar system of projections, a fact these researchers also regard as
significant. As well, Antonio Damasio has a related view focused on the right parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex, an area that lesion studies reveal to be essential for one's continuously updated concept of oneself as an embodied creature that endures through time...."

---

This last quote identifies the brain's capacity and resources to continually seek self-important meaning, i.e. the source of the ego. They refer to it as a loop- a reinforcement over and over.

It's also interesting to note that in cases of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE), patients often experience an overwhelming sense of dejavu - where a reinforced sense of meaning overcomes them. TLE patients are also documented as being especially hyper-religious or hyper-spiritual, because of this. This constant search for meaning above and beyond being just flesh and bones, in this circumstance, is related to a malfuctioning of the brain.

And this is what we're really talking about--- seeking meaning and importance above and beyond being mere flesh and bones. Spirituality is a hyper sense or feeling of connectedness between all things, and religion is a search for and association with a higher power. Both of which stem from basic human needs, not independent facts of the outside world.