What is the Soul? - Page 4 - Religion, God, and Theology

If it doesn't exist then would you agree that what we think of as the self is really the experiences themselves? Ie, the experiences exist, period. (You and herbivorus would at least agree that it's 100% certain that experiences exist, unless you personally have no experiences.)

The above theory of 0 selves (under the quoted definition of self which was my definition of soul) is almost the same as there being only one unified self. I'm not sure which I believe. Currently leaning toward 0.

Thats pretty much it yes. There is experience, but no experiencer.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 01:40 PM

#77

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

I don't really see why you, according to your reasoning, would even concede anything exists.

(why "not a lot" as opposed to nothing at all?)

Quote

12-17-2014 , 01:40 PM

#78

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

I used to think neeeeel's ontology was overly reductive. Then at some point I wondered if maybe I was wrong and it was really overly holistic.

Either way, I'd read a thread on it

Quote

12-17-2014 , 01:51 PM

#79

RLK

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

No, I am not asking what is red. I am asking how do you perceive red. Is it through sight, sound, smell, taste, touch?

If you claimed you were colourblind, I would not ask you how you perceive red. But you are claiming that you can perceive red ( the self) and so I am asking , how? Is it through one of the senses?

If I ask you "how do you know thats red" you can answer, "because I can see it", or "how do you know thats hot?" "because I can touch it". So, in what way do you perceive the self? If its not through one of the senses, then how?

Oh, ok. Maybe it was a better question than I thought at first. But I do not have an answer. It certainly is not through the senses. If I was in a totally sensory deprived state I would still experience it, or so I would imagine.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 01:57 PM

#80

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

I perceive my "self" as the subject of an experience, but I do not perceive my "self" as the object of experience. I've always liked the Kantian phrase "transcendental unity of self-perception", although he refers to that unity as an object of perception

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:03 PM

#81

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLK

Ok, so if its not through the senses, then you cant claim to perceive the self, since perception is only( by definiton) sight, sound, smell, touch, taste( there are a few others, eg sense of balance). The only other way is in the content of thought. Are you saying that either 1) you have a perceptual faculty that I dont have or 2) that you perceive the self through thought?

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:04 PM

#82

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Thats pretty much it yes. There is experience, but no experiencer.

Why are you willing to take this great leap of faith that there is experience?

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:05 PM

#83

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herbavorus_Rex

Why are you willing to take this great leap of faith that there is experience?

what leap of faith?

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:07 PM

#84

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

what leap of faith?

to concede experience exists. (a leap for you, I presume)

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:21 PM

#85

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herbavorus_Rex

to concede experience exists. (a leap for you, I presume)

Why is that a leap? I dont get it.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:33 PM

#86

duffee

banned

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,218

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

In an experiential sense, I don’t know how or if it’s possible to distinguish between the ‘not-self’ of Buddhism and the ‘All-Self” of Advaita.

As far as the self goes, I don’t believe ‘I’ exist in an absolute sense, although in terms of a ‘self’ I do agree there is a unique locus of awareness. That such awareness is a property of mine, the ‘I’ or a ‘self’ I doubt. In other words, there’s "an awareness of self" but not "a self that is aware," where 'self' is defined as a locus of experience.

Last edited by duffee; 12-17-2014 at 02:40 PM.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:39 PM

#87

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Why is that a leap? I dont get it.

Well, if the fact that there are beings that can perceive cannot be taken for granted, then the fact of anything at all existing cannot be taken for granted.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:43 PM

#88

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Ok, so if its not through the senses, then you cant claim to perceive the self, since perception is only( by definiton) sight, sound, smell, touch, taste( there are a few others, eg sense of balance). The only other way is in the content of thought. Are you saying that either 1) you have a perceptual faculty that I dont have or 2) that you perceive the self through thought?

You mean the only other way that you are aware of. Self, or true identity, is a realization of the path.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:52 PM

#89

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

You mean the only other way that you are aware of. Self, or true identity, is a realization of the path.

there is no Self , or true identity. There is no identity, period. "realisation of the path" is still just a concept, or a thought.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 02:52 PM

#90

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herbavorus_Rex

Well, if the fact that there are beings that can perceive cannot be taken for granted, then the fact of anything at all existing cannot be taken for granted.

your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:05 PM

#91

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

there is no Self , or true identity. There is no identity, period. "realisation of the path" is still just a concept, or a thought.

Realization is different than thoughts, concepts, etc. This conversation between us goes nowhere though without shared experience.

You say there is no "you" which from your perspective is exactly right - that's the starting point. You realize "you" are not your thoughts and perceptions. Are you still doing the practice of disindentifying from thoughts, identities, beliefs? Otherwise, this just becomes an intellectual idea and it loses the value that you haven't yet realized.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:06 PM

#92

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

"What does exist in your ontology?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Not a lot

I think it would be helpful if you elaborated on this.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:08 PM

#93

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

Why do you think anything exists?

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:20 PM

#94

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

Realization is different than thoughts, concepts, etc. This conversation between us goes nowhere though without shared experience.

I agree that realisation is different. But as soon as we talk about it, eg "realisation of the path" then it becomes a thought, a concept. There is no path, and nowhere to get to.

Quote:

You realize "you" are not your thoughts and perceptions.

I realise "I" arent anything. The "I" doesnt exist. it seems like you are wanting to posit a greater Self, or god or "This" and say "thats what I REALLY am". Sorry, thats just another identity.

Quote:

Are you still doing the practice of disindentifying from thoughts, identities, beliefs?

If you mean , noticing that thoughts, beliefs, and identies arent me and arent done by me, then yes.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:27 PM

#95

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

What does exist in your ontology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herbavorus_Rex

Why do you think anything exists?

Its probably the same answer for both. Perceptions, as in , sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and perception of thought. These undoubtedly exist. That does not mean that theres an experiencer that is experiencing, perceiving, them.

Everything else is just stories.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:29 PM

#96

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,905

Weak Neeeel. Don't you have the awareness to be able to grasp that I understand your position. Instead, you just repeat it back to me.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:32 PM

#97

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

Weak Neeeel. Don't you have the awareness to be able to grasp that I understand your position. Instead, you just repeat it back to me.

I dont know what you are asking. I answered your questions as best I could. If I didnt answer them to your satisfaction, ask them again, in a different way.

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:33 PM

#98

Herbavorus_Rex

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 745

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Eh...this seems like b.s. to me. You alone experience your senses. That satisfies my definition of self.

Conclusion:

Beings that perceive exist and this is a reasonable definition of a "self"*.

To deny this is to deny that anything at all exists because one would have to hold such a standard of evidence that no claim could stand up to.

*this isn't to say that ones perception is spot on, and imo human beings have two selves - their animal body, and their soul

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:34 PM

#99

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Its probably the same answer for both. Perceptions, as in , sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and perception of thought. These undoubtedly exist.

The coherency of the perceptions (and even if you disallow memory, nevertheless there is the perception of remembering; and memory is what allows for the recognition of coherency) seems meaningful in some way, would you agree?

Not only is there perception, but there is awareness of the coherency of those perceptions. That is the "transcendental unity of self-perception" of Kant. Even if you don't make a substance or entity out of that unity, it has a reality to it. Would you agree?

Quote

12-17-2014 , 03:41 PM

#100

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herbavorus_Rex

Eh...this seems like b.s. to me. You alone experience your senses. That satisfies my definition of self.

Who alone? As before, you are begging the question by having the conclusion stated in the premises.

You have still to show me this self. Where is it?

Quote:

Beings that perceive exist and this is a reasonable definition of a "self".
(this isn't to say that ones perception is spot on, and imo human beings have two selves - their animal body, and their soul)

Ah, so theres TWO selves now?

Quote:

To deny this is to deny that anything at all exists because one would have to hold such a standard of evidence that no claim could stand up to.

What standard of evidence?