Hi /x/. fairly simple thread here. I imagine most of you believe

identity is just the sum of conditioning through life experiences. it all dies with the body.

>>18222468
I personally find "soul" a very strange thing. Let's rather call it "true self" and presume that it exists within the body (it's origins don't matter in this case). So the true self communicates to the subconscious - thereby forming emotion-based thoughts. These thoughts travel through the pseudo-conscious and become word-based, when they arrive at the conscious "mind's eye" and that's when you hear yourself think. So senile dementia can mess with a person's pseudo-conscious, severing normal link between the conscious and subconscious. This in turn does it so that messages from the subconscious are scrambled like some nazi enigma codes and conscious cannot interpret them properly, cannot hear them. All in all, a person is unable to think within the realm of reality - scrambled, random thoughts fill the person's head and the person acts on them, as it does not have a choice. So while the original message may be something like "make dinner", when it comes to the conscious it's something like "kill all the jews" and so on. We make an assumption here, of course, that the person did not create an invasive tulpa and has simply gone insane. Tulpa invasion is an another matter entirely, but it also causes loss of identity.

>>18222472
OP here, this would be my belief, just interested in how more spiritual people attempt to reconcile this contradiction.

>>18222468
I'm an atheist but let me play devil's advocate. People with Alzheimers/dementia seem to often revert to earlier stages in their life, up to childhood.

What if these diseases are just the outward effects of one's collective life experience draining into the "true self" once death from age is imminent? It starts from a certain point and memories, experiences and such are removed from you and absorbed by the soul, leaving your physical self with all that remains until you're, well, empty.

>>18222468
The soul can't get correct input so it produces distorted output. Though, I think it remains the same.
Also
>what if there are different (divisions of) souls for one body :O

>>18222468
The dissolution of the body only affects how one interfaces with physical reality, not how the soul interfacs with spirit. That's true.

>>18222468
The soul is not the false identification with the material energy. You are not your body. You are not your mind. You are not your intelligence or your false ego.

>Bg 7.4 — Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego – all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.
>Bg 7.5 — Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

Things like dementia affect the subtle body: mind, intelligence, false ego.

I like to turn to the modern analogy of an MMO. The soul - the player - actually has no control over the character, the material incarnation of the soul. All actual movement and activity in the MMO world belong to the programming, the servers, and the whims of admins. The player inputs desires, which are translated and approved server-side, and are then displayed to the player who - immersed in illusion - feels enjoyment or suffering based on the experience of the character.

>>18222725
>>18222636

This seems to overcomplicate things. Why not just assume the brain is responsible for these things? Adding a soul to the equation raises more questions than it answers.

>>18222788
>Why not just assume the brain is responsible for these things?
Because I know its not true. Pretending life is simple won't keep you from being bashed against the rocks of complex life.

>>18222788
The brain-as-all model has the hard problem of consciousness. The soul is an answer to this, but traditional Dualism has the problem of interaction. The Paramatma as intermediary solves this as well.

>>18222801
How do you know it's not true?

>>18222807
While I agree consciousness is not well understood, there's no reason to believe it's impossible for consciousness to arise from the physical. Instead of simply admitting you don't understand you're projecting religious ideas onto it.

>>18222826
I know it's not true because I've seen the soul with my eyes and have first hand experience of the relationship between body and soul. I know from direct experience.

>>18222834
>I've seen the soul with my eyes

How can you see something entirely metaphysical with your eyes, which are physical?

>>18222826
I didn't go into that because that wasn't the question.

>>18222468
>Question: If the soul is the "true self"
OP has already assumed the existence of the soul. If the question is "why do you believe in a soul?" then I would agree - my belief beyond the scientific understanding comes from religious sources.

Now, why did you come to a thread starting with "if the soul is real, then..." and take the position of "the soul isn't real?"

>>18222859
>Now, why did you come to a thread starting with "if the soul is real, then..." and take the position of "the soul isn't real?"

Because I am trying to understand the mindset of people who believe in a soul, despite that it conflicts with the world as we observe it.

At what point in evolution did creatures start having souls? Do bacteria have souls?

>>18222879
>despite that it conflicts with the world as we observe it
it doesn't

>At what point in evolution did creatures start having souls?
Souls have been taking material bodies eternally.

>Do bacteria have souls?
Yes.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 446x384px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 446x384px

>>18222882
If there's a soul then how come children aren't even considered concious beings until about a couple years old? Did they slowly develope a soul?

If there's a soul then how come certain animals aren't considered having a soul when they have higher levels of self awareness and awareness of others then a toddler?

If there's a soul then how come people with brain injuries and ailments become different people?

If there's a soul then does it develope in the womb? Are you retarded niggger?

>>18222905
Not him but are you retarded? You missed the point on almost all of his comments. Who is implying animals don't have souls? Why are you getting mad? Calm down kid, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>18222905
>how come children aren't even considered concious beings until about a couple years old?
By who?

>Did they slowly develope a soul?
I don't know the exact mechanics. I believe it is mentioned the soul enters the body during gestation.

>how come certain animals aren't considered having a soul
By who?

>how come people with brain injuries and ailments become different people?
That was OP's question. >>18222725

>If there's a soul then does it develope in the womb?
You are eternal. The soul does not develop.

>Are you retarded niggger?
No.

>>18222922
I need your thoughts on this friend:
(At least some) Inanimate objects have souls
(At least some) Inanimate objects have eye(s)
You can travel inside these objects somehow and see from their perspective.

>>18222951
Elaborate on this. I'm interested.

>>18222882
>Do bacteria have souls?
>Yes.
That's a bit of a stretch anon

>>18222852
Don't think you know what metaphysics is, friend

>>18222951
I don't know. I know some mountains and things like the Earth are personified in the Vedas. This could be taken as evidence that objects we would consider inanimate have souls. The common belief is that the 3rd expansion of Vishnu (Ksirodakasayi) is said to enter into the heart of every being, and also every atom of the universe. While this would not be a jiva, it would give credence to an awareness within the inanimate.

>>18222962
Why?

>>18222959
From my (>>18222951) perspective:
>Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again.
The difference is, it was not a butterfly but something "inanimate" (conventionally speaking), inactive, immovable, serene yet capable of perceiving stuff from a fixed angle.

I view the soul like water. It's raw and shapeless in its own right, and only seeks to fill the shape of the vessel it's poured in to. Dementia/senility is like springing a leak.

The uniqueness of the soul I suppose I'd say is this; Same water can be poured from one vessel to the next. In the same way that water in a clay pot will pick up clay residue which it carries in to the next vessel it occupies, so too does the soul carry fragments of its previous/current lifetimes.

Ultimately, the Soul reverts to a formless state, unrecognizable as any one individual, but after spending a full life inside of your body, the soul will always have that trace residue of everything you once were, and everything those before you once were, and it will do the same for everyone it will someday be.

If i suppose that the soul is immaterial, then you can't affirm that the person identity is dissolving.
We know the personnality of someone throught his expression in the material world, so maybe what we see as personnality dissolution is just a problem of communication between soul/body caused by the disfunction of the brain

>>18222852
When you're attune to the metaphysical you can see, feel, touch, hear, smell, think things that people that are attuned to the physical cannot.

>>18222468
It is only a matter of mind versus self. The mind, as in our thoughts, filter reality. It is our ego. The vessel for this ego, the deeper self that listens to the thoughts, is the 'soul', so to speak.

When you are in the now, you see the world as it is, not through the mantle of the egoic self. When people have mental issues and personality disorders, it is sometimes the case they believe that the mind (thought) and the listener (self) are two different beings, which is untrue. Without the self there can be no mind, I am therefore I think.

"You" could be the life force that drives your body and functions through your brain. How do you define experience observation?

The brain is the hardware, or wetware if you'd prefer. The consciousness and memories lie in the software.

When people with dementia are close to death, there've been countless examples of them remembering what they couldn't before. That shows that the information wasn't destroyed, but the physical brain was having trouble accessing it...something which does NOT remain true when reverted to energy state.

>>18222965
Don't think you have Amy evidence that metaphysics is real, friend.
>inb4 I'm not "attuned" enough
>>18223028
So shifts in mentality cause changes in the functionality of (physical) sensory systems?

>>18226999
>So shifts in mentality cause changes in the functionality of (physical) sensory systems?
Perhaps. Or changes in mentality cause one to use and become aware of heretofore ancillary sense organs suited for perception of metaphysical things. I'm not sure yet if its one or both or neither.

Dementia destroys 'links' that Nature would alter little by little. Links between our brain and body, for example. It's not that the 'data' is missing, it's that it can't be read nor communicated.
But the links between the body and the soul aren't the same kind of links, they are ethereal. Till the end, the soul will keep on collecting new data to add to the original one, which means that what you were and what you are, are both saved and safe. When death happens, the links to the body fade and the soul can ascend.

>>18222468
I'm so fucking mad that this image is too small to be a screensaver right now.

>>18222905
Two souls create a new one like the spermatozoa and ovule do. It's simultaneous and both are linked because the 'genes' data is also kept in the soul, that will add data constantly as the person grows.

The baby not being 'conscious' means that the brain is not developed enough yet to reason from the information it gets. It's still only instinct. It's with time that he will gain consciousness, but the soul was always there from the beginning.

Animals don't reason, they store memories of experiences and their reactions remain instinctive. Some can store more experiences than others, that's why you can see them 'evolve'.

The brain injuries, dementia etc don't delete any data contained in the soul, they only affect the perishable brain and body, and the soul that already kept stored the data of who you were, continues to collect the data of who you are. You apparently becoming someone else doesn't mean that you cease to be who you were, and all the data is safe in the brain.

>>18229576
I meant safe in the soul, damn!

You are mistaking the ego for the soul.
The ''self'' is an illusion.

>>18229585
Thanks for the cryptic edgy message that doesn't explain anything.

>>18222468
What if you "die" in the way that your "soul" leaves you body but your sick mind lives on, clinging to your memories?

>>18229591
Just think how you were as a baby. The you you are now is just an illusion created by your memories.

The way I've come to deal with this question is as follows.

The spirit, the true self, existed prior to your coming into this world. The body is the temporal manifestation of the soul, and the brain in the physical formation of the consciousness.

This physical world is imperfect and chaotic, that's the ultimate reason for our experiencing this world, to develop and transform the true self, the soul, which has understanding of the greater mysteries.

Dementia and other forms of mental and physical decay are the result of the chaotic nature of the temporal. When these aspects succumb to the imperfections of the natural world, the soul is restored, as it was before birth, but changed with the knowledge and forming of self that occurred while here.