Author Topic: The Secondary Cerebral Cortex of the Psion (by Kettle)  (Read 27734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

November 20, 2007, 09:47:41 PM
Reply #15

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 5000
  • Karma:
    172
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
Wait whats the definition of the soul are we going with? Cause I picture the body and soul being the exact same thing.

Click here, and see part four of that article.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

November 20, 2007, 09:56:59 PM
Reply #16

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Ya I still think its the same thing and the body is still connected (expect maybe not in death :rolleyes:). I am not agreeing with people lately.... :confused:

Regardless I'll go with it.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 10:02:57 PM by Tankdown »
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

November 21, 2007, 12:54:11 PM
Reply #17

Kettle

  • Teacher Emeritus
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Frequent poster

  • 376
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    Frequent poster
    • View Profile
I think somewhere along the line there's been an incorrect assumption made, that being that the brain is still used with this construct. Remember that the purpose of this construct is to bypass the brain almost entirely, but let me start at the beginning.

For us to function and make decisions in this world we need three things; Something to gather information, something to process that information and then send it back to the soul, and then the soul to act upon the information. Key point here, information has to be sent to the soul so it can make a decision on what to do and more importantly how to change itself to cope with the situation.

Normally our senses gather the information, the brain processes it, then the soul decides how to act upon it. And then somewhere along the line we realized the soul could gather information the senses couldn't. So then, the soul gathers the information, the brain processes it, and then the soul once again acts upon it. We have now found that the brain can add and construe information that the soul did not originally acquire, and I, in my practice, have found that a well made construct can process information gathered by the soul without adding or construing information.

So what we have here is that the soul gathers the information, the construct processes it and returns it to the soul in an understandable manner, and then the soul acts upon the information and changes itself depending on how it wants to deal with the situation. At no point does the brain enter into this sequence, it is supposed to be a very dynamic and streamlined process of incredibly quick action and reaction, and the brain is not necessary to the process with a properly created construct.

Now there are pieces missing here, specifically memory, as you would not remember any use of the construct if the information did not eventually come to the brain. Fortunately though I am in the process of writing a complimentary article to this one that will explain a lot more of this and allow for a better way of utilizing the construct and bypassing the brain.

-k

November 21, 2007, 01:57:48 PM
Reply #18

Oriens Lvx Lucis

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 766
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
Quote from: Kettle
When scanning, the information that is gathered by us, as souls, is completely unbiased and un-tampered with. However, because the soul has no ability to process and organize this information it must use the brain to do this.

What evidence is there to support this statement?  I don't see how a primitive tissue can compare in computing power to the soul.

November 21, 2007, 05:32:26 PM
Reply #19

Kettle

  • Teacher Emeritus
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Frequent poster

  • 376
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    Frequent poster
    • View Profile
Quote
What evidence is there to support this statement?  I don't see how a primitive tissue can compare in computing power to the soul.

I could ask the very same question to you, what evidence do you have that the soul has any computing power at all? What you're quilty of here is adding impressive characteristics to something that is indeed impressive, however that does not necessarily mean it has those characteristics. We speak of the soul in terms of amazement and awe, in that it can become all things, but this does not necessarily mean it can do all things.

The soul really only does one thing, it becomes aware of things, and that's all. Being that the soul is only an awareness, with no physical or energetic form, all it can ever do is become aware of things. The soul has no components for calculation, this is something of the physical world, and the soul is something that does not exist in space or time. So therefore it needs a brain to process information for it.

-k

November 21, 2007, 08:15:08 PM
Reply #20

`Nazukarr

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 631
  • Karma:
    14
    • View Profile
Now, just for the purpose of clarification; are you essentially saying that this construct just kind of perceives and causes you to act based off of those perceptions, like instinct?
I am not this hair, I am not this skin, I am the soul that lives within.

November 22, 2007, 09:47:24 AM
Reply #21

Oriens Lvx Lucis

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 766
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
Quote from: kettle
I could ask the very same question to you, what evidence do you have that the soul has any computing power at all?

You could, and subsequently I would be forced to admit that it is merely an opinion of mine based on experience; but then, you would not have answered my original question, which still stands.  Pardoning the potential egotism of this statement; I indeed speak of the soul in awe and amazement because it is the harmonic reflection of the universe; the All in All in miniature form; the microcosm of the macrocosm.  As well these are Hermetic and alchemical concepts, and being that I view each soul as the reflection of God (assuming the premise that said God exists) and is in fact a portion of undeveloped "God-ness" with individuality.  Now, as my question still stands, and I have already admitted that my statements concerning the soul are merely convictions of my own devoid of visible proof; what evidence do you have to support the following statements:

Quote from: kettle
We speak of the soul in terms of amazement and awe, in that it can become all things, but this does not necessarily mean it can do all things.

Quote from: kettle
The soul really only does one thing, it becomes aware of things, and that's all.

Quote from: kettle
Being that the soul is only an awareness, with no physical or energetic form, all it can ever do is become aware of things.

Quote from: kettle
The soul has no components for calculation, this is something of the physical world, and the soul is something that does not exist in space or time. So therefore it needs a brain to process information for it.

I may be thought of as guilty of hypocrisy for asking for evidence when I do not have any, but the reason I am asking for it is because you have based the purpose of an educational article on these premises, so they should be at least proven.  I can combat each of those statements with pseudo-logical explanations at all, such as the claim that the physical world is only one phase of density and that there are others like it, such as the astral world, or the causal world, where even greater levels of consciousness are attained than on Earth; or that the only reason that souls have various bodies is so that they have mediums to interact with a particular level of density (world or plane); or that there are entire spiritual hierarchies which plan out the evolution of the creatures of Earth, including humans which do not have bodies and can calculate such things fine without brains.  But all of these things are, while sounding nice and at least partially rational at first completely unsubstantiated for the intents and purposes of this discussion.  That leaves neither of us with definable or tangible proof of our statements.  And again, the only reason I ask is because you have claimed something of the soul in an educational setting (in case you thought this was some sort of undermining ruse or attack on yourself).

Namaste


November 22, 2007, 12:00:26 PM
Reply #22

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 5000
  • Karma:
    172
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
You could, and subsequently I would be forced to admit that it is merely an opinion of mine based on experience; but then, you would not have answered my original question, which still stands.  Pardoning the potential egotism of this statement; I indeed speak of the soul in awe and amazement because it is the harmonic reflection of the universe; the All in All in miniature form; the microcosm of the macrocosm.  As well these are Hermetic and alchemical concepts, and being that I view each soul as the reflection of God (assuming the premise that said God exists) and is in fact a portion of undeveloped "God-ness" with individuality.  Now, as my question still stands, and I have already admitted that my statements concerning the soul are merely convictions of my own devoid of visible proof; what evidence do you have to support the following statements:

Perhaps this is a moot discussion, and it was simply an overly strong word choice when he said "no ability to process".  Because in fact, technically, this article is all about providing one clear method by which the soul CAN go about processing the information, and therefore clearly it does not have "no ability" to do this.  I believe what he actually meant is closer to "usually does not", which is justified by the observation that the brain serves the primary role as the agent for interpreting information for interaction with the physical world.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

November 22, 2007, 07:54:42 PM
Reply #23

Kettle

  • Teacher Emeritus
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Frequent poster

  • 376
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    Frequent poster
    • View Profile
Quote
I indeed speak of the soul in awe and amazement because it is the harmonic reflection of the universe; the All in All in miniature form; the microcosm of the macrocosm.  As well these are Hermetic and alchemical concepts, and being that I view each soul as the reflection of God (assuming the premise that said God exists) and is in fact a portion of undeveloped "God-ness" with individuality.

Well I can't really argue with a statement like this because we've run into a problem where we have two different definitions of the term soul. It's like my argument was "pie is bad tasting" and yours is that "pie is good tasting", my idea of a pie a block of wood covered in gravel, yours is mainly comprised of a fruit filling. Proper argumentation is impossible s we're talking about different things.

Quote
Perhaps this is a moot discussion, and it was simply an overly strong word choice when he said "no ability to process".  Because in fact, technically, this article is all about providing one clear method by which the soul CAN go about processing the information, and therefore clearly it does not have "no ability" to do this.  I believe what he actually meant is closer to "usually does not", which is justified by the observation that the brain serves the primary role as the agent for interpreting information for interaction with the physical world.

Yes, that is correct, I have overstated a concept. What I'm trying to say is that through the use of a brain, or in this case a construct simulating the function of a brain, a significantly better processing of the physical world can occur than by soul alone.

This is because (and Oriens Lvx Lucis I should think this would better answer your original question) the brain and body, being part of the physical world, adds two very important things. Firstly a sense of time, and secondly, a purpose.

The soul itself is timeless, cannot be destroyed, and has no reason that it would cease to be. It can observe entire lifetimes of people as a single event, regardless of start or finish. Distance is entirely meaningless to the soul, it can exist in multiple places at once. So with all this, what possible reason would the soul ever have to care about the events, from start to finish, of the life of a single body and brain? Quite simply, if we didn't have a brain to limit us, and a body to make us fear pain and death we'd have no reason to experience the physical domain in a linear format.

-k

November 22, 2007, 08:48:45 PM
Reply #24

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
I'm going on a wild thought here, what if the soul is physical? I not saying it is, I'm saying if its possible while it maintains everything you say it has.

Judging from evidence I have seen no one can say anything.

I'm pretty sure this is not going to improve my image on a number of grounds. Still I think I should have say this.
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

November 22, 2007, 08:52:30 PM
Reply #25

Hech

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Regular Member

  • 1153
  • Karma:
    15
    • View Profile
kobok: You wouldn't know how to find that long and drawn out discussion of yours that took place at the Psion Guild, eh?

November 22, 2007, 09:10:55 PM
Reply #26

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Don't bother I seen it a lot...unless its something else new. So then I wouldn't have seen so, so sure show me.
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

November 23, 2007, 01:56:19 AM
Reply #27

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 5000
  • Karma:
    172
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
I'm going on a wild thought here, what if the soul is physical? I not saying it is, I'm saying if its possible while it maintains everything you say it has.

Given the evidence, it does not seem possible for the soul to be both physical and have the observed properties.  Materialists have repeatedly attempted to argue that it must be physical to satisfy their philosophical preconceptions, but there is no evidence to support that viewpoint, and a substantial collection of evidence indicating that the soul operates at a conceptual level, rather than a spatial or temporal level.  Observe evidence first, choose a philosophy second.

kobok: You wouldn't know how to find that long and drawn out discussion of yours that took place at the Psion Guild, eh?

I believe it has been purged in a forum reset.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

November 23, 2007, 02:27:41 AM
Reply #28

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Far that am I aware of kobok the evidence doesn't support it. From what I can see the evidence has been taken to a wrong form of assumptions and own speculations that been drove in a bad dead end. Now we can continue this talk like we have before (till I get myself up and ready) or just end this (I'll guess I'll be the first to walk away after this post). Cause were going to be go in circles

Shame on the lost....
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

November 23, 2007, 08:37:48 AM
Reply #29

Hech

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Regular Member

  • 1153
  • Karma:
    15
    • View Profile
Man Tankdown, you never cease to amaze me with how often you assume things and jump to conclusions O_o

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that you haven't seen the aforementioned thread. If you had, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying what you are saying, and the fact is, what you're saying simply isn't true. I can't reply with nearly as much effectiveness as kobok can, however, like in talking about the scientific data surrounding the idea of how much time and energy the physical brain would spend in trying to scan a target, so I'll just let him respond. Don't, however, just assume that you're right or that you'll go in circles and consequently miss an educational discussion.

Namaste