Humans Without Souls

[Paradoxal]

9 minutes ago, Luxin said:

RE "Meaning it can be stolen." I haven't come across the concept of a soul being stolen before.

From my own experiences, it can both be stolen and contracted off. Generally speaking, however, the methods of doing so are sealed off if the "individual" is spiritually conscious enough to acknowledge such a possibility and block it (basically any shielding technique is sufficient, unless one is consciously signing their soul away. Such contracts are rather hard to break or revoke.). It is also possible to integrate pieces of two or more souls together, though doing so will generally be harmful to both. Magic dealing in souls is rather misled in that regard, though, it is certainly *possible*, simply not advisable. 

 

14 minutes ago, Luxin said:

I haven't come across any reports of psychics seeing soul auras. I believe the psychics who can see auras are witnessing the biomagnetic fields that exist around the chakra points.

There are those who can see the field you are talking about, and there are those that can see the "colors" of the souls. Both types exist, and some can see both sides. The color scales for "auras" (generally starting at red and ending at crystal, in the same sort of color schemes and orders as the chakras), when uniform in color and consistency, generally refer to the soul. Said color is usually correlated with the maturity of said soul, in that red souls are in a more immature state than orange souls. While the colors generally listed off as common are indeed similar to the colors of the chakras, they are not sourced from the chakras as far as I can tell. Of course, this color has the potential to change over one incarnation, or to stay the same over multiple hundreds of reincarnations.

 

Other than that, kudos to a fairly accurate assessment and explanation of the concept of "souls", given the difficulty of putting said concept into language. 

[EmeraldHead]

Interesting. Thank you for the responses both of you

 

Pretty sure I was thinking of something here What you call soul I would simply call spirit.

 

indeed anything described as "divine" cannot be fragmented.

 

Perhaps the best way for each person to describe what they are referring to, is to list qualities gained from these principles. Do they boost your thinking speed? Sharpen your senses? Increase your intelligence? Also how could someone nurture them/ "it" ?

[Luxin]

Luxin deleted

Edited November 26, 2020 by Luxin
ineffable

[Luxin]

Luxin deleted

Edited November 26, 2020 by Luxin
ineffable

[Nungali]

I still got mine .....    damn !   I missed that   A.I   thingomajig     

[old3bob]

since rocks can sing then they too have "souls"...

 

[ralis]

54 minutes ago, Draco said:

Artificial Intelligence is a product of Gaia. In and of itself it is not to be feared. They must simply be integrated into one's soul(s), shen, loa, DNA, spirit tree, totem etc. What is to be feared is over-dependence (excessive use)

 

A product of Gaia? Show some evidence of that. AI as an academic discipline began in 1956 which included Alan Turing's work and is not produced by Gaia in any way shape of form.

 

Must be integrated? 

 

 

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Draco said:

 

The Intent came from Gaia

 

Not buying that at all. I am familiar with the Gaia hypothesis, but your supposition is stretched really thin.

[Nungali]

One supposes ( since no explanation is forthcoming )   that it is considered 'of Gaia' because 'Man' is a product of Gaia and hence his products are a product of Gaia .

 

 

But I dont buy that , and I dont buy 'Intent' excuse more so .  If I cant see an underlying pattern or force of nature* in Man's works I write them off as ' human mental aberration ' , which I do not see as 'natural' .

 

* of course, this requires  a wide ranging knowledge  and understanding of those forces .

 

 

.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Nungali

[ralis]

7 hours ago, Draco said:

 

The Spark came from bacteria

 

Instead of little remarks why not explain your supposition? 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Instead of little remarks why not explain your supposition? 

 

Did you like that explanation ?

 

 

[ralis]

8 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Did you like that explanation ?

 

 

 

Not at all! Draco has been watching too many Matrix movies. AI being spread throughout the galaxy is something out of SciFi. The biosphere is far too complex for a simplistic reductionist supposition. So far I have not seen any computer chips coming out of the ground. 

[ralis]

4 hours ago, Draco said:

 

It seems another thing to be feared is becoming embodied by The Gidim

 

For all intents and purposes zombies

 

Why are you responding to your own posts? Either editing or an addendum is appropriate.

[Earl Grey]

44 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Why are you responding to your own posts? Either editing or an addendum is appropriate.

All his posts all over the place remind me of mskied.

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

All his posts all over the place remind me of mskied.

 

That name brings back memories. Was mskied banned?

[Indiken]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

Why are you responding to your own posts? Either editing or an addendum is appropriate.

 

Perhaps I did not understand your point correctly,

 

but,

 

Why do you think that people are writing for others?

 

[ralis]

1 minute ago, Indiken said:

 

Perhaps I did not understand your point correctly,

 

but,

 

Why do you think that people are writing for others?

 

 

Then I would term it trolling.

[Indiken]

16 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Then I would term it trolling.

 

But I would not term it trolling.

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Indiken said:

 

But I would not term it trolling.

 

Why are you interested in this? Draco's posts make very little sense when he is positing a universal AI as well as Gaia controlling the world with intention.

[Earl Grey]

42 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

That name brings back memories. Was mskied banned?

A quick search on his posts during the anarchy under Sean shows his last post mentioning Crowley, Hitler, and calling everyone else trolls for not liking his conversations with himself.

[ralis]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

A quick search on his posts during the anarchy under Sean shows his last post mentioning Crowley, Hitler, and calling everyone else trolls for not liking his conversations with himself.

 

Thanks for the info. As far as I am concerned he can have his own PPD and have his own private conversations.

[Earl Grey]

11 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Thanks for the info. As far as I am concerned he can have his own PPD and have his own private conversations.

It is worth revisiting those threads (you had some fun responses too)   at least to see what can happen to people who do these conversations with themselves and invite the inevitable ribbing and mod action that comes as a consequence. 

[ralis]

Just now, Earl Grey said:

It is worth revisiting those threads (you had some fun responses too)   at least to see what can happen to people who do these conversations with themselves and invite the inevitable ribbing and mod action that comes as a consequence. 

 

When I have time I may do that. Thanks!

[Indiken]

15 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Why are you interested in this? Draco's posts make very little sense when he is positing a universal AI as well as Gaia controlling the world with intention.

 

I have desire to write, what I have written. 

 

I have a view, that everyone lives for himself. No matter if you do good or do bad. Whatever you do, you do for yourself. 

 

15 minutes ago, ralis said:

Why are you interested in this? 

 

Why are you interested in this?

 

You do not have to notice or respond to others.

 

Why you try to impose your will or views to someone?

 

Also, 

 

I think I do bad by writing what I did write. So I try to do bad, to see what happens. I gather experience.

 

[Nungali]

One can that expe

2 hours ago, Indiken said:

 

I have desire to write, what I have written. 

 

I have a view, that everyone lives for himself. No matter if you do good or do bad. Whatever you do, you do for yourself. 

 

 

Why are you interested in this?

 

You do not have to notice or respond to others.

 

Why you try to impose your will or views to someone?

 

Also, 

 

I think I do bad by writing what I did write. So I try to do bad, to see what happens. I gather experience.

 

 

Well , go for it if you want , do bad all you like , for fun profit  or self gratification .  But one can gather that experience by observing others 'bad' and its consequences , I dont see why one would have to deliberately  and knowingly do bad oneself to 'gather' experience  of 'seeing what happens' when one does bad .

 

Anyway , have fun with your experiment .