My Soul is without or not part of Human Nature; O.K. am I lying? (souls, Muslims)

[tgnostic]

I guess this subject could go somewhere along the problem of whether Being for it's ontological truth could reduce itself to Knowledge (about truth); whether the science of Epistemology can continue for learning psychology without concluding the meaning of Being, determining the existence of Knowledge for it's own sake of understanding. This is the subject Huxley was concerned about in the last century. But am I lying? Recently it was wished that we stop worrying about this Human Nature dilemma.

Instead we confront the very creation by God of the universe, the soul wants and desires to be a part of the naturally created. Man is a free being. But that shouldn't mean that man be as such because of an inherent human nature. In all truth, and this goes for Muslims, CHristians, Jews alike we should be honest. Do we have to have a Soul when we mean 'souls' were and and continue to be studied in most major institutions of higher learning as part of a general human nature? So we really are lying when we say that each one of us has a unique soul, and then we go on to derive that ultimately no common human nature Exists. God may not exists to create the common human nature, but that is not withstanding the non-existence of freedom without a soul.


What do people think of free will indifferent to human nature?

That last one seemed heavy now. And all of us of various backgrounds can simplify the expressionate Soul to the confrontation of an unfulfilled Universe. The universe may never be discovered for it's evolution, it's deterministic Nature, and in a sense we all are the intelligent animals here on Earth with our own differing views about the origin of the universe, and each with our own realizable beliefs for the truth of how this is experienced. We must be lying.


The reasoning for lying is that probability is about free will; not free will about the determining existence about probability. Free will can exist without reference to Probability. Probability is about induction. A free will does that operation, and the operation is performed upon a social order of human nature which applies to the soul receiving knowledge about Probability. But that way I would have to be honestly explaining which Probability in the natural science I am meaning truths and errors about.

But I am meaning to question the indeterminism of Free Will. If I make a mistake it may have physical reasons. With determinism, on the other hand, making a mistake leads to psychological justifications for failure, and the physical reasons get hid in the as of yet undiscovered Universe.

[Hueffenhardt]

I don't believe souls exist. I believe all we are are biological organisms. As such, I believe every cell in our bodies, including our brains, are subject to only natural forces. Therefore, I don't believe we have true free will, which I define as the ability to do otherwise (other than what the computation of all inputs through our physical brain led us to do). I believe that the conscious mind we experience is a not a true, real time observation of what is going on in our brain. I believe the content of the "conscious mind" is a made-up story by a part of our brain responsible for making up stories to explain things. To draw an analogy, we are not watching a documentary about the film maker; we are watching a film produced by the film maker that tells a fictional story about how the film was made. The film maker already made the decisions by the time we watch the film, and he isn't really letting us in on how he made the decisions he made; he is simply giving us a plausible story and presenting it as if it were the true story.

[tgnostic]

I'm sorry. I'm without a soul on the topic.I can't answer faithfully to that discussion of the realistic doubt in freedom. Mines was ideal,

[tgnostic]

Honestly. I have to reply to the previous uneditable. I believe in the soul, and seeming to think of it now, it needs to have at least two ways. There is the soul of one's doubt in certainty for knowledge (must be for inescapable Human Nature), and there is the soul of the speculation of being part and one with the universe. Shame on the second ONE.

[ovcatto]

"What do people think of free will indifferent to human nature?"

I sorry but the question makes no sense. What is the distinction between "free will" and "human nature". Are they mutually exclusive or do they interplay with each other. Your writing style is needlessly verbose and there is simply far too much ambiguity to form a response, which I would love to do if I fully understood the question.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by tgnostic

Honestly. I have to reply to the previous uneditable.

I won't even try to guess what that is suppose to mean.

I believe in the soul, and seeming to think of it now, it needs to have at least two ways. There is the soul of one's doubt in certainty for knowledge (must be for inescapable Human Nature), and there is the soul of the speculation of being part and one with the universe. Shame on the second ONE.

Let me try to parse this:

"I believe in the soul," ok I'm with you so far.

"and seeming to think of it now", either you think or you don't, one doesn't seemingly think.

"it needs to have at least two ways."???

Even if we edited out the middle parenthetical phrase "and seeming to think of it now" we are still left with; "I believe in the soul it needs to have at least two ways. The soul needs to ways? What to go left or right, up or down? What are you talking about?

There is the soul of one's doubt in certainty for knowledge (must be for inescapable Human Nature), and there is the soul of the speculation of being part and one with the universe.

So is your contention that there are two souls:

1. The doubt in the certainty of knowledge.

2. the soul of the speculation of being part and one with the universe.

The first isn't any definition of soul that I would recognize but rather a description of a cognitive process. It can be a rational thought process, as in the doubt that we know all knowns, to the irrational, doubting clearly tested knowns.

As for soul number to, I suspect that a soul would not suspect its being "one with the universe" that would be an inherent, sense, or intuitive feeling, which I would argue is one possible definition of a soul.