Give your philosophical and/or theological definition of these terms.

Because 'determined outcome' does not become 'determined' until you have made the choice to either perform or not perform an action. In other words one has to determine whether he/she wants to be the cause or not be the cause. Example: a woman is about to be raped by 2 guys... do you want to interfere or not, while knowing you are physically capable of stopping the action. Later on one contemplates: "I could have stopped it, but I chose not to." Now you might want to ask whether or not God had anything to do with your choice. Do you believe in the existence of God, do you believe that God has the power to interfere with your ability to make a choice: Is it logical to believe in God? is it logical to believe that God made me make a decision if I don't believe in the existence of God? Make your choice.

 

Do you believe in the existence of spirits/angels? Satan was/is an angel (according to the 'Bible'). Do you believe that there is an hierarchy of angels? Do you believe that there is an 'angel of death'? Is it logical to believe in any of that kind of stuff? Is it reason-able to believe in any of that kind of stuff? You decide. If you conclude that it is neither logical or reasonable to believe in that kind of stuff, then you should not be concerned about such things. It would be illogical to be concerned about things that you do not believe to exist. It would be illogical for you to claim that you are concerned about others and what others might do because of their belief in such things, that would be admitting that such things do have the ability to influence the actions of others, therefore such things must exist if such things caused them to perform an act.

Will a commanding officer in the military punish or put to death a subordinate if that subordinate is performing his/her duties as instructed? If a person is acting under the believed influence of Satan, then it is unlikely that Satan would cause any harm to that person. In the case of Job, it is clear that Satan had to get permission from God. However, the 'Bible' is unclear about the relational status of those family members and servants of Job with regard to God. The only conclusion I can reach on them is that their 'God ordained purpose' on Earth must have been completed. Based on the Job story, it is obvious that Satan does have the power to kill human beings.

 

Beliefs do inform actions. If an action can cause an effect, then I am not immune to these effects. I think it is logical to question how someone can come to own these beliefs. Do I believe in spirits/angels? No, because I don't understand the relation of this concept in what I experience. I've asked people, If a spirit/angel/demon can affect the behavior of our physical vessel, then how many spirits/angels/demons can inhabit our physical vessel at any one time? I don't think this is a difficult question to answer if you KNOW what you are talking about, but I've never received a clear answer to this question from anyone.

Interesting. I'd forgotten the end of Job's family in this story. Although, I think this just complicates the inquiry further when you introduced. If God and Satan both have the power of death, then how can one be sure of the cause of the death one experiences...or expects to experience? If death is only just a physical cause and effect, then the actions of incorporeal beings is irrelevant.

 

The only information I have in regard to the number of demons/spirits that can inhabit the human vessel is found in the 'Bible'. For reference: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=legion&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1 In those cites, the term "Legion" is defined in Strongs Bible Dictionary as:
6826 found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3003&t=KJV

The highlighted text shows an after the fact condition if the "one" is the same 'one' in both being sure and experiencing. The 'or' statement indicates a future tense scenario. Future tense condition is completely subjective. Determined by such things as lifestyle, beliefs, job conditions, social environment, health condition... and the list goes on and on. Each person would have to evaluate those conditions (and conceivably many more) before that person could develop some idea of how one might end up kicking the bucket. In my own ego, I have cooked up a fanciful and humorous and very ego-centric idea of how I would 'like' to die: At the ripe old age of 105, being caught in bed with a 22 year old woman when her 28 year old husband walks in. Angered, he grabs the gun and shoots me dead centered in the back.... I die with a smile on my face.... LOL. What can I say... I am human and still have moments of my spirit being tested.

 

So you couldn't speak for yourself...you had to rely on another poster's views?

 

You know, instead of even attempting to make any explanation, I am simply going to ignore the unwarranted remark you have made.

 

Some concepts describe what has been (or can be) observed, while other concepts describe objects or qualities that are not observable in the natural world. Our minds have the capacity to imagine the supernatural. I can create a concept in my mind of a pink unicorn, but I don't expect to ever actually encounter one. A concept for placing a rotating screw into a channel in order to transport granulated material, however, can be realized in the natural world.

One could certainly argue that "mind" is a concept, but it is a concept that I experienced prior to having ever imagined my own mind as an abstract "concept". It is a rather peculiar aspect of being human, in my opinion, that our minds are capable of contemplating their own existence and nature as though one was observing oneself from outside of one's own existence. At any rate, mind, awareness and consciousness are aspects of self which I had already possessed prior to having ever pondered their nature. I consider them primary aspects of being, just as is gravity.

The soul, on the other hand, as a continuation of my life experience that persists after my body is dead and gone is not a concept that can be tested. Neither is the concept of a being that is all powerful and simultaneously unobservable. These are purely imaginary concepts with no basis in the physical world that my senses are capable of detecting. Is that proof that souls and gods don't exist? No. They are every bit as likely to exist as are pink unicorns.

 

It's merely the definition of the word as I have always used it. There are certainly alternative definitions for most of the words that we use. Some would argue that a homo sapien does not possess "personhood" if they are permanently unconscious due to a brain injury or if they possess inadequate intelligence to care for themselves without assistance from another person.

"Person" is effectively equivalent to "human" in my opinion. I suppose that if I ever met a non-human intelligent species with which I could converse and exchange ideas as I would with a fellow human, it would seem reasonable to consider that being a person as well.

 

1: The "I" in the cogito. Me. That which is more than the sum of its parts. The bit that is beyond the meat bag.
2) See soul
3: A sentient being
4: that of which nothing greater can be conceived
5: If you can ask a question you are aware. The condition of being in the cogito (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am)
6: See awareness and soul.
7: See soul
8: Information into the brain. The senses. Separate from awareness because awareness can exist without perceiving. Awareness is internal, perception is external.
9: Conception is the form an idea takes. My concept of freedom, My concept of soul. ETC>
10: The quality of one thing having the identical qualities to another thing.

 

These definitions seem to be stepping all over one another. Are you defining all of these things as the same, or as different aspects of a whole?

Sentient is defined as able to perceive or feel. It's used to describe a creature that can feel pain or experience emotion. Sapience is a creature that can reason and use judgement. If a "person" is defined as a creature able to feel or perceive, then all vertebrate animals fall in that category. Especially mammals. It's not clear that mammals are sapient, but it is pretty clear that they are sentient. Is this exactly what you mean by person?

 

They do seem to be stepping all over each other don't they? That should tell you something, ie to me they are all either closly related concepts or synonyms.
What I mean by sentient is able to perceive the self, to ponder the existential, to gaze wonderingly at one's own navel instead of being driven purely by instinct, as well as to be charged with emotion, to feel. You need BOTH in my opinion to have a soul (which is what we mean when we call someone a person. we recognize them as more than a meat bag.).

 

You seem to be saying that the Soul is the Mind. Which do you think they are?

I think there are distinctions between them. For example, I don't think Awareness implies a Soul. You said "If you can ask a question you are aware". I think if you can ask a question then you have a Mind. Awareness doesn't analyze or process, it intakes actively or passively. It is a function of a Mind observing and integrating what it perceives.

To say that the Soul is the Mind, is to depend that the Soul has the ability to perceive and be aware. If we have a Soul then what happens to it when we sleep? Isn't then, the dream world the actual world because it is the Soul unencumbered by Perception and Awareness? But you said that Perception is "separate from Awareness because Awareness can exist without perceiving". If so how? Can a Self/Soul be Aware without perceiving? If so, is Perception "The senses" or something else entirely?

In this explanation, a Person is required to Perceive the Self (implying the Person is a "brain"), which you explain is a Soul (is the Soul a brain, how do you know this?). A Person is a Perceiver, but not in your definitions. But a Person, by your definition (and suggests Awareness), a sentient being that is "able to ponder the existential (which I'm assuming is the Soul)". Now, the Person is NOT the Self, but is necessary for the Self to perceive the Soul. Isn't this circular? What is the Sameness of a Self and Soul, and not a Soul and Person?

 

The word "nesphesh" was what the KJV people interpreted in to English.

That Hebrew word means "mind."
At times, the same idea with the word "heart" replaces this idea of the soul.

In the Greek Bible, the word for nesphesh was "psyke'".

The psyche comes in three parts, the Conscious mind, the Subconscious mind, and the Unconscious mind.

 

Okay, I'll bite

Soul - a being of some sort of unknown energy that has not been discovered by science.

Self -- my core personality, how I behave, what I believe, what my interests are, how I think, what my psychological problems are

Person -- a physical body

God -- a very powerful being of some sort that could wipe out an entire continent with the shake of his pinky

Awareness -- I think therefore I am, I see therefore it is, I feel therefore I bleed

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

The Merchant Of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1

Consciousness -- I have no answer for that one

Mind -- how we think, our brains, and how we obey

Perception -- what I see, what I imagine, what I feel, what I taste, what i hear, how I see others

Conception -- both pregnancy and the original inspiration for the creation of something, such as a song, or an invention

Sameness -- The similarities in people, and sometimes the same thing repeated elsewhere

 

If "psyke" is the Conscious mine, the Subconscious mind, and the Uniconscious mind, then how is nesphesh just Aware? Is the Soul diluting these Nesphesh Awaremess?

 

... hmmm,... nesphesh means "mind,"... all three parts.

NOTE:


nephesh
Pronunciation
neh'·fesh

feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From נָפַשׁ (H5314)

soul,
mind,
the inner being of man
seat of emotions and passions
activity of mind

 

The mind is part of the soul.
Awareness without perception you already stated: dreams. You're not receiving any inputs from outside. Just what you've got in the buffer already.

I think you're misunderstanding. A person is a self, a soul. They (self, soul, person) are synonyms.

 

Which part of the soul do you define as the mind? This is what you said the soul was.
"The "I" in the cogito. Me. That which is more than the sum of its parts. The bit that is beyond the meat bag."

Which part of the soul is the mind? Is the mind defined by one of these sentences, or is it defined by a combination of these sentences? Or by none of these sentences?

I'm not sure about that. Only your eyes are closed. Haven't you ever had a dream where you were hearing a song or sound while you where asleep, and you subconsciously developed a dream around those sounds?

You said that a mind is a part of a soul. So is a mind also a part of a self and a person? If a self, soul, and person are the same then is a mind also the same part from all of these?

But a mind requires a question by your definition. So what does a mind do that is distinct?

 

Its not in that sentence, no. Think of it like this: Your soul is greater than physical reality. In a meat bag its manifested as the mind. Analogy: Take your hand and dip a finger into a glass of water. The bit in the water is the mind, the soul interacting with the physical. But your finger, while you and part of you (yes, both) is not ALL of you. You can't fit your whole hand in the glass, much less your entire body.

Sure, I have. I've also had dreams that had nothing to do with events occurring around me at the time. The dreams your talking about come from a mind waking up, beginning the process of flipping all the lights back on from standby mode.

That is generally how it works with synonyms, yes.

It exists as part of something on its own, rather than being something that HAPPENS to said thing (awareness, consciousness. See the diagram I put up on 6. mind>consciousness>awareness. You might add soul> before mind to get a better picture.)

 

So I take your description as explaining that a Soul is comprised of a Mind, Self, Consciousness, etc., but it is STILL not the entirety of what constitutes a Soul? What exactly constitutes a Soul, that also accounts for properties like Mind, Self, and Consciousness?

I don't quite follow. I'm a lucid dreamer, so I basically control my dreams. I had reoccurring nightmares growing up (the reoccurring wording gives it too much credit), so I learned to know when I was dreaming and how to snap out of a dream when I didn't like it. You're assuming a Self when saying "occurring around me at the time". There is no Self in a dream unless you're controlling it. But if this is the outlet to God then it is nebulous.

 

That's the beauty of the metaphysical. I dont know and that's OK to say.
I'm a finger right now. I've got nerves etc running back to the main part but I don't have the processing power or perspective to know anything but that I'm part of a larger whole.

By occurring around me I mean a dream I remember (I'm a vivid dreamer sometimes lucid but I generally remember the dreams) that had nothing to do with actual events occurring around my body. For instance I fell asleep in a floating chair in the hot sun but had no dreams related to floating being dehydrated cold splashes or even being near water despite various inputs including auditory.