A snapshot of the soul.

[tana]

A couple more thoughts on *judgment based* theology.

I've made the comments in various other threads that I see what appears to me as problems with the logistics of determining accountability, and assigning the proper amount of reward or punishment. I've suggested that it's possibly a problem locating exactly when the pre-spirit and mortal soul become accountable, as one must take into account all the variables, eg. nature, nurture, birth/brain defects, lack of access to the one true religion.

Just for the record, I don't pick on just the Mormon belief system, I've also discussed this with other various *deity based* religions. I just happen to have been raised Mormon and so I still have that connection.

Anyway, the answer that always seems to come back at me as to how the logistics of judgment can work is: God will look into the heart and soul of the individual, and make a just decision. And so, I thought I would try to dissect that theory a little bit.

How exactly does God look into a soul? My first reaction is; How does God take a snapshot of a soul mid-stride? (think Heisenberg uncertainty principle) It would be like me trying to judge "dancing with the stars" from a still photograph. According to Eckart Tolle, the past is a memory, the future is a concept, we exist in the now. As soon as one takes a snapshot of the now....it becomes the past.

What I'm trying to get at is, God can't determine the exact makeup of a souls true intent or worth, he can only look at their trail. Their record. He can make an educated guess as to what their next move will be based on their past, but it can NEVER be truly accurate. Because if a person does truly have *free will* they could change their behavior the very next moment subsequent to god deeming them nonredeemable.

Furthermore, accepting that God can read peoples minds/thoughts, those thoughts are always in the past, AND thoughts are NOT the soul. Google search on "thoughts awareness" and you will get many hits......If we are NOT our thoughts, what are we? and how exactly can God take a snapshot of IT?.....by some means other than simply assessing it's history?

[Kevin Christensen]

A couple more thoughts on *judgment based* theology.

I've made the comments in various other threads that I see what appears to me as problems with the logistics of determining accountability, and assigning the proper amount of reward or punishment. I've suggested that it's possibly a problem locating exactly when the pre-spirit and mortal soul become accountable, as one must take into account all the variables, eg. nature, nurture, birth/brain defects, lack of access to the one true religion.

SNIP

That calls to mind something Joseph Smith said, which I quote now and then:

"But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right."

History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.35, p.595

Anyway, the answer that always seems to come back at me as to how the logistics of judgment can work is: God will look into the heart and soul of the individual, and make a just decision. And so, I thought I would try to dissect that theory a little bit.

How exactly does God look into a soul?

SNIP

Interestingly enough, deep NDEs often describe Jesus doing just that, showing people not only every decision they have made, under what circumstances, but also the effects that each act had on other people, tracing the ripples of influence through other peoples lives like ripples on a pond.

Personally, I think that this is what Jesus was/is doing in the At-One-ment. And also how and why LDS scriptures describe our conscience as "the light of Christ."

What I'm trying to get at is, God can't determine the exact makeup of a souls true intent or worth, he can only look at their trail. Their record. He can make an educated guess as to what their next move will be based on their past, but it can NEVER be truly accurate. Because if a person does truly have *free will* they could change their behavior the very next moment subsequent to god deeming them nonredeemable.

Furthermore, accepting that God can read peoples minds/thoughts, those thoughts are always in the past, AND thoughts are NOT the soul. SNIP

There are quite a number of statements here that are not supported by observation and evidence. Rather, it's a rather narrow bit of speculation and declaration. In light of alternative observations and evidence, and a bit more imagination and sense of possibility, I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in this philospophy. The cosmos is quite a bit larger than Wittenberg.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[USU78]

Just because we can't measure both location and speed/direction at the same time doesn't mean G-d can't. He, being Him, has certain advantages.

[tana]

Just because we can't measure both location and speed/direction at the same time doesn't mean G-d can't. He, being Him, has certain advantages.

Agreed. Something I am attempting to examine tho is; What does this core essence look like to G-ds understanding. G-d is also an entity sequestered unto its own understanding of existence. As talked about in a recent "core conversation" thread, some say souls have an uncreated core essence. This core is primary to its learned experiences. What does this *core* look like to god in a snapshot/now moment of existence? How can it be known except by its history?

Point being....of this thread is; The apologist argument of "g-d looks into the souls core to determine its worth" isn't saying anything more than "G-d determines the value of souls based on their observed actions". Which I then point out that actions must then be quantified and rated, and G-d then becomes nothing more than an overseer of the rating system, and anyone with a calculator could do it.

[tana]

We play a silly little card game at home here called "thirty one". Everybody gets three quarters/coins. When one loses their coins they are out of the game.....unless they are granted *grace* by the remaining players. In which case they are back in the game until they lose again. To me tho it makes no sense. I mean, why not then just start out with everyone having *four* quarters* instead? No one ever is denied *grace*.....whats the diff?

So, In a judgment system can G-d possibly grant grace to who he will indiscriminately? Or, MUST G-d simply compute a valuation scale based on a quantification and rating of behavior?

[TAO]

tana, if God can see the future, uncertainty principle doesn't apply to him anymore 0.o

His ability to see the past, present, and future, I think, is what makes him such a good judge, a very just and merciful one indeed =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[tana]

There are quite a number of statements here that are not supported by observation and evidence. Rather, it's a rather narrow bit of speculation and declaration. In light of alternative observations and evidence, and a bit more imagination and sense of possibility, I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in this philospophy. The cosmos is quite a bit larger than Wittenberg.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I accept, agree that the OP is a rather narrow, and perhaps unclear presentation of my thought experiment. But it is after all a thought experiment....and I am certainly not a psychologist, I just (try to) play one on the board.

I do have a respect for your intellect on this board, so in an attempt to be non-confrontational, could you be more specific as to which statements you consider to be *not* supported by observation or evidence? Is it perhaps my assessment that the natural course of the thought experiment leads one to the conclusion that G-d can NEVER know with 100% certainty the next move of a seperate (from himself) sentient, free will endowed entity? And therefor he can NEVER have the cause to deem them non-redeemable.

Curt

[tana]

tana, if God can see the future, uncertainty principle doesn't apply to him anymore 0.o

His ability to see the past, present, and future, I think, is what makes him such a good judge, a very just and merciful one indeed =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

I have to take issue with a few things here TAO. The term "*good* judge" connotes an inference that G-ds judging ability is on a scale. My logic says that he isn't a good judge, but that he MUST be a PERFECT interpreter, renderer, sentencer. Judging is a human description of how an imperfect mind makes decisions based on its interpretation of the available apparent facts.

"Mercy" IMO is a term that indicates, again, a human description of a persons decision to grant or deny special privileges for some intangible (or apparent) reason. It seems to me that a perfect sentencer MUST set the bar at the same level for all. Mercy is relative.

A perfect G-d MUST render with neither mercy nor austerity, but with a simple and absolute common scale for all.

[TAO]

I have to take issue with a few things here TAO. The term "*good* judge" connotes an inference that G-ds judging ability is on a scale.

Yes. In this case, it is referring to my scale. If you prefer just, that is what I mean, according to my scale.

My logic says that he isn't a good judge, but that he MUST be a PERFECT interpreter, renderer, sentencer. Judging is a human description of how an imperfect mind makes decisions based on its interpretation of the available apparent facts.

He is all those, but he is also a judge. Not a judge based on apparent facts and such, but a judge based on an eternal law. He sees you perfectly, interprets you perfectly, renders you perfectly, judges you perfectly, and then sentences you perfectly - and you will be completely willing to go where he asks you at that point - that is how you will know his judgment is perfect, because you are willing to submit to it. The devil I think even regrets his decision, at this point.

"Mercy" IMO is a term that indicates, again, a human description of a persons decision to grant or deny special privileges for some intangible (or apparent) reason. It seems to me that a perfect sentencer MUST set the bar at the same level for all. Mercy is relative.

Mercy is a second chance. That is all it is. It is the capability of being forgiven, it is the capability of not receiving judgment for your actions, by providing another dedication. And your right, in certain eyes, it may not be mercy, but it matters not, again, because when you come to the throne of God, you will be willing to accept it as mercy, and that is all that matters. In the presence of God, we will be humbled so much that we will be ashamed of thinking contrary to the bounds he would have us think in. Mercy, is a point of view, but the person most qualified to make that point of view is God himself.

A perfect G-d MUST render with neither mercy nor austerity, but with a simple and absolute common scale for all.

He already does this, and mercy and justice are still a part of this. Each rule has a reason, and each mercy given also has a reason, if you look deeper into it. That I promise =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

P.S. Have you read Alma 42? I think you'd find it interesting in how much it relates to this!

[tana]

Yes. In this case, it is referring to my scale. If you prefer just, that is what I mean, according to my scale.

He is all those, but he is also a judge. Not a judge based on apparent facts and such, but a judge based on an eternal law. He sees you perfectly, interprets you perfectly, renders you perfectly, judges you perfectly, and then sentences you perfectly - and you will be completely willing to go where he asks you at that point - that is how you will know his judgment is perfect, because you are willing to submit to it. The devil I think even regrets his decision, at this point.

Mercy is a second chance. That is all it is. It is the capability of being forgiven, it is the capability of not receiving judgment for your actions, by providing another dedication. And your right, in certain eyes, it may not be mercy, but it matters not, again, because when you come to the throne of God, you will be willing to accept it as mercy, and that is all that matters. In the presence of God, we will be humbled so much that we will be ashamed of thinking contrary to the bounds he would have us think in. Mercy, is a point of view, but the person most qualified to make that point of view is God himself.

He already does this, and mercy and justice are still a part of this. Each rule has a reason, and each mercy given also has a reason, if you look deeper into it. That I promise =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

But how exactly does he do it? How does he separate the masses into their classes without quantifying and establishing a value to behavior? Every action, inaction, thought from the moment the entity is aware till it stands before G-d must be recorded and rated.

We see that the LDS belief has a place prepared for the best the good the bad and the worst. Each of these places must have entry qualifications...... how can they NOT be precise?

I think that society tends to take these types of proposals and puts them in the *too hard* basket. We have this hazy lazy concept of judgment day as something that god will just work out. He will somehow look into the soul and sort it accordingly. But when one takes the time to examine how exactly these things can actually work.....holes start to appear.

It's like trying to figure out what matter is made of, the closer one looks, the more it disappears. For god trying to LOOK at a soul, is like us, a human eye trying to look at an electron. No one has ever seen an electron. They only see a representation in their mind, of a representation of the trail it leaves on their instruments.

[Thunderfire]

How exactly does God look into a soul? My first reaction is; How does God take a snapshot of a soul mid-stride?

The only way I can even begin to address this is through example.

Many years ago I was in a worship service and had a remarkable experience with the Lord. For no apparent reason that I can fathom, I heard the audible voice of the Lord say how he wanted to show me something. It's a rather long testimony, but the message which is pertinent here is that I found myself standing next to the Lord looking at people "though his eyes." Everyone was totally transparent before me and NOTHING was hidden.

Simply because we "think" we can hide our innermost thoughts does not mean they are actually hidden. Then too, simply because we are prone to forget many things, does not mean that God forgets anything he wishes to remember. In my opinion, the main problem with this line of questioning is that it is based on our abilities (or inabilities), our perception of things, and how we then apply this to God.

So in essence, God does not need to "look into" our souls when everything about us is plainly seen.

The next thing to consider is how we view the future. Simply by speaking in terms of "future" denotes our connection to "time". We are linear beings in our current state. This too causes a problem when we apply time to God. But God is beyond time and space. All things (yesterday, today, and tomorrow) are in the here and now with God. Of course, these are concepts we cannot even fathom. So again, in our limited capacity to comprehend these things, we apply our limitations to God.

Anyway, just my opinion that I offer for discussion sake...

[tana]

The only way I can even begin to address this is through example.

Many years ago I was in a worship service and had a remarkable experience with the Lord. For no apparent reason that I can fathom, I heard the audible voice of the Lord say how he wanted to show me something. It's a rather long testimony, but the message which is pertinent here is that I found myself standing next to the Lord looking at people "though his eyes." Everyone was totally transparent before me and NOTHING was hidden.

Simply because we "think" we can hide our innermost thoughts does not mean they are actually hidden. Then too, simply because we are prone to forget many things, does not mean that God forgets anything he wishes to remember. In my opinion, the main problem with this line of questioning is that it is based on our abilities (or inabilities), our perception of things, and how we then apply this to God.

So in essence, God does not need to "look into" our souls when everything about us is plainly seen.

The next thing to consider is how we view the future. Simply by speaking in terms of "future" denotes our connection to "time". We are linear beings in our current state. This too causes a problem when we apply time to God. But God is beyond time and space. All things (yesterday, today, and tomorrow) are in the here and now with God. Of course, these are concepts we cannot even fathom. So again, in our limited capacity to comprehend these things, we apply our limitations to God.

Anyway, just my opinion that I offer for discussion sake...

What exactly do you consider to be ones "inner most" thoughts?

ECKHART TOLLE

"Start listening to the voice in your head as often as you can. Pay particular attention to any repetitive thought patterns, those old gramophone records that have been playing in your head perhaps for many years - be there as the witnessing presence. When you listen to that voice, listen to it impartially. That is to say do not judge .... for doing so would mean that the same voice has come in again through the back door. You'll soon realize: there is the voice, and here I am listening to it, watching it. This I am realization, this sense of your own presence, is not a thought. It arises from beyond the mind.

All cravings are the mind seeking salvation or fulfillment in external things and in the future as a substitute for the joy of Being.

In that state, even my desire to become free or enlightened is just another craving for fulfillment or completion in the future.

So don't seek to become free of desire or "achieve" enlightenment. Become present. Be there as the observer of the mind".

Many believe that we are NOT our thoughts. We do not *own* or create our thoughts, we simply ride herd on them. We select one of the multiple choice options that arise from our mind. In the study of brain function scientists see that the brain has malleable, plastic type characteristics. Synapses form new connections that become more structured and fixed the more one visits the same thoughts over and over.....and less fixed the more one doesn't.

There is a thinker and an observer, the thinker CAN be isolated and recorded. the observer is un-quantifiable, immeasurable and un-impeachable.

[Thunderfire]

What exactly do you consider to be ones "inner most" thoughts?

Great question and I would like to see where this goes!

All of us carry certain "baggage" whether that be our fears, insecurities, pride, and such. As much as this is unwanted, it still makes up who we are and why we make certain decisions and choices. Some of this may even come from a "generational curse" (so to speak), meaning in many ways we are the product of our parents upbringing. Of course, these things cannot be seen as our "inner most" thoughts. These things can be seen as the "real reason" why we get angry, hateful, impatient, lustful, or why we strike out in one instance but turn a blind eye on a different occasion. Frankly, it is impossible for us to do anything without a reason.

So see these "hidden reasons" at the center of our inner most thoughts. At times we plan out what we want to say or do, the actions we want to take, or line in the sand we draw. Other times we act on instinct or even on a whim. Our inner most thoughts are the hidden reasons why we do what we do. The scary part is how we at times live on "auto pilot" where we are ruled by those things which make up our character, which character is built on our inner most thoughts (even those we are unaware we have)!

Yet God knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows the reasons why we do what we do and what causes us to make certain choices.

[TAO]

But how exactly does he do it? How does he separate the masses into their classes without quantifying and establishing a value to behavior? Every action, inaction, thought from the moment the entity is aware till it stands before G-d must be recorded and rated.

When he became whom he was, he made a promise to judge according to a certain law. That law is the one that does the quantifying.

We see that the LDS belief has a place prepared for the best the good the bad and the worst. Each of these places must have entry qualifications...... how can they NOT be precise?

They are precise. We just don't know precisely where they are, we know generally where they are, but we leave God to do the judging on that.

I think that society tends to take these types of proposals and puts them in the *too hard* basket. We have this hazy lazy concept of judgment day as something that god will just work out. He will somehow look into the soul and sort it accordingly. But when one takes the time to examine how exactly these things can actually work.....holes start to appear.

He will look into the soul the same way a doctor examines your physical body. Using abilities he has with spiritual matter, I think, though I could be wrong. I don't know much about spiritual matter, but I do have guesses... but they are only guesses. And it many not be through spiritual matter at all either.

It's like trying to figure out what matter is made of, the closer one looks, the more it disappears. For god trying to LOOK at a soul, is like us, a human eye trying to look at an electron. No one has ever seen an electron. They only see a representation in their mind, of a representation of the trail it leaves on their instruments.

Precisely, no matter how far you go, there is more to see, more places to look. We can brainstorm, but I don't think we will quite know yet. Maybe it'll be revealed sometime =).

Thunderfire's experience is quite interesting, and I think it is rather close to how he does it.

[tana]

Great question and I would like to see where this goes!

All of us carry certain "baggage" whether that be our fears, insecurities, pride, and such. As much as this is unwanted, it still makes up who we are and why we make certain decisions and choices. Some of this may even come from a "generational curse" (so to speak), meaning in many ways we are the product of our parents upbringing. Of course, these things cannot be seen as our "inner most" thoughts. These things can be seen as the "real reason" why we get angry, hateful, impatient, lustful, or why we strike out in one instance but turn a blind eye on a different occasion. Frankly, it is impossible for us to do anything without a reason.

So see these "hidden reasons" at the center of our inner most thoughts. At times we plan out what we want to say or do, the actions we want to take, or line in the sand we draw. Other times we act on instinct or even on a whim. Our inner most thoughts are the hidden reasons why we do what we do. The scary part is how we at times live on "auto pilot" where we are ruled by those things which make up our character, which character is built on our inner most thoughts (even those we are unaware we have)!

Yet God knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows the reasons why we do what we do and what causes us to make certain choices.

Good post TF. Thanks for the pleasant discussion.

Ya know, I'm surprised there aren't more real psychologists on here shutting me down for my amateur attempts at dissecting the human psyche.

I agree with you that our DNA carries with it too much un-asked for baggage, and that the sub-conscious, "hidden reasons", ego is the cause of 99% of our behaviour. I do think tho that all of that is peripheral to our core. That even "inner most" thoughts, are STILL thoughts, that cannot describe the soul. Any/every *thought* must have an awareness to hear it.

[Obiwan]

God looks at ones hearts AND at ones actions....

Take pre-mortality. There of course they didn't have bodies so the "test" was different. But those who couldn't understand in their intellect AND in their very nature that Agency was necessary to progressing to the next stage of godliness, they were thus then cast out. Likewise, those who ultimately reject the truth when we for certain know it will again become sons of perdition. Of course, most will ultimately accept the truth in this life or the next, so they will obtain some sort of glory (kingdom), but all will still be judged according to the Book of Life when it is opened, so we can't entirely escape our actions. But God is both Merciful AND Justice, thus his judgment will be a righteous judgment according to our hearts and actions.

The OP seems to be running from the assumption that God "can't" know every aspect of us, our hearts, thoughts, actions, history, future, etc. This would be an incorrect assumption. For example everyone dies at different times, and God knows exactly when and it is exactly when we should die per our own experience and needs, all in the plan. Another example would be that God placed us all on this earth, each a different person placed in different places, thus this makes clear that God clearly knows us very well, knowing exactly who we are, where we belong, and what we need to have a chance to be who we are supposed to be, who we choose to be and who we are.

[Thunderfire]

Forgive me for not knowing the LDS Book of Mormon reference for this account. But in the RLDS edition this story is found in Alma (12:85-113)

The prophet Ammon is standing before King Lamoni and the prophet says, "What do you desire that I do for you?" And we are told that the king did not answer him for the space of an hour. Then we are told that Ammon was filled with the Spirit of God, giving him the ability to perceive the thoughts of the King, where he proceeded to tell the King what he was thinking!

Of course, King Lamoni marveled at how Ammon could perceive and discern his inner most thoughts and he asked, "Who are you? How do you know the thoughts of my heart? If you tell me these things, I will give you whatever you want." In essence, Ammon responds by saying, "Will you believe me if I tell you?" This is the interesting aspect which ties in with this discussion, do we believe these things which are unseen in our day, yet having an account of the possibility of God having this power (and the ability to share it with man?")

Of course Ammon goes on the explain how a portion of God's Spirit was within him, giving him the knowledge and also the power to do this according to his faith and desires which are in God. Now two things to consider here:

1) We are totally transparent before God. Nothing is hidden and everything is seen. I shared a testimony of a "waking experience" where the Lord showed me his ability to see from this perspective. And everything he knows he can share when it is his will.

2) In 1st Corinthians (3:16-17), Paul writes that we are "temples unto God" and how God's Spirit lives in us. Of course, we are also told how God is "in and through all things" as well. So if God is in us, he also knows the house he is in having full view of everything.

I have learned that this presents to us one of the most profound prayers we can pray. We can ask God to "show us" why we do the things we do and the repentance we need to offer. We can pray to "see ourselves the way God see's us", giving us the ability to see both the good and bad, to see how much God loves us, our true (not perceived) giftedness, to even be able to see the wheat and the tares in our lives that we might make the needed corrections in feeding the wheat, allowing the tares to wither and die.

Anyway, just more to add to this discussion!

[tana]

How would one describe the soul of a computer? Would you describe it by its thoughts? It's "inner most" thoughts?

If one compares a computer to a soul (spirit body connection) The hardware and circuitry of the computer compares to the synapses and chemical reactions of the physical brain. One CAN describe the computer by its functions/thoughts. But to attempt to describe the *soul* by its brain functions/thoughts, is abandoning consciousness to materialism.

To attempt to describe the *spirit* by its "more fine matter" brain functions, is abandoning *I am awareness* to "more fine matter" materialism.

Thoughts ARE things, but things (in this case *awareness*) are NOT thoughts.

Since all thoughts and combinations of same exist always and ONLY in the NOW. Thoughts do not exist in the future, Thoughts do not exist in the past, only as a memory in YOUR *now*. To construct an incomplete, partial assembly of thoughts, put them into a capsule and call it an entity is to me incoherent.

A computer REQUIRES a user to qualify and quantify its information. A thought REQUIRES the same.

[TAO]

How would one describe the soul of a computer?

From what I understand, a computer's soul is just the combined intelligence of it's spirit particles, boosted by how they interact with each other. A computer happens to be very intelligent in terms of simple calculations, but is less efficient in things like thinking outside of the box and whatnot.

Would you describe it by its thoughts? It's "inner most" thoughts?

Intelligence isn't the ability to think, I think. I think it's the ability to know. Some intelligences have the ability to think though... I think that is part of what makes them so much more intelligent than the rest =). Not sure though, this is complete speculation, so I might be wrong XD.

If one compares a computer to a soul (spirit body connection) The hardware and circuitry of the computer compares to the synapses and chemical reactions of the physical brain. One CAN describe the computer by its functions/thoughts. But to attempt to describe the *soul* by its brain functions/thoughts, is abandoning consciousness to materialism.

Nah, the computer would be the representative of the physical body, connected with electrical circuitry. The difference (I think, but am not sure) between us and the comptuer is that not only are our physical matter interconnected and cooperative, but also our spiritual matter. I'm not sure if a computer's spiritual matter works quite in the same way as ours.... or if it just interacts with the physical, and ignores the other spiritual matter parts of it. Not sure XD.

To attempt to describe the *spirit* by its "more fine matter" brain functions, is abandoning *I am awareness* to "more fine matter" materialism.

Awareness is a special thing, that it is. I think it is the capability of spiritual matter to interact with the other piece of your linked synapses as well as your physical matter does. But again, not sure. Lots of possibilities.

Thoughts ARE things, but things (in this case *awareness*) are NOT thoughts.

No, an awareness contains thoughts... in computer science, it's like an array or a vector... a list of sorts... with efficient sorting algorithms for going through those thoughts and returning a value that is desired. The awareness is the thing holding the thoughts, I think.

Since all thoughts and combinations of same exist always and ONLY in the NOW. Thoughts do not exist in the future, Thoughts do not exist in the past, only as a memory in YOUR *now*. To construct an incomplete, partial assembly of thoughts, put them into a capsule and call it an entity is to me incoherent.

Nah, thoughts exist in the future... they just haven't happened yet. Thoughts also exist in the past... you can think about how a moment ago you were thinking about 'this'. In this way, memory and thoughts are synonymous, and are treated by your brain in the exact same way. Your brain just thinks of them as data, thoughts just have a special priority, so for example, if you were to see a car speeding twoards you, you wouldn't put so much priority on your memory problem-solver's solution, which might say no need to dodge, because of experiences in the past. Thus, a memory is just a thought with lesser priority... and as it gets lesser and lesser priority over time, it slowly is sent back into the dim back of your mind... eventually only being broughten back up by 'keywords', which access your large searching algorithm, and possibly access a long forgotten thought.

At least that's how I think the brain works right now... but my perspective on it changes in an instant, so yah... it may change by tomorrrow ;-). Or it may not. Speaking of perspective, it's the sum total conclusion of both your current thoughts and memory thoughts with lesser priority put together to equal a 'state'. That state is then (I think) fit into a problem solving apparatus to determine the best possible scenario's for your current self, determine some of the things you do. Those things are put on queues, and checked with another problem solving solution sent through an instant later. And eventually, the action will get performed, but depending on the importance of the action as judged by your mind, and the time before you perform the action, and a few other things probably as well, it checks it more or less often, sometimes changing what is going to happen.

Confusing, I know =P. Actually... if you could... I think it would be good for you to read up some on object-oriented computer languages (Java, ActionScript 3, C#)... they really help you understand how people think, to a degree. Now, they won't help you understand how a computer processes it's information (for that you'd have to study assembly, and that's very difficult), but they are curiously related to how I think the mind works... the mind seems to use a bucket sort of some sort in order to process information.

A computer REQUIRES a user to qualify and quantify its information. A thought REQUIRES the same.

Nah, a computer doesn't require a user to qualify and quantify it's information - that is pre-coded of sorts. Once coded, it can do it on it's own as long as power is provided. We are different, because we aren't pre-coded, I think... unless you look really really far back, and I'm not sure even then. It's one of the great mysteries of sorts... I'm going to wait to ask God about it =).

[tana]

From what I understand, a computer's soul is just the combined intelligence of it's spirit particles, boosted by how they interact with each other. A computer happens to be very intelligent in terms of simple calculations, but is less efficient in things like thinking outside of the box and whatnot.

Tao, again, I think that you have dissected my post to the point where you've lost track of the message. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether or not AI is or can be sentient. I'm just trying to make an analogy that both a computor and a human brain are a network of connections. That both require a *consciousness* to understand the information in them

Intelligence isn't the ability to think, I think. I think it's the ability to know. Some intelligences have the ability to think though... I think that is part of what makes them so much more intelligent than the rest =). Not sure though, this is complete speculation, so I might be wrong XD.

That is exactly the message, intelligence/awareness IS the core. A compilation of thoughts cannot describe the core.

Nah, the computer would be the representative of the physical body, connected with electrical circuitry. The difference (I think, but am not sure) between us and the comptuer is that not only are our physical matter interconnected and cooperative, but also our spiritual matter. I'm not sure if a computer's spiritual matter works quite in the same way as ours.... or if it just interacts with the physical, and ignores the other spiritual matter parts of it. Not sure XD.

Well, since the spinal cord is an extention of the brain, and the central nervious system communicates with the cells through chemical interactions, it can be argued that the entire human organism IS the brain.

Awareness is a special thing, that it is. I think it is the capability of spiritual matter to interact with the other piece of your linked synapses as well as your physical matter does. But again, not sure. Lots of possibilities.

I personally think that when JS declared spirit to have substance, which then leads some to further that thoughts, ideas, concepts also have substance....it created all sorts of connundrums.

No, an awareness contains thoughts... in computer science, it's like an array or a vector... a list of sorts... with efficient sorting algorithms for going through those thoughts and returning a value that is desired. The awareness is the thing holding the thoughts, I think.

Exactly my point. You're trying to figure out a way for everything to have substance/mass. To require everything to have substance, abandons free will, abstract thinking to the mechanics of cause and effect. You are bound by the limits of objects bumping into each other to produce existance. It's materialism! To truly have free will one MUST be NOT bound to requiring a cause for an effect.

Nah, thoughts exist in the future... they just haven't happened yet. Thoughts also exist in the past... you can think about how a moment ago you were thinking about 'this'. In this way, memory and thoughts are synonymous,

Don't those two statements contradict? If you are having a thought about a memory, isn't the thought you are having happening in the now?

[TAO]

Tao, again, I think that you have dissected my post to the point where you've lost track of the message. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether or not AI is or can be sentient. I'm just trying to make an analogy that both a computor and a human brain are a network of connections. That both require a *consciousness* to understand the information in them

Hehe, I do that often. It's a bad autistic habit of mine =).

Well, since the spinal cord is an extention of the brain, and the central nervious system communicates with the cells through chemical interactions, it can be argued that the entire human organism IS the brain.

Here... let me explain better. Basically, the spinal cord is a bunch of smaller 'objects' or 'sensors' which when they sense something, they send an impulse up to your brain's 'memory queue'. There, the information is slowly taken in (based on how important/intense it is), and it effects your brain's processes. Your brain though reads bit by bit, and all does it in an instant. Sort of like frame by frame action in flash/actionscript. Many 'frames' make up a moving picture... with slight changes in each.

I suppose it could be argued that the entire human is the brain, but the entire human is not the awareness, nor is the entire brain the awareness. The awareness is a more specific part of you I think.

I personally think that when JS declared spirit to have substance, which then leads some to further that thoughts, ideas, concepts also have substance....it created all sorts of connundrums.

He was right XD. Everything has substance... even the bits in your computer have substance. Otherwise it could not effect matter. ;-)

Exactly my point. You're trying to figure out a way for everything to have substance/mass. To require everything to have substance, abandons free will, abstract thinking to the mechanics of cause and effect. You are bound by the limits of objects bumping into each other to produce existance. It's materialism! To truly have free will one MUST be NOT bound to requiring a cause for an effect.

Let me explain how it doesn't abandon free will... you'll remember in LDS theology intelligences... pre-spirits, so to say, I think. They can not be created... they are as eternal as matter... having no beginning, I believe, but am not sure.

When something has no beginning or end in super-time (farthest relative space-time possible, if it exists), it is not based on cause and effect, it is merely manipulated by such. In other words, if the 'intelligences', the 'truths', the 'awarenesses' have always existed, being manipulated from time to time, existence is still free will.

Don't those two statements contradict? If you are having a thought about a memory, isn't the thought you are having happening in the now?

Nah, it's emulation. Similar but different. It's like running a independent isolated copy of Windows 2000 on your Windows 7 computer in a virtual PC. It's still running. That's why you can go back and watch your memories in flashbacks... kinda like a video, no? =) But that's just my thoughts on it =D.

Oh... one more thing, I think the present you are thinking of right now, is actually happening milliseconds before you see it, no? In that sense, your existence right now is a memory as well ;-).

Confusing! XD But I'm probably wrong on all this, so don't hold me to it =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[tana]

He was right XD. Everything has substance... even the bits in your computer have substance. Otherwise it could not effect matter. ;-)

IF everything conceivable in existence exists because it has substance, I believe you seriously limit yourself to causation up, materialism. You run up against the wall of locating, or even conceiving of a

[TAO]

IF everything conceivable in existence exists because it has substance, I believe you seriously limit yourself to causation up, materialism.

Nah... it's not that... you see, things can exist without substance... it's just that those things don't actually matter to us if there is no possible way to interact with them, if you know what I mean =). They could exist though.

You run up against the wall of locating, or even conceiving of a

[TAO]

Just curious what you think tana =).... I have a feeling you will largely disagree with what I say XD. But tis cool =).

[tana]

Just curious what you think tana =).... I have a feeling you will largely disagree with what I say XD. But tis cool =).

Hey Tao. sorry for quitting on you. I guess I felt like we were starting to repeat ourselves.

I'm trying to point out in my theory that if one is bound by the interactions of particles to define their existance, whether one can locate a first cause or not they must always have a preceding thought to cause the next. It demonstrates the exact opposite of free will. One can never have an 'uncaused' thought.

Particles are wagging you, instead of you being the master.