Very bold. I get push back when I've told people there's no 'me' (or them, by extension), and its all just happening. You put it just as directly but communicated it much better.
Thank you for sharing these insights. I always welcome opportunities to challenge my belief systems.Some contradictory views in your theory though.
On the one hand, you demote the idea of multiple realities by suggesting that the soul “ a hypothetical decision maker” makes decisions based on what she/he believes is the single best possible decision among available options.
On the other hand, you promote experience as the tool used by this decision maker to choose the best possible option.
How else can the decision maker know the best option if it hasn’t experienced the alternatives? How does soul know the red path is better than the blue/pink/round path?
Multiple realities = experiences = knowledge = ability to choose the best possible option
So your theory kinda supports the existence of multiple realities. What do you think?
I think I need to make this clearer in the article. First of all, we are not taking any position regarding the existence or non-existence of a soul or any decision-maker with agency. We are simply saying that even if such a decision-maker existed—which it may very well not—then it would always make whatever it believes to be the best decision. The key word here is "believes." It is completely irrelevant whether the decision turns out to be good or bad.
The point is that even if free will existed, the entity possessing that free will would still always make whatever it believes to be the best decision. Whether that decision turns out to be brilliant or disastrous is irrelevant. Since there is only one decision believed to be the best, and that is the decision that will be made, there are no alternative realities in which a different decision is taken.
In this sense, even if free will exists, reality behaves as if it were deterministic. The existence of free will would not create branching realities, because only one decision is ever believed to be the best and therefore only one decision is ever made.
I totally agree with you Gio, there is no good or bad..there is only that which is relevant to growth.
I disagree with soul operating on the basis of belief. Firstly, I am soul. yes this physical body is adopted, soul needs this physical body to operate within the physical world/laws. My physical body/mind also has free will. It can choose to operate independently but that is ok cos ultimately it will come full circle and tap into a better version of itself…a higher power - soul.
If i learn to align with it, my soul is the source of intuition, that inner voice that has bested rational thinking many times. My soul is a database of experiences with a compute speed that my human mind cannot comprehend. When I begin to see me as soul, I am tapping into a more efficient version of myself…beyond this physical representation that i call me.
This alignment happens all the time. We know this voice, some of us call it a gut feeling. Some call it Deja vu. But there is nothing random about the choices this soul..(this higher) power makes.
Soul operates purely out of knowledge/experience. Belief and knowledge are different but each has purpose.
I believe in Santa, I believe in paradise on earth. But i do not believe in fire. I know fire. I know that if i touch it, it will burn me. That is knowledge born of experience
My Soul has a database of experiences (memories kinda) that informs decision making. I benefit from this resource when i look beyond my physical self and align with me (soul)
That said, i am a seeker. Constantly questioning truth…wether it is my truth or another’s. I immensely appreciate your views and responses..cos without it, i’m stuck in one place. I don’t wana be stuck
How do you know all those things you said are true? Regarding fire, how do you know that because you see fire there is an actual fire? What if you were just dreaming of a fire? You can say that you are experiencing fire, but probably nothing more than that.
Why do you assume that it is most likely a dream? I have never said that it is most likely a dream. I am simply saying that we cannot rule out the possibility that it is a dream, but that does not mean it has to be one. We just do not know.
I am not assuming that it is a dream in any way; I am simply not assuming that it is not a dream, which is completely different. I would not even assume that a dream world has fixed laws.
However, if you touch fire and feel a burn, whether it is a dream or not, you can still say that you experienced the burn. That is true, and it is probably the only conclusion we can draw with confidence.
In a lot of ways, we are dreaming. Trapped in the bubble of our belief system…our ignorance…
Look at the concept of natural selection in the physical world for example. Once upon a time, we all believed the planet belongs to the fittest/strongest. But that bubble is evaporating, we are beginning to wake up to the realization that the word ‘fit’ is not a reference to the strongest. Those who survive ‘nature’s purge’ are the ones who are the best fit for nature’s ultimate/overall survival strategy.
That insight could only have come because of our willingness to wake up…our willingness to always question established truths and keep waking up. Religion should be approached scientifically.
We are always in a state of flux. This constant evolution is unique to each individual. That’s why we can’t force enlightenment to happen. Just cos we have ‘seen the light’, it doesn’t mean we have to pull others into the light. You can show your light but others have to walk into that light willingly or not. Doesn’t matter whether it is a yes or a no. It matters that the choice….the decision to wake up is organic.
I will summarize this text in which you try to understand and rationalize what you have found out :-)
If you really look into it, there is no "I". No entity to call "I". Therefor the experience that there is this "I" that is making decisions is just an illusion created by the mind :-)
This leaves a blank, emptiness in how things work then. This article is an attempt to fill this void. Our brain hates voids and will try to fill it with stories about reality how things work. But more accurate would to be to just accept that you cannot know. Of course other than science tells us.
I am familiar with this approach; it was the one followed by my teacher. The approach consists of looking for some agent that we can call “I,” and then not being able to find it. I did not fully align with this approach, because my response was that just because I cannot find it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. I do not see UV light or X-rays, yet they still exist.
So my approach instead is simply to say that I do not know whether there is an agent or not. In any case, we would first have to define what an agent is. But the point is that I do not need to know.
I suppose the end result is the same: whether you claim that you know there is no agent, or you realize that you do not know whether there is an agent or not, ultimately it does not even matter. I think the end result, in terms of realization, is the same.
Very bold. I get push back when I've told people there's no 'me' (or them, by extension), and its all just happening. You put it just as directly but communicated it much better.
Appreciated
Thank you for sharing these insights. I always welcome opportunities to challenge my belief systems.Some contradictory views in your theory though.
On the one hand, you demote the idea of multiple realities by suggesting that the soul “ a hypothetical decision maker” makes decisions based on what she/he believes is the single best possible decision among available options.
On the other hand, you promote experience as the tool used by this decision maker to choose the best possible option.
How else can the decision maker know the best option if it hasn’t experienced the alternatives? How does soul know the red path is better than the blue/pink/round path?
Multiple realities = experiences = knowledge = ability to choose the best possible option
So your theory kinda supports the existence of multiple realities. What do you think?
I think I need to make this clearer in the article. First of all, we are not taking any position regarding the existence or non-existence of a soul or any decision-maker with agency. We are simply saying that even if such a decision-maker existed—which it may very well not—then it would always make whatever it believes to be the best decision. The key word here is "believes." It is completely irrelevant whether the decision turns out to be good or bad.
The point is that even if free will existed, the entity possessing that free will would still always make whatever it believes to be the best decision. Whether that decision turns out to be brilliant or disastrous is irrelevant. Since there is only one decision believed to be the best, and that is the decision that will be made, there are no alternative realities in which a different decision is taken.
In this sense, even if free will exists, reality behaves as if it were deterministic. The existence of free will would not create branching realities, because only one decision is ever believed to be the best and therefore only one decision is ever made.
I totally agree with you Gio, there is no good or bad..there is only that which is relevant to growth.
I disagree with soul operating on the basis of belief. Firstly, I am soul. yes this physical body is adopted, soul needs this physical body to operate within the physical world/laws. My physical body/mind also has free will. It can choose to operate independently but that is ok cos ultimately it will come full circle and tap into a better version of itself…a higher power - soul.
If i learn to align with it, my soul is the source of intuition, that inner voice that has bested rational thinking many times. My soul is a database of experiences with a compute speed that my human mind cannot comprehend. When I begin to see me as soul, I am tapping into a more efficient version of myself…beyond this physical representation that i call me.
This alignment happens all the time. We know this voice, some of us call it a gut feeling. Some call it Deja vu. But there is nothing random about the choices this soul..(this higher) power makes.
Soul operates purely out of knowledge/experience. Belief and knowledge are different but each has purpose.
I believe in Santa, I believe in paradise on earth. But i do not believe in fire. I know fire. I know that if i touch it, it will burn me. That is knowledge born of experience
My Soul has a database of experiences (memories kinda) that informs decision making. I benefit from this resource when i look beyond my physical self and align with me (soul)
That said, i am a seeker. Constantly questioning truth…wether it is my truth or another’s. I immensely appreciate your views and responses..cos without it, i’m stuck in one place. I don’t wana be stuck
How do you know all those things you said are true? Regarding fire, how do you know that because you see fire there is an actual fire? What if you were just dreaming of a fire? You can say that you are experiencing fire, but probably nothing more than that.
Absolutely! It is most likely all a dream. But within the laws of that dream world, if i touch fire, it will hurt.
I like your assumption about us dreaming and needing to wake up to our full potential.
That’s why i always question my truth. That’s why Platforms like yours matter cos it makes one wonder…
Why do you assume that it is most likely a dream? I have never said that it is most likely a dream. I am simply saying that we cannot rule out the possibility that it is a dream, but that does not mean it has to be one. We just do not know.
I am not assuming that it is a dream in any way; I am simply not assuming that it is not a dream, which is completely different. I would not even assume that a dream world has fixed laws.
However, if you touch fire and feel a burn, whether it is a dream or not, you can still say that you experienced the burn. That is true, and it is probably the only conclusion we can draw with confidence.
Hey Gio,
In a lot of ways, we are dreaming. Trapped in the bubble of our belief system…our ignorance…
Look at the concept of natural selection in the physical world for example. Once upon a time, we all believed the planet belongs to the fittest/strongest. But that bubble is evaporating, we are beginning to wake up to the realization that the word ‘fit’ is not a reference to the strongest. Those who survive ‘nature’s purge’ are the ones who are the best fit for nature’s ultimate/overall survival strategy.
That insight could only have come because of our willingness to wake up…our willingness to always question established truths and keep waking up. Religion should be approached scientifically.
We are always in a state of flux. This constant evolution is unique to each individual. That’s why we can’t force enlightenment to happen. Just cos we have ‘seen the light’, it doesn’t mean we have to pull others into the light. You can show your light but others have to walk into that light willingly or not. Doesn’t matter whether it is a yes or a no. It matters that the choice….the decision to wake up is organic.
I will summarize this text in which you try to understand and rationalize what you have found out :-)
If you really look into it, there is no "I". No entity to call "I". Therefor the experience that there is this "I" that is making decisions is just an illusion created by the mind :-)
This leaves a blank, emptiness in how things work then. This article is an attempt to fill this void. Our brain hates voids and will try to fill it with stories about reality how things work. But more accurate would to be to just accept that you cannot know. Of course other than science tells us.
I am familiar with this approach; it was the one followed by my teacher. The approach consists of looking for some agent that we can call “I,” and then not being able to find it. I did not fully align with this approach, because my response was that just because I cannot find it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. I do not see UV light or X-rays, yet they still exist.
So my approach instead is simply to say that I do not know whether there is an agent or not. In any case, we would first have to define what an agent is. But the point is that I do not need to know.
I suppose the end result is the same: whether you claim that you know there is no agent, or you realize that you do not know whether there is an agent or not, ultimately it does not even matter. I think the end result, in terms of realization, is the same.