The word you're looking for is "conscious," meaning "self-aware and experiencing a personal reality," not "conscience," meaning "sense of right and wrong."
We don't know what consciousness is. We truly have no idea. Which means we can't measure whether anything else has achieved consciousness. We don't know for sure whether mice are conscious. We don't know whether consciousness is a binary or a spectrum. We don't know fucking anything about it.
We're looking for an answer, but we're not really looking for a soul, because that seems to be more of an idea than, like, something we can actually interact with.
That said, the soul is the thing that animates living creatures. Things that can't be measured or seen can still exist, and can be shown to exist by the results of their existence.
Sure contradicts division (de) of finite (finit) within action (ion)...action dividing internally into each finite reaction implies soul/sole (one and only).
you'd say a dog has a soul, but - an ant? A sunflower? A bacterium?
All (motion) generates soul (momentum) through each one (matter) within..."you'd say" implies a synthesis shaped within an analytical process.
It's you mentally holding onto words like "soul; dog; ant; sunflower; bacterium" which prevents you from discerning oneself among one another within soul.
Okay, but that would seem to imply that consciousness has nothing to do with a soul. Because there doesn't seem to be any realistic way that the mold devouring an orange could be conscious. It can't see, it can't hear, it can't react to its environment in realtime, it can't think, it can't make decisions - it just doesn't have any structures for these things. It's just built with a simple code that says: devour, reproduce, finish devouring, die.
And if a soul isn't related to consciousness - well, then, why bring it up at all?
The word you're looking for is "conscious," meaning "self-aware and experiencing a personal reality," not "conscience," meaning "sense of right and wrong."
Both science and scious are rooted in scio (to know; to perceive) which one does before being able to joing together (com) with one another.
A con (together) cannot be self (apart) aware, and right vs wrong aka suggested moralism sends ones senses into recycling mode aka into circular thinking (logic) turning into physical conflict (reason).
We don't know what consciousness is.
a) We (pluralism); don't (nihilism) and is (determinism) prevent one from discerning self within knowledge...if consented to.
b) All WAS perceivable before anyone within can suggest what IS....consenting to what is tempts ones perception to ignore what was.
c) Con (together) scious (to know; to perceive) ness (denoting action)...ness implies nature acting; scious implies native reacting; con implies natives shaping artifice to distract each other from nature.
we can't measure
We (pluralism) and can't (nihilism) represents measurements held within ones consenting mind. Within "we"...one draws comparisons with one another to measure distance. Within "don't" one measures a distance in-between everything and nothing.
The trick with measuring...one cannot hold onto any measurement within a moving process without distorting ones mind. Ones position in-between (life) immeasurable beginning (inception) and end (death) prevents one from measuring ones distance.
We don't know whether consciousness is a binary or a spectrum
Binary implies twofold like how one joining "we" implies a dualism. Spectrum implies all dividing each spec (special; partial; single unit) within from one another.
CON implies binary; SCIOUS within NESS implies a spectrum. The real spectrum moves, while oneself holds onto the fake binary.
don't know fucking
Fuck from German fuge - "masonic joint"...sound (sonic) doesn't join together, but generates a spectrum to divide each mind structured within (in-stru-ment) from one another.
It's ignoring natural sound for artificial words which establishes a masonic joint, hence the rhetoric "go fuck yourself". Ones consent to any suggestion establishes the joint com (together) unic (apart from one another) ation (action).
We're looking for an answer
For (forwards) implies from origin aka being forwarded...looking for an answer implies waiting for an outcome.
Nature implies the dis-SOLUTION of each being...questions and answers tempt natives to ignore the solution provided.
we're not really looking for a soul
How could we (plural) ever see soul/sole (singular)? We tempts one to sacrifice self willingly by joining one another...doing that tempts one to ignore the singularity of the soul train. What's a train? A retinue aka procession, which one ignores when holding together "we" as a possession aka "us" (united states).
we can actually interact
Interact implies inter (life) act (inception towards death) aka each ones reaction within all action...we implies ones reaction to one another, which represents a fictional interaction.
Con (together) science (to perceive)...one can only perceive apart from one another aka dis-cern-ment. AI implies conscious manipulation of ones perception with joint knowledge aka by suggestion.
The goal
The (theos; God) implies GO (to advance) AL (all) aka all advancing each one within from start to finish. Any suggested "goal" tempts one to ignore origin for outcome aka turning ones perception away from God.
declare
Aka the division of clarity by tempting perception (reality) with suggestion (fiction)...any declaration is based upon that.
getting people
Joining a plural (people) prevents singular (person) from getting aka confining ones perception within the circumference of suggestions by others.
subtly driven
Being (life) driven (inception towards death) isn't subtle at all...mother nature represents a harsh mistress.
the existence of the soul
The (theos; God) impresses soul/sole (one and only) through each expressing being. Oneself implies the expressed stance (existence) within the one and only (soul) God.
have a soul that animates
Animation implies procession; having implies possession...one cannot possess while being processed without destroying ones potential.
their bodies; mind and will
There's no plurality of bodies in nature unless artificially held together by ones willing mind.
All (al) delineates each life (bio)...circular thinking (logic) tempts one to ignore that. Notice that logic sits like a parasite in-between bio + al, hence becoming the mediator for ones hospitable mind.
After all
There can be no "after all"...only within all can before (forwarded being) and aft (away) come into being.
compared to a human
The hue (color) of man implies a division apart...not a comparison together. Why draw artificial comparisons when nature delineates each native apart from one another?
How could perception work if drawn together by suggestion?
idea based upon...
...ones consent to suggested idealism; tempting ones mind to hold onto ideas; and ones body to hold onto idols.
implementation
Aka im (within) ple (to fill) ment (mind) ation (action)...action (all perceivable) already fulfills reaction (ones perception). Filling the mind with suggested information burdens ones mind during the transfer of perceivable inspiration moving through.
The word you're looking for is "conscious," meaning "self-aware and experiencing a personal reality," not "conscience," meaning "sense of right and wrong."
We don't know what consciousness is. We truly have no idea. Which means we can't measure whether anything else has achieved consciousness. We don't know for sure whether mice are conscious. We don't know whether consciousness is a binary or a spectrum. We don't know fucking anything about it.
We're looking for an answer, but we're not really looking for a soul, because that seems to be more of an idea than, like, something we can actually interact with.
Ha, dang autocorrect, which is ironic. Thanks.
That said, the soul is the thing that animates living creatures. Things that can't be measured or seen can still exist, and can be shown to exist by the results of their existence.
You sure about that definition? I mean, maybe you'd say a dog has a soul, but - an ant? A sunflower? A bacterium?
Sure contradicts division (de) of finite (finit) within action (ion)...action dividing internally into each finite reaction implies soul/sole (one and only).
All (motion) generates soul (momentum) through each one (matter) within..."you'd say" implies a synthesis shaped within an analytical process.
It's you mentally holding onto words like "soul; dog; ant; sunflower; bacterium" which prevents you from discerning oneself among one another within soul.
Every living thing has a soul. Its presence makes for the ultimate binary of alive or dead.
Okay, but that would seem to imply that consciousness has nothing to do with a soul. Because there doesn't seem to be any realistic way that the mold devouring an orange could be conscious. It can't see, it can't hear, it can't react to its environment in realtime, it can't think, it can't make decisions - it just doesn't have any structures for these things. It's just built with a simple code that says: devour, reproduce, finish devouring, die.
And if a soul isn't related to consciousness - well, then, why bring it up at all?
Both science and scious are rooted in scio (to know; to perceive) which one does before being able to joing together (com) with one another.
A con (together) cannot be self (apart) aware, and right vs wrong aka suggested moralism sends ones senses into recycling mode aka into circular thinking (logic) turning into physical conflict (reason).
a) We (pluralism); don't (nihilism) and is (determinism) prevent one from discerning self within knowledge...if consented to.
b) All WAS perceivable before anyone within can suggest what IS....consenting to what is tempts ones perception to ignore what was.
c) Con (together) scious (to know; to perceive) ness (denoting action)...ness implies nature acting; scious implies native reacting; con implies natives shaping artifice to distract each other from nature.
We (pluralism) and can't (nihilism) represents measurements held within ones consenting mind. Within "we"...one draws comparisons with one another to measure distance. Within "don't" one measures a distance in-between everything and nothing.
The trick with measuring...one cannot hold onto any measurement within a moving process without distorting ones mind. Ones position in-between (life) immeasurable beginning (inception) and end (death) prevents one from measuring ones distance.
Binary implies twofold like how one joining "we" implies a dualism. Spectrum implies all dividing each spec (special; partial; single unit) within from one another.
CON implies binary; SCIOUS within NESS implies a spectrum. The real spectrum moves, while oneself holds onto the fake binary.
Fuck from German fuge - "masonic joint"...sound (sonic) doesn't join together, but generates a spectrum to divide each mind structured within (in-stru-ment) from one another.
It's ignoring natural sound for artificial words which establishes a masonic joint, hence the rhetoric "go fuck yourself". Ones consent to any suggestion establishes the joint com (together) unic (apart from one another) ation (action).
For (forwards) implies from origin aka being forwarded...looking for an answer implies waiting for an outcome.
Nature implies the dis-SOLUTION of each being...questions and answers tempt natives to ignore the solution provided.
How could we (plural) ever see soul/sole (singular)? We tempts one to sacrifice self willingly by joining one another...doing that tempts one to ignore the singularity of the soul train. What's a train? A retinue aka procession, which one ignores when holding together "we" as a possession aka "us" (united states).
Interact implies inter (life) act (inception towards death) aka each ones reaction within all action...we implies ones reaction to one another, which represents a fictional interaction.
Con (together) science (to perceive)...one can only perceive apart from one another aka dis-cern-ment. AI implies conscious manipulation of ones perception with joint knowledge aka by suggestion.
The (theos; God) implies GO (to advance) AL (all) aka all advancing each one within from start to finish. Any suggested "goal" tempts one to ignore origin for outcome aka turning ones perception away from God.
Aka the division of clarity by tempting perception (reality) with suggestion (fiction)...any declaration is based upon that.
Joining a plural (people) prevents singular (person) from getting aka confining ones perception within the circumference of suggestions by others.
Being (life) driven (inception towards death) isn't subtle at all...mother nature represents a harsh mistress.
The (theos; God) impresses soul/sole (one and only) through each expressing being. Oneself implies the expressed stance (existence) within the one and only (soul) God.
Animation implies procession; having implies possession...one cannot possess while being processed without destroying ones potential.
There's no plurality of bodies in nature unless artificially held together by ones willing mind.
It's logic which tempts bio (life) within all together into a "we"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
All (al) delineates each life (bio)...circular thinking (logic) tempts one to ignore that. Notice that logic sits like a parasite in-between bio + al, hence becoming the mediator for ones hospitable mind.
There can be no "after all"...only within all can before (forwarded being) and aft (away) come into being.
The hue (color) of man implies a division apart...not a comparison together. Why draw artificial comparisons when nature delineates each native apart from one another?
How could perception work if drawn together by suggestion?
...ones consent to suggested idealism; tempting ones mind to hold onto ideas; and ones body to hold onto idols.
Aka im (within) ple (to fill) ment (mind) ation (action)...action (all perceivable) already fulfills reaction (ones perception). Filling the mind with suggested information burdens ones mind during the transfer of perceivable inspiration moving through.