| SO WHAT ABOUT “SOUL” | III | 016 |
| 010. What’s about the soul? It’s an eternal life force containing many functions. It is analogous to a computer which has within it the system architecture including motherboard with printed circuits and software; and its functions can emulate many functions of man, cognitive and otherwise. | 010.00 | 017 |
| 011. Knowing depends on 3 major Principles: I – Identification [a ≡ a], II – Contradiction [a ≠ b], III – Cause-and-Effect [a => c]; Effect-to-Cause [c <= a]As you can see by the formulae, each statement has a language: syntax – subject, relationship, predicate, This indicates that our souls have a natural language. [More on this later] | 011.00 | 018 |
| 012. God also created animals. ([a definite beginning and end] – [not eternal] – [has an animal soul] … {Animal knowing depends on 3 major principles: I – Identification [a ≡ a], II – Contradiction [a ≠ b], III – Stimulus-and-Response [a -> c].} | 012.00 | 019 |
| 013. To know, a soul needs input to process. Even an angel’s soul, when its gets input, the input must be in a form that the soul can recognize. The angel, unlike man, has no material brain and external senses to process and store sense phantasms to study and generate conclusions and ideas. Ideas are immaterial and remembered but not stored in a material way. Whatever the form of input, the angel formulates conclusions which are stored in the soul in an immaterial way. How? I don’t think we will ever know; but we can examine what is stored along with a functional description. | 013.00 | 020 |
| LANGUAGE OF THE SOUL | IV | 021 |
| 014. I believe that the soul has its own language for recording and organizing knowledge. When we want to communicate externally, the language we use has to be compatible to the recipient. Thus one has to learn the language of the recipient unless he already knows my language. When a baby sees an object, it will be remembered. The soul forms a distinct “label”. When the baby sees the same object again, he will, through comparison, identify it to that same “label”. This process of knowing, a=a or a≠a is automatic. When a new object appears, and it can not be identified to one already known; another “label” will be formed. When the baby sees another object which is similar to on he already knows, his soul will form a new “label” probably similar to the label of the one he has. What this language is that labels inputs, conclusions, relationships is unknown. The process of dealing with inputs from the other senses is similar. I think this language is common to every soul of man. Man uses many external languages now, (although man started with one, I call soul language). Computers use many languages and they are stored in the computer’s “brain”, usually as bits of 0’s and 1’s. — An unformatted string of characters is “babble” to the computer. One of the first computers I used had a “four address” language structure to its command language. Actually each command line of code had a 5th component, the operation code. A simple arithmetic command had the following syntactic structure; eg. add a and b and store results in c and go to d ( the address of the next operation in the program). Then computers went to “2 address” and “1 address” for more operational efficiency; but the structure of the commands was broken up into pieces that were chained in a sequence to execute the command. Initially, however, the “4 address” language closely resembles our human language which was natural for us to use. “Parsing” a sentence is normally taught in learning a human language. So, from an “effect-to-cause” relation, man built language structure which emulated their own “soul” language. Is this language structure the same or similar to the language of the soul of its Creator? How about angels? I believe angels, like man and computers, have a processor, a memory, an acquisition system. In addition, they would have one or more languages to communicate with other recipients. But to communicate his knowledge, the angel also needs to communicate in a language understood by the recipient and receivable by that recipient. Souls have a cognitive function, which receives processes, generates knowledge, stores and transmits its knowledge. But what is the communication language of the soul of an angel? Is puzzlement! | 014.00 | 022 |
| 015. Before exploring the language of the soul further, I want to discuss who can communicate with whom. There is much historical testimony of God communicating with angels and man to warrant exploring two-way communications among all three. Angels and man have souls which are eternal and immaterial and God’s soul is infinite. Catholics talk about the “Communication of Saints”. Does this mean that non-Saints, who also have souls, can’t communicate? — What about ESP? Does that count? Is their a common language for all souls to communicate? Or is there one language with different dialects? Or are there different, but interpretable, languages, [one for God, one for the soul of an angel and one for the soul of a man]. If so, wouldn’t this require interpretation “software” in the soul of each? | 015.00 | 023 |
| 016. Do you think the angel has to go to school to learn how to “speak”? It would seem to me that the soul of an angel, at the time of its creation is “ready to go” Do you think Adam had to go to school to learn how to “speak”? Why wouldn’t the soul of a man be ready to go at conception? There are many more aspects of the functionality of the soul, including intellect, will and conscience, which I will dwell on later. Of course, man has to learn the external language of the recipients so he can verbalize and communicate in our external world. | 016.00 | 024 |
| 017. We speak of man having a “sixth Sense”. Wouldn’t that mean the language of souls is another source of input for a man along with his five external senses? Or would this be the “seventh Sense”? “Is puzzlement”! However, it has been said that God speaks to good and bad angels and He also speaks to man; and angels speak to man. I think there is a ‘soul’ language which comes already installed when the soul of an angel or man is created, which implies that the cognition process is active. | 017.00 | 025 |
| 018.00 | 026 | |
| 019. There are many examples in history of God or angels talking to man and being understood. Some of these involve oral speech, and others involve internal communications. Some of these examples involving oral speech might not be so; but the soul on hearing the words reproduces them internally in the language of the hearer. Computers talk to man and also talk to other computers, especially when there is a central computer giving information in the form of instructions or data to networked computers. No wonderment or puzzlement here! After all, man designed it this way. How about God, the “Grand Designer” regarding Angels and man? | 019.00 | 027 |
| 020. The bible says that: a, God talked to Adam and Eve; b. God talked the devil (bad angel); c. God talked to Abraham; d. God talked to Moses, … e. an Angel talked to Mary; f. an Angel talked to Joseph; g. Angels announced “Glad Tidings” to shepherds; h. God talked to a throng at the Baptism of Messiah by John the Baptist; I. an Angel talked to Apostle’s at Ascension of Messiah. — These are a few examples that many are aware of. | 020.00 | 028 |
| 021. Previously, I said that communications from God or angel require a material form or immaterial form and that they be understood by the other party. Computers are naturally excluded. However the analogies are there. Using 0’ & 1’s, the content of a communication must be composed in the computer language and then formulated into the language and form needed by the recipient. This rule applies to the above examples. I have already discussed soul –to-soul communications which are not at the same time “verbalized”. | 021.00 | 029 |
| 022. Did God verbally talked directly to Adam, Abraham and Moses through their external sense of hearing? If so, material sound waves would enter their ear and they would materially process, analyze, synthesize and abstract meaning and info into the immaterial language of the soul. However, to comprehend God’s words they would need to know the language God used. Then, cognitive man could respond using that language. If God communicated directly to the soul, then verbal communications, even if they occurred, were not needed. Man would already know the ‘ soul’ language God used without having to ‘learn’ it. The man, in either case, then could describe to himself or to others in an external language, known by each, what God said to him. The same principle of a natural ‘soul’ language applies to one-on-one communications between an angel and a man. | 022.00 | 030 |
| 023. The ‘one-to-many’ communication is a very interesting situation. Some examples in the Bible include God talking to the group at John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, at the Transfiguration of Jesus; and angels announcing “tidings of great joy” to the shepherds at the Nativity of Jesus, at the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven. The same issue occurs, as above, as to whether there was a necessity to have sound waves to communicate. Usually these communications were one way messages, which didn’t require a verbal response; but were meant to trigger actions on the part of the receivers of the messages. I believe the ‘communication of souls’ exists at the beginning of life for every soul of man or angel. | 023.00 | 031 |
| 024. If messages were transmitted in one language, and only once, in a single set of sound waves, to an audience with mixed languages, the message, would require each individual to understand that transmitted language. If the principle of soul-to-soul communication applies, then, regardless of whether there were sound waves or not, each one would understand the message. The situation simplifies if there were no sound waves from the outside. Man, on getting the immaterial message directly, enunciates it to himself internally in his normal external language. That is, his ears had no noise input, but his soul’s processor can reproduce the verbal sounds. At times, don’t we say the words internally before transmitting them? | 024.00 | 032 |
| 025. But that leaves the problem of the use of only sound waves, which would be understood be some and noise to others. The Pope communicates to mixed language groups in different languages, repeating the message in the language of some of the groups. Still there could be members in the audience who would hear, but not understand. I think it was a miracle that the first Pope, Peter, after receiving God, the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost, went out to the balcony and preached to thousands of people, each understanding Peter in his own language. That might mean that the thoughts of Peter, voiced by Peter, were immaterially transmitted simultaneously (soul to soul) to each individual that heard and understood Peter. Wouldn’t this be a case of simulcasting of a message in Aramaic in ‘soul’ language and understood by people in their own language? These people could then voice the message in their own language. Possible? Well, at Pentecost the Holy Spirit gave the twelve apostles the ability to communicate in different languages much to the amazement of the crowd, having many groups with their own language. | 025.00 | 033 |
