I would say there are two categories of “organisms.” One is passive, and one is resistive. The passive category includes plants and “non-living” “organisms,” like atoms, inorganic compounds, stars, and galaxies. I call this category passive because all things included cannot make decisions contrary to their circumstances. All “decisions” made by these things are reactions determined by set laws of nature...Some of which do not change. (But Rupert is right. We seriously need to re-examine many of the “laws” and “constants” we take for granted to be governing and unchanging.) The “decision” to grow from a seed into a large tree has to do entirely with chemical and environmental influences on the pre-programmed seed. The patterns of growth are reactions to those circumstances, which are entirely predictable (as long as we know what conditions affect any of the particular reactions). All outcomes would be the same from one “passive organism” to the next, if identical seeds or stars, etc. were placed in entirely the same set of circumstances. There is a program and a method, and there is much repetition and predictability within this category of "organism".
On the other hand, there is the category of “resistive organisms,” which includes animals and humans. These both can and do act or react according to their wills, which is not always entirely dependent on particular circumstances. A plant that is hungry, will eat, given “food.” A hungry person may or may not eat the food available, depending on his will and decision to act favorably or against what nature is dictating. That is the essentiial difference between the two types of “organisms.” This is the divergence. The “mind” has two ways to function: as a passivie recipeint and reactor, or as an active interventor and un-natural resistor. Because of this, I submit that there are two distinct categories of “organisms” if we must use that term. The “passive organisms” have no will or choice, but are driven entirely by circumstance; they do not have the same “mind” or ability as “resistive organisms” do. They are predictable, whereas the “resistive organisms” are not always predictable, and I would say that humans are much less predictable than animals. Some men say they can never understand women, but that is probably another issue all together.
There has been quite a lot of research with artificial frequency modulation exposure affecting human behavior, vision, thought, and health. My guess is that we naturally have the ability to override or ignore some of the frequencies (or otherwise suggestions) we normally are exposed to, in order to "resist" nature. Perhaps we prefer to select one frequency (suggestion) over another.
Conciousness is of course awareness, which I do agree that in order to have a reaction, there must be a sort of “conciousness.” However, just because there can be a reaction, and perhaps therefore a “conciousness,” per se, I would not conclude that there is therefore an active and useable will associated with it, not one that would produce actions and reactions contra to the environmental circumstances.
I will leave the definition of soul alone for now, but it might also need more refining, particularly when associating it with passive organisms, or even with the stars and universe.
I would love to read your thoughts on this!
