Personality Cafe banner

Twin flame

4804 Views 152 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  Llyralen
Just discovered this exists online: Soulmate vs Twin flame

tldr: we meet several soulmates and 1 twin flame

I think this thing happened to me, it matches even this uplifting humanity stuff, his last scientific project is called “Human-centered AI” and how to help humankind. It influenced me to become more altruistic (and the other way I think I was the inspiration for this project).

I constantly feel like I am missing twin lately and don’t know how to explain it.

I think there is truth in this:

Light Human body Flash photography People in nature World
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
1 - 14 of 153 Posts
I think these concepts, twin flames and soulmates are some good examples of the Feeling function in action - forming a certain rational framework from feelings. It can happen when we experience such intense feelings that feel transcendent, it's sort of real from a feeling perspective coz it's damn amazing, but otherwise more like wishful thinking.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Feeling function is for values and inter-dynamics between real people, not for thinking about intuitive things such as souls.
believing someone is your soulmate is an evaluation which starts from the emotions you experience in their presence and in your relationship
then it becomes a rationalization, a whole system of explaining why it occurs
It doesn’t start from feelings, it starts from perception that something “similar already happened”. For the concept of mirror souls you don’t have to be “in love” with this person. Soul mate is a different concept, but also not about romantic love, i.e. your parents and family are also your soul mates.
and do you experience this as a sensation in your body?
I see it more about minds, read my post above about collective intelligence.

The most “mystical” function that reaches for abstract concepts is considered to be Ni, but my view is that there are no “mystical functions” (proof: sensors can be equally religious and spiritual).

I don’t want to digress, I see F as a really simple function in interpersonal relationships. My other view is that all functions work together so for some understandings we need more than 1 function. Probably Ni-Fe could be useful for idealistic concepts related to humanity (global thinking).
But how do you evaluate that someone is a twin flame/soulmate? Experiencing that something has happened before with another person points to experiencing a feeling in their presence that makes you evaluate what they are worth to you. I'm guessing Ts would be less likely to recognize this tho.
F is a lot more complex that that, it's a rationalization process that begins from gut sensations/feelings which make us evaluate what's going on then build a worldview around those evaluations. That's what is meant by "values" when we talk about F and it's not for interpersonal relationships only, but everything, especially for F doms.
F is more complex for higher users, but still not “mystical”.

In your terms, for me the “feeling” with soulmate is 1+1=2, two friends or supporting souls that share a part of life, or romantic partner.

With mirror soul: 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. More difficult feeling, close to lack of completeness without this person.

I discovered in retrospective, because I wasn’t knowledgeable about these theories (or spiritual).

When he died our joint friend needed a moment to be sure I didn’t die (really weird because I wasn’t sick or in danger), to understand who died out of 2 of us, while talking to me. I also remember I said to my mom “I am blind now” instead I am really sad or something more conventional to express grief. I felt like I lost a person who was literally like an (abstract) mirror of my personality.

My perception of my identity changed, I wasn’t sure who I was for and what is now my place in long-term and well established people interdynamic/relationships. Looking back my whole life something attracted me to the same place where he was, sharing thoughts, plans, ideas… so this could be attributed to feelings. Other than that it can be explained with reincarnation (after I read more about it). This reincarnation “feeling” is: It’s you again- what task do we solve together this time?

The closest feeling is probably recognizing self in another person.

My bad, I didn't realize you said you haven't experienced coming to the world view of a soulmate/twin flame on your own, I only did now after your discussion with @Whippit.
So it's understandable now you're not relating to what I meant about it coming from Feelings and you're trying to analyze it from a more logical perspective while looking back at your relationships too. Loss can cause some weird things to happen to us, I can attest to that.
The soulmate thing happened to me during my first romantic relationship in my teens so I have the experience first hand and I don't really believe it's true (no one can know for sure ofc), I'm kinda indifferent to it because I associate it with strong feelings that can make one somewhat delusional. I don't know if anything of us survives beyond death, the most obvious answer is no but who knows.
I think I experienced it, but don’t associate this with the feeling function, more like a connection between minds. It doesn’t have to be a romantic connection, it’s not a soulmate, although in my case it was also a romantic feeling involved (but this was much later compared to the entire relationship).
Yea you might have but I meant you didn't come to the thought "we're soulmates" at the time when you were experiencing it, right? That's why I mentioned that F can create a whole worldview out of those feelings especially when they feel meaningful and existential (prob related to F+N more than S), coz in my experience with myself and other people I know this tends to happen to F dom+auxs a lot more easily (not exclusively tho). Usually goes something like "this intense feeling/experience feels so meaningful like the universe coming together it is something greater, etcetc" so voila the idea that we've always known each other and been together in some way beyond this lifetime.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Is this limited to Feeling? I think it's default for many. Some people live their entire lives post hoc; not acting from reasons but acting from the self of multiple drives and fictional realities, then creating reason after, circular and not.
I'm not sure it's exactly the same because the feeling itself is like you've known the other person forever, it's the reason in and of itself sorta. And from this it creates the framework that the feeling reveals a truth for reality as a whole. It's difficult to explain and incidentally this might be the first time I discuss it beyond a reference here and there.
Over the years I did a lot of unconscious things such as returning back to his country even though it didn’t make any sense for me at the time, so it could be explained as undefined “gravity pull” that is not conscious. Having less developed Fe would explain why I couldn’t see it through Fe, but still gravitated towards same places, doing same things etc. (It was a complicated relationship overall.)

It was a stronger feeling than the one I had towards my soulmate (at the time), but I can’t say I was “self-aware” of this.

It’s more like “this is the person of highest importance”, no explanation.

Edit: Maybe I should write again that twin flame is not the same as soulmate.
Eh, idk, people can do weird things when grieving or generally when they've lost someone, it seems risky to take that as evidence of spiritual stuff. Yea if you are not in touch with your feelings and introspective in that way they can turn into unconsciously driven behaviors you don't realize at the time. Perhaps also if there's some denial of being hurt, or of the death, or feeling like you left things unsettled/finished. My dad died suddenly and I picked up some of his habits for a while after, like listening to his radio stations or reading the newspapers he did, then at some point I read this can happen to people, especially with sudden loss. At the time I knew what I was doing - tho I didn't control it, I was aware of what was going on and just decided to let it happen for the time being as there was no reason to fight it.
Death is very incomprehensible, our brains can go crazy trying to make sense of the loss, there's no other thing like it in the world and of course in the effort to accept it we might settle in some spiritual afterlife stuff to cope. But truth is we can't really know, it might be we're driven to do this because it's true or it isn't and our brains literally can't compute death as it's a state of nonexistence.
See less See more
I think it is. Sounds like false causality supplementing reality. Event in reality causes feelings, those feelings that you post hoc separate (falsely unify, "the feeling is the reason in and of itself") from the event are the cause of the event = error. The feeling only accompanies the event, the true cause unfelt/unknown.

The further causal chain: whatever follows from that primary feeling, actions, ideas, more feelings, rationality, then, systems and frameworks. Creating more accepted "truths" from lazy etiology.
the problem with this is we can't confirm how reality works to tell either way
You can’t feel anything after death? For many people this is the part when feeling functions can also be insightful.
Theres no evidence so far that we can feel anything without a functioning body and death is the ultimate state of not functioning. Even if something of us like energy and such, survives after it's difficult to make a case for it that it will feel like "me". Since "me" is so linked to living experiences and what the nervous system become from those.
We can’t? What about theories of universe that are experimentally verified? Or you mean for spiritual areas?
yes im talking spiritually tho even cosmology isnt exactly something we know
Spirituality is also a way of knowing things, but definitely more individual and personal. It’s different for everyone.

From fundamental particle physics point of view (and theoretical gravity), if you accept classical gravity + standard model of particle physics, cosmology is considered the most well known/most accurate theory in the history of science.

The definition of accuracy is how much theoretical predictions agree with experiments. It’s not possible to have this level of quantitative rigor in social sciences or psychology (or any other field of science that is not fundamental), so whatever field of science should be questionable fundamental physics is not on this list. The main experiment is magnetic moment of electron, confirmed to 13 or 15 digits, something like 0.0000000000X precision. Statistically something like this:Explained: Sigma
When I'm talking about knowing about cosmology I'm referring to knowing how the universe came to be (or whether it always existed) and how & why it works, as well as what its purpose is, if there's any, basically everything there is to know about the universe. We may have some accurate models of certain things but that doesn't mean we've figured out cosmology as a whole. Particle physics seems to be going towards the wrong direction nowadays, I like Sabine Hossenfelder's videos on this topic.

I mean our feelings for the people who died, not our feelings after our own death. This part with our mind & body is questionable, intelligence doesn’t need a body. It is questionable in AI research will machines ever be empathetic towards humans without bodies (to feel fear of being hurt). Our bodies are for pain, sensing, having internal state… but also for the sense of consciousness.

It seems similar conceptually to Jung’s F/T separation. T = intelligence, F = everything else that separates AI and human.
Intelligence means to understand, so it's a lot more complex than a singular function, especially since each function needs to suppress its opposite, hence it ignores a piece of the puzzle of the world. But consciousness and intelligence seem to be an emergent biological phenomenon, you need evolution of biological beings to produce intelligence, an AI happens to be an extension of ourselves (=a product of intelligence) and how our brains compute things but that alone won't make it intelligent or conscious, tho it may appear to be this way becoz it's mirroring how we function. I guess I'm a bit in disbelief that AI will ever become conscious even if it appears to be.

But EVEN so, this doesn't exactly connect to how our own does or doesn't disappear after death, an AI's body is the computer or network it connects to to gain the information, its nervous system is all the connections that supply it with information, if we want to make an analogy with our own. So an AI may not be biological but it's still a neural network that gains information and processes it same as our body. As far as we can tell, we are our body, all that we are is a body but it's also the most complex thing in existence. I'm getting the sense you're coming from this from the belief that mind and body are different things, whereas I'm not.
See less See more
My answer was and is: not that way, demonstrated deductively, unless false causality is a principle of reality.
You're taking as fact that it's false causality tho, when what I'm saying is it might not be and we can't know which is true coz we don't know if soulmates are real. I mean perhaps this feeling taps into reality in a way we can't make sense of thru other means, at least currently in our evolution.
We've build machines for thousands of years now, in our scale and larger that work with the same movement principles molecules of chemicals work in our own bodies becoz of some fundamental structures of the universe, yet we didn't know this until recently. What I mean is in our daily lives, we do things thinking it's isolated to our existence but really everything we are is expressing some functioning of the universe, it's possible that feelings contain another facet of that and not just something isolated to how we evolved on earth.
I'm agnostic on this issue personally, like, I do lean towards people developing spiritual beliefs out of fear of dying and whatnot but it's also interesting to consider how the ability to both fear death and come up with such ideas could be an indication, or expression of something actually real about how the universe works, albeit in a primitive way kinda like looking through a keyhole.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Using a communicative experience to gain knowledge of reality is an error in causality though, it's consequence and accompaniment, not the cause. To communicate, you need to know how you feel and what you thought, so it could be expressed. From this, consciousness developed. Consciousness is proportionate to the capacity to communicate. More subtlety and exactness in expression, quicker and better communication, stronger survival, more sophisticated consciousness and repeat. If we were solitary animals, consciousness wouldn't have developed. It also co-developed with language. Feeling is a consciousness, a communication, otherwise, no reason for feeling. Meaning: consciousness is not an epistemological tool of reality, it's not a sensory capacity, like a bat's echolocation or a platypus' electroreception, even if it has its own subjective experience unique to them, because its fundament is ultimately communicative.

It follows etymologically. In Latin, sci- means 'to know', and con means 'with', forming conscius and conscientia. It means "I know together with (person)" and "I share (with person) the knowledge that" respectively. From this, the Middle English word 'conscience' formed. A distinction didn't exist between conscience and conscious. It meant self-awareness of feelings and thought from its relation to other people; you'll see writings pre-1650 to say "conscious/conscience to" and "conscious/conscience with", not 'of'. Shakespeare, Plutarch, Bible, etc. The only reason today we think of consciousness as a figment of mind and an element of reality and humans that stands alone is because of Descartes' use of the word and Enlightenment thinkers co-opting it. It split from its roots. And conceptions split. Our ability to communicate has surpassed our needs, maybe causing this.
It is not so different than our need to build machines in order to adapt to our environment, we evolve complexity in this and that way to survive. But the complexity itself is within the laws of the universe, can't be otherwise, else we would somehow break them and I don't think that's possible. And it apparently leads to an increased understanding of the world, as we become more conscious & moral, we become more intelligent and able to see the bigger picture more and more.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 14 of 153 Posts