The Nature of Spirit [Archive]

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yes, please do, as I'd like to get something "solid" on the "etherial".

For instance, do "spirits" have "thoughts and feelings" as you seem to suggest?Enter the dream realm ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.Actually it's this kind of "lucid dreaming" state that I believe would account for what people term "alien abduction," for which reason I think the idea of abduction is very unlikely.

Now as for a "spiritual encounter," that would be another story. For if in indeed our dreams were like a portal to another dimension, then it would be much easier to explain the existence of God, than that of extraterrestrial existence.The main difference between our dreams and our waking state is that our dreams are more "fluid" and transitional. In which case they often don't make a lot of sense. And yet it is possible to become acclimatized to this state, as you begin to "wake up" in your dreams. By which you may very well discover that a "spiritual reality" does exist.

Royce

Jun8-03, 11:59 AM

The following is of course only my opinion and belief. I offer it only as a point of view for discussion. I have no proof nor even references to fall back on. Take it in that spirit only. It is not a proclamation nor edict. Some of this come from the thread "The Trinity of Man and God."
The spirit of Man is created and bestowed upon us at an early age when we first show the signs of having wisdom and thus being human.
It is of God, a part of God, the Holy Spirit, that returns to God upon our death. Its purpose is to lead, guide and teach us, a mentor if you will. I have heard it referred to as a thought adjuster. Adjusting our thoughts and thus knowlege and behavior to a more loving, good, godly nature. One of it's more important purposes is to love us and thus teach us to love. Another is to teach us to know ourselves and to know God. It is apart of us yet a different aspect from our body and soul.
The body, including the brain is the physical evolved part of us that is of the earth and will remain of the earth after 'death'.
The soul is the nonphysical evolved mind, heart, character, personallity, individual us that upon the death of our body goes on to the next more spiritual world. Freud may have been refering to the soul when he talked about the super ego. It is our spiritual self, our essence that is us, that makes us, us individuals. It's purpose is the grow, experience life and love and to come to know itself and it's God. One of it's hardest and main jobs during our life is to allow our egos to develope and become strong so that we become individuals with strength and character of our own and yet not let our ego,s become so strong that they rule our lifes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. We must not supress or repress our egos but integrate it with our souls and all that we are. This way we can become one within ourselves and one with God. We will then be all that we can be and are meant to be in this life on earth. This may be comparable to Buddhist's enlightenment or Christianity's state of grace or sainthood.
Agian this is only my personal set of beliefs presented only as my view point for your concideration and discussion.

sage

Jun8-03, 12:28 PM

spirit is imagined. it does not exist. it does not fit in science.

Royce

Jun8-03, 12:40 PM

originally poste by sage:
"spirit is imagined. it does not exist. it does not fit in science."

You, sage, are imagined. You do not exist. You do not fit reality.
The above is just as valid as your previous unsupported statement.
Both are meaningless.

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by sage
spirit is imagined. it does not exist. it does not fit in science. And yet there are many scientists who believe otherwise.

Zero

Jun8-03, 01:57 PM

The point sage makes, I think, is that 'spirit' is something that is undefinable, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion. I personally think that consciousness is a physical phenomenon which eminates from electrical impulses.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes. Does essence return to essence? If so, then it's the beginning and the end (i.e., continuum?), all wrapped up at once ... that which always was and that which always will be.
Essence may return to essence...but the question is what that "essence" may be. Perhaps there is a "spiritual" component to the Universe...or maybe "simple" "consciousness" is all there is. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

As to my use of the word "continuum"...I am NOT referring to the passage of TIME: I'm referring the a "spectrum" of sorts, from rudimentary consciousness (say, the self-awareness of an elementary particle) though to highy COMPLEXT consciousness (like us...or the Universe Itself).

While I understand the spiritual realm is all about what makes us tick on the inside, the "inner reality," which those on the outside, even ourselves, are unaware of. It's all about the psychological forces, what we once called gods -- e.g., "psyche" and hence "soul," from which we derive "psychology," were borrowed from the Greek Myths -- which come together in composite, to form the structure of human nature. So we have to understand the gods were very real in that sense. Look up any psychological term, and chaces are it was borrowed from the Greek Myths.
So are you saying that "spirit" is a "coherent system" on SOME "plane"? Does it think? Does it feel? Does it communicate? Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we?

[/QUOTE]As for our "soul," that's like a drop of water in the bucket, where the spiritual realm is the water within the bucket. And yet the soul remains within its form (us), and does not become extracted and returned to the bucket until after we die. And yes, in order for these psychological forces to exist, and maintain influx into our very being (soul), that implies that there is an afterlife, as these forces don't just emanate from "nothing."[/QUOTE]
If there is a "soul" then I think it might not just be "confined" to our "bodies". It would be an "entity" with a "higher PERSPECTIVE" of which only one FACET of its ATTENTION is on our little lives.

Does science stand to gain by any of this? It all depends, on "which reality" they wish to define.
Science seems to only "wish to define" that which "it" can DETECT, MEASURE and TEST. This is why even CONSCIOUSNESS is not worth considering by many...even tho it is a definite PART of the Universe and so must be INCLUDED (one would think) in any cosmological theory. And yet, no.

Still, the quest for the Unified Field Theory seems to have a "spiritual" inference...which, again, is NOT to say that "spirit" is "real".

I'll admit: I'm confused [g)] .

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The following is of course only my opinion and belief. I offer it only as a point of view for discussion. I have no proof nor even references to fall back on. Take it in that spirit only. It is not a proclamation nor edict. Some of this come from the thread "The Trinity of Man and God."
The spirit of Man is created and bestowed upon us at an early age when we first show the signs of having wisdom and thus being human.
It is of God, a part of God, the Holy Spirit, that returns to God upon our death. Its purpose is to lead, guide and teach us, a mentor if you will. I have heard it referred to as a thought adjuster. Adjusting our thoughts and thus knowlege and behavior to a more loving, good, godly nature. One of it's more important purposes is to love us and thus teach us to love. Another is to teach us to know ourselves and to know God. It is apart of us yet a different aspect from our body and soul.
The body, including the brain is the physical evolved part of us that is of the earth and will remain of the earth after 'death'.
The soul is the nonphysical evolved mind, heart, character, personallity, individual us that upon the death of our body goes on to the next more spiritual world. Freud may have been refering to the soul when he talked about the super ego. It is our spiritual self, our essence that is us, that makes us, us individuals. It's purpose is the grow, experience life and love and to come to know itself and it's God. One of it's hardest and main jobs during our life is to allow our egos to develope and become strong so that we become individuals with strength and character of our own and yet not let our ego,s become so strong that they rule our lifes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. We must not supress or repress our egos but integrate it with our souls and all that we are. This way we can become one within ourselves and one with God. We will then be all that we can be and are meant to be in this life on earth. This may be comparable to Buddhist's enlightenment or Christianity's state of grace or sainthood.
Agian this is only my personal set of beliefs presented only as my view point for your concideration and discussion.

I want to respond to you...but I seem to be all "thunk out"!!![8)]

Gonna have to let it ride until I regroup.

Mentat

Jun8-03, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by sage
spirit is imagined. it does not exist. it does not fit in science.

Whether or not I agree with the first two statements is irrelevant, but I do want to post my agreement with the last statement. Science really doesn't have any room for spirits.

But, then again, this is the Philosophy Forum, and Philosophy has plenty of room.

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Essence may return to essence...but the question is what that "essence" may be. Perhaps there is a "spiritual" component to the Universe...or maybe "simple" "consciousness" is all there is. That's what I'm trying to figure out.I happen to think spirit and consciousness are pretty much one and the same, all of which emanate from the "Greater Mind."

As to my use of the word "continuum"...I am NOT referring to the passage of TIME: I'm referring the a "spectrum" of sorts, from rudimentary consciousness (say, the self-awareness of an elementary particle) though to highy COMPLEXT consciousness (like us...or the Universe Itself).You ever get the sense that you have always been here, and that in some sense you were never meant to die? And yet the spirit lives on unto Eternity.

So are you saying that "spirit" is a "coherent system" on SOME "plane"? Does it think? Does it feel? Does it communicate?
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we?Yes, the "spiritual realm" is the interior or "essence" of which the "material realm" is the exterior or "form." While in many ways it's much like existence on this earthly plane, and yet much more, because it's not bound by time and space.

If there is a "soul" then I think it might not just be "confined" to our "bodies". It would be an "entity" with a "higher PERSPECTIVE" of which only one FACET of its ATTENTION is on our little lives.Well so long as we remain in our bodies, yes. But when we pass on we discover there are literally no bounds as to how high a spirit can soar if, in fact that's what the spirit so chooses. And while I'm sure there are bounds, it would be like making the comparison between a caterpillar and a butterfly ... Wow!

Science seems to only "wish to define" that which "it" can DETECT, MEASURE and TEST. This is why even CONSCIOUSNESS is not worth considering by many...even tho it is a definite PART of the Universe and so must be INCLUDED (one would think) in any cosmological theory. And yet, no.What a joke! I just can't figure out whether it's God that's playing the joke or whether it's Science?

Still, the quest for the Unified Field Theory seems to have a "spiritual" inference...which, again, is NOT to say that "spirit" is "real".Nahh, it's like I said before, the only spirits around here are in bottles! Ha ha! [;)]

maximus

Jun8-03, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by sage
spirit is imagined. it does not exist. it does not fit in science.

i, unlike Mentat, am willing to agree with all these statements. the idea of 'spirits' is an out-dated concept from an age where in order to understand the mysical, people would have to assign spirits and gods to objects. we are past this. we no longer need mystic spirits and magic to explain whats going on, the modern scientific process takes care of that.

Mentat

Jun8-03, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i, unlike Mentat, am willing to agree with all these statements. the idea of 'spirits' is an out-dated concept from an age where in order to understand the mysical, people would have to assign spirits and gods to objects. we are past this. we no longer need mystic spirits and magic to explain whats going on, the modern scientific process takes care of that.

The only reason I wont state my personal opinion of this (or most other) subjects, is that I don't want it held against me later. I am constantly in flux, and I like to play devil's advocate, so I don't want someone saying, "but you said you didn't believe in spirits", when I start arguing in favor of them (or vice versa).

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The following is of course only my opinion and belief. I offer it only as a point of view for discussion. I have no proof nor even references to fall back on. Take it in that spirit only. It is not a proclamation nor edict. Some of this come from the thread "The Trinity of Man and God."
The spirit of Man is created and bestowed upon us at an early age when we first show the signs of having wisdom and thus being human.
I don't think this is how it happened. I think "human consciousness" ASSEMBLED from the "raw material" of consciousness...as a natural PROCESS of the Universe.

It is of God, a part of God, the Holy Spirit, that returns to God upon our death. Its purpose is to lead, guide and teach us, a mentor if you will. I have heard it referred to as a thought adjuster. Adjusting our thoughts and thus knowlege and behavior to a more loving, good, godly nature. One of it's more important purposes is to love us and thus teach us to love. Another is to teach us to know ourselves and to know God. It is apart of us yet a different aspect from our body and soul.
Yes, I know this is a popular conception...that "God is love" etc., etc. The problem (for me) is that I'm not so sure about the existence of "God"...while I AM pretty sure about the existence of the Universe. And, even IF there is a "spiritual component" to the Universe, it would include EVERYTHING that is: not JUST "love" but "hate", too; not just "Good" but "Evil".

The question of this thread is "What is the Nature of Spirit" If, indeed, Spirit EXISTS. Perhaps it's an unanswerable question...but what ELSE do we have to do???

The body, including the brain is the physical evolved part of us that is of the earth and will remain of the earth after 'death'.
The soul is the nonphysical evolved mind, heart, character, personallity, individual us that upon the death of our body goes on to the next more spiritual world. Freud may have been refering to the soul when he talked about the super ego. It is our spiritual self, our essence that is us, that makes us, us individuals. It's purpose is the grow, experience life and love and to come to know itself and it's God. One of it's hardest and main jobs during our life is to allow our egos to develope and become strong so that we become individuals with strength and character of our own and yet not let our ego,s become so strong that they rule our lifes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. We must not supress or repress our egos but integrate it with our souls and all that we are. This way we can become one within ourselves and one with God. We will then be all that we can be and are meant to be in this life on earth. This may be comparable to Buddhist's enlightenment or Christianity's state of grace or sainthood.
Well, I'd have to agree that -- if one is willing to CONCEDE that there is Spirit -- that Spirit would be in the process of EVOLVING! And, it would do so via the experiences -- and lessons learned via the CONSEQUENCES of our ACTIONS -- over many lifetimes!
Agian this is only my personal set of beliefs presented only as my view point for your concideration and discussion.
Your humility is noted. Mine is absent. My ego seems to be running the show at the moment.[;)]

Mentat

Jun8-03, 08:59 PM

M.Gaspar,
When I posted that it is not scientifically provable, I was pointing at the (more important) fact that "spirit" definitely does, and definitely does not exist.

It's like objective reality. Objective reality definitely does exist in a scientific framework, but definitely doesn't in a solipsistic framework.

Do you see what I mean?

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i, unlike Mentat, am willing to agree with all these statements. the idea of 'spirits' is an out-dated concept from an age where in order to understand the mysical, people would have to assign spirits and gods to objects. we are past this. we no longer need mystic spirits and magic to explain whats going on, the modern scientific process takes care of that.

I can see how this might account for "science" not being interested in the nature and evolution of SPIRIT...but I wonder why CONSCIOUSNESS is left out of the mix?

But this would be another thread.

I have to tell you, with regard to "spirit", the "jury is still out" for me. But it seems a worthwhile area of inquiry...especially because the concept comes up -- independently -- in most cultures and through time. Might there be an "inner knowing" at work...or, as you say, an attempt for primitive minds to "explain" they don't understand.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
The only reason I wont state my personal opinion of this (or most other) subjects, is that I don't want it held against me later. I am constantly in flux, and I like to play devil's advocate, so I don't want someone saying, "but you said you didn't believe in spirits", when I start arguing in favor of them (or vice versa).

Good policy. Good strategy.

But how does one test their assumptions without stating opinions?

maximus

Jun8-03, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I can see how this might account for "science" not being interested in the nature and evolution of SPIRIT...but I wonder why CONSCIOUSNESS is left out of the mix?

But this would be another thread.

I have to tell you, with regard to "spirit", the "jury is still out" for me. But it seems a worthwhile area of inquiry...especially because the concept comes up -- independently -- in most cultures and through time. Might there be an "inner knowing" at work...or, as you say, an attempt for primitive minds to "explain" they don't understand.

what i have always wondered is why someone feels they need to create this force in the universe. does it make us feel more comfortable? more safe and not as hopelessly alone? it is pretty indisputable that there is no physical evidence that would support such a claim. and yes, i've heard all the bullsh**: how else do you describe this feeling of love that i feel? or: look at the universe and you will see all the proof that you need. it's all misleading jargan hid behing the beautiful words that we all so dearly want to hear.

Mentat

Jun8-03, 09:11 PM

Here's something to think about, if spirits exist, can they interact with the physical world? Are they physical themselves?

maximus

Jun8-03, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

But how does one test their assumptions without stating opinions?

a good point. we're not in this for a political battle, but to expand our knowledge and test our assumptions.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
M.Gaspar,
When I posted that it is not scientifically provable, I was pointing at the (more important) fact that "spirit" definitely does, and definitely does not exist.

It's like objective reality. Objective reality definitely does exist in a scientific framework, but definitely doesn't in a solipsistic framework.

Do you see what I mean?

If I were a Solipsist, I wouldn't care what you mean!

But as a Conversationalist, I do (care...and see)! [;)]

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by maximus
what i have always wondered is why someone feels they need to create this force in the universe. does it make us feel more comfortable? more safe and not as hopelessly alone? it is pretty indisputable that there is no physical evidence that would support such a claim. and yes, i've heard all the bullsh**: how else do you describe this feeling of love that i feel? or: look at the universe and you will see all the proof that you need. it's all misleading jargan hid behing the beautiful words that we all so dearly want to hear.
God, what a cynic . Are you prepared to burn in Hell?

Did you come to this thread to shoot us down...or explore a possibility?

Ya know, for a very long time there was no "physical evidence" of atoms or electromagnetism...and I don't think we've "seen" black holes or superstrings! This "evidence" thing is WAY OVERPLAYED!

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I can see how this might account for "science" not being interested in the nature and evolution of SPIRIT...but I wonder why CONSCIOUSNESS is left out of the mix?

But this would be another thread.

I have to tell you, with regard to "spirit", the "jury is still out" for me. But it seems a worthwhile area of inquiry...especially because the concept comes up -- independently -- in most cultures and through time. Might there be an "inner knowing" at work...or, as you say, an attempt for primitive minds to "explain" they don't understand. How can we inquire about anything if it were not for the fact that we were conscious? For without it, where would the scientific endeavor be? If anything, this should be the first and fundamental question science should ask, "Why am I conscious?" If they can't answer that, then everything else becomes meaningless ... or, at the very most, extraneous.

maximus

Jun8-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
God, what a cynic . Are you prepared to burn in Hell?

ha! i hope you're joking about the hell thing! but it wouldn't bother me if you weren't.

Did you come to this thread to shoot us down...or explore a possibility?

Ya know, for a very long time there was no "physical evidence" of atoms or electromagnetism...and I don't think we've "seen" black holes or superstrings! This "evidence" thing is WAY OVERPLAYED! [/B]

point taken, but i feel sort of confident in this area.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Here's something to think about, if spirits exist, can they interact with the physical world? Are they physical themselves?

Actually, there is a distinction (in MY mind) about "spirit" and "spirits". The former (to me) is a POSSIBLE coherent system of SOMETHING that has a will, self-awareness, and an "imbedded" "need" to evolve. It (spirit) would be "hooked up" to EVERYTHING ELSE...while focusing a FACET of its ATTENTION on the life it is living (at any given moment) through us.

"Spirits" (in my mind) are "ghosts"...which may or may not exist also...but, if they do, they are NOT the FULL or COMPLETE or TOTALITY of the "coherent system" that I'm thinking of when I say "spirit". Spirits might be reflections of a portion of the totality of a disembodied SPIRIT.

This, of course, is PURE SPECULATION -- or PURE B.S.! Take your pick.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by maximus
ha! i hope you're joking about the hell thing! but it wouldn't bother me if you weren't.
Say that again when you're lookin' for ICE WATER!!!

point taken, but i feel sort of confident in this area. [/B]
Yeh...we all do...sorta.

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How can we inquire about anything if it were not for the fact that we were conscious? For without it, where would the scientific endeavor be? If anything, this should be the first and fundamental question science should ask, "Why am I conscious?" If they can't answer that, then everything else becomes meaningless ... or, at the very most, extraneous.

Yes, that's how I feel about the irony of cosmologist ignoring consciousness even as they USE it.

But what of "spirit"? How do we "use" spirit? Or, how does "spirit" use us ?

It is simply not as "evident" as consciousness, and could, in fact, be an expendable "construct" as many suggest.

I am not yet ready, however, to give up on the possibility of the existence of spirit.

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Here's something to think about, if spirits exist, can they interact with the physical world? Are they physical themselves? Well, lots of people claim to be spiritual mediums, but that you pretty much have to take with a grain of salt. It's not so much of matter of whether it's plausible or not (to me), but who are you going to trust? As far as spirits being physical or not? No. But they do have and enjoy a sense of "physicality" amongst themselves. They also at times are able to effect things directly on the physical plane, although typically it involves that which is unstable and "about to give."

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well, lots of people claim to be spiritual mediums, but that you pretty much have to take with a grain of salt. It's not so much of matter of whether it's plausible or not (to me), but who are you going to trust? As far as spirits being physical or not? No. But they do have and enjoy a sense of "physicality" amongst themselves. They also at times are able to effect things directly on the physical plane, although typically it involves that which is unstable and "about to give."

If "spirit" exists...it would be -- IMO -- a "substance" (as I propose consciousness is ...and would exist in everything -- again, like consciousness.

If "spirit" does NOT exist..."spirituality" still does, which would be a seeking of high ideals and the strength to live them.

Although occasionally fun to consider, "spirits" do not interest me much because they would only be "dead people"...and most people, dead or alive, don't interest me much.

Well, I started my day talking to you Iacchus, so it seems well and good to be ending it likewise. I can only hope we still have some unanswered questions left to ponder in the morrow.

Goodnight. [zz)]

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
But what of "spirit"? How do we "use" spirit? Or, how does "spirit" use us ?

It is simply not as "evident" as consciousness, and could, in fact, be an expendable "construct" as many suggest.

I am not yet ready, however, to give up on the possibility of the existence of spirit. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't have a soul if I wasn't conscious (i.e., that which acknowledges it's alive), which is why I pretty much view it as one and the same. Whereas when I go on my little escapades in my dreams/spiritual world, it's always that part of me, which is conscious, that does the interacting.

maximus

Jun8-03, 10:23 PM

"I am not yet ready, however, to give up on the possibility of the existence of spirit." -M. Gasper

now, i don't mean to be annoying here, but why do you feel this way? obviously some part of you wants this to be true, maybe regardless of how you feel about it. after a only a few minutes of researching you, i get the impression that you are truely wanting to resovle something in this question. most of your posts are in universal conciousness type threads. do you consider yourself religious?

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by maximus
"I am not yet ready, however, to give up on the possibility of the existence of spirit." -M. Gasper

now, i don't mean to be annoying here, but why do you feel this way? obviously some part of you wants this to be true, maybe regardless of how you feel about it. after a only a few minutes of researching you, i get the impression that you are truely wanting to resovle something in this question. most of your posts are in universal conciousness type threads. do you consider yourself religious?

No. I consider myself "spiritual"...which, to me, is seeking the "highest" way of being in the world...then generating the personal strength to live these ideals.

Actually, I do not have a burning need to "resolve" anything. I have no problem being in an INQUIRY over the course of a lifetime (or two...or more).

But, you've "nailed" me on one thing: I'm more interested in CONSCIOUSNESS than "spirit". Don't know why. [a)]

maximus

Jun8-03, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
But, you've "nailed" me on one thing: I'm more interested in CONSCIOUSNESS than "spirit". Don't know why. [a)]

if you are really wanting to know my position on this subject read my post in A Conscious Universe?, that pretty much summerizes my position, but you should know, i always am open to change my position on a subject, provided you give me convining evidence. and believe me, it has to be pretty dang convincing.

maximus

Jun8-03, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i always am open to change my position on a subject, provided you give me convining evidence. and believe me, it has to be pretty dang convincing.

evidence might not be the right word choice here. ...if you give me convincing logical reasoning... or illogical, whatever... the point is it'll be tough. [:D]

sage

Jun9-03, 06:05 AM

consciousness is a cumulative result of the interactions between different parts of the brain as it gathers and processes incoming information.see details of an experiment in my reply to the thread IS CONSCIOUSNESS DEFINED IN SCIENCE?

Royce

Jun9-03, 08:41 AM

To expand on my previous post, despite any objections or denials, in a more cosmological note as implied by other post in this thread I submit the following. This is again my belief and opinion though I am not the only one that believes as I do.
The aspect of God that is the Holy spirit pervades the universe and is a part of it. It is in my opinion the source of the life force that is so strong and everywhere at least here on earth as there is vertually no where on earth that life is not abundant and prolific even thousands of feet down in the rocks. I also think of it as the guiding force that insures that the universe behaves. Possibly it is the source of universal consciousness that we talked about in the thread "Conscious Universe". It is IMO the thing that ties us and the universe all together and is at lest in my mind the One that the asian religions speak of. It is of course immaterial and outside of time. It is ubiquitous. Has force and can and does interact with the material universe. In my mind at least it is the unifying force that make it all happen and keeps it working the way that it is meant to.

As for the soul, if we have no soul how do we account for the numerous out of body experiences that had been documented and verified by medical science? I personally know of two cases that have been verified, one a close friend and co-worker of mine. How can our consciousness and awareness leave our unconscious body and see and hear and be aware of all that is going on around them including their own unconscious body if there is no soul?

maximus

Jun9-03, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by sage
consciousness is a cumulative result of the interactions between different parts of the brain as it gathers and processes incoming information.

that's pretty much exactly what i said.

Iacchus32

Jun9-03, 10:29 AM

From the thread, How Do I Know? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) ...

Origincally posted by Iacchus32
Origincally posted by sage
Our brain gains knowledge by (1)memorizing events and facts and emotions associated with them and makes decisions by(2) comparing new events or facts with previous ones. But some degree of ‘hardwiring’ is done from birth.It's our "conscious mind" (not brain) which does the comparing and making decisions. This is like comparing the difference between how a car functions, "properly," and what it takes to actually drive the car, which are two separate matters. In fact this is the very problem that exists with science. They are so busy caught up with how something works, that they lose sight of its actual function, which is just another fancy means of taking things out of context.

Mentat

Jun9-03, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, there is a distinction (in MY mind) about "spirit" and "spirits". The former (to me) is a POSSIBLE coherent system of SOMETHING that has a will, self-awareness, and an "imbedded" "need" to evolve. It (spirit) would be "hooked up" to EVERYTHING ELSE...while focusing a FACET of its ATTENTION on the life it is living (at any given moment) through us.

"Spirits" (in my mind) are "ghosts"...which may or may not exist also...but, if they do, they are NOT the FULL or COMPLETE or TOTALITY of the "coherent system" that I'm thinking of when I say "spirit". Spirits might be reflections of a portion of the totality of a disembodied SPIRIT.

This, of course, is PURE SPECULATION -- or PURE B.S.! Take your pick.

Interesting enough, but the question remains, are they physical?

Mentat

Jun9-03, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As far as spirits being physical or not? No.

Are you absolutely sure of this? Once you state it, it's going to stick, and it puts a huge kink in the idea of a spirit's having the ability to actually do anything in our Universe.

Think of those "Casper" comic strips. You'd often see Casper fly through walls and such, but then he would grab ahold of something, or push something around. These two cannot co-exist. Either he is physical or he is not.

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you absolutely sure of this? Once you state it, it's going to stick, and it puts a huge kink in the idea of a spirit's having the ability to actually do anything in our Universe.

Think of those "Casper" comic strips. You'd often see Casper fly through walls and such, but then he would grab ahold of something, or push something around. These two cannot co-exist. Either he is physical or he is not.

He's a cartoon. I'm pretty sure. [;)]

Meanwhile, any comment on the distinction between "spirit" and "spirits"?

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He's a cartoon. I'm pretty sure. [;)]

Meanwhile, any comment on the distinction between "spirit" and "spirits"?

It's an interesting distinction, and reminds me (somewhat) of Gaia theories - in that it seperates the spirit of the All, with the spirits of coherent "chunks" of the All.

As for Casper's being a cartoon, that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to depict "ghosts", that can both be immaterial and material, and that's not scientifically feasible. So, the question remains, are spirits physical entities?

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:15 PM

Are "forces" physical? They exert, well, a force that effects matter.

Might "spirit" (which I'm interest in) -- as well as "spirits (which I'm not) -- be "forces" as well?

I'm pretty sure that they (either) are "coherent systems" of SOMETHING. But what? That's the question...or one of them.

Iacchus32

Jun9-03, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you absolutely sure of this? Once you state it, it's going to stick, and it puts a huge kink in the idea of a spirit's having the ability to actually do anything in our Universe.

Think of those "Casper" comic strips. You'd often see Casper fly through walls and such, but then he would grab ahold of something, or push something around. These two cannot co-exist. Either he is physical or he is not. If spirits do have an effect on the world, it would probably have more to do with energy ... Energy fields? Kinetic energy? Which is why brought up the idea of something unstable, as it has the potential to release a lot of "kinetic energy."

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Are "forces" physical? They exert, well, a force that effects matter.

Actually, there is no such thing as "force" in the traditional sense - according to modern physics. It is really just curvatures of spacetime.

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If spirits do have an effect on the world, it would probably have more to do with energy ... Energy fields? Kinetic energy? Which is why brought up the idea of something unstable, as it has the potential to release a lot of "kinetic energy."

And yet again, if they have an energy reaction with physical objects, then they must be physical beings.

Iacchus32

Jun9-03, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet again, if they have an energy reaction with physical objects, then they must be physical beings. Then again it may be just a matter of a slight shift in an energy field to "set something off."

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then again it may be just a matter of a slight shift in an energy field to "set something off."

"Energy fields" are physical.

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Royce
[B]To expand on my previous post, despite any objections or denials, in a more cosmological note as implied by other post in this thread I submit the following. This is again my belief and opinion though I am not the only one that believes as I do.
The aspect of God that is the Holy spirit pervades the universe and is a part of it. It is in my opinion the source of the life force that is so strong and everywhere at least here on earth as there is vertually no where on earth that life is not abundant and prolific even thousands of feet down in the rocks. I also think of it as the guiding force that insures that the universe behaves. Possibly it is the source of universal consciousness that we talked about in the thread "Conscious Universe". It is IMO the thing that ties us and the universe all together and is at lest in my mind the One that the asian religions speak of. It is of course immaterial and outside of time. It is ubiquitous. Has force and can and does interact with the material universe. In my mind at least it is the unifying force that make it all happen and keeps it working the way that it is meant to.
Well, I can align with the "life force" that pervades Everything...a fundamental ENERGY that connects and effects Everything. I just don't know why we have to call it "Holy"...or believe there is a "Plan" (as would be suggested by your statement about keeping it (Everything) "working the way it is 'MEANT' to."

The Universe is an evolving Entity -- with inherent forces, processes and ingredients that sort of "run themselves" (via cause & effect that might be driven my INTENTION). Must the Universe be deemed a "diety" for us to revere It with awe?

As for the soul, if we have no soul how do we account for the numerous out of body experiences that had been documented and verified by medical science? I personally know of two cases that have been verified, one a close friend and co-worker of mine. How can our consciousness and awareness leave our unconscious body and see and hear and be aware of all that is going on around them including their own unconscious body if there is no soul?

I have proposed (in "A COnscious Universe?") the consciousness is not confined to an entity (like ourselves)...but is part of a cosmic network to which we are all connected. That's why the "soul" (or "consciousness") can leave the body with full awareness...and why Casper can walk through walls!

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, there is no such thing as "force" in the traditional sense - according to modern physics. It is really just curvatures of spacetime.

Then a de facto force ...whatever floats your boat!

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
"Energy fields" are physical.

Well then...there you ARE!

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:43 PM

And, if "thought" were an "energy field" we might "see" how it could "effect" "matter"...which is "only" another expression of ENERGY anyway.

As I've said: the Universe may be "ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME."

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Then a de facto force ...whatever floats your boat!

Chill out, M. Gaspar, I wasn't just spouting knowledge, I was making a point. If a spirit is going to be considered a physical entity (thus capable of interacting with other physical entities) it cannot be "just a force".

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Well then...there you ARE!

You are missing the point. If a spirit is to be considered something qualitatively different from matter, it cannot be energy.

Mentat

Jun9-03, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And, if "thought" were an "energy field" we might "see" how it could "effect" "matter"...which is "only" another expression of ENERGY anyway.

I don't see what you mean.

As I've said: the Universe may be "ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME."

It is all energy all the time. That's all that exists within the Universe, energy; whether it be in it's "free" or "congealed" forms. However, that doesn't explain how something non-physical can interact with something physical. If it is non-physical then it is not energy.

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Chill out, M. Gaspar, I wasn't just spouting knowledge, I was making a point. If a spirit is going to be considered a physical entity (thus capable of interacting with other physical entities) it cannot be "just a force".

I'm chilled...to "zero hostility". Honest. And I never think you're "just spouting knowledge".

I am EXPLORING what "Spirit" might be...and, to my mind, it MIGHT be "a force". On the other hand, since I tend to think that "Spirit" -- like everything else -- is a dynamic, coherent SYSTEM...then I need YOU to tell ME whether a "system" can be a "force"?

(PM)

Iacchus32

Jun9-03, 01:08 PM

From Robert A. Johnson's, "ECSTASY - Understanding the Psychology of Joy" ...

You cannot kill a god, who is by definition immortal. Neither can you kill an archetype, for an archetype is a basic human drive. We carry the archetypes deep within us; they are integral parts of our human nature that must be lived out. When an archetype is not lived out with consciousness or dignity, as von Franz says, it "loads up with energy and becomes inhuman."

This happens not only on the level of the individual, but on the level of the collecitive unconscious, the psyche of a whole society. Carl Jung has said of this phenomenon:

The gigantic catastrophes that threaten us are not elemental happeinings of a physical or biological kind, but are psychic events. We are threatened in a fearful way by wars and revolutions that are nothing else than psychic epidemics. At any moment a few million people may be seized by a madness, and then we have another world war or a devastating revolution. Instead of being exposed to wild beasts, tumbling rocks, and inundating waters, man is exposed today to the elemental forces of his own psyche.This was brought home one day when a friend took me to an air show. Thousands of people were in the crowd -- I'd never been to such a thing before. My friend said, "You know, there's a tremendous amount of collective power in a group like this. They will demand blood, and they're strong enough to get it." At that very moment a small plane crashed and burned right in front of us. I could feel the Dionysian energy galvanize the crowd, which was at once thrilled and horrified. It was a terrible form, but nonetheless the god was served.

Royce

Jun10-03, 07:52 AM

Having stated my beliefs about spirit just to present another view point it is of course possible to express the same opinions with out the terms God or Holy Spirit, by the way I used the term as a proper name to identify and distingquish it from generic spirit. Whether well call the spirit holy or God or of God or not makes no difference.
I am always astounded to know how vigerous life is and how prevasive it is. Its everywhere! Its lives and thrives in place where we thought no life could possible exist. I realize that it is anthropomorphic to think this way but it seems like there is a driving force and purpose behind it.
The universe is so organized and yet always changing, evolving that again to me it seems that there is a force and purpose to it.
When I used the term "working the way it is meant to" I probably should have said that it continues to follow the laws of physics which is what I had in mind.
I still can't shake the feeling that there is a purpose and controling force and consciousness within all of the universe whether it is physical, spiritual or religious or all of them I of course don't know. It just seems too beautiful, elegant, and logically organized to be a continuing accident, coming from nothing and returning to nothing. Maybe that is why I am religious.
I am totally awed by it and the more that I learn the more awed, blown away, by it I am.

sage

Jun10-03, 01:25 PM

As for the soul, if we have no soul how do we account for the numerous out of body experiences that had been documented and verified by medical science? I personally know of two cases that have been verified, one a close friend and co-worker of mine. How can our consciousness and awareness leave our unconscious body and see and hear and be aware of all that is going on around them including their own unconscious body if there is no soul?
NOW THAT IS INTERESTING. Verified as true by scientific faculty? More feedbacks on this Royce. If out of body experiences are accepted as true facts by medical science then existence of spirits are as good as proved. More details please.

It's our "conscious mind" (not brain) which does the comparing and making decisions. This is like comparing the difference between how a car functions, "properly," and what it takes to actually drive the car, which are two separate matters. In fact this is the very problem that exists with science. They are so busy caught up with how something works, that they lose sight of its actual function, which is just another fancy means of taking things out of context.
the idea was to show that brain is a car that drives itself. I have also tried to show there are ample reasons to think that the conscious mind you refer to is verymuch a part of the brain and the result of processes that occur within it. So what’s your point IACCHUS?

Iacchus32

Jun10-03, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by sage
the idea was to show that brain is a car that drives itself. I have also tried to show there are ample reasons to think that the conscious mind you refer to is verymuch a part of the brain and the result of processes that occur within it. So what’s your point IACCHUS? If it wasn't for science I wouldn't even know I had a damn brain! [;)] ... Really? And yet, I would still have a "conscious mind," with all the faculties thereof. Which is to say, I don't need to know how the brain works in order to "think." The brain is just an apparatus which, if functioning properly, doesn't even draw attention to the fact that it's there. And yet the experience or "sensation" of consciousness is "very real."

Royce

Jun10-03, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by sage
NOW THAT IS INTERESTING. Verified as true by scientific faculty? More feedbacks on this Royce. If out of body experiences are accepted as true facts by medical science then existence of spirits are as good as proved. More details please.

One incident that I have in mind I saw on either the the Discovery Channel or the Learning Channel. Its possible I saw it on Nova when they were exploring the mind. I'm sorry but I can't remember for sure. The spicifics were that a very young girl was unconscious in an emergency room and they were getting her ready to take to surgery.
A surgical nurse wearing a red surgical hat came in and checked on her. She was the only one wearing a red hat. Days later when the young girl was in recovery the same nurse no longer wearing the red surgical hat came in to check on hers condition. The girl recognized her and said that she was the one in the red hat. This was shown as a case of out of body experience as the girl described the emergency room everyone in it and what was said and done and that she had seen her body laying on the table. The doctors and nurses varified the circumstances but offered no official conclusions other than that they could not account for any of it.
The other incident happen to my friend when he'd injured his knee I believe in high school sports. He had been in such pain that the doctor in the emergency room administered drugs to knock him out and relieve the pain before taking him to surgery. He told me that it was as if he was floating up near the ceiling near a corner of the room looking down on his body, his parents and the doctor and nurse. The doctor was explaining to his parents what they were going to do and the probable outcome and recovery. Later in recovery his mother started to tell him what the doctor had said. He interupted her and said that he knew and then proceeded to tell them all what was said and had happened in the emergency room. This was verified by both his parents. He was a good friend and was not lying or making up the story, nor would he lie about something like that. I do not know if it was ever reported or verified by the emergency staff. I only know what he told me and that he thought that it was the truth. These are the two cases thatI said that I know personally of but I have heard of many more such cases verified if not reported by doctors and nurses.

Mentat

Jun10-03, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by sage
NOW THAT IS INTERESTING. Verified as true by scientific faculty?

I truly doubt it. No offense to Royce (as he and I have long been good buddies [:)]), but the very statement, "out of body experience", implies that there is something to a human other than his body, and would thus not be a scientific term.

Mentat

Jun10-03, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Royce
One incident that I have in mind I saw on either the the Discovery Channel or the Learning Channel. Its possible I saw it on Nova when they were exploring the mind. I'm sorry but I can't remember for sure. The spicifics were that a very young girl was unconscious in an emergency room and they were getting her ready to take to surgery.
A surgical nurse wearing a red surgical hat came in and checked on her. She was the only one wearing a red hat. Days later when the young girl was in recovery the same nurse no longer wearing the red surgical hat came in to check on hers condition. The girl recognized her and said that she was the one in the red hat. This was shown as a case of out of body experience as the girl described the emergency room everyone in it and what was said and done and that she had seen her body laying on the table. The doctors and nurses varified the circumstances but offered no official conclusions other than that they could not account for any of it.
The other incident happen to my friend when he'd injured his knee I believe in high school sports. He had been in such pain that the doctor in the emergency room administered drugs to knock him out and relieve the pain before taking him to surgery. He told me that it was as if he was floating up near the ceiling near a corner of the room looking down on his body, his parents and the doctor and nurse. The doctor was explaining to his parents what they were going to do and the probable outcome and recovery. Later in recovery his mother started to tell him what the doctor had said. He interupted her and said that he knew and then proceeded to tell them all what was said and had happened in the emergency room. This was verified by both his parents. He was a good friend and was not lying or making up the story, nor would he lie about something like that. I do not know if it was ever reported or verified by the emergency staff. I only know what he told me and that he thought that it was the truth. These are the two cases thatI said that I know personally of but I have heard of many more such cases verified if not reported by doctors and nurses.

But what if, just hypothetically, a person were to dream, while "knocked out"? If they were to dream, and dream of an emergency room in some detail (partially filtered into their subconscious by the fact that they are, in fact, in an emergency room at the time), then they could recount stories much like the ones you mention, could they not?

Iacchus32

Jun10-03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If it wasn't for science I wouldn't even know I had a damn brain! [;)] ... Really? And yet, I would still have a "conscious mind," with all the faculties thereof. Which is to say, I don't need to know how the brain works in order to "think." The brain is just an apparatus which, if functioning properly, doesn't even draw attention to the fact that it's there. And yet the experience or "sensation" of consciousness is "very real." Perhaps this is the way the mind of God works? We don't even know it's there, except perhaps through our own consciousness, and yet we don't need to know that it's there, because it's just a matter of functioning properly.

And yet that doesn't mean it's not impossible to discover God, because I think that's part of the design too -- i.e., of "becoming conscious."

Mentat

Jun10-03, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If it wasn't for science I wouldn't even know I had a damn brain! [;)] ... Really? And yet, I would still have a "conscious mind," with all the faculties thereof.

Actually, you would also still have a brain (obviously), you just wouldn't know it.

Which is to say, I don't need to know how the brain works in order to "think." The brain is just an apparatus which, if functioning properly, doesn't even draw attention to the fact that it's there.

But it's much the same with consciousness (which is a product of the brain's functions), in that it needn't draw attention to itself.

Iacchus32

Jun10-03, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, you would also still have a brain (obviously), you just wouldn't know it.Yes, that's what I'm saying.

But it's much the same with consciousness (which is a product of the brain's functions), in that it needn't draw attention to itself. Except for the fact that consciousness entails the experience of being alive and "knowing" it, whether we "acknowledge" that it's our consciousness or not.

Royce

Jun10-03, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
But what if, just hypothetically, a person were to dream, while "knocked out"? If they were to dream, and dream of an emergency room in some detail (partially filtered into their subconscious by the fact that they are, in fact, in an emergency room at the time), then they could recount stories much like the ones you mention, could they not?

Mentat, sage asked me for particulars of the two cases that I knew about. I presented them as best I could from what I know and remember. I draw no conclusions or make any judgements. I only ask questions as you do. It could have been a dream and their subconscious, I guess, but then how do we explain the girl "seeing" the red hat and remembering it and what the woman wearing it looked like well enough to recognize her?

Mentat

Jun10-03, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that consciousness entails the experience of being alive and "knowing" it, whether we "acknowledge" that it's our consciousness or not.

And having a brain entails every conscious (and many subconscious) activity(ies) that you will (ever) undertake. Yet you still needn't acknowledge that it's your brain doing the work.

Iacchus32

Jun10-03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And having a brain entails every conscious (and many subconscious) activity(ies) that you will (ever) undertake. Yet you still needn't acknowledge that it's your brain doing the work. Yes. So what is it about the "quality" of consciousness, aside from the fact that we have a brain that no doubt plays a large role in its existing? What's the difference between a radio, and the signals which it broadcasts and receives? On the one hand we have the radio (apparatus), and on the other we have "radio waves" (the medium), which are not one and the same. This is what I'm interested in, what comes across the "radio waves" (the music and hence format), as opposed to what allows me to listen to them (the radio itself). What's the point in having a radio if you don't turn it on and "listen" to it?

sage

Jun11-03, 12:16 PM

If it wasn't for science I wouldn't even know I had a damn brain! ... Really? And yet, I would still have a "conscious mind," with all the faculties thereof. Which is to say, I don't need to know how the brain works in order to "think." The brain is just an apparatus which, if functioning properly, doesn't even draw attention to the fact that it's there. And yet the experience or "sensation" of consciousness is "very real."
Yes. So what is it about the "quality" of consciousness, aside from the fact that we have a brain that no doubt plays a large role in its existing? What's the difference between a radio, and the signals which it broadcasts and receives? On the one hand we have the radio (apparatus), and on the other we have "radio waves" (the medium), which are not one and the same. This is what I'm interested in, what comes across the "radio waves" (the music and hence format), as opposed to what allows me to listen to them (the radio itself). What's the point in having a radio if you don't turn it on and "listen" to it?

come on iacchus, WAKE UP! Of course the brain need not be conscious it is there, but it still can work can’t it? Since when did knowing oneself became the necessary precondition for working? The brain cannot know it is there as all our sensory organs are exclusively there to gather information about the outside. Consciousness is the product of our brain which was always lodged inside our heads whether we knew it’s there or not. Consciousness may seem wonderful, miraculous to you, but the fact remains we need nothing more but the brain to explain it. And brain is not a radio. Why do you keep coming up with such absurd comparisons?
Let me repeat once again. When do we say we are conscious? When we are aware what is happening all around us. How does such an awareness arise? Information about our surroundings are gathered by our sensory organs and processed in our brain(whether we know it is there or not). How? Suppose you see your pet dog. Needless to say you have seen it before and thus have its image stored in your brain, associated with the memory of its name(Billy) and the emotion of love you feel towards it. Thus when its image is transmitted to the brain, it instantly associates this image with the image it has stored. You recognize that this dog is your pet billy and also feel the emotion of love towards it as you have felt before. Thus you become conscious of your pet dog and go on to cuddle him. What is my point? It is to demonstrate that under most conditions ‘YOU’ ARE THE BRAIN . WHEN YOU THINK, THE BRAIN IS THINKING; WHEN YOU SEE, THE BRAIN IS SEEING; WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING, IT IS THE BRAIN THAT IS DOING. The hands, the feet, the eyes and the ears are but tools by which you-the brain realizes its objective.

ROYCE-do we know how a brain functions when we are made unconscious by artificial means? Is it like when we are asleep or is it different? Suppose a person is unconscious. Suppose further that his eyes are closed. What about his ears? Clearly ones ears will still be receptive to sound and auditory impulses will still reach auditory lobe of the brain even when the person is unconscious. Same with the sensation of touch and pain. Then why do people not feel pain during operation. One possibility seems to be the information reaching the respective centers do not get transmitted via neurons to those parts where they are processed by the brain. Thus brain under the actions of sedatives stops processing information. But are all information processing centers equally affected. As sedatives like chloroform is primarily there for pain relief, it seems certain that processing of information dealing with pain are stopped. But is it not possible that those dealing with auditory and visual information are at least partially active. In most cases people do not remember what they have seen or heard during this time, no doubt under the action of sedatives. But each person reacts differently to these chemicals. It is possible that some people do have coherent memories of what they have heard or seen(if their eyes have opened during operation-mind you mere opening of eyes does not mean he/she is conscious). Ever heard of zombies? This is a peculiar state caused by chemicals when a person bloats up and seemingly seems dead even though he can see and hear everything that goes on around him. Much remains to be known about human brain and its reaction to chemicals. And many surprising discoveries no doubt lay ahead of us.

Royce

Jun11-03, 01:56 PM

Sage, I agree that we don't know. There may be a perfectly natural rather than supernatural cause. As I replied to Mentat, Does that explain visual memory also?
Out of curiosity I did a search with Yahoo's search engine of Out O Body Experiences, (OBE or OOBE) I got 2,140,000 hits. Most of them naterally had to do with religion and Mystism. I did find one article that I thought interesting at http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html
If your curious. Other article from different psychological papers and journals say that up to 35% of us have a OBE at least once in our lifes. Anouther article said that by stimulating a portion of the brain with an electrode the subject experience something like a OBE.

This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread but I did think that it was interesting. Is it Proof of a soul or spirit? No I don't think so but it is evidence that our consciousness and awareness may not be solely resident and property of our brains.

Iacchus32

Jun11-03, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by sage
come on iacchus, WAKE UP! Of course the brain need not be conscious it is there, but it still can work can’t it? Since when did knowing oneself became the necessary precondition for working? The brain cannot know it is there as all our sensory organs are exclusively there to gather information about the outside. Consciousness is the product of our brain which was always lodged inside our heads whether we knew it’s there or not. Consciousness may seem wonderful, miraculous to you, but the fact remains we need nothing more but the brain to explain it. And brain is not a radio. Why do you keep coming up with such absurd comparisons?
Let me repeat once again. When do we say we are conscious? When we are aware what is happening all around us. How does such an awareness arise? Information about our surroundings are gathered by our sensory organs and processed in our brain(whether we know it is there or not). How? Suppose you see your pet dog. Needless to say you have seen it before and thus have its image stored in your brain, associated with the memory of its name(Billy) and the emotion of love you feel towards it. Thus when its image is transmitted to the brain, it instantly associates this image with the image it has stored. You recognize that this dog is your pet billy and also feel the emotion of love towards it as you have felt before. Thus you become conscious of your pet dog and go on to cuddle him. What is my point? It is to demonstrate that under most conditions ‘YOU’ ARE THE BRAIN . WHEN YOU THINK, THE BRAIN IS THINKING; WHEN YOU SEE, THE BRAIN IS SEEING; WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING, IT IS THE BRAIN THAT IS DOING. The hands, the feet, the eyes and the ears are but tools by which you-the brain realizes its objective.
Oh, I never really thought of it that way! [;)] Then why don't we call it "brainishness" instead of consciousness? And from now on you can call me "Brain," and I can call you "Brain." And, since everyone else has one, "a brain," then we can call them "Brain" too. Yet that also implies that everbody's the same, with the name "Brain," as well as everything that's "interpreted" by the brain, which is "virtually" everything, Right? Therefore if all we had were "Brain" -- i.e., Brain, "the singularity" -- then what would be left to differentiate? In which case, what's the point in having a brain? ... at least one that works anyway. [:D]

Guess what? I'd prefer to be conscious with the ability to differentiate! [;)]

Mentat

Jun11-03, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes. So what is it about the "quality" of consciousness, aside from the fact that we have a brain that no doubt plays a large role in its existing? What's the difference between a radio, and the signals which it broadcasts and receives? On the one hand we have the radio (apparatus), and on the other we have "radio waves" (the medium), which are not one and the same. This is what I'm interested in, what comes across the "radio waves" (the music and hence format), as opposed to what allows me to listen to them (the radio itself). What's the point in having a radio if you don't turn it on and "listen" to it?

So it all comes down to your need for purpose, eh? Seriously, unless you believe that humans were created, the brain was not "designed" to be conscious. It was not "designed" to be subconscious either. It is just an organ, like any other. Though you are correct to assert that the brain would be "useless" without performing it's typical operations (one of which is consciousness), it is probably not correct of you to assume that the brain's "purpose" is to produce consciousness (or any of it's other operations).

Purpose is assigned by sentient beings.

Mentat

Jun11-03, 04:32 PM

Mentat

Jun11-03, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then why don't we call it "brainishness" instead of consciousness?

For the same reason we don't refer to irritability as "brainishness", as well as any other process of the brain.

Therefore if all we had were "Brain" -- i.e., Brain, "the singularity" -- then what would be left to differentiate?

How about the operations of the brain (one of them being consciousness). No offense, but this should be obvious.

Guess what? I'd prefer to be conscious with the ability to differentiate! [;)]

Did you even read sage's post (particularly the part in large letters)? S/he is not denying that there is such a thing as consciousness. S/he's just explaining that consciousness is one of the processes of the brain.

Iacchus32

Jun11-03, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Did you even read sage's post (particularly the part in large letters)? S/he is not denying that there is such a thing as consciousness. S/he's just explaining that consciousness is one of the processes of the brain. "I," the part of me which is conscious, am not my brain. Sorry. Consciousness is like the electricity which passes through a light bulb. But unless the switch is thrown, and the current passes through, there would be "no light." Got it? [;)]

Orginally posted by Iacchus32
You cannot kill a god, who is by definition immortal. Neither can you kill an archetype, for an archetype is a basic human drive. We carry the archetypes deep within us; they are integral parts of our human nature that must be lived out. When an archetype is not lived out with consciousness or dignity, as von Franz says, it "loads up with energy and becomes inhuman" ... Excerpt from Robert A. Johnson's ECSTASY - Understanding the Psychology of Joy.Well, if it wasn't for the fact that I had an "id"-entity. Hmm ... Feels like the onset of a tidal wave coming on or something?

sage

Jun12-03, 12:34 PM

Oh, I never really thought of it that way! Then why don't we call it "brainishness" instead of consciousness? And from now on you can call me "Brain," and I can call you "Brain." And, since everyone else has one, "a brain," then we can call them "Brain" too. Yet that also implies that everbody's the same, with the name "Brain," as well as everything that's "interpreted" by the brain, which is "virtually" everything, Right? Therefore if all we had were "Brain" -- i.e., Brain, "the singularity" -- then what would be left to differentiate? In which case, what's the point in having a brain? ... at least one that works anyway.

Guess what? I'd prefer to be conscious with the ability to differentiate!

yes everyone has a brain. But everyone’s brain works differently. There exists ample experimental evidence that our experiences(read impulses entering the brain) go a long way in determining its internal structure. There are a few billion neurons in our brain. So the number of ways they could be connected is infinitely large. And for each such mode of connections we shall have a different person with his own personality and consciousness. And which of these connections eventually occur depends both on our genes as well as on our environment. And do not think that connections, once made are static. They are constantly modified as we have new experiences, and this goes on throughout our lives. New interconnections are made, old ones abandoned, new neurons appear, old ones die off –and so it goes on and on and on. It’s a bit like the weather outside. Weather on each day is different and unique from the weather on all previous days or from the weather on all days in the future. Yes some aspects of the weather may be similar- all summer days are hot, some days are wet, some cold etc. But exactly the same? Never. And yet weather is a perfectly natural process that is caused by the interplay of the sun, the wind, the cloud and the geographic features of its location. Yet it is infinitely variable. So you see though the same term ‘weather’ is used by us, it can and does vary. Same with the brain and interactions within it.

I," the part of me which is conscious, am not my brain. Sorry. Consciousness is like the electricity which passes through a light bulb. But unless the switch is thrown, and the current passes through, there would be "no light." Got it?

so you say this electricity that makes brain produce consciousness is spirit/god/soul? Well how about food? I agree without electricity there will be no light from the bulb. Of couse. Because a light bulb converts electric energy into light energy. Similarly the brain(rather neurons) convert organic energy into electrochemical energy. If this process is hampered(as in case of a stroke) the brain cannot function properly-the light flickers and may even go out! But I am getting your point(FINALLY!).you seem to think that the stream of consciousness flows through the universe like an invisible underground river and it is our brain that has the capability to tap on to this hidden flow(like a tubewell) and make it visible to all. Brilliant idea! BRAVO! Needs proof though before I am going to accept it.

yes mentat I am cool. Thanks for the concern. I am a HE.

TO ROYCE-
Thanks for the link. Finally we are getting somewhere. Evidence is still inconclusive though. But if the scientists are really devoted as I think they are I think they should convince the woman to take another series of laboratory investigation and publish their findings in a science journal. If not a hoax this may indeed lead to the greatest parapsycological finding of the century. Till then let’s keep our fingers crossed.

Mentat

Jun12-03, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]"I," the part of me which is conscious, am not my brain. Sorry. Consciousness is like the electricity which passes through a light bulb. But unless the switch is thrown, and the current passes through, there would be "no light." Got it? [;)]

I know all of this, and I never claimed otherwise. Consciousness is not the brain, it is a product of the brain's activity. How is it that sage and I can repeat the same thing, so many times, and you still think we are saying that you are your brain?

Mentat

Jun12-03, 12:55 PM

Iacchus32

Jun12-03, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by sage
yes everyone has a brain. But everyone’s brain works differently. There exists ample experimental evidence that our experiences(read impulses entering the brain) go a long way in determining its internal structure. There are a few billion neurons in our brain. So the number of ways they could be connected is infinitely large. And for each such mode of connections we shall have a different person with his own personality and consciousness. And which of these connections eventually occur depends both on our genes as well as on our environment. And do not think that connections, once made are static. They are constantly modified as we have new experiences, and this goes on throughout our lives. New interconnections are made, old ones abandoned, new neurons appear, old ones die off –and so it goes on and on and on. It’s a bit like the weather outside. Weather on each day is different and unique from the weather on all previous days or from the weather on all days in the future. Yes some aspects of the weather may be similar- all summer days are hot, some days are wet, some cold etc. But exactly the same? Never. And yet weather is a perfectly natural process that is caused by the interplay of the sun, the wind, the cloud and the geographic features of its location. Yet it is infinitely variable. So you see though the same term ‘weather’ is used by us, it can and does vary. Same with the brain and interactions within it.I'm not saying there isn't a need for knowing these things, but for me I'm more concerned with my own experience and the quality of the "state" of my mind. There's a big difference in approach here, especially if the mind becomes the means by which to ascertain that which is "spiritual."

so you say this electricity that makes brain produce consciousness is spirit/god/soul? Well how about food? I agree without electricity there will be no light from the bulb. Of couse. Because a light bulb converts electric energy into light energy. Similarly the brain(rather neurons) convert organic energy into electrochemical energy. If this process is hampered(as in case of a stroke) the brain cannot function properly-the light flickers and may even go out!That makes sense.

But I am getting your point(FINALLY!).you seem to think that the stream of consciousness flows through the universe like an invisible underground river and it is our brain that has the capability to tap on to this hidden flow(like a tubewell) and make it visible to all. Brilliant idea! BRAVO! Needs proof though before I am going to accept it.Not necessisarily, although I believe it may be correct (i.e., the brain is more like a doorway or aperture), but the point that I'm trying to get across is that consciousness is the faculty of which the brain is the receptacle, and though obviously related, the two are not the same.

As far as proof is concerned, I'm afraid I can't help you here. Just as I can't prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2 (although you are capable of seeing it for yourself), I can't prove to you that God exists either. You have your own mind, I suggest you prove it to yourself. There are plenty of resources available if you just cared to do the research. Although I do advocate the need for skepticism and caution, if that means putting your faith (trust) in other people. And here, the idea of God is not a problem, as much as what other people do with that idea that becomes a problem.

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The universe is so organized and yet always changing, evolving that again to me it seems that there is a force and purpose to it.
When I used the term "working the way it is meant to" I probably should have said that it continues to follow the laws of physics which is what I had in mind.
The "laws of physics" might not be the ONLY "laws" the Universe "follows". If there IS "spirit" -- one of the fundamental questions of this thread -- there might be spiritual "laws" as well -- which are "driven" by the same PRINCIPAL of CAUSE & EFFECT.

As to the word "purpose"...what might be the "purpose" of a complex and eternal Entity but to have a myriad of EXPERIENCES over many "lifetimes". Of course, this would involve CONSCIOUSNESS -- which I propose that the Universe HAS -- but that is not the subject of this thread.

Of course, "spirit" and "consciousness" may turn out to be INSEPARABLE ...and so might "physicality" be to "equation."

MY "purpose" in starting this thread was to "pin down" the "nature" of "spirit" -- so here is where my thinking has led me up to now:

If "spirit" exists, it would exist as a dynamic, coherent SYSTEM...with an infinite number of dynamic, coherent SUB-systems that interract. They would "interact" via the INTERCONNECTEDNESS of CONSCIOUSNESS...but I'm going to save my comments about consciousness for the thread "A Conscious Universe" and try to stick to the nature and "purpose" of "spirit"...if, again, indeed "spirit" exists. This is a BIG "IF" and must be noted...tho, I guess, not every time it's referred to... and yet, I find I must begin my next sentence by saying...

If "spirit" exists it would be a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of the Universe -- present as a "whole" when the Universe was a Singularity...then "fragmented out" (just like elementary particles of baryonic matter) with "forces" in place (just as with baryonic matter) to "cause" ACCRETION with the FUNCTION of bringing the "substance" of "spirit" TOGETHER into DYNAMIC, COHERENT SYSTEMS...completely UNIQUE to OTHER dynamic, coherent spiritual systems that have gone before.

In other words, the Universe "shuffles the deck."

Putting aside "physicality" (which could be considered a (theatrical-type) "stage" for "spirit" to EXPERIENCE itself and others...and putting asside "consciousness" (which might be the connecting, information transfer system) ...we might think of "SPIRIT" as the ESSENCE of that which is having the Exprience(s) ...the part that RETAINS the MEMORIES ("lessons" and "tests") that are EXTRACTED from the Experience(s) over "time".

Thus, "spirit" might be the "memory" of coherent "lifetimes" ...and at it's "center" would be what we might call "WILL".

Thus, I do not think of the Universe having a "purpose". I think of It as having a PRIMARY WILL...an INTENTION to have a very complex and emotion-laden EXPERIENCE.

I still can't shake the feeling that there is a purpose and controling force and consciousness within all of the universe whether it is physical, spiritual or religious or all of them I of course don't know. It just seems too beautiful, elegant, and logically organized to be a continuing accident, coming from nothing and returning to nothing. Maybe that is why I am religious.
I am totally awed by it and the more that I learn the more awed, blown away, by it I am.

I can be -- and AM -- in awe of the Universe ...without the need to deitize It. We are part of a fabulous Entity -- "beautiful, elegant and organized" as you have noted -- embued (like the Universe Itself) with the will to CREATE EXPERIENCE...and to "evolve"? (another thread?)

Perhaps I shy away from the use of the word "God" because of all of the fanciful attributes the word carries with it. Still, I think there might be a "spiritual" component to the Universe...the part that experiences, learns and grows.

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:32 PM

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:34 PM

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:41 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Royce
...This was shown as a case of out of body experience... /QUOTE]

Forgive me, Royce, for boiling your post down to its central thought ...but it will save me some ink and paper if I print this thread out.

I believe that "out of body experience" are "real" because I believe that "consciousness" (and "spirit") is not CONFINED IN TOTAL to any physical entity...that it exists as a "network"...some of which "resides" in the physical ...but MOST "outside" of it.

If "spirit" exists, it probably has a much broader "perspective" than the the "tiny beam of focus" that it employs to look through our eyes.

This might never be part of "science" because it can't be "proven", "measured", "tested" or even "DETECTED"...but that doesn't necessarily mean that its not part of the workings of the cosmos.

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]"I," the part of me which is conscious, am not my brain. Sorry. Consciousness is like the electricity which passes through a light bulb. But unless the switch is thrown, and the current passes through, there would be "no light." Got it? [;)]
Yeh, ... I "got it" in spades!

Well, if it wasn't for the fact that I had an "id"-entity. Hmm ... Feels like the onset of a tidal wave coming on or something? [8)]
Sounds like INSPIRATION, so say more...

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by sage
But I am getting your point(FINALLY!).you seem to think that the stream of consciousness flows through the universe like an invisible underground river and it is our brain that has the capability to tap on to this hidden flow(like a tubewell) and make it visible to all. Brilliant idea! BRAVO! Needs proof though before I am going to accept it.
See thread on "consciousness and science" for a start.

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm not saying there isn't a need for knowing these things, but for me I'm more concerned with my own experience and the quality of the "state" of my mind. There's a big difference in approach here, especially if the mind becomes the means by which to ascertain that which is "spiritual."

For me, conducting myself with a MINDFULNESS toward "spirit" is asking myself the question: "What is my highest way of being" in this given moment?"...especially in response to temptations to be otherwise. Some think that the "mind" is NOT a "spiritual" operative...but I say it's as good a route as any ...and certainly a lot better than "mindLESSness" (which is at the "crux" -- so to speak -- of many "religions" ...and is not really helpful if one is about self-directed evolution of one's spirit.

And -- while I'm on the subject of SELF-redemption, let me say that this would entail RECOGNIZING when one has "erred" and attempting to make things "right" ...received or not.

Royce

Jun12-03, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Forgive me, Royce, for boiling your post down to its central thought ...but it will save me some ink and paper if I print this thread out. [/B]

You are of course forgiven. We all do it. There is no need to show the whole quote and the mentor would rather we didn't.
I to am trying not to use the G__ or R_______ word anymore in my post in the Philosopy Forum because of the reactions to it. Of course I feel completely free to use those words any time I want when posting in the R_______ Forum. Maybe they should post a "Reader discrestion advised" warning on it
[;)]
As far as the nature of spirit is concerned, I think that the pervasive spirit of the universe is what ties the counsciousness together and makes it one. It is the medium of interconnection and possibly that which give individual consciousness to all of the particles of the universe. As I said before it is immaterial and not of spacetime but in spacetime or maybe its the other way around, space time is in it, the spirit.

M. Gaspar

Jun12-03, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Royce
As far as the nature of spirit is concerned, I think that the pervasive spirit of the universe is what ties the counsciousness together and makes it one. It is the medium of interconnection and possibly that which give individual consciousness to all of the particles of the universe. As I said before it is immaterial and not of spacetime but in spacetime or maybe its the other way around, space time is in it, the spirit.

Why do we care if the Universe has "spirit" and/or "consciousness"? Sometimes I really wonder why I "care". Sounds like the stirrings of another thread...

Meanwhile, another stab at defining same:

Spirit: a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems that has volition/intention/will and serves as a storehouse of experience(s), complete with emotional content and meanings created by consciousness.

Consciousness: a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems that "has" awareness of self, of others, of context; the exhange/processing/interpretation of information within/across systems; the creation of meaning out of experiences.

Physicality: a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems that serves as the vehicle/place through which spirit and consciousness can have and interpret experience.

The Universe: a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts; a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems with inherent forces, processes and ingredients that comprise spirit, consciousness and physicality.

God, I'm tired.

Royce

Jun13-03, 09:09 AM

M. Gaspar,
I have no trouble with any of that. It is concise and covers just about everything.
I have read and heard it said that the material universe was created so that we newly created souls whould have a place to stand and take our first baby steps of our long individual and collective evolutions. I do not mean just mankind here on earth as I'm sure that life exists in other systems throughout the universe. A major part of that evolution is experiencing life and growth.

Mentat

Jun13-03, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
the point that I'm trying to get across is that consciousness is the faculty of which the brain is the receptacle, and though obviously related, the two are not the same.

You have the first point backward and the last point irrelevant, with all due respect. You see, it is not that consciousness is the faculty for which the brain is a receptical (because that would imply purpose), but rather the brain is a machine, through which many processes (including consciousness) happen to be expressed.

As for the second point (that the two are not the same), sage didn't say they were the same, he said that consciousness is a product of the brain's activity.

Mentat

Jun13-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Why do we care if the Universe has "spirit" and/or "consciousness"? Sometimes I really wonder why I "care". Sounds like the stirrings of another thread...

You wont believe how complicated that issue can get - especially with both Manuel_Silvio and me debating it. It comes to the issue of paradigms (or "bodies of knowledge" as Manuel_Silvio calls them), and one cannot judge paradigms without either doing so from the standpoint of their own paradigm (which is just their own paradigm and needn't be correct about any of it's assumptions about another person's paradigm), or from the "meta-paradigm" which really cannot exist, but would be the fairest form.

If you're at all interested in this, you should see the last few pages of "I think therefore I am".

Meanwhile, another stab at defining same:

Spirit: a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems that has volition/intention/will and serves as a storehouse of experience(s), complete with emotional content and meanings created by consciousness.

Doesn't the word "brain" satisfy much (if not all) of those criteria?

Physicality: a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems that serves as the vehicle/place through which spirit and consciousness can have and interpret experience.

So that means that Spirits and consciousness are not physical phenomena then, right?

The Universe: a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts; a dynamic, coherent system of sub-systems with inherent forces, processes and ingredients that comprise spirit, consciousness and physicality.

It seems as though your definition of Spirit and of Universe are very similar. Is this intentional?

M. Gaspar

Jun13-03, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
I have no trouble with any of that. It is concise and covers just about everything.
I have read and heard it said that the material universe was created so that we newly created souls whould have a place to stand and take our first baby steps of our long individual and collective evolutions. I do not mean just mankind here on earth as I'm sure that life exists in other systems throughout the universe. A major part of that evolution is experiencing life and growth.

I prefer to have it stated like this:

The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. It is a Being with natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients which give rise to it current expression of Itself...that is, Everything That Is in its "current" (while ever-changing) state.

I think it's a natural process of the Universe -- in EACH of Its INCARNATIONS (twixt unending cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) -- to have a portion of Its ENERGY "freeze down" into baryonic matter which provides the PHYSICAL "PLANE" where ACCRETING SYSTEMS OF SPIRIT -- via ACCRETING SYSTEMS OF CONCIOUSNESS -- can CREATE EXPERIENCES and EVOLVE.

What do you think?

M. Gaspar

Jun13-03, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
You wont believe how complicated that issue can get - especially with both Manuel_Silvio and me debating it. It comes to the issue of paradigms (or "bodies of knowledge" as Manuel_Silvio calls them), and one cannot judge paradigms without either doing so from the standpoint of their own paradigm (which is just their own paradigm and needn't be correct about any of it's assumptions about another person's paradigm), or from the "meta-paradigm" which really cannot exist, but would be the fairest form.

For a look at MY paradigm, see my response to Royce above.

If you're at all interested in this, you should see the last few pages of "I think therefore I am".
Will do.

Doesn't the word "brain" satisfy much (if not all) of those criteria?
Yes...just a a bowl and a reservoir can be explained as something that holds water. Actually, my stab at defining spirit, consciousness, physicality and the Universe Itself could be said to describe the operations and capacities of the brain. I'm just saying the the "brain" is a small thing AND may not be the ONLY thing that performs these functions.

So that means that Spirits and consciousness are not physical phenomena then, right?
I think there may be the "substances" of "spirit" and "consciousness" in every part of the "substance" of "physicality...all of which, is fundamentally is made of the same "stuff"...ENERGY. Maybe is a "vibratory" thing? Maybe EVERYTHING is a part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM...my current (pun intended) canditate for the Grand Unified Field.

It seems as though your definition of Spirit and of Universe are very similar. Is this intentional?
Yes...since I am proposing that its all the same thing, except operating at different frequences -- but through similar forces and processes -- so that they perform different FUNCTIONS of the Entity we call the Universe.

I don't have it "pinned down"...but I like to believe I'm getting closer.

sage

Jun14-03, 01:57 AM

TO IACCHUS,
I'm not saying there isn't a need for knowing these things, but for me I'm more concerned with my own experience and the quality of the "state" of my mind. There's a big difference in approach here, especially if the mind becomes the means by which to ascertain that which is "spiritual

I appreciate your point of view. But how do you know your mind is not leading you astray? We are not objective impersonal observers in search of the truth, we are very much a part and parcel of the universe subject to its laws and especially those of evolution as WE ARE LIVING BEINGS. What if our ‘gut feeling’ is not true? Our emotions, instincts and inclination is fashioned so that we ‘want’ to cling on to an illusion which though not true increases our chances of survival. Do you get what I mean? If believing in an illusion makes the members of a species more likely to survive through tough times then evolution will inexorably lead them to the point when the members of that species can’t help but believe that their illusions are true. What if that is exactly what happened to us and especially to us because we have brains capable of thinking logically and hence capable of finding out some truths that will be detrimental to our survival. It is possible but did it happen?
my conclusion is that it did. We live with at least two illusions that we can’t shake off. One is GOD, the omnipotent Father who looks after us and gives us strength to overcome the hardest of challenges. This is specifically human illusion seen in no other animals. The other one is SELF. The word I induces in all of us the feeling of specialty, of uniqueness and exclusivity. I EXIST, I HAVE A PURPOSE TO FULFILL, IT IS ALWAYS I AND THE ‘REST’. Think how useful it is. Because we are special and because we always have unfinished business we fight death and disease till the end. And this gives us an added zest to our ‘flight and fight’ response that just might be enough to deliver us out of danger. And because we are reluctant to accept that this SELF is temporary we construct spirits and souls to make it eternal. And not only this because we are social organisms we extend this sense of exclusivity to the entire society. WE ARE ALL GODS CHILDREN, GOD-THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE THE ULTIMATE SOUCE OF ALL I’s AND WE ARE HERE TO FULFILL HIS PURPOSE. Thus finally the cycle of illusion is complete. Evolution thus creates a blind spot for our logical brain, it simply fails convince us against our illusion. The illusion of self is too entrenched to get rid of(it is there even in the great apes pointing to how ancient it is). The illusion of god is not so deep. At least some people(the atheists) can make a logical argument against it. But I believe that if they ever experience potentially traumatic or life threatening situations(God forbid) they will all pray (perhaps silently) to God for deliverence. This is not because they want to, it is because they can’t help it. And this is true for all of us.
I want to be proved wrong. Can you do it?
TO GASPAR
It is thought to be -- or, should I say, PERHAPS MAY BE -- a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of EVERYTHING THAT IS.
is there a difference between the universal consciousness you speak of and the consciousness that we humans experience? Since according to you there exists a seminal conscious in all matter a table should be as conscious as a person. Since that is not so I conclude that this seminal consciousness is something altogether different from the feeling of consciousness that we humans have. Let us call these two different levels of consciousness as C1 and C2 . C1 being the universal consciousness present in all matter and C2 the special consciousness that we humans experience.
Now that we have established the difference between the two, my second question is are C1 and C2 related? And if so how? Remember C2 exists in only humans and C1 exists in all matter. You will have to explain why this is so.

Finally I would like to point out consciousness(C2) are a necessary point of discussion when debating about the existence of spirit(/soul). Because it is claimed that the existence of the spirit explains consciousness(C2) which can never be explained through science alone. By trying to show that consciousness(C2) can indeed be explained through science I have nullified the case for the existence of spirit(/soul).
The question whether a sort of seminal consciousness exists in all matter(electrons, protons, neutrons etc.) is a different matter altogether. One thing is certain though, consciousness(C2) can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone and hence there is no need for us to think there exists a soul within us. That is of course until evidence to the contrary comes our way.

I am poorly informed about theology. But I have always thought human spirit is thought of something that is ELEMENTAL i.e IT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER. BUT BY INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS TO EVERY ELECTRON AND PROTON IN THIS UNIVERSE YOU ARE SEEMING TO INTRODUCE ATOMISATION IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION. SUPPOSE THERE EXISTS A TABLE IN OUR WORLD, SINCE IT IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUS ATOMS EACH ATOM HAS A COUNTERPART IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION AND HENCE THE TABLE HAS A SPIRIT COMPOSED OF THE SPIRITS OF ALL THE ATOMS IT CONTAINS. IF THE TABLE IS BROKEN INTO TWO ITS SPIRITUAL COUNTERPART ALSO BREAKS IN TWO, IF IT IS PAINTED RED THE SPIRIT TABLE IS ALSO COATED WITH THE SPIRITS OF ATOMS OF THAT RED PAINT ETC. ETC. ETC. IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? HOPEFULLY NOT.

Iacchus32

Jun14-03, 06:38 AM

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS, I appreciate your point of view. But how do you know your mind is not leading you astray? We are not objective impersonal observers in search of the truth, we are very much a part and parcel of the universe subject to its laws and especially those of evolution as WE ARE LIVING BEINGS. What if our ‘gut feeling’ is not true? Our emotions, instincts and inclination is fashioned so that we ‘want’ to cling on to an illusion which though not true increases our chances of survival. Do you get what I mean? If believing in an illusion makes the members of a species more likely to survive through tough times then evolution will inexorably lead them to the point when the members of that species can’t help but believe that their illusions are true. What if that is exactly what happened to us and especially to us because we have brains capable of thinking logically and hence capable of finding out some truths that will be detrimental to our survival. It is possible but did it happen?
I see what you mean...tho I generally put it differently when speaking to an individual is depressed. I acknowledge that we may be "making everything up"...but then encourage them to "make up something" that EMPOWERS them!

This is what you say we, as a species, are doing "instinctively" when we pin our hopes to "God" or a "savior son". But playing Devil's Advocates (since I don't believe in "God" as the commonly held concept -- nor in the "savior son" -- let me say that there may be ANOTHER "reason" why cultures all over the Earth -- and why even ATHEISTS PRAY when at death's door -- is that there MAY BE an "inner knowing" built in.

I'm not saying this is true...only something to CONSIDER.

I myself prefer to "believe in" a "living, conscious Universe that's responsive to all of Its parts...where inherent forces, processes and ingredients are at play in a "cause & effect" way. Thus, I can further believe that INTENTION (a force) can CAUSE "things" to manifest...and this is what "empowers" ME.

If we're making it all up anyway...what not make up something that supports our inclination to ACT on our own behalf...to "save OURSELVES"?

...We live with at least two illusions that we can’t shake off. One is GOD, the omnipotent Father who looks after us and gives us strength to overcome the hardest of challenges. This is specifically human illusion seen in no other animals.
As I've said, this may be an "inner knowing" OR...a grasping at straws. And, how do YOU know what "illusions" animals hold? My pets think I'm the Center of the Universe...no matter what I say to convince them otherwise!

The other (illusion) is SELF. The word I induces in all of us the feeling of specialty, of uniqueness and exclusivity. I EXIST, I HAVE A PURPOSE TO FULFILL, IT IS ALWAYS I AND THE ‘REST’. Think how useful it is. Because we are special and because we always have unfinished business we fight death and disease till the end. And this gives us an added zest to our ‘flight and fight’ response that just might be enough to deliver us out of danger.
Another good point. But let us not be TOO "inclusive" here. I personally don't exactly hold to the notion that "God" -- or even the Universe -- has given me a "purpose to fulfill". I believe I get to choose these for myself...then enlists the support of the Universe to create opportunties (via my INTENTION). If I'm "special" it is because of qualities I -- or my "spirit" -- has ACCRETED over time that promotes a certain way of being that EARNS me my "specialness" (vis a vis "others").

You point about "flight and fight" is a little shakey, however. I've seen BUGS run for cover from US...and I don't think it's because they believe they have "unfinished business".

And because we are reluctant to accept that this SELF is temporary we construct spirits and souls to make it eternal. And not only this because we are social organisms we extend this sense of exclusivity to the entire society. WE ARE ALL GODS CHILDREN, GOD-THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE THE ULTIMATE SOUCE OF ALL I’s AND WE ARE HERE TO FULFILL HIS PURPOSE.
As I've said, don't include all of "us" in your "we" (wee?) theory.

It's like Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when the Lone Ranger shouted, "Looks like this is the end, Tonto, we're surrounded by Indians!!" and Tonto replies: "What you me 'WE', White Man!"

So, what you mean WE, White Man...or Woman of any color?

My belief is that the Universe is "out to have an Experience"...a real complex one, which includes the lives of Everything It gives rise to. Thus, all "we" need to do is to "have an experience" or two...to "fulfill our purpose".

If, however, It's "purpose" is to EVOLVE...then, perhaps we're supposed to contribute to the process.

Thus finally the cycle of illusion is complete. Evolution thus creates a blind spot for our logical brain, it simply fails convince us against our illusion. The illusion of self is too entrenched to get rid of(it is there even in the great apes pointing to how ancient it is). The illusion of god is not so deep. At least some people(the atheists) can make a logical argument against it. But I believe that if they ever experience potentially traumatic or life threatening situations(God forbid) they will all pray (perhaps silently) to God for deliverence. This is not because they want to, it is because they can’t help it. And this is true for all of us. I want to be proved wrong. Can you do it?

Iacchus...I think he's talking to YOU. Sorry for evesdropping.

TO GASPAR
At last...

...is there a difference between the universal consciousness you speak of and the consciousness that we humans experience? Since according to you there exists a seminal conscious in all matter a table should be as conscious as a person.
Not AS conscious, no. There's a complexity issue...but we're still talking about AWARENESS...of "self"...of "other"...of "context"...of "experience"...of "meaning".

Since that is not so I conclude that this seminal consciousness is something altogether different from the feeling of consciousness that we humans have. Let us call these two different levels of consciousness as C1 and C2 . C1 being the universal consciousness present in all matter and C2 the special consciousness that we humans experience.
Now that we have established the difference between the two, my second question is are C1 and C2 related? And if so how? Remember C2 exists in only humans and C1 exists in all matter. You will have to explain why this is so.
Just as elementary particles are the "building blocks" of atoms, and atoms are the building blocks of molecules, etc., etc....AND...just as there are "forces" in the physical Universe (like gravity)...
...I -- and others -- speculate that there may be "elementary particles" of CONSCIOUSNESSS that ACCRETE via (de facto) "forces" similar to gravity.

Gonna get to the rest of your post. I'm afraid of being disconnected...or going over my limit in characters...and I'd hate to have to recreate my responses thus far.

Stay tuned. [8)]

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by sage
[QUOTE]Finally I would like to point out consciousness(C2) are a necessary point of discussion when debating about the existence of spirit(/soul). Because it is claimed that the existence of the spirit explains consciousness(C2) which can never be explained through science alone. By trying to show that consciousness(C2) can indeed be explained through science I have nullified the case for the existence of spirit(/soul).
I have never said that the "existence of the spirit explains consciousness". You see, I am not so "sure" about "spirit" as I am about CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, I'm pretty sure there's consciousness in -- if not OF -- the Universe; as to "spirit"...it's only through deduction than observation.

Still, I'll grant you that, if there IS "spirit" it would "require" consciousness IF its "agenda" was to PROCESS INFORMATION and EVOLVE. (more questions than answers, as you see).

And whether spirit or consciousness will ever be "proved" by science doesn't "nullify" a thing.

The question whether a sort of seminal consciousness exists in all matter(electrons, protons, neutrons etc.) is a different matter altogether. One thing is certain though, consciousness(C2) can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone and hence there is no need for us to think there exists a soul within us. That is of course until evidence to the contrary comes our way.
First, I don't think that consciousness "can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone." Aux contraire. But that's another thread.

As to THIS thread, we're discussing the "nature of spirit"...should spirit EXIST. As I've said, it is via deductive reasoning that I've come to the POSSIBILITY that spirit exists...but I do not have time this Sunday morning to go into it in any way that would satisfy YOU ...or MYSELF, for that matter.

I am poorly informed about theology. But I have always thought human spirit is thought of something that is ELEMENTAL i.e IT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER. BUT BY INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS TO EVERY ELECTRON AND PROTON IN THIS UNIVERSE YOU ARE SEEMING TO INTRODUCE ATOMISATION IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION. SUPPOSE THERE EXISTS A TABLE IN OUR WORLD, SINCE IT IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUS ATOMS EACH ATOM HAS A COUNTERPART IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION AND HENCE THE TABLE HAS A SPIRIT COMPOSED OF THE SPIRITS OF ALL THE ATOMS IT CONTAINS. IF THE TABLE IS BROKEN INTO TWO ITS SPIRITUAL COUNTERPART ALSO BREAKS IN TWO, IF IT IS PAINTED RED THE SPIRIT TABLE IS ALSO COATED WITH THE SPIRITS OF ATOMS OF THAT RED PAINT ETC. ETC. ETC. IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? HOPEFULLY NOT.
You're "meshing" the physical and spiritual (and probably conscious) "planes". My view is that spirit and consciousness would be NOT CONFINED to the physical, thus able to "hold together" even if we EXPLODED a human body. I see spirit and consciousness more like TWO DISTINCT -- tho intertwined -- NETWORKS that are parts of LARGER networks.

Thus, the consiousness or spirit of a "table" is/are connected to OTHER similar systems that remain so even after the table is blown to smithereens!

I would have to say a lot more to convince you, I'm sure. But keep challenging my "assumptions" (tho I prefer to think of them as "propositions") because it's my INTENTION on these threads to "gather my thoughts" about such matters and to find ways of EXPRESSING them clearly.

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]You wont believe how complicated that issue can get - especially with both Manuel_Silvio and me debating it. ..

If you're at all interested in this, you should see the last few pages of "I think therefore I am".
Done...but life's so short.

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32

I give a fairly lengthy reply to M. Gaspar in the thread, The Philosophical God (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889), which might add something here? [/B]

Iachhus: How do you send people to posts within threads? Also, to other links?

Mentat

Jun15-03, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yes...just as a bowl and a reservoir can be explained as something that holds water.

If you wish to relate the brain to a bowl (considering it just a "container" of consciousness), then you must except the consequences of the analogy, one of which is that, the bigger the vessel, the more "conscious" the being.

I think there may be the "substances" of "spirit" and "consciousness" in every part of the "substance" of "physicality"...all of which, is fundamentally is made of the same "stuff"...ENERGY.

Dear friend, you have used a lot of quotation marks here, and rightly so - as you are using a lot of "key words".

You use the term "substance" and "physicality" in quotation marks, because you are not thinking of the common conception of these things. So, what is your take on "physical" things? After all, we are not in the realm of science, as you yourself admitted.

Maybe is a "vibratory" thing? Maybe EVERYTHING is a part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM...my current (pun intended) canditate for the Grand Unified Field.

While there are scientific reasons why this is not the case, we are not in the realm of science, so feel free to speculate. [:)]

Yes...since I am proposing that its all the same thing, except operating at different frequences -- but through similar forces and processes -- so that they perform different FUNCTIONS of the Entity we call the Universe.

Well, you've succeeded in thoroughly confusing me. What is it exactly that you are saying (forgive my mental slowness)?

Mentat

Jun15-03, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Iachhus: How do you send people to posts within threads? Also, to other links?

Would you mind if I answered that (though it wasn't directed at me)?

There is an icon (above the area where you type your response) that is labelled "http://". If you click it, a box will pop up, and allow you to first label the link that you are posting, and then (after pressing "Enter") to enter the address of the link that you have just labelled.

Iacchus32

Jun15-03, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Would you mind if I answered that (though it wasn't directed at me)?

There is an icon (above the area where you type your response) that is labelled "http://". If you click it, a box will pop up, and allow you to first label the link that you are posting, and then (after pressing "Enter") to enter the address of the link that you have just labelled. Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889 ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor accross either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it? [;)]

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
If you wish to relate the brain to a bowl (considering it just a "container" of consciousness), then you must except the consequences of the analogy, one of which is that, the bigger the vessel, the more "conscious" the being.
Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

Well, you've succeeded in thoroughly confusing me. What is it exactly that you are saying (forgive my mental slowness)?
It is the half-baked-ness of my ideas and my inability to express them that are the culprits here, and not any deficit on your part whatsoever. These threads are really forcing my hand...and I appreciate any corrective information that is offered.

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Before I go too far on this little speculative journey, what would you ask ...or suggest?

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889 ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor accross either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it? [;)]
I'm scared!

Maybe some day...

Mentat

Jun15-03, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Hmm. Well, there are a couple of problems (well, you knew I'd say it, didn't you? Sometimes I really hate being me [:((]). The problems are:

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious entity.

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.

Iacchus32

Jun15-03, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm scared!

Maybe some day... Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!

Royce

Jun15-03, 08:45 PM

M. Gaspar,
You asked a while ago what I thought. I apolagize for the late response, a lot has been going on for me and haven't had the time to spend here that I normally do. I do see that this thread has not gone so far afield that my response would now be irrelevant.
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?
Good question. Processing...

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.
Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious Entity.
I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.
Well, except for the electrochemical question, the hurdles weren't that daunting...at least I didn't land on my face.

Your spelling is correct...except I haven't found any "bad news" so far...tho you may yet turn out to be the "BARER" of "Bad Ideas" (mine! ) We'll see.

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!
You have no idea how intimidated I am by what you're proposing. Apparently, I can only grasp MACRO-concepts like the Secrets of the Universe. The Secrets of the Physics Forum ...is another story.

This is my answer to bunji jumping...so I'll try it in the morning. (Don't push! [8)] )

Iacchus32

Jun15-03, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.
I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations. [:)]

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.

M. Gaspar

Jun15-03, 10:18 PM

maximus

Jun15-03, 10:23 PM

i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)

maximus

Jun15-03, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Royce
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.

seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.

Iacchus32

Jun15-03, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)
From the thread, Purpose and Consciousness (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2264) ...

Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...

Is consciousness an isolated thing? Or, is it really universal? And how is it possible that mankind, through his ability of cognizance, capable of knowing all these Universal Laws pertaining to it? Are we putting the cart before the horse here? If not, then how it is it possible for a Universe without purpose, and hence cognizance, and all the laws that go with it, capable of producing such a creature that is capable of "experiencing it?" ... Are you telling me that something rises out of nothing here?

Whereas just as we all have a mother and a father in an "earthly sense," why can't we all be children of the Universe, which in fact is the origin of consciousness? While I can assure you mankind is not the origin of consciousnes, but rather "its receptacle."

Royce

Jun16-03, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[B]I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations. [:)]
_________________________

I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

_________________________

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.
_________________________

In a word, Life, another, Knowing. Maybe experience life and/or knowing itself is it's purpose.

_________________________

seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.
_________________________

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by with out fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

Mentat

Jun16-03, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Good question. Processing...

Take your time. It's actually a good quality that one doesn't just blurt out the first answer that comes them (which is a problem that I sometimes have).

Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

Hmm. A couple of flaws here too. The first flaw is a scientific one - you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).

I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.

Mentat

Jun16-03, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware).

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Royce
I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by with out fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

If it is a NATURAL PROPERTY of an Entity to DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC..then that's what it DOES!

If it is a natural property of the Universe to have It's moving parts assemble and re-assemble in certain ways...then that's what it DOES!

If there are natural forces, processes and ingredients in the Universe -- NOT "bestowed upon It by a Great & Holy Outsider" -- that cause pure energy to "freeze down" into elementary particles...then to join up to form a variety of atoms...then join up to form molecules...that re-assemble to form Tiger Woods -- then that's what the Universe DOES.

AND, if a natural ingredient/process/force is INTENTION ...and if intention ACTS UPON other ingredients/processes/forces by influencing the "lynchpin" of "randomness" (causing certain things to happen and not others) ...if all these things are natural processes of the Universe , then that's what It's going to DO!

If the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang had an INTENTION to RE-CREATE sentient beings within Its "body" -- as It has in every incarnation I would venture -- then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!

Mentat

Jun16-03, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Royce:
I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

Not that it's really important to the thread at hand, but that is definitely not what Philosophy is, good buddy Royce. I started a thread on what Philosophy really is, but I don't have time to search for it right now. If you wish to search for it, it's called "What Philosophy IS and what it IS NOT".

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.

Well, I could reply with the Scientific reasoning, and show that it is in fact very likely for this - or some very similar - series of events to take place, but I wont go into that (unless you really want to).

The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?

"Why" is not a scientific question, and thus cannot be answered in the realm of science (nor does science ever even attempt to answer "why" questions). So, you are allowed to assign whatever "reason" you wish to assign, but science (as a whole) remains agnostic on that point.

It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by with out fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?

Why do you think someone needed to make them? Think of this, if spacetime is infinite, then an infinite amount of sub-universes could come into existence, so one of them was bound to be like ours is (in fact, the probability of it's coming into existence is 100%). Thus, it is no surprise that the Universe is the way it is.

btw, the Universe may not even really be logical (see my thread, "A Universe without Logic").

Mentat

Jun16-03, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!

It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".

maximus

Jun16-03, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by with out fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

in responce to this i will state my position in this importance question:
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existance. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! [;)] )

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completly out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.

Iacchus32

Jun16-03, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware). Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

sage

Jun16-03, 01:05 PM

2 pages in 24 hours[8)] this thread is racing. will post some replies after another 24 hours. till then speculate anything you want to.

Mentat

Jun16-03, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind?

I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.

And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind?

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.

And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?"

Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).

Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process.

Iacchus32

Jun16-03, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.Thanks for acknowledging at least that much. [;)]

No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.So if we were all of the "same mind," it wouldn't pose a problem now would it?

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.And yet each brain cell must be a receptive to "metaphyisical properties" as well.

Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.Are you sure you don't mean metaphysical?

Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).And yet each organization is comprised of a group of "individual cells" (people) so to speak.

Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process. A biological process of what? The mind? (or brain).

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
...you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).
Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.

Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

When you say "we are a sub-universe"...are you talking about human beings...or this incarnation of the Universe? If the former, then you are being more poetic than scientific...if the latter, then the term is not quite right. I would use the term "successive" when describing the "life cycle" of the Universe.

For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

Also, I do not see how it follows that if the whole Universe is conscious, then recombinations cannot take place. As I have said, the Universe "reshuffles the deck" with every Big Bang...then consciousness (as well as physicality and, perhaps, spirit) re-assembled into something new.

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).
When did I say that there is any point in time when there is NOT a Universe? If the Universe is eternal, then It always exists in some form...either expanding outward, collapsing inward, or as a momentary singularity twixt incarnations.

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.
Perhaps...but I think not. I think we are conscious sub-systems of a conscious macro-system...made up of a lot of micro-systems.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.
I do not posit -- nor believe -- that there are multi-universes. There is only ONE (IMO) and this is It.

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".
There is no internal contradiction in my position on this matter: IMO, the Universe -- not an "Outsider" -- has the INTENTION that MAKES THINGS HAPPEN...and also, the Universe was not "created" by an "Outsider" -- but RE-CREATES ITSELF over and over again.

Aliens didn't build the pyramids -- and "God" didn't create the Universe -- IM[a)] .

maximus

Jun16-03, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.
Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.

For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

what would be the purpose for a higher concious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a concious in the universe, don't you imply that this concious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a concious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this concious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image?

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by maximus
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existance. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! [;)] )
There is nothing "special" about this time or place...or us, for that matter...except, perhaps, that we are AMONG the "beings" that the Universe has given rise to (via Its INTENTION to do so) that has reached sufficient complexity to form languages to discuss the Source of our beingness.

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.
For some reason, I do not find this a very "satisfying" theory. Can't say why at the moment.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.
Yes, we're a very imaginative species that loves to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them! Still, I think there must be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to speculations.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completly out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.
Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM[8)] -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.

maximus

Jun16-03, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM[8)] -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.

well, know we must wonder, what is this experience? what is its significance?

there is another way to approach the subject. it is: we have no purpose. we are the byproduct of the random functioning of a machine-like universe that was created for no reasons other than chance. this, though depressing to humans, is a perfecty logical and expanitory idea. humans, for reasons i will not go into (unless you ask) wants certain things to be true. we don't want to be alone. we don't like the impersonality of such a system. but is science personal? no. an experiment will perform and perform and never once will hint to you of a greater power. there is no magic that we have found. we can find nothing in the universe that hints at anything of this power, but our imagination and natural human nature. these have other explanations though.

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"
The "mind" is not a "receptacle"...its a GENERATOR.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?
And who's to say that God is not a macaroon? LOL (I love my own jokes [:D]) I can buy that we are each a facet of the Mind of the Universe...I just don't like to call the Universe "God". Maybe you can help me understand why I have this aversion.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"
Now I think you might be brushing up against Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields"...and I'm not "ready" to send you to a link, despite your -- and others' -- great efforts to assist me informationally. Anyhow, a Google search will get you there.

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.
Well put.

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.
ooooo...I don't like the word "metaphysical" ...and yet, when I look it up, it's EXACTLY RIGHT!!! "Metaphysics": The branch of philosphy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe (cosmology). "Metaphysical": Based on speculative or abstract reasoning...too abstract...excessively subtle...SUPERNATURAL." Ah...there's the rub! It's a loaded word...but you're using it correctly, so I bow to your verbiage!

M. Gaspar

Jun16-03, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by maximus
any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.
With all due respect -- and I mean that sincerely -- there are a LOT of things we do not "observe" -- AND -- "pure speculation" is why I'm here. Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

what would be the purpose for a higher concious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a concious in the universe, don't you imply that this concious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a concious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this concious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image? [/B]Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents. In fact, I once toyed with the idea of designing a T-shirt that reads:

AGENT OF THE UNIVERSE!

How many would you like?

maximus

Jun16-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.

Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents.

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it?

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by maximus
your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.
In my view, nothin' comes from nothin'..."there's ENERGY in them thar vacuums", bunky...from whence your baryonic matter has condensed out! "Matter" -- as you "know"? -- is "simply" BOUND-UP ENERGY.

I may be wrong, but...When stars are big enough -- and they burn up all their hydrogen -- do they not collapse in on themselves...then EXPLODE ...leaving behind a Black Hole...which, when combined/collapsed with all other Black Holes over the course of the lifetime of the Universe, MIGHT be that which causes Everything That Is to condence down into a SINGULARITY which might be HOT ENOUGH -- i.e., ENERGETIC ENOUGH -- to burst outward? Who knows? [?]

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it? [/B]
The whole "purpose" of reincarnation -- for us and for the Universe -- is to have multiple NEW experiences...not the same one over and over. You ask "what experience might this be?" and I reply "No specifically designated experience. Just whatever experiences individuals cause via their intentions and actions ... to include falling in love, being rejected, crashing a car, building a telescope, having a baby, shooting your neighbor, clipping your toenails, and so forth."

Mostly, however, I believe it is the EMOTIONAL CONTENT of our experiences that the Universe is "interested in"...as this MIGHT be the "currency" of the "spirit"...what the spirit STORES/REMEMBERS over lifetimes.

What would YOU do, Maximus, if you were a complex and sentient Entity on the magnitude of the Universe? Just sit there knowing everything and doing nothing?

This is how I have come to postulate that the Universe is "out to have an Experience".

maximus

Jun17-03, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What would YOU do, Maximus, if you were a complex and sentient Entity on the magnitude of the Universe? Just sit there knowing everything and doing nothing?

This is how I have come to postulate that the Universe is "out to have an Experience".

well, if one knows everything than it's knid of pointless to do anything, becuase you would know exactly what would happen. also, before this entity created the universe, what was there to know? nothing! so you therefore are telling me that this entity designed this universe to have an experience through humans that it could not have had anyways? a new experience for it? something it didn't know?

sage

Jun17-03, 01:25 PM

i am posting an outdated reply.

[/quote] You point about "flight and fight" is a little shaky, however. I've seen BUGS run for cover from US...and I don't think it's because they believe they have "unfinished business".[/quote]
no because they cannot think lacking a logically endowed brain. A beetle is a ready-made creature, its behavior is completely programmed by its genes. It cannot learn from the environment. This is true for all insects, and mostly true for amphibians, fishes and reptiles. But the absolutism of preprogrammed genetic control decreases with increasing brain complexity until we come upon certain birds and mammals capable of showing considerable learning skills. needless to say that logical part of the brain with its inherent capability to learn from the environment has attained maximum complexity in humans. So our genes has produced a brain whose responses to external stimuli is not preprogrammed, but learned. But as responses are learned by our powerful logical brain it may be possible under certain circumstances that the learned responses are actually harmful for the existence of the individual. Indeed this is commonly seen in depressed people with suicidal tendencies. So some checks and balances have to be built in within the system so that responses that increase the chances of survival for the individual(or society) are selected by our brain irrespective of the logic behind it. It is here that the feelings of specialty and purpose makes us choose only those courses of action that help us as an individual or as a group survive for one more day. In short it boils down to this- people do not want to die today though they know that death is inevitable because evolution has taken care that such thoughts never enter our minds. Such checks are only there because we can think for ourselves which a beetle cannot do.
My belief is that the Universe is "out to have an Experience"...a real complex one, which includes the lives of Everything It gives rise to. Thus, all "we" need to do is to "have an experience" or two...to "fulfill our purpose".
so you see that your ideas gives humans speciality(by assigning that consciousness felt by us is a fundamental property of the universe and thus in a sense the universe is some sort of conscious life form like us) and also a purpose. So yes the we is all inclusive.
Iacchus...I think he's talking to YOU. Sorry for evesdropping.
no, no. you are welcome.
I'm pretty sure there's consciousness in -- if not OF -- the Universe; as to "spirit"...it's only through deduction than observation
I still not see how you are ‘sure’ about the existence of universal consciousness. Anyway how did you deduce there is a spirit?
[/quote] And whether spirit or consciousness will ever be "proved" by science doesn't "nullify" a thing.[/quote]
or whether existence of an unicorn will ever be proved by science doesn’t nullify a thing. If spirit does exist and can interact with the physical world it must leave its signatures behind that can be picked up by science. If we can find neutrinos, we can find spirits if they exist in our world.
First, I don't think that consciousness "can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone." Aux contraire. But that's another thread
how about “consciousness-defined in science?” thread
[/quote] You're "meshing" the physical and spiritual (and probably conscious) "planes". My view is that spirit and consciousness would be NOT CONFINED to the physical, thus able to "hold together" even if we EXPLODED a human body. I see spirit and consciousness more like TWO DISTINCT -- tho intertwined -- NETWORKS that are parts of LARGER networks.

Thus, the consiousness or spirit of a "table" is/are connected to OTHER similar systems that remain so even after the table is blown to smithereens![/quote]
but a table is made from wood which came from a tree. This tree is made of carbon which was made in nucleosynthesis within a star from hydrogen. This hydrogen came from primordial post big bang soup. So if the changes in form experienced by physical entities are not mirrored in the spirit world then the entities in the spirit dimension must be frozen into the shape it acquired directly after the big bang. There will be no evolution, everything would be static-a drab dimension indeed.
This quote is from iacchus
[/quote] Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...[/quote]
many amongst you seem to believe that purpose and consciousness cannot originate from situ. It had to be there all along. But this is simply not true. Consciousness is an effect of the processes occurring within our complex brain. So it is a form of complexity. Can complexity arise out of simplicity. here we must first define what complexity is. Any system that has a lesser entropy than another system is more complex than the latter. So the question boils down to this- can a system progress from a state of higher to lower entropy. The answer is it can under certain conditions. Such processes are called self-organization and is today a leading field of research. Everyday you see processes of self-organisation. Thus the structure of a hurricane is much more complex than the things from which it arose. Life, consciousness etc. are sophisticated examples of such processes of self-organization.

Mentat

Jun17-03, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There is no internal contradiction in my position on this matter: IMO, the Universe -- not an "Outsider" -- has the INTENTION that MAKES THINGS HAPPEN...and also, the Universe was not "created" by an "Outsider" -- but RE-CREATES ITSELF over and over again.

Aliens didn't build the pyramids -- and "God" didn't create the Universe -- IM[a)] .

But you have one problem here (which I have attempted to point out before): Something cannot create itself. It is contradictory and paradoxical to even state "I created myself". Can you see why?

Mentat

Jun17-03, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live.

And saying that the Universe has the intention of our existence in all of it's reincarnations isn't implying that we were intended to live in this Universe (and thus, logically, the Universe would have to make itself suitable to our needs)?

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by maximus
well, if one knows everything than it's knid of pointless to do anything, becuase you would know exactly what would happen. also, before this entity created the universe, what was there to know? nothing! so you therefore are telling me that this entity designed this universe to have an experience through humans that it could not have had anyways? a new experience for it? something it didn't know?

First off, you seem "stuck" in a paradigm wherein the Universe is created by an outside entity. I am saying that the Universe IS the Entity...and in each of Its incarnations It creates a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE for Itself.

All that this Entity -- the Universe -- would "know" is what has gone before...NOT what It can create in the future via Its naturual processes. This is because the inherent feature of "randomness" in the "body" of the Universe causes "things" (physical, conscious and spiritual) to come together in ways never before experienced by the Universe.

The "point" of having an "experience" to to learn something new...perhaps about ONESELF!

I am not so interested in your "buying" what I'm "selling"...but only that I am communicating it well enough so that you "get" what I'm saying. So far I'm doing a lousy job, apparently.

Please tell me what you think I'm saying so that I can tell you if you're right. Only after you understand what I'm saying can you argue with my speculations.

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
But you have one problem here (which I have attempted to point out before): Something cannot create itself. It is contradictory and paradoxical to even state "I created myself". Can you see why?
"Eternity" is "illogical" then because, by definition, an Entity that is eternal has no beginning nor an end.

So what I'm saying is that the Universe RE -creates Itself with every incarnation that "begins" with the Primal Singularity which "explodes" (mixing Its ingredients -- physical, mental and spiritual) in what we call a Big Bang, then expands -- while creating "things" which It -- the Universe -- never created before.

Paradoxical? Not a problem (for me).

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And saying that the Universe has the intention of our existence in all of it's reincarnations isn't implying that we were intended to live in this Universe (and thus, logically, the Universe would have to make itself suitable to our needs)?
Not OUR existence...NO. The existence of ANY complex, coherent system that comes out of whatever conditions the Universe creates each time around!

It's not about US per se...it's about whatever manifests via natural processes to serve the function of having an experience.

Also: We are not alone. [8)]

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 03:07 PM

Sage:

Later.

Mentat

Jun17-03, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Eternity" is "illogical" then because, by definition, an Entity that is eternal has no beginning nor an end.

I didn't say it was illogical for something to have no beginning or end. I said it is illogical (and thus impossible) for something to create itself.

So what I'm saying is that the Universe RE -creates Itself with every incarnation that "begins" with the Primal Singularity which "explodes" (mixing Its ingredients -- physical, mental and spiritual) in what we call a Big Bang, then expands -- while creating "things" which It -- the Universe -- never created before.

But you are still postulating that something can create (or re-create) itself. This is illogical for the following reasons:

1) For something to create something, it (the creating entity) has to exist.

2) For something to be created, it cannot have existed before.

If something were to create itself, then it would have to exist before it started existing (according to the above reasoning), which is an illogical proposition.

Paradoxical? Not a problem (for me).

Actually, paradox spells death for any postulation.

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say it was illogical for something to have no beginning or end. I said it is illogical (and thus impossible) for something to create itself.
I know what you said. And then there's what I said.

But you are still postulating that something can create (or re-create) itself. This is illogical for the following reasons:

1) For something to create something, it (the creating entity) has to exist.

2) For something to be created, it cannot have existed before.

If something were to create itself, then it would have to exist before it started existing (according to the above reasoning), which is an illogical proposition.

Actually, paradox spells death for any postulation.

"Et tu, Mentat? Then die, Gaspar!"

Perhaps I am being figurative...perhaps not. Let's take another look at what I'm saying:

First, we have to situate ourselves within the paradigm that the Unverse is (1) eternal and (2) that It traverses eternity by expanding and contracting Itself from one incarnation to another.

Now, in fact (ha,ha,ha ) even tho we are talking about many incarnations, we are really only talking about ONE ENTITY.

Nonetheless, when I say the Universe RE-CREATES Itself, I am saying that EACH INCARNATION is a RE-CREATION of Itself.

Of course, my postulation may be WRONG...but it is very much ALIVE!

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, paradox spells death for any postulation.
Tell that to the particle/wave photon.[:))]

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by sage
You point about "flight and fight" is a little shaky, however. I've seen BUGS run for cover from US...and I don't think it's because they believe they have "unfinished business"... no because they cannot think lacking a logically endowed brain. A beetle is a ready-made creature, its behavior is completely programmed by its genes. It cannot learn from the environment. This is true for all insects, and mostly true for amphibians, fishes and reptiles.
I do not agree with your assessment of the consciousness of lower life forms. Maybe they can't learn -- or can't learn much -- but they can RESPOND to stimuli -- like the sight of me lumbering (to them I'm "lumbering"; actually I'm quite graceful) toward them -- then they run for cover (like many humans do when they see me). Am I going to be able to prove to you that dragonflies are conscious...or that elementary particles themselves are conscious, too? Nope. So I think we've got a stalemate here, Sage, when it comes to our respective paradigms. Still, I'll continue with my response to your post...

But the absolutism of preprogrammed genetic control decreases with increasing brain complexity until we come upon certain birds and mammals capable of showing considerable learning skills. needless to say that logical part of the brain with its inherent capability to learn from the environment has attained maximum complexity in humans. So our genes has produced a brain whose responses to external stimuli is not preprogrammed, but learned. But as responses are learned by our powerful logical brain it may be possible under certain circumstances that the learned responses are actually harmful for the existence of the individual. Indeed this is commonly seen in depressed people with suicidal tendencies. So some checks and balances have to be built in within the system so that responses that increase the chances of survival for the individual(or society) are selected by our brain irrespective of the logic behind it.
And who, per chance, "inserted" the "checks and balances" of which you speak? Are you saying that this is, like other things, part of the process of natural selection? That those whose minds "told them" that they are "special" or "not alone" survived while those who saw themselves as "common" and "isolated" did not? This seems a bit far-fetched to me, too...but I guess not any more "far-fetched" than my OWN ideas about what's going on.

It is here that the feelings of specialty and purpose makes us choose only those courses of action that help us as an individual or as a group survive for one more day. In short it boils down to this- people do not want to die today though they know that death is inevitable because evolution has taken care that such thoughts never enter our minds. Such checks are only there because we can think for ourselves which a beetle cannot do.
We will never know what a beetle knows...so let's leave it at that.

So you see that your ideas gives humans speciality(by assigning that consciousness felt by us is a fundamental property of the universe and thus in a sense the universe is some sort of conscious life form like us) and also a purpose. So yes the we is all inclusive.
Do I think we're "special"? Yes and no. IMO, the Universe -- as a Primal Singularity -- had an INTENTION to give rise -- over time -- to sentient beings...and, a few billion years later, here we are. But I doubt if "we" are alone. And, if it handn't given rise to "us"
it would have given rise to some OTHER sentient beings.

Now, before I go further, I would like to make a distinction between consciousness and sentience...as I am using them in this thread: "consciousness", I propose, is inherent in every piece --or large system of -- baryonic matter (organic or not) which might be called BASIC SELF-AWARENSS while "sentience" as I'm using the word in this post refers to a COMPLEX SYSTEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS that includes AWARENESS OF "OTHERS" and of "CONTEXT"...among other things.

In actuality, Webster's dictionary makes no such distinction. I'm just "defining my terms" for the sake of this discussion.

I still not see how you are ‘sure’ about the existence of universal consciousness. Anyway how did you deduce there is a spirit?
I'm not "sure" of anything. However, this is an excellent question which I need to tackle off-line, so as to take the time to re-assemble the thinking that brought be to my ideas about consciousness. As to the existence of "spirit"...I'm less "sure" about this...but I will share my deductions once I reconstruct them. Thanks for asking.

In fact, I will have to do the same for the rest of your post...as there is too much to address in an off-handed way.

maximus

Jun17-03, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
First off, you seem "stuck" in a paradigm wherein the Universe is created by an outside entity. I am saying that the Universe IS the Entity...and in each of Its incarnations It creates a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE for Itself.

but as mentat said this is highly illogical and wrong.an entity cannot create itself.

All that this Entity -- the Universe -- would "know" is what has gone before...NOT what It can create in the future via Its naturual processes. This is because the inherent feature of "randomness" in the "body" of the Universe causes "things" (physical, conscious and spiritual) to come together in ways never before experienced by the Universe.

this is not well thought out. what you're saying is that it created a universe with all the laws of physics and universal properites that we observe here, only to leave the creation of humanity (or the other being that may have risen)to chance? this might be an awful waste of time. our creation wasn't garanteed by the universe, we are here by pure luck. (who's luck though, i wonder?)

another issue: this being must have infinite powers if it is able to create the intire universe. where is the limit to these powers? the laws of physics which it itself layed down at the begining of one of these universes? so its like the old 'can god microwave a burrito so hot, he could not eat it?' question. this being created a universe in which it can have no active part in, other than observation (the gaining of "experience"), yet the universal propeties were layed down by it.

or would one conclude that there are certain laws of physics that are beyond the universe, that are necesaryto have for a universe to funtion.

this must be the case becuase this being had certain inherant properties before there ever was a universe. proporties such as: yearning (for experience). knowledge (of how to go about begining a universe). the understanding of priciples such as experience itself (which is a meaningless word if there is no time or passage of event it therefore manifested a knowledges of something when there was nothing-which is paradoxial)

and there is yet another thing i would like to add: you say that each time the universe is 'rebounded' or restarted by this entity, that a different line of events will take place (or it'd have no new experiences). does it change the initial universal configurations every time?

maximus

Jun17-03, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Tell that to the particle/wave photon.[:))]

this is an incorrect analogy. the duality of EMwaves is not a paradox, so just don't understand it well enough. (no offence meant)

M. Gaspar

Jun17-03, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by maximus
this is an incorrect analogy. the duality of EMwaves is not a paradox, so just don't understand it well enough. (no offence meant)

No offense taken. Will seek a paradox elsewhere.

Meanwhile, I do not have the STAMINA to respond to your prior post...at the moment. However, check you PM.

M. Gaspar

Jun18-03, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by maximus
...but as mentat said this is highly illogical and wrong.an entity cannot create itself.
I have responded to Mentat thusly: if the Universe is truly "eternal", then It has no beginning nor end. However, IMO, it has a series of "lifetimes" that "begin" just "prior to" each Big Bang (when the Universe is a Singularity ...condenses down from Its FORMER INCARNATION).

So, when I say that the Universe RE-creates Itself, I am speaking of every incarnation that "begins" at the moment of each Big Bang, and continues for maybe 30-or-so billion years until it condences down into a Singularity again.

Now, I am fully aware that current cosmological theories have the Universe EXPANDING forever. But I do not hold to this position. Either black holes will "eat up" everything in between and "join forces" so to speak, to cause the Great Collapse...OR..."Dark Energy" will cause the Universe to expand to a point where It (the Universe) cools down so much that a PHASE TRANSITION will take place, turning "Dark Energy" into "Dark Matter" (or some such thing) whereby GRAVITY will do what gravity does and CAUSE the Big Crunch...i.e, the "end" of each incarnation.

Do I expect you -- or many others -- to believe me above established cosmologists. No I do not. However, you are young enough to remember that you heard it here first when cosmologists "get it right" sometime down the road.

Meanwhile, I cannot continue to write and rewrite my above position on this matter (dark or otherwise). Tho I'll be happy to entertain whatever objections you may have to what I have written.

this is not well thought out.
I hope you're kidding...all I DO is think (and ACT).

...what you're saying is that it created a universe with all the laws of physics and universal properites that we observe here, only to leave the creation of humanity (or the other being that may have risen)to chance? this might be an awful waste of time. our creation wasn't garanteed by the universe, we are here by pure luck. (who's luck though, i wonder?)
I am saying that the inherent "property" of "randomness" in the Universe may SEEM like "chance" HOWEVER...there's ANOTHER "property" of the Universe -- i.e., INTENTION -- that 'impinges" on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" CAUSING one "potentiality" to manifest over OTHER potentialities.

And whose intention are we talking about anyway? Why, the Being that is the Universe...and any "under-beings" (like us) that It gives rise to.

Please re-read the above and see whether or not I have given this sufficient thought.

...another issue: this being must have infinite powers if it is able to create the intire universe. where is the limit to these powers? the laws of physics which it itself layed down at the begining of one of these universes? so its like the old 'can god microwave a burrito so hot, he could not eat it?' question. this being created a universe in which it can have no active part in, other than observation (the gaining of "experience"), yet the universal propeties were layed down by it.
And "who" is the "it" of which you speak?????????

I am saying that the Universe ITSELF has certain natural, inherent properties....forces, processes and ingredients. Now, do these things operate differently in each of the Universe's incarnations: I don't know. I tend to think that the laws of physics are PART of the "body" of the Universe in each incarnation...that gravity, for instance, is always at play, brining baryonic matter together. Likewise, whatever forces are at play with consciousness (and spirit, if spirit exists) in this incarnation are at play in all others. One can "shuffle the deck" but still play with the same "deck of cards".

But please, when responding to MY posts, stop referring to an "it" that "gave" the Universe certain qualities...because this is inconsistent with my basic paradigm.

...or would one conclude that there are certain laws of physics that are beyond the universe, that are necesaryto have for a universe to funtion.
I believe I've just answered this...EXCEPT that there is NO "BEYOND the Universe".

... this must be the case becuase this being had certain inherant properties before there ever was a universe. proporties such as: yearning (for experience). knowledge (of how to go about begining a universe). the understanding of priciples such as experience itself (which is a meaningless word if there is no time or passage of event it therefore manifested a knowledges of something when there was nothing-which is paradoxial) If there is "yearning"...the Universe yearns. If there is "knowledge"...the Universe acquires it. If there is "understanding"...then the Universe understands. There is no paradox because there is no time when "there was nothing"...if, indeed, the Universe is ETERNAL.

...and there is yet another thing i would like to add: you say that each time the universe is 'rebounded' or restarted by this entity,
No, no, no...no "other" entity...the Universe IS the Entity! Please get this piece of my paradigm...even if you don't AGREE with it. Otherwise, we will continue to chase our tails...and I'm getting dizzy!

... that a different line of events will take place (or it'd have no new experiences). does it change the initial universal configurations every time?
Yes, if you're referring to the "laws of physics" and the like...these remain the same (in my view)...however, they could change ALSO. The main thing is that the EXPERIENCES of each incarnation are different from all other incarnations. That is the point...of EXISTENCE ... IM[o)].

What a workout! Thanks.

Royce

Jun18-03, 11:08 AM

I know that this has been said before in other threads; but, I think that it bears repeat now at this point. This is where the uncertainty principle comes in to play. It is the thing that "suffles the deck" continuously so that there is no determinism in the universe in this incarnation or any other. With the uncertainty principle firmly in place along with the other physical laws nothing is predetermined or known other that the one constant of this or any universe, CHANGE. Everything is always changing.

(How that for a scientific absolute![:))] )

maximus

Jun18-03, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I have responded to Mentat thusly: if the Universe is truly "eternal", then It has no beginning nor end. However, IMO, it has a series of "lifetimes" that "begin" just "prior to" each Big Bang (when the Universe is a Singularity ...condenses down from Its FORMER INCARNATION).

and when did this eternal cycle begin? and who began that? if you're saying that each universe may not be eternal, but the cycle of changing universes are that makes more sence, but goes a little against common experience. wouldn't at some point there have to be a begining?

So, when I say that the Universe RE-creates Itself, I am speaking of every incarnation that "begins" at the moment of each Big Bang, and continues for maybe 30-or-so billion years until it condences down into a Singularity again.

again, you should question the 'bounce-back' idea. if a being existed (even if that being was the concious universe)that could infringe upon the laws of physics, sure it could be possible. but current ideas say that the universe cannot bounce-back from a singularity. it might if it was unable to collapse intirely, and only became very dence, then exploded. but once you collapse to singularity, there is little hope of reincarnation. time will come to an end. and even if it does collapse down-not to a singularity-but to a dence 'bouncable' state (which i believe was shown to be impossible) how could the laws of physics change every time, as you said they might. (at least the initial configurations of the universe)

Do I expect you -- or many others -- to believe me above established cosmologists. No I do not. However, you are young enough to remember that you heard it here first when cosmologists "get it right" sometime down the road.

i'll remember that.

I am saying that the inherent "property" of "randomness" in the Universe may SEEM like "chance" HOWEVER...there's ANOTHER "property" of the Universe -- i.e., INTENTION -- that 'impinges" on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" CAUSING one "potentiality" to manifest over OTHER potentialities.

and can the intention of the concious universe (i.e., the intention to have an experience) override the laws of physics? (by which i mean probobility and randomness) (and QM, which depends greatly on the others mentioned)

And whose intention are we talking about anyway? Why, the Being that is the Universe...and any "under-beings" (like us) that It gives rise to.

so we are the manifestation of an intention to have an experience. so the universe is using us?

I am saying that the Universe ITSELF has certain natural, inherent properties....forces, processes and ingredients. Now, do these things operate differently in each of the Universe's incarnations: I don't know. I tend to think that the laws of physics are PART of the "body" of the Universe in each incarnation...that gravity, for instance, is always at play, brining baryonic matter together. Likewise, whatever forces are at play with consciousness (and spirit, if spirit exists) in this incarnation are at play in all others. One can "shuffle the deck" but still play with the same "deck of cards".

so the universe has only one set of the laws of science that can produce beings like us(beings able to have experience). but how does the universe being know? how can it (i don't know what else to call it) know that in a differently organized universe, other creatures might not evolve (or whatever other process there would be in this other universe). might it be missing out on a new experience?

But please, when responding to MY posts, stop referring to an "it" that "gave" the Universe certain qualities...because this is inconsistent with my basic paradigm.

what else would you have me call it? i understand the concept that this entity is inherrent in the universe, but i would call the universe 'it' also.

I believe I've just answered this...EXCEPT that there is NO "BEYOND the Universe".

so time and the universe (or cycle of universes) is eternal. this is the only other explanation.

and anyways, there must be a beyond to each specific universe. are you saying that the universe we currently reside in is infinite in size? there must be a boundary and beyond that is nothing. (no space time)

If there is "yearning"...the Universe yearns. If there is "knowledge"...the Universe acquires it. If there is "understanding"...then the Universe understands. There is no paradox because there is no time when "there was nothing"...if, indeed, the Universe is ETERNAL.

i take this to mean the cycle of univeres is eternal. not this specific one.

and you are commiting the subjective error, how can there be yearning or understanding in a place or time without any events (i.e., before the first incarnation)?

No, no, no...no "other" entity...the Universe IS the Entity! Please get this piece of my paradigm...even if you don't AGREE with it. Otherwise, we will continue to chase our tails...and I'm getting dizzy!

i got it.

Yes, if you're referring to the "laws of physics" and the like...these remain the same (in my view)...however, they could change ALSO. The main thing is that the EXPERIENCES of each incarnation are different from all other incarnations. That is the point...of EXISTENCE ... IM[o)].

theoretically, in a cycle of universes infite in time wouldn't eventually you run out of experiences? (i.e., everything that could ever happen in probobility would happen)

************

in conclusion let us gather together that which i believe we agree upon or is inescapably true:

1) the universe entity cannot have created inself. this is paradoxial. therefore, the only other explanation is that the being never had a moment of creation and that the cycle of universes is infinite. (at least infite in negative time) (by which i mean it has an infitie past, and may or may not end one day)

2) we are the subsystems of the universe, with which the entity wants to have an experience. (term experience, or example of experience has yet to be given, M. Gaspar)

3) the entity has the ability to infringe upon the laws of physics (possibly the only explanation for the 'bounce-back' effect.

4) the goal of the entity-universe is to have an ambigious experience. (supposedly a different one everytime, and cannot expect what will happen in each incarnation)

maximus

Jun18-03, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Royce
I know that this has been said before in other threads; but, I think that it bears repeat now at this point. This is where the uncertainty principle comes in to play. It is the thing that "suffles the deck" continuously so that there is no determinism in the universe in this incarnation or any other. With the uncertainty principle firmly in place along with the other physical laws nothing is predetermined or known other that the one constant of this or any universe, CHANGE. Everything is always changing.

(How that for a scientific absolute![:))] )

this does not hold true if

a) the entity-universe can change the laws of physics (including probobility)

or b) in a universe or universal cycle that is infinite in space or time

sage

Jun18-03, 12:41 PM

this is certainly the most interesting thread i have been to yet.lets rate it so that more logical(or illogical) beings participate in it.
gaspar what are the things that your hypothesis can explain which our current hypothesis of non-conscious universe cannot.
will give a fuller reply later.

Iacchus32

Jun18-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by maximus
1) the universe entity cannot have created inself. this is paradoxial. therefore, the only other explanation is that the being never had a moment of creation and that the cycle of universes is infinite. (at least infite in negative time) (by which i mean it has an infitie past, and may or may not end one day)And yet what is existence, if not a state of "coming into being" or, a state that "always was and always will be?"

What if the only "true singularity" were God, by which everything else "springs forth?"

M. Gaspar

Jun18-03, 01:24 PM

M. Gaspar

Jun18-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What if the only "true singularity" were God, by which everything else "springs forth?"

Then I'd be out of business!

(...'cause I made it my business to promote the Universe as the SINGULAR living, conscious, eternal and self-perpetuating Being.)

maximus

Jun18-03, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what is existence, if not a state of "coming into being" or, a state that "always was and always will be?"

What if the only "true singularity" were God, by which everything else "springs forth?"

you are using beautiful words to mask meaningless concepts. existance is what we're going through right now. the universe exists. a concious being cannot create inself, end of story. (unless you can prove me wrong of course) if the being "always was and always will be" than it is more likely. this eternal bounce-back theory of the universe is dependant on: a) a being than exist at least somewhat out of the universe (or at least is not physical) (which in its own right is impossible), otherwise it would be destroyed in the singluratity of one of the universe's collapse. (i.e., time comes to an end, so the being cannot make a choice or a change) and b) an eternal (at least eternal in the direction of the past) cycle of universe. thus, illiminating the paradox of a being creating itself.

maximus

Jun18-03, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by sage
this is certainly the most interesting thread i have been to yet.lets rate it so that more logical(or illogical) beings participate in it.

are you complimenting us by calling us logical beings and wishing more like us would come, or are you insulting us by wishing that beings who are more logical than us would come?

Royce

Jun18-03, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Then we AGREE...right? [a)]

See PM

Yes, at least in part and so far as possibilities go.
In principle we agree and we are not the only ones who speculate in this possibility. See John Gribbin's "In the Beginning"

Iacchus32

Jun19-03, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by maximus
you are using beautiful words to mask meaningless concepts. existance is what we're going through right now. the universe exists. a concious being cannot create inself, end of story. (unless you can prove me wrong of course) if the being "always was and always will be" than it is more likely. this eternal bounce-back theory of the universe is dependant on: a) a being than exist at least somewhat out of the universe (or at least is not physical) (which in its own right is impossible), otherwise it would be destroyed in the singluratity of one of the universe's collapse. (i.e., time comes to an end, so the being cannot make a choice or a change) and b) an eternal (at least eternal in the direction of the past) cycle of universe. thus, illiminating the paradox of a being creating itself. But haven't you heard there were angels in heaven man? If you understood this, would that make a difference? While I understand the spiritual realm (dimension) does not conceive of time and space, but rather "changes of state," as they (angels) are a reflection of our inner-most thoughts and feelings.

M. Gaspar

Jun19-03, 07:44 AM

sage

Jun19-03, 12:10 PM

Now we have ‘sentience’? Have it your way gaspar. what I am saying is simple. There is no need to hark back to some mysterious preexisting sentience(/consciousness) to explain the sentience in humans. This can be explained by evolution. Given this what is interesting is the fact humans who are sentient and having possession of logical faculties have an emotional urge to invent the existence of a powerful sentient being ,who invariably is either the universe or its creator, and thereby wish to create an illusion of specialty and purpose to their own existence. I tried to show that this urge for a specific set of illusions is there again because of evolution as they confer distinct evolutionary advantage to sentient beings possessing a logical brain. I have explained why in my previous post and I need not go into that. You have correctly felt that most other animals do not have such illusions and yet they show effective fight and flight response. To this I replied that this is because their responses are preprogrammed by genes and they cannot learn new responses or behavior as a logical sentient animal like human can. As a result there remains a possibility that we can under unusual circumstances ‘unlearn’ our fight and flight response systems that are so vital for our existence. Thus evolution has led to the growth of certain illogical illusions in us to delimit our logical capabilities in spheres that are harmful to our existence. Thus even if through a logical exercise we can show that we are not special and hence have no purpose, we will not understand what it implies and we will continue our lives ‘as if’ we are special and do have a purpose because evolution has designed us in that way.

Now let’s look at your objections. I do not agree with your assessment of the consciousness of lower life forms. Maybe they can't learn -- or can't learn much -- but they can RESPOND to stimuli -- like the sight of me lumbering (to them I'm "lumbering"; actually I'm quite graceful) toward them -- then they run for cover (like many humans do when they see me).
Every living thing can respond to stimuli. What is different is that the majority of life forms cannot change their responses or behavior by learning from the environment. Their responses are predictable-hardwired into their genes and will not change until the genes mutate. In a certain experiment an egg of a Siberian crane was kept in a hens nest. The mother hen dutifully reared and protected the chick even though it was twice her size. This is not due to unselfish maternal love-she couldn’t recognize that it was not her chick! It is programmed in her genes to rear a chick that came from an egg in her clutch and she did not have the brain to do anything else. And this limitation is exploited by certain birds who lay their eggs in other birds’ nests. And do not think that the latter class of birds are cleverer, it is just that through evolution the behavior of laying eggs in other bird’s nest has been hard-wired into their genes. Humans on the other hand have been given(by evolution) the rare ability to modify their behavior according to the environment. This is extra-genetic behavioral modification which we call learning. Surely the beetles do not have this. So they do not need illusions to keep at bay some of its potentially harmful consequences.
Are you saying that this is, like other things, part of the process of natural selection? That those whose minds "told them" that they are "special" or "not alone" survived while those who saw themselves as "common" and "isolated" did not?
BINGO!!!
This seems a bit far-fetched to me,
why?
We will never know what a beetle knows
I gave you an illustration about the thinking capabilities of hens. Do not find any reason to think that beetles are better endowed.
Do I think we're "special"? Yes and no. IMO, the Universe -- as a Primal Singularity -- had an INTENTION to give rise -- over time -- to sentient beings...and, a few billion years later, here we are
even if the universe has no intention the possibility of formation of sentient beings and of life itself were quite good, the laws of physics being what they are. If you ask why they are so, I will retort ‘why not’ and if that does not satisfy you I will point you towards anthropic principle as maximus has done- we are where we are because our little corner satisfies the conditions for us to exist-not that it means our corner was specially meant for us; that would be like saying there is philosophical significance in the fact that all rainforests are in the tropics and all glaciers are at the poles.
I'm not "sure" of anything. However, this is an excellent question which I need to tackle off-line, so as to take the time to re-assemble the thinking that brought be to my ideas about consciousness. As to the existence of "spirit"...I'm less "sure" about this...but I will share my deductions once I reconstruct them. Thanks for asking.
I will be waiting eagerly.
Here are a few bits of my points that you did not reply to.
If spirit does exist and can interact with the physical world it must leave its signatures behind that can be picked up by science. If we can find neutrinos, we can find spirits if they exist in our world and
Thus, the consiousness or spirit of a "table" is/are connected to OTHER similar systems that remain so even after the table is blown to smithereens!
but a table is made from wood which came from a tree. This tree is made of carbon which was made in nucleosynthesis within a star from hydrogen. This hydrogen came from primordial post big bang soup. So if the changes in form experienced by physical entities are not mirrored in the spirit world then the entities in the spirit dimension must be frozen into the shape it acquired directly after the big bang. There will be no evolution, everything would be static-a drab dimension indeed.
thought they were relevant to the current discussion.
I have stated before and I say again your hypothesis is consistent. But is such a grandiose idea necessary? What’s wrong with the simpler idea that there was no consciousness anywhere before sentient beings like us arose due to evolution(granting a few alien species who would have risen the same way and perhaps may rise in future). Why build a castle when a hut is good enough? Here my earlier reply may be helpful-
many amongst you seem to believe that purpose and consciousness cannot originate from situ. It had to be there all along. But this is simply not true. Consciousness is an effect of the processes occurring within our complex brain. So it is a form of complexity. Can complexity arise out of simplicity. here we must first define what complexity is. Any system that has a lesser entropy than another system is more complex than the latter. So the question boils down to this- can a system progress from a state of higher to lower entropy. The answer is it can under certain conditions. Such processes are called self-organization and is today a leading field of research. Everyday you see processes of self-organisation. Thus the structure of a hurricane is much more complex than the things from which it arose. Life, consciousness etc. are sophisticated examples of such processes of self-organization.
will elaborate if you insist.

M. Gaspar

Jun19-03, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by sage
i am posting an outdated reply.
Me too.

...but a table is made from wood which came from a tree. This tree is made of carbon which was made in nucleosynthesis within a star from hydrogen. This hydrogen came from primordial post big bang soup. So if the changes in form experienced by physical entities are not mirrored in the spirit world then the entities in the spirit dimension must be frozen into the shape it acquired directly after the big bang. There will be no evolution, everything would be static-a drab dimension indeed.
I could spend an HOUR addressing this one paragraph...and might. Let's see...

Holding my feet to the fire, I am being forced by "flaming materialists" to start thinking "structure" as opposed to "function"...the latter being my wont as a right-brained creature.

Thus, I am sure you'll forgive me if the following hasn't gelled...and will offer feedback in the spirit of support, not annihilation.

I am picturing the Universe -- for the purpose of this discussion -- as being comprised of three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems. These systems are not "new" -- physicality, consciousness and spirit -- and I'm only "sure" of the first two, but include the last because it would perform one of the three FUNCTIONS I'm about to relate.

Are you with me thus far? Who's got time for this anyway?!

To continue...

Let me say BEFORE I go into the "functions" and the "structures" that my BASIC PREMISE IS: that the Universe exists to have an Experience. Now, I could spend another hour supporting this contention...but for the sake of actually getting to an ANSWER to what you have asked, why not take this as a given for awhile.

SO...the Universe is out to have an Experience...a real complex one, consisting of the "lives" of Everything that It gives rise to ...organic or not. (And let us not -- at this juncture -- get sidetracked by what constitutes life. Just let your mind flow for awhile...you can always reel/real? it back.)

SO, again, the Universe is out to have a real complex Experience -- in every of Its "incarnations"(but that's another post) -- thus, THIS is Its Primary Intention...the Primary Will (yet another post!) of the living, conscious Entity that is the Universe.

To PERFORM this feat, the Universe, in each of Its incarnations, does the following:

From the Primal Singularity (which is the Universe twixt incarnations), It "bursts forth", thereby "fragmenting out" the "components of the three systems I've mentioned.

Within each of these systems are inherent forces and processes that CAUSE a coming together again...the best known: GRAVITY...and the ACCRETION of baryonic matter. This system is the PHYSICALITY I spoke of...and its FUNCTION is to provide a (theatrical-type) "stage" (calm down: I'm being figurative) and "vehicles" (I would have said "players" but I don't want your eyes to pop [8)]).

So you get it so far: the dynamic, coherent System of PHYSICALITY serves the function of providing a setting for complex sub-systems (biological and otherwise) to arise, INTERRACT and evolve. AND, in every incarnation, this is the first "step" the Universe takes.

The second System is CONSCIOUSNESS which performs the function of receiving, processing and transmitting information. Its most fundamental "operation" is SELF-AWARENESS (present in each elementary particle) and in larger systems of physicality (biological and otherwise) might include AWARENESS of "OTHER" and of "CONTEXT" and a whole lot more.

Ya know what? I'm afraid to be disconnected and lose all this good stuff...especially since I know you're buying into EVERY WORD.

Might have to continue in the morning...as this is a lot like work. [g)]

M. Gaspar

Jun20-03, 12:13 AM

Sage:

Let me try to finish tonight so that I can address your next monster post in this lifetime.

So, you've got it so far: that PHYSICALITY provides the "setting" and "entities" to have experiences and CONSCIOUSNESS provides the information processing system.

Finally, we have "spirit" (MAYBE!) which is another dynamic, coherent System comprised of sub-systems ("Souls"???) that serve the function of MEMORY STORAGE.

Now, you have to "get" that "spirit" would ALSO be a "network"...only ONE POINT OF WHICH would "reside" in an actual specific TREE...but would ALSO INCLUDE, as part of the network, all OTHER trees.

Thus, the life experience of every tree would be stored within this network...even after the physical components of a specific tree has moved on into something else.

Likewise the "life experience" of the "self-aware" coherent system that is a specific TABLE would join with the life experiences of all OTHER tables that have gone before. (I know you're LOVING this, Sage, and can't WAIT to congratulate me for recognizing these BASIC COSMIC TRUTHS...but be patient).

So you see, the Universe is anything but "static" and "drab". Its enjoying a really complex experience of information which It remembers.

Or do you think I could be wrong? [a)]

M. Gaspar

Jun20-03, 12:18 AM

REMINDER TO SELF:

Answer Royce and Maximus in due time.

[zz)]

M. Gaspar

Jun20-03, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by sage
i am posting an outdated reply.
Finally, the outdated finale to your outdated reply...

...many amongst you seem to believe that purpose and consciousness cannot originate from situ. It had to be there all along. But this is simply not true. Consciousness is an effect of the processes occurring within our complex brain. So it is a form of complexity. Can complexity arise out of simplicity. here we must first define what complexity is. Any system that has a lesser entropy than another system is more complex than the latter. So the question boils down to this- can a system progress from a state of higher to lower entropy. The answer is it can under certain conditions. Such processes are called self-organization and is today a leading field of research. Everyday you see processes of self-organisation. Thus the structure of a hurricane is much more complex than the things from which it arose. Life, consciousness etc. are sophisticated examples of such processes of self-organization.
...and some amongst us seem to believe that something comes from nothing...yet even science affirms that a "vacuum" -- once thought to be "empty space" -- is actually RICH with POTENTIAL energy and particles.

Even the "huricane" of which you speak is "composed of" -- or is the "result of" -- whatever forces, processes and ingredients that brought it into "being". The hurricane is a dynamic, coherent tho transient system like every OTHER dynamic, coherent tho transient system (biological or otherwise)...a product/result of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of this planet ...which is ITSELF a dynamic, coherent tho transient system which is the product/result of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe.

Thus, CONSCIOUSNESS (like physicality) is, IMO, just another dynamic, coherent tho transient System of sub-systems...the product/result of natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe...among them, the FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT of "elemental" consciousness which "resides" in Everything that is.

In other words, you don't get baryonic matter without elementary particles...and you don't get consciousness without elementary "building blocks" of same.

Now, some might see that the "drive" toward "coherency" is without purpose...and it well may be. It is, however, not without FUNCTION...because you can see how this all functions to produce all that exists (past/present/future).

Now, some of us conjecture that OTHER "natural forces and processes" are "at work"...some call it "the Will of God"....and some (like myself) call it "the Primary INTENTION of the Universe".

Some of us (like YOU) don't like this idea...saying it's just "us" wanting to feel "special" and "a part of something important".

At the moment, I can't "prove" what I think and you can't "prove" what YOU think. But it makes for good discussion 'til one of us can.

M. Gaspar

Jun20-03, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by sage
Now we have ‘sentience’? Have it your way gaspar.
What could you possibly be objecting to here???

...what I am saying is simple. There is no need to hark back to some mysterious preexisting sentience(/consciousness) to explain the sentience in humans. This can be explained by evolution. Given this what is interesting is the fact humans who are sentient and having possession of logical faculties have an emotional urge to invent the existence of a powerful sentient being ,who invariably is either the universe or its creator, and thereby wish to create an illusion of specialty and purpose to their own existence. I tried to show that this urge for a specific set of illusions is there again because of evolution as they confer distinct evolutionary advantage to sentient beings possessing a logical brain[/b]. I have explained why in my previous post and I need not go into that. You have correctly felt that most other animals do not have such illusions and yet they show effective fight and flight response. To this I replied that this is because their responses are preprogrammed by genes and they cannot learn new responses or behavior as a logical sentient animal like human can. As a result there remains a possibility that we can under unusual circumstances ‘unlearn’ our fight and flight response systems that are so vital for our existence. Thus evolution has led to the growth of certain illogical illusions in us to delimit our logical capabilities in spheres that are harmful to our existence. Thus even if through a logical exercise we can show that we are not special and hence have no purpose, we will not understand what it implies and we will continue our lives ‘as if’ we are special and do have a purpose because evolution has designed us in that way.
Shall we declare an impass? It'll save space.

Now let’s look at your objections.

Every living thing can respond to stimuli. What is different is that the majority of life forms cannot change their responses or behavior by learning from the environment. Their responses are predictable-hardwired into their genes and will not change until the genes mutate. In a certain experiment an egg of a Siberian crane was kept in a hens nest. The mother hen dutifully reared and protected the chick even though it was twice her size. This is not due to unselfish maternal love-she couldn’t recognize that it was not her chick! It is programmed in her genes to rear a chick that came from an egg in her clutch and she did not have the brain to do anything else. And this limitation is exploited by certain birds who lay their eggs in other birds’ nests. And do not think that the latter class of birds are cleverer, it is just that through evolution the behavior of laying eggs in other bird’s nest has been hard-wired into their genes. Humans on the other hand have been given(by evolution) the rare ability to modify their behavior according to the environment. This is extra-genetic behavioral modification which we call learning. Surely the beetles do not have this. So they do not need illusions to keep at bay some of its potentially harmful consequences.
And I say that there are DEGREES of AWARENESS and what you call "hard-wiring" I call a certain lower level of consciousness. Making CHOICES about how one behaves would be on the "higher" end of the scale. At the lowest end might be a basic self-awareness -- as with that of an elementary particle -- so "basic" that we cannot conceive of what it might be.

BINGO!!!
Yet there are a lot of "beings" that have "survived" who do NOT think of themselves as "special" nor "a part of something grand". Your idiot birds, for example. So how does this support your beloved theory?

...even if the universe has no intention the possibility of formation of sentient beings and of life itself were quite good, the laws of physics being what they are. If you ask why they are so, I will retort ‘why not’ and if that does not satisfy you I will point you towards anthropic principle as maximus has done- we are where we are because our little corner satisfies the conditions for us to exist-not that it means our corner was specially meant for us; that would be like saying there is philosophical significance in the fact that all rainforests are in the tropics and all glaciers are at the poles.
That's right: our little corner of the Universe -- as well as many OTHER corners, no doubt -- have the right forces, processes and ingredients to give rise to life...which gives rise to the LEVEL of sentience that most recognize as such. But this does not factor out the "ingredient" or "force" or "process" of INTENTION as that which IMPINGES on POTENTIALITY via the "lynchpin" of "randomness"...thereby DRIVING certain results while overriding others.

With these speculations, I'm not looking for the "philosophical significance" as you claim. I'm looking for the philosophical equivalent of the Theory of Everything.

I will be waiting eagerly.
I trust you are satisfied.

Here are a few bits of my points that you did not reply to.
and thought they were relevant to the current discussion.

I have stated before and I say again your hypothesis is consistent. But is such a grandiose idea necessary?
What, may I ask, is "grandiose" about speculating that the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe gave given rise to certain dynamic, coherent tho transient systems -- i.e., physicality, consciousness and spirit -- for the purpose/function of the Universe having/processing/retaining an complex Experience? Huh?

What’s wrong with the simpler idea that there was no consciousness anywhere before sentient beings like us arose due to evolution(granting a few alien species who would have risen the same way and perhaps may rise in future).
'Cause it's "simple"?

Why build a castle when a hut is good enough?
'Cause I'm lookin' at a pile of bricks...not a lump of mud.

Here my earlier reply may be helpful.
It wasn't.

...will elaborate if you insist.
I won't.

sage

Jun21-03, 12:42 PM

Even the "hurricane" of which you speak is "composed of" -- or is the "result of" -- whatever forces, processes and ingredients that brought it into "being". The hurricane is a dynamic, coherent tho transient system like every OTHER dynamic, coherent tho transient system (biological or otherwise)...a product/result of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of this planet ...which is ITSELF a dynamic, coherent tho transient system which is the product/result of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe.

Thus, CONSCIOUSNESS (like physicality) is, IMO, just another dynamic, coherent tho transient System of sub-systems...the product/result of natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe...among them, the FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT of "elemental" consciousness which "resides" in Everything that is.

In other words, you don't get baryonic matter without elementary particles...and you don't get consciousness without elementary "building blocks" of same.

I am saying sentience is a physical phenomenon just like a hurricane and can be explained by interactions between baryonic matter following physical laws. There is no necessity to invoke seminal consciousness in baryonic matter to explain the emergence of sentience in humans. Consider this- a hurricane is produced by baryonic matter. Does that mean we need to assume the existence of a mysterious property called seminal ‘hurricaneness’ in elementary baryonic particles to explain how hurricanes are formed? Laws of physics are enough. Same with the emergence of ‘higher’ consciousness in humans.
Yet there are a lot of "beings" that have "survived" who do NOT think of themselves as "special" nor "a part of something grand". Your idiot birds, for example. So how does this support your beloved theory?
you didn’t get the point did you. OK let me begin again.
1) KEY SURVIVAL SYRATEGIES LIKE FLIGHT AND FIGHT RESPONSE ARE HARD-WIRED IN BOTH BEETLES, CHICKENS AND HUMAN BEINGS.
2) BEETLES AND CHICKENS CANNOT LEARN NEW RESPONSES FROM INPUTS FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENT(more for beetles than chickens)
3) HENCE THERE IS NO DANGER THAT VITAL FIGHT AND FLIGHT RESPONSES CAN BE MODIFIED(through learning from the environment) IN THESE ORGANISMS.
4) SENTIENT BEINGS LIKE HUMANS LEARN PRODIGIOUSLY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT LEADING TO CONSIDERABLE MODIFICATION OF THEIR INITIAL HARD-WIRED BEHAVIOR.
5)HENCE THERE IS A DANGER THAT HARDWIRED FIGHT-FLIGHT RESPONSE MAY BE OVERRULED BY STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.
6)THIS IS CLEARLY DISADVANTAGEOUS.
7)SO NATURAL SELECTION HAS DEVISED METHODS TO PREVENT SUCH AN OCCURANCE.
8)ILLUSIONS OF SPECIALITY AND PURPOSE ARE THESE METHODS.
9)THERE EXISTS NO SUCH DANGER FOR HENS AND BEETLES.
10)HENCE NO PREVENTIVE ILLUSIONS ARE NECESSARY.
11) ANALOGY- YOU DO NOT NEED MEDICINES UNLESS YOU ARE SICK.
Note- this is a watered down version of my idea. Just presents the rough structure of my logic so that you can understand.

I wrote. even if the universe has no intention the possibility of formation of sentient beings and of life itself were quite good, the laws of physics being what they are. If you ask why they are so, I will retort ‘why not’ and if that does not satisfy you I will point you towards anthropic principle as maximus has done- we are where we are because our little corner satisfies the conditions for us to exist-not that it means our corner was specially meant for us;
I am waiting for your reply in this specific point.
'Cause it's "simple"!
either you are saying that my idea is inconsistent or you are saying you are rejecting it because it is simple. I hope the second is not true. I always thought that simple ideas if consistent and explaining observed facts is preferred over equivalently consistent but more complicated ideas.
'Cause I'm lookin' at a pile of bricks...not a lump of mud.
no you are building bricks from thin air. You are adding two additional and as yet unobserved dimensions, postulating as yet unobserved properties of consciousness to elementary particles, arbitrarily assigning consciousness to the entire universe, saying universe has a purpose again without any evidence and stating further that this purpose is to create sentient beings like us to have ‘experiences’ and thus making the creation of sentient beings the primary goal of the universe again without any shred of evidence. I can understand such a radical proposition if the current facts do not give us any hope of a coherent explanation otherwise. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. OUR BRICKS OF SOLID FACTS GIVE US A LOGICALLY COHERENT AND A MUCH SIMPLER PICTURE. WHY NOT ACCEPT IT? YES WE SAY WE ARE IGNORANT ABOUT EVENTS BEFORE THE BIG BANG. BUT THE IGNORANCE IS COMPLETE AND ALL HYPOTHESIS REGARDING PRE-BANG EVENTS ARE EQUALLY PROBABLE . THUS A LOGICAL THEORY CAN EASILY BE MANUFACTURED THAT GIVES A FANCIFUL DESCRIPTION OF PRE-BANG EVENTS COUPLED WITH A DESCRIPTION OF POST BANG EVENTS IN CONFORMATION WITH KNOWN FACTS. SO WHY SHOULD I PREFER YOUR HYPOTHESIS RESTING ON SUCH UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTIONS TO ALL OTHERS?
A society of blind men starts disputing about colors. One feels colors are more akin to the notes of music. Another feels it is more like taste, some are sweet, some salty. Another shouts out that colors are more like smell. A fourth quips that it is a composite mixture of sound, taste and smell. They turn to the oldest of the group to resolve the dispute. He says they can think whatever they like as none really know what colors are. The situation with us is the same for us with respect to events before the big bang. So should we take recourse to so many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions just to manufacture an explanation of events which we never could understand? Or should we accept our ignorance and proceed to understand things that we do know something about? What do you think?

M. Gaspar

Jun21-03, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by sage
... So should we take recourse to so many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions just to manufacture an explanation of events which we never could understand? Or should we accept our ignorance and proceed to understand things that we do know something about? What do you think?
I think that we know about things that we didn't know before because some of us speculated about what was possible (and, at one time, unknowable) until such a time as that which was unknown and deemed unknowable became known.

My speculations do NOT come from a desire to "manufacturer an explanation". My speculations come from a desire to see if I can add anything useful to our wonderings about the Universe...something useful and "new" that -- down the road -- might be confirmed. I think that this is as productive a pre-occupation as any...certainly as productive as watching the soaps, or, worse, shooting marbles across a room to re-prove projectile motion.

I once saw a bumper sticker that read:

THE EVOLUTION OF NEW IDEAS:
1. They are ridiculed.
2. They are strenuously fought.
3. They are accepted as self-evident.

Why ridicule and fight with those of us who just want to make a contribution? We might not succeed, but how does it hurt YOU -- or the world of science -- if we try?

Will get to your other questions as time permits.

M. Gaspar

Jun22-03, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sage
I am saying sentience is a physical phenomenon just like a hurricane and can be explained by interactions between baryonic matter following physical laws. There is no necessity to invoke seminal consciousness in baryonic matter to explain the emergence of sentience in humans. Consider this- a hurricane is produced by baryonic matter. Does that mean we need to assume the existence of a mysterious property called seminal ‘hurricaneness’ in elementary baryonic particles to explain how hurricanes are formed? Laws of physics are enough. Same with the emergence of ‘higher’ consciousness in humans.
Your first sentence above is a flat-out assumption. Moving on...

A huricane is not doing MORE than a huricane does...it's just a great big physical system thats dispersing a lot of energy..doing nothing MORE than its physical components allow (like knocking over trash cans). Consciousness is a system BEYOND the physical components that "house" it...performing "tasks" that the physical components themselves could never do (like recognizing a trash can).

Chances are, you and I aren't ever going to have a meeting of the minds. Nonetheless, as a mental exercise, I shall comment on what you have written:

You didn’t get the point did you?
Nope. Was there one? (just rattling your cage [6)])

1) KEY SURVIVAL SYRATEGIES LIKE FLIGHT AND FIGHT RESPONSE ARE HARD-WIRED IN BOTH BEETLES, CHICKENS AND HUMAN BEINGS.
There was a time when these responses weren't hard-wired...when the wiring was taking place. I maintain that the wiring is an assemblage of conciousness particles that form a network. So what. [s(]

2) BEETLES AND CHICKENS CANNOT LEARN NEW RESPONSES FROM INPUTS FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENT(more for beetles than chickens)
I've seen chickens who learned to DANCE...so let's move on...

3) HENCE THERE IS NO DANGER THAT VITAL FIGHT AND FLIGHT RESPONSES CAN BE MODIFIED(through learning from the environment) IN THESE ORGANISMS.
I'll bet if you took a newly hatched chick and gave him a zap of electricity every morning when the sun came up, you'd have a pretty nervous chicken whose fight or flight response was heightened to the nth degree...hence, "modified".

4) SENTIENT BEINGS LIKE HUMANS LEARN PRODIGIOUSLY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT LEADING TO CONSIDERABLE MODIFICATION OF THEIR INITIAL HARD-WIRED BEHAVIOR.
And some of us remain REFLEXIVE to the hilt! Meanwhile, bees "learn" precisely where a new patch of flowers are from a bee that communicates direction and distance.

5)HENCE THERE IS A DANGER THAT HARDWIRED FIGHT-FLIGHT RESPONSE MAY BE OVERRULED BY STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. Uh-huh (nodding politely).

]6)THIS IS CLEARLY DISADVANTAGEOUS.
It is "disadvantageous" that a being -- when confronted by a perceived threat -- does not have at its disposal the impulse to fight or flee??? Perhaps this impulse itself is "disadvantageous" when negotiation or cooperation would be a more productive response. Hmmm?

7)SO NATURAL SELECTION HAS DEVISED METHODS TO PREVENT SUCH AN OCCURANCE.
Do tell...

8)ILLUSIONS OF SPECIALITY AND PURPOSE ARE THESE METHODS.
So, because I think I -- and the whole human race -- is "special" and "created by God for some grand purpose"...THEN, I can reserve my hard-wired reflex to run from a perceived danger...or kick the crap out of it! And, to further this thought, had I NOT come up with my illusions of "specialness" and "purpose"...when I perceived danger, I would stay and take it like a man (even tho I'm NOT one).

9)THERE EXISTS NO SUCH DANGER FOR HENS AND BEETLES.
What danger are we talking about: the butcher? your theory? my foot?

10)HENCE NO PREVENTIVE ILLUSIONS ARE NECESSARY.
Or, no "preventive illusions" are POSSIBLE...due to the LEVEL of consciousness of a chicken or beetle...which may or may NOT be capable of ABSTRACT THOUGHT...which would be needed to deliver an "illusion".

11) ANALOGY- YOU DO NOT NEED MEDICINES UNLESS YOU ARE SICK.
I am sick of non sequitors...what is the cure?

Note- this is a watered down version of my idea. Just presents the rough structure of my logic so that you can understand.
Look [8)] : I am having a sort of "flight or fight" response myself here...wanting to flee, not from "danger" but from a "painful series of posts" where neither one of us gains ground because our PARADIGMS are too INCOMPATIBLE. The other response -- the "fighting" part -- is what I have been INDULGING myself in by way of rattling your cage. I do not wish to do this either, as I respect you (I've read other of your posts on other threads that were not so contentious...and delivered good info). Also, I've been kicked around quite a bit myself (as you may have guessed...GUESSED? your boot marks are there as well). Thus, I'm GAINING COMPASSION for people with hair-brained theories...like MINE!

If we put each other on "ignore" then, in essence, we are FLEEING. If we jab at each others' ideas, we are, in essence, FIGHTING. If I consider myself "special" it's because I've compared myself to a lot of lesser lights...and humility is not my "strong suit". Have I "made up" that we're here to EVOLVE by gaining compassion over lifetimes...it's not "because God wants me to do it"....it's because I do!

Thus, while I feel bad about hurting your feelings -- or making you angry (same thing) -- I think I've made the point that "flight or fight" -- hard-wired or not -- is not necessarilly the most productive response we can have to each other.

If you put me on "ignore", let me know, so that I don't spend more time responding to the rest of your post(s).

And, by the way, for the record: 1) I am NOT saying your theory is "wrong", 2)I do not personally hold with the "illusion" that "we" are "special", 3) I don't believe in "God" as commonly conceived, hence, 4) I do not hold that "God created the Universe" nor 5)that we each have a "purpose".

Instead, I believe that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts...and that INTENTION is an inherent force/process/ingredient in the System.

So sue me. [;)]