The Heart of Reality: The Mysteries of Life

[Iacchus32]

What is life, if not that which is held internally? What is essence, if not that which is contained within form? Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well? Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that? And why are we so bound on material existence?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is life, if not that which is held internally?

You mean that which is held inside of people? That which is held on the outside of people (cells, and the like).

What is essence, if not that which is contained within form?

Is essence not of some form, on it's own?

Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well?

Perhaps is suggests this to you, but I don't even agree with the premises, so "it" can't suggest anything to me.

Why doesn't science seem to get the idea?

A scientist might ask the same thing of you. Also, I think you are using "science" as synonymous with "materialism", you really shouldn't do that. There are a lot of scientists that are not materialists.

With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

Don't you know that it doesn't? I'm not really saying that it doesn't, I'm just posing the question that exists at opposites with yours, and has equal (if not greater) credibility.

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that? And why are we so bound on material existence?

Because we are part of it.

 

[FZ+]

Well, you probably already know my stance, but I'll summarise it: Essence is the mental and virtual component of form. Life is an entirely subjective notion. Consciousness is a phenomenon emerging out of material complexity. Judgement of consciousness is based on egotistical subjectivism.

What is life, if not that which is held internally?

Well, I don't suppose you are going to argue to solipism, so I'll let this one pass. However, this does contain a route to the answer. Why can life not exist "naked"? I would say that like the singularity at the heart of a black hole, it is an effect of the form, not the cause. Being held is perhaps essential to life itself.

What is essence, if not that which is contained within form?

Notice again the dependence of essence on form. By my stance, this can of course be interpreted very differently...

Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve?

No... Not really. Because the interdependence is apparently mutual. Suppose we put for a moment life as a lesser importance than the material world. Then it is equally plausible that life is an element of the material world, or a creation of it.

And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well?

But is there that much to focus on? What is there about each man than his experiences? No. The interior is hollow, only a background ambience of old genetic instincts persist. Even in our dreams, the material is from without.

Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

Do you know? Science seeks material knowledge. That is the essence, so to speak, of it's existence. That is not science's failing, but that this limit is it's virtue. Our understanding of the truth has changed. We have observed that there is no longer that one true book, or god, but a strident voyage that is important. Science is never about the goal, but the journey. The answers YOU seek may well never be found. As to what lies beyond material existence, science doesn't actually give a damn.

 

[BoulderHead]

Iacchus32,

Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

I hear this frequently and while I would like to know the mystery to our existence as much as anyone, to me it is like asking;

Why doesnt't Political science seem to get the idea?
or
Why doesn't Dentistry seem to get the idea?
or
Why doesn't civil engineering seem to get the idea?

My question is;
Why does everyone seem think science is supposed to concern itself with such ideas in the first place, and if you already that the heart of reality exists within us then what do you need science for?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
You mean that which is held inside of people? That which is held on the outside of people (cells, and the like).

Anything that's living exists "within context" of an external shell or form. But, once that form is breeched, then that organism ceases to go on living, meaning it dies. Therefore there must be something inherent about the life which is within, as opposed to what is "readily" observable without. Whereas with human beings I would take this a step further to include cognizance, which is our ability to "know" that we exist.

Is essence not of some form, on it's own?

Essence speaks of the "internal dimensions" within the form, and hence the "life within." I don't know why this is so hard to grasp?

Perhaps is suggests this to you, but I don't even agree with the premises, so "it" can't suggest anything to me.

Isn't wisdom (essence) the interior aspect of knowledge or form?

A scientist might ask the same thing of you. Also, I think you are using "science" as synonymous with "materialism", you really shouldn't do that. There are a lot of scientists that are not materialists.

Science of its own means has very little to do with the study of life, but rather the study of that which is dead and "formal."

Don't you know that it doesn't? I'm not really saying that it doesn't, I'm just posing the question that exists at opposites with yours, and has equal (if not greater) credibility.

With science everything focuses on the brain, while neglecting the fact that we have a heart which, implies a "center to our existence." Isn't this by the way, the very first thing which is developed by the embryo, "the heart?"

Because we are part of it.

In which respect? Don't you know that although there is an "external reality" (I'm not denying this), that our experience of it is totally internal? Meaning we couldn't experience it unless we were alive? So what is it about us being alive, and hence conscious?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Iacchus32,
I hear this frequently and while I would like to know the mystery to our existence as much as anyone, to me it is like asking;

Why doesnt't Political science seem to get the idea?
or
Why doesn't Dentistry seem to get the idea?
or
Why doesn't civil engineering seem to get the idea?

My question is;
Why does everyone seem think science is supposed to concern itself with such ideas in the first place, and if you already that the heart of reality exists within us then what do you need science for?

Yes, if science is based upon finding the truth, whatever that truth might be, then why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't it concern itself with the "heart of the matter?" Hmm ... it almost sounds hypocritical now doesn't it?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, if it bases itself on finding the truth, whatever that truth might be? It almost sounds hypocritical now doesn't it?

To me, science is after truth, not Truth, if you know what I mean. I view it as a child (and I don't mean 'child' to be taken in a negative way) that is taking apart something and examining it piece by piece by piece.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
To me, science is after truth, not Truth, if you know what I mean. I view it as a child (and I don't mean 'child' to be taken in a negative way) that is taking apart something and examining it piece by piece by piece.

What is the difference so long as truth is based upon reality? Is there not also truth within Truth?

And what if Truth were the "ultimately reality?" Where would that leave science? With its thumb stuck up its rear?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

My question is;
Why does everyone seem think science is supposed to concern itself with such ideas in the first place, and if you already that the heart of reality exists within us then what do you need science for?

As with any theory, the qualitative aspects are the most difficult to predict and the most artistic. Paradox is Qualitatively adaptable to mother nature in ways linear logic is not. Any kind of theory you can think of will work with paradox precisely because it is so vague a concept. Like the discoveries of jazz music, paradoxical theories can even indicate where the future of more linear research will take us.

Never underestimate the power of art.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the difference so long as truth is based upon reality? Is there not also truth within Truth?

I view it as more mechanical than perhaps you do. If you likened it to the construction of a jigsaw puzzle then not only is it looking at the individual pieces with great care and scrutiny, but it may not be able to see the entire puzzle or even know how many pieces there are yet to be found and assembled.

And what if Truth were the "ultimately reality?" Where would that leave science? With its thumb stuck up its rear?

I think that at our present stage, science may still have its thumb in its mouth. Eventually it may alternate between the two orifices in a game of 'switch'.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As with any theory, the qualitative aspects are the most difficult to predict and the most artistic. Paradox is Qualitatively adaptable to mother nature in ways linear logic is not. Any kind of theory you can think of will work with paradox precisely because it is so vague a concept. Like the discoveries of jazz music, paradoxical theories can even indicate where the future of more linear research will take us.

Never underestimate the power of art.

Now I find myself being 'freaked out'
I have only read some of the Paradox threads, and while I admit that I 'see' paradoxes, I am not able to properly defend my reasons for this.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well, you probably already know my stance, but I'll summarise it: Essence is the mental and virtual component of form. Life is an entirely subjective notion. Consciousness is a phenomenon emerging out of material complexity. Judgement of consciousness is based on egotistical subjectivism.

Essence is by no means virtual. Without it we wouldn't exist. If life is a subjective notion, then would you say this is your objective opinion? I don't buy that.

Well, I don't suppose you are going to argue to solipism, so I'll let this one pass. However, this does contain a route to the answer. Why can life not exist "naked"? I would say that like the singularity at the heart of a black hole, it is an effect of the form, not the cause. Being held is perhaps essential to life itself.

Life cannot exist naked because it would be one big primordial soup, I suppose? While I'm not sure singularity is the correct term for anything. For a "singularity" cannot exist by itself, otherwise it would be "nothing" ... "Truth is the vessel (form) and Good is contained within (life or essence)."

Notice again the dependence of essence on form. By my stance, this can of course be interpreted very differently...

Did you know that where my senses touch reality, for example my skin, that it's made of nothing but dead skin cells? What does that suggest about external reality?

No... Not really. Because the interdependence is apparently mutual. Suppose we put for a moment life as a lesser importance than the material world. Then it is equally plausible that life is an element of the material world, or a creation of it.

Without the "inner-workings" there would be nothing to tell the "outer-workings" what to do.

But is there that much to focus on? What is there about each man than his experiences? No. The interior is hollow, only a background ambience of old genetic instincts persist. Even in our dreams, the material is from without.

In other words what you're saying is that you as an entity don't exist. Why can't science focus on the fact that "the center" (which is of the heart) is the origin?

Do you know? Science seeks material knowledge. That is the essence, so to speak, of it's existence. That is not science's failing, but that this limit is it's virtue. Our understanding of the truth has changed. We have observed that there is no longer that one true book, or god, but a strident voyage that is important. Science is never about the goal, but the journey. The answers YOU seek may well never be found. As to what lies beyond material existence, science doesn't actually give a damn.

Yes, but if science didn't claim to hold the answer to reality, whatever that might be mind you, then maybe it wouldn't be necessary to question its validity.

 

[FZ+]

Essence is by no means virtual. Without it we wouldn't exist. If life is a subjective notion, then would you say this is your objective opinion? I don't buy that.

Or so you assert. No, the life thing is my subjective conclusion, based on the idea that no one has ever come up with a reasonable definition of life, other than the statement that the speaker is always alive.

Life cannot exist naked because it would be one big primordial soup, I suppose? While I'm not sure singularity is the correct term for anything. For a "singularity" cannot exist by itself, otherwise it would be "nothing" ... "Truth is the vessel (form) and Good is contained within (life or essence)."

No. Then the soup provides the form. The essence of life is, in my view, dependent on the form. As I assert that just as a singularity cannot exist by itself, life cannot exist without form, otherwise it would be nothing. "Good" does not exist objectively, but is asigned subjectively to the form. See?

Did you know that where my senses touch reality, for example my skin, that it's made of nothing but dead skin cells? What does that suggest about external reality?

I can assure you that your nerves which provide the interface between the mind and reality are very much possessing the forms you see as alive. What is that supposed to suggest to me?

Without the "inner-workings" there would be nothing to tell the "outer-workings" what to do.

But they do it anyway. As others have said, actions have been well known to happen without thought. I don't see what you are trying to say.

In other words what you're saying is that you as an entity don't exist. Why can't science focus on the fact that "the center" (which is of the heart) is the origin?

I am saying that I as a singular entity does not exist. Rather, I am created from a collection of stored information. Without this information, which is the form, the singularity of I am nothing. There is nothing at the centre but the collection which acts as a whole.

Yes, but if science didn't claim to hold the answer to reality, whatever that might be mind you, then maybe it wouldn't be necessary to question its validity.

Science claims to hold an infinity of answers to reality. It does not however claim any of them is the absolute truth. So you needn't question it's validity, when it does not claim completeness and truth. Journey important, not destination.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I view it as more mechanical than perhaps you do. If you likened it to the construction of a jigsaw puzzle then not only is it looking at the individual pieces with great care and scrutiny, but it may not be able to see the entire puzzle or even know how many pieces there are yet to be found and assembled.

What is mechanics without the "notion" behind its operation?

I think that at our present stage, science may still have its thumb in its mouth. Eventually it may alternate between the two orifices in a game of 'switch'.

I don't know, there are a lot of people out there with their PHD's. Piled higher and deeper you know.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is mechanics without the "notion" behind its operation?

A good place to start?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Now I find myself being 'freaked out'
I have only read some of the Paradox threads, and while I admit that I 'see' paradoxes, I am not able to properly defend my reasons for this.

Here are a few quotes from some of the masters of paradox just to help shake up your reality a little. :0)

``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between
reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''
- Richard Feynman


When paradox is widely believed, it is no longer recognized as a paradox.
-Mason Cooley


Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU, Émile ou De l'éducation, livre II
'd rather be a man of paradox than a man of prejudice.


Man, if you got to ask you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong


You dig man? Got the grove yet?

 

[BoulderHead]

Far out...and, solid...

You dig man? Got the grove yet?

I think so. The first two strike a feeling in me, thanks.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Or so you assert. No, the life thing is my subjective conclusion, based on the idea that no one has ever come up with a reasonable definition of life, other than the statement that the speaker is always alive.

The speaker is also conscious and aware of his surroundings.

No. Then the soup provides the form. The essence of life is, in my view, dependent on the form. As I assert that just as a singularity cannot exist by itself, life cannot exist without form, otherwise it would be nothing. "Good" does not exist objectively, but is asigned subjectively to the form. See?

Isn't it possible for a cloud of dust to exist, before it condenses into a ball, which we then call the earth? This would be one definition of essence giving rise to form. Whereas water falls from the sky as droplets which then gives rise to a lake. Likewise, a volcano can spew out molten magma which then gives rise to solid rock ...

I can assure you that your nerves which provide the interface between the mind and reality are very much possessing the forms you see as alive. What is that supposed to suggest to me?

What I'm saying is that everything that exists outside of "form" is dead ...

But they do it anyway. As others have said, actions have been well known to happen without thought. I don't see what you are trying to say.

Whereas if nothing existed within the form (life) it would also be dead.

I am saying that I as a singular entity does not exist. Rather, I am created from a collection of stored information. Without this information, which is the form, the singularity of I am nothing. There is nothing at the centre but the collection which acts as a whole.

Can't you just set your brain aside for a second and experience the fact that you exist?

Science claims to hold an infinity of answers to reality. It does not however claim any of them is the absolute truth. So you needn't question it's validity, when it does not claim completeness and truth. Journey important, not destination.

Well when the whole world follows suit with its answers, then yes, I do question its validity.

 

[FZ+]

What is mechanics without the "notion" behind its operation?

What is weather without the "notion" behind its operation? Weather.

What is the unknown without the nothing behind its operation? Still unknown. The notion is something applied, not something essential. Newton's first law states the possibility of constant motion without force. FZ+'s first law may do the same with will and notion?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is mechanics without the "notion" behind its operation?

Originally posted by BoulderHead
A good place to start?

But it doesn't go anywhere.

 

[FZ+]

The speaker is also conscious and aware of his surroundings.

That is how it is defined, in such personal terms. Hence a subjective notion.

Isn't it possible for a cloud of dust to exist, before it condenses into a ball, which we would then call earth? This would be one definition of essence giving rise to form. Whereas water falls from the sky as droplets which then gives rise to a lake. Likewise, a volcano can spew out molten magma which then gives rise to solid rock ...

But that is not essence. That is resource. You meant by essence what we consider important. The dust of the earth, of man is not important. The fact that it is composed of fundamental baryons and leptons is unimportant. What we consider as essence of man is life itself. And that concept is entirely virtual. What we consider as the essence of rock is it's hardness and stubbornness. These values are also entirely virtual notions. These essences you have given as examples are not held within form, but forms themselves. By this perspective, essence are simply derivative of DEEPER form.

What I'm saying is that everything that exists outside of "form" is dead ...

I still don't get it. I am saying that form is fundamental in the universe. Nothing exists without form. Form is everything.

Whereas if nothing existed within the form (life) it would also be dead.

No, I don't see that. Life is something allocated to entities, not to actions. Life, IMHO, derives from form.

Can't you just set your brain aside for a second and experience the fact that you exist?

Tough, that. But my existence is still not a fact. It is an assumption. And it is undeniable that I am a collective of parts, an example of form for which you have made essence.

Well when the whole world follows suit with its answers, then yes, I do question its validity.

Here's the funny part, there are no other answers. Nothing else gives an answer, just an ending.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
What is weather without the "notion" behind its operation? Weather.

What is the unknown without the nothing behind its operation? Still unknown. The notion is something applied, not something essential. Newton's first law states the possibility of constant motion without force. FZ+'s first law may do the same with will and notion?

And yet it's the unknown which brought everything about in the first place.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

But it doesn't go anywhere.

It goes places, but perhaps not where you would like it to go.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet it's the unknown which brought everything about in the first place.

And before it did, there was no notion of it. See?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But it doesn't go anywhere.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
It goes places, but perhaps not where you would like it to go.

If I were the one who created it I would understand where it was supposed to go.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
That is how it is defined, in such personal terms. Hence a subjective notion.

Then what you're saying is that everything is subjective, at least in human terms. So then what's the point in trying to explain anything? How could science possibly be objective then, when in fact it's run by human agency? Wherein lies the "parity check?"

But that is not essence. That is resource. You meant by essence what we consider important. The dust of the earth, of man is not important. The fact that it is composed of fundamental baryons and leptons is unimportant. What we consider as essence of man is life itself. And that concept is entirely virtual. What we consider as the essence of rock is it's hardness and stubbornness. These values are also entirely virtual notions. These essences you have given as examples are not held within form, but forms themselves. By this perspective, essence are simply derivative of DEEPER form.

Things just don't pop up by random, not without some "stirring within" to tell it to do so.

I still don't get it. I am saying that form is fundamental in the universe. Nothing exists without form. Form is everything.

I'm not saying form isn't mandatory, at least in "some form" (ha ha!), but that it only "concludes" what the essence was in the beginning. In other words, form is the effect of which the essence is "the cause."

No, I don't see that. Life is something allocated to entities, not to actions. Life, IMHO, derives from form.

Form is a means by which to "transport life," and yet it doesn't exist by its own means. It has to be derived from something.

Tough, that. But my existence is still not a fact. It is an assumption. And it is undeniable that I am a collective of parts, an example of form for which you have made essence.

Why don't I just assume you go away then? Or, why don't I assume I go away?

Here's the funny part, there are no other answers. Nothing else gives an answer, just an ending.

Well if I shoved you off the edge of a cliff, wouldn't that be the "beginning" of your ending?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
And before it did, there was no notion of it. See?

If I were a sculptor with a lump of clay in front of me, I can maintain the notion of what I wanted to create before hand. And, unless I told somebody what I intended to do, nobody would know until after it was complete.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

If I were the one who created it I would understand where it was supposed to go.

I suppose so, but neither you nor I were charged with bringing science into existence. I think it is only fair to be open to the possibility that it simply is not required to live up to any individuals idea of what it should be all about.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Anything that's living exists "within context" of an external shell or form. But, once that form is breeched, then that organism ceases to go on living, meaning it dies.

What do you mean? Let's take the epidermal cells, for example: They don't live within anything else, but they are still alive.

Essence speaks of the "internal dimensions" within the form, and hence the "life within." I don't know why this is so hard to grasp?

Perhaps because it is not a fact. It is your belief (and the belief of many people), and thus deserves respect, but it is not a demonstrable, or even provable idea. I don't see why I should have a "life within", as you speak of it.

Isn't wisdom (essence) the interior aspect of knowledge or form?

No. In fact, one would perhaps be more justified in saying that knowledge is the "interior aspect" of wisdom - as you do not require wisdom to attain knowledge, but you do require knowledge to attain to wisdom.

Science of its own means has very little to do with the study of life, but rather the study of that which is dead and "formal."

"Science studies what is dead"? Biology, Ecology, Psychology, and many other fields of Science are devoted to studying things that are alive.

With science everything focuses on the brain, while neglecting the fact that we have a heart which, implies a "center to our existence." Isn't this by the way, the very first thing which is developed by the embryo, "the heart?"

Do you mean to imply that the vascular chamber that pumps blood through my blood vessels is the "center of my existence"? This is obviously not true, even from a metaphysical standpoint.

Think about it, where do you locate yourself? You locate yourself as being in your head. The reason you locate yourself there is that that's where your eyes, ears, and nose are and those things are some of the main ways that you become aware of your surroundings. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the brain (which resides within the head, where you locate yourself) is the "center of your existence", even from a purely metaphysical standpoint (as shown here). Also, I've known a couple of people who's hearts had stopped, and yet they are still alive today. But if someone's brain were to stop, they would be dead.

In which respect? Don't you know that although there is an "external reality" (I'm not denying this), that our experience of it is totally internal? Meaning we couldn't experience it unless we were alive? So what is it about us being alive, and hence conscious?

I don't understand the question. What exactly are you asking?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
But my existence is still not a fact. It is an assumption. And it is undeniable that I am a collective of parts, an example of form for which you have made essence.

It is equally undeniable that you exist. It is an assumption that you exist as something spiritual, that exists within the physical. However, it is a fact that you exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Essential Soup

So what's the difference between a can of soup and the soup that's contained within? Truth is the vessel (conveyer of essence) and the good is contained within (experience of essence).

Please tell me which is more substantial?

Whereas we find so many truths of life piled up in landfills, with all the "spent essences" -- which is also truth or, "nonessential" -- flushed down the drain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I suppose so, but neither you nor I were charged with bringing science into existence. I think it is only fair to be open to the possibility that it simply is not required to live up to any individuals idea of what it should be all about.

Should we allow it to exist of its own accord, regardless of what others might say? Where's the responsibility in that? If in fact science does say, "The quest for truth, whatever that truth might be," then what do you think about it opening up a separate branch dedicated to the study of religion? And maybe even have it funded by the church, and yet remain independent of the church, in order to maintain impartiallity? I don't know it's just an idea?

Hey if nothing else, maybe the church might consider doing it?

 

[FZ+]

It is equally undeniable that you exist. It is an assumption that you exist as something spiritual, that exists within the physical. However, it is a fact that you exist.

Bad choice of words. It is not absolutely undeniable that I exist. It sounds pretty crazy to say I don't exist etc, but it is not absolutely true.

Please tell me which is more substantial?

Neither. Truth and good are both concepts, not realities.

Then what you're saying is that everything is subjective, at least in human terms. So then what's the point in trying to explain anything? How could science possibly be objective then, when in fact it's run by human agency? Wherein lies the "parity check?"

Science is not objective. But science tries to be objective. It does this by (a) playing off a large number of subjective opinions against each other and (b) trying to use instruments where subjectivity is less, to raise the reliability percentage. But that doesn't get it up to 100%. The point in trying to explain is that these subjective explanations are still useful, and there are degrees of subjectivity. It is better to have an explanation that is truer relative to your experience, that that which is more false.

Things just don't pop up by random, not without some "stirring within" to tell it to do so.

Or stirring without? I don't see the relevance here... Where did I say things pop up by random?

I'm not saying form isn't mandatory, at least in "some form" (ha ha!), but that it only "concludes" what the essence was in the beginning. In other words, form is the effect of which the essence is "the cause."

That is your belief. But the existence of unknown or undefined form without essence, and the lack of existence of essence without form suggests to me otherwise. If we can see no essence without form, and yet creation as we do, then I don't think there is much reason to use essence as the cause, rather than an effect.

Form is a means by which to "transport life," and yet it doesn't exist by its own means. It has to be derived from something.

How do you conclude this then? Because the opposite is to me equally plausible.

BTW, riddle me this: What is life in an objective sense?

Why don't I just assume you go away then? Or, why don't I assume I go away?

Because you don't want to? I am not saying you should. I am saying that it is still possible to. Not absolutely true.

Well if I shoved you off the edge of a cliff, wouldn't that be the "beginning" of your ending?

It wouldn't tell me anything, other than the effectiveness of gravity, I guess.

If I were a sculptor with a lump of clay in front of me, I can maintain the notion of what I wanted to create before hand. And, unless I told somebody what I intended to do, nobody would know until after it was complete.

Contradiction alert! You said that the unknown created everything. But the unknown must then have created the notion of unknown. But you say it cannot exist without the notion. So, where did the notion of unknown come from?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
What do you mean? Let's take the epidermal cells, for example: They don't live within anything else, but they are still alive.

If it's a living cell, it still has an "external membrane," as well as the "living substance" within that membrane.

Perhaps because it is not a fact. It is your belief (and the belief of many people), and thus deserves respect, but it is not a demonstrable, or even provable idea. I don't see why I should have a "life within", as you speak of it.

For the sake of clarity let's consider a can of soup. You have the can itself (form) and you have the soup within the can (essence). Which is to say everything has an essence and a form, dead, living or otherwise.

No. In fact, one would perhaps be more justified in saying that knowledge is the "interior aspect" of wisdom - as you do not require wisdom to attain knowledge, but you do require knowledge to attain to wisdom.

Ever hear the expression "All brains and no common sense?" You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is "external." And how do you recognize the knowledge or truth to anything? By "observing" its outer form (typically). Like the knowledge of an ant, or knowldege of a tree, or knowledge of a fish, etc. "Truth is the vessel (form) and the Good is contained within (essence)."

"Science studies what is dead"? Biology, Ecology, Psychology, and many other fields of Science are devoted to studying things that are alive.

It still puts science in the position of being "the observer" as opposed to being out on the "playing field." Who do you think is going to have more (direct) knowledge about the game? Of course that may be debatable as well, considering the number of "fanatics" out there?

Do you mean to imply that the vascular chamber that pumps blood through my blood vessels is the "center of my existence"? This is obviously not true, even from a metaphysical standpoint.

Yes, anything to take the focus off our brains for a bit! Whereas it's the heart that spurs the body into motion as well as allows it to regenerate itself.

Think about it, where do you locate yourself? You locate yourself as being in your head. The reason you locate yourself there is that that's where your eyes, ears, and nose are and those things are some of the main ways that you become aware of your surroundings. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the brain (which resides within the head, where you locate yourself) is the "center of your existence", even from a purely metaphysical standpoint (as shown here). Also, I've known a couple of people who's hearts had stopped, and yet they are still alive today. But if someone's brain were to stop, they would be dead.

Although my consciousness is located around my head, particularly in front of my face (my eyes), the funniest thing is that it doesn't "feel" anything. Whereas my feelings are located more so in chest, around my solar plexis (including both heart and lungs), and it's our feelings that allow us to validate and give definition to what we percieve. This is equally important. Besides, if your eyeballs were to extend out your feet, your sense of perception would probably arise from there. Ha ha!

I don't understand the question. What exactly are you asking?

The feeling of "being alive," whether it includes interaction with the outer world or not, is totally internal.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Bad choice of words. It is not absolutely undeniable that I exist. It sounds pretty crazy to say I don't exist etc, but it is not absolutely true.

Let me ask you this. At what percentage level (50%, 75%, 100%?) would it actually take for you to tell yourself to get on with it (life, etc.) and stop deliberating on it?

Neither. Truth and good are both concepts, not realities.

We have the light of the sun by which we see (truth), and we have the warmth of the sun which sustains us (good). Are these just concepts or, do they speak about the reality of the sun?

Science is not objective. But science tries to be objective. It does this by (a) playing off a large number of subjective opinions against each other and (b) trying to use instruments where subjectivity is less, to raise the reliability percentage. But that doesn't get it up to 100%. The point in trying to explain is that these subjective explanations are still useful, and there are degrees of subjectivity. It is better to have an explanation that is truer relative to your experience, that that which is more false.

Oh, the moment of truth! Yes, but how can you as a "subjective individual" acknowledge that? Sounds kind of circular doesn't it? How can you even acknowledge "the truth" about relativity then?

Or stirring without? I don't see the relevance here... Where did I say things pop up by random?

I just used this to illustrate the difference between that which is animate and that which is inanimate. Both of which have a form and essence by the way.

That is your belief. But the existence of unknown or undefined form without essence, and the lack of existence of essence without form suggests to me otherwise. If we can see no essence without form, and yet creation as we do, then I don't think there is much reason to use essence as the cause, rather than an effect.

Consider the can of soup below ...

How do you conclude this then? Because the opposite is to me equally plausible.

Consider the can of soup. The can is the "unedible" form and the soup is the essence which "nourishes." Whereas the can gets thrown into the dump and the soup gets ingested into your body as food.

BTW, riddle me this: What is life in an objective sense?

That which is observable "about life," but not life itself, which can only be experienced within.

Because you don't want to? I am not saying you should. I am saying that it is still possible to. Not absolutely true.

Hey, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever motivating myself to get up and get something to eat when I'm hungry.

It wouldn't tell me anything, other than the effectiveness of gravity, I guess.

But you would have been a witness to the cause, and possibly the effect, if you survived.

Contradiction alert! You said that the unknown created everything. But the unknown must then have created the notion of unknown. But you say it cannot exist without the notion. So, where did the notion of unknown come from?

Well let's just say you saw the sculpture in an art gallery but didn't know who the sculptor was?

 

[FZ+]

Let me ask you this. At what percentage level (50%, 75%, 100%?) would it actually take for you to tell yourself to get on with it (life, etc.) and stop deliberating on it?

I am not completely sure. But here it is not the case. While existence may or may not be true, there are some advantages to believing that I exist compared to I don't. So I make this assumption because it is useful. Hell, in places where I have to make a choice, any level greater than 50% will do. When no choice has to be made, then caution is required, and hence acknowledgment. BTW, I'm not sure you can quantify these in such a way. Kinda hard to find a reference point.

We have the light of the sun by which we see (truth), and we have the warmth of the sun which sustains us (good). Are these just concepts or, do they speak about the reality of the sun?

Concepts. As shown by the fact they are only created in virtuality. Ie warmth is only good when taken in a certain context. And truth is still an unreachable goal - the light does hide as well.

Oh, the moment of truth! Yes, but how can you as a "subjective individual" acknowledge that? Sounds kind of circular doesn't it? How can you even acknowledge "the truth" about relativity then?

Hence the disclaimer - see my sig. I feel that x is consistent with my experiences, and that to me it is more true than not true. I feel that with my data and experiences, which is the point of communication, you may find it similarly truer than the alternatives. Yes, we can extend this to infinity of relatives and subjectives. But I think this converges on this notion, than diverges into uncertainty.

I just used this to illustrate the difference between that which is animate and that which is inanimate. Both of which have a form and essence by the way.

Then animation can occur without will or notion.

Consider the can of soup. The can is the "unedible" form and the soup is the essence which "nourishes." Whereas the can gets thrown into the dump and the soup gets ingested into your body as food.

I beg to differ. The soup is also the form, a pattern of electron, mass, energy etc that give it the properties we know it for. The can and soup are both forms. The essence here is in the taste or look of the soup, which is the psychological impulses we derive via our senses. While the soup physically provides us with the patterned forms of physicality our material bodies require, our mind takes in the mental input and appends the perceived essence of the soup into our virtual tapestry of the universe.

That which is observable "about life," but not life itself, which can only be experienced within.

And the experience as a process is a solely mind virtual one, which we have within the mind. Hence life is, as being non-objective, a completely virtual, relative and subjective concept, not an actuality.

Hey, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever motivating myself to get up and get something to eat when I'm hungry.

There is very good evidence this is from your genes. Dare I say automaton?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Should we allow it to exist of its own accord, regardless of what others might say? Where's the responsibility in that?

I would simply say that I have no power to either allow, or deny, it to exist.

If in fact science does say, "The quest for truth, whatever that truth might be," then what do you think about it opening up a separate branch dedicated to the study of religion? And maybe even have it funded by the church, and yet remain independent of the church, in order to maintain impartiallity? I don't know it's just an idea?

Hey if nothing else, maybe the church might consider doing it?

Do you mean ask science to prove that there is a god? I don't think that is possible to do at this stage of human existence. Are you of the opinion that science can/could prove such a thing?

 

[Iacchus32]

A Box of Chocolates

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611" ...

Mystery can be likened unto the "living substance" or food. While history can be likened unto the wrapper it comes in, to be discarded once we partake of the mystery.

Why would you settle for the box? when you can have the chocolates instead?

Isn't that kind of what the problem is with religion? They get all caught up in the history and formality of it, while losing sight of the mystery and the essence which enlivens the soul. Whereas science steps in and takes it a step further and says, Where is the substance behind all this dead formalism? and drops the whole thing entirely deeming it unworthy to investigate.

It's too bad science can't acquire a taste for chocolates? But, that would all be in the mind of the chocoholic now wouldn't it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I would simply say that I have no power to either allow, or deny, it to exist.

Then what do you think about ethics? Shouldn't they be taken into account?

Do you mean ask science to prove that there is a god? I don't think that is possible to do at this stage of human existence. Are you of the opinion that science can/could prove such a thing?

I don't see why science can't "validate" as much as possible and then publish the results, and use that as a basis for further research. Am not sure it would be all that different from the individual who conducts his own research (as opposed to someone telling him about it) and learning how to maintain his objectivity in order to get the best results. At least this is kind of the way it happened with me, although I didn't find the need to do a lot of "extensive research." I just figured that if God existed things should happen more as a matter of course, in which case I should just pay attention (objectively) to my life as it unfolded. And sure enough, things began to happen one right after the other.

While I also discovered the "home grown" varity of God is the most potent!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I am not completely sure. But here it is not the case. While existence may or may not be true, there are some advantages to believing that I exist compared to I don't. So I make this assumption because it is useful. Hell, in places where I have to make a choice, any level greater than 50% will do. When no choice has to be made, then caution is required, and hence acknowledgment. BTW, I'm not sure you can quantify these in such a way. Kinda hard to find a reference point.

It's just a relative scale, versus being completey sure. Of course you did have to consider what it means to be completely sure now didn't you? Hope it wasn't too much of a strain!

Concepts. As shown by the fact they are only created in virtuality. Ie warmth is only good when taken in a certain context. And truth is still an unreachable goal - the light does hide as well.

Well what about within context of the sun shining down on earth, as it provides both light and warmth (sustenance).

Hence the disclaimer - see my sig. I feel that[/color] x is consistent with my experiences, and that to me it is more true than not true. I feel that[/color] with my data and experiences, which is the point of communication, you may find it similarly truer than the alternatives. Yes, we can extend this to infinity of relatives and subjectives. But I think this converges on this notion, than diverges into uncertainty.

Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

Then animation can occur without will or notion.

And here I'm speaking about the life within that animates it.

I beg to differ. The soup is also the form, a pattern of electron, mass, energy etc that give it the properties we know it for. The can and soup are both forms. The essence here is in the taste or look of the soup, which is the psychological impulses we derive via our senses. While the soup physically provides us with the patterned forms of physicality our material bodies require, our mind takes in the mental input and appends the perceived essence of the soup into our virtual tapestry of the universe.

No, if you look at it in terms of a "can of soup" (notice I'm including the can and the soup), the essence would be the soup itself. I thought this analogy might help make things easier, while bringing up the notion that the form is typcially cast aside (as unedible) and the essence is that which is consumed.

And the experience as a process is a solely mind virtual one, which we have within the mind. Hence life is, as being non-objective, a completely virtual, relative and subjective concept, not an actuality.

This almost sounds like a plausible argument for the existence of you know Who ... and where does this "virtual entity" go after the machine can no longer function?

There is very good evidence this is from your genes. Dare I say automaton?

Yes, if it was entirely a subconscious act, which it's not, although I would say with some people it gets pretty close, even me sometimes.

 

[BoulderHead]

Then what do you think about ethics? Shouldn't they be taken into account?

If you asked me if I thought science ought to start from a position of believing the universe was created I would say no. I'd rather see it start from a position of minimal assumptions and simply study the things in nature. If you mean that in fairness 'they' should try to present two pictures, one with and one with god, then I'd comment that as far as I know there already are scientists who have a belief in a creator and try to take God into account. This thing people call God seems pretty untestable to me and so barring some stumbling onto a piece of his toenail I don't know of what use science could be in this matter.

I don't see why science can't "validate" as much as possible and then publish the results, and use that as a basis for further research.

And if there was nothing it could validate would you feel satisfied or can satisfaction only come with positive results?

I just figured that if God existed things should happen more as a matter of course, in which case I should just pay attention (objectively) to my life as it unfolded. And sure enough, things began to happen one right after the other.

Why not simply take the data we already have and decide for yourself what it might mean?

While I also discovered the "home grown" varity of God is the most potent!

I had some very potent home-grown once and thought I had seen God.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
If you asked me if I thought science ought to start from a position of believing the universe was created I would say no. I'd rather see it start from a position of minimal assumptions and simply study the things in nature. If you mean that in fairness 'they' should try to present two pictures, one with and one with god, then I'd comment that as far as I know there already are scientists who have a belief in a creator and try to take God into account. This thing people call God seems pretty untestable to me and so barring some stumbling onto a piece of his toenail I don't know of what use science could be in this matter.

There's a great deal I don't know about science either, and there's a great deal I don't care to know about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (or shouldn't). Science is sort of like the prodigal son of religion anyway isn't it? In the sense that it was rebellious and wanted to go out and establish its own name? Maybe it's time for some sort of reconciliation to occur?

And if there was nothing it could validate would you feel satisfied or can satisfaction only come with positive results?

Maybe I would take up the matter myself. Probably not, I'm too lazy, although I have written a book about it already.

Why not simply take the data we already have and decide for yourself what it might mean?

Because God very tricky character. He don't always maintain same form. I think an attempt could be made to bring some of the basic tenets up to date, so that maybe even lay people could understand, I guess?

I had some very potent home-grown once and thought I had seen God.

What makes you think I was "refer"-ring to that?

Actually I had it in mind when I said it, but I only said because it seemed like the best way to put it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what's the difference between a can of soup and the soup that's contained within? Truth is the vessel (conveyer of essence) and the good is contained within (experience of essence).

Please tell me which is more substantial?

Whereas we find so many truths of life piled up in landfills, with all the "spent essences" -- which is also truth or, "nonessential" -- flushed down the drain.

So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If it's a living cell, it still has an "external membrane," as well as the "living substance" within that membrane.

Why does that matter? It is a physical entity with parts. The cell itself has things within it. That doesn't make it any less alive.

For the sake of clarity let's consider a can of soup. You have the can itself (form) and you have the soup within the can (essence). Which is to say everything has an essence and a form, dead, living or otherwise.

So soup is the essence of a soup can? What about an empty soup can? Is it now dead?

Ever hear the expression "All brains and no common sense?" You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is "external." And how do you recognize the knowledge or truth to anything? By "observing" its outer form (typically). Like the knowledge of an ant, or knowldege of a tree, or knowledge of a fish, etc. "Truth is the vessel (form) and the Good is contained within (essence)."

This may be your belief, but it is not necessarily true. Besides, you were the one who said that you needed wisdom, in order to attain to knowledge, and that wisdom was "within" knowledge. This is obviously not so, even from your (quoted) reasoning.

It still puts science in the position of being "the observer" as opposed to being out on the "playing field." Who do you think is going to have more (direct) knowledge about the game? Of course that may be debatable as well, considering the number of "fanatics" out there?

That depends. If the observer has studied the game, s/he can have even greater knowledge of it then those on the field. Besides, I don't think this illustration is very good, relative to science, because you have yet to define who it is that is "out on the playing field".

Yes, anything to take the focus off our brains for a bit! Whereas it's the heart that spurs the body into motion as well as allows it to regenerate itself.

So what? You still haven't countered my point: The brain is the center of our lives, without it we would die. You cannot get a brain transplant, but you can get a heart transplant. All the heart is good for is pumping blood. The heart would not regenerate the body if not give "orders" from the brain. Can you counter any of these arguments?

Although my consciousness is located around my head, particularly in front of my face (my eyes), the funniest thing is that it doesn't "feel" anything.

No offense, but if someone were to slap you in the face, you'd feel it.

Whereas my feelings are located more so in chest, around my solar plexis (including both heart and lungs), and it's our feelings that allow us to validate and give definition to what we percieve. This is equally important.

Where do you get these beliefs? "My feelings are located more so in my chest"? Honestly!

Almost all of the tissue that makes up your body has feeling, it has nothing to do with being located near your heart.

Besides, if your eyeballs were to extend out your feet, your sense of perception would probably arise from there. Ha ha!

You're proving my point. What I'm saying is that I will agree that the "seat of our consciousness" is in our heart when I start to see, hear, smell, and taste with it (I'm being as plain as I can be).

The feeling of "being alive," whether it includes interaction with the outer world or not, is totally internal.

What is the feeling of "being alive"?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why does that matter? It is a physical entity with parts. The cell itself has things within it. That doesn't make it any less alive.

No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

So soup is the essence of a soup can? What about an empty soup can? Is it now dead?

No, I'm saying a "can of soup," which includes both the soup and the can. Whereas once the soup is consumed, the can is practically useless (or dead), unless you have some other possible use for it.

This may be your belief, but it is not necessarily true. Besides, you were the one who said that you needed wisdom, in order to attain to knowledge[/color], and that wisdom was "within" knowledge. This is obviously not so, even from your (quoted) reasoning.

No, I don't think you read that correctly ... "You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is 'external'" ... Is this the quote you're referring to? Please read it again. Whereas knowledge amounts to nothing or, is potentially dangerous, without the wisdom to articulate it.

That depends. If the observer has studied the game, s/he can have even greater knowledge of it then those on the field. Besides, I don't think this illustration is very good, relative to science, because you have yet to define who it is that is "out on the playing field".

There's a vast difference between studying what life is about (from without) and the actual experience of life itself (which is within).

So what? You still haven't countered my point: The brain is the center of our lives, without it we would die. You cannot get a brain transplant, but you can get a heart transplant. All the heart is good for is pumping blood. The heart would not regenerate the body if not give "orders" from the brain. Can you counter any of these arguments?

Acutally I never said it wasn't and, although I think it can be viewed as the "central processor," it doesn't actually feel anything. This is what I was trying to explain about my consciousness not feeling anything (below), which I think you misunderstood.

No offense, but if someone were to slap you in the face, you'd feel it.

Am referring to my consciousness (with respect to my brain) here.

Where do you get these beliefs? "My feelings are located more so in my chest"? Honestly!

I'm speaking about my emotions here.

Almost all of the tissue that makes up your body has feeling, it has nothing to do with being located near your heart.

As for my "emotional awareness," I believe most of that arises from my heart and chest.

You're proving my point. What I'm saying is that I will agree that the "seat of our consciousness" is in our heart when I start to see, hear, smell, and taste with it (I'm being as plain as I can be).

Actually I agree that the seat of our consciousness is our mind. And yet, if we were to take our strongest sense, which is our vision, and redirect it to some other part of the body, we might get a completely different sensation.

What is the feeling of "being alive"?

What is the experience of life?

 

[FZ+]

Well what about within context of the sun shining down on earth, as it provides both light and warmth (sustenance).

Then it still isn't real, as it depends on the observer to define it. Someone who is dying of thirst would find it most evil...

Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then it still isn't real, as it depends on the observer to define it. Someone who is dying of thirst would find it most evil...

Is it no longer possible to say something in the "ideal sense" in order to get your point across?

But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

But then we have the five senses, which exist outside of the brain, and therefore "must" be concrete which, we describe as irrational? Now how rational does that sound?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

You are still talking about a physical entity. Besides, the cell is a form of the essence: atoms. They are forms of the essence: strings (please no arguments about string theory, I'm just making a point. I could have used 0d particles if I wanted to, but I like string theory better). Which of these are alive? The cell, and it is a form.

No, I'm saying a "can of soup," which includes both the soup and the can. Whereas once the soup is consumed, the can is practically useless (or dead), unless you have some other possible use for it.

Exactly, I could have some other use for it if I wanted to. Besides, you are still talking about physical entities (like soup), and so it can always be said that the soup (or whatever other physical entity you bring up) is the form of the essence: subatomic particles.

No, I don't think you read that correctly ... "You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is 'external'" ... Is this the quote you're referring to? Please read it again. Whereas knowledge amounts to nothing or, is potentially dangerous, without the wisdom to articulate it.

Still, wisdom is not the essence of knowledge, even by your own reasoning. Knowledge is still more likely to be the "essence" of wisdom, as knowledge is a pre-requisite to having wisdom.

Acutally I never said it wasn't and, although I think it can be viewed as the "central processor," it doesn't actually feel anything. This is what I was trying to explain about my consciousness not feeling anything (below), which I think you misunderstood.

But your consciousness does feel things. If not, you'd never have a conscious emotion.

Am referring to my consciousness (with respect to my brain) here.

So? Besides, your consciousness is not your brain. Your brain is what produces consciousness. You are mixing the physical and the metaphysical here.

I'm speaking about my emotions here.

But your emotions aren't processed in your chest, they are processed (and, indeed, produced) in your brain.

As for my "emotional awareness," I believe most of that arises from my heart and chest.

The most important words in this (quoted) sentence are "I believe".

Actually I agree that the seat of our consciousness is our mind. And yet, if we were to take our strongest sense, which is our vision, and redirect it to some other part of the body, we might get a completely different sensation.

No we wouldn't, the eye does one thing, and one thing only. Besides, it's not our strongest sense, it's just the one that we rely on the most heavily (and even that is debatable).

What is the experience of life?

I thought I asked you that.

 

[FZ+]

Is it no longer possible to say something in the "ideal sense" in order to get your point across?

Ideals are what I mean by virtual concepts...

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word. But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not achieve useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.
Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again...