Can the brain receive information from both material and immaterial sources?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
My statement was that every mind must be based on material grounds.

That statement is falsified if you show me an example of a mind that is not based on material grounds.

Now the only possible way to give a counter example was to show the existence of a mind, that is not based on material grounds.
But from the nature of what has to be proven, it follows, that no such example can be given, at least not in a material sense (since if it is based on material grounds, it would not fit as proof).

Hence it follows that such an example can not be given.

(the spiritual proof, I would not count as proof)

We have the outward appearance of things and we have the inward appearance of things, one of which is the manifestation of the other. Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

If we don't understand what that essence is, then we must be willing to dive into it (the subconscious) in order to find out what it means. And yes, I mean the realm of dreams and myths. Are you at all familiar with Jung's work, and the "collective unconscious?"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We have the outward appearance of things and we have the inward appearance of things, one of which is the manifestation of the other. Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

I would agree if you say that the mind is the manifestation of the working of one's brain in combination with the sensory perceptory organs.
But to extend this 'essence' of mind to other forms of material existence (for instance to Earth itself or the universe) is some drastic approach. But I can imagine one can look at it like that.

If we don't understand what that essence is, then we must be willing to dive into it (the subconscious) in order to find out what it means. And yes, I mean the realm of dreams and myths. Are you at all familiar with Jung's work, and the "collective unconscious?"

Not in detail.
What does this collective unconsciousness contribute to our knowledge?
And how does the collective unconsciousness stand to the collective consciousness?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We have the outward appearance of things and we have the inward appearance of things, one of which is the manifestation of the other. Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

But there exists no reason to think so. The truth is that at present, inserting the variable of spirituality into the mix is an unhelpful and unneccessary gesture, that cannot be justified. We can say that to all appearances, it is not so. That isn't the same as saying it must not be so, but it means that this assumption cannot be made lightly.

If we don't understand what that essence is, then we must be willing to dive into it (the subconscious) in order to find out what it means. And yes, I mean the realm of dreams and myths. Are you at all familiar with Jung's work, and the "collective unconscious?"

We do not simply not understand it. We have no reason to believe it exists in a spiritual fashion. An idea of inherited thought or instinct is very much compatiable with a materialistic view of mind.
What of Jung's work?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

The thing that is lacking is knowledge on the subject. We do not and can not know anything apart from information we receive from our senses. To go beyond what we perceive is to go into sheer guesswork, and to admit such propositions is to open the floodgates to all manner of subjectivity. Because, in the absence of knowledge, who's to say who's guess is better than someone else's? Apart from knowledge, how do you differentiate between two such guesses? You cannot.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Not in detail.
What does this collective unconsciousness contribute to our knowledge?
And how does the collective unconsciousness stand to the collective consciousness?

Jung did a lot of work with dreams, archetypes and synchronistic occurrences, and discovered a lot of "basic patterns" to human behvaior which extend across the globe, regardless of cultural differences. Meaning there is common ground to all of us which can be ascertained "within." And, whether we care to do the research for ourselves or not is really another matter?

As far "collective consciousness" is concerned what do you mean by that? I don't claim to be up on all these things either, but like Jung (intially anyway), most of my tests are performed with "my self" as a reference.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
But there exists no reason to think so. The truth is that at present, inserting the variable of spirituality into the mix is an unhelpful and unneccessary gesture, that cannot be justified. We can say that to all appearances, it is not so. That isn't the same as saying it must not be so, but it means that this assumption cannot be made lightly.

I don't know if you read the original post or not, but this is kind of what the argument is about.

Originally posted by heusdens
What are the distinctive features of idealism?

1. The basic element of reality to the idealist is mind or spirit. Everything else comes from mind or spirit and depends upon its operations.

2. Mind or spirit exists before and apart from matter. Spirit is the abiding reality; matter no more than a passing phase or illusion.

3. Mind or spirit is identical with or emanates from the divine, or, at least leaves open the possibility of supernatural existence, power and interference.

Does this ring a bell? ...

Originally posted by FZ+
We do not simply not understand it. We have no reason to believe it exists in a spiritual fashion. An idea of inherited thought or instinct is very much compatiable with a materialistic view of mind.
What of Jung's work?

And what is it with this "we" stuff? Have you got a mouse in your pocket? Or could this be what heusdens means by "collective consciousness?" All I know is you ain't referring to me ...

Originally posted by Tom
The thing that is lacking is knowledge on the subject. We do not and can not know anything apart from information we receive from our senses. To go beyond what we perceive is to go into sheer guesswork, and to admit such propositions is to open the floodgates to all manner of subjectivity. Because, in the absence of knowledge, who's to say who's guess is better than someone else's? Apart from knowledge, how do you differentiate between two such guesses? You cannot.

How can you acknowledge anything if you can't acknowledge it from within? What is about you that allows you to acknowledge anything? If it isn't that which is conscious or the "observer within?" And there you have it, we acknowledge that which is material by that which is "essential" and immaterial ...

Knowledge by the way, is the exterior of which wisdom is "the interior," hence the "inner-workings" of knowledge.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does this ring a bell? ...

Yes, you showed what premises Idealism is working on. They are the direct opposite of Materialism. So, if I have to choose between them, I choose the latter.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, you showed what premises Idealism is working on. They are the direct opposite of Materialism. So, if I have to choose between them, I choose the latter.

If we got wuliheron in on the discussion, he would probably say the two are correlative, and that you really can't have one without the other.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How can you acknowledge anything if you can't acknowledge it from within?

What does that mean?

What is about you that allows you to acknowledge anything?

sensory organs + brain

If it isn't that which is conscious or the "observer within?" And there you have it, we acknowledge that which is material by that which is "essential" and immaterial ...

This is just an assumption that the "observer within" (aka "the mind") is immaterial. Why make that assumption? Especially today, with all that is known of the mind as a function of brain activity?

I stick with my first post in this thread: There is evidence of matter, and none of spirit.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Jung did a lot of work with dreams, archetypes and synchronistic occurrences, and discovered a lot of "basic patterns" to human behvaior which extend across the globe, regardless of cultural differences. Meaning there is common ground to all of us which can be ascertained "within." And, whether we care to do the research for ourselves or not is really another matter?

Wouldn't that be explained by the fact that the genetic differences in our hardware are verty minimal, and this the functioning of our minds would not altogether differ much?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I stick with my first post in this thread: There is evidence of matter, and none of spirit.

I'm sorry, but everything begins with, and ends with, the fact that I'm conscious. Otherwise "nothing" would exist, at least for me anyway.

And what does heusdens mean by, "If he had to choose?" That doesn't sound "very objective" to me? It sounds a lot like faith? Or, at the very least an assumption. Hmm...

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm sorry, but everything begins with, and ends with, the fact that I'm conscious. Otherwise "nothing" would exist, at least for me anyway.

Yes, but you can compare notes with other people who also exist, and they will agree with you on such things as whether or not the fridge is empty, whether or not there is a red chair in the living room, whether or not there is a moon in the sky, etc.

Either you are all looking at the same universe, or those people are also just figments of your mind. I choose the first, because the second leads to all kinds of absurdities.

And what does heusdens mean by, "If he had to choose?" That doesn't sound "very objective" to me? It sounds a lot like faith? Or, at the very least an assumption. Hmm...

Of course it's an assumption. It's more reasonable than assuming it's negative.

You seem to find that questionable. Why?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Wouldn't that be explained by the fact that the genetic differences in our hardware are verty minimal, and this the functioning of our minds would not altogether differ much?

But still he was able to ascertain these things through his work with people's dreams, and hence "our spirit" if you will. And yet this sort of thing, working with dreams and myths, etc., has been going on for ages.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, but you can compare notes with other people who also exist, and they will agree with you on such things as whether or not the fridge is empty, whether or not there is a red chair in the living room, whether or not there is a moon in the sky, etc.

Either you are all looking at the same universe, or those people are also just figments of your mind. I choose the first, because the second leads to all kinds of absurdities.

What is reality something that we all take a vote on?

Originally posted by Tom
Of course it's an assumption. It's more reasonable than assuming it's negative.

You seem to find that questionable. Why?

What it means is that you really don't know anything, except of course by what you gleen through being conscious. So where's the standard to "the without," if it's not contained in "the within?"

Perhaps this is why it's necessary to give to rights individuals in this country? For therein the "parity check" lies ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But still he was able to ascertain these things through his work with people's dreams, and hence "our spirit" if you will. And yet this sort of thing, working with dreams and myths, etc., has been going on for ages.

Yes, so?
You may call it what you want, or what suits you best, but still these phenomena are closely linked to the way the brain works.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality something that we all take a vote on?

No. Reality is something that we can all agree[/color] on.

What it means is that you really don't know anything, except of course by what you gleen through being conscious. So where's the standard to "the without," if it's not contained in "the within?"

Are you reading my posts?

The standard to the without comes from the fact that there are other people who have basically the same experiences as you do. So, either the reality we all agree on is really "without" or all the people you talk to about it are "within".

Since the latter is absurd, I choose the former.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality something that we all take a vote on?

The fact that we all take part in the same reality, means that on our basic level of behaviour, we all still function according to this real exiting reality. If you are about to be crashed in a car incident for instance, you won't argue with yourself wether the things that go on are "real" or not. Your "instinctmatic behaviour" will try to prevent you from being killed in the accident.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
Are you reading my posts?

The standard to the without comes from the fact that there are other people who have basically the same experiences as you do. So, either the reality we all agree on is really "without" or all the people you talk to about it are "within".

Since the latter is absurd, I choose the former.

It's very easy to put labels on things. But, to "experience" the soup which is "within" the can, is an entirely different story.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's very easy to put labels on things. But, to "experience" the soup which is "within" the can, is an entirely different story.

What are you talking about?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
The fact that we all take part in the same reality ...

Really? If it wasn't for the fact that I was so fixated on this damn computer I wouldn't even know you exist? And that's the honest to God truth!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Really? If it wasn't for the fact that I was so fixated on this damn computer I wouldn't even know you exist? And that's the honest to God truth!

You don't have much evident that I exist, but this does not contradict the fact that you have daily knowledge of the fact that you share the same reality with others, and can broaden that knowledge to discussions with virtual persons, but which actually (like you yourself) exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
What are you talking about?

I'm saying it's really easy to acknowledge what something is from the outside, almost everybody can agree upon that. But, to understand what's going on on the inside, and hence the essence or "experience" of the matter, it goes beyond just getting everybody to agree.

And yet at the same time it's far more personal and meaningful to "understand" things for oneself. Perhaps this is why in the "spiritual sense" understanding corresponds to "one's food." You know, like a "discerning palate?"

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You don't have much evident that I exist, but this does not contradict the fact that you have daily knowledge of the fact that you share the same reality with others, and can broaden that knowledge to discussions with virtual persons, but which actually (like you yourself) exist.

Actually I spend a lot of time by myself and I don't agree with many people. However, I will agree that your statement here is not entirely unreasonable, that it indeed applies to most people. But, once I turn the computer off ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I spend a lot of time by myself and I don't agree with many people. However, I will agree that your statement here is not entirely unreasonable, that it indeed applies to most people. But, once I turn the computer off ...

That's a good thing, turning the computer off sometime.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But still he was able to ascertain these things through his work with people's dreams, and hence "our spirit" if you will. And yet this sort of thing, working with dreams and myths, etc., has been going on for ages.

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, so?
You may call it what you want, or what suits you best, but still these phenomena are closely linked to the way the brain works.

Or, perhaps the brain is just a receptacle, or doorway, which receives information from both sides. Here, check out the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429" (regarding my avatar) and see if it doesn't convey something similar?

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1204" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus 32

Originally posted by Kerrie
I personally think that many people get these two ideas mixed up. Can one be religious and spiritual? I don't believe so, and that is because they both contradict one another. Spirituality is the idea that one applies their inner most morals to only their life, where as religion is a mini-society and has a tendency to critisize others outside their belief circle. Individual Spirituality, in my opinion, is the only true way that will do away with wars based from religious beliefs.

Both are obviously related, except the one is more the "external aspect" (religion) of that which is "internal" (spiritual). It follows along the same lines of knowledge versus wisdom, as well as essence (interior) versus form (exterior). It's the form that it takes, subject to "its interpretation," which gives rise to all the problems.

Thought you might appreciate the distinction to be made between religion and spirituality, which is why religion so often leaves people with a bad taste in their mouth.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Or, perhaps the brain is just a receptacle, or doorway, which receives information from both sides. Here, check out the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429" (regarding my avatar) and see if it doesn't convey something similar?

The brain can in my opinion only be receptable to either the ordinary perceptorary senses, or to it's "inner workings".
There must supposebly be a lot of hidden layers of our consciousness, that is in the ordinary functioning of our consciousness, hidden, but can be connected to during a state of "trance" or whatever.
The information comes from inside, not outside.