Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

[Mentat]

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]

Originally posted by Royce
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]

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]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Energy fields" are physical.

Well then...there you ARE!

 

[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.

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

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Having stated my beliefs about spirit just to present another view point it is of course possible to express the same opinions without 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]

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]

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]

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 into 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]

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]

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 into 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]

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.[/color] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You can call me Brain ...

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.

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

 

[Mentat]

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]

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?

All is calm. All is peaceful. Chiiiiilll.

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"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]

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.

Very eloquently put - and nice analogy. The truth of the matter is, even if we were to accept consciousness as a metaphysical thing (which I don't advocate), it would still all be consciousness, it would just be different for different individuals.

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

Duly noted.

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

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?

Sage: You are leading me astray by compelling me to comment on "consciousness" on this thread:
There is thinking by certain SCIENTISTS (who I will name on "A Conscious Universe? thread) that consciousness is not something that gets "generated" when baryonic matter organizes sufficiently to "produce" it. Oh no...

It is thought to be -- or, should I say, PERHAPS MAY BE -- a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of EVERYTHING THAT IS.

Thus, the brain (human or otherwise) might "simply" be anyone of a NUMBER of "mechanisms" that produce coherent systems of thought.

But we digress...

 

[M. Gaspar]

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?

And may I add that there may be a large variety of "radios" in the Universe.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"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?

Sounds like INSPIRATION, so say more...

 

[M. Gaspar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 won't 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]

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]

Originally posted by Mentat
You won't 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]

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]

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?

The whole idea here is variable, and depends primarily upon personal experience. While I think the key is to learn how to be honest with ourselves, and try and be "pragmatic" in our approach, to give us a sense of being "grounded" in what we know.

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’.

And yet there it is, the dualism, by which reality is to be found somewhere in between.

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.

The blind spot you are referring to here is man's ignorance. And yet without the capacity not to know, we wouldn't have the capacity to know. Therefore I'm suggesting the blind spot exists out of man's not knowing his proper relationship with God. That in fact the dualism does exist, which then becomes delusional, to the extent that we take it to either extreme.

I want to be proved wrong. Can you do it?

I give a fairly lengthy reply to M. Gaspar in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889", which might add something here?

 

[M. Gaspar]

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.