Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

[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.