Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

[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.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage

Finally I would like to point out consciousness(C2) are a necessary point of discussion when debating about the existence of spirit(/soul). Because it is claimed that the existence of the spirit explains consciousness(C2) which can never be explained through science alone. By trying to show that consciousness(C2) can indeed be explained through science I have nullified the case for the existence of spirit(/soul).

I have never said that the "existence of the spirit explains consciousness". You see, I am not so "sure" about "spirit" as I am about CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, I'm pretty sure there's consciousness in -- if not OF -- the Universe; as to "spirit"...it's only through deduction than observation.

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

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

The question whether a sort of seminal consciousness exists in all matter(electrons, protons, neutrons etc.) is a different matter altogether. One thing is certain though, consciousness(C2) can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone and hence there is no need for us to think there exists a soul within us. That is of course until evidence to the contrary comes our way.

First, I don't think that consciousness "can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone." Aux contraire. But that's another thread.

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

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

You're "meshing" the physical and spiritual (and probably conscious) "planes". My view is that spirit and consciousness would be NOT CONFINED to the physical, thus able to "hold together" even if we EXPLODED a human body. I see spirit and consciousness more like TWO DISTINCT -- tho intertwined -- NETWORKS that are parts of LARGER networks.

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

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
You won't believe how complicated that issue can get - especially with both Manuel_Silvio and me debating it. ..

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

Done...but life's so short.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

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? [/B]

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

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

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

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

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

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

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

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

It is the half-baked-ness of my ideas and my inability to express them that are the culprits here, and not any deficit on your part whatsoever. These threads are really forcing my hand...and I appreciate any corrective information that is offered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

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

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

I'm scared!

Maybe some day...

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm scared!

Maybe some day...

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

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

Good question. Processing...

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

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

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

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

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

Well, except for the electrochemical question, the hurdles weren't that daunting...at least I didn't land on my face.

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!

You have no idea how intimidated I am by what you're proposing. Apparently, I can only grasp MACRO-concepts like the Secrets of the Universe. The Secrets of the Physics Forum ...is another story.

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

 

[Iacchus32]

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

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

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

I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations.

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

 

[M. Gaspar]

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

I might be willing to call the Collective Mind of the Universe the Mind of God.

So what shall we solve next?

 

[maximus]

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

 

[maximus]

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

Purpose and Consciousness

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

From the thread, Purpose and Consciousness ...

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

_________________________

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

_________________________

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

_________________________

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

_________________________

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.