Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How am I "acting" on this "belief"? It is not as you said before that I want to exclude science from anything. So what are you speaking of?

I am speaking of the way this arouses your indignation. You object strongly to science claiming to explain life via organic chemistry and so forth, or claiming to explain mental processes via neurology and brain chemistry, so I really truly believe you think that these claims are wrong. As the belief that these claims are wrong is incompatible with a belief that there is one spiritual reality, the one I am convinced you really believe is that these claims are wrong -- which means you don't really believe there is one spiritual reality.

What is the meaning of your phrase "a scientific understanding of life excludes spirit."?

Well, it could mean two things for me. It could mean that science's models of life leave no room for spiritual experience, cosmic consciousness, discovery of the real self under the mask of personality, etc. Or it could mean that those models leave no room for magic. But neither of those statements is true.

Or, I guess you could say that it doesn't account for magic, and that's true enough, but that for me only means that the models are incomplete, a statement no biologist would dispute. It also doesn't account for spiritual experience but it's not supposed to so that's all right.

No. You have stated that references to these things are merely metaphors. I am open to them existing as realities, which could be described using metaphors or in any other way. If on the other hand you do agree on their existence, then these are areas to explore with an open mind, and I trust you will.

Let me ask what you mean by "realities." That may reveal something.

We can experience the tree, other people, or anything else, just as it experiences itself. As Buddhism and mysticism show, there is no gap between knower and known; they are one.Your world view locks you into an isolated realm, one that I don't exist in. I was encouraged earlier when you mentioned your empathy connecting you to others. We are in fact connected to others; there is no separation, only a difference in perspective as you have also stated. But that difference is bridgeable.

Since you know very well that I am also a mystic; since you know very well that I understand all of this; you really ought to be asking questions rather than jumping to conclusions.

But it's a matter of perspective. The two are not one; the two are not two -- in any absolute sense. There are states of consciousness in which the two can seem one, and in which a person can understand that all distinctions between this and that are non-absolute, but nonetheless we are still limited by our brains. We cannot experience anything except by having it recorded in memory, and that means any experience, no matter how cosmic, is always from my point of view. Cosmic consciousness doesn't change this, it merely imparts a greater understanding and awareness of being in the illusion. We cannot experience the tree or another person "exactly as it experiences itself," and Buddha does not say to the contrary, nor does the experience of universal oneness dispute it in any way.

We do not think, feel and experience by means of the brain. It is not the fount of imagination nor the source of memory. It is a switchboard for functioning on this level of reality, that is all.

So you believe that there are levels of reality in which we experience things without the brain being involved? What levels would those be, and what evidence do you have in support of this, and (assuming you have experienced some of this yourself) how is it that you can remember any of it, if your brain was out of the picture?

But I believe we are getting somewhere, past the dodges, past the universal cosmic statements inserted into particular venues where they don't belong, past the formless goo. Do explain what you mean.

Matter does not exist.

As I said, you do not believe this. When wearing one of my hats, I believe it, but you never do.

This discussion is just blowing my mind. Trying to make sense of it, and not succeeding. And believe me , I'm interested in these types of topics. Its just the matter of communication that I find problematic.

So you believe that there are levels of reality in which we experience things without the brain being involved? What levels would those be, and what evidence do you have in support of this, and (assuming you have experienced some of this yourself) how is it that you can remember any of it, if your brain was out of the picture?

Interesting thought. Most believe in the form of a soul, or rather a form of consciensness that exists after the body ceases to. As to what is remembered..no idea yet. I mean, this is all theory right?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Are you an empiricist, as you claim, or a rationalist?

If you think empiricism has no place for reason, you misunderstand it.

Science does not understand the workings of the observed world. It only tries to do so, in its limited but more-precise way, seeking to eliminate our hopes and wishes from an impartial view of reality.

Where do you get the idea that science seeks to "eliminate our hopes and wishes"? What workings of the observed world does science not understand? (There are some, of course -- I just have my doubts that you understand them better.)

No they aren't. There is no definable boundary between you and your environment. Your skin joins as much as it separates.

Back to the formless goo, I see. My skin defines a volume of space. What I am observing is not within that volume of space. That the distinction between me and it is non-absolute does not change this.

Matter doesn't exist; there is only soul.

You don't believe this.

But there is a difference; that's all I'm saying.

No, I don't believe that's all you're saying. You're saying there is some particular way in which life differs from non-life, which biology doesn't recognize.

There is no fundamental separation or separate realm. All is spirit; just different degrees. But that also means our "laws of nature" are wrong because they are drawn up mostly according to a mechanistic or random conception added on by the scientist.

Your last sentence contradicts your first two. If all is spirit, then the laws of nature as drawn up by science cannot be objectionable; they are laws which describe the regularities we observe in the illusion of nature. (We do observe those regularities; the laws so created do describe them and allow for prediction of what we will observe in the future. It does in fact behave mechanistically and/or randomly, with a bit of chaos math thrown in and some organic growth, etc., and that is completely independent from any materialistic philosophy which we may add on, or choose not to.) But if all is NOT spirit, if you believe there is a distinction between mechanistic matter which obeys the laws of nature as discovered by science, and spirit which does not, then indeed you would find the success and (in your view) arrogant claims of science objectionable.

I believe you believe your last sentence, and therefore I do not believe you believe your first two. (There is in fact one other possibility, and that is that you don't believe the laws of nature operate in material reality any more than the spiritual realm -- no law of gravity, no conservation of energy, no nothing. But I don't think you believe that, either, for the simple reason that you aren't dead yet, and if you were that divorced from observed reality you surely would be.)

NDEs are one field where evidence for mind beyond the brain is being found. Brain activity ends, but the patient returns and describes what happened in the room.

Yes, but the brain has returned to activity before the experience is described, and we have plenty of evidence for non-time-bound psychic perception so that the fact that the description includes things that were going on at the time the brain was inactive is not evidence that the experienced occurred then. If I can go into a trance and accurately perceive things that will not happen for a month, then there is no reason why a brain cannot on the way to death similarly perceive something happening in the same room fifteen minutes in the future. Or, alternatively, that same brain on the way to revival cannot perceive something that happened half an hour ago. This is a far more economical explanation than that experience occurred completely in the absence of brain activity.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm in Limbo!

I got Limbo as well. It's still Hell but better than the other levels of Hell. But I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I don't go to Hell at all!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm in Limbo!

Purgatory here.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am speaking of the way this arouses your indignation. You object strongly to science claiming to explain life via organic chemistry and so forth, or claiming to explain mental processes via neurology and brain chemistry, so I really truly believe you think that these claims are wrong. As the belief that these claims are wrong is incompatible with a belief that there is one spiritual reality, the one I am convinced you really believe is that these claims are wrong -- which means you don't really believe there is one spiritual reality.

Your conclusion about my belief, since I don't agree with your belief.

Edit: At least here in your first two sentences, you report my views correctly. So kudos for that; communication at last! Your conclusion of course is wrong; just because our science is not capable of seeing the universe as it is, usually, but creates a view of the world as dead, does not mean that my dissent from their dead view means I don't see one spiritual reality. Science of course does not even view that reality; it substitutes its own misguided paradigm.

But if in your view science is, or may in the future, become more capable of seeing the universe and our bodies and brains as alive, then I will have less to complain about. As it is, I still accept the data science collects as valuable for what it is, or for what it's worth. I just don't accept their frequent claims that they are explaining the mind or life.

Well, it could mean two things for me. It could mean that science's models of life leave no room for spiritual experience, cosmic consciousness, discovery of the real self under the mask of personality, etc. Or it could mean that those models leave no room for magic. But neither of those statements is true.

Or, I guess you could say that it doesn't account for magic, and that's true enough, but that for me only means that the models are incomplete, a statement no biologist would dispute. It also doesn't account for spiritual experience but it's not supposed to so that's all right.

Biologists DO believe their models of life are complete. That's where we disagree. Science's models don't really "leave no room" for spiritual experience, because those models have little impact on whether people have them-- unless they choose to believe in them, and that belief closes them off from spiritual experience-- which does happen to many who believe in them.

Let me ask what you mean by "realities." That may reveal something.

That which really exists, as it is, genuinely. Spirits, ghosts, the other side, reincarnation, etc., I think these things are realities, not metaphors for brain experiences as you apparently think.

But it's a matter of perspective. The two are not one; the two are not two -- in any absolute sense. There are states of consciousness in which the two can seem one, and in which a person can understand that all distinctions between this and that are non-absolute, but nonetheless we are still limited by our brains. We cannot experience anything except by having it recorded in memory, and that means any experience, no matter how cosmic, is always from my point of view. Cosmic consciousness doesn't change this, it merely imparts a greater understanding and awareness of being in the illusion. We cannot experience the tree or another person "exactly as it experiences itself," and Buddha does not say to the contrary, nor does the experience of universal oneness dispute it in any way.

Yes it does, and the Buddhists and mystics say so. These experiences are direct experience of the truth, not what "seems" to be so. We experience things directly, not by having them recorded in memory. Cosmic consciousness imparts experience of a greater reality, period. We can experience any other being as it experiences itself, merging with them, although total merger is rare. But unless we merge in some degree, we have no experience of another at all, period end of story. The one thing you said above I tend to agree with is "any experience, no matter how cosmic, is always from my point of view". To me this refers to the fact that however cosmic my experience, there is an aspect of my own point of view, my individuality, that remains intact, at least as long as my soul continues anyway.

So you believe that there are levels of reality in which we experience things without the brain being involved? What levels would those be, and what evidence do you have in support of this, and (assuming you have experienced some of this yourself) how is it that you can remember any of it, if your brain was out of the picture?

But I believe we are getting somewhere, past the dodges, past the universal cosmic statements inserted into particular venues where they don't belong, past the formless goo. Do explain what you mean.

There are "levels of reality" (although you brought that phrase in just now), which I have been talking about in regard to levels of consciousness and life; degrees of difference of life and consciousness along a continuum, which you apparently agreed with in regard to living and "non-living" things. I posted a couple of bits of evidence in the other post, among the thousands of cases I have read about or interviewed people directly about on my radio show, etc. But in any case, all of our experience is always more than our brain experiencing; though the brain is usually included. But our heart and the other chakras and centers in our body are also involved, and our souls, auras and energy bodies extend beyond our bodies. The center of our being is in the heart, not the brain. Memory exists first of all in the akashic records, where everything is remembered, and in our souls or what Bergson called the original bent of our souls, which is that which acts and records memory. In short, we always experience with our whole being, not just our brain.

As I said, you do not believe this. When wearing one of my hats, I believe it, but you never do.

It is demonstrable fact, philosophically. I doesn't "matter" whether I believe it or not.

What is confusing you, because you apparently believe in "entities" which come from logic, which you apparently hold as true, is that everything must come in "entities," and you attribute my statements about matter and spirit to me as if I were talking in your terms. But entities do not exist. I agree with Bergson; there are no things, there are only actions. What I do hold (which as I mentioned before, agrees with kaballah, chakras, astrology, neo-platonism, Jacob's ladder, and similar models-- including the most popular song in the world fwiw) is that (at least in these models, and in my model) there are two axes on which we can chart our experience, one of which is the spirit/matter axis. But this is only a model. The two ends of a pole are not separate things, but are interdependent, and there are gradations along it. As we agreed, some beings (actions) are more alive than others. That is part of this gradation along this axis, which is the central up/down axis in all these models, and corresponds to the backbone in your own body. And in the case of this axis, there is a priority of the top of the scale over the bottom, as the sourcepoint. On the other hand, the other side of the polarity is necessary for any manifestation to occur, and the currents flow between the poles. That is the most universal model anywhere among all the esoteric arts and sciences.

But if you can't think in these terms, then you would assume that the two ends of the polarity I refer to, I must in reality think are two separate entities or blocks of separate realms or worlds called matter and spirit. But I don't think of these two poles in that way. They are merely points of convenient reference for our models in what is really a continuous flow of reality.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Where do you get the idea that science seeks to "eliminate our hopes and wishes"? What workings of the observed world does science not understand? (There are some, of course -- I just have my doubts that you understand them better.)

what I refer to is the scientific method, the purpose of which is to help us see things objectively, meaning in one sense beyond our personal hopes about what the findings of an experiment might be.

Back to the formless goo, I see. My skin defines a volume of space. What I am observing is not within that volume of space. That the distinction between me and it is non-absolute does not change this.

You are so prickly; you refuse to see the point. I've kind of lost track of it myself. That squirrel and leaf are not separate from me. I can see the life in them. Your skin does not define where you begin and they end, because you are not a thing composed of a volume of space inside a skin.

No, I don't believe that's all you're saying. You're saying there is some particular way in which life differs from non-life, which biology doesn't recognize.

You still don't get it. Whether biology recognizes it or not, is a statement about biology, not about life and non-life. Biology views its subjects of investigation as if they were dead. But whether living or what we call non-living, the world is not dead as biology thinks; even though there is a difference between living and non-living "life."

No wonder this is confusing to folks like Hutch and TnT!

Your arguments here are just repetitions of your stated philosophy, which I already know and disagree with. And I expect you won't get it either after hundreds or is it now thousands of tries. Communication between many folks today in America is as hard as between Obama and Boehner. Including us on this topic.

I see you trotted out the laws of nature bit again. Laws of nature are human formulations only, and result mainly in applications in technology. They may work because they apply to the level in the spirit-matter axis closest to the bottom of the axis.

Yes, but the brain has returned to activity before the experience is described, and we have plenty of evidence for non-time-bound psychic perception so that the fact that the description includes things that were going on at the time the brain was inactive is not evidence that the experienced occurred then. If I can go into a trance and accurately perceive things that will not happen for a month, then there is no reason why a brain cannot on the way to death similarly perceive something happening in the same room fifteen minutes in the future. Or, alternatively, that same brain on the way to revival cannot perceive something that happened half an hour ago. This is a far more economical explanation than that experience occurred completely in the absence of brain activity.

However you choose to explain it away, these are evidence for experience beyond the brain. It may not be absolute proof as I said, but neither is there absolute proof that the mind is the brain. Accepting that someone had perception while the brain was dead, is the simpler explanation than claiming that psychic perception is not bound by time or that a dying brain can perceive the future, an explanation that would also be rejected by brain scientists since most of them don't believe in such things. I suggest being open-minded to these other realities. What's the big deal about being closed minded about them? Why not be open? Why not give more weight to the evidence instead of your world view that might not allow for it?

But if you don't, that's your decision. There is room in my model for your view and all points of view (which I don't think is true of your model).

Originally Posted by TnT

BR & EtR:

It's fascinating to watch you two go at it. I've noticed that as you go back and forth, back and forth, eventually all the meanings of the key words that you are using become fuzzy and elusive. And your arguments tend to bog down in semantics at last. "Spirit" ... "material" ... "personality" ... Once one leaves the arena of ordinary definition of ideas and moves to the totally idiosyncratic, individually defined notions of these ideas, it looks to me that it's been over-intellectualized it to death.

And that's the problem with language. It's ultimately going to be imprecise.

That shouldn't stop everyone from joining in the fun of Metaphysical Wordball!

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Interesting thought. Most believe in the form of a soul, or rather a form of consciensness that exists after the body ceases to. As to what is remembered..no idea yet. I mean, this is all theory right?

I think one possible answer is a "personal akashic record" only some of what is accessible when your in a body, the rest being blocked by the insulation that is your brain.

And how many memories to you really need day to day? I mean, if everyone had access to everything, would anything ever get done?

Originally Posted by JonLaw

And that's the problem with language. It's ultimately going to be imprecise.

That shouldn't stop everyone from joining in the fun of Metaphysical Wordball!

I'm game! Sounds fun to me.

Though Brian and I take it too seriously it seems. And it sounds obscure. Where the difference between us lies, is that Brian tries to take the paradigm of modern science, primarily mechanistic and materialist, and posit that it corresponds to a spiritual mystical viewpoint, as if both could be acceptable, with the only difference one of viewpoint from within or without. To me it is evident that the two views are completely contradictory and at odds; they can't be the same thing at all. Actions performed, chosen, grown or created by a living being are not the same as movements of a mechanism. So Brian concludes that I must be a dualist, that I am adding on a concept of life force that is separate from the material world, not just a different view on the same thing, and so I don't believe (as I claim) in one "spiritual" reality that is the same as the material, but in two different kinds of being, spirit and matter.

But I just think the materialist paradigm is wrong to begin with, not a different perspective on the same thing as spirit. The contradiction is not between two worlds, nor is it a contradiction that exists because I don't see that the two are the same world from an inner and outer perspective; but this is a contradiction between two world views and two different methods of knowledge. The conflict stems from the content of those two philosophies. I can see these two world views as existing along a continuum, along with the phenomena they claim to explain, but with the spiritual worldview and reality as the prior one and sourcepoint of the material one. The life force is not added on or in conflict with the "material" world; it is a way of describing what is beyond the capacity of the scientific empirical method to explain, because of that method's own limited nature.

Of course, if I was playing metaphysical wordball with a different partner or opponent, the game and the words would be different!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I just think the materialist paradigm is wrong to begin with, not a different perspective on the same thing as spirit. The contradiction is not between two worlds, nor is it a contradiction that exists because I don't see that the two are the same world from an inner and outer perspective; but this is a contradiction between two world views and two different methods of knowledge. The conflict stems from the content of those two philosophies. I can see these two world views as existing along a continuum, along with the phenomena they claim to explain, but with the spiritual worldview and reality as the prior one and sourcepoint of the material one. The life force is not added on or in conflict with the "material" world; it is a way of describing what is beyond the capacity of the scientific empirical method to explain, because of that method's own limited nature.

Well, there's an old comparison that is used by the religionists: The trinity of the Christian religion is compared to the three forms of water - ice, liquid water and steam. All three forms are water, but each has different characteristics.

So, I suppose that you could redefine the word "spirit" to mean some all-encompassing concept of the universe in which there are simply different forms of "spirit." The material being one of its forms?

I'm not sure what that would buy us though.

I'll be blunt and just say that I understand Brian just fine, but I simply cannot understand most of Eric's POV or reasoning at all.

Originally Posted by TnT

So, I suppose that you could redefine the word "spirit" to mean some all-encompassing concept of the universe in which there are simply different forms of "spirit." The material being one of its forms?

That's the spirit!

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, there's an old comparison that is used by the religionists: The trinity of the Christian religion is compared to the three forms of water - ice, liquid water and steam. All three forms are water, but each has different characteristics.

So, I suppose that you could redefine the word "spirit" to mean some all-encompassing concept of the universe in which there are simply different forms of "spirit." The material being one of its forms?

I'm not sure what that would buy us though.

Not sure either. What I'm proposing is a continuous gradation, with important stages along the continuum. That's what esoteric philosophy says. But your statement seems like a good start.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not sure either. What I'm proposing is a continuous gradation, with important stages along the continuum. That what esoteric philosophy says. But your statement seems like a good start.

God------>Spirit------>Mind----->Life----->Matter (?)

Anyhow, looking to the rule of analogy, the things we figure out below are analogous to those things above.

So, the phase change is a partial (incomplete) analogy.

Everything is continuous, but with sharp discontinuities.

For example, the discontinuity between life and matter.

However, that being said, my immediate problem seems to be that I'm a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient immortal playing some sort of game on a gameboard made of time and space.

Now, back to Metaphysical Wordball!

Originally Posted by JonLaw

I think one possible answer is a "personal akashic record" only some of what is accessible when your in a body, the rest being blocked by the insulation that is your brain.

And how many memories to you really need day to day? I mean, if everyone had access to everything, would anything ever get done?

Somewhere its got to be compartimentalized. Most memories are buried in the storage of the subconscience, that can/can't come out when needed.

The question is when were 'we' as a form of conscience really created? When was the soul created? At birth? Were we here before and most can't remember? Maybe you're right and the brain (or other) is blocking most of this.

I had not heard of what a 'akashic record' is until now. But I'm intrigued. My nature is curiosity and I wish to know as much as I can.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

The question is when were 'we' as a form of conscience really created? When was the soul created? At birth? Were we here before and most can't remember? Maybe you're right and the brain (or other) is blocking most of this.

Born eons ago. Beyond time and space. Well, in the highest octave of creation. Master time and space and then return, they said. Yeah, like I have any idea how to do that. I can't even win a good game of Metaphysical Wordball. Can't keep up.

Anyhow, it's not like memories of being a peasant and dying from the black death or getting gunned down by machine guns in WWI would be particularly helpful.

I have *enough* memories that I don't need and try to get rid of. Don't need any more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not sure either. What I'm proposing is a continuous gradation, with important stages along the continuum. That what esoteric philosophy says. But your statement seems like a good start.

The whole divine/mental/emotional/astral planes thing as believed by New Agers is just a special kind of dualism, if these planes exist they are all still part of the same cosmos and follow natural laws and have their own "matter"* (an idea used by Sci-Fi author David Brin in his Uplift novels). When New Agers speak of them as "higher" planes they betray the same neurotic attitude of disgust and degradation towards the physical world of our senses as many religious dualists throughout history, in particular they resemble a Neo-Platonist cosmology shorn of Geocentrism.

*By "matter" my mean any and all entities.

As an old fart, I’ve tussled with some of these problems for many years. It’s difficult to live one’s life without some sense of meaning. See for example the points so elegantly made by Viktor Frankl in Man’s Search for Meaning.

William James also has a lot to say in Varieties of Religious Experience. And of course there are many, many others to draw on.

Religion, per se, defined as various systems of doctrine having to do with some kind of Higher Power, Universal Intelligence, Whatever, appears to me to mostly be massively wrong-headed. I mean, what the hell, how can there possibly be so many “one true religions?”

On the other hand, personal spiritual experiences appear to be authentic, and appear to be accessible to most anyone that wants to have one.
Definition: “Spiritual Experience” means (to me) an emotional experience, one that is usually invisible to others but strongly felt by the person having it. The experience often comes with a sensation of new knowledge about one’s place in the world, and almost always a sense of wonder and awe. These experiences are fairly typical among those who discipline themselves in the meditational arts. Many people describe experiences of awe in the presence of pastoral beauty, the great outdoors, sunrises, sunsets, etc.

“Getting outside of oneself” is another feature at times. “Being in the moment” is also often described. It interests me that people in the contemplative life, mystics, those who devote themselves to prayer and meditation, often come together in multi-denominational forums to practice their arts together. That is, they seem to recognize the validity of their various experiences as being similar, and they like to get together to compare notes. Doctrine has little if any influence other than providing something to focus the mind on.

From my own perspective, I think that these “spiritual experiences” are very likely a manifestation of our minds, nothing much more. I think we have it hard-wired into us. Because much of the wiring of our mind is hidden from our consciousness, we find it easier as a species to explain it all with a “God,” “God” being the bearded guy on the cloud who messes with the details of our lives on a daily basis - concept. I forget who said it, but it’s probably true – “If there is no god, then man would have to invent god anyway.”

I’ve had what I consider some vital personal spiritual experiences. They mean a lot to me. They have given me a lot of joy, insight, and a lot of what I consider positive contribution to my life. Yet, I don’t for a moment think that “God” is necessary for it to have happened.

The coolest thing that comes to mind, for me, is that … the universe has been putting itself together for all these billions of years, and then, suddenly, it becomes aware of itself in a very vivid fashion through us, looking back at it! Through our awareness of it all! Is that fucking cool or what?! Of course, there may well be other species elsewhere in the universe, and probably are, that also have evolved to be able to see this wondrous thing. That’s cool too.

While I enjoy watching you guys sort the pepper from the fly-sh*t, I’m more drawn to stories of personal experience about these sorts of things, and how the experiences impacted the lives of the participants.

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Originally Posted by Odin

The whole divine/mental/emotional/astral planes thing as believed by New Agers is just a special kind of dualism, if these planes exist they are all still part of the same cosmos and follow natural laws and have their own "matter"* (an idea used by Sci-Fi author David Brin in his Uplift novels). When New Agers speak of them as "higher" planes they betray the same neurotic attitude of disgust and degradation towards the physical world of our senses as many religious dualists throughout history, in particular they resemble a Neo-Platonist cosmology shorn of Geocentrism.

*By "matter" my mean any and all entities.

I don't know why Odin has such a hostile attitude toward New Agers, that he considers them neurotic; perhaps he could explain. Most "new agers" and spiritual people I know see the divine expressed in the world all around us. But the "Neo-Platonist cosmology shorn of Geocentrism" bit I certainly cop to and subscribe to, and recommend and encourage all to study as the key to reality that has been overlooked by most today, hypnotized by the apparent power of science as we know it now. I agree too that all planes are part of the same cosmos and have their own "matter," but as for "natural laws," I have expressed my opinion on that already. If Odin, you can appreciate, as you do, the need to treat humans and other beings as ends in themselves, not as objects to be used by others, then perhaps you can, if you choose, appreciate the need for a philosophy that sees beings in that way, instead of as objects that can be used. Whether we call this philosophy an emerging mind, or freedom within matter, or matter as alive, or as a world of spirits and souls, is not as important as whether our philosophy respects the freedom and dignity that we know is the true and only basis of our lives and of our ethics. I may be passionate about the importance of what our philosophy says about our nature, and yet seek to respect all people and views, even if they disagree with me and don't share my concern, as fellow beings on the wondrous journey of life.

What is significant to me, is that we learn to see ourselves, other humans, and all other beings, as sacred; that we know the "naked truth" that the world itself is divine. We are miraculous and mysterious, and all beings are wonders to behold and appreciate. If these are not operational terms for an empirical experiment, well I say, if it weren't for that wonder in your breast, and that mysterious consciousness that animates your brain and senses, you wouldn't be asking the questions. It is important that we have a world view and a philosophy that upholds and deepens our appreciation for our freedom and dignity as wonderous beings, not as materialist B.F. Skinner recommended that we go "beyond freedom and dignity." It is important to human society and progress. And in having such an awareness, we are being true to life as we actually experience it, which is our best starting point and end point in knowledge. To explore that, is where we find the deepest truth, not in some experiments being made on somebody's brain we don't even know, treated as a mere object as if it were dead, or using gobs of symbols and equations we can't even understand, or strange counter-intuitive ideas like the 11th dimension or parallel universes. The truth is obvious, right in front of us, and indeed what is most intimate to us is the divine itself.

Such discoveries as that the color circle and the musical octave encloses all possible colors and tones, that each has a definite opposite across the wheel, and that there are definite primary colors and tones within the circle from which others are derived, and yet these archetypal Platonic forms are experienced through the senses and connect to feelings of beauty and love, thus bringing Form and Becoming/Feeling/Experience together, is the kind of amazing simple and obvious discovery I mean, and which makes me a proud neo-Platonist-- and still an existentialist and vitalist like Bergson too. They are my favorite philosophers, who have enriched my life greatly, and I recommend them. There is no reason or logic of any kind without the original Platonic forms, and at bottom these forms turn out to be rhythms of life that are part of our experience, and of the divine, which Plato called The Good, the overarching One Form.

Originally Posted by TnT

The coolest thing that comes to mind, for me, is that … the universe has been putting itself together for all these billions of years, and then, suddenly, it becomes aware of itself in a very vivid fashion through us, looking back at it! Through our awareness of it all! Is that fucking cool or what?!

Yeah, that's fucking cool, dude.

Originally Posted by TnT

From my own perspective, I think that these “spiritual experiences” are very likely a manifestation of our minds, nothing much more. I think we have it hard-wired into us. Because much of the wiring of our mind is hidden from our consciousness, we find it easier as a species to explain it all with a “God,” “God” being the bearded guy on the cloud who messes with the details of our lives on a daily basis - concept. I forget who said it, but it’s probably true – “If there is no god, then man would have to invent god anyway.”

Ever experience the "sense of peace"? I don't think I'm the one generating that thing. Plus the mental communications. Not me, either.

Then you have those reports about the White. One time they apparently ring-fenced a murder-suicide explosion. I've never investigated them much.

But, yes, the garden variety experiences you are talking about are somehow associated with a thinning of the ego or insulation or whatever. Yeah, you can spontaneously do that on your own and it's you doing it to you.

I take notes and look for patterns. It's the chemical engineer in me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Biologists DO believe their models of life are complete.

Nonsense. No biologist would ever make that claim; it's too obvious that there are things about living processes that we don't yet understand, species that haven't even been classified, mysteries still about how life originated in the first place -- there's no such thing as a "complete" science and biology is definitely not an exception.

That which really exists, as it is, genuinely. Spirits, ghosts, the other side, reincarnation, etc., I think these things are realities, not metaphors for brain experiences as you apparently think.

As I thought. So you believe that there are elements of reality that exist in an objective sense, and are part of the world we observe/experience, but that do not obey the same laws of nature that all of matter and energy do. Would that be an accurate statement?

Yes it does, and the Buddhists and mystics say so.

This proves that you do not understand them, which is normal. It's impossible to understand mystical statements from the outside; they are descriptions of things language isn't designed to describe. Only by undergoing mystical experience oneself can the statements of mystics make any sense at all, and even then misunderstanding is very common.

What makes the perception of oneness experienced in cosmic consciousness any more (or less) real than the perception of separate identity experienced in normal consciousness?

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain again. Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. Enlightenment reveals that the reality perceived in a non-enlightened state is not absolute. It does not reveal that that reality is false.

But in any case, all of our experience is always more than our brain experiencing; though the brain is usually included. But our heart and the other chakras and centers in our body are also involved, and our souls, auras and energy bodies extend beyond our bodies. The center of our being is in the heart, not the brain. Memory exists first of all in the akashic records, where everything is remembered, and in our souls or what Bergson called the original bent of our souls, which is that which acts and records memory. In short, we always experience with our whole being, not just our brain.

The heart (which is not the same as the heart chakra) is an organ involved in the pumping of blood, and not involved in mentation at all except insofar as it's necessary to keep the brain alive. The soul does not exist. The aura is a magical field surrounding the body. The heart chakra, and the chakras generally, are magical forces associated with the spinal column. "The center of our being" is a meaningless phrase. The "akashik records" is an imaginary entity that facilitates the obtaining of information by psi; it has no literal existence. A body being kept alive on life-support with a dead brain experiences nothing, or at least is able to report no experience.

All of these things, insofar as they are real data, can be accounted for without departing from the brain being the organ of all mentation, provided we include my own model of magic/psi. They cannot be accounted for by biology or neuroscience at present, but that does not justify leaping directly to a supernatural account of these realities, which -- although I know you'll be reluctant to apply that tag -- is exactly what you are doing here.

It is demonstrable fact, philosophically. I doesn't "matter" whether I believe it or not.

But it does matter, Eric. The disagreements we are having all come down exactly to the fact that you don't believe it.

What is confusing you, because you apparently believe in "entities" which come from logic, which you apparently hold as true, is that everything must come in "entities," and you attribute my statements about matter and spirit to me as if I were talking in your terms.

An "entity" is no more and no less than something which exists. The physical world is an entity. My computer is an entity. The soul, if there was such a thing, would be an entity. To say that you believe in entities is only to say that you believe things exist. You do. Don't get hung up on the word.

You believe there are parts of reality which do not behave according to natural law. You listed some of them yourself, above: the akashik records, the energy body, the soul. You also believe there are parts of reality which do behave according to natural law. by "natural law" I mean the way nature is observed to behave, as discovered using scientific method.

Whether you think of these two different sorts of reality as two completely separate blocks with empty space between them, or as two ends of a continuum with the space between them filled in, is purely a matter of visualization and not pertinent to the question. The important fact is that you regard part of reality as immune to natural law.

About the "laws of nature": to say that the laws of nature are a "human construction" is a meaningless observation. Everything we are talking about here is a "human construction." In no way does that imply that the laws of nature may be disregarded, or are arbitrary; they are not.

The laws of nature are descriptions of the way that we observe events to take place. To postulate that parts of reality exist which violate the laws of nature is to postulate the existence of things which are radically different in nature from what we observe on a very fundamental level. It is also, I believe, in this specific instance to confuse psychological with physical reality and to commit the error that is sometimes called "spiritual materialism."

I believe in many of the actual observed events that Eric does, but he leaps immediately to a supernatural explanation for them, while I prefer a non-dualistic explanation that keeps all the world under natural law as science has discovered, expanded by some principles that describe the behavior of magic itself as I have observed it. And there I believe is the real difference between his views and mine.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

About the "laws of nature": to say that the laws of nature are a "human construction" is a meaningless observation. Everything we are talking about here is a "human construction." In no way does that imply that the laws of nature may be disregarded, or are arbitrary; they are not.

I tell the law of gravity what it can go do with itself every time I raise my hand and touch my nose.