Christianity

[Harry Baird]

So what is required for a mind to exist? Would you agree that matter is ALSO required?

Not matter per se, but some sort of energy, yes. See my post immediately above.

[Harry Baird]

Expanding knowledge of matter and energy as it relates to personal awareness is not really a just cause to make that new knowledge, something other than the physical.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).

What I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.

We might see things fairly similarly, then. You might be calling "physical" that which I refer to as "mental energy" - and I think you might be doing this simply because it is a type of energy, and thus "substantial" in some way. I think, though, that it's worth distinguishing between energies/substances that are capable of supporting (or embodying) consciousness/mind and those which are not, and thus I distinguish between physical and mental energies/substances.

[BigMike]

No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").

The four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?

[Harry Baird]

No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").

The four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?

Yes. I am a substance dualist in that sense. The alternative is idealism, but I think that substance dualism is a better fit than idealism as a way of explaining the veridical out-of-body experiences (OBEs/OOBEs) which occur in near-death experiences (NDEs) in particular. I also find idealism in general to be kind of a messy, i.e., convoluted, model of reality.

[BigMike]

No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").

The four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?

Yes. I am a substance dualist in that sense. The alternative is idealism, but I think that substance dualism is a better fit than idealism as a way of explaining the veridical out-of-body experiences (OBEs/OOBEs) which occur in near-death experiences (NDEs) in particular. I also find idealism in general to be kind of a messy, i.e., convoluted, model of reality.

Uh-huh. I see.

[Walker]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).

What I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.

We might see things fairly similarly, then. You might be calling "physical" that which I refer to as "mental energy" - and I think you might be doing this simply because it is a type of energy, and thus "substantial" in some way. I think, though, that it's worth distinguishing between energies/substances that are capable of supporting (or embodying) consciousness/mind and those which are not, and thus I distinguish between physical and mental energies/substances.

To a point, but all increasing energy trends towards light no matter from where it starts. Broad strokes avoids the religio/secular entanglement. Broad strokes.

I can distinguish energies, for I have seen what I think few folks have seen, or at least like me those who have are keeping quiet about it because it seems to me, folks have enough to not comprehend so why heap it on?

[Harry Baird]

[A]ll increasing energy trends towards light no matter from where it starts.

What, in your view, is the relationship between light and consciousness?

I can distinguish energies, for I have seen what I think few folks have seen, or at least like me those who have are keeping quiet about it because it seems to me, folks have enough to not comprehend so why heap it on?

I'm interested to know what you've seen. You can PM me if you'd prefer not to describe it publicly, but of course you don't even have to do that if you prefer not to.

[Walker]

Maybe it wasn’t fair to make just mention. Don't mean to be unfair. I only mention it because of your interest, and because matter and energy go together like coffee and twinkies, so both are physical. Light is energy and it is physical because it exists, and only the physical exists. So I lump the two together.

My forum philosophy: Public thinking, not pm thinking. Nothing personal.

Stick around and write more!

[Harry Baird]

Maybe it wasn’t fair to make just mention. Don't mean to be unfair. I only mention it because of your interest, and because matter and energy go together like coffee and twinkies, so both are physical. Light is energy and it is physical because it exists, and only the physical exists. So I lump the two together.

My forum philosophy: Public thinking, not pm thinking. Nothing personal.

Stick around and write more!

No worries. Cheers!

[BigMike]

Don't mean to be unfair. I only mention it because of your interest, and because matter and energy go together like coffee and twinkies, so both are physical. Light is energy and it is physical because it exists, and only the physical exists. So I lump the two together.

Yeah, E=mc². And E=hf. Is that what you were referring to when you said "I can distinguish energies, for I have seen what I think few folks have seen"?

[henry quirk]

We now know that learning and long term memory are basically the same thing. Both are the result of the growth of new axon terminals strengthening synaptic connections between neurons. Understanding, of which there are many kinds, results from 'learnings' and 'remembered information' that logically lead to a conclusion, and that logic is physically hardwired in the brain. Understanding is nothing but inferred conclusions.

Translation: electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) somehow, when put together in a certain way are conscious can remember, can understand, can learn, can conclude, can be logical, can infer, etc).

How?

*

Are you arguing that "qualities we possess which are not made out of energy" can freely launch brain processes, potentially resulting in actions, that would not otherwise occur?

I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).

And yet: here we are, supposedly nuthin' but conglomerations of electrons, neutrons, and protons, remembering, learning, concluding, bein' logical, inferring, etc.

As I asked Phyllo, up-thread...

Which is more likely?

-Unconscious particles somehow become conscious when arranged just right.

-Consciousness, or mind, is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles.

[BigMike]

Translation: electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) somehow, when put together in a certain way are conscious can remember, can understand, can learn, can conclude, can be logical, can infer, etc).

How?

Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.

Are you arguing that "qualities we possess which are not made out of energy" can freely launch brain processes, potentially resulting in actions, that would not otherwise occur?

I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).

And yet: here we are, supposedly nuthin' but conglomerations of electrons, neutrons, and protons, remembering, learning, concluding, bein' logical, inferring, etc.

As I asked Phyllo, up-thread...

Which is more likely?

-Unconscious particles somehow become conscious when arranged just right.

-Consciousness, or mind, is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles.

So going back to my question, your answer is what? Yes? No?

[henry quirk]

Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.

Alpha Zero is a calculator: it understands nuthin'. Go, tell it a joke, wait (forever) for the chuckle.

More than a few neuroscientists ask the same question: how do unconscious particles give rise to consciousness?, so mebbe you need to learn a little neuroscience.

*

So going back to my question, your answer is what? Yes? No?

My answer is...

I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).

And yet: here we are, supposedly nuthin' but conglomerations of electrons, neutrons, and protons, remembering, learning, concluding, bein' logical, inferring, etc.

As I asked Phyllo, up-thread...

Which is more likely?

-Unconscious particles somehow become conscious when arranged just right.

-Consciousness, or mind, is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles.

[BigMike]

Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.

Alpha Zero is a calculator: it understands nuthin'. Go, tell it a joke, wait (forever) for the chuckle.

Do you mean to imply that Alpha Zero does not know how to play chess? Humans have 86 billion neurons, while Alpha Zero has only a few hundred thousand. Obviously, Alpha Zero does not comprehend every human concept. But you asked "How?", remember? That can be explained with only a handful of neurons. Provided, of course, that you truly want to hear the answer.

[henry quirk]

Provided, of course, that you truly want to hear the answer.

I do: sock it to me.