Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

1. Sorry, there doesn't need to be a Godhead.

2. Yes, there can be many "godheads", which we scientifically call 'stars'.

3. No, they are not equivalent spirits.

Those are interesting answers Bgood. Yes, I can see how starts would be "godheads" if you think of a "godhead" as being a "creator". And yes, I agree that they would then not be equivalent spirits, or even spirits at all since they "presumably" have no experiences.

Human consciousness and the universe are the two big mysteries which scientists are currently exploring and learning more about all the time. The million dollar questions are: Is there a link or connection between the two? Are stars synonomous to large atoms? Is the human mind a microcosm of the macrocosmic universe? Is Cosmic Consciousness a reality????

Those are interesting questions too. The human brain is said to contain basically the same number of neuron as our Milky Way galaxy has stars. That's kind of interesting to think that we basically have the equivalent of galaxy in each one of our heads (at least in terms of complexity).

It also raises the question that maybe galaxies themselves are giant "brains" of sorts. There is certainly electromagnetic energy and solar winds dynamically exchanging energy between all the starts and solar systems. Not to mention gravity waves, neutrinos and so forth.

Maybe a galaxy itself is "conscious" in a similar way that a biological brain is conscious. Of course, a "thought" in a galaxy brain would be far slower and take years to be completed. Yet maybe for a galaxy those kinds of time periods might seem like a blink of an eye.

Of course a galaxy brain couldn't do anything but think because it has no muscles or mechanisms for motivation. But none-the-less it could be a brain of some sort. Interesting fantasy thought for a sci-fi movie.

---

Grab a cup of coffee, here comes another wall poster.

So "spirit" is merely consciousness to you.

Now you are the one who is misunderstanding me.

I didn't say that spirit is merely consciousness. I said that spirit is the thing that has the experience.

Hey, you do know that science has pretty much rock solid proven that consciousness is seated in the brain? And that when the brian dies...well...consciousness stops.

That's irrelevant to me. I don't question that at all. If spirit is indeed somehow gaining its experience through biological brains, then of course it's going to scientifically appear that those biological computers are the things that are "conscious".

So I'm not personally bothered by this.

And I'm just sharing my views with you. I'm not asking you to accept my views. If you feel that it must then be the brain itself that is having the experience that's certainly a valid view. I personally don't see how a brain can have an 'experience'.

What would be having the experience? The atoms the brain is made of? The illusive "emergent property" that biologists claim exists and has this experience? I've already tried to explain why I personally don't find that compelling.

What will you allow me to get away with as far as assumption on the mysterious side of things?

You are more than welcome to get away with anything you so choose.

I'm not asking you to accept anything. All I'm doing is offering my personal perspective on things.

And I try to make it clear that it's perfectly alright with me if someone prefers a totally secular picture of life. I can respect that.

All I ask is that they give me the same respect for considering a spiritual view as an alternative to that.

How about that since we really dont know everything, that i say that spiritualists are obviously wrong, since we dont know every single detail?

Spiritualists are "wrong" about what?

I'm not claiming that spirit necessarily exists (my signature line does count, that's just artistic humor). All I'm saying is that I personally believe that it's plausible. At least just as plausible as a totally secular universe.

I don't see where one has a leg-up on the other. In fact, I've tried to explain why I feel that spirituality might actually have the edge if we're going to keep score.

Why can YOU get away with assuming things because we dont know 100% of everything, but if I do the same then I am close minded?

I can get away with anything I want because it's my speculations. I'm not making any concrete claims. I'm just trying to offer why I feel spirituality may have a leg-up on secularism.

Do you know 100% of everything? No? Therefore you and I are both wrong.

Well I never claimed to be right. I'm just trying to convey why I feel justified in considering spirituality as a plausible "explanation" for what is having the experience of consciousness.

And YES, I fully realize that this places me in a deeper position of then having to "explain" spirit. But I'm willing to accept that. From my personal perspective I see more opportunity for possibly explaining "spirit" in terms of quantum fields, than I see in explaining it via a mere abstract idea of an "emergent property" of a biological computer.

If you personally prefer the emergent property explanation and you're happy with that, then more power to you.

I'm not arguing with you about that. But I'm not personally prepared to accept that explanation for myself. That's all.

We might not get anything done with this impractical view, but at least we will have peace and quiet.

I'm peaceful here. I certainly hope that my views aren't in any way disturbing you. That's certainly not my intent.

I'm not attempting to 'argue' with you in any way. I'm just making conversation and sharing views. I'm not asking you to believe like me.

Again, don't take my sig line seriously. It's intended as philosophical artwork. It's not intended to be a "proselytizing poster".

Maybe I'll change it if people are going to be viewing it as such.

I suppose I could tone it down in size a bit so it doesn't appear so threatening. But honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would be threaten by a poster telling them that they are god.