A Scientific Basis for Spirit

[Abracadabra]

I'm not just going to give you anything at all. If you want to invoke science here do science. Demonstrate something.

Gee whiz Rhytmn, why should you feel that you need to 'give me' anything?

I mean think about it. I post my thoughts on a forum as "Food for Thought" for anyone who might be interested.

Yet, here you are acting like if you give my thoughts any merit at all you'd be somehow supporting me personally.

It's truly unfortunate that Internet forums tend to be like this. Everyone is at 'war' trying to prove their views are right and everyone else's views are wrong.

It's just food for thought, that's all.

I don't understand the question Abra (I don't think you understand what you're asking either).

I'll try to address your questions, in the spirit of "Food for Thought".

I'll give you my answers. Not intended as an argument. They are simply my answers to these questions:

Are you asking me why we can't "turn off" our consciousness?

No.

"We sometimes can, and do, to an extent.

Well we can ignore our thoughts.

But that's not the same as turning off consciousness.

As far as I know the only way to turn off conscious is to either go to sleep, or physically pass out. But even then we can't be sure that we are truly not conscious of those states. All we can be sure of is that we don't remember having been conscious when we reawaken. Perhaps all that's really going on during those times is that we aren't filing away memories of being conscious during those times?

Just food for thought.

Can you ignore your own thoughts?

I believe so. It's not easy, but yes, I believe that I have achieved states of meditation where I was not having any 'thoughts' at all. Certainly not any analytical thoughts. Just pure awareness without thinking about it.

Yes. I do believe I can ignore my own thoughts if I chose to.

Can you go blank, radio silent, comatose at will, if you will?

Not exactly but I have fallen asleep whilst meditating on occasion. (ha ha)

What mysterious presence?

The very presence that I can't simply make go away by pure will.

What free will?

Well, I don't know about you but I chose between thoughts all the time. In fact, if I didn't need to chose between thoughts I'd never have any choices to make at all.

The mere fact that I have to make choices seems to me to be concrete proof that I must choose between thoughts.

Precisely how free that process is, is clearly open to controversy.

Personally I believe in free will, but I'll probably get laughed at for believing in that too.

---

Could it be that what we call the spirit (or soul, or mind or whatever) is merely the brain's way of experiencing what it feels like to be a brain? After all, we can examine the brain's structure physically and measure its functions electronically, but only the organ's owner truly knows what it feels like from the inside.

Yes, that most certainly is a possibility. In fact, that is the current secular view right? The only problem I personally have with this idea is the problem associated with the "brain" itself experiencing anything?

What is it that is actually having this experience?

The brain is supposedly made of atoms. Atoms themselves cannot experience anything. So why should a large collection of them suddenly be able to have an 'experience'.

What is it that is having this experience?

The secular notion is that it's an 'emergent property' that has arisen from complexity. So what they are basically asking me to accept is the idea that an abstract notion of an "emergent property" is what is actually having the experience.

I find that concept hard to grasp.