Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

And what do you mean by spirit?

And how does this work with a "no god, but spirits.."

I cant follow..

In other words, please explain WITHOUT a wall of text.

May I ask you 3 questions?

1. Why does there need to be a Godhead?

2. If there can be one Godhead, why can't their be infinitely many?

3. If there are infinitely many Godheads wouldn't they ultimately all be equivalent spirits?

I curiously await your thoughts.

[Epimethean]

Here we go ... again.

[reverendjeremiah]

May I ask you 3 questions?

1. Why does there need to be a Godhead?

2. If there can be one Godhead, why can't their be infinitely many?

3. If there are infinitely many Godheads wouldn't they ultimately all be equivalent spirits?

I curiously await your thoughts.

All great and wonderful questions i would assume.

No what exactly is a "spirit"?

[Abracadabra]

May I ask you 3 questions?

1. Why does there need to be a Godhead?

2. If there can be one Godhead, why can't their be infinitely many?

3. If there are infinitely many Godheads wouldn't they ultimately all be equivalent spirits?

I curiously await your thoughts.

All great and wonderful questions i would assume.

No what exactly is a "spirit"?

So you have no thoughts to offer concerning those questions?

You ask me "exactly what is a spirit"?

From a scientific point of view that's simple. I have no clue. This is why I choose philosophies that address mysticism. It's a mystery.

Abstractly, spirit is simply the ultimate being that experiences reality. How that actually works, or what constitutes the true nature of spirit, eludes me just as much as the true nature of quantum fields eludes scientists.

Just like the scientists, I don't need to understand the true nature of something to know that it exists. Something must be experiencing this life. Whatever it is that is having this experience is "spirit".

That's the best I can offer.

[Bgood]

And what do you mean by spirit?

And how does this work with a "no god, but spirits.."

I cant follow..

In other words, please explain WITHOUT a wall of text.

May I ask you 3 questions?

1. Why does there need to be a Godhead?

2. If there can be one Godhead, why can't their be infinitely many?

3. If there are infinitely many Godheads wouldn't they ultimately all be equivalent spirits?

I curiously await your thoughts.

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.

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????

[reverendjeremiah]

So "spirit" is merely consciousness to you.

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.

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

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

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?


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

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

[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.

[tackattack]

I would definately define what you deem as spirit as
consciousness[kon-shuhs-nis]   Origin con·scious·ness   /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ Show Spelled[kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

Unless you take a step further and insist that the spirit is seperate from consciousness and a being in and of itself. Then we're really speaking to 2 people at once.. and that's called something else.... .

[Abracadabra]

I would definately define what you deem as spirit as
consciousness[kon-shuhs-nis]   Origin con·scious·ness   /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ Show Spelled[kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

Unless you take a step further and insist that the spirit is seperate from consciousness and a being in and of itself. Then we're really speaking to 2 people at once.. and that's called something else.... .

No not at all.

You're making the grave mistake of thinking that just because you can look a word up in a dictionary that means that you have absolute positive proof of the true nature of something.

That's utterly silly. If that's all we needed to do to demonstrate the true nature and true answer of any philosophical question then all philosophy and science would already be finished and done. All we would need to do is turn to our dictionaries to discover the deepest truths of reality.

You can't use a dictionary definition to settle a philosophical question like this.

Let's exam some of these definitions:

1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Awareness of one's own existence? And what is it that is aware of this existence? That's the REAL question. The atoms of the physical brain? The physical brain as an entire complex organ? Or is it some sort of abstract notion of a hypothetical emergent property of this biological computer that is having this awareness?

This definition doesn't say what it is that is actually experiencing "awareness". And THAT is the philosophical question that is being addressed. So this definition is utterly useless to resolve this philosophical question. It just assumes that a physical body or brain is the thing that is aware. But a mere dictionary definition most certainly doesn't prove that this is the truth of reality.

Like I say, if we could just turn to our dictionaries to resolve these types of questions all of science and philosophy would be finished. All we would need to do to answer any question is turn to our dictionaries.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.

Again, what is it that is experiencing these thoughts and feelings? This doesn't answer that mystery. In fact this definition suggests that an entire aggregate of people can share a "consciousness". So that really get's murky there. Apparently whoever wrote this definition is quite happy to label agreement as "collective consciousness".

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

That's a strict technical definition there that really doesn't address the issue of what it is that is experiencing consciousness. In fact, according to this definition when we are unconscious we are basically dead then. Whatever it was that was "experiencing consciousness" no longer exists when there is no consciousness to experience. That's food for thought for deep philosophical inquiry as well.

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.

Again what is it that is having this awareness? This definition doesn't even remotely address this philosophical question.

5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

They're just babbling by this point. Basically offering a brief thesaurus in #5.

You can't resolve deep philosophical and scientific questions by just looking up a word in a dictionary. That's ridiculous. If you could do that then all of science and philosophy would already be complete. Any time you want to know the true nature of something just look it up in the dictionary.

That's silly.

Moreover, these definitions didn't even remotely address the issue of exactly what it is that is "aware" of this consciousness? That is a mystery as yet unknown by both scientists and philosophers. I'm sure that the authors of dictionaries don't have a clue either.

---

Unless you take a step further and insist that the spirit is seperate from consciousness and a being in and of itself. Then we're really speaking to 2 people at once.. and that's called something else.... .

I see things totally different from the way that you see them.

Spirit is the entity that is experiencing the consciousness. Consciousness itself has no 'experience'. What would consciousness be to have an 'experience"? You're right back at square one again, giving a totally abstract concept the ability to experience something.

What is it that is having the experiences of consciousnesses?

That is the heart of the question that I'm concerned with.

As I've stated, thus far we have two proposed ideas.

Secularists propose that it is an abstract idea of an "emergent property" of a complex biological computer that is actually experiencing this consciousness.

I ask, "How can an abstract notion of an "emergent property" experience anything?

Spiritualist suggest that there is some deeper explanation.

I personally find the spiritualist's view to be more compelling, and at least just as plausible, if not more so.

I just have deeply serious problems imagining an abstract notion of an "emergent property" having an "experience".

So what's experiencing this conscious awareness? The atoms that the brain is made of? No that make no sense. So we need to imagine that some property emerges from the complexity of the brain and it is this emergent property that is having this experience.

But how could an emergent property experience anything any more than an atom could experience something????

These are DEEP philosophical questions that cannot be resolved by throwing a dictionary in someone's face.

That's absurd.

[RW_9]

The unknown science approach that is becoming more and more popular seems silly to me. Since some things are unknown, you just randomly decide to attach spiritual terms to the unknown? That is no different than people who claim we can't know the origins of the universe, thus it must have been the doing of a deity. It is nothing more than people being uncomfortable with the purely unknown and filling it with feel-good nonsense to make them feel more secure about existence.