'Consciousness itself eludes scientific weighing and measuring.'

Not so. There has been a great deal of investigation in recent years into what we refer to as consciousness, and what the anatomical and physiological bases for it might be. There's a significant way to go, and numerous theories on offer - which is as it should be. It is quite possible that in the near future science will produce observable results that enable us to explain consciousness in terms of such bases - by what you refer to as 'weighing and measuring', in other words.

None of which is to deny the existence of love, or spirituality, or any such complex states or experiences. But neither do these require the existence of anything 'psychic' to support them.

There has been a great deal of investigation in recent years into what we refer to as consciousness

--I remember hearing about a study on moral issues, in how the brain,etc.. reacts to such decisions(sp)...i don't quite remember where i heard it, perhaps ABC??

It is quite possible that in the near future science will produce observable results that enable us to explain consciousness in terms of such bases.

Only if scientists substitute the word "describe" with "explain".

Science can only expect to describe consciousness and its relationship with the brain. (I've been swotting up on consciousness and investigating it for many years. It's a fascinating subject.) There is actually a distinct difference between consciousness and the material brain. Consciousness - that which experiences, feels, sees and knows - transcends inanimate matter. It is the inner-dimension of one’s being. The neurones and electrical charges of the brain are physical representations of ‘consciousness action’. (We’ve already described how consciousness can control physical aspects of the brain, as opposed to the other way round, in another thread https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=11&AID=62153#586613 Note the references to Victor Frankl, the survivor of Auschwitz death camp).

The “observable scientific results” that you talk about can only represent physical actions of the brain. By definition, it can’t detect the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of one’s inner feelings or thoughts. That’s because these are experienced by a self-aware ‘subject’, which transcends inanimate matter.

My Furry friend, your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are. I’m not saying that consciousness is anything magical or mystical. Rather, it is natural. Just as psychic ability is natural. (It speaks volumes about the depth and profundity of nature, mind.) At the end of the day, it’s all energy. From my point of view, it so happens that our inner-spirit is created “in the image and likeness of God” – (i.e. it is the deeper nature of the Infinite Existence.)

None of which is to deny the existence of love, or spirituality, or any such complex states or experiences.

Amen to that. I believe that love is the reason and cause of our existence. To “love one another as ourself” is a cosmic law we can all get attuned with. It can work wonders with the soul.

We are creators of our own experience, and only we as individuals can judge whether our model of the world, and our own points of view, are "enlightened" or not.

Blah solipsism.

Firstly, science has revealed that energy cannot be annihilated or newly created. It can only change form. Therefore, ‘Something’ must have existed for ever. It has no beginning and no end. (This is what I refer to as “the Infinite Existence.”) Naturally, “the Infinite” transcends our finite minds, and also transcends science. But what is its ultimate nature? In other words, is everything that exists made purely of materialistic stuff that can be weighed or measured by traditional scientific methods?

I love when people take a grain of scientific truth and make fantastic leaps of delusion. Yes, it's all materialistic "stuff."

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. Therefore, all views and conclusions are necessarily subjective.

This is entirely incorrect. The speed of light, for example, is 186,000 miles per second no matter what you might "draw from your mind."

A person with a large degree of psychic awareness, however, is like the enlightened spaceman, who had a greater perspective of reality.

And all the skeptic asks for is for these people with "large degrees" to give us some actual proof and not just new age garbage -- such as you spout in every single thing you post.

Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs.

Yes, they say the insane never question their sanity.

I can almost *smell* the nag champa when I read you.

This is entirely incorrect. The speed of light, for example, is 186,000 miles per second no matter what you might "draw from your mind."

The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.

With this principle of subjectivity in mind, its logic can be taken to its ultimate level. Who can deny that in the face of “the Infinite”, we are all completely lost – intellectually speaking?

The Good News is that our Creator has placed a compass within our hearts. And this compass, when we get in touch with it, shows us the way Home. Our Home has nothing to do with intellectual conundrums, or with finding “proof” via dogmatic, brute materialistic principles. Instead, it has everything to do with wisdom, purpose, love, and a striving for a greater understanding of the meaning of life. We are not alone in this world. Trust me, we are constantly surrounded by Angels, spirit guides, and the love of God. The reason why our finite minds - with its limited faculties – cannot detect the presence of such divinity, is because their Heavenly Energies, (in spirit form), vibrate at higher frequencies than our earthly consciousness can detect. But our heart can know the Truth. Deep down, our souls already resonate with the wisdom and Truth of God, and we can know that God is with us always, comforting us and guiding us along our journey.

Even if we’re not that way inclined, and if we’re somewhat agnostic to the existence of God, or to the purpose of life, then we can begin to trust that our existence is no accident. We can trust that all suffering, frustration, and pain will ultimately be redeemed by the eternality of God's unconditional love. All negativities and apparent contradictions are merely contrasts in the Bigger Picture. God does not make mistakes. The Master Plan is indeed leading toward an all-wise and beneficent end. Rest assured, a greater good will arise because of the shite we face on earth, rather than in spite of it. Trust that we are forgiven for our iniquities.

I’ll conclude with a quote from the enlightened movie 'American Beauty', spoken here from beyond the grave by Kevin Spacey’s character Lester. He’s just been shot dead by a frustrated neighbour after having lived a mundane and ordinary life cooped up in a dead marriage for twenty years. His perspective is now somewhat enlightened, even though (probably deliberately), he doesn't give away too much:

“I guess I could be pretty pissed off with what happened to me. But it’s hard to stay mad when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst. And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold onto it. And then it flows through me like rain, and I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life. You have no idea what I’m talking about, I’m sure. But don’t worry. You will someday.”

‘Only if scientists substitute the word "describe" with "explain".’ / ‘Science can only expect to describe consciousness and its relationship with the brain.’
I suspect that you really don't understand science at all. Explanation is exactly what it does. Conversely, one thing it really doesn't do is description. I tend to think that this function is best tackled by poets, authors and artists.

‘I've been swotting up on consciousness and investigating it for many years. It's a fascinating subject.’
Then no doubt you have read the works of John McCrone, specifically ‘The Ape That Spoke’, in which McCrone presents an intriguing argument that consciousness or self-awareness is in essence a by-product of the acquisition of language, and fully rooted in the physiological functioning of the brain. Any comments?

'The neurones and electrical charges of the brain are physical representations of ‘consciousness action.’
Ah, a scientific statement, it would appear. So Andy, how did you prove that the physical is a reflection of the experienced, and not the opposite?

'The “observable scientific results” that you talk about can only represent physical actions of the brain. By definition, it can’t detect the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of one’s inner feelings or thoughts.'
Whatever you mean by 'is-ness'(!), this is plain wrong. Electrical activity in the brain changes in accordance with emotions and moods. It can be detected and measured. (Which is not to say that science has the capability of fully explaining the link between mind and brain ... yet.)

‘We’ve already described [how consciousness can control physical aspects of the brain …]'
Described! The very word you use to denigrate science’s contribution to the debate you now employ to promote your own side of the argument. Not exactly fair, let alone consistent.

'My Furry friend, your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are.'
Sorry Andy, you can use as many capital letters as you like but it still won't make this any more than a motherhood statement. And who are you to make this grand pronouncement? Others (including me) might suggest that my diary is who I really am, or my bank balance, my wardrobe, my dreams, my car, my politics, my CD collection, my diet, my charitable contributions, or even how I am perceived by others. If I'm a paranoid-schizophrenic and my 'inner-spirit' is that of a Venusian imprisoned on earth for purposes of sophisticated yet discrete psychological testing, is that who I really am? Seriously, is it?

‘I’m not saying that consciousness is anything magical or mystical. Rather, it is natural. Just as psychic ability is natural. (It speaks volumes about the depth and profundity of nature, mind.) At the end of the day, it’s all energy.'
Hmm, natural. Now, what exactly does that mean? Natural like flowers, or natural like uranium? Natural like the seasons, or natural like spina bifida? Ah, I see - it means nothing.
If consciousness is, as you say, energy, then science can detect it. And if science cannot detect it, then it is not energy, ergo it must be magical or mystical. QED, as we scientists say.

'The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.'
Absolute codswallop, and I have trouble accepting that you don't realise it, Andy. Change the units of measurement as much as you like, the speed of light is what it is – unchanging, independent of the observer, in a word – objective. This is a matter of measurement, not description; they are two very different things and should not be confused. If, to borrow your scurrilous scenario, an alien race from a different world had chosen to label our earth as ‘six inches' in diameter, the physical reality of the object in question would remain unchanged.

‘The Good News is that our Creator has placed a compass within our hearts.’
Now we get to the core of your argument. It is your opinion, and you are fully and unarguably entitled to it. You are even – at a pinch(!) – allowed to conclude with a quote from a fictitious dead guy. But …

‘Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs.‘
… so don’t make statements of supposed fact when they are statements of belief.

Andy, you can use as many capital letters as you like but it still won't make this any more than a motherhood statement

You’re right Furry, I was being a bit dramatic there. I’ll try to cut out the frills from now.

And who are you to make this grand pronouncement? Others (including me) might suggest that my diary is who I really am, or my bank balance, my wardrobe, my dreams, my car, my politics, my CD collection, my diet, my charitable contributions, or even how I am perceived by others. If I'm a paranoid-schizophrenic and my 'inner-spirit' is that of a Venusian imprisoned on earth for purposes of sophisticated yet discrete psychological testing, is that who I really am? Seriously, is it?

Furry, I can only assume that you’re either deliberately missing the point I’m making, or you have a ‘blind spot’ that is preventing you from seeing. Your diary, your bank balance, your politics, your wardrobe, etc. don’t experience your life. They don’t feel anything, they can’t sense anything, they can’t make decisions, and they can’t experience friendship. The part of you that does these things is your consciousness. It is your self-awareness - ‘who you are’ - in the sense of your inner-core. It's your sentient, experiencing being, who actually lives your life and knows things.

When I said that the essence (or “is-ness”) of your consciousness transcends inanimate matter, I was implying that consciousness, (another word for which is "spirit"), is of an ethereal substance, more so than brute matter. It is energy nonetheless, but it is distinguishable from inanimate matter because of its self-aware and ethereal qualities.

Then no doubt you have read the works of John McCrone, specifically ‘The Ape That Spoke’, in which McCrone presents an intriguing argument that consciousness or self-awareness is in essence a by-product of the acquisition of language, and fully rooted in the physiological functioning of the brain. Any comments?

I’ve never heard of John McCrone, to be honest. I’ve read books by the likes of Susan Blackmore, Daniel Dennet and Gerald M. Edelman, (the latter got a Nobel prize for his research), and many others. They all make similar conclusions to the points you have made. But spirituality and science are not in conflict, and none of it refutes religious belief, (unless you interpret it in ways that cause conflict). I'm not trying to create any conflict here either. I just enjoy reading about consciousness. It's a fascinating subject.

'The neurones and electrical charges of the brain are physical representations of ‘consciousness action.’

Ah, a scientific statement, it would appear. So Andy, how did you prove that the physical is a reflection of the experienced, and not the opposite?

Consciousness and the physical brain are not “opposites”. They are intimately related. Either one can effect the other. One’s consciousness can freely choose to respond to external conditions, (see the points about Sigmund Freud’s theory in the other thread), and one’s physical environment can also effect one’s consciousness. The point I have made is that a spiritually developed person can retain inner strength and a sense of peace, regardless of external conditions. In other words, it is possible for one’s consciousness to affect the outside world, as well as the other way round. (I tried to illustrate this point in the post about the Auschwitz survivor on the other thread.)

'The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second.

Absolute codswallop, and I have trouble accepting that you don't realise it, Andy.

It’s not codswallop at all. If you re-read the statement, you will see that it is actually very true. I’m coming at it from a different angle to you. “Light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is indeed a subjective notion, as I illustrated with the alien analogy. How much our notions are aligned with ‘what is so’ is not the issue I was addressing. (Myrrander’s comment about the speed of light happened to be aligned with ‘what is so’). But you missed the deeper point I was making, which is this:

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. . . . With this principle of subjectivity in mind, its logic can be taken to its ultimate level. Who can deny that in the face of “the Infinite”, we are all completely lost – intellectually speaking? . . . Whatever our views, they are necessarily subjective, because we’re all catching brief glimpses of the Infinite Reality through the small windows of our consciousness.

In the face of the Infinite, our intellectual concepts hang in limbo, floating around in an open sea, so to speak. This leads me onto your next statement:

I suspect that you really don't understand science at all. Explanation is exactly what it does. Conversely, one thing it really doesn't do is description.

Furry, science can only explore and describe the cosmos. It can't do anything else. From an ultimate point of view, science cannot explain anything at all. Notice here I’m talking from within the context of the Infinite Picture – which science can only begin to describe, albeit in part. How large is our perspective of ‘What Is So’? How deep and broad are the windows of human consciousness? Do deeper dimensions of reality exist that our mortal consciousness might be oblivious to?

Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat. Consciousness and human awareness expands deeper and broader than many (materialistic) scientists seem to know. Our extended awareness is simply known as "psychic ability". Heaven exists, believe it or not. God exists. Spirit guides exist. And death is not the end. Your consciousness – that ethereal energy of yours – will continue to experience life beyond the veil of death, in a "spiritual body", made of different stuff from our bodies on earth. The Next World is simply vibrating at higher frequencies of matter and energy than this crude earth realm. Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe? Love is the Ground of Being, the cause and reason of all of life. God is love.

… so don’t make statements of supposed fact when they are statements of belief.

From my point of view, they are statements of fact.

Now we get to the core of your argument. It is your opinion,

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s simply my point of view. All our views are subjective. And as far as I can see, everything is wonderful.

I'll keep this short, Andy - we're going nowhere, and I detect a certain deliberate obtuseness in your answers.

'Furry, I can only assume that you’re either deliberately missing the point I’m making, or you have a ‘blind spot’ that is preventing you from seeing.'
No, I'm asking what gives you the right to pronounce 'your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are.''

'Consciousness and the physical brain are not “opposites”.'
The question was nothing to do with opposites, it was to do with causality. You imply that the 'inner-spirit' causes electrical action in the brain, and I asked how you had proved that it wasn't the other way round.

'It’s not codswallop at all.'
Yes it is, utterly so. The speed of light is what it is, and one thing it ain't is subjective. Your 'deeper point' appears to be nothing but a statement of your religious belief - all well and good, but totally irrelevant in this context.

'From an ultimate point of view ...'
If it's ultimate, then it's not a point of view, is it? (See, you're not the only one who can indulge in wordplay.)

'Heaven exists, believe it or not. God exists. Spirit guides exist. And death is not the end. Your consciousness – that ethereal energy of yours – will continue to experience life beyond the veil of death. The Next World is simply vibrating at higher frequencies of matter and energy than this crude earth realm.'
Yet more woolly declarations of supposed 'fact'. Yawn.

'Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?''
And that's just pseudo-scientific crap.

'Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat.'
Ah, so you have special insight into these things? I have been civil here, but this is patronising sh*te. You know what you can do with it.

'From my point of view, they are statements of fact.'
Perversion of language. If they are facts, they should not require a point of view.

I thought you might have something meaningful to contribute, Andy, but no - like so many others, you attempting to subvert and bastardise science to fit your purposes because, in its undistorted shape, it makes you uneasy about your faith. Shame. I'm out of here.

I detect a certain deliberate obtuseness in your answers

I can be a bit blunt at times. You'll have to excuse me if I came across as rude. It wasn't intended.

I can almost *smell* the nag champa when I read you.

'Tis better to be drunk on the Holy Spirit.

'Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat.'

Ah, so you have special insight into these things? I have been civil here, but this is patronising sh*te. You know what you can do with it.

I've retained my integrity throughout, Furry.

If it's ultimate, then it's not a point of view, is it?

From God's point of view, (which by definition, is the ultimate), science is the enterprise that explores the Creation. There is no need for conflict.

'I can be a bit blunt at times.'
Obtuse means almost the opposite of blunt. I meant blurry, evasive, indistinct, fluffy, fuzzy ... hah! ... furry.

'I've retained my integrity throughout, Furry.'
Bully for you.

'From God's point of view ...'
Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.

'From God's point of view ...' Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.

It’s basic logic. Whether you believe that God is a hypothetical concept or a reality is another matter.

It’s exciting to come spirituality of age. Humanity has some exciting times ahead, because our spiritual awareness, as a 'global consciousness’, will begin blossom, not unlike a Lotus Flower. (See the Buddhist sutra of the Lotus Flower.) Speaking from within a spiritual context, the evolution is this: Ignorance, faith, intuition, knowledge. The future of human evolution is psychic ability and spiritual awareness. Soon we’ll see that our religionists have been right all along.

But this isn't a bad thing. By definition, you can’t keep the Truth under wraps for long. Thank God.

'Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.'
'It’s basic logic.'

It gets even better! Not only do you speak for God, but it's LOGICAL that you do so! You obviously understand logic even less than you understand science. And your megalomania knows no bounds! So don't stop now ... this is getting more hilarious by the moment!

Incidentally, I notice that, whoever you claim to be speaking for, you conveniently forgot to address several of the points I raised ... like ''Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?'' being pseudo-scientific crap. Perhaps you can cite some irrefutable 'proof' of this from one of your many religious sources ...

It’s basic logic

(it's basic logic that science explores the Creation. Not basic logic that I'm speaking for God. Just to clear it up)

Thanks for the clarification. Equally wrong of course, in that 'the Creation' is a matter of pure conjecture, but you can't have everything. Laugh? I had to wring my socks out! This is tremendous!

I've just seen your post, Furry. We posted them at the same time.

you conveniently forgot to address several of the points I raised ... like ''Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?'' being pseudo-scientific crap. Perhaps you can cite some irrefutable 'proof' of this from one of your many religious sources

It's my own conclusion. And it's also something that's been concluded by many spiritual teachers over the ages. I believe that spirit is an energy which vibratres at higher frequencies than dense, inanimate matter. I believe that God is the 'Ultimate Spirit'. I also believe that "God is love". Put these things together, and I conclude that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe.

"Proof", regarding spiritual Truths, can be determined from within. Yet whether one's consciousness has blossomed, (i.e is vibtating at high enough frequencies), to understand higher esoteric truths and spiritual wisdom is another matter.

Sorry to sound like such a pompous wanker, but I'm just telling you the way it is from my point of view. That's all we can be expected to do.