If I gave you a lobotomy would that be an act of replacig you with a dumber yet similar being or would I have just taking something away from the indivisible unit?

Finally! Thank you!
Yes it's logical and no it's not happenstance. I'm so glad- well crud, I'd better read the rest first.

Not as direct as I was worried about but I think I still have to do this anyway.

In other words, to demand that the designer must adhere to strict logic whilst simultaneously demanding that it's happenstance is an oxymoronic claim to begin with doncha think?

Well if you don't think it exists you shouldn't have any problem with me stabbing your relatives and loved ones with a physical knife, as it would be fake and do nothing to them were it not real.

So do you think there's not a physical universe?

Well to play along you'd need to be organized. They want you to pay your way in after all.

Neither.

Referring back to ...

You can't give a lobotomy to a single, independent, indivisble unit.

So after have damaged the brain of your body what words would you use to describe what happens to that unit? Is it still connected? Did it leave? Is it like the plug is all loosely connected and giving a crappy signal?

That's a good question. From an observers perspective it would seem that person has been changed, destroyed or damaged. And indeed 'that person" or character has.

But I believe the real self is not the body, but the spirit or soul.

Is it still in there or did it leave? I would say it is still in there. Some sort of life stream is still connected or else the body would die.

If you lost two legs can you still walk? Not until you get artificial legs or learn to walk with your hands.

If you are totally paralyzed can you still think? Probably.

Whatever your physical limitations are, you adapt, live out your life and then die.

Then you can incarnate into your next life.

If you don't believe that, then okay.... you just die.

But in the mean time, you do the best you can with what you have left.

That is life.

That “loose connection” analogy is pretty good, although I think the car/driver analogy makes it a little clearer...

It would be like removing a couple spark plugs from the engine. The car no longer functions as well as it did before the sparkplugs were removed. But nothing has affected the driver. He still “sends signals” to the engine by pressing on the gas pedal. It’s just that the car now has some missing parts so it doesn’t work as well as it did before.

What's a life stream?

...are viruses not alive because they're not connected to that?


I can understand a player having to control a paraplegic character differently but if you mess up the prefrontal cortex the personality takes a big hit in rationality and shifts way over to emotional. If you can change a character that much why would it even matter if someone was a the controls?

It creates cognitive dissonance...

From what I gather, through many dozens of threads and possibly hundreds of posts, is that Abra, Sky, and JB each have quite distinct philosophies but they do share a common ground between them. The commonality they share is that each considers the idea that humans are no more than a transient vehicle through which a non-physical entity experiences a physical realm.

That is about the extent to which they align in philosophies. This is my personal observation, it may be incorrect. So I invite Abra, Sky, and JB to confirm or deny the observation which states:

“humans are no more than a transient vehicle through which a non-physical entity experiences a physical realm”.

I'm not looking for a whole philosophy here, just a confirmation or denial, and if you feel it’s necessary a short correcting entry.

Then to clarify even further for future discussions will you please respond to the two questions below.

Thanks for your cooperation – I think this will help us to understand each other and direct our questions, comments, and thoughts appropriately. OK - maybe it will only help me, but I would appreciate it.


The first question is: Do you believe this physical reality (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is an illusion? Whether you define that as holographic or some other form of mental projection is irrelevant to this particular question.

Only respond to the second question if you accept that the physical (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass.

The second question is: Is there any part of the human physical form that is intrinsically non-physical? In this case intrinsic is a quality defined as an inseparable part of the physical being.

Until the answers to these two questions are given, I don’t see how we could logically continue the discussion.

I would have to say yes, but at the same time object to your phrasing of the question. Perhaps if you simply change "humans" to "human bodies" that might be sufficient. Because it's actually the non-physical entity that is experiencing the physical realm that is the "human" in that case. If you catch my drift.



That's a difficult question to answer since the very definition of an 'illusion' is ill-defined. Even a hologram is created by interference patterns of light. I personally give physical 'reality' merit in terms of physical 'Laws", yet those laws are themselves rather illusive as you'll see in your next question:



Well first off, mass is in insignificant physical property. Mass is not the property that gives things their solidity. The solidity of particles come from electromagnetic forces, as well as the Pauli Exclusion Principle which is a very strange quantum effect. If you're attempting to reduce physicality down to some sort of actual billiard balls, or "physically tangible vibrating strings", I'm not sure how much "permanence" I would give to those fleeting concepts. I personally feel that Quantum Mechanics has indeed already shown us that those kinds of physical concepts are indeed quite fleeting and may not have the kind of 'physicality" that some people would like to believe they have.

Creative just started what may become an interesting thread on the philosophy of Taoism. Taoism is a philosophy that believes in an underlying 'life-force' that flows through everything (whether it's biologically living or not). I see our eternal "spirit" as being this all-pervading life-force. So that's my answer. The actual "physics" of the situation is secondary, IMHO.

In other words, what we think we know about the "physical nature" of the Tao is only a very tiny aspect of the totality of the Tao. So this is why I do not attempt to describe our entire true essence solely based on the scant physical misconceptions that we think we might know about a few trivial things through our very limited scientific understanding of the Tao (or spirit). You can put whatever LABEL on it you want. That's not going to change the underlying concept.

So I hope this helps. My stance is that what we know about physics, whilst it may hold some truth, it is nowhere near complete enough to try to use it to form any conclusions about the true essence of our actual being. We must go beyond that for now. Science is still wearing diapers in the context of these kinds of questions, IMHO.

I wouldn't state that as a absolute. While it may cause cognitive dissonance in some, it may not in others.

Sky,

Sorry it took a couple of days, I have been busy. I just wanted to say that because the last time I responded to you regarding the idea of intrinsic meaning I said that I would respond the following day, and it slipped my mind.





I can understand the perceived irony, however I actually wrote the labels for a reason and was not referring to just labels. In the context of what is being discussed, I am not addressing what the label means - as in a definition of a term. You are, it seems, and that is why I mentioned being hung up on the labels. I am discussung the intrinsic meaning which those labels attempt to identify. There is a distinction to be made.



It is not a matter of what there is to work with. It is a matter of establishing the difference between what we think behaviors mean through our subjective labels and what the behavior actually means. In my view, it is a huge mistake in thought to believe - in all cases - that we establish actual meaning through a label. Humans give meaning to words. Words have meaning for good reason. They are supposed to accurately reflect the world as it is - in and of itself. When discussing intrinsic meaning, I am referring the state of mind/being reflected by behavior, and it is not necessary to ignore the labels given. It is necessary to realize that those labels do not necessarily establish or cause the actual meaning. That is had - in and of itself.

I understand that I am probably not wording things in the way that I should. The earlier use of the term because comes to mind. That was a little sloppy of me, because the term itself can literally be used as a modifier which denotes direct cause. So if I write...

'The cat holds it's tail up straight because it is happy'

It is reasonable to conclude that I meant that being 'happy' caused the tail posture. That very well may be my own inability to effectively express the idea. It is wrongly put.

The behavior has an intrinsic meaning. It reflects a state of mind/being or the attitude of the cat in question. The state/attitude exists, regardless of whether or not we have a term to identify it. The term itself does not create the conditions which cause that state. That state/attitude is intrinsic to the behavior. It could have any number of different causes but always reflects the same meaning.

Without going into “a whole philosophy”, I’ll say that is accurate as far as it goes, with a small addition that is more of a caveat than a correction – the physical body is itself part of that physical realm experienced by the non-physical entity.

Hmmmm. . .

That’s a difficult question to answer the way it’s phrased.

Since my purpose in answering would be to provide information that would assist you in your understanding of my philosophy, my answer is dependent on what you mean by “illusion.

So let me ask the same question with another object, and you can take however you would answer mine as the answer I would give to yours.

“Do you believe the picture on a movie screen (i.e. the image and all that we attribute visual properties to) is an illusion?”

No, by definition. (Refer to first section of this post.)

Abra and Sky - I'm so happy to see that you have both responded. I just wanted to let you know that becasue I'm off to bed and have to work tomorrow. That means I will not be responding till tomorrow evening. But I just wanted you to know I will be anxious to get back and review what you have written.

Thanks.

This is how I would reword the above:

The human form (body) is a manifestation and expression of a non-physical conscious entity who experiences and operates in the physical universe.

<Speculation>
(Just as your mind reflects and manifests a dream body when you dream, so does your higher mind manifest a physical body in the physical world. Birth in the physical world takes place through a physical body because the density of this world prevents us from just forming a body out of thin air.)
</speculation>


*********************


Answer:
Personally I would not call it "an illusion" simply because we have defined it as "reality." (I don't see how it could be both.)

Hey, I'm all for calling it "reality."

I don't object to calling it "reality."



Answer: I don't know.

And I don't know if I "accept that the physical is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass, so I don't know if I even should have answered the question.

Yes, I understand completely. I was mostly making a joke, but partially indicating that I also understood the basic problems of trying to "assign meaning to meaning". It’s a bit of a Catch-22. You have to know the meaning associated with the label before you can understand the idea being conveyed. But we’re trying to establish/determine the meaning of the label so we can understand the meaning being conveyed. Yes, I completely get it.


Let me stop here just to say I understand. There is a difference between “cause” and “reason”. Saying “The reason the cat holds up it’s tails is that it is happy” is (subtly but importantly, in this case) different from “The happiness of the cat causes it’s tail to go up.”

(It took me a while to finally figure that out in trying to understand the idea you were attempting to convey. And I hope you appreciate the effort. )

Now even in the face of what I just said above, I still disagree …

You say “The state/attitude exists, regardless of whether or not we have a term to identify it.” But does it? How do you know? Can you measure that state/attitude itself through any objective means? I don’t think so.

The most you can say is that there is a cause-effect relationship between the smell of food and the cat’s tail going up. That is, there is a direct, cause-end-effect chain of chemical and neurological events that leads from the first airborne food molecule contacting an olfactory nerve, to the muscles in the tail contracting. And there is also a myriad of other effects triggered by the first molecule contacting the first olfactory nerve.

Now if that entire cause-effect matrix (i.e. “state”) is what you’re labeling “intrinsic meaning”, then I understand.

However, you would then have to say that any cause-effect relationship, of more than two stages, constitutes “intrinsic meaning”.

Either that or you’re going metaphysical on me and I’ll expect the rapture at any second.

This leaves the interesting question of what reason there could be to behave morally if our bodies are not even a part of us so much as something we're using.

The earth has a lot of water on it circulating from the sky to streams and rivers and the ocean to the sky. But it is all water.

A particular river may flow from a particular lake or pond in the mountains.

A life stream is a separate stream of life (spirit) that flows from its source, which is a conscious pool of life or an entity.

A virus has its own life stream and its own source.

Each species has its own life stream and its own source. Some call these sources the "over soul."

Eventually all streams flow from one over-all source.

You body's blood pumps from your lungs and heart. Your blood is the life source for your body.

Water is also a life source.

Spirit is also a life source.