Does spirituality exist?

[Iacchus]

Anyone interested in base-twelve? So basically what everyone is saying here is that the only "spiritual commodity" which is available -- hence, the understanding thereof -- is through the "word" of science. And, that basically for anyone to suggest otherwise really has no opinion in the matter -- or, at least this seems to be the "recurring theme" I'm up against ... And what were you saying about the name Yahweh adding up to the number 666?

So let's just say that such a thing as spirituality does exist, however the "rule of thumb" -- through science -- suggests otherwise. Wouldn't that in effect be the same as usurping the "office" and, the "name" of that which preceded it? ... Yahweh?

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. - Revelation 13:17-18

For more information here, where I substitute a chapter for a month and a verse for a day, please refer to Chapter 6 of my book ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

Also, please note that I'm merely noting a "coincidence" here.

 

[Dancing David]

And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary? This is just as good of an indication that it does exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.

Iacchus: I will note to you that the body does not die simulatneously and en masse, when the heart stops beating, the cells continue to live until they suffer anoxia and expire, this is not a phenomena that occurs in a single instant.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What does spirituality mean to you? Is it just based on delusions of people and incorrect interpretations of reality? Frankly, to me that's all it's been;

Could you be kind enough to reveal to us the correct interpretation of reality?

Thanks.

 

[Iacchus]

Anyone interested in base-twelve? So basically what everyone is saying here is that the only "spiritual commodity" which is available -- hence, the understanding thereof -- is through the "word" of science. And, that basically for anyone to suggest otherwise really has no opinion in the matter -- or, at least this seems to be the "recurring theme" I'm up against ... And what were you saying about the name Yahweh adding up to the number 666?

So let's just say that such a thing as spirituality does exist, however the "rule of thumb" -- through science -- suggests otherwise. Wouldn't that in effect be the same as usurping the "office" and, the "name" of that which preceded it? ... Yahweh?

For more information here, where I substitute a chapter for a month and a verse for a day, please refer to Chapter 6 of my book ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

Also, please note that I'm merely noting a "coincidence" here.

In case anybody missed it, I'm referring to January 17-18 here. And, much in the way 1 O'clock is referred to as 13:00 hours in military time (in base-twenty four then I guess?), January is also the 13th month ... as it no doubt follows the 12th month.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus: I will note to you that the body does not die simulatneously and en masse, when the heart stops beating, the cells continue to live until they suffer anoxia and expire, this is not a phenomena that occurs in a single instant.

Yes, but where does consciousness go, almost immediately I might add, when certain vital functions have expired?

 

[DVFinn]

And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary?

I would say that it is in fact evidence against the contrary. the fact that when the body ceases to function the consciousness disappears indicates that consciousness is a function of the physical body.

You seem to be saying that you take the fact that sentience disappears after death as evidence that it exists separate from the body. Why? Where do you get that conclusion? If you want to show that consciousness is in any way independent of the physical body you must demonstate evidence of consciuosness operating independent of the body. You do that and I know someone with $1,000,000 for you.

 

[Iacchus]

I would say that it is in fact evidence against the contrary. the fact that when the body ceases to function the consciousness disappears indicates that consciousness is a function of the physical body.

You seem to be saying that you take the fact that sentience disappears after death as evidence that it exists separate from the body. Why? Where do you get that conclusion? If you want to show that consciousness is in any way independent of the physical body you must demonstate evidence of consciuosness operating independent of the body. You do that and I know someone with $1,000,000 for you.

Does the radio signal not exist independently from the radio? And what happens when you crash the radio to bits, does it not also give up "the signal?"

 

[DVFinn]

Does the radio signal not exist independently from the radio? And what happens when you crash the radio to bits, does it not also give up "the signal?"

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic.

 

[Iacchus]

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic.

Are you saying it's not possible to control a computer remotely (via radio waves) and detail to all of its "peripheral entities" -- in our case it would be "our senses" -- what to do? It's all accomplished through electro-magnetic vibration by the way.

And why should I have to hook myself up to an oscilloscope when in fact I own a piece of the original equipment? And why do "you" wish to reduce the fact that we're human beings down to a bucket of bolts and a few electrical impulses? Is it possible that you've become lopsided in your neurotic over-analytical view? To where you can't even see the forest from the trees?

 

[DVFinn]

Are you saying it's not possible to control a computer remotely (via radio waves) and detail to all of its "peripheral entities"-- in our case it would be "our senses" -- what to do? It's all accomplished through electro-magnetic vibration by the way

No, I'm saying that you have not in any manner shown the similarity between controlling a computer via radio signals and the relationship between the human body and human sentience.

Yes it's possible to control a computer by radio if you have the necessary hardware. It's also possible to fly a kite by a string andpound a nail with a hammer.

You have made the comparison between the two things but not demonstrated any relationship between them. I ask again, what do radio waves and computers have to do with human consciousness? You have yet to make a single valid point in this line.

You refer to me as neyurotic and overanyltic. I don't see what's neurotic about calling someone on their arguments, especially when it would take more effort to overlook the ridiculous inconsistencies.

To where you can't even see the forest from the trees?

As far as I can tell your forest has no trees.

 

[hammegk]

Can you detect sentience independently of the body?

How does anyone other than you have proof of your sentience?

Have you discovered a consciousness wave?

Would you agree that the network of interacting boson fields associated with a lifeform would be different when it was alive rather than dead?

Bergson's elan vital, anyone? That could suffice for me as "spirit".

 

[DVFinn]

Would you agree that the network of interacting boson fields associated with a lifeform would be different when it was alive rather than dead?

I would have to look into it before answering. I have a rudimentary understanding of quantom physics and I know what a boson is, but beyond that i can't claim to have adequate knowledge to address you question.

 

[Iacchus]

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic.

Would you say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, much as music is the emergent property of a radio? In other words is the brain (like the radio) just a receptacle of which the emergent property -- consciousness -- is the medium?

Or, perhaps it would be better to compare consciousness to the software (or medium) of a computer, and the brain to the hardware or, the computer itself. Indeed, if in fact there is any truth to the matter, then we need to ask ourselves where does consciousness come from?

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, but where does consciousness go, almost immediately I might add, when certain vital functions have expired?

The consiousness is what it is when the body begins to expire, it is contained in the living anatomy of the brain. There is something that happen Lifegazer called anoxia, similar to a stoke, where the brain cells are depreived of oxygen. The brain looses it's ability to be consious, begins to suffer damage and if it continues and if blood flow is not restored then the brain and consiousness die.
I am sure you wish to feel that NDEs are some sort of proof that the consiousness goes somewhere, they aren't they are proof of 'confabualtion' by the brain. (Just my belief, some evidence)

And I am sure that just as in other cases you will say that it is damage to the radio, in which case I ask you about the nature of memory. Why in functioning brians that are knocked uncounsious does thier memory get all messed up. The brain/reciever is still functiong normally (albeit traumatized) if it is just recieving a signal, why is the signal incomplete when the brain/radio is turned back on?