[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

It is also my belief that the 'metaphysical', or nonphysical as I think you put it, is really on the same page as the 'physical' a bit different, but as long as it is a part of our world, something that can be interacted with, then it is considered to be 'physical'. Otherwise, where would you make that distinction between the physical and the nonphysical? I don't think that there is really any clear boundary. Furthermore, why would this belief in the nonphysical being separate from the physical come about in the first place? If there really were a 'nonphysical', this might then be an interaction between the two worlds, but then that also means that the two are 'connected' and with my previous statements about interaction, that would be the cause for that nonphysical to actually be physical (sorry if that was a bit convoluted... >.>). On the other hand, you could say, there really were no 'nonphysical', and then that nonphysical would merely be an illusion created entirely out of the physical realm. In any case, what I think I'm really trying to say here is that all of the universe, no matter what it is that makes it up, is all part of that whole, interconnected, unable to really be separated (or in other words, nondualism in a nutshell. )

I agree with you. I'm not actually a proponent of dualism. I believe mind and matter are made up of the same stuff, which I believe is consciousness. I think form is "simulated" in the same way that form is simulated in dreams. So from my perspective it is the physical world that is the illusion, rather than the nonphysical being the illusion. But perhaps I am only making semantical distinctions.

If you dissect a dream brain, however, you won't learn much about consciousness, except, perhaps about your own subconscious expectations of what object performs what functions in an illusory environment.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Yeah, while I agree that consciousness emerging as a result of the complex network of the brain may not necessarily be the right conclusion to the problem, from the results of the report, it certainly is in great favor of that conclusion. Moreover, the alternate explanation doesn't follow the results as 'closely', or rather, with respect to 'occam's razor' seems to be the more complicated version of the solution.

Occam's razor can be very misleading sometimes. The simpler answer isn't always the right one and furthermore, what is perceived as "simple" is a matter of perspective. You can ask a child and an adult where babies come from and chances are the child's answer will be more simple than the adult's answer, but it would also be less accurate in it's simplicity. Of course, they both seem to make sense to the person espousing such a theory based on their observations.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I know that while theoretically you cannot be 100% sure of anything, because the law of inductive reasoning has worked in the past (by way of the same law, no less ), it is far more reasonable to take the results as they are and use the explanation from the results and conclusions from empirical data as opposed to the results and conclusions that don't. (Yes, I know it is likely very difficult to get this other idea, including the 'nonphysical', of how the world works validated by experiment, especially when the theory essentially prevents it, but if that is the case, then at least start from something that can be 'proven' and work a way to that conclusion instead of simply purporting the conclusion (actually, I'd be very interested in you could link me to something that explains the reasoning behind these conclusions, thanks ))

I would start with Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on validating the phenomenon of reincarnation and then move onto more spiritually based works like Michael Newton's research on the topic of the between life state. He has clients from all types of backgrounds and beliefs, but they all report a remarkable consistency of information while under hypnosis about the nature of the spirit world and our consciousness. He's even had clients who unconsciously corroborated each others memories from past lives together.

And while I feel like there is some good empirical evidence to support reincarnation, I can't help but feel empiricism is not always the best way to go for spiritual knowledge. There have been some things I've read where I simply could not doubt what I read after reading it, even though there was no physical evidence to support it. I can literally feel the truth resonating in some works of spirituality. And I dare say, my life experience has been enriched immeasurably by such unscientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by Melchior

The 'fact' that "I" exist can also be debated. For instance, what is this "I" anyway? the age old statement of "I think, therefore I am" never really bothered to explain what the "I" was (or thinking for that matter...). Is the "I" something obvious to things in existence? In other posts, I've tried to tear down this distinction between the "I" and the "rest of the universe", giving the reason that the separation is merely an illusion. That means that the "I" in the 'fact' is no longer the "I" that it means to be.
It's fine if validation is not what you seek, but do be sure to keep questioning.

When I said the "I" is undoubtable I meant to imply that you are conscious of the fact that you are conscious. You can't doubt that you are conscious of being conscious. It's intrinsic. But you are right to question the nature of the ego.

I agree with the rest of your logic there.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Any evidence, as long as it is actually evidence, would be fine. Like I said above, fundamentally there should be no distinction between the physical and the nonphysical. If it's abstracting out the fundamentals though to reach this consciousness concept though, then while I might use it for it's convenience/utility, I would also not believe that it is entirely true, only an approximation, however good that approximation is.

Everything in the world of form can only be approximations anyway. I see the physical world as the manifestation of intangible thought forms. It's like trying to paint "love" or "freedom". What images do you use? What expresses those intangible concepts structurally or symbolically?

Everything is just a sign, pointing to a more inclusive reality. Or so, that is my opinion of how things are based on my spiritual understandings at this point in time.

Best regards.