[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

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.

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.

Those semantic distinctions do help the understanding though, and I appreciate it. As a result of this, it has become clear that we both share similar thoughts on the subject of the physical/nonphysical in terms of duality. The difference then lies in which way we lean toward in terms of what the actually resembles more. I've chosen that all is essentially physical and that metaphysical stuffs are just another component of that, whereas the views you have are more that the 'nonphysical' is all that there is. Now, with respect to the actual operation of the world, both views are identical, and whereas I say it runs off of physics, you're more inclined to say it's consciousness, right? (Hopefully that was a somewhat accurate summarization of our 'clashing' views).

Now, I have run into a bit of trouble however, because these two systems are still a bit different. In one, the physical laws of the universe are what I attribute to the operation of consciousness, the other, consciousness is essentially the physical laws of the universe. These two universes are different though, because technically, in the second, the physical laws can change depending on a changing consciousness (or better put, the universe is the consciousness and changes in the universe reflect changes of the unifying consciousness). In the first however, the physical laws are more or less set and all that the universe is is resultant from these invariant laws. A question then would be if there were laws governing the consciousness, per say, similar to how physical laws govern the universe in the 'purely physical' model?

Phenomenologically, the two universes 'behave' the same way (after all, I think they both try to explain the one we live in), but qualitatively, the two universes are different and the 'purely consciousness' model seems to 'allow' for a greater degree of freedom of what the world can actually be (a degree of freedom that we haven't really seen yet, but that may be because of the laws of the unifying consciousness itself preventing that?). I'm not sure if occam's razor works with this problem anymore. phenomenologically, the two models describe everything 'perfectly', however they describe different 'everythings', if you know what I mean there... I still believe that the 'purely physical' model is the simpler of the two when describing only what we see, namely due to that extra freedom presented by the 'purely conscious' one. Moreover, there are more 'elements' involved in the purely conscious one, there's the 'consciousness' and the 'dream', but perhaps the consciousness is the dream, correct me on that. On the other hand, the 'purely physical' model only presents the 'physical world'.

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.

The thing with the consciousness model and empirical evidence is that empirical evidence is essentially useless on the same level as non-empirical evidence (essentially due to that extra degree of freedom I mentioned earlier, that an evolving consciousness can generate it's own evidence for whatever phenomenon it expresses). Also, with all this life/death states, if consciousness is the universe, it still doesn't make any sense to talk about life or death because the universe, or unified consciousness, continues on regardless. It would be useful in describing a 'unified consciousness' in a 'purely physical' model, but as soon as we move to a 'purely consciousness' model, I don't see how that could be used in the same manner. Then again, I suppose at that point, the 'work' would already have been done and it wouldn't matter. Still, I can think of other inconsistencies with the 'unified consciousness' model, but if they are really due to the illusioned 'purely physical' model mucking thing up, then why should they exist in the first place? (inconsistencies include some laws being universal (namely the illusioned ones) and others not being universal (namely those describing the unified consciousness and the projections of it), this evolution that is going on, for there's nothing to compare it to (or perhaps this 'unified consciousness' is really something of a record of everything (essentially just itself) during its existence, which is akin to the term God, hmmm...., also that system might allow for inconsistencies but may not exhibit it (i.e. a changing consciousness that doesn't really change anything but the illusion, and not itself))

In other words, I think I've at least gotten a better idea of this whole conscious thing and how it could work out. Even with that comparison to god that I've heard some people on the forums have mentioned. But still: and don't understand how this should be the model at all, and if it is, more

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.

I'm not so sure that "I" comes from consciousness however, as was described above, but only the 'ego' resultant from it. After all, if it was a unified consciousness, the "I" is essentially the entire world and there is nothing but "I", and without an "Other", that "I" is a meaningless distinction. Heh, disillusion again.

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.

Interesting thought came up: in either model, the 'other' model cannot 'win'. (actually, even with those 'suggestive' cases of reincarnation, I think that if such a phenomenon occurred, it would be the result still of a 'physically consistent' universe, just one that we have not yet gathered all there might be to know yet). And this is then where there is an essential parting of ways because either model is 'fine' phenomenologically, but the explanations are, and must be, different (otherwise there would be no split). Duality within non-duality, huh... I am beginning to understand the importance of freedom of religion now. Still, those comments I made above, with the 'inconsistencies' in the 'purely consciousness' model, perhaps they're not 'inconsistent', but as long as I'm 'here' operating under the 'purely physical' model, they will remain 'inconsistent'. I wonder if it's the same on the other side, although I can't imagine how it could be. Hey, another thought, wouldn't the 'fact' that this 'purely physical' illusion of the manifestation of consciousness is 'consistent' with itself, standing alone, just as easily be 'proof' for the validity and perhaps 'truth' of the 'purely physical' model?

Also, before I go, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure talking with you. What thought you've prompted me to think has been significant.
Too bad, well for you I suppose, it's only made for me my current views stronger and these alternates weaker in comparison... I just am not so 'spiritually' inclined, even if I believe consequences of classical views of spirituality can exist in the world. Continuing in my thought, perhaps these two models are exactly the same anyway... I'll need to let it digest for now.