From the thread, Is Energy Conscious?

Doesn't everything in fact vibrate, and give off it's own electro-magnetic signal? In which case wouldn't it be possible for say "a rock" to emit a signal to everything within its immediate surroundings that says it's a rock? If so, then I would suggest we have the rudimentary beginnings of a collective unconscious. For if everything did this, whereby it provided feedback into the system, a subconscious reality beyond what we consciously see, then perhaps it might allow for a greater spiritual reality to exist? For then it would require the means by which to anchor itself, and facilitate the need for an extensive database which, we already have in the existence of a material world. For example a material rock would serve as the database for a spiritual rock, and be accessible whenever a spirit thinks of, and/or interacts with a rock. Does that make any sense?

And, since human spirits have their human origin, it would only make sense that they congregate near humans, however, more towards those with a similar disposition as themselves. And it would be through our lives that they their facilitate their existence, and thus live on through our experiences, albeit on an imperceptible level, all of which gives rise to the notion of the collective unconscious. Ever wonder who or what it was you were relating to in your dreams? Were they a part of your dream or, were you a part of theirs? It's a perfectly valid question since you're both typically on equal standing. You don't look any differently at them than they look at you, while indeed, there's some sort of interaction going on. In which case you have to ask, who's dream is it? Or, is it a dream at all? Is it some kind of alternative reality?

So perhaps this might give us some clue as to the nature of synchronicity, and how it's possible for the two worlds (both natural and spiritual) to co-exist?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wave is the aspect of energy that connects everything; sort of like the glue of the universe. I have no problem with others seeing that connection as spiritual.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

No, everything doesn't. Everything you say after this point is based on a false assumption. Neither do I see here even the most basic understanding of energy. You cannot simply invent new types of energy to satisfy your need to believe in spirits.

Everything is in fact based upon energy though isn't it? And doesn't energy itself oscillate between two opposing fields? (well, at least electro-magnetic energy). What else is it then? If so, then everything oscillates with respect to the energy it's comprised of. Isn't in fact electro-magnetic engery a main constituent of everything, in terms of all that is?

So what is information then, if not that which is imparted through energy? Doesn't that suggest to you that intelligence might very well arise from energy?

By the way, did you get the chance to read dretceterini's reply? Did you know that he was a physics teacher under the department headed by Stephen Hawking at Cambridge for 25 years? At least this is what he told me anyway.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Did you get a chance to read Dr. Stenger's article I linked in the other thread, Iacchus? Perhaps once you do, you will voluntarily correct your mistakes in the above post.

Actually no. But, if you repost the link here, will seriously consider it. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Here. Have fun. (there are a few formatting problems in this version of it, I fear. I hope not so many it is difficult to read.)

Well, let's just say that I agree with the first few paragraphs about the existence of the "vital force" and, have no intention of changing my views anytime soon. I thought it was interesting however, what was demonstated about Kirlian photography, that its effect is primarily due to the moisture content in the samples ... which, makes perfect sense. Neither do I have a reason to believe any of the other experiments were invalid, albeit I didn't read the whole thing. It's still doesn't change my views on the life force however.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What, did you quit reading the moment it started to tell you you were wrong? I find it odd that you would go to the trouble of creating this forum, and the time and effort of your considerable posting here, and yet you will not finish an article addressing some of the things you speak of. Imagine if you put a quarter of the time and energy you devote to this forum into reading a couple of the more accessible books on science...

(note to those reading this who did not click on the link--the first few paragraphs only describe the prevalence of belief in some form of vital force--for Iacchus to agree with these paragraphs says either that he does not dispute Stenger's statistics or that Iacchus holds this prescientific vitalist world view. I am betting on the latter.)

No, I pretty much quit the moment I understood what the conclusion was.

Actually I don't have a problem with the notion of Science being correct, inspite of what you insist on saying, in as much as I have a problem with it being incorrect and, it effects me directly. It's sort of like the quandry Solomon had between the two women who were arguing over the child. When he offered to cut it into two the mother was mortified and pleaded against him doing it. As for the other woman, she pretty much says, "Ah, who cares about the damn child anyway," and let go of it. In which case I don't expect you or anyone else to argue my case for me, for you obviuosly don't have the same stake in it that I do. Plain and simple.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

The nice thing about science...if you can demonstrate that it is incorrect...it changes to incorporate your information! Just ask Einstein...

I agree, in fact the time may very well be at hand, especially if you believe Science merely reflects the unfolding of God's intent which, I do.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Now I am more confused than usual...if science is the unfolding of god's intent, why on earth do you fight it so? Why "science vs. religion" as an area here?

And, did you happen to notice the first two categories under the Science vs Religion forum? Basically it reflects the polarization which exists between Atheism and Christian Fundamentalism, neither of which am I fully in agreement on, to say the least. While here, if you took someone who was truly scientifically inclined, and someone who was truly spiritually inclined, I doubt that there would be much of a problem, for both are looking for the truth, and yet, can accept the fact that it manifiests itself differently in other people.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But you have consistently said that you would reject science if it did not find the things you already knew were true! Is your post here a fundamental change of belief for you?

I reject certain aspects of Science due to its fixation on the material aspects of things. I don't reject Science as a whole, however. In terms of explaining how the natural world works, it does a fairly decent job.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Um...science can only study material things! Those are not "certain aspects" of science. Conveniently enough, material things are the only things that can influence our sense organs or brain, so science turns out to be the best tool for the job. As for explaining things other than the natural world...nope, science cannot do that, and neither can anything else (other than fictionally). As I have said before here, either you can sense it, and science can study it, or science cannot, and nor can you. Science's bailiwick is the world that we know or potentially can know. The unknowable we leave to others.

Then you -- and/or Science -- are definitely biased in your views. Of which I and, no doubt others are skeptical of.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Umm...science is, by definition, limited in its scope. If you wish to call that a bias, feel free. To me, a bias is more clearly illustrated by the rejection a priori of a finding, no matter what the empirical support, which does not agree with one's pre-existing beliefs. In other words, Iacchus, your behavior shows clear bias.

If you are skeptical, as you say, of my contention that science studies the material world, and that this world is all that we can perceive, please then, by all means, provide a coherent alternative. It should be easy.

Yes, indeed, it clearly comes across as bias, when you begin to project it in all certainty. Or, surely enough to where you can begin to lay down the Spanish Inquisition with regards to another person's precepts or beliefs. By the way, do you realize that the human mind is a far more sophisticated piece of intsrumentation than Science has been able to come up with so far? After all, it did give birth to Science didn't it? So, why should I have to rely on Science, when I have the basis for conducting my own research?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?