The Brain

[Nofear]

One then is a shadow of the other?

Based on his brief comment, his position smacks of parallelism. I'm not aware of theory of mind philosopher who takes that approach very seriously. But then again, I can't claim to be anywhere near well read in the field either.

What if you were to break the physical brain down into its quantum components....... and apply the "Copenhagen interpretation" (A system is completely described by a wave function ?, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg) IE. The observer plays a part in collapsing the wave function.

A little ironic that you cite both Bohm and the Copenhagen interpretation considering how part of Bohm's motivation was to find an alternative to the ontological nonsense that is the Copenhagen interpretation.

[tana]

A little ironic that you cite both Bohm and the Copenhagen interpretation considering how part of Bohm's motivation was to find an alternative to the ontological nonsense that is the Copenhagen interpretation.

Well, to my dismay the only way I am able to understand quantum physics is to have someone dumb it down for me. I have tried to read works straight from the pen of Bohm and find it extremely difficult.

I've gleaned most of my working knowledge of all things wee from Michael Talbot's book "The holographic universe", Peter Russell, and other various authors who have the ability to speak in layman terms.

In providing the reference to the "Copenhagen interpretation" I was trying to convey my understanding of the essence of the content....which is; The dual nature of matter holds that matter remains in a wave form state of potentiality until it is *observed*, measured, objectified..

I believe Bohm's theories are attempts to understand and build a model of the universe with this as it's basis.

I was attempting to suggest that mind/awareness must be separate from and primary to matter as how canst a physical particle of matter, with no awareness.... observe itself?

[Nofear]

Well, to my dismay the only way I am able to understand quantum physics is to have someone dumb it down for me. I have tried to read works straight from the pen of Bohm and find it extremely difficult.

I've gleaned most of my working knowledge of all things wee from Michael Talbot's book "The holographic universe", Peter Russell, and other various authors who have the ability to speak in layman terms.

Yeah, it's pretty tricky stuff. You can hardly be faulted for it being somewhat difficult to approach.

In providing the reference to the "Copenhagen interpretation" I was trying to convey my understanding of the essence of the content....which is; The dual nature of matter holds that matter remains in a wave form state of potentiality until it is *observed*, measured, objectified..

I believe Bohm's theories are attempts to understand and build a model of the universe with this as it's basis.

For Bohm particles actually and independently have existence whether or not we observe them. Our observation has no influence on their reality whatsoever (this is called counterfactual definiteness). The Copenhagen interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness.

Being a realist Bohmian mechanics has much greater appeal to me than does the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[tana]

OK....I see that now. Thanks.

I had thought that Bohm's "implicate order" and holistic model relied on wave/paarticle duality....While I do my research, how bout.....We define our differing views?

I prefer mind to be primary to matter, as I feel that if matter is uncreated/has always existed, it makes all things into something mechanical. It reduces mind to a product of it. It makes everything about the universe a system of cause and effect, which creates a need to locate *first cause*.

If you give materialism any type of foothold, how do you differientate yourself from the *causation up* crowd?

Here is my theory of everything:

There is only *one* existence, it is infinite, immeasurable and seamless

All sentient beings *share* the one awareness, This awareness/intelligence is uncaused/uncreated. It can affect an action, but it itself is not ruled by cause and effect. It is pure will and anything that can be imagined can be manifest by it.

There has never been a happening or occurrence in a linear time frame where awareness became bored with the status quo and decided to *start* experiencing physicality. It has always been...as it is.

Beings come and go from this continuum in an unending dance of perpetuity

Awareness is the core. Threads of reasoning, thoughts, are how the beings express their uniqueness and *experience* existence. Thoughts are unique to the individual and resonate/vibrate with their own personal signature.

Thoughts/actions remain in the system eternally and must be brought into harmony. The only being responsible to do this is their owner. It is *their* karma.

There is *no* entity, energy or force that holds power, supremacy or sway over the individual.

Physicality and substance is a concept in the imagination of awareness. It is the wave form potential of matter held in the mind of intelligence.

The entity we look to as God our father is not greater than us in the eyes of eternity.

God has progressed to having a stewardship over a number of souls who have chosen to allow it.

The only involvement god has in this system is he created this unique physical universe with its own laws of motion, from his own imagination. He cannot alter or effect the thought streams of other individuals, as these vibrations are unique only to the individual.

God can manifest in the flesh if he desires, but takes no involvement in influencing decisions of others. It is not his job or purpose....he is on his own path.

The individual answers its own *prayers* as this is the way existence works at its core. All are co-creators.

The subconscious mind is the interface. The subconscious mind collapses the wave form potential and creates physical reality

95% of the physical and metaphysical information is filtered out by the subconscious mind and never reaches the conscious mind.

The only way to reconnect with the all is through liberation of the self, death of the ego. The kingdom of heaven is within.

Curt

[Questing Beast]

Our very egocentric condition (the veil, sin, and death) separates us from God, the embodiment of unity, truth, righteousness, and immortality.

I hope we're not confused by each other using "egocentric" in different ways here. To me, egocentric is a term embodying the concept of a unique individual, separated from EVERY OTHER sapient being: for we never contact in our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. We only make empirical contact via our five senses. The ONLY Being we seem to have metaphysical contact with is "God". Is this intended to be a bad thing, or a condition that should be done away with? I don't think so.

This is evidenced in His supreme sacrifice to liberate us from our egocentrism and establish the way His altruism can be known and practiced by egocentric beings until we become like Him and united with Him.

I am a simple person with direct explanations for things. This kind of religious rhetoric doesn't resonate with me. (The two Judaic priests in the Bakshi film "Wizards" always spring to mind when this comes up.) I want to know precisely what "united with him" means in the context of egocentric existence, which is what each of us experiences as immortals (for surely we lived in the "preexistence" as individuals; Mormon doctrine even insisting on that state as gender-specific too; and if we are to take this even further, as the family associations that we share here and will again in the hereafter): how, then, can this "liberation from our egocentricism" result in becoming "united with him" and having our egocentricism annulled? What evidence do I have that this is to be the case?

This path (the way, the truth, the light) requires interacting with us on our level, which He has condescended to do, employing uniting methods that bind heaven and earth, requiring and resulting in progressive human participation with Him. To participate, one must at some point be authorized by Him to enter the gate (it

[Questing Beast]

...

Here is my theory of everything:

There is only *one* existence, it is infinite, immeasurable and seamless

All sentient beings *share* the one awareness, This awareness/intelligence is uncaused/uncreated. It can affect an action, but it itself is not ruled by cause and effect. It is pure will and anything that can be imagined can be manifest by it.

There has never been a happening or occurrence in a linear time frame where awareness became bored with the status quo and decided to *start* experiencing physicality. It has always been...as it is.

What about Void or "the Nothing"? These are imaginative concepts of non existence. We imagine them and share them in common with everyone else. "God" surely experiences this state too; or else we would be imagining the concept without "God", which is of course impossible since we are finite and "God" is infinite and the Cause of All.

Beings come and go from this continuum in an unending dance of perpetuity

Once a "being" Exists it is part of "God" and is never a "come and go" proposition. I see "God" in a NOW state where there is no such thing as space-time, and therefore no before or after. So even if a being decided to return its egocentric Existence to "God" (like a drop returning to the ocean), the fact of its egocentric "span" within space-time would still remain part of NOW. The multiverse infinitely expands within NOW; but to the egocentric beings that make up the multiverse their Existence is linear space-time.

Awareness is the core. Threads of reasoning, thoughts, are how the beings express their uniqueness and *experience* existence. Thoughts are unique to the individual and resonate/vibrate with their own personal signature.

I take this to be your definition of what the simple term "free will" means.

Thoughts/actions remain in the system eternally and must be brought into harmony. The only being responsible to do this is their owner. It is *their* karma.

I don't understand this bit, unless it is an elaboration on the concept of "free will" coupled with destiny; and "harmony" is Joy?

There is *no* entity, energy or force that holds power, supremacy or sway over the individual.

I would go further and say that "God" does not even intrude upon the mind of the individual; no mind-reading! To break this "rule" would ruin the experience of individuality that "God" wants, manifesting as each being. The only time that "God" enters the mind/thoughts of the individual being is when invited to. This is not nearly as commonplace as we might expect! (at least so it seems to me at this time)

Physicality and substance is a concept in the imagination of awareness. It is the wave form potential of matter held in the mind of intelligence.

I might not be getting clarity from your terms here. Yes, I can agree that "God" is not physical or in any way measurable as we understand these things empirically; while at the same time "God" is the Cause of all physicality and the space-time that defines its Existence and order.

The entity we look to as God our father is not greater than us in the eyes of eternity.

Are you saying that "God the Father" is not the "awareness" from which imagination takes physical form; that "our God the Father" is just one of "us" emanating from that "awareness"? If so, I agree.

God has progressed to having a stewardship over a number of souls who have chosen to allow it.

The only involvement god has in this system is he created this unique physical universe with its own laws of motion, from his own imagination. He cannot alter or effect the thought streams of other individuals, as these vibrations are unique only to the individual.

God can manifest in the flesh if he desires, but takes no involvement in influencing decisions of others. It is not his job or purpose....he is on his own path.

Yes to all of this. I can presume that by being here on this earth that I am one of those who "allow it", i.e. follow this being we call "God the Father". But by this point I am no longer particularly interested in what this being is about; if I have to take the Mormon approach in order to "keep playing".

The individual answers its own *prayers* as this is the way existence works at its core. All are co-creators.

I agree with this. Our unique, one-to-One connection to "God" engages all knowledge and power in our behalf. The core principle that controls that engagement is our obedience to the divine will; for only "God" sees the whole of Existence as NOW, and so will not release to us anything that will harm our pursuit of Joy. We need to know what to pray for.

The subconscious mind is the interface. The subconscious mind collapses the wave form potential and creates physical reality

95% of the physical and metaphysical information is filtered out by the subconscious mind and never reaches the conscious mind.

The only way to reconnect with the all is through liberation of the self, death of the ego. The kingdom of heaven is within.

Curt

Okay, this last part gets really strange for me. I agree that the sleeping mind (subconscious) is likely "where" the whole of reality gets "reset". But I don't know where you get "95%" from. And I doubt that physical information that isn't involuntary (like breathing) gets 95% filtered from the conscious mind (unless your are talking about our subconscious processing of sensory input that gets relegated to the subconscious only if it doesn't require a reaction/decision).

And that last line sounds just like a line that the two "priests" in the Bakshi film "Wizards" would say. What in the heck is "death of the ego?" Sounds painful! And pointless. Of course "the kingdom of heaven is within" is just aping Jesus. I do not know what that is supposed to mean either. This whole "kingdom" stuff doesn't resonate with me anyway, and never did.

Like Will Bagley, I guess I just lack the "religious gene"....

[CV75]

To me, egocentric is a term embodying the concept of a unique individual, separated from EVERY OTHER sapient being: for we never contact in our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc.

I want to know precisely what "united with him" means in the context of egocentric existence, which is what each of us experiences as immortals

This stuff is all about compliance with one dogmatic "way".

Yes, without God as an intermediary, we are egocentric beings and cannot have contact in our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. But when we have metaphysical contact with God we can also have such contact with each other. When people are in contact physically, they are at the same time in spiritual contact (the two are connected, either separably or inseparably), but the awareness and meaning of that arises only when the metaphysical process with God is honored, such as when two or more are gathered in His name.

This is how we can be a group of united individuals ("united with Him"), just as we find our lives by losing them and still remain to enjoy the experience. United in covenant, purpose, ability, action, etc.; united in a complimentary, coordinated, synergistic fashion, etc. The evidence is in the experiencing.

Dogma can be good; naturally the best dogma is revealed by God Himself. The principles you listed are all good (being true to the authentic self; seek truth and accept its revealing, especially of the true self; serve others, improve, and follow God in love; etc.). The best uniting of the physical and the spiritual, and the individual and the whole, happens when the specific application of these principles is congruent with the dogma that God has revealed concerning them.

[Nofear]

OK....I see that now. Thanks.

I had thought that Bohm's "implicate order" and holistic model relied on wave/paarticle duality....While I do my research, how bout.....We define our differing views?

I prefer mind to be primary to matter, as I feel that if matter is uncreated/has always existed, it makes all things into something mechanical. It reduces mind to a product of it. It makes everything about the universe a system of cause and effect, which creates a need to locate *first cause*.

If you give materialism any type of foothold, how do you differientate yourself from the *causation up* crowd?

Here is my theory of everything:

Thanks for sharing your theory. It's always interesting to see what others think and how they interpret the grand picture of reality through the lens of Mormonism.

For me, my worldview rests on four pillars:

• Mormonism
• materialism
• reductionism
• libertarianism

Not all Mormons will share these views. I could probably argue that materialism and libertarianism are strongly favored by Mormonism but reductionism will be a weak point not adopted by many. Indeed, I liked your post about Bohm's holism and it is something I should look into more. But, given these four pillars this is the worldview that I come up with:

With Mormonism we believe that there is a core component of us that is uncreate and has always existed. Being a materialist, there is nothing that exists but that it is either matter or the interactions between matter and so I call this core component intelligent matter. But, being a reductionist, the only thing that can rationally believed to have always existed is something that is simple (irreducible without constituent parts). But I also believe in free will and my libertarianism says free will cannot arise from purely deterministic interactions. So... intelligent matter must in some way be indeterministic. But, the indeterminism cannot be random -- random does not yield free will. And the only way for action to not be random is for the agent (here intelligent matter) to have information.

Returning to my materialism and reductionism, information can only exist inasmuch as it is found as some arranged state in matter. But intelligent matter is simple and so it can only hold, at most, 1 bit of information. This cannot yield intelligent, free willed behavior. The intelligent matter must have access to information and that information must be external to it. So, the intelligent matter needs some mechanism or machine to store that information. It appears that is why we have a body.

Now, people will adopt different philosophical bases. One way to measure the viability of the model is what explanations naturally arise from it. For example, in Mormonism we have both a physical body and a spirit body. In this framework that is because the universe is made of physical and spirit matter. These two forms of matter really don't interact at all. Thus a spirit body would really only effectively acquire information about the spirit side of the universe and a physical body the physical side of the universe. Thus, a truly intelligent being with a full awareness of reality would need both bodies.

There are others, but it isn't my point to persuade you that my philosophical base is the correct approach. It is good to lay them out as it were and see what happens. If we run into things like, "Your model implies A but that differs from doctrine B" then we have problems. One the other hand statements like, "Your model implies A which is a good explanation of why doctrine B," then that is a happy thing for the model.

[tana]

What about Void or "the Nothing"? These are imaginative concepts of non existence. We imagine them and share them in common with everyone else. "God" surely experiences this state too; or else we would be imagining the concept without "God", which is of course impossible since we are finite and "God" is infinite and the Cause of All.

Once a "being" Exists it is part of "God" and is never a "come and go" proposition. I see "God" in a NOW state where there is no such thing as space-time, and therefore no before or after. So even if a being decided to return its egocentric Existence to "God" (like a drop returning to the ocean), the fact of its egocentric "span" within space-time would still remain part of NOW. The multiverse infinitely expands within NOW; but to the egocentric beings that make up the multiverse their Existence is linear space-time.

I take this to be your definition of what the simple term "free will" means.

I don't understand this bit, unless it is an elaboration on the concept of "free will" coupled with destiny; and "harmony" is Joy?

I would go further and say that "God" does not even intrude upon the mind of the individual; no mind-reading! To break this "rule" would ruin the experience of individuality that "God" wants, manifesting as each being. The only time that "God" enters the mind/thoughts of the individual being is when invited to. This is not nearly as commonplace as we might expect! (at least so it seems to me at this time)

I might not be getting clarity from your terms here. Yes, I can agree that "God" is not physical or in any way measurable as we understand these things empirically; while at the same time "God" is the Cause of all physicality and the space-time that defines its Existence and order.

Are you saying that "God the Father" is not the "awareness" from which imagination takes physical form; that "our God the Father" is just one of "us" emanating from that "awareness"? If so, I agree.

Yes to all of this. I can presume that by being here on this earth that I am one of those who "allow it", i.e. follow this being we call "God the Father". But by this point I am no longer particularly interested in what this being is about; if I have to take the Mormon approach in order to "keep playing".

I agree with this. Our unique, one-to-One connection to "God" engages all knowledge and power in our behalf. The core principle that controls that engagement is our obedience to the divine will; for only "God" sees the whole of Existence as NOW, and so will not release to us anything that will harm our pursuit of Joy. We need to know what to pray for.

Okay, this last part gets really strange for me. I agree that the sleeping mind (subconscious) is likely "where" the whole of reality gets "reset". But I don't know where you get "95%" from. And I doubt that physical information that isn't involuntary (like breathing) gets 95% filtered from the conscious mind (unless your are talking about our subconscious processing of sensory input that gets relegated to the subconscious only if it doesn't require a reaction/decision).

And that last line sounds just like a line that the two "priests" in the Bakshi film "Wizards" would say. What in the heck is "death of the ego?" Sounds painful! And pointless. Of course "the kingdom of heaven is within" is just aping Jesus. I do not know what that is supposed to mean either. This whole "kingdom" stuff doesn't resonate with me anyway, and never did.

Like Will Bagley, I guess I just lack the "religious gene"....

Instead of addressing each of your points separately, I'm going to add a few thoughts that I hope might give insight to the lot

I am trying to build a model of existence based on my two *pet* concepts. I have posted both of these as threads on here over the past couple of months. I think I succeeeded in running both of these threads into the ground on here and no one wants to talk about them anymore. (I don't blame them) But since you weren't here yet....I'd be very interested in hearing your (or anybody's) take on especially #1

1. How exactly does spirit understand its environment.

My position is: Consciousness/awareness at its core cannot be subdivided. If a piece of awareness/intelligence is separated, isolated into its own little shell, with a void of non-existence secluding it into some form of capsule. It is no longer a part of the all. It therefore cannot have a connection with the all unless it is *nested* into some form of vehicle. IE spirit body, physical body. It is in what amounts to a virtual reality and only aware of the picture its senses are painting for it.

To keep an entity isolated unto itself sets up an eternal regress of the little man in the head, perusing the screen of its host.

2. Genesis of souls.

For this paradigm to work, the concept of souls moving thru incarnations, learning growing, gaining. Logic says that souls then must start out at some sort of zero point. A point of having a perfect awareness of their existence, but *zero* intellect. Logically then a soul cannot be defined by its learned knowledge and experiences. It can only be expressed in terms of its core. The entity at its core is indistinguishable from another.

This also suggests that awareness and threads of reasoning, thoughts, are two separate things. possibly there is an analogy to be had in the dual aspects of matter. Awareness is the *wave form* potential, thought is the manifest *particle*

These two concepts lead me to this theory then that awareness is shared. How? I'm not sure. Branches of the river, eddies in the stream. Maybe an analogy could be a holographic plate, when broken, shattered, each piece contains a whole picture of the original. Or DNA. Each cell contains all the information of the whole. The material world can be broken down to a handful of *elementary* particles. In simple terms, what makes atoms unique from each other is the number of electrons in each. What makes molecules different is the number of atoms. What makes cells different....etc.

[Questing Beast]

Yes, without God as an intermediary, we are egocentric beings and cannot have contact in our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. But when we have metaphysical contact with God we can also have such contact with each other.

This is the million dollar assertion, isn't it? There is hard cash held out for ANYONE who can demonstrate replicable metaphysical communication or powers. So far, no takers. Metaphysics is all hypothesis and faith, no substance. I have never been in the presence of anyone who could do the Vulcan mindmeld thingie or anything remotely like it; I've likewise never been around spoon benders or anything like it; I've likewise never been around anyone who can get in touch with "spirits" and answer questions no physical being can possibly know, or talk to the dead, or predict the future, etc. ad nauseam. Certainly, "God" has knowledge of all that and infinitely more but appears content to let us amuse ourselves positing with our 'satiable imaginations.

When people are in contact physically, they are at the same time in spiritual contact (the two are connected, either separably or inseparably), but the awareness and meaning of that arises only when the metaphysical process with God is honored, such as when two or more are gathered in His name.

That kind of thing is usually called "mass delusion" or similar. Any group of people can imagine spiritual contact with each other; yet it remains fully an egocentric experience. Physically touching in for instance prayer circles and the group repeating the words of the "voice" giving the prayer are only ways to focus, not "get in contact with each other spiritually". I've never heard it claimed that such literal spiritual "contact" occurs in for instance the temples. Surely it is possible for "God" to directly connect my mind to that of another ("God" being the source of both minds, after all); but I have never seen or heard of this happening.

...

Dogma can be good; naturally the best dogma is revealed by God Himself.

...

Inarguably revealed by "God", you should say: that is the impossible part to show. We have a planet with c. 7 billion egocentric religions inhabiting it. I don't see how one can trump the other if they don't agree. There is no tipping the scales; all are in equal balance with each other. My religion comes directly from "God" and so does yours. Only Justice can rectify all differences of opinion: my religion may not exert force upon any other religion. In that respect we are all equal.

I do not believe that "God" EVER revealed a religion for the masses. That followup to "revelation from God" is a manmade (inevitable) step....

[Questing Beast]

Instead of addressing each of your points separately, I'm going to add a few thoughts that I hope might give insight to the lot

I am trying to build a model of existence based on my two *pet* concepts. I have posted both of these as threads on here over the past couple of months. I think I succeeeded in running both of these threads into the ground on here and no one wants to talk about them anymore. (I don't blame them) But since you weren't here yet....I'd be very interested in hearing your (or anybody's) take on especially #1

1. How exactly does spirit understand its environment.

My position is: Consciousness/awareness at its core cannot be subdivided. If a piece of awareness/intelligence is separated, isolated into its own little shell, with a void of non-existence secluding it into some form of capsule. It is no longer a part of the all. It therefore cannot have a connection with the all unless it is *nested* into some form of vehicle. IE spirit body, physical body. It is in what amounts to a virtual reality and only aware of the picture its senses are painting for it.

To keep an entity isolated unto itself sets up an eternal regress of the little man in the head, perusing the screen of its host.

If I understand you: the "core awareness" is "God" and of course it cannot be subdivided, as it simply IS. It can subdivide itself infinitely, but this an act of "God's" free will. This is not a contradiction: because "God" remains wholly itself in the NOW state as Existence in the First Place.

Our solitariness seems to have a mirror-like purpose. In our loneliness we "see" God's" solitariness. And at some point that begins to seem unsupportable. How can there be an ONLY, a never-ending loneliness? So our capability (even compulsion) to continually return to this concern (like picking at a sore spot), drives us to understand the Cause of our Existence. WHY does the world exist instead of nothing? And so we explore a purpose for Existence. Being egocentric, "it is all about me" is not that far from the truth. "God" MADE you for a reason, a purpose.

And in my mind has formed this ultimate decision that every sapient being must make: Do I opt to return like a drop of water to the ocean that is "God"? Or do I decide to remain solitary, inviolate, free will possessing, unique: and with my knowledge of my relationship to "God", keep "God" company FOREVER? Is this what "God" is about with creation? Making separated pieces of itself into knowledgeable companions?

We feel loneliness. We are made this way. This loneliness does not transcend "God's" perspective. "God" created because, "It is better to make Light and Life in The World than to be alone in the Darkness with Nothing."

When we realize that this is the ultimate choice deriving from our Existence, perhaps we will look "God" in the eyes and say: "I would never choose to make you alone. If my Being is enough to ease your pain, even by a small measure, I will be with you forever."

And THEN, "God" becomes the ultimate soul mate; manifesting as "the other" to our solitary egocentric existence: "WE" keep each other company forever. And the connection to "God" is as close as asking a question that "the other" can answer with a body like unto our own: yet being also "God in Total", joined now to a created companion who understands and whose understanding continues to increase: thus enriching the NOW state of "God" beyond measure (for these "soul mates" who choose to keep "God" company never cease to increase in number).

2. Genesis of souls....

I don't think I have anything further to add at this point....

[CV75]

demonstrate replicable metaphysical communication or powers.

I have never seen or heard of this happening.

Inarguably revealed by "God"

I do not believe that "God" EVER revealed a religion for the masses.

As I mentioned before, the evidence of being united with God is in the experiencing of it. Independent action is the essential element in experiencing it, so any individual who wants to can. This is why we have God

[mfbukowski]

Yes, without God as an intermediary, we are egocentric beings and cannot have contact in our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. But when we have metaphysical contact with God we can also have such contact with each other. When people are in contact physically, they are at the same time in spiritual contact (the two are connected, either separably or inseparably), but the awareness and meaning of that arises only when the metaphysical process with God is honored, such as when two or more are gathered in His name.

This is how we can be a group of united individuals ("united with Him"), just as we find our lives by losing them and still remain to enjoy the experience. United in covenant, purpose, ability, action, etc.; united in a complimentary, coordinated, synergistic fashion, etc. The evidence is in the experiencing.

This is why it is said that "God is love". The Godhead, three separate beings, is unified (with us also) in love. Therefore when speaking of the three together as one, we call that Oneness, God. So "God" literally IS love, because when we use the term "God" we are speaking of the Unity of the three, otherwise we would refer to each individually as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".

[CV75]

This is why it is said that "God is love". The Godhead, three separate beings, is unified (with us also) in love. Therefore when speaking of the three together as one, we call that Oneness, God. So "God" literally IS love, because when we use the term "God" we are speaking of the Unity of the three, otherwise we would refer to each individually as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".

Yes, and that is a great way to explain it. God is love. We know it because He shows it with His gift (eternal life). He also shows us how to access and use the gift (revealed religion), because the joy is in the doing, not in getting lost in the not doing.

[tana]

Thanks for sharing your theory. It's always interesting to see what others think and how they interpret the grand picture of reality through the lens of Mormonism.

For me, my worldview rests on four pillars:

• Mormonism
• materialism
• reductionism
• libertarianism

Not all Mormons will share these views. I could probably argue that materialism and libertarianism are strongly favored by Mormonism but reductionism will be a weak point not adopted by many. Indeed, I liked your post about Bohm's holism and it is something I should look into more. But, given these four pillars this is the worldview that I come up with:

With Mormonism we believe that there is a core component of us that is uncreate and has always existed. Being a materialist, there is nothing that exists but that it is either matter or the interactions between matter and so I call this core component intelligent matter. But, being a reductionist, the only thing that can rationally believed to have always existed is something that is simple (irreducible without constituent parts). But I also believe in free will and my libertarianism says free will cannot arise from purely deterministic interactions. So... intelligent matter must in some way be indeterministic. But, the indeterminism cannot be random -- random does not yield free will. And the only way for action to not be random is for the agent (here intelligent matter) to have information.

Returning to my materialism and reductionism, information can only exist inasmuch as it is found as some arranged state in matter. But intelligent matter is simple and so it can only hold, at most, 1 bit of information. This cannot yield intelligent, free willed behavior. The intelligent matter must have access to information and that information must be external to it. So, the intelligent matter needs some mechanism or machine to store that information. It appears that is why we have a body.

Now, people will adopt different philosophical bases. One way to measure the viability of the model is what explanations naturally arise from it. For example, in Mormonism we have both a physical body and a spirit body. In this framework that is because the universe is made of physical and spirit matter. These two forms of matter really don't interact at all. Thus a spirit body would really only effectively acquire information about the spirit side of the universe and a physical body the physical side of the universe. Thus, a truly intelligent being with a full awareness of reality would need both bodies.

There are others, but it isn't my point to persuade you that my philosophical base is the correct approach. It is good to lay them out as it were and see what happens. If we run into things like, "Your model implies A but that differs from doctrine B" then we have problems. One the other hand statements like, "Your model implies A which is a good explanation of why doctrine B," then that is a happy thing for the model.

I appreciate the well thought out manner in which you lay out your theory NF.

If I may, I'm going to suggest that your theory is possible bound to include a fundamental issue that you as a Mormon cannot be dissuaded from. And that is the fact that JS. declared spirit to have substance, mass, more fine matter. One in this position must keep this as a keystone and build a model of physics around it. Your giving it a good run though.

Obviously JS. made this assertion before science knew about the crazy world of quantum physics, and the fact that "What ever matter is made out of, it isn't matter" (Hans Durr)

I don't see thoughts as having substance. I don't see them as being somehow attached to a physical or spirit body. I perceive them more as vibrational patterns....or moments of force like gravity or the nuclear forces.

I know I've seen you go around or two with Tarski on these subjects...I made sure I stayed out of them.

[elguanteloko]

Uh, well I guess it would be a subjective experience which one defines oneself as being "spiritual" in nature. You see, the reason I am having trouble with your question is that I see spiritual experiences as "subjective" for lack of a better term.

What you are asking me is, to me, like asking "How does one distinguish a 'pain experience' from a 'non-pain' experience?"

When one is having pain, typically one doesn't doubt it. It is just happening and you know it.

I have a stimulus, that's what I know... that's what we know. I'm questioning the plausibility of saying that you have an experience due to a "spiritual influence" instead of attributing it to something else.

Here's the problem with this discussion. I originally started talking about the "causes" of experiences. You didn't like that and said:

So I agree for purposes of discussion to put aside the question of the cause of experience since the whole concept is kind of specialized. (See my siggy- actually if you are serious about this, I am not sure we can proceed without discussing Nagel)

But then you come up with this:

So, putting yourself in my shoes, can you see why I am confused?

And if we know the "necessary and sufficient" conditions for dreams, keeping in mind what you said before, that brainstates don't "cause" experiences, I would be fascinated to hear what YOU think the "necessary and sufficient causes" are for dreams.

ops! Sorry, I was denying such a thing as 'causation'.

[CV75]

I'm questioning the plausibility of saying that you have an experience due to a "spiritual influence" instead of attributing it to something else.

Everything is spiritual, or has a spiritual component or aspect. Every stimulus (and it is not a stimulus unless it is received, responded to, reacted to or interpreted) has a spiritual aspect to it. No stimulus a functioning person receives is entirely physical, in the very least because the person himself is not entirely physical, but spiritual as well.

[mfbukowski]

I have a stimulus, that's what I know... that's what we know. I'm questioning the plausibility of saying that you have an experience due to a "spiritual influence" instead of attributing it to something else.

I never said that.

ops! Sorry, I was denying such a thing as 'causation'.

Yes you were. You have yet to answer anything I posted.

[Questing Beast]

As I mentioned before, the evidence of being united with God is in the experiencing of it. Independent action is the essential element in experiencing it, so any individual who wants to can. This is why we have God

[CV75]

Okay, but WHICH religion and WHICH "God"?

So the lack of response to Mormonism leaves the potential "investigator" out of experiencing Mormonism.

Saying that approaching nearer to "God" requires the advanced practice within a religious doctrine is true; but what is not required of everyone is that that advanced religious practice be part of an organized dogma

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Heavenly Father of the Only Begotten Son. Everyone will at some point have the opportunity to become members of the Church, regardless of their erstwhile spiritual experiences.

The lack of positive response to Mormonism can be repented of. It is entirely up to the individual and his handling of his opportunities to know God. God does everything possible to allow His children to choose membership in His kingdom, so if anyone suffered an unfair disadvantage against choosing Mormonism they will be given every advantage. If anyone rejected it, they can repent of such within the conditions God sets forth for them.

In the case of God revealing Himself to mankind, His advanced practices are synonymous with His religious doctrine, which is synonymous with His organized dogma.

[mfbukowski]

I sit in my church meetings and hear what I have been hearing all of my life, and my mind is soaring farther away with concepts that Mormon theology or cosmology do not come remotely close enough to addressing. And when I express them privately I am told that I am "shooting beyond the mark". Yet I don't feel this at all: rather, I feel IGNORANT! And I also feel liberated to think as big as I can muster without fear of what it all means. This is a personal religion that I don't expect to share with anyone 100%, except with "God" who is answering me.

Hmmm. I am not sure I believe that or you would not be here.

Join the club. We all get our own personal revelations. That is what the church is all about, especially in temple worship. Ultimately we all create our own understanding of it.

And some of us appreciate authority- if you don't, that's your particular "dogma".

[Nofear]

Obviously JS. made this assertion before science knew about the crazy world of quantum physics, and the fact that "What ever matter is made out of, it isn't matter" (Hans Durr)

It would not be correct to say such is a "fact" (here fact is defined as an observation upon which basically all competent observers can agree). There are interpretations which allow for matter to arise from something other than matter, but those approaches are far from consensus view. Indeed, there is currently not much about how to understand quantum mechanics that is "factual" -- only that it just works.

I recommend for your reading, Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed, there is currently not much about how to understand quantum mechanics that is "factual" -- only that it just works.

Ah, I see- much like the gospel then right? ;-)

[Questing Beast]

Hmmm. ... some of us appreciate authority- if you don't, that's your particular "dogma".

I appreciate religious authority when it confines itself to the religion, period. So naturally I appreciate the authority, the priesthood hierarchy, within the LDS Church: it is orderly, clearly established and has strong precedent for the policies it implements. It is strongly organized. Where I get into trouble is denying any destiny of the religion (any religion) taking political control. Religious states have NEVER worked; they always result in the privileged believers and everyone else (e.g. see Islamic Sharia law). While the religious "authority" remains only religious (wields no secular authority), the rest of the world and that religion will get along....

[Nofear]

Ah, I see- much like the gospel then right? ;-)

I hadn't made that connection, but I must say, the analogy isn't that bad at all.