Are Gods physical?

[ytrewq]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter�, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

If they are able to think and do stuff, then presumably they must be made of something.

By “physical matter�, I mean the physical stuff within our Universe from which everything else is made from, which includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and to be fair I suppose we must include dark matter as well.

But there are other classes of things that undeniably exist, that are not physical matter as such, that perhaps Gods could be made of. Here is a list of “stuff� that definitely exists, and thus Gods might potentially be made of :-

(a) Physical matter, including atoms, sub-atomic particles, and dark matter

(b) Electromagnetic radiation and other forms of radiation, energy and fields. For example, light and radio waves.

(c) Human (or animal) feelings, emotions, thoughts, love, hate jealousy, intelligence, stupidity, truth, dishonesty, spirituality and so on. All of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form.

(d) Similar to (c), morals, legal or scientific laws, stories, information, principles, and so on. As with (c), all of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form, although the media that encodes them may be physical, such as a book or CD.

OK. So what are Gods made from? Certainly not anything in the (c) or (d) category, which do not physically exist in their own right and are not capable of performing physical feats on their own. That is, it makes no sense to say that a God (or anything else) is made from love, or justice or logic or spirituality. These are attributes of something that physically exists.

I have heard it said that Gods are not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual is an adjective, an attribute of something that exists, so it makes no sense to say that a God is made of spirituality, any more than saying it is made of love. So sure, Gods probably are very spiritual things, but that says nothing of what they are made from, which is the topic of this thread.

So what is left? Within the realms of human knowledge, and I’m not interested in just making stuff up, then I must conclude that Gods (if they exist) are made of the same stuff that everything else in the Universe is made of, being categories (a) and (b).

Anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 189 by Razorsedge]

If you follow consciousness to its fullest and purest expression then it will lead you to the very nature of the reality.

Really? I don't believe you. I presume that "being led to the very nature of reality" must be a a revelation of great significance indeed, that can tell us important things that we could not otherwise have known. Can you let us in on some of the significant things that you have learned, that you or we could not otherwise have known?

[Swami]

The second insight is that consciousness is not limited to brain or body.

I'm sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence that consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. Please read my posting #188

What you might personally "feel" re where your consciousness is while in some psychotic state provides no evidence of anything and is irrelevant.

I just finished reading your post. Many have thought the way you have until they had experienced these things for themselves. You called my experience a "psychotic state" but that is not supported by science. What's supported by science is that there are different levels of consciousness, like sleep and normal waking consciousness. Meditation simply leads you to a higher state of consciousness than the normal waking state.

In post 188 you make the mistake of equating consciousness with mind when the two are not the same. The mind has to do with cognitive functions while consciousness involves awareness. All the examples you bring up only impairs cognitive functions, like thoughts and memory, but the person is still aware. Also, patients whose brains are severely compromised have experiences like NDEs. Scientists don't dispute that these experiences occur but rather they dispute if the experiences are of reality or some dream/hallucination.

Do you know what separates a hard line materialist scientist from a reasonably open-minded scientist? Experience. I say this because scientists who actually 'experience' don't remain hard line materialists, and a recent example of this is neurosurgeon/Harvard professor Dr. Eben Alexander.

[ytrewq]

The second insight is that consciousness is not limited to brain or body.

I'm sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence that consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. Please read my posting #188

What you might personally "feel" re where your consciousness is while in some psychotic state provides no evidence of anything and is irrelevant.

I just finished reading your post. Many have thought the way you have until they had experienced these things for themselves. You called my experience a "psychotic state" but that is not supported by science. What's supported by science is that there are different levels of consciousness, like sleep and normal waking consciousness. Meditation simply leads you to a higher state of consciousness than the normal waking state.

In post 188 you make the mistake of equating consciousness with mind when the two are not the same. The mind has to do with cognitive functions while consciousness involves awareness. All the examples you bring up only impairs cognitive functions, like thoughts and memory, but the person is still aware. Also, patients whose brains are severely compromised have experiences like NDEs. Scientists don't dispute that these experiences occur but rather they dispute if the experiences are of reality or some dream/hallucination.

So consciousness has nothing to do with the mind? You gotta be kidding me.

Consciousness involves awareness, you inform me, so I need to have a good chuckle about that, having been severely criticized for saying exactly that in previous postings!

But I stand totally by what I wrote in posting #188 in any event. There is absolutely zero evidence that any part of our though processes or mental state or consciousness or higher (or any) state of consciousness exists outside of our brain. That's a fact, and you would be well advised to get used to it.

And again I must gently remind you that what you "experience" (AKA feel) whether meditating or not is totally irrelevant. You are confusing what you "feel" with facts, with reality. What I wrote in posting #188 is the hard facts and reality of the matter. What you feel may well be an amazing experience, as drug-induced experiences can be as well, but I can assure you that neither actually proves anything or provides any useful or meaningful information. There is no evidence that meditation leads to acquiring knowledge that could not otherwise have been known, but it sure feels good! But humans are generally swayed by feelings, not by evidence, and on your own admission you are a good example of this, saying that we need to experience it to believe it! Personally I am swayed by evidence, while you are swayed by meditative experience that provides no evidence. That's your right, of course, but it does mean that you are not usefully contributing to the debate, which relies on evidence, not your personal feelings and assurances.

Our "awareness" AKA consciousness absolutely is affected by physical things that we can do to the brain, as per posting #188. And it absolutely is not affected by anything outside of our brain, except of course indirectly by way of our receptors. My friend, these are the facts of the matter.

Frankly, if you wish to ignore the factual evidence that I presented, and instead insist that what you "feel" during your "meditative experience" provides factual evidence of anything, then logical debate is not possible. You may also care to respond to my posting #189.

I'll tell you what. If you seriously think that consciousness is not affected by stuff that affects the brain, as discussed in posting #188, then you sit on your favorite chair and I'll insert a needle into an artery leading to your brain. Then you tell me when you are experiencing consciousness, and I'll dose some drugs into the bloodstream to your brain, and then you can report to me if this altered your consciousness. Deal?

I respectfully suggest that my posting #188 stands.

[Swami]

So consciousness has nothing to do with the mind? You gotta be kidding me.

Consciousness and mind can exist independently which is something that occurs during meditation.

But I stand totally by what I wrote in posting #188 in any event. There is absolutely zero evidence that any part of our though processes or mental state or consciousness or higher (or any) state of consciousness exists outside of our brain. That's a fact, and you would be well advised to get used to it.

Your view is Western nonsense. Yes, consciousness is expressed through the brain but that does not mean it can't be expressed through other means or systems, like a computer, through plants, through rocks, through itself in pure conscious state.

Science is already trending towards this view. Each time I read an update on science, I find that scientists are pushing back the envelope on what's required for consciousness - now we realize that patients who are in a deep coma are conscious.

And again I must gently remind you that what you "experience" (AKA feel) whether meditating or not is totally irrelevant. You are confusing what you "feel" with facts, with reality.

I don't see why feelings would show my experience to be anything less than real. As I stated in my last two posts, consciousness is boundless and formless and these two states inevitably come with different perceptions and feelings or sensations. Some are visual (OBEs), some are like physical sensations like feelings of weightlessness, feelings of expanding, a loss of all sense of space and time, etc. How else is a boundless state supposed to feel? While in this pure conscious state, I mean I am literally merging or in connection with a Universal consciousness that pervades the Universe. These are the sensations and perceptions that come with being boundless and formless. They are just as real as the bodily sensations that we experience in response various internal and external stimuli. The closest physical experience or analogy to this may be a zero-gravity environment. Of course, you should expect to feel weightlessness in such an environment.

What I wrote in posting #188 is the hard facts and reality of the matter. What you feel may well be an amazing experience, as drug-induced experiences can be as well, but I can assure you that neither actually proves anything or provides any useful or meaningful information. There is no evidence that meditation leads to acquiring knowledge that could not otherwise have been known, but it sure feels good! But humans are generally swayed by feelings, not by evidence, and on your own admission you are a good example of this, saying that we need to experience it to believe it! Personally I am swayed by evidence, while you are swayed by meditative experience that provides no evidence. That's your right, of course, but it does mean that you are not usefully contributing to the debate, which relies on evidence, not your personal feelings and assurances.

This is a common problem I run into when encountering Western materialist. The lack of a solution and even a good method for addressing the hard problem of consciousness is what drove me to the Eastern science. I quickly learned that meditation was a tool for knowledge when it comes to consciousness.

If you truly want proof of my view, then I encourage you to try meditation so that you can prove it to yourself.

Frankly, if you wish to ignore the factual evidence that I presented, and instead insist that what you "feel" during your "meditative experience" provides factual evidence of anything, then logical debate is not possible. You may also care to respond to my posting #189.

Just so you know I am not here to debate. I mainly came here to offer an approach (meditation) that anyone can use to confirm what I'm saying.

[ytrewq]

So consciousness has nothing to do with the mind? You gotta be kidding me.

Consciousness and mind can exist independently which is something that occurs during meditation.

But you have no evidence to back up that claim, so the claim is worthless. You do not seem to realise that anyone can make a worthless claim with no evidence. Would you like me to start doing so?

But on top of that, you also conveniently forgot to address my offer to dose drugs into the blood flow to your brain, and demonstrate that this will affect your consciousness, even when meditating. Is it a deal? No matter how this is played, your claim that consciousness exists outside of our brain just does not have a leg to stand on.

[ytrewq]

But I stand totally by what I wrote in posting #188 in any event. There is absolutely zero evidence that any part of our though processes or mental state or consciousness or higher (or any) state of consciousness exists outside of our brain. That's a fact, and you would be well advised to get used to it.

Your view is Western nonsense. Yes, consciousness is expressed through the brain but that does not mean it can't be expressed through other means or systems, like a computer, through plants, through rocks, through itself in pure conscious state.

Western nonsense eh? I'm smiling, and am very comfortable to let others here judge whether you have provided any evidence for your claims. There is indeed zero evidence that any part of our thought processes or mental state or consciousness exists outside of our brain. That's a fact that you have not denied, and you would be well advised to get used to it.

So now we learn that consciousness "is expressed though the brain", but I'll swear you told us just a while back that consciousness and the mind could be completely separate. Make up your mind, if you will pardon the pun.

But things get even more remarkable, Apparently, our consciousness can be "expressed" through plants for example, or even rocks. Wow! This is getting really exciting. Are you saying our "consciousness" can communicate directly with a plant or a rock? Well the idea may well be exciting, but also worthless rubbish, because as always, you have not a shred of evidence to support what you claim. And you say that your consciousness can communicate directly with a computer? I would love to see that, and we can share in the million dollar prize money on offer for demonstration of supernatural claims like that. Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but what am I or anyone to think when you sprinkle worthless claims around like confetti, without a shred of evidence?

The only evidence based conclusion that has emerged so far, my friend, is that all thought processes, including consciousness, exist only within our brain, and not outside it.

Again, and I'm not trying to be rude, but this is not meditation group where everyone already believes what you are spouting. As a matter of fact, this is a debate forum where claims made without evidence are promptly discarded.

By all means, put in a plug for meditation and say you reckon it's great, but if you are going to make worthless claims with no supporting evidence on a debate forum, then you need to expect those claims to be challenged and discarded.

[ytrewq]

And again I must gently remind you that what you "experience" (AKA feel) whether meditating or not is totally irrelevant. You are confusing what you "feel" with facts, with reality.

I don't see why feelings would show my experience to be anything less than real. As I stated in my last two posts, consciousness is boundless and formless and these two states inevitably come with different perceptions and feelings or sensations. Some are visual (OBEs), some are like physical sensations like feelings of weightlessness, feelings of expanding, a loss of all sense of space and time, etc. How else is a boundless state supposed to feel? While in this pure conscious state, I mean I am literally merging or in connection with a Universal consciousness that pervades the Universe. These are the sensations and perceptions that come with being boundless and formless. They are just as real as the bodily sensations that we experience in response various internal and external stimuli. The closest physical experience or analogy to this may be a zero-gravity environment. Of course, you should expect to feel weightlessness in such an environment.

I actually agree with some of what you write here. I agree completely that you don't see why feelings would show your experience to be anything less than real. That's the problem. You just don't understand that "feelings" are not a reliable guide to reality. The "feelings" themselves are irrelevant. What matters is whether you have any evidence to back up the claims expressed by those feelings.

By your own admission, everything you describe is in terms of feelings, sensations and perceptions. But so what? Drugs can equally give rise to wonderful and deep feelings, sensations and perceptions, but it just doesn't mean anything. At the end of the day, all you are telling us is that your meditation provides amazing feelings, sensations and perceptions, and I accept that is true. I don't doubt the feelings can be wonderful and deep, just as you describe them.

I am literally merging or in connection with a Universal consciousness that pervades the Universe.

But you have no evidence for this statement though, and it is thus worthless nonsense.

They are just as real as the bodily sensations that we experience in response various internal and external stimuli.

Absolutely wrong. The "real" body sensations that we experience can be confirmed in many ways. But your "feelings" when meditating cannot (and never have been) because they are sensations purely within the confines of your brain. For example, you "feel" weightless in meditation or in a dream, but is is easily proved that you are not, and that the sensation is wrong. But if we "feel weightless" in the real world then this is easily proved to be correct.

You are confusing "feelings" with reality. It really is that simple.

[ytrewq]

If you truly want proof of my view, then I encourage you to try meditation so that you can prove it to yourself.

Yes, that sums it up perfectly. In effect, what you are saying here is :-

OK, so I can't provide evidence of scientific standard for my claims, but I'll tell you what, if you actually try meditation yourself and experience the amazing feelings, perceptions and sensations that I do, then you will be convinced.

That sums it up perfectly.

[Mithrae]

As if the above is not enough to tell us beyond doubt where our consciousness resides, it is also a fact that the environment surrounding our head does not alter our consciousness, except in as much as we can sense our environment via receptors that in turn send information to the brain. We can heat the environment nearby our brain to 10,000 DegC and, provided the said heat is insulated from our receptors, this does not in any way affect our consciousness. This is a fact. We can irradiate the region outside our head with lethal X-rays or other electromagnetic radiation or particle beams or anything and everything known and, provided our head and brain and receptors are shielded from it, then it does not affect our consciousness.

Do you have a source for these claims?

In any case, as far as I'm aware there is no scientific way to distinguish between the brain's activity being identical with consciousness, the brain merely serving as a conduit or host for consciousness, and the brain providing a formative stage or gestational period for human consciousness. By the same reasoning as above I'd conclude that the internet resides within my laptop; playing around with my laptop can alter the internet, damaging or altering my laptop can change my experience of the internet and, golly, when I wave my hands or a match or anything else in my meagre power around my laptop, it doesn't affect the internet in the slightest. However all of that obviously provide no evidence for anything but the limitations of my investigative techniques.

Furthermore, inasmuch as self-reported experience is still the primary and in many respects only tool for understanding consciousness, there exists considerable evidence that even human consciousness can operate outside the brain or even in the absence of brain activity entirely, in the case of veridical OBEs and NDEs. It's not something I've looked into much, but even a single case such as that of Pam Reynolds can be quite compelling. Of course there is speculation without verifiable evidence which can suggest an alternative, materialist explanation of her experience; but since that speculation is obviously far from 100% certain, what we're left with is a high probability that she at the very least did experience conscious perception outside her brain and body, and quite possibly was conscious during a complete absence of brain activity.

Finally you haven't addressed the point raised in post #187 that, according to your own definition hinging on 'awareness and response to surrroundings,' we should rightly conclude that even single-celled lifeforms possess consciousness of some kind, without a brain: Thus regardless of what relationship between brain and consciousness may (or may not) one day be proven in humans, we would obviously be unjustified in assuming that to apply universally.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 189 by Razorsedge]

If you follow consciousness to its fullest and purest expression then it will lead you to the very nature of reality.

Really? I don't believe you. I presume that "being led to the very nature of reality" must be a a revelation of great significance indeed, that can tell us important things that we could not otherwise have known. Can you let us in on some of the significant things that you have learned, that you or we could not otherwise have known?

This is best answered by contrasting the Eastern view of reality with the West. Western science views reality as objective and full of objects. Seeing reality as it is involves perceiving the external world as it is.

In the Eastern view, the external world is a manifestation of consciousness. You are this pure consciousness. When you perceive through this state, you realize that everything comes through you. Therefore, seeing reality goes through a first-person perspective and the technology to access this state is meditation.

Here's a better way to put it:
https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_300.html

According to yoga psychology, the consciousness of an object is not a natural state of things.

The seeing of an object outside, or the consciousness of something external, is regarded in yoga as an unnatural condition of consciousness. Why is it unnatural? You see how yoga psychology differs from Western psychology. The Western psychologist would be happy to be aware of as many things in the world as possible. That is why he tries to go to the moon and to Jupiter, and so on.

Eastern way of perceiving reality:
https://yogainternational.com/article/v ... sciousness[/quote]

Mitchell was experiencing a spontaneous glimpse of what the sages of the yoga tradition call higher consciousness—a direct, intuitive experience of the infinite field of awareness that underlies and pervades the entire universe. When this experience is fully expanded, different traditions give it different names—samadhi, nirvana, enlightenment, turiya, shunyata, Brahman, Christ Consciousness, Absolute Truth, Atman, God, the Self, Supreme Consciousness—but whatever they call it, spiritual masters tell us that this experience of an all-pervasive consciousness reveals the truth about ourselves and the world we inhabit: it is all One. There is no division, no multiplicity, no separation. Everything—the astonishing variety of living beings; nature’s myriad shapes, textures, and forms; the sun, the stars, the clouds, and the wind in the trees—all of it is a manifestation of an indivisible field of Consciousness. The goal of human life, the sages tell us, is to meet that Consciousness within ourselves and to know ourselves as That.

Consciousness and mind can exist independently which is something that occurs during meditation.

But you have no evidence to back up that claim, so the claim is worthless. You do not seem to realise that anyone can make a worthless claim with no evidence. Would you like me to start doing so?

You keep stating that I'm not providing evidence but you're missing the point of why I bring up meditation and experience. You want "others" to prove it to you or for you. In my experience this often lead to endless debate. The best way is for you to prove this to yourself using meditation.

But on top of that, you also conveniently forgot to address my offer to dose drugs into the blood flow to your brain, and demonstrate that this will affect your consciousness, even when meditating. Is it a deal? No matter how this is played, your claim that consciousness exists outside of our brain just does not have a leg to stand on.

With the drugs, I would be experiencing or aware of an impaired brain but nonetheless I still have awareness. You can limit awareness but you can't impair it since it's always there carrying out its basic function.

So now we learn that consciousness "is expressed though the brain", but I'll swear you told us just a while back that consciousness and the mind could be completely separate. Make up your mind, if you will pardon the pun.

Just because consciousness can work through a brain doesn't mean that it is the brain or limited to it. When I'm driving I'm carrying out a function of a car but that doesn't mean I'm limited to that one car or that I'm the car itself. I can even think of analogies involving computer software/hardware.

But things get even more remarkable, Apparently, our consciousness can be "expressed" through plants for example, or even rocks. Wow! This is getting really exciting. Are you saying our "consciousness" can communicate directly with a plant or a rock? Well the idea may well be exciting, but also worthless rubbish, because as always, you have not a shred of evidence to support what you claim. And you say that your consciousness can communicate directly with a computer? I would love to see that, and we can share in the million dollar prize money on offer for demonstration of supernatural claims like that. Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but what am I or anyone to think when you sprinkle worthless claims around like confetti, without a shred of evidence?

Consciousness exist as part of everything. How it is expressed is determined by the form it takes. In a rock, consciousness would be limited but at the least it would be aware.