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?

[William]

[Replying to post 199 by Mithrae]

Yes. It appears ytrewq is among those who feel that metaphysical ideas have to be scientifically proven in order to be acceptable, which is such a false argument, just on the ground that science is not the best device for the job.

Plainly the whole point of the thread and ytrewqs subsequent expressions herein clearly show there is actually no place in his life for any interest in such things so he is simply just another atheist trying to drum up some response among theists - perhaps to alleviate ennui and generate 'fun'.

I caught onto this time-wasting technique once ytrewq removed his "I only want to learn what I can because I am interested" costume, and showed the true colors of what was hidden beneath, and in that I quite rightly withdrew from supporting that dynamic. I did not sign up as a member of this message board, to play that game.

[center]Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"
Why it is a fallacy in relation to some ideas of GOD.[/center]

♦The old Switcheroo routine exposed yet again

♦Positive claim

♦The oxymoron phrase: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" debunked

♦Demanding unspecified evidence to prove that GOD does exist, is fallacy.

♦There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

♦Are you actually wanting to buy a car or just wasting time debating with the salesman?

♦What kind of thing(s) would you expect to see which would convince you that GOD exists?

♦You believe your interpretation of the evidence as being the one which is truth. In that, you conflate.

♦I do not rationally expect anyone to come up with the actual evidence of science to support their assertion that science is saying that GOD does not exist.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 199 by Mithrae]

Yes. It appears ytrewq is among those who feel that metaphysical ideas have to be scientifically proven in order to be acceptable, which is such a false argument, just on the ground that science is not the best device for the job.

The scientific approach is by far our best tool for understanding reality; it basically trumps any other form of 'knowledge' in any case of conflict, and should be applied as well as possible to any question we can apply it to. Unfortunately there's some things which aren't as amenable to scientific enquiry as we'd like, at least for now. The question of whether or not consciousness is a basic characteristic of reality is one of those areas, obviously.

I'd phrase your comment above a little differently, because many if not most non-theists (and I think ytrewq implicitly if not directly in this thread) do accept/assume the metaphysical view that we live in a basically non-conscious, fysical reality. The problem is that they often don't acknowledge or even recognize it as such or, even more worryingly, sometimes try to persuade themselves/others that it is a proven fact of contemporary science. If anything, my meagre grasp of physics inclines me to suspect quite the opposite (and as you've posted, there are plenty of physicists who think so too).

[William]

[Replying to post 202 by Mithrae]

The scientific approach is by far our best tool for understanding reality; it basically trumps any other form of 'knowledge' in any case of conflict, and should be applied as well as possible to any question we can apply it to. Unfortunately there's some things which aren't as amenable to scientific enquiry as we'd like, at least for now. The question of whether or not consciousness is a basic characteristic of reality is one of those areas, obviously.

Preaching to the choir there Mithrae. My point exactly.

That is why the best position to adopt is connected with the 'wait and see' methodology of the agnostic position.

An agnostic theist such as myself understands this while recognizing that my subjective experience has reached out to the scientifically as yet unknown "Consciousness Of The Universe" (Earth specifically) and the unknown has responded, so - as Razorsedge points out, if one tries and succeeds then one has ones subjective experience as evidence to pursue the metaphysical in order to understand it and in that - better understand ones self.

That the evidence is basically useless to the scientific method, does not mean that it is not evidence.

Materialism preaches that we are merely apes, that our subjective experience is pretty much a brain illusion which will one day end with the cessation of that Self, forever - AND while we just happen to be an accident, we should all take advantage of the opportunity afforded us to behave by throwing our poo at one another, because poo-battles are "fun"!. Science can even help us in that.

I get that.

Yes. It appears ytrewq is among those who feel that metaphysical ideas have to be scientifically proven in order to be acceptable, which is such a false argument, just on the ground that science is not the best device for the job.

I'd phrase your comment above a little differently, because many if not most non-theists (and I think ytrewq implicitly if not directly in this thread) do accept/assume the metaphysical view that we live in a basically non-conscious, fysical reality. The problem is that they often don't acknowledge or even recognize it as such or, even more worryingly, sometimes try to persuade themselves/others that it is a proven fact of contemporary science. If anything, my meagre grasp of physics inclines me to suspect quite the opposite (and as you've posted, there are plenty of physicists who think so too).

How about

"Yes. It appears ytrewq is among those who feel that metaphysical ideas have to be scientifically proven in order to be acceptable, which is such a false argument, just on the ground that science is not currently able to do that job."?

Point being, that individuals who have established for themselves beliefs which they adhere to and are not up for negotiation until science can show them the way, are also interestingly interpreting what science has so far shown us all in such a manner as to actually believe in their interpretation of the science, rather than the actual science.

I understand perfectly the temptation to do so, and to join the ranks of those who proselytize such believes into the world at large in the hope of attaining converts and swelling the numbers, but it is still not really the way science actually does things.

While I sympathize somewhat with aspects of their mission, I still cannot rightfully condone their misinformation by also joining their ranks.

Me and The Universe have better things to do with our time.

[ElCodeMonkey]

How much frigging evidence do you want, or are you simply blind to the overwhelming evidence already available?

Moderator Warning

Please keep to topics without personal insult or judgement.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ytrewq]

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?

Of course I do - I am not in the habit of making claims for which there is not evidence.

First, it is our universal human experience that our consciousness is affected only by inputs to our bodily receptors, not by way of a consciousness existing external to our brain and body. No one has ever stood by a campfire and said "Ouch, my consciousness external to my body is getting burned by those nearby flames!" Similarly, if we are deep underground in a mine, we do not experience any shielding of a consciousness external to the body.

As for my specific example, I am a scientist and engineer, and frequently work or stand near to regions of exceedingly high temperature, intense particle beams, intense electromagnetic radiation and so on. Of course, the equipment is designed so that these lethal environments do not impinge directly on my bodily sensors, because otherwise I would be dead. And let me assure you, my consciousness has never been affected in the slightest, even though I can be surrounded by exceedingly high temperature, lethal particle beams, intense electromagnetic radiation and so on, providing strong evidence that my consciousness does not exist outside of my brain or body, because if it did, then it's hard to believe it would not get cooked or destroyed, or at the very least that my consciousness would in same way be aware that it was residing in the said lethal environments, don't you think? Please think about it. I have also worked within very thick, lead-walled enclosures that provide the most effective shielding known to mankind, and have never felt my consciousness "cramped" in any way, again providing strong evidence that our consciousness does not exist beyond our body. Again, please think about this. These are facts Mithrae - I only deal in facts, not in unevidenced speculation as you and others do.

I provide evidence for everything I say.
But no evidence of any sort has been provided to back up claims that consciousness exists outside of our brain, and so that claim must be discarded.
I'm sorry, really I am, because I know that this spoils your "good fun metaphysical discussions" but that's where we are at.

If you have evidence that consciousness exists outside of or brain, then you need to provide it, and as yet no one has done so.

Please read the rules and hints for debate. As matters stand, there is no evidence to show that consciousness exists outside of our body, so the claim is worthless and must be discarded.

If you (or anyone else here) wishes to change that, then the ball is in your court to provide evidence. Please do not pretend to teach me how debate works, and please do not ask for "special pleading" as in "Oh but please sir, my claims are different and the normal rules of evidence do not apply to me ..." Sorry, no special pleading permitted.

Ball is in your court. If evidence that consciousness exists outside of our brain is not forthcoming, then it's all over. The bulldozer cometh my friend, and desperately throwing around words like "metaphysical" does not change anything. Sorry, but no special pleading. If "metaphysical" means that the normal rules and evidence for debate do not apply, then it too is discarded and bulldozed.

Ball is in your court, gentlemen. This is a debate forum, and this thread will be run following the normal debate rules and requirements for evidence.

[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?

Of course I do - I am not in the habit of making claims for which there is not evidence.

First, it is our universal human experience that our consciousness is affected only by inputs to our bodily receptors, not by way of a consciousness existing external to our brain and body. No one has ever stood by a campfire and said "Ouch, my consciousness external to my body is getting burned by those nearby flames!" Similarly, if we are deep underground in a mine, we do not experience any shielding of a consciousness external to the body.

As for my specific example, I am a scientist and engineer, and frequently work or stand near to regions of exceedingly high temperature, intense particle beams, intense electromagnetic radiation and so on. Of course, the equipment is designed so that these lethal environments do not impinge directly on my bodily sensors, because otherwise I would be dead. And let me assure you, my consciousness has never been affected in the slightest, even though I can be surrounded by exceedingly high temperature, lethal particle beams, intense electromagnetic radiation and so on, providing strong evidence that my consciousness does not exist outside of my brain or body, because if it did, then it's hard to believe it would not get cooked or destroyed, or at the very least that my consciousness would in same way be aware that it was residing in the said lethal environments, don't you think? Please think about it. I have also worked within very thick, lead-walled enclosures that provide the most effective shielding known to mankind, and have never felt my consciousness "cramped" in any way, again providing strong evidence that our consciousness does not exist beyond our body. Again, please think about this. These are facts Mithrae - I only deal in facts, not in unevidenced speculation as you and others do.

Thankyou for answering; a claim which was based upon what you feel or don't feel at particular moments of your personal experience, then Though I'm sure there are plenty of others who could confirm similar experiences. I was actually wondering whether you had any studies in mind with more specific details (eg. testing from distances of one foot, six inches etc. with a wide range of possible forces and substances). It might not prove anything regardless of positive or negative results of course; for example Persinger's disputed results from weak magnetic fields would presumably, if true, be attributed to an effect on the brain rather than on ephemeral consciousness. Conversely, we already know of some substances which would be unaffected by most if not all likely experimental tools (eg. dark matter, neutrinos), so there'd be little proven by negative results from such an experiment either, except perhaps the limitations of our investigative techniques. However it would still be interesting to see if any comprehensive research along those lines has been done.

These are facts Mithrae - I only deal in facts, not in unevidenced speculation as you and others do.

You certainly deal a lot in ad hominem attempts such as this. I see them again and again and again throughout the rest of your post. What I'm not seeing is any kind of response - evidenced or otherwise - to the other three paragraphs of my post. To refresh your memory:
> I showed that for all your claims about the allegedly overwhelming evidence proving that consciousness resides in the brain, the exact same 'reasoning' could show that the internet resides in a laptop; or in other words, there's currently 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

> I showed that in fact there exists compelling objective evidence (albeit inconclusive, as all objective evidence is likely to be when we can't even detect consciousness) for conscious experience from outside the brain/body, and perhaps even for conscious experience in the total absence of brain activity

> I reminded you of my comments to Rikuo; that going by the definition which you yourself presented as uniquely authoritative in post #156, we have every reason to suppose that single-celled organisms which actively sense, engage with and respond to their environment possess a form of consciousness, without brains

The fact that all you've managed to produce in response is an outpouring of your feelings of contempt says a lot more about your position than about mine. But in fairness it may be that you were triggered by William's personal comments against you (your earlier insistence that "almost without exception, atheists never get offended" notwithstanding), so I'll hold out hope that this was just a slip-up and you will offer a substantive response soon

[ytrewq]

Thank you for answering; a claim which was based upon what you feel or don't feel at particular moments of your personal experience, then Though I'm sure there are plenty of others who could confirm similar experiences. I was actually wondering whether you had any studies in mind with more specific details (eg. testing from distances of one foot, six inches etc. with a wide range of possible forces and substances). It might not prove anything regardless of positive or negative results of course; for example Persinger's disputed results from weak magnetic fields would presumably, if true, be attributed to an effect on the brain rather than on ephemeral consciousness. Conversely, we already know of some substances which would be unaffected by most if not all likely experimental tools (eg. dark matter, neutrinos), so there'd be little proven by negative results from such an experiment either, except perhaps the limitations of our investigative techniques. However it would still be interesting to see if any comprehensive research along those lines has been done.

And thanks for an objective and well though out response. I'm not aware of any specific experiments, no, though if (totally speculative) claims of consciousness extending to all corners of the universe are correct, then there is presumably nothing to be gained by testing at one ft, 6 inches etc. (Love those primitive imperial units ) My own feeling mirrors what I strongly suspect yours is, that there is already no shortage of practical experience in this matter, and it does seem clear from such practical experience that our consciousness is not affected by anything outside of our body, except of course by the normal route via our bodily receptors. That IMHO is an interesting and significant observation, and I thank you for taking it on board.

I can't help feeling that this whole question of whether there is "something" intimately connected with our body that resides outside of it is a very, very old concept, much broader than 'consciousness', and includes but is not limited to whether we have a "soul" that resides outside of our body. And again, no one has ever been able to find any evidence for this. You asked about whether serious scientific experiments had been carried out, well I think I'm right in saying that perhaps between 1800 and 1900 such experiments were carried out to detect "souls", and no evidence found. Without in any way intending disrespect, the reason that scientists today don't carry out the kinds of experiments you suggest is because there is no evidence to believe that a result would be found, and thus scientists don't waste their time and resources on it. To put it another way, most scientists, including myself, don't take seriously the speculative suggestion that anything at all connected with our body resides outside of it, except for the obvious like IR radiation, speech and body odour. If scientists believed there was even the tiniest chance, then they would be studying it alright, because the first to show evidence for it would create an absolute sensation and undoubtedly score a Nobel prize. We need to keep calm heads, and mutually accept fair and good points that are made.

I have been thinking about this stuff for a very long time Mithrae, and my conclusions are not drawn lightly or from thin air. It has always seemed to me, that if there really was "something" intimately connected with our bodies but outside of our bodies, then the obvious place to look would be claims of "thought reading", claims that one person could directly "communicate" with another. And so, when I was younger, I actively studied this, but sadly concluded that there is no evidence for this either, though as always, plenty of claims. I am not a "materialist" or any other sort of "ist". I am open to all ideas, and always have been. And the reason that professional scientists devote little if any resources to mind reading, and generally don't take it seriously, is because it has been raked over time and time again, and no evidence has ever been found.

I will make a concerted effort to address the additional specific points that you made, even if it means that I ignore posts by others. You have waited long and patiently, and deserve a response.

And most of my "outpouring" rightly insisting on evidence was not aimed at you, it just happened to be tacked onto the end of a posting responding to you. Yes, that was unfair to you. Sorry about that.

Edit. I don't do ad hominem attacks though. I do however very robustly demand evidence, and point out that if not provided the claim is worthless and should/will be discarded.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 206 by Mithrae]

> I showed that for all your claims about the allegedly overwhelming evidence proving that consciousness resides in the brain, the exact same 'reasoning' could show that the internet resides in a laptop; or in other words, there's currently 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

The best way to address what you say here, is for me to provide two models of consciousness, one being the "conventional" model that I subscribe to, and then I'll put on my "supernatural hat" and describe what I believe to be your model of consciousness. Then we can look at the evidence for each, see how well each fits what is observed, and see which requires assumptions outside of scientific knowledge.

(a) Conventional consciousness (or call it ytrewq's consciousness if you prefer)
Consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. In this model, consciousness does not exist in it's own right, and is a process (or part of a process) running in the computer that we call a brain. Emotions such as love and hate, as well as thoughts, are all similar, in that they are all processes occurring within the physical brain. There is plenty of evidence to support this. When different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged, this influences the various processes occurring within the brain, and can selectively effect our emotions, vision, awareness, memory, consciousness and so on. And similarly, it is possible with modern technology to actually see which parts of the brain are active when we engage in different types of mental activity. This model seems exceedingly logical to me, and matches experimental results such as described extremely well. This model also fits exactly with the observation that no "consciousness" (or anything at all) has ever been observed outside the brain, and it also matches the astute observation that I made, that our consciousness and all other thought processes are not influenced by anything that we do to the environment outside of our brain and body, except indirectly by way of our bodily receptors. This model fits well with evolution, as we would expect brains to evolve in such a way as to be as simple as possible, consistent with making the organism aware of it's surroundings, and being able to "think" so as to enhance survival. But there is more, and this is really important. This model fits perfectly well within all well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge.

(b) Mithrae's consciousness
You will need to correct me if I get parts of this wrong, but based on what you wrote above, I think I understand what you suggest that consciousness is and how it works.
In this model, the brain and consciousness are linked, but are not physically the same thing. The brain itself does of course reside completely inside the head and not outside of it. The brain is a computer that does assist with and control many mental functions, but it does more than that. The brain actually "produces" or "generates" a mysterious "something" that we might call consciousness, that resides outside of the brain and body. As an analogy, but purely an analogy as this cannot be how it actually works, the brain could produce electromagnetic radiation that exists outside of the brain. OK. I suppose that you would agree, that our "consciousness" is affected by certain drugs injected into the brain. That seems plainly true to me - our awareness, feeling of "being", emotions, and thought can all be dramatically altered by drugs. This is very easily explained in my model. In your model, presumably is is explained by saying that drugs affect the brain, which in turn affects the mysterious "consciousness" that is generated by the brain. And when the brain is stimulated or injured so as to affect our consciousness, then this occurs because then brain then, in turn, affects the consciousness that it is generating. Hey, aren't I doing a great job of explaining the very things that I asked about? So far so good. But then reality starts to bite. There is no evidence that this mysterious, proposed "consciousness" stuff or thing that supposedly exists outside of the brain actually exists. That's a very bad start. I don't have to prove that is does not exist - the onus is squarely on you to show that it does, and you are unable to do that. But there is more bad news. If this consciousness existed outside of our brain, then every shred of human and scientific experience tells us that it should be influenced by the environment outside of our head and body. That is a testable hypothesis, and Mithrae's theory totally fails it. All experience tell us that we can do anything we like with the environment outside of our head and body, thick lead shielding, very high temperatures, acid baths, particle beams, intense electromagnetic radiation and so on, and yet none of this has the slightest effect on the proposed "consciousness something" that is proposed to exist outside of our body, except indirectly by way of our bodily receptors. That, even in itself, is extremely good reason to believe that it does not exist, and combine that with the fact that it has never been detected, and that this complex, convoluted Mithrae model is not required in the first place, and already IMHO it's already a "no brainer" that the Mithrae model should be rejected. But there is more. Why would such a complex system evolve in the first place? Evolution always favours the most efficient approach to get the job done, and I see no advantage at all in having the brain "generate" some mysterious thing outside of itself, when my much simpler model does the job. But though interesting, that's a minor point. But I have left one of the biggest problems until last. My model fits completely within all well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge, while yours does not. Whatever your proposed mysterious "something" is, then it apparently lies outside well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge, if it were not so, then we would have detected it by now, and if it were not so, then it most certainly would be influenced by shielding, high temperatures, particle beams and electromagnetic radiation and so on. To put that another way your proposed (but totally speculative) "consciousness" is necessarily a supernatural thing, while my much simpler theory, that completely explains all observations, requires no "supernatural" anything, and fits completely within well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge. One does not propose a supernatural solution to anything, when a natural solution does the job just as well, and in this case arguably better. If you don't like the word "supernatural", then equally I could say that one does not propose a solution that does not fit within within well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge, when an alternative solution that does fit within well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge exists, and does the job just as well. I could mention Occam's Razor as well, but we don't really need it.

Put all that together Mithrae, and by any objective analysis, my "conventional" model of consciousness is vastly more likely to be correct than yours.

I thus regard your model of consciousness as a speculative, interesting alternative to the more conventional model that I provided, that will remain no more than that unless and until more supporting evidence should be found.

Is that a fair comment?

[William]

[Replying to post 208 by ytrewq]

William's understanding of consciousness


In this model, the brain and consciousness are linked, but are not physically the same thing. The brain itself does of course reside completely inside the head and not outside of it. The brain is a computer that does assist with and control many mental functions, but it does more than that. The brain and body acts as a conduit for what we call consciousness, and individuate consciousness normally resides inside of the individual brain and body and is that which attains data of experience related to the individual human life-time of the brain and body.

Like any conduit, damage to its normal functions will stymie the effectiveness consciousness has in relation to that. Indeed, the human instrument (body) itself acts as a limitation as to what the consciousness experiencing it is able to achieve.

On a broader perspective re the notion that Consciousness exists throughout the universe, and uses the universe as its brain/body, the data of experience is obtained by the Consciousness experiencing it, and can be feed back into the aspects of the overall consciousness - the 'outposts of individuate form' - be these planets, stars, galaxies, biological life-forms etc.

The forms themselves act as barriers (limit the type of information which can be obtained) and in relation to the idea of the Earth being one such form an individuate consciousness occupies, this would be extremely difficult for individuate consciousnesses occupying human instruments to satisfactorily comprehend, but not impossible.

Various methods can be learned by human beings which allow for the individuate human consciousness to make meaningful connection with the vaster individuate consciousness of the Earth, but since all consciousness is connected and altogether equates to one being, the connections are not impossible to accomplish for individual human beings provided the conduit is healthy, by most accounts and the subject is willing.

There is no recognized scientific process I know of which can be used to enable the connection between the individual human and the Earth Entity at present time, although there are measurable processes which the individual can apply in relation to said connection which can be subjectively experienced and documented etc.

In relation to the model of Earth Entity consciousness and our own individual consciousnesses, it can be argued that the Earth Entity consciousness is both 'inside; and 'outside' the individual human experience, simultaneously.

It can be understood that each of us are ourselves conduits of the Earth Entity, and useful (even potentially) to one degree and another for that. We are a way that the Earth Entity experiences the Planet Form and as such are something of an expression of the Earth Entity - in direct relation to how well our individuate conscious connection with the Earth Entity is.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 206 by Mithrae]

Mithrae, just to clarify my last posting #208, I do not of course wish to imply that the "Mithrae's Model" is exactly what you had in mind. I was certainly not trying to build up a "straw man". Rather, I hope the model I presented encapsulates the key concepts that would be common to any model that claims that consciousness exists outside of our brain. William's model clearly goes way beyond that, but I prefer to walk prefer we run, so to speak, and look first at the most basic type of model that would be required once it is claimed that consciousness exists outside of our brain. If the basic consciousness-outside-the-brain model doesn't fly well, and IMHO I presented a good case that it does not, and that my "conventional" model is much more likely to be correct for many sound reasons, then more complex models that have even more unevidenced assumptions will fare even worse.