Every time I get involved in the debates that erupt here between the atheists and the theists, I end up feeling bemused by the fact that so much attention is focused on the question of whether "God" exists. It's been done to death.

I'm more interested in the question of whether there exists a spiritual dimension that is accessible to our own individual self. By "spiritual dimension", I mean a realm of consciousness that both contains and transcends our thinking rational mind and our "ordinary" waking-state sense of self. I don't necessarily mean a part of us that survives the death of the body. I'm talking about pre-death experience here.

My questions are: Is there information beyond sensation and learning? Is there identity beyond memory and reflection? Is there knowledge beyond logic and reason? Is there a level of "mind" that we sometimes have access to, but that is not exclusively or primarily "our own"? If you think the answer is yes, why do you think so? If you think not, or aren't sure, what kind of experience would it take to convince you that you do have access to relevant and useful information that originates or resides somewhere other than your own mind, whether conscious, subconscious or unconscious?

What about dreams, daydreams, epiphanies, visions, inspirations--are such relatively common experiences evidence that many if not all of us have some kind of access to some source of knowledge that doesn't originate entirely within our personal and individualized brain-based mind? Or are all such experiences best explained as a normal bio-electro-chemical brain and nervous system function that brings to conscious awareness previously learned but perhaps forgotten or hitherto unconscious knowledge?

ordinaryguy

I don't think it necessarily has or needs a "purpose" or a will, at least not in the way that we conceive of our own motives and plans and actions. I think we are too quick to assume that if there is any intelligence beyond our own thinking brain, it must be pretty much like a person, only "bigger". I'm just trying to see where it leads if we relax that assumption. I don't even think of it as something separate from us that we may be able to "tap into". Rather more along the lines of a consequence or phenomenon that accompanies the simultaneous and coherent thought of many conscious beings.

Here are a couple of links that may relate to the kind of "intelligence" I'm talking about.
From Ants to People, an Instinct to Swarm
Smarty Plants: Inside the World's Only Plant-Intelligence Lab

ordinaryguy

Well, as I've already said, I'm ambivalent, and a little apologetic for it, but if there is a way to dress it up and present it as something noble, or at least not reprehensible, it might go something like this:

I was born to Christian fundamentalist parents and lived all my early life in the cocoon of the church, accepting what I was told at face value. Sometime in my teens I began to learn how to think, and how to ask questions based on that thinking. The responses I got ranged from shock to pity to anger to grief. What I almost never got was a thoughtful, well considered answer to my question. Only one or two of my teachers took me seriously and tried to answer when they could, and even more important, to admit it forthrightly when they couldn't. I am eternally grateful to them for having the integrity to do that.

I left the church in my early twenties (nearly 40 years ago) and have never been sorry. I am living proof that individuals who once held that view of human life can change and grow out of it. I try to articulate a point of view that I needed to hear during my own years of doubt and questioning. Most of the people who are in that position and read these threads probably don't even post comments or responses. I hope that my observations and pointed questions to the spiritual terrorists will give heart to any such spectators who are observing the dialog and using it as grist for their internal mill. I don't want and don't try to make the fundies angry (though it sometimes happens in spite of what I want), and I harbor no illusions about changing their minds. I just want to encourage any undecided edge-sitters not to jump back into the frying pan for fear of the fire. I'm waving to them and saying "Don't be afraid. Come on in, the fire's fine".

RubyPitbull

Well you are a noble guy OG. This was quite a good save from your original "selfish sport" explanation earlier in this thread. LOL. I actually haven't seen you poking anyone in the eye on those threads in quite a while, and I have noticed that you are very careful about approaching the subject matter in as rational and logical a manner as possible to leave no room for argument. The die hards will ignore you or argue with you depending on who is responding. BUT, NK, on the other hand. hehe. I think he takes a wee bit of pleasure poking those people in the eye.


Those websites you linked are very interesting. From the way you phrased your OP, I was thinking you were exploring this concept on a much grander, more cosmic scale. I know you stated "bigger" in post #21 but I am not sure I agree with the bigger concept. I think it actually goes in the opposite direction. A collective mind that is miniscule. ???? Maybe I am just not keeping up with you here. Did I mention I am old and my brain hurts? I am having trouble marrying your original post to the links & explanation in post #21 to make it into one cohesive concept. Or is post #21 a completely different idea than what your OP was? I be confuzzled. Sorry. It seems as if, from a scientific point of view, those links answer your original questions. Although it appears to me that it is more of a basic genetic predisposition that is the guiding force. I am not sure where the electromagnetic field and the dreams,.... all that other stuff you droned on about, uh sorry (hehe), you spoke about, comes into play here.

KBC

I hope that my observations and pointed questions to the spiritual terrorists will give heart to any such spectators who are observing the dialog and using it as grist for their internal mill.

This is more to the mentality of my beliefs also.

I have no hatred towards religion,maybe the zealots and the like, not the religion.

I am just reading this thread for the first time,sorry so late...been sick.I don't want anger or resentment over the 'god/no god' discussion.I am who I am,you are who you are.Can't we all just get along.....blah blah blah.

I am trying to get the concept of your original post still(maybe I am still sick, it isn't all that clear to me yet).

Are you only looking for a central,all encompassing,mind bank? a plane beyond us,them,and those?

This sounds more like philosophy than spirituality,I guess they are close?(BTW I am not judging inside joke for mm)

I would like more discussion on this OP as well, lets go!

ordinaryguy

Well, for one thing, I'm trying to approach the spiritual dimension from the other end, so to speak, from the personal, human, everyday-experience end rather than the cosmic grand scale ultimate reality end. As a purely practical matter it seems foolish to me to try to start with what is farthest away from where we actually are. Another difference is that I find the concept of God as a "really big person" preposterous--kind of like a single-celled organism imagining that higher life forms must be like really big cells--so I'm trying not to be so anthropomorphic about it.
No, as I understand it, the Deist view is that God designed the universe and started the process rolling and then lost interest, or at least decided it should be left alone. I'm thinking that if there is any transcendent reality at all, it's essence is an irrepressible urge to create, change and grow, and that it is so intimately involved with the processes of material creation (galaxies, stars, life forms) that we have trouble being aware of it because our own consciousness is both an effect and a cause of it. The whole idea of time as an arrow, with cause always preceding effect, is probably a gross oversimplification.
I'm finding it less and less unsettling as I get older. POOF is a big improvement over eternal torment, in my book.
Huh? Why would I do that?

ordinaryguy

Well, as you may have guessed, it isn't entirely clear to me either, which is part of my reason for wanting to discuss it. I'm just thinking that if there is a transcendent realm or spiritual world, or whatever we might call it that is just beyond the reach and grasp of our rational mind, the best way to learn about it might not be to engage in prolonged debate and endless speculation about the existence and nature of a Supreme, Absolute, and Ultimate Originator and Sustainer of Everything that is, ever was, or shall be. Maybe it would be more fruitful to start small and explore our immediate neighborhood first.

ordinaryguy

No, no, I think you're probably ahead of me. Small is good.
So's mine. Must be the weather.
You're expecting "one cohesive concept"? From me? So soon? I hope you aren't too disappointed, but that may be too much to expect. I certainly never promised it, did I?
Not that different, I hope.

Well, they do at least hint at answers. But the hyper-rationalist might say "No, no, the point of those studies is that such collective phenomena can be explained without any need to postulate a "group intelligence" or "mind field" or any other such hocus pocus idea. All it takes is for each individual in the collective to follow a very small number of simple rules, and the phenomenon unfolds without any "guiding force" at all. That's true, I suppose, but it still leaves the question of how the usefulness of that particular set of rules was discovered, and how the individuals learned and agreed to be bound by them.

RubyPitbull

No, you certainly didn't promise anything but you started this thread with the hope to engage us in further discussion. How can we have an effective discourse if we don't know what the firetruck you are getting at? When I say one cohesive concept maybe I should say one construct. I am looking at your original post and then your follow up post #21 and they seem to me to be two different trains of thought. But, now that I look at the end of your response to KBC and your last paragraph (requoted below) to me, I think (I hope?) I have a better understanding of what you are driving at here.
I think maybe we need to create a definition of "rules" as you use it here. When I look at these studies of plant life & ants, I come out with an inherent, ingrained, response to outside stimulus, a genetic predisposition as I stated above, rather than a type of thought process, which it seems you are suggesting we consider. Maybe there is a very basic "language" (unspoken) that allows them to speak to each other and lay down the "rules" instead of a genetic, automatic response? Is that what you mean by a "mind field"? Well, that certainly is possible. Those studies are something that have been going on for years and there have been assumptions made about how they are able to transfer what is expected for them to perform as one unit.(ants) And, as noted in the plant article, Darwin was exploring these concepts back in the 1880s.

What I am coming away with at this particular point in time is that we assume what we are told by the scientific community, that communication between these "lower" life forms is done through an instinctual response to outside stimuli which stems from impatterned genetic code. So, once you buy into that theory, it is hard to think outside the box. Most of us in Western civilization have been programmed to follow this scientific line of thinking in school. Interesting that some of us are more inclined to buy into and accept that theory as a basic truth, but we can so easily dismiss the Creation theory. I am open to the possibility that we are wrong on all counts. So, where would you like us to go with our trains of thought. Guide me in where your head is going with this mind field concept and I will try to keep up.

RubyPitbull

"Comments on this postKBC agrees: I like this discussion and will continue to read as long as my small mind can comprehend the $25.00 wording...LOL"

Actually those words cost me a cool $50 apiece. But, I will sell 'em to you cheap for $30 apiece.

KBC, please don't let us scare you away from actively participating in this discussion. Anything you say, I will tear apart and abuse in the same way I abuse everyone else. hehe. Just kidding. Play the game here! Nothing you say will be dismissed, ignored, or abused. OrdinaryGuy is looking for some fun. He wants to actively discuss all the possibilities that are out there to explore. So, please feel free to comment and tell us what you think about all this and what he is saying. What do you feel he means by "mind field", do you think it is possible that one exists and what do you think about this whole concept?

RubyPitbull

Look what I found! News from The Associated Press
It made me think about us in terms of the ants. Maybe, just maybe, they have little signs that are carried by the higher ups in the ant kingdom ( sort of like executive managers) as they all move to work together. Or, they could have them posted all over the world (they have been here a lot longer than we have) and work in somewhat of a subliminal way, as the stair signs did for the these people. How do we know that the ants don't have some form of written communication? It may be so small and done in such a way that we haven't recognized it as language.