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?

Whoa Dude! You are hurting my brain! It appears to me that what you are asking are questions that are very much in line with the Zen Buddhist train of thought. But I am not well versed enough in that philosophy to be able to state that definitively.

I hope my posting here has given your thread a bump so that some of our more erudite contributors will pick up on it and get into a great discussion with you. It would be nice to see some of the atheists who enjoy arguing with the theists, pull themselves away from the Christian threads and get into a more constructive and fulfilling discussion here. As for me, I don't think I can keep up with you. I ain't as smart as y'all. ;)

If no one shows up, I guess we can conclude they find it more fulfilling to debate an issue that will never be resolved (at least in my lifetime). Rather pointless In my opinion. And sad.

It would be nice to see some of the atheists who enjoy arguing with the theists, pull themselves away from the Christian threads and get into a more constructive and fulfilling discussion here.
That's what I'm hoping for.

As for me, I don't think I can keep up with you. I ain't as smart as y'all. ;)

Oh, come on, you're smarter than most, and it ain't about smart anyway. So, fess up. Do you think there's mind beyond brain, or not?

I knew you were looking for a constructive discussion for a change. It is too bad that the people who should be involved in this thread have chosen not to show up and would rather spend their time arguing. But, in the end, if we do get more people to show up, I believe this discussion will break down in the same way as those other threads do. Because what you are asking does eventually boil down to whether I believe there is a "God", a "guiding hand" if you will, which in my opinion is the definition of a "mind beyond brain."

My dear OG. Just as a side note, early on when I joined this site, I remember becoming extremely annoyed by someone's attempt at online conversion in the member discussion forum. Later, I found out he was just a teen and I felt very ashamed that I came down so hard on the kid. Since then, I have made it a point not to voice my personal beliefs regarding religion or politics on this forum. I don't enjoy engaging in nasty disputes online that go around in circles. They leave me feeling aggravated and frustrated. When emotions override logical discourse it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Those are conversations that leave me without joy.

I don't really want to get into explaining my personal belief system. I think it would upset a lot of people here and getting into a debate is not something that I want to engage in. So, we can have a lovely discussion, but as soon as someone shows up and starts attacking my views, depending on how I feel at that time, I either might not be able to keep my mouth shut and become nasty, or I will be able to keep my mouth shut and just leave. Just thought I would give a word of caution here.

I believe that there is "information beyond sensation and hearing" as we know it. If you take that concept at it's most basic human level and apply it to someone like Helen Keller, we as people who have the gifts of sight, speech, and hearing, are able to gather and extrapolate information in a different way than she did, and others like her, do. So, it stands to reason, in my mind, that there are other "senses" we as humans are not aware of and never will have a chance to tap into, because we will always be limited to and enslaved to our own senses. Some people might claim they have tapped into one or more of those senses. I don't think it is constructive for me to argue whether they can or can't because I have no way to disprove it, and conversely, I don't believe they can prove it to me beyond a shadow of my own doubt.

I remember years ago writing a poem to fulfill a school assignment in junior high. I wondered about our significance in this world and pondered over the thought: what if this world we live in is merely a drop of water living in another world that consists of another drop of water, and so on it goes, into infinity? Are we like an amoeba in it's immediate surroundings, not aware of what exists outside of what it touches? I know I am not alone in that mode of thinking. In my mind, it stands to reason that if something as small as a single celled organism can exist in this world, and we as human beings are composed of billions of single cells and are so much more complex than one cell, how can we be so egotistical to assume that it stops with us? There has to be so much more that can be tapped into, something that we will never be capable of tapping into, just as an amoeba can never tap into what we experience.

Do I sit and muse over all of this every day? Nah. It only pops up when someone like you asks a question as you did. I find it difficult to ponder at length something that is so far beyond my own reality. It was fun when I was a teenager. At this age, it just tires me out. ;)

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?I don't believe that such things exists primarily because they haven't occurred to me in my lifetime. To be honest perhaps I'm just a very simple soul: maing sure I'm raising my kids to be good, happy citizens; enjoying time with my wife, doing activities with said wife and kids, work, travel, chores, hobbies, sports - these take up all my time. I don't sit and reflect on whether there is anything else, what I have fulfills me already, I'm not searching for anything else.


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?As for daydreams we are in control of those. Dreams can be defined as above. Epiphanies/visions, I don't believe they are their own things, just results of learning and experiences.

what you are asking does eventually boil down to whether I believe there is a "God", a "guiding hand" if you will,
I'm trying really hard not to let it boil down to that. In fact, a big part of the motive for even posting these questions is to see if there is a way to discuss whatever may be just beyond our capability to apprehend, without having it boil down to that. Or, at the very least, not quite so early in the discussion.

which in my opinion is the definition of a "mind beyond brain."
Could I get you to reconsider your definition? I'm thinking along the lines of a collectively generated "mind field", conceptually similar to electromagnetic and gravitational fields though not necessarily strongly interactive with them.

My dear OG. Just as a side note, early on when I joined this site, I remember becoming extremely annoyed by someone's attempt at online conversion in the member discussion forum. Later, I found out he was just a teen and I felt very ashamed that I came down so hard on the kid. Since then, I have made it a point not to voice my personal beliefs regarding religion or politics on this forum. I don't enjoy engaging in nasty disputes online that go around in circles. They leave me feeling aggravated and frustrated. When emotions override logical discourse it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Those are conversations that leave me without joy.
I admire your lack of enjoyment of contentious disputation. I am chagrined to admit that I do still enjoy it a little bit, from time to time. The challenge of poking holes in arrogant self-righteous pomposity is hard to forego entirely. But you're right, it's kind of a selfish sport. The good news is that I tire of it more quickly than I used to.

I don't really want to get into explaining my personal belief system. I think it would upset a lot of people here and getting into a debate is not something that I want to engage in. So, we can have a lovely discussion, but as soon as someone shows up and starts attacking my views, depending on how I feel at that time, I either might not be able to keep my mouth shut and become nasty, or I will be able to keep my mouth shut and just leave. Just thought I would give a word of caution here.
I, for one, intend to be "vewy vewy caweful".

I believe that there is "information beyond sensation and hearing" as we know it. If you take that concept at it's most basic human level and apply it to someone like Helen Keller, we as people who have the gifts of sight, speech, and hearing, are able to gather and extrapolate information in a different way than she did, and others like her, do. So, it stands to reason, in my mind, that there are other "senses" we as humans are not aware of and never will have a chance to tap into, because we will always be limited to and enslaved to our own senses. Some people might claim they have tapped into one or more of those senses. I don't think it is constructive for me to argue whether they can or can't because I have no way to disprove it, and conversely, I don't believe they can prove it to me beyond a shadow of my own doubt.
Yes, it's really kind of presumptuous, isn't it, to dispute another person's interpretation of their own subjective experience. Since it is subjective, we have to depend on them to describe it to us, but description and interpretation are so intimately intertwined as to be indistinguishable. At most, we might be able to say something like, "If I had an experience like the one I think you're describing, I would interpret it differently than it seems to me that you do".

how can we be so egotistical to assume that it stops with us? There has to be so much more that can be tapped into, something that we will never be capable of tapping into, just as an amoeba can never tap into what we experience.
Well, I certainly do agree that there's no way to prove that it stops with us. On the other hand, I don't want to be too quick to say what has to be the case, or what we will never be capable of. It wasn't that many years ago that we were completely unaware of most of the electromagnetic spectrum, or the structure and operation of DNA, for example.

I find it difficult to ponder at length something that is so far beyond my own reality.
Well, see, I'm trying to bring the discussion back to a point that isn't so very far away from our ordinary reality. Maybe just a little bit transcendent, but not so much as to be utterly strange or unknowable.

It was fun when I was a teenager. At this age, it just tires me out. ;)
I can think of several activities that are like this. Sigh.

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?

OG,

I know you do not want to bring in the word God into this,but do bear in mind that when I answer it is not from outside my faith and belief, but from within it.:)

About dreams, I do believe that the soul leaves the body when we are in deep sleep, so there is the possibility that the soul sees things which we may not have seen in our waking life.Possibly even contact others while our physical selves sleep.Maybe some dreams we dream are not dreams but some bits of the journey that the soul take during our sleep.

And as Ruby said, Helen Keller had other abilities even without what we call normal senses.Maybe all of us has other abilities but it maybe limited according to individuals.Like how some of us are good in remembering faces, while other remember huge mathematical formulae any time they are asked.
Some have a spirit connections while others do not.

About having knowledge beyond logic and reason, I think we do.Logic and reason I think is a human confinement,but I think that knowledge is limited in some ways as humans never knew everything there is to know,but I think we do have knowledge within us that we may not have tapped (I hope that wasn't too confusing).

Visions and inspirations,here this would take my thoughts back into my beliefs, as some of these visions have to do with the other realm where beings exist of another kind unlike humans.They have limited access to our world as we do theirs.I think some visions are good while others are bad,sometimes humans confuse the two and maybe follow a wrong vision.

Maybe scientists have explanations for most things as chemical reactions to something,but then we know there are certain things beyond their explanations which now sometimes have become to be termed as mental illnesses.
Some people do really see things,and not imagine they are seeing it,but those who do not believe in such things will take it that these things are ills of the mind.

Could I get you to reconsider your definition? I'm thinking along the lines of a collectively generated "mind field", conceptually similar to electromagnetic and gravitational fields though not necessarily strongly interactive with them. Okay, I will reconsider... Nah. It all is the same. "God", "guiding hand", "mind field". Because the result is the same. Whether it is an old dude with a flowing white beard and robes, a mother goddess, an elephant, a flying spaghetti monster, or an electromagnetic and gravitational field that collect themselves into a "mind field", you are suggesting the concept of some sort of THINKING entity.

I admire your lack of enjoyment of contentious disputation. I am chagrined to admit that I do still enjoy it a little bit, from time to time. The challenge of poking holes in arrogant self-righteous pomposity is hard to forego entirely. But you're right, it's kind of a selfish sport. The good news is that I tire of it more quickly than I used to. Yeah, I useta was someone who enjoyed a great debate and loved to poke holes into other people's arguments. Especially when they were arrogant know-it-alls who gloried in their ignorant and narrow minded views. Gave me immense pleasure to break someone down. But, I have gotten to the point in my life that I feel it is a waste of my valuable time. I am old and my attention span is now very limited. I prefer to focus on the important things in life such as, will I have a good bowel movement today, I wonder what I should cook for dinner tonight, do I still have time to take a short nap before I make me some dinner, I need to make sure I don't forget to tune into Jeopardy tonight, oh look, the dogs are humping each other again.
I suspect very soon, you too will get to this state of glorious unconcern for other people's viewpoints and focus inward as I have done.

Well, I certainly do agree that there's no way to prove that it stops with us. On the other hand, I don't want to be too quick to say what has to be the case, or what we will never be capable of. It wasn't that many years ago that we were completely unaware of most of the electromagnetic spectrum, or the structure and operation of DNA, for example. True enough but for example, medically speaking, we still only understand about half of what is exactly going on within the human body. And, who is to say that we are absolutely correct in our understanding with regard to the electromagnetic spectrum, or the structure and operation of DNA. For now, it is accepted as fact. Until someone disproves it. Just like all the different foods that can cause or fight cancer. How much information and misinformation have we been fed about that over the past 5 years? A lot. So, I feel comfortable stating what I have stated above. And frankly, I don't worry about what we will be capable of finding out about after I am dead and gone. Uh oh. I spilled the beans a bit. You now know I don't believe I will be reincarnated.

Well, see, I'm trying to bring the discussion back to a point that isn't so very far away from our ordinary reality. Maybe just a little bit transcendent, but not so much as to be utterly strange or unknowable. I understand. But, In my opinion, what you are suggesting is more than a "little bit transcendent".

I can think of several activities that are like this. Sigh. I had to go change my tighty whities. PMSL. Yeah, you are closing in very rapidly to my mindset.

P.S. SEE! What did I tell you! You are at least getting some responses and getting a discussion going now. I will let others take over so you can stay on topic. Maybe I will post back but I am not the best person to engage in transcendental discussions. The here and now creates enough of a challenge for my brain.

you are suggesting the concept of some sort of THINKING entity.
No, actually, I'm suggesting that even if there is something--information, intelligence, knowledge--that truly is "out there", beyond our brain, it may not be an "entity", thinking or otherwise. That's kind of what I meant by "collectively generated" referring to a hypothetical "mind field". I really don't see the need to personalize it, or suppose that it's a "volitional being" with a capability to act independently of the participants who give rise to it.


I prefer to focus on the important things in life such as, will I have a good bowel movement today, I wonder what I should cook for dinner tonight, do I still have time to take a short nap before I make me some dinner, I need to make sure I don't forget to tune into Jeopardy tonight, oh look, the dogs are humping each other again.
I suspect very soon, you too will get to this state of glorious unconcern for other people's viewpoints and focus inward as I have done.
And you claimed earlier to have no knowledge of Zen Buddhism! Well, HA! Realized One, my ploy has worked and you have revealed yourself! I am your disciple from this moment on.

we still only understand about half of what is exactly going on within the human body.
Oh, I think it's waaay less than half.

And, who is to say that we are absolutely correct in our understanding with regard to the electromagnetic spectrum, or the structure and operation of DNA. For now, it is accepted as fact. Until someone disproves it.
Oh, sure, I'm not saying we understand them perfectly, I'm just offering them as examples of sources of information that until recently we didn't even know existed, much less how to decode and interpret them.

And frankly, I don't worry about what we will be capable of finding out about after I am dead and gone. Uh oh. I spilled the beans a bit. You now know I don't believe I will be reincarnated.
I don't know what will happen to me after I die, and I'm not the least bit interested in finding out prematurely. But I am still kind of interested in what will happen to the people I love after I die, and the people they love, and so on. So I'm not completely indifferent about what may happen in the distant future.

In my opinion, what you are suggesting is more than a "little bit transcendent".
No, really. What I'm suggesting is only slightly outside the commonplace.

The here and now creates enough of a challenge for my brain.
Why do you think I retreat into my keyboard and the glowing screen?

This is fun. Thanks for playing.

I don't believe that such things exists primarily because they haven't occurred to me in my lifetime.
They haven't occurred to me either, in the sense that any such experiences I've had can just as easily be explained in more conventional ways. But, call me a mystic, I still like thinking of alternative explanations.

To be honest perhaps I'm just a very simple soul: maing sure I'm raising my kids to be good, happy citizens; enjoying time with my wife, doing activities with said wife and kids, work, travel, chores, hobbies, sports - these take up all my time. I don't sit and reflect on whether there is anything else, what I have fulfills me already, I'm not searching for anything else.
Maybe not, but you still seem to spend a lot of time in the Religion boards cutting the Bible thumpers down to size. What's up with that?

Maybe not, but you still seem to spend a lot of time in the Religion boards cutting the Bible thumpers down to size. What's up with that?Kind of falls into "The challenge of poking holes in arrogant self-righteous pomposity". :)

Kinda falls into "The challenge of poking holes in arrogant self-righteous pomposity". :)
Yeah, I can't seem to give it up entirely, even though I have less and less confidence that anything of lasting value comes of it.

No one ever gets converted to either side in the religion forums. One side takes it to heart since part of their 'mandate' is to deliver 'the good news' or 'the truth' whilst the other side is having a little fun at the whole arrogance of it.

OG,

I know you do not want to bring in the word God into this,but do bear in mind that when I answer it is not from outside my faith and belief, but from within it.:)
I'm not entirely hostile to the idea of a supernatural person who can and does tinker with the processes of the physical universe. I just don't want to start there.


Maybe scientists have explanations for most things as chemical reactions to something,but then we know there are certain things beyond their explanations which now sometimes have become to be termed as mental illnesses.
Some people do really see things,and not imagine they are seeing it,but those who do not believe in such things will take it that these things are ills of the mind.
We've come a long way from the days when every mental aberration was interpreted as either demon possession or divine revelation. But we haven't come quite as far as we think, IMO. Cultural assumptions and shared beliefs still play a big part in deciding who's crazy and who's creative, and who's inspired. I suspect we still get it wrong pretty often.

No, actually, I'm suggesting that even if there is something--information, intelligence, knowledge--that truly is "out there", beyond our brain, it may not be an "entity", thinking or otherwise. That's kind of what I meant by "collectively generated" referring to a hypothetical "mind field". I really don't see the need to personalize it, or suppose that it's a "volitional being" with a capability to act independently of the participants who give rise to it. Okay. So if it existed, what would the purpose of this mind field be? Just a "storage bin" of sorts for the collective information until a human being or another entity figures out how to tap into it? Or have we already tapped into it in a small way somehow through people like Newton, Tesla, Einstein,.

And you claimed earlier to have no knowledge of Zen Buddhism! Well, HA!! Realized One, my ploy has worked and you have revealed yourself!! I am your disciple from this moment on. Boy, are you in for a huge disappoint.

Oh, I think it's waaay less than half. You are right. I was doing the ignorant shuffle and generalizing because I didn't want to be pinned down to having to back up my true belief about that. Let's just say I have very little confidence in the knowledge of our medical community.

Oh, sure, I'm not saying we understand them perfectly, I'm just offering them as examples of sources of information that until recently we didn't even know existed, much less how to decode and interpret them. Oh. I see. This is a theory, speculation, musing,. on your part and on the part of some others. Inneresting. Um, how is this different than all human beings at one time or another questioning whether "God" exists? Appears to me to be the same basic principle of thinking and questioning whether there is a higher power. If you give this some thought, wondering about this "mind field" is actually in line with the Deist way of thinking. Are you really a Deist who thinks he is an agnostic or atheist?

I don't know what will happen to me after I die, and I'm not the least bit interested in finding out prematurely. But I am still kind of interested in what will happen to the people I love after I die, and the people they love, and so on. So I'm not completely indifferent about what may happen in the distant future. Yes, it is very unsettling thinking that we just end and POOF, that is all there is to it. Hello, Deist! :)

No, really. What I'm suggesting is only slightly outside the commonplace. Well, if you discussed this with someone like Pat Robertson, I think it is safe to assume that he wouldn't agree this "is only slightly outside the commonplace." He would dismiss you as a crazy loon. Kind of an ironic thought, ain't it?

This is fun. Thanks for playing. You are welcome. Do I get any prizes for participating? I like prizes.


Re: response to NeedKarma --
Maybe not, but you still seem to spend a lot of time in the Religion boards cutting the Bible thumpers down to size. What's up with that?
Kinda falls into "The challenge of poking holes in arrogant self-righteous pomposity". :)
NK -- But, you spend a great deal of time doing it. It is appears to the outside observer (like me --I do read those threads) that you spend most of your time on this site doing that. If you lead the kind of life you state you do, why bother? These people have a totally different "head" than you do, and have been trained to completely dismiss your logic. Arguing with them, getting them angry to the point that they lose their tempers, seems like such a waste of time and energy to me.

P.S. I was writing all this prior to seeing your discussion with OG about it. So, I guess I should be asking you both what you get out of upsetting these people.

Not trying to upset them, just show them that there are alternative lifestyles and that all lifestyles should be accepted. The fact that they usually retort by saying there is no other way to live your life but the way they have chosen is not my doing. They get upset because they can't imagine someone not being like them and surviving; I guess it must sow the seeds of doubt in them if they get that upset.

Not trying to upset them, just show them that there are alternative lifestyles and that all lifestyles should be accepted. The fact that they usually retort by saying there is no other way to live your life but the way they have chosen is not my doing. They get upset because they can't imagine someone not being like them and surviving; I guess it must sow the seeds of doubt in them if they get that upset.
Nah, it doesn't sow any seeds of doubt. You have no chance of getting through to people with that mindset. They do not view any lifestyle, other than their own, as the right one. They don't and won't accept that philosophy. You are a smart guy. You already know this. They get upset because they don't like someone trying to punch holes into their belief system. They view it as abuse and thus, get upset. If you think about the fact that nothing they will say will ever change your mind about your life choices, that is exactly how they feel. You are going in circles on this my good man. Personally, I don't find any satisfaction in spinning my wheels. What personal satisfaction do you and OG get out of doing this? Just curious.

Hey, here is a perfect example of disproving theories. Double Trouble: What Really Killed the Dinosaurs | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/animals/071112-dino-volcanoes.html)

My theory is that dinosaurs bones were "planted" here on earth by those microwave, um I mean those electromagnetic & gravitational "mind fields" just to mess with our heads. Sort of a collective cosmic practical joke, if you will. Dinosaurs were a highly evolved species on another planet, in another galaxy. I think the collective mind dug up the bones of the dead ones and planted them here as a red herring.

Okay. I will stop messing around and continue our serious discussion. Maybe.

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/firmbeliever.html)firmbeliever (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/firmbeliever.html) agrees: personally for me,it is not seeds of doubt you plant,but sadness that some will be losing the prize that comes beyond death.(P.s.not for debate,which is why I am putting this as a rating)Please don't feel sad, there is no "prize" to lose. Enjoy your time here, I am. :)

there is no "prize" to lose.
Please, let's not veer off into the quicksand of competing predictions about what does or doesn't happen after death. There's plenty to discuss about what happens between now and then.

Okay. So if it existed, what would the purpose of this mind field be? Just a "storage bin" of sorts for the collective information until a human being or another entity figures out how to tap into it? Or have we already tapped into it in a small way somehow through people like Newton, Tesla, Einstein,....?
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=0fdf662ab4dc1880&ex=1195189200)
Smarty Plants: Inside the World's Only Plant-Intelligence Lab (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/veggie_intelligence)

Nah, it doesn't sow any seeds of doubt. You have no chance of getting through to people with that mindset. They do not view any lifestyle, other than their own, as the right one. They don't and won't accept that philosophy. You are a smart guy. You already know this. They get upset because they don't like someone trying to punch holes into their belief system. They view it as abuse and thus, get upset. If you think about the fact that nothing they will say will ever change your mind about your life choices, that is exactly how they feel. You are going in circles on this my good man. Personally, I don't find any satisfaction in spinning my wheels. What personal satisfaction do you and OG get out of doing this? Just curious.
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".

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 minuscule.? 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.

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!

Oh. I see. This is a theory, speculation, musing,. on your part and on the part of some others. Inneresting. Um, how is this different than all human beings at one time or another questioning whether "God" exists? Appears to me to be the same basic principle of thinking and questioning whether there is a higher power.
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.

If you give this some thought, wondering about this "mind field" is actually in line with the Deist way of thinking. Are you really a Deist who thinks he is an agnostic or atheist?
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.

Yes, it is very unsettling thinking that we just end and POOF, that is all there is to it.
I'm finding it less and less unsettling as I get older. POOF is a big improvement over eternal torment, in my book.

Well, if you discussed this with someone like Pat Robertson,
Huh? Why would I do that?

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).
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.

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 minuscule.? Maybe I am just not keeping up with you here.
No, no, I think you're probably ahead of me. Small is good.

Did I mention I am old and my brain hurts?
So's mine. Must be the weather.

I am having trouble marrying your original post to the links & explanation in post #21 to make it into one cohesive concept.
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?

Or is post #21 a completely different idea than what your OP was?
Not that different, I hope.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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. 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.

"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?

Look what I found! News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FITNESS_STAIR_CLIMBING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
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.

Here's an interesting Wikipedia entry on collective intelligence that has lots of references and links that I haven't had time to follow up on yet. Collective intelligence - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence)

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.

I think you do have a point here.
Maybe all the animals are speaking to their own species in a language understandable to them and not us.Just like the how our ears pick up sounds only within a certain range,maybe language is the same.

I was also thinking about the DNA factor, how each new born has within him/her the details of his ancestry in codes,maybe the same way some knowledge is also stored within oursleves which some of us are able to access while others do not even try...

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
- Albert Einstein -

I think you do have a point here.
Maybe all the animals are speaking to their own species in a language understandable to them and not us.Just like the how our ears pick up sounds only within a certain range,maybe language is the same.
Language may turn out to be just another in the long line of things that we humans have prided ourselves on, thinking it was unique to us, but eventually find out that other life forms have something like it.

Our brain structure, for instance. Turns out that whales' brains look just like ours--only bigger. What I want to know is what are they doing with all that brain power? We use most of ours for getting food and shelter and moving from one place to another, but they don't have to bother with most of that. We know they sing long, intricate songs. What do you suppose those songs are about? I'll bet they're about something more than where the plankton is thickest.

If we are to go with your original train of though OG, maybe we need to dismiss calling them "songs". They could be giving instruction to their young, calling out to other whales to see who is still around, they could be mourning a loss, pretty much anything and everything that we talk about with each other. Didn't they make a Star Trek movie years ago in which the future generations realized that the whales were the highest "thinking" order of life form on the planet and were facing extinction? I haven't seen the movie in a while and can't remember exactly why they were trying to save that whale.

Hey, isn't Albert Einstein supposed to have stated something along the lines of when the honeybee becomes extinct humans will only survive another 4 years? I have not been able to verify exactly what he said and if it is true that he stated that. But, if it is true, I don't think we are going to have a chance to solve the riddle of the mind field or collective intelligence. Such a shame. The wiki link was interesting OG. I need to find the time to reread it a couple of times for it to entirely sink in.

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.
Ah, yes, "genetic predisposition". There is a lot of fascinating stuff coming out of genetic research these days. Here's a couple of things.
Rewriting Genetics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101066.html)
Science and Medicinie: Rewriting Genetics - Discussion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/12/DI2007111200935.html)
Excerpts:

Biologists used to think one gene produced one protein. Now it's clear that one gene can produce many different proteins. Under certain conditions, a cell clips out not only the intron fillers but also one or more of the exons. This is like taking a speech and removing many of the sentences. Done in different ways, it can produce many different messages.

So what are these conserved non-coding elements? They are molecules worthy of the "Star Wars" cantina scene -- insulators, micro-RNAs, exon-splicing enhancers, 3'-untranslated hairpins and other weird characters only now emerging from the shadows.

What they have in common, other than that they are never translated into proteins, is that they regulate the activity of genes that do carry instructions to make proteins. They turn them on and off, tweak them to make one version of a protein rather than another, increase or decrease the efficiency of production, and coordinate the sequential or simultaneous action of genes.

"I think one of the most surprising things that has emerged over the last 5 years is the importance of sequences in the genome that do not encode proteins. Until recently, it was generally believed that the protein-coding genes were key to understanding the genome. We now appreciate that sequences that do not encode proteins are at least as important. One major function of these so-called non-coding genes is to regulate protein coding genes. Elucidation of the mechansisms utilized to control gene expression is one of the hottest areas of biology now."

How far afield do you have to go to imagine we have some shared "memories" stored in our DNA?
The phenomenon of "instinct" is one that, I think, has not been adequately explained but that is almost entirely genetic in origin. Instincts function as a form of pre-existing memory in the individual.
So it's not simply a matter of having the genes. Almost every form of life has most of them. Where the differences between species and between individuals mostly lie is in the orchestration of their actions.

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, I don't want to make too much of that particular term. What seems to be emerging is that there are very many examples of how order and apparent purpose arises out of the semi-autonomous actions of individual units in a collective. How that happens and what it means for our concepts of the transcendent is fascinating stuff.

Hey, isn't Albert Einstein supposed to have stated something along the lines of when the honeybee becomes extinct humans will only survive another 4 years? I have not been able to verify exactly what he said and if it is true that he stated that.

I am guessing that the extinction of any of the species critical for the cycle of the eco system will effect humans in an adverse way?Am I wrong?

Humans are in a way weak in the sense that we depend on every other living thing in order to survive,but we are also the strongest in a way that we can adapt to life in so many diverse conditions and environments with our knowledge of the world we live in.

Maybe that knowledge of surviving comes from the knowledge base within us which we are not aware of.



Language may turn out to be just another in the long line of things that we humans have prided ourselves on, thinking it was unique to us, but eventually find out that other life forms have something like it.

Our brain structure, for instance. Turns out that whales' brains look just like ours--only bigger. What I want to know is what are they doing with all that brain power? We use most of ours for getting food and shelter and moving from one place to another, but they don't have to bother with most of that. We know they sing long, intricate songs. What do you suppose those songs are about? I'll bet they're about something more than where the plankton is thickest.

I think as far as I believe humans may have little difference,maybe it is the conscience.
In the way that we are able to discern right from wrong from something within us.That little voice that is in our heads when we are doing wrong or right... maybe that could be the only difference.