Author Topic: the nature of spiritual existence  (Read 359 times)

Williams1001

the nature of spiritual existence
« on: October 03, 2019, 06:25:37 pm »
Hapu and I have been discussing several things. these include, mind and body and their relationship to spirit, life after death, and the possiblity of a subconscious death.

the main point of this topic is to discuss these problems and to inquire different view points.

instead of taking up a lot of space here to summarize what has been said so far, one can read or skim over the Amaymon or the 7th satanic statement threads. if necessary, i can add a summary later so i can take other peoples' discussions into account when making the summary. or better yet, summarize every so often to keep track of where we are at.

if anyone wants to chip in, feel free.

as a side note, i don't have any particular worldview or thesis since i am always exploring new ideas and because of this, my worldview is always changing.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 08:46:55 pm by Williams1001 »

Hapu

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Total likes: 144
  • Think for yourself shall be the whole of the Law.
    • View Profile
Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2019, 06:50:25 pm »
me and Hapu have been discussing mind-body interaction, animism, the relationship between spirit and the subconscious, life after death, whether the subconscious continues and the conscious dies or vice versa or neither, individuality on the subconscious and spiritual levels, and the possibility of a subconscious death. the main point of this topic is to discuss these problems and to inquire different view points on this.

Certainly a far-ranging discussion!

Williams1001 had provided a link to one of the best essays I've ever read. I'm reposting that link here.
http://steve-patterson.com/mind-body-dualism-solving-problem-interaction/

I'll also restate my main thesis:
The mind dies but the spirit continues.

Obviously that means, in my view, mind and spirit are two different things. Mind states correlate to brain states. Spirit states do not correlate to brain states. Also, in my view, spirit is much larger than mind.

I will also say the subconscious dies. Its states correlate to brain states.

Spirit and Jung's objective psyche (as opposed to subjective psyche) may be the same thing. I don't know if modern Jungian psychologists would say the objective psyche's states correlate to brain states. I don't think science has a way of determining that.

I will also say spirit, in my view, is both one and many. Both individual and collective. Something like a school of fish swimming or a flock of birds flying in formation. But that's only an analogy.


 

All the rest is commentary and practical application.

Williams1001

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2019, 06:56:12 pm »

Certainly a far-ranging discussion!

i condensed the topic a bit, i don't know if that helps or not.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 08:22:05 pm by Williams1001 »

Williams1001

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2019, 10:18:39 pm »
     to start off, i am going to define what i mean by "body," "mind," and "spirit." then, i will examine their properties and functions. afterwards, i will discuss their relationship between each other, which is just their interaction and the differences between the properties and functions. then lastly, i will discuss how they relate to other bodies, minds, and spirits.
 
     whenever i am saying body, i am saying "a condition in space resulting from a particular arrangement of indivisible units that constitute that space." a mind is the sum of the consciousness, or conscious mind, and the subconsciousness, or subconscious mind. i will use consciousness and conscious mind interchangeably, likewise for subconsciousness and subconscious mind, and i may even drop the mind part and just say sub/conscious.
     awareness is knowledge of your surroundings, so a conscious awareness is an immediate awareness. for example, you can have an immediate awareness of some of your mental phenomena, making it exist consciously. the conscious, then, is a container that contains all conscious phenomena. the unconscious, or subconscious awareness is also a knowledge of one's surroundings. this knowledge isn't immediately known, so it gets stored elsewhere in the mind and the container that stores it is called the subconscious mind.
     lastly, i am going to think of spirit in a vague and abstract way because of all the different meanings that are attached to it. hence it will be of use to see what others said of spirit so that we can take what is useful into account when giving a definition of spirit. for now, the best definition i can give is "something that is different from the mind and continues after the death of a physical body."

     the human body, is divisible and is not the same everywhere. over time, it keeps its average shape except for few subtle changes. it seems to be more dependent on the subconsciousness than the conscious mind. the body is correlated to conscious and subconscious states (the sub/conscious states have an effect on brain states but not necessarily vice versa). eventually, the body stops working and dies. the body has a set of senses so that it can serve as a container to allow the mind to interact with the physical.
     since the mind is the sum of the conscious and subconscious, the mind's properties and functions can be expressed as a sum of the properties and functions of the consciousness and subconscious. the properties and functions of the conscious and subconscious mind are dependent on the views one has. a discussion of different viewpoints on this is needed in order to learn how mind is described in different ways, so that we can benefit from anything useful that has been said, learn new properties and functions that may have been missed, and be provided with new ways of thinking.
     for now, the properties of the conscious is that it is that it is homogeneous, correlated to brain states, might be divisible during a corpus callosotomy (more information on the split consciousness can be found here, although according to this, it may not be true https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm), and will likely die with the body. the consciousness allows us to have an immediate experience of our world, store knowledge of our immediate experiences, and allows us to reason and focus. the subconscious is also homogeneous, it is not likely to be correlated to brain states (i did some research to see if the subconscious can be altered by physical changes to the brain and i got varied results so i will take it to be not likely correlated). the subconsciousness doesn't seem to be divisible and it will more likely continue after the body dies. the subconscious mind serves to store information that we aren't immediately aware of, it appears to regulate blood pressure, core body temperature, and etc. it also stores some of the more fundamental beliefs we have about ourselves.
     by taking the sum of these properties and functions that we just given for the consciousness and subconsciousness, we determine the properties of the mind. some parts of the mind are correlated to brain states and other parts aren't, some parts die with the body while other parts are likely to continue. the mind is not the same everywhere since some parts are the subconscious and other parts are the conscious. the mind is likely to be divisible. the mind's functions are just the combination of the conscious and subconscious functions. inanimate things don't really have minds, so minds can also be thought of as an animating principle.
     it is dubious (to me at least) to say that spirit belongs to both the whole and the individual parts at the same time since there would be spirits within spirits within spirits and so on. therefore, it makes more sense to say that some spirits belong to wholes while other spirits belong only to the individual parts and that there is no spirit that belongs to both the whole and the individual parts. a spirit that belongs to the whole is emergent since if there is only one individual part, there is no whole and no spirit that belongs to the whole. with two or more individual parts, then their is a whole and there arises a spirit. the properties and functions of spirits that belong to wholes may be seen as something similar to emergent properties and emergent functions because a whole is formed when two or more particles come together. the properties and functions of spirits that belong to the individual parts are not emergent and are specific to each individual part. a spirit that belongs to the individual parts would not be one spirit but many spirits since each individual part is distinct and would thus have its own spirit and that each of these spirits would then may or may not be the same. really though, spirits that belong to the individual parts can be thought of, in a sense, as something similar to the electromagnetic field produced by a charge. whether the human spirit belongs to the whole or the individual parts is not important, even though it would be interesting to know, since we can look at the two options individually.

     when discussing relationships, we need only to discuss the similarities, differences, and the influences they have on each other since a relationship is how things relate and connect. because we have already discussed the properties and functions of the things which are being discussed, we can focus on just the interactions.
     the relationship between the body and mind is mainly their interaction and the differences between and the their functions and properties (which can be ignored since it has already been discussed). the interaction between the body and mind is just the interdependence between the conscious mind and the body and hypnosis. the interdependence between body and conscious is just the placebo/nocebo effect (the nocebo effect is just the opposite of the placebo effect, instead of healing, it causes more damage) and the correlation that consciousness states has with the brain. hypnosis is just the interaction between conscious and subconsciousness because it is guided and initiated by a conscious will. any effect produced on the body through this interaction is caused by getting in the right mindset as a result of hypnosis and taking action. besides maintaining core body temp and etc., the subconsciousness can, in some sense, indirectly influence the body. for example, you can pray, meditate (meditation is self-hypnosis since they both can involve tricking the subconscious), and believe all you want about gaining stronger mussels. but you won't gain stronger mussels unless you go to the gym and work out. what hypnosis does is that it helps you get in the right mindset, making your goals easier to achieve. in this example, the subconscious "indirectly" influences the body because without the proper mindset, then you might give less effort and may fall short of your goal. the placebo effect is different than hypnosis since it only requires a strong conscious belief and an actual supplement, like the sugar pill, to support and reinforce that belief. because subconscious mind states are not likely to be correlated to brain states, the interaction between subconscious and the body is usually one way. one way that i think the body can influence the subconscious is that the brain can alter a conscious state, which then alters a subconscious state since conscious and subconscious has a two way interaction. the problem with this is: can such a change exist? and if so, what kind of change would that be?
     because of the way hypnosis works, conscious states can influence subconscious states which can then influence our consciousness mindset. so the interaction between the conscious and the subconscious is two way. the rest of the relationship is just their properties and functions.
     the relationship the spirit has with the body and mind is just any possible interaction and their similarities and differences. their differences and functions and properties were discussed so we can just focus on any possible interaction. if the spirit belongs to the whole and not the individual parts, their properties and functions are emergent, so if the whole changes its shape significantly enough, then any emergent properties of spirit would also be altered since the whole is no longer the same whole. not only the properties of spirit would change, but also spirit would change since it can be seen as emergent. for example, flotation is an emergent property of a boat. if the boat undergoes a drastic enough change, like making a whole in the hull, the boat loses its flotation property as it fills up with water. this can also be related to the problem of the ship of theseus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus). spirits that belong to wholes may influence the whole because their properties and functions may interact or influence each other. so the interaction between a spirit that belongs to wholes and the body is at least one way. the interaction between spirit and the whole is two way if spirit can exert a change on the body via the mind. this spirit-mind interaction
   if mind is included in the whole, and since we know that both parts of mind can influence the whole (like the placebo effect and the indirect influence caused by the subconscious via a change in mindset after hypnosis), and if the mind has a strong enough influence on the body, then for spirits that belong to wholes, mind can alter the body in such a way as to cause a change in the spirit. if this is possible, then both the subconscious and conscious, via their interaction with the body, can exert a change on the spirit. also, depending on how the spirit interacts with the mind, the spirit can exert a change on the mind and the mind exert a change on the body, then the spirit can be said to influence the body making the interaction two way if such a change is possible. the latter part of the  mind-spirit interaction is really essentially the same pattern as the interaction between the conscious and the brain if the consciousness were to be produced by the brain.
     for spirits that belong to the individual parts, we can think of the individual part as a "charge" and the spirit as the "EM field" produced by the "charge." this is just to provide a way to visualize this and so i am not going to substitute these words in for spirit and part. this is not to say that the part produces the spirit, but rather there is a thing "attached" to the individual part. the body has many spirits since it has many parts. each part interacts with other parts, and the spirits of these parts can interact with each other. if we include the mind, the mind has the sub/conscious parts and each of these parts can have their own spirit. these two parts may interact, and so the spirits of these parts may interact. then lastly, we have the influences between a spirit and other parts as well as the interaction between the part and its spirit. ultimately, there are interactions between spirits and other spirits (which can be thought of as constructive and destructive interferences of EM fields), there are the interactions of spirit with other parts (which can be thought of as coulomb's force law or perhaps the Lorentz force law, again these are just a way to visualize even though they have nothing to do with spirits)
« Last Edit: October 29, 2019, 08:06:45 pm by Williams1001 »

Hapu

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Total likes: 144
  • Think for yourself shall be the whole of the Law.
    • View Profile
Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2019, 01:09:42 pm »
whenever i am saying body, i am saying "a condition in space resulting from a particular arrangement of indivisible units that constitute that space."

A place, yes. I see the body as a place.

a mind is the sum of the consciousness, or conscious mind, and the subconsciousness, or subconscious mind. i will use consciousness and conscious mind interchangeably, likewise for subconsciousness and subconscious mind, and i may even drop the mind part and just say sub/conscious. awareness is knowledge of your surroundings, so a conscious awareness is an immediate awareness. for example, you can have an immediate awareness of some of your mental phenomena, making it exist consciously. therefore, the totality of all consciously existing mental phenomena defines the conscious mind. whether or not the conscious awareness of the surrounding environment exists in the conscious is an interesting question and the answer would have an influence on the definition i just gave for conscious mind and its properties. i don't want to digress, so let's now look at the unconscious.

When I say "mind" I mean the conscious part of the psyche. There's also a subconscious part of the psyche. Mind is a component of psyche.

I don't yet know what I think about the relationship between psyche and spirit. Either they're separate, or they're identical, or psyche is a component of spirit, or spirit is a component of psyche.
All the rest is commentary and practical application.

Williams1001

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2019, 09:29:41 pm »

A place, yes. I see the body as a place.

it can be thought of as a place. but i tend to not think of it that way since if the body is in a different place, it is still the same body. you might want to elaborate your meaning of "place."



When I say "mind" I mean the conscious part of the psyche. There's also a subconscious part of the psyche. Mind is a component of psyche.

what is a psych? i have always thought of it as a mind and then defined mind as a container that stores mental phenomena.



I don't yet know what I think about the relationship between psyche and spirit. Either they're separate, or they're identical, or psyche is a component of spirit, or spirit is a component of psyche.

i will eventually discuss this, and when i do, it might help you to think about it. what i am currently thinking about the relationship between the mind and spirit is that there may not be any need to posit the existence of a spirit since, even if animism is true, mind seems to distinguish the animate from the inanimate. but i think the starting point is discussing how spirit might be defined.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 11:16:39 pm by Williams1001 »

Williams1001

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2019, 04:06:07 am »

When I say "mind" I mean the conscious part of the psyche. There's also a subconscious part of the psyche. Mind is a component of psyche.

I don't yet know what I think about the relationship between psyche and spirit. Either they're separate, or they're identical, or psyche is a component of spirit, or spirit is a component of psyche.

if spirit is a component of mind, then what would happen to the spirit if some parts of the mind, like consciousness, dies with the body?

here are my current thoughts:

either the spirit continues or some parts of spirit die while other parts continue since consciousness is likely to die with the body. if all the parts of spirit continues, then they all either remain unaffected or at least some parts are affected by the death of the conscious. if some parts of spirit dies with the conscious, then some parts die and other parts continue. the parts that continue are remain unaffected or at least some are affected.

if all the parts continue and remain unaffected, then part of the relationship between mind and spirit is clear: changes to the mind does not affect the whole spirit nor any of its parts.

if all the parts of spirit continue and some parts are affected by the death of the conscious, then part of the relationship is: certain types of changes to the mind does not kill the whole spirit nor any of its parts, but affects the spirit to some degree.

if some parts of spirit continue and remain unaffected while other parts die, the relationship is: some types of changes to the mind can kill parts of the spirit but the parts that remain are unaffected.

if some parts of spirit continue while other parts die and at least some of those parts that continue are affected, the relationship is: some types of changes to the mind can kill parts of the spirit and affect some of the parts that continue.

this is not a complete description since the subconscious would have to also be taken into account, we must look to see if there is more to the relationship, and that this applies to spirit as a component of a mind. if mind is a component of spirit, then the what has just been said isn't correct. although, come to find out, a similar reasoning is used.

if mind is a component of spirit, then what happens to spirit if the mind were to undergo a drastic change?

well, either one component of the spirit remains unaffected, or it is affected.

if the one component is unaffected, then any change to the mind does not affect the spirit

you get the idea.






Km Anu

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2019, 03:09:04 pm »
It's late and I've probably got 10 minutes before the kid wakes up, so I'm just going to chip something in and read up and expand when I have a minute,

I think often in 3fold perception but also in 2 and 4. 3 for me is mind body and spirit. Three different points on a black canvas, each dependant on eachother to consider themselves. This is me. Mind body and spirit.

2 would be mind and body, assuming spirit as a permeating polarity or constant between them.

1 has no perspective alone and so I can only assume is death or sleep.

So if we consider any point we (I, I guess) consider it in relation to another aspect of itself.

Mind may be considered in 2 as conciousness and sub conciousness, states of control over the body or states of influence/non influence by spirit. Using this model, I cannot validate the existence of subconciousness after death, as it is an aspect of mind unless mind and spirit remain together despite the loss of body. This loss could justify rebirth, as a means of gaining perspective on oneself.

This is just a model, but for me it's a pretty good one. I use mind and spirit United as Ba led by Ka to be judged. If Ba has contributed in gaining perspective, it is rewarded with a new 3rd point from which to see itself. If not, Ba is devoured, and Ka is 1 point, doomed until it gain gain perspective.

The judgment itself is performed by aspects of the self symbolized by a godly tribunal. Any symbolism works, but this is a good set.

Hapu

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Total likes: 144
  • Think for yourself shall be the whole of the Law.
    • View Profile
Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2019, 12:01:11 pm »
if spirit is a component of mind, then what would happen to the spirit if some parts of the mind, like consciousness, dies with the body?

I don't see spirit and mind as identical or as any part, one of the other.

I'm coming to prefer different terms: "physical body," "mental body," and "causal body." Still in the same ballpark as my earlier triad of terms. Body and mind, as used previously, are the physical and mental body, respectively. Both die.

The only value in the term "causal body" is that it carries with it the concept of the causal plane, which is the highest plane available to the mortal in life or in death.

In waking life our focus of attention is rooted in the physical body and radiates outward to the mental body. It doesn't reach the causal body. While asleep, I think our focus of attention shifts to the causal body. This is why "I" don't remember most of my dreams. The "I" that I identify with - the physical body and mental body - was not involved in those dreams. Only the causal body was.

I find I have no use for the term "psyche" so I'm dropping it.

either the spirit continues or some parts of spirit die while other parts continue since consciousness is likely to die with the body. if all the parts of spirit continues, then they all either remain unaffected or at least some parts are affected by the death of the conscious. if some parts of spirit dies with the conscious, then some parts die and other parts continue. the parts that continue are remain unaffected or at least some are affected.

In my view, the physical and mental bodies die. The causal body doesn't, and in fact is unaffected by death. The causal body reclaims the focus of attention and then goes about its business in precisely the same way that it does during the dream phase of incarnate existence.

Death and Dream are brother and sister, metaphorically, which brings to mind pleasant memories of reading Neil Gaiman's Sandman comic book series.

Naturally I can't prove any of this.

this is not a complete description since the subconscious would have to also be taken into account, we must look to see if there is more to the relationship, and that this applies to spirit as a component of a mind. if mind is a component of spirit, then the what has just been said isn't correct. although, come to find out, a similar reasoning is used.

In my view, the subconscious is a component of the mental body, and in fact is the portion of the mental body that is in closest "proximity" to the physical body.

Of the three bodies, the most interesting to me is the causal body, because it holds the most promise as a vessel for power, and because it's the only part of me that doesn't die.
All the rest is commentary and practical application.

Km Anu

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2019, 12:30:20 pm »
Quote
In my view, the subconscious is a component of the mental body, and in fact is the portion of the mental body that is in closest "proximity" to the physical body.

If the causal body is considered spirit here, would it not also possess the experiences of the mental body? This may be more like transforming or consuming than non-existence, and may explain themes of spiritual conquest described in the Tibetan and Egyptian books of the dead. A narrative with the Bardo states the conciousness collapses upon death and spirit is confronted with its archetypes, this may be the modality of that absorption. Just a thought.

Hapu

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Total likes: 144
  • Think for yourself shall be the whole of the Law.
    • View Profile
Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2019, 02:55:48 pm »
Quote
In my view, the subconscious is a component of the mental body, and in fact is the portion of the mental body that is in closest "proximity" to the physical body.

If the causal body is considered spirit here, would it not also possess the experiences of the mental body?

I think the causal body must have some sort of memory of the waking life. Otherwise waking life is pointless.

This may be more like transforming or consuming than non-existence, and may explain themes of spiritual conquest described in the Tibetan and Egyptian books of the dead. A narrative with the Bardo states the conciousness collapses upon death and spirit is confronted with its archetypes, this may be the modality of that absorption. Just a thought.

I think those books are describing near death experiences. Since death hasn't occurred yet, the mental body is still alive.

But your word, "consuming," is intriguing. I interpret you as suggesting the causal body might eat the mental body at death. This makes me think of an image from the Carlos Castaneda books. In that image, a giant eagle devours the consciousness of the dead person. Maybe the eagle is the causal body and the consciousness devoured is the mental body.

It's important to remember my concept of the focus of attention, which is a fourth thing, over and above the three bodies. The physical body dies, the focus of attention shifts to the causal body, and maybe then, immediately afterward, the causal body makes a meal of the mental body, even as, if human technology doesn't interfere, maggots will make a meal of the physical body.

I like that.
All the rest is commentary and practical application.

Liu

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2019, 04:28:46 pm »
But your word, "consuming," is intriguing. I interpret you as suggesting the causal body might eat the mental body at death. This makes me think of an image from the Carlos Castaneda books. In that image, a giant eagle devours the consciousness of the dead person. Maybe the eagle is the causal body and the consciousness devoured is the mental body.

It's important to remember my concept of the focus of attention, which is a fourth thing, over and above the three bodies. The physical body dies, the focus of attention shifts to the causal body, and maybe then, immediately afterward, the causal body makes a meal of the mental body, even as, if human technology doesn't interfere, maggots will make a meal of the physical body.

I like that.
Nice story.
Just, what would be the argument for the existence of the causal body, and for it being distinct from the subconscious?

Hapu

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Total likes: 144
  • Think for yourself shall be the whole of the Law.
    • View Profile
Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2019, 06:08:33 pm »
Nice story.
Just, what would be the argument for the existence of the causal body, and for it being distinct from the subconscious?

None whatsoever, except this:

If the physical and mental body are all there is, death is annihilation. That's a depressing thought, so I'd rather start from a more optimistic assumption.

All the rest is commentary and practical application.

Liu

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2019, 07:17:33 pm »
Nice story.
Just, what would be the argument for the existence of the causal body, and for it being distinct from the subconscious?

None whatsoever, except this:

If the physical and mental body are all there is, death is annihilation. That's a depressing thought, so I'd rather start from a more optimistic assumption.
Understandably so.

Well since you also have "focus of attention", which seems like what I would call "awareness" or a part thereof, this would also be something that could be assumed to be distinct from the mental (and physical) body, albeit interrelated.

Km Anu

Re: the nature of spiritual existence
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2019, 07:17:52 pm »
Quote
Just, what would be the argument for the existence of the causal body, and for it being distinct from the subconscious?

Conciousness is considered by many to be comprised of 2 functions, arousal and awareness. Arousal is closer to the subconcious, being the physical body's method of accessing the mental body, arousal the opposite. There is good research pinpointing the areas of the brain where this takes place, meaning the subconcious is actually two steps removed from the causal body.