Definition and Foundation of Knowledge to observe God / the non-material

[Sarkus]

I have included this in the Religion forum due to it stemming from arguments raised in other Religion-forum threads - but if Mods deem it more appropriate in another forum - feel free to move.

When asked to provide evidence of God, or of the non-material in general, Lightgigantic has consistently raised the counter of people first needing the necessary foundation - much like a person needs a grounding in physics before being able to see an electron.

And he has also said that prior to even this one must first have standard definitions prior to formulating any theory etc.

Well, this thread is for LG to:

(a) provide a standard definition for non-materiality (assuming that LG holds his god to be non-material);

(b) provide an explanation of how this "non-materiality" interacts with the material - e.g. if my consciousness is non-material and causes me to type on a keyboard - where (and what) is the interaction between this non-material and the material?

(c) provide a brief synopsis of the necessary foundation one needs to be able to observe the non-material (e.g. God).

We can then go from there.

 

[lightgigantic]

I’ll try and provide answers as concisely as possible ... but these q’s are the most essential aspect of religion and you should be aware that there is literally tomes of information that surround them, acting as more exacting clarifications

Well, this thread is for LG to:

(a) provide a standard definition for non-materiality (assuming that LG holds his god to be non-material);

consciousness

SB 10.14.26 The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.

(b) provide an explanation of how this "non-materiality" interacts with the material - e.g. if my consciousness is non-material and causes me to type on a keyboard - where (and what) is the interaction between this non-material and the material?

by association, consciousness (ie spirit) interacts with matter
just like a car has no independent ability to move, yet when a driver (ie a “conscious” driver) “interacts” with it, they can start the engine

the term “material consciousness” means that one’s consciousness comes under the impression that they are matter

SB 3.26.7 Material consciousness is the cause of one's conditional life, in which conditions are enforced upon the living entity by the material energy. Although the spirit soul does not do anything and is transcendental to such activities, he is thus affected by conditional life.

to the take the car example, “material consciousness” would be like a person who is driving a car thinking “I am this car” (as opposed to the real situation, namely that the car and the driver are two separate things)

as for which particular aspect of matter that consciousness interacts with, it is explained as the subtle body

the subtle body is mind, intelligence and false ego – these three things are categorized as material and, like the gross body, have no real relationship with the soul (or “real ego”, if you like)

BG 7.4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Purport - In the material energy, the principal manifestations are eight, as above mentioned. Out of these, the first five manifestations, namely earth, water, fire, air and sky, are called the five gigantic creations or the gross creations, within which the five sense objects are included. They are the manifestations of physical sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Material science comprises these ten items and nothing more. But the other three items, namely mind, intelligence and false ego, are neglected by the materialists.



mind is what accepts or rejects things based on what is collected through the sense of touch, taste, etc(“I like this/I don’t like this”)
more subtle than the mind is the intelligence - intelligence is what dictates discrimination (this should be done/this should not be done


(so a person’s mind may say that it is too cold to get out of bed but their intelligence may they have to go to work, so they get out of bed even though they don’t want to)

more subtle than the intelligence is the false ego – false ego is the sense of “I” that arises from associating with matter eg

SB 10.84.13 A human being who identifies this body made of matter with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshipable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered like an ass or a cow.

in other words what we know in the way of empirical science is the means to approach the first five manifestations of matter and what we know of philosophy/psychology is the means to approach the last three manifestations of matter



all of this is, however, is material and has nothing to do with the soul (consciousness)- yet it is seen that it is the process of religion to take these material things that we associate with (gross and subtle body) and bring to the highest level of being (which is a lead on to the final q, namely which states of being are higher than others)

(c) provide a brief synopsis of the necessary foundation one needs to be able to observe the non-material (e.g. God).

there is an analysis of material nature called “the three modes of nature”, namely goodness (sattva) passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas) – they refer to something’s “state of being”, and explain why we see variety in this world

the reason I bring it up is because goodness (sattva) is advocated as the ideal material situation for making any sort of progress.

BG 14.6 O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge.

not quite as effective as goodness is passion

BG 14.7 The mode of passion is born of unlimited desires and longings, O son of Kunti, and because of this the embodied living entity is bound to material fruitive actions.

and not quite as effective as passion is ignorance (actually its totally ineffective)

BG 14.8 O son of Bharata, know that the mode of darkness, born of ignorance, is the delusion of all embodied living entities. The results of this mode are madness, indolence and sleep, which bind the conditioned soul.

The results of associating with these different modes of nature are

BG 14.7 From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion.

thus we find numerous indications of how the modes are present in many different things

performance of action

BG 18.23-25 That action which is regulated and which is performed without attachment, without love or hatred, and without desire for fruitive results is said to be in the mode of goodness.
But action performed with great effort by one seeking to gratify his desires, and enacted from a sense of false ego, is called action in the mode of passion.
That action performed in illusion, in disregard of scriptural injunctions, and without concern for future bondage or for violence or distress caused to others is said to be in the mode of ignorance.

determination

BG 18.33 -35 O son of Prtha, that determination which is unbreakable, which is sustained with steadfastness by yoga practice, and which thus controls the activities of the mind, life and senses is determination in the mode of goodness.
But that determination by which one holds fast to fruitive results in religion, economic development and sense gratification is of the nature of passion, O Arjuna.
And that determination which cannot go beyond dreaming, fearfulness, lamentation, moroseness and illusion—such unintelligent determination, O son of Prtha, is in the mode of darkness.

happiness
BG 18.37 -40 That which in the beginning may be just like poison but at the end is just like nectar and which awakens one to self-realization is said to be happiness in the mode of goodness.
That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion.
And that happiness which is blind to self-realization, which is delusion from beginning to end and which arises from sleep, laziness and illusion is said to be of the nature of ignorance.

even food

BG 17.8.9.10 Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease.
Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.

even consciousness

SB 11.25-20 It should be understood that alert wakefulness comes from the mode of goodness, sleep with dreaming from the mode of passion, and deep, dreamless sleep from the mode of ignorance. The fourth state of consciousness pervades these three and is transcendental.

thus the means of gaining “qualification” is to gain some footing in the mode of goodness, with one’s body minds and words

BG 17.4 Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Supreme Lord, the brahmanas, the spiritual master, and superiors like the father and mother, and in cleanliness, simplicity, celibacy and nonviolence.

BG 17.5 Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature.

BG 17.6 And satisfaction, simplicity, gravity, self-control and purification of one's existence are the austerities of the mind.

BG 17.7 This threefold austerity, performed with transcendental faith by men not expecting material benefits but engaged only for the sake of the Supreme, is called austerity in goodness.


....and losing the footing....

BG 17.8 Penance performed out of pride and for the sake of gaining respect, honor and worship is said to be in the mode of passion. It is neither stable nor permanent.

.... what to speak of being a human bomb

BG 17.9 Penance performed out of foolishness, with self-torture or to destroy or injure others, is said to be in the mode of ignorance.

so the best way to come in contact with things in the mode of goodness is to come in contact with the perfect reservoir of goodness – such as scripture, god’s representative (ie the saintly person) and, most importantly, god’s name

There is the example that a piece of metal (which doesn’t have the properties of fire) can develop the properties of fire by associating with hot coals

similarly the gross and subtle body (which are ultimately just lumps of matter) can develop the properties of spiritual awareness by associating with those things already situated in goodness

 

[Sarkus]

I’ll try and provide answers as concisely as possible ... but these q’s are the most essential aspect of religion and you should be aware that there is literally tomes of information that surround them, acting as more exacting clarifications

Understood - and I do appreciate any replies you give in this matter, even should we disagree (not that I can see that happening.)

(a) provide a standard definition for non-materiality (assuming that LG holds his god to be non-material);

consciousness

SB 10.14.26 The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.

And how does this answer the question?
How is "consciousness" a standard definition for non-materiality - especially when it is considered by many to be material?
Or is "consciousness" merely an example of something you consider non-material - and if so how is it a standard definition?

(b) provide an explanation of how this "non-materiality" interacts with the material - e.g. if my consciousness is non-material and causes me to type on a keyboard - where (and what) is the interaction between this non-material and the material?

by association, consciousness (ie spirit) interacts with matter
just like a car has no independent ability to move, yet when a driver (ie a “conscious” driver) “interacts” with it, they can start the engine

Apologies, LG, but this also does not answer the question.
"By association" does not provide any detail of HOW - i.e. the mechanics of the interaction.

the term “material consciousness” means that one’s consciousness comes under the impression that they are matter
...
as for which particular aspect of matter that consciousness interacts with, it is explained as the subtle body

the subtle body is mind, intelligence and false ego – these three things are categorized as material and, like the gross body, have no real relationship with the soul (or “real ego”, if you like)

So now you're saying that mind and intelligence are material?
I'm confused.

BG 7.4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Purport - In the material energy, the principal manifestations are eight, as above mentioned. Out of these, the first five manifestations, namely earth, water, fire, air and sky, are called the five gigantic creations or the gross creations, within which the five sense objects are included. They are the manifestations of physical sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Material science comprises these ten items and nothing more.

Just as an aside - you do know there are far more than 5 senses?

But the other three items, namely mind, intelligence and false ego, are neglected by the materialists.
...
in other words what we know in the way of empirical science is the means to approach the first five manifestations of matter and what we know of philosophy/psychology is the means to approach the last three manifestations of matter

Yes - ok - so all 8 are "material" - and the latter 3 you consider "subtle" - yet others would consider merely "complex".

all of this is, however, is material and has nothing to do with the soul (consciousness)- yet it is seen that it is the process of religion to take these material things that we associate with (gross and subtle body) and bring to the highest level of being (which is a lead on to the final q, namely which states of being are higher than others)

If these are all material - and have nothing to do with the "soul" / "non-material" - why bring them up?

None of this answers the question of how the non-material actually interacts with the material.
Or are you saying that there is NO interaction - and the non-material is merely hitching a ride on the material?

You say that "mind" is material (albeit "subtle") as is intelligence - yet "consciousness" is non-material? Assuming this is correct (apologies for my misunderstanding if not) - what is the distinction between the amalgamation of "mind" / "intelligence" etc and "consciousness"?
What is it that sets "consciousness" apart?

(c) provide a brief synopsis of the necessary foundation one needs to be able to observe the non-material (e.g. God).

there is an analysis of material nature called “the three modes of nature”, namely goodness (sattva) passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas) – they refer to something’s “state of being”, and explain why we see variety in this world

the reason I bring it up is because goodness (sattva) is advocated as the ideal material situation for making any sort of progress.
....

Okay - so being "good" (as described) is the foundation? - but it doesn't explain how it leads to the direct perception of the non-material - merely how it can lead to contentment, success etc. I do agree, however, following from our previous discussion in another thread, that it makes more sense regarding what you consider a "spiritual" person.

But none of what you have thus far said either adequately defines the non-material, explains how it interacts with the material, nor explains or details how one observes / perceives the non-material.

Everything detailed, IMO, can seemingly be achieved without recourse to anything "non-material".
The only difference I can see is that it might be seen to be easier to put oneself onto the dedicated path (toward "spirituality" / "goodness") to IF one believes there is something better afterwards (thus the ideal of a "God"), although it might well be that the path itself is worth the effort - and that being as purely "good" as possible is its own reward even for the atheist.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I’ll try and provide answers as concisely as possible ... but these q’s are the most essential aspect of religion and you should be aware that there is literally tomes of information that surround them, acting as more exacting clarifications ”
Understood - and I do appreciate any replies you give in this matter, even should we disagree (not that I can see that happening. )

lol

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“ (a) provide a standard definition for non-materiality (assuming that LG holds his god to be non-material); ”
consciousness

”
And how does this answer the question?
How is "consciousness" a standard definition for non-materiality - especially when it is considered by many to be material?

if a tree is conscious, why is it that a wooden chair is not?
(ie one is spirit and one is matter)

Or is "consciousness" merely an example of something you consider non-material - and if so how is it a standard definition?

consciousness is a symptom of spirit
just like heat is a symptom of fire

“ “ (b) provide an explanation of how this "non-materiality" interacts with the material - e.g. if my consciousness is non-material and causes me to type on a keyboard - where (and what) is the interaction between this non-material and the material? ”

by association, consciousness (ie spirit) interacts with matter
just like a car has no independent ability to move, yet when a driver (ie a “conscious” driver) “interacts” with it, they can start the engine ”
Apologies, LG, but this also does not answer the question.
"By association" does not provide any detail of HOW - i.e. the mechanics of the interaction.

"by association" means that both things remain separate

for instance if a breeze passes over a foul smelling substance, the air smells bad, however technically speaking, it is only the air associating with the foul substance

if you want to get more into the "how", it requires a complete understanding of what constitutes the gross body, the subtle body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and how the soul is something distinct from these

“ the term “material consciousness” means that one’s consciousness comes under the impression that they are matter
...
as for which particular aspect of matter that consciousness interacts with, it is explained as the subtle body

the subtle body is mind, intelligence and false ego – these three things are categorized as material and, like the gross body, have no real relationship with the soul (or “real ego”, if you like) ”
So now you're saying that mind and intelligence are material?

yes - the consciousness drives the mind and intelligence

SB 7.15.41 Transcendentalists who are advanced in knowledge compare the body, which is made by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to a chariot. The senses are like the horses; the mind, the master of the senses, is like the reins; the objects of the senses are the destinations; intelligence is the chariot driver; and consciousness (under the influence of the material concept of life) , which spreads throughout the body, is the cause of bondage in this material world.

I'm confused.

BG 3.43 Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to the material senses, mind and intelligence, O mighty-armed Arjuna, one should steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence and thus—by spiritual strength-conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust.

obviously one cannot transcend something with the said object, eg - one cannot jump over one' s knees - one must take shelter of a "greater" object - hence spiritual processes involve discerning the exact nature of the soul (ie one's eternal nature) or the supersoul (ie God)

“ BG 7.4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Purport - In the material energy, the principal manifestations are eight, as above mentioned. Out of these, the first five manifestations, namely earth, water, fire, air and sky, are called the five gigantic creations or the gross creations, within which the five sense objects are included. They are the manifestations of physical sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Material science comprises these ten items and nothing more. ”
Just as an aside - you do know there are far more than 5 senses?

sometimes it is described that there are 11 senses

the 5 knowledge acquiring senses (Jnanindriyas)

1. hearing
2. tasting
3. touching
4. seeing
5. smelling

the 5 working senses (karmendriyas)

1. locomotion
2. evacuation
3. reproduction
4. manipulation
5. vocalization

plus the overlord of all ten senses, the mind

I don't know if this is what you are referring to (I kept it as 5 senses just to keep it simple)

BTW the purport's mention of the "ten subjects of material science" is something else - it is referring to the the 5 knowledge acquiring senses and their respective 5 sense objects (eg - hearing -> sound, seeing -> form, etc )

these "ten subjects" comprise the length and breadth of classical empiricism (which is commonly known as "modern science")

“ But the other three items, namely mind, intelligence and false ego, are neglected by the materialists.
...
in other words what we know in the way of empirical science is the means to approach the first five manifestations of matter and what we know of philosophy/psychology is the means to approach the last three manifestations of matter ”
Yes - ok - so all 8 are "material" - and the latter 3 you consider "subtle" - yet others would consider merely "complex".

subtle or complex, whatever you are comfortable with

“ all of this is, however, is material and has nothing to do with the soul (consciousness)- yet it is seen that it is the process of religion to take these material things that we associate with (gross and subtle body) and bring to the highest level of being (which is a lead on to the final q, namely which states of being are higher than others) ”
If these are all material - and have nothing to do with the "soul" / "non-material" - why bring them up?

because it helps in understanding how the soul interacts with matter (ie clear distinctions between what is the body, mind, intelligence and false ego and what is the soul)

None of this answers the question of how the non-material actually interacts with the material.

progress of such an understanding begins after clearly understanding what is the material body and what is the soul

Or are you saying that there is NO interaction - and the non-material is merely hitching a ride on the material?

its more like the material is hitching a ride on the spiritual - the complex material formation of a a body quickly deteriorates moments after one dies

You say that "mind" is material (albeit "subtle") as is intelligence - yet "consciousness" is non-material? Assuming this is correct (apologies for my misunderstanding if not) - what is the distinction between the amalgamation of "mind" / "intelligence" etc and "consciousness"?
What is it that sets "consciousness" apart?

to recall what was said earlier

mind is what accepts or rejects things based on what is collected through the sense of touch, taste, etc(“I like this/I don’t like this”)
more subtle than the mind is the intelligence - intelligence is what dictates discrimination (this should be done/this should not be done


the mind is sometimes grouped with the 5 senses (sat-vargam - 6 senses) - the idea is that the mind and the senses are designed as a "package" - for instance dogs go wild in ecstasy when they catch certain aromas ( the ecstasy is a function of the mind) Also they have quite prominent and advanced noses to assist them in such endeavors - humans also have a sense of ecstasy and they also have a sense of smell, but of a different variety. In other words both the dog and the human have consciousness (they are alive) but their minds (eg what they perceive as ecstatic) and the means they collect information for their minds (ie the senses) remain materially different

intelligence goes a step in the direction of discerning a variety of methods

for instance suppose a dog's senses tell him there is the food on a table - his intelligence grants a few options

1. jump on the table and eat the food
2. jump on the table and drag away the food to eat it in a place where he is not disturbed by others
3. jump on the table and drag away the food when the human who cooked it leaves the room

in his doggish intelligence, he vouches for #3

in the case of a human intelligence however they might opt for a fourth option

4 - break off a messy portion of the food and smear the remnants on the dog's paws and face to make it look like the dog ate it, before retreating to a secluded place

in other words, despite both being conscious (alive) the dog and the human have different capacities to negotiate what is to be done and what is not to be done because they have different varieties of intelligence

then there is the third aspect of false ego

BG 3.27 The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

In otherwords in answer to the issue "What am I?", false ego dictates that you simply add up all that one has in the name of our particular combination of material body/senses/mind etc

“ “ (c) provide a brief synopsis of the necessary foundation one needs to be able to observe the non-material (e.g. God). ”
there is an analysis of material nature called “the three modes of nature”, namely goodness (sattva) passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas) – they refer to something’s “state of being”, and explain why we see variety in this world

the reason I bring it up is because goodness (sattva) is advocated as the ideal material situation for making any sort of progress.
.... ”
Okay - so being "good" (as described) is the foundation? - but it doesn't explain how it leads to the direct perception of the non-material - merely how it can lead to contentment, success etc.

there are also notions of success in the mode of passion and ignorance - for instance a street bum thinks he is successful if he can find a cigarette in a bin - the foundation of being in "goodness" enables things to exist in their proper or pure fashion

BG 14.11 The manifestation of the mode of goodness can be experienced when all the gates of the body are illuminated by knowledge.

Purport
In the mode of goodness, one can see things in the right position, one can hear things in the right position, and one can taste things in the right position. One becomes cleansed inside and outside. In every gate there is development of the symptoms of happiness, and that is the position of goodness.

I do agree, however, following from our previous discussion in another thread, that it makes more sense regarding what you consider a "spiritual" person.

But none of what you have thus far said either adequately defines the non-material, explains how it interacts with the material, nor explains or details how one observes / perceives the non-material.

I mentioned on the outset that these are the essential aspects of religion and are not easily answered in a post or two - even to answer what is an electron requires thorough explaining

Everything detailed, IMO, can seemingly be achieved without recourse to anything "non-material".

the mode of goodness is material
in other words the mode of goodness is not sufficient to grant transcendence (although it is a good foundation for beginning such an endeavour, which certainly cannot be initiated in the mode of passion and ignorance)


The only difference I can see is that it might be seen to be easier to put oneself onto the dedicated path (toward "spirituality" / "goodness") to IF one believes there is something better afterwards (thus the ideal of a "God"), although it might well be that the path itself is worth the effort - and that being as purely "good" as possible is its own reward even for the atheist.[/QUOTE]
the mode of goodness is merely the foundation for discerning the spiritual - in other words sattva guna or "goodness" is not synonymous with "spiritual"

SB 11.13.6 Until one revives one's direct knowledge of the spirit soul and drives away the illusory identification with the material body and mind caused by the three modes of nature, one must cultivate those things in the mode of goodness. By increasing the mode of goodness, one automatically can understand and practice religious principles, and by such practice transcendental knowledge is awakened.

just like if one wants to catch a plane, one has to go to the airport. Its not like you can flag down an airline from outside your apartment.
similarly if one wants to understand the nature of spiritual life they must be situated in goodness. Its not like they can comprehend things in passion or ignorance.

So you raised the issue what is the foundation of spiritual understanding - the foundation is the mode of goodness - of course you can do many things in the mode of goodness, many of which may have nothing to do with god. The problem with such engagements however is that the mode of goodness is by nature material and thus unstable and prone to giving out to passion and ignorance

BG 14.10 Sometimes the mode of goodness becomes prominent, defeating the modes of passion and ignorance, O son of Bharata. Sometimes the mode of passion defeats goodness and ignorance, and at other times ignorance defeats goodness and passion. In this way there is always competition for supremacy.

Purport 11.13.1 - Goodness in the material world never exists in a pure form. Therefore, it is common knowledge that on the material platform no one is working without personal motivation. In the material world goodness is always mixed with some amount of passion and ignorance, whereas spiritual, or purified, goodness (visuddha-sattva) represents the liberated platform of perfection. Materially, one is proud to be an honest, compassionate man, but unless one is fully God conscious one will speak truths that are not ultimately significant, and one will give mercy that is ultimately useless. Because the onward march of material time removes all situations and persons from the material stage, our so-called mercy and truth apply to situations that shortly will not exist.

In other words a person in goodness sometimes falls prone to degrading acts, or alternatively a person situated in ignorance sometimes becomes disgusted with their depraved condition and resolves to better them self, etc etc

 

[Sarkus]

consciousness is a symptom of spirit
just like heat is a symptom of fire

But it doesn't give a working definition of "non-material", which is what was requested.
A symptom is not a definition.

"by association" means that both things remain separate

if you want to get more into the "how", it requires a complete understanding of what constitutes the gross body, the subtle body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and how the soul is something distinct from these

yes - the consciousness drives the mind and intelligence

And I think this is the key issue in this question...

Going back to your analogy of the car / driver - (i.e. we assume that the driver is the consciousness, the car the mind) the driver engages in a physical, material interaction with the car. The actions of the driver are observable and measurable (albeit maybe not yet with current limitations of technology and knowledge).

So - again - HOW does the "consciousness" drive the mind and intelligence without such an interaction.
How does the NON-MATERIAL interact with the MATERIAL - what happens at the boundary between the material and non-material?

sometimes it is described that there are 11 senses

the 5 knowledge acquiring senses (Jnanindriyas)

1. hearing
2. tasting
3. touching
4. seeing
5. smelling

the 5 working senses (karmendriyas)

1. locomotion
2. evacuation
3. reproduction
4. manipulation
5. vocalization

plus the overlord of all ten senses, the mind

I don't know if this is what you are referring to (I kept it as 5 senses just to keep it simple)

No - that's not what I was referring to.

5 classical senses: Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell
But there is also:
Sense of Heat;
Sense of Pain;
Sense of Balance;
Sense of self / body (i.e. we know where our hand is, even if we can't see it);

... And these are all very different to any of the 5 classical - as you can remove all 5 classical senses and someone will still have these others.

Other animals also have other senses, such as the ability to sense electric / magnetic fields etc.

because it helps in understanding how the soul interacts with matter (ie clear distinctions between what is the body, mind, intelligence and false ego and what is the soul)
...
progress of such an understanding begins after clearly understanding what is the material body and what is the soul

I am comfortable with what is material.
At no point have you actually yet explained what the soul is - other than "consciousness" - and with that you have yet to explain how it interacts with the material.

How does "consciousness" interact with the mind / intelligence.

its more like the material is hitching a ride on the spiritual - the complex material formation of a a body quickly deteriorates moments after one dies

A different perspective to be sure.

the mind is sometimes grouped with the 5 senses ...

I mentioned on the outset that these are the essential aspects of religion and are not easily answered in a post or two - even to answer what is an electron requires thorough explaining

All well and good - but all that you have currently said is not getting me any closer to what I seek - and appears to just be embellishment on what is mind / intelligence - which does not get to the crux - the interaction between these and "consciousness".

Or is consciousness merely a 1-off item: your body gets on it at birth, and gets off at death - with everything the body does in the meantime governed by mind / intelligence / the material?
I.e. there is no interaction?

the mode of goodness is merely the foundation for discerning the spiritual - in other words sattva guna or "goodness" is not synonymous with "spiritual"
...
So you raised the issue what is the foundation of spiritual understanding - the foundation is the mode of goodness - of course you can do many things in the mode of goodness, many of which may have nothing to do with god. The problem with such engagements however is that the mode of goodness is by nature material and thus unstable and prone to giving out to passion and ignorance

Understood.

So - once one has his foundation in the mode of goodness, what would be next - or does one have to actually HAVE this foundation before the next steps could be understood? (Sort of like jumping to the advanced section of a progressively harder Physics textbook without understanding and actually being versed in the initial chapters?)

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
consciousness is a symptom of spirit
just like heat is a symptom of fire
”
But it doesn't give a working definition of "non-material", which is what was requested.
A symptom is not a definition.

a definition can be made of symptoms however
for instance if I define fire as hot, bright and able to burn things, you have a working definition based on symptoms

if you think this is inadequate, provide a definition of an object that doesn't include symptoms or make reference to other terms that include symptoms (I should warn you though, such an attempt is practically impossible)

“
"by association" means that both things remain separate

if you want to get more into the "how", it requires a complete understanding of what constitutes the gross body, the subtle body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and how the soul is something distinct from these

yes - the consciousness drives the mind and intelligence
”
And I think this is the key issue in this question...

Going back to your analogy of the car / driver - (i.e. we assume that the driver is the consciousness, the car the mind) the driver engages in a physical, material interaction with the car. The actions of the driver are observable and measurable (albeit maybe not yet with current limitations of technology and knowledge).

So - again - HOW does the "consciousness" drive the mind and intelligence without such an interaction.
How does the NON-MATERIAL interact with the MATERIAL - what happens at the boundary between the material and non-material?

I think we should clear this up

what can be measured precisely with the driver and the car is the interaction of the driver's body and the car - both these things are material and can thus be empirically validated - consciousness however is not an empirical phenomena so its not clear what units one would "measure" it in - kind of like asking how many kilograms is there between the earth and the sun

“
sometimes it is described that there are 11 senses

the 5 knowledge acquiring senses (Jnanindriyas)

1. hearing
2. tasting
3. touching
4. seeing
5. smelling


the 5 working senses (karmendriyas)

1. locomotion
2. evacuation
3. reproduction
4. manipulation
5. vocalization


plus the overlord of all ten senses, the mind

I don't know if this is what you are referring to (I kept it as 5 senses just to keep it simple)
”
No - that's not what I was referring to.

5 classical senses: Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell
But there is also:
Sense of Heat;

which arises from the sense of touch

Sense of Pain;

of the physical variety, which arises from the sense of touch (heat and pain receptors are located where?)
of the mental variety (stress,anguish, frustration etc), which arises from the mind

Sense of Balance;

Sense of self / body (i.e. we know where our hand is, even if we can't see it);

both of which arise from the sense of locomotion or manipulation, depending on how you want to define balance or motoring skills

... And these are all very different to any of the 5 classical - as you can remove all 5 classical senses and someone will still have these others.

I am not sure how this is so

Other animals also have other senses, such as the ability to sense electric / magnetic fields etc.

seems to indicate touch
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/173

Professor Uwe Proske and Dr Ed Gregory from the Department of Physiology have studied the data available on platypus physiology and speculate that the row of nerves in platypus bills, wired to the touch and electro-sensing part of the platypus brain, work like a short-range radar system to pick up the electrical signals of fish, shrimp, crayfish and other prey.

Professor Proske said platypuses appear to have developed touch receptors in their bills, similar to those in human skin, as part of their electro-sensory system. "Some cells in the platypus bill respond to touch and some to weak electric fields, weaker than anything humans can feel. These cells send their respective messages to the brain."

“
because it helps in understanding how the soul interacts with matter (ie clear distinctions between what is the body, mind, intelligence and false ego and what is the soul)
...
progress of such an understanding begins after clearly understanding what is the material body and what is the soul
”
I am comfortable with what is material.
At no point have you actually yet explained what the soul is - other than "consciousness" - and with that you have yet to explain how it interacts with the material.

How does "consciousness" interact with the mind / intelligence.

there is the third aspect of the subtle body - "false ego"

“
the mind is sometimes grouped with the 5 senses ...

I mentioned on the outset that these are the essential aspects of religion and are not easily answered in a post or two - even to answer what is an electron requires thorough explaining
”
All well and good - but all that you have currently said is not getting me any closer to what I seek - and appears to just be embellishment on what is mind / intelligence - which does not get to the crux - the interaction between these and "consciousness".

Or is consciousness merely a 1-off item: your body gets on it at birth, and gets off at death - with everything the body does in the meantime governed by mind / intelligence / the material?
I.e. there is no interaction?

if the soul departs the material body, one is dead

“
the mode of goodness is merely the foundation for discerning the spiritual - in other words sattva guna or "goodness" is not synonymous with "spiritual"
...
So you raised the issue what is the foundation of spiritual understanding - the foundation is the mode of goodness - of course you can do many things in the mode of goodness, many of which may have nothing to do with god. The problem with such engagements however is that the mode of goodness is by nature material and thus unstable and prone to giving out to passion and ignorance
”
Understood.

So - once one has his foundation in the mode of goodness, what would be next - or does one have to actually HAVE this foundation before the next steps could be understood?


(Sort of like jumping to the advanced section of a progressively harder Physics textbook without understanding and actually being versed in the initial chapters?)

yes
one must be situated in the mode of goodness

 

[Sarkus]

a definition can be made of symptoms however
for instance if I define fire as hot, bright and able to burn things, you have a working definition based on symptoms

But the problem with defining it as merely symptoms is that many things result in the same symptoms:
Hot, Bright and able to burn? - a glowing metallic wire or a laser for example.

if you think this is inadequate, provide a definition of an object that doesn't include symptoms or make reference to other terms that include symptoms (I should warn you though, such an attempt is practically impossible)

The issue is not whether one can define without recourse to symptoms - but whether one is able to adequately encompass ALL the necessary symptoms to adequately define something.

what can be measured precisely with the driver and the car is the interaction of the driver's body and the car - both these things are material and can thus be empirically validated

Thus the analogy you have constantly used is false.
You have claimed, in the past, that the driver was the consciousness, the car was the body - and that the car without the driver was just "dull material" etc.
Now you are claiming that it is actually the CONSCIOUSNESS of the driver that is the consciousness? Which really negates the purpose of the analogy as trying to explain consciousness.

You are changing your interpretation of the analogy and you don't even realise it.

You need to explain how the non-material "consciousness" interacts with the material mind / intelligence.
If the mind / intelligence, which as you have said is material (albeit "subtle"), is guided by / interacted with consciousness - how is this done?

Analogy:
Snooker table - the balls moving around are the mind / intelligence.
The player is the consciousness.

In order for the player ("consciousness") to interact with the mind / intelligence it must do so in some way - e.g. the CUE.

It is no good saying that in fact the "consciousness" is actually akin to the consciousness of the player - as this removes the point of the analogy - as per above.

So please - what is the equivalent of the analogous CUE - the mechanism by which the consciousness interacts with the mind / intelligence?

Sense of Heat

which arises from the sense of touch

No it doesn't. Thermoceptors operate on sensing differences in temperature. There are very different pressure sensors that equate to "touch".

Sense of Pain

of the physical variety, which arises from the sense of touch

No it doesn't. It used to be thought that pain was the overloading of the pressure sensors (touch) but it is in fact a very different sub-system that intertwines with (and is distinct from) a number of other senses.
There are cases of people who have lost the sense of pain - but still have a sense of touch, and vice-versa.

(heat and pain receptors are located where?)

Heat - you have thermoceptors in the skin, but also internal temperature sensors that provide feedback on internal temperature.
Pain has a number of differing types of receptors - in the skin, the bones / joints and also in the internal organs. They are very different to mere pressure sensors.

of the mental variety (stress,anguish, frustration etc), which arises from the mind

Pain is very different from anguish / frustration. These aren't called "mental" issues for nothing.

Sense of Balance;
Sense of self / body (i.e. we know where our hand is, even if we can't see it);

both of which arise from the sense of locomotion or manipulation, depending on how you want to define balance or motoring skills

Anything can arise from anything else if it is merely a matter of defining things differently.

I am not sure how this is so

Remove the five classical senses and one can still tell where one's body is - or if one is standing upright - or if one is hot / cold. And can also feel pain.

Anyhoo - we digress.

seems to indicate touch
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/173

No - it seems to indicate TWO sense working in tandem to produce a skill. Otherwise they would just have mentioned the TOUCH.
The two types of sensors are used for different things:

"Some cells in the platypus bill respond to touch and some to weak electric fields, weaker than anything humans can feel. These cells send their respective messages to the brain."

Anyhoo - we digress.

there is the third aspect of the subtle body - "false ego"

Which answers nothing of which was asked:
How does "consciousness" interact with the mind / intelligence.

if the soul departs the material body, one is dead

Which answers nothing of which was asked:
Or is consciousness merely a 1-off item: your body gets on it at birth, and gets off at death - with everything the body does in the meantime governed by mind / intelligence / the material?
I.e. there is no interaction?

yes
one must be situated in the mode of goodness

And you are unable to explain the next steps to someone outside the "mode of goodness"?
Why is that? In physics one can happily explain the more advanced aspects of a topic, even if the pupil is unable or unwilling to learn.

What is it about the mode of goodness that allows one to progress toward direct perception only if situated within it, given that you have previously said that the mode of goodness is material in nature, and is not limited to those of theistic bent?

Surely merely an understanding of it should be sufficient, without being practiced in it? One can understand the theory of the internal combustion engine without being able to build one. And that should not stop them moving onto the advanced areas of theoretical study around the combustion engine.

A physicist with good theoretical knowledge and no practical experience can still progress far in the field of physics, and leave others to perform the practicals if needed.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a definition can be made of symptoms however
for instance if I define fire as hot, bright and able to burn things, you have a working definition based on symptoms ”
But the problem with defining it as merely symptoms is that many things result in the same symptoms:
Hot, Bright and able to burn? - a glowing metallic wire or a laser for example.

that is my point – nothing apart from spirit has the quality of consciousness – in other words to determine whether a said object contains spirit, all that is required is that one discern if it has consciousness
“

what can be measured precisely with the driver and the car is the interaction of the driver's body and the car - both these things are material and can thus be empirically validated ”
Thus the analogy you have constantly used is false.
You have claimed, in the past, that the driver was the consciousness, the car was the body - and that the car without the driver was just "dull material" etc.
Now you are claiming that it is actually the CONSCIOUSNESS of the driver that is the consciousness? Which really negates the purpose of the analogy as trying to explain consciousness.

with analogies one is limited to referring to known articles of both parties – for instance if I indicate the location of a star on the night sky by a branch on a tree, measuring the distance to the branch is not the same as measuring the distance to the star

You are changing your interpretation of the analogy and you don't even realise it.

You need to explain how the non-material "consciousness" interacts with the material mind / intelligence.
If the mind / intelligence, which as you have said is material (albeit "subtle"), is guided by / interacted with consciousness - how is this done?

the driver analogy indicates two things that are separate (which not be apparent if one simply sees a moving car, and thinks the car is moving by itself) – one is passive (the car) – the other is active (the driver) – in this way one can understand that the real active ingredient of a car is not the petrol, oil, tyres or engine but the driver

Analogy:
Snooker table - the balls moving around are the mind / intelligence.
The player is the consciousness.

In order for the player ("consciousness") to interact with the mind / intelligence it must do so in some way - e.g. the CUE.

It is no good saying that in fact the "consciousness" is actually akin to the consciousness of the player - as this removes the point of the analogy - as per above.

So please - what is the equivalent of the analogous CUE - the mechanism by which the consciousness interacts with the mind / intelligence?

There is this analogy – maybe I have given enough info to make it understandable
Transcendentalists who are advanced in knowledge compare the body, which is made by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to a chariot. The (5) senses are like the horses; the mind, the master of the senses, is like the reins; the objects of the senses are the destinations; intelligence is the chariot driver; and consciousness, is the passenger


“ “

Sense of Heat ”
which arises from the sense of touch ”
No it doesn't. Thermoceptors operate on sensing differences in temperature. There are very different pressure sensors that equate to "touch".

I think our disagreement is semantic – heat sensors work out of a sense of touch (they don’t work out of a sense of hearing or sight for instance)
“ “

Sense of Pain ”
of the physical variety, which arises from the sense of touch ”
No it doesn't. It used to be thought that pain was the overloading of the pressure sensors (touch) but it is in fact a very different sub-system that intertwines with (and is distinct from) a number of other senses.
There are cases of people who have lost the sense of pain - but still have a sense of touch, and vice-versa.

still, you don’t find people developing a sense of pain from sight, etc
“

(heat and pain receptors are located where?) ”
Heat - you have thermoceptors in the skin, but also internal temperature sensors that provide feedback on internal temperature.

all this indicates touch (in other words an objects physicality coming into contact with the receiver)

Pain has a number of differing types of receptors - in the skin, the bones / joints and also in the internal organs. They are very different to mere pressure sensors.

once again, these receptors don’t operate out of exposure to sound etc (unless it is of such a great capacity that it bears a physical nature)
“

of the mental variety (stress,anguish, frustration etc), which arises from the mind ”
Pain is very different from anguish / frustration. These aren't called "mental" issues for nothing.

just trying to anticipate what you might call under the banner of “pain”
“ “

Sense of Balance;
Sense of self / body (i.e. we know where our hand is, even if we can't see it); ”
both of which arise from the sense of locomotion or manipulation, depending on how you want to define balance or motoring skills ”
Anything can arise from anything else if it is merely a matter of defining things differently.

if you want to compare paradigms of definition, you can certainly expect double- ups/cross overs etc
“

I am not sure how this is so ”
Remove the five classical senses and one can still tell where one's body is - or if one is standing upright - or if one is hot / cold. And can also feel pain.

and how do you propose to remove the sense of locomotion (the ability to move) and the sense of manipulation (the ability to interact with the environment, eg pick things up, etc) and draw the same result?

Anyhoo - we digress.

lol – fancy that ....

“ seems to indicate touch
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/173
”
No - it seems to indicate TWO sense working in tandem to produce a skill. Otherwise they would just have mentioned the TOUCH.
The two types of sensors are used for different things:

"Some cells in the platypus bill respond to touch and some to weak electric fields, weaker than anything humans can feel. These cells send their respective messages to the brain."

Anyhoo - we digress.

the study did indicate that electrical fields were detected through “touch” sensors (in other words an electrical field “touches” the bill of a platypus
“

there is the third aspect of the subtle body - "false ego" ”
Which answers nothing of which was asked:
How does "consciousness" interact with the mind / intelligence.

From the very beginning I have mentioned three things – mind, intelligence and false ego – I am just bringing to your attention that you are only inquiring about two
“

if the soul departs the material body, one is dead ”
Which answers nothing of which was asked:
Or is consciousness merely a 1-off item: your body gets on it at birth, and gets off at death - with everything the body does in the meantime governed by mind / intelligence / the material?
I.e. there is no interaction?

if death is the result of the soul departing the body, there is no scope for the mind or intelligence to govern anything – just like if a driver leaves a car, the scope of the engine to generate motion, or the fuel pump to regulate flow becomes impeded (even if the ignition is left on, it will run out of petrol since a car has no capacity to fill its own tank up without the assistance of a driver)
“

yes
one must be situated in the mode of goodness ”
And you are unable to explain the next steps to someone outside the "mode of goodness"?

I didn’t realize we had finished discussing the mode of goodness

Why is that? In physics one can happily explain the more advanced aspects of a topic, even if the pupil is unable or unwilling to learn.

usually such discussion begins after the primary aspects have been understood and tested – for instance if I was to ask you what are the inherent limitations in the mode of goodness in approaching the direct perception of transcendence, what would you say?

What is it about the mode of goodness that allows one to progress toward direct perception only if situated within it, given that you have previously said that the mode of goodness is material in nature, and is not limited to those of theistic bent?

the material mode of goodness never exists in a pure form - neither can one be situated in pure passion or ignorance – material life is a combination of these things, and the time factor pushes these things into further combinations – for instance in we have clarity when we are awake and are unconscious when we sleep, an 16 year old is completely infatuated by temporary delights and the same person forty years down the track may be more contemplative, etc etc
– generally you find that persons who are involved in academic pursuits (scientists/philosophers/etc) exhibit many qualities in the mode of goodness (through out the spread of their life), since it is conducive for the acquisition of knowledge (ie the ability to see things as they are) – in other words we tend to form habits that surround the predominance of a mode according to where we perceive value lies.

The difference between an atheist and a theist lies in a difference between the modes as knowledge

BG 18.20 That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen in all living entities, though they are divided into innumerable forms, you should understand to be in the mode of goodness.


BG 18.21 That knowledge by which one sees that in every different body there is a different type of living entity you should understand to be in the mode of passion.

Surely merely an understanding of it should be sufficient, without being practiced in it? One can understand the theory of the internal combustion engine without being able to build one. And that should not stop them moving onto the advanced areas of theoretical study around the combustion engine.

A physicist with good theoretical knowledge and no practical experience can still progress far in the field of physics, and leave others to perform the practicals if needed.

This is true of physical aspects of knowledge but not others – for instance is it sufficient to know what it means to be a loving parent simply by developing a bit of theory and leaving the practical to others?

In other words there is an aspect of knowledge that has existential conditions (in other words in order to “know” something you have to act/exist/be in a certain condition)

the definition of the three modes of material nature deal specifically with such states of being

 

[Sarkus]

that is my point – nothing apart from spirit has the quality of consciousness – in other words to determine whether a said object contains spirit, all that is required is that one discern if it has consciousness

I was asking for a working definition of "non-material". Not "consciousness" per se.

the driver analogy indicates two things that are separate (which not be apparent if one simply sees a moving car, and thinks the car is moving by itself) – one is passive (the car) – the other is active (the driver) – in this way one can understand that the real active ingredient of a car is not the petrol, oil, tyres or engine but the driver

I understand that element of the analogy.
It is the fact that in this analogy the "active" can be observed to be interacting with the "passive".

So, in reality - what is this mechanism of interaction between the "active" (the consciousness) and the "passive" (the material body)?

There is this analogy – maybe I have given enough info to make it understandable
Transcendentalists who are advanced in knowledge compare the body, which is made by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to a chariot. The (5) senses are like the horses; the mind, the master of the senses, is like the reins; the objects of the senses are the destinations; intelligence is the chariot driver; and consciousness, is the passenger

But the analogy still falls - due to the observable interaction between the driver (consciousness) and the other elements (the material body) - yet you seem unable to answer the question of HOW this interaction occurs in reality?

Please do so.

I think our disagreement is semantic – heat sensors work out of a sense of touch (they don’t work out of a sense of hearing or sight for instance)

No - there is a difference between heat and pressure. They may be related physically (P=nRT) but they are different aspects.
The other alternative is to say that all senses are in fact related to touch (the impact between one lump of material and another) - e.g. sight is the "touch" of light particles/waves on the retina etc.
And then it becomes a reductionist absurdism where grander meaning is lost.

still, you don’t find people developing a sense of pain from sight, etc

Yes - you do.
If I was to shock and overload your retina with a bright light it would cause a pain.
Ever had a hangover - where bright light very much hurts.

all this indicates touch (in other words an objects physicality coming into contact with the receiver)

And this is true of ALL senses - so are you saying there is actually only 1?
Hearing is the impact of audio waves hitting the sensors.
Smell is the impact of molecules hitting the sensors.

Gets ridiculous if you start defining senses to suit your own ends.

Seriously, LG, you need to read up on some sciences. Your claim of "semantics" seems to stem from a lack of understanding.

and how do you propose to remove the sense of locomotion (the ability to move) and the sense of manipulation (the ability to interact with the environment, eg pick things up, etc) and draw the same result?

Locomotion and manipulation seem to be amalgams of other senses:
Manipulation is body awareness + touch.
Locomotion is body awareness + balance / acceleration (same sense)

the study did indicate that electrical fields were detected through “touch” sensors (in other words an electrical field “touches” the bill of a platypus

Yes - and sound waves "touch" the ears, smells "touch" the nose etc.

From the very beginning I have mentioned three things – mind, intelligence and false ego – I am just bringing to your attention that you are only inquiring about two

And you are still not answering the question.

if death is the result of the soul departing the body, there is no scope for the mind or intelligence to govern anything – just like if a driver leaves a car, the scope of the engine to generate motion, or the fuel pump to regulate flow becomes impeded (even if the ignition is left on, it will run out of petrol since a car has no capacity to fill its own tank up without the assistance of a driver)

Again with this analogy - which really doesn't answer anything of the question asked - as explained earlier.

How does the non-material interact with the material?
Does it interact?

If you give me another analogy with a physical object ("consciousness") interacting with other physical objects ("materiality") then please be aware that this DOES NOT answer the question.

I didn’t realize we had finished discussing the mode of goodness

I am not asking you to preach - merely enquiring of your process.

usually such discussion begins after the primary aspects have been understood and tested – for instance if I was to ask you what are the inherent limitations in the mode of goodness in approaching the direct perception of transcendence, what would you say?

Don't be ridiculous - of course I wouldn't be able to answer.
But if I wanted to learn how a Plasma-TV works I wouldn't go back to school to get a grounding in all aspects of physics, and from there to University etc.
I would get someone to explain to me - and then I would ask questions where I didn't understand, where my knowledge lacked.

In other words there is an aspect of knowledge that has existential conditions (in other words in order to “know” something you have to act/exist/be in a certain condition)

Basically you're saying one needs to experience it for oneself to fully understand it?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that is my point – nothing apart from spirit has the quality of consciousness – in other words to determine whether a said object contains spirit, all that is required is that one discern if it has consciousness ”
I was asking for a working definition of "non-material". Not "consciousness" per se.

then the opposite holds – in the absence of consciousness, it is matter – for instance the presence/absence of consciousness enables distinction between a tree and a chair, even though both may be made of wood
“

the driver analogy indicates two things that are separate (which not be apparent if one simply sees a moving car, and thinks the car is moving by itself) – one is passive (the car) – the other is active (the driver) – in this way one can understand that the real active ingredient of a car is not the petrol, oil, tyres or engine but the driver ”
I understand that element of the analogy.
It is the fact that in this analogy the "active" can be observed to be interacting with the "passive".

So, in reality - what is this mechanism of interaction between the "active" (the consciousness) and the "passive" (the material body)?

I am not sure what you are asking – perhaps you can indicate what is the “mechanism” of interaction between a car and a driver

“

There is this analogy – maybe I have given enough info to make it understandable
Transcendentalists who are advanced in knowledge compare the body, which is made by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to a chariot. The (5) senses are like the horses; the mind, the master of the senses, is like the reins; the objects of the senses are the destinations; intelligence is the chariot driver; and consciousness, is the passenger ”
But the analogy still falls - due to the observable interaction between the driver (consciousness) and the other elements (the material body) - yet you seem unable to answer the question of HOW this interaction occurs in reality?

Please do so.

I thought this was cleared up earlier – empiricism has inherent short comings
when it comes to “observing” things, it is the function of the mind/intelligence/false ego (subtle body), and thus such observations are restricted to what we broadly term “matter” – in other words how would you propose that one see the substance that one is seeing with?
We have the capacity to present the findings of matter through the workings of the mind’s processing of the info of the senses – we have the capacity to establish patterns of repeatability through the workings of the intelligence’s processing of the info of the mind (and thus determine empirical facts) – and if we want to have the capacity to perceive the nature of how the subtle body (which is essentially the “steering wheel” of the car) connects to consciousness (the driver) it requires being firmly situated in the mode of goodness to surmount false ego
in other words there is a hierarchy
matter<- senses<- mind <- intelligence <- false ego <- consciousness
If you are convinced that the words “in reality” and “empiricism” are synonymous, you don’t have the scope to go further than “intelligence”

“

I think our disagreement is semantic – heat sensors work out of a sense of touch (they don’t work out of a sense of hearing or sight for instance) ”
No - there is a difference between heat and pressure. They may be related physically (P=nRT) but they are different aspects.
The other alternative is to say that all senses are in fact related to touch (the impact between one lump of material and another) - e.g. sight is the "touch" of light particles/waves on the retina etc.
And then it becomes a reductionist absurdism where grander meaning is lost.

now we are moving into a discussion of how the senses interact with the sense objects
SB 2.5.26-29 Because the sky is transformed, the air is generated with the quality of touch, and by previous succession the air is also full of sound and the basic principles of duration of life: sense perception, mental power and bodily strength. When the air is transformed in course of time and nature's course, fire is generated, taking shape with the sense of touch and sound. Since fire is also transformed, there is a manifestation of water, full of juice and taste. As previously, it also has form and touch and is also full of sound. And water, being transformed from all variegatedness on earth, appears odorous and, as previously, becomes qualitatively full of juice, touch, sound and form respectively.
in otherwords the element of ether (space) gives rise to the sense of sound (-> hearing – sending radio signals is the closest thing you can come to of a gross example of hearing without the element of air)
further transformations give rise to the element of air which gives rise to the sense of touch (so air involves touch and hearing – thus amplification of sound is possible at this level)
further transformations give rise to the element of fire (or energy) which gives rise to the sense of form (so fire involves touch, hearing and sight)
further transformations give rise to the element of water which gives rise to the element of taste (so water involves taste, touch, hearing and sight)
and the final transformation gives rise to the element of earth which gives rise to the sense of aroma (so earth involves smell, taste, touch, hearing and sight)

thus all sense objects involve the sense of hearing
4 involve the sense of touch
3 involve the sense of sight
2 involve the sense of taste
1 involves the sense of aroma

keep this in mind for the rest that follows
“

still, you don’t find people developing a sense of pain from sight, etc ”
Yes - you do.
If I was to shock and overload your retina with a bright light it would cause a pain.
Ever had a hangover - where bright light very much hurts.

exactly – the pain comes through “touch”
“

all this indicates touch (in other words an objects physicality coming into contact with the receiver) ”
And this is true of ALL senses - so are you saying there is actually only 1?

as indicated above, some senses share common attributes – depends how it falls in the way of cause and effect

Hearing is the impact of audio waves hitting the sensors.

only in the vicinity of the element of air

Smell is the impact of molecules hitting the sensors.

once again, due to the element of air

Gets ridiculous if you start defining senses to suit your own ends.

I should have forseen that explaining the senses also requires a definition of the sense objects

Seriously, LG, you need to read up on some sciences. Your claim of "semantics" seems to stem from a lack of understanding.

I am just trying to present information without you deeming it as “necessary” – I didn’t want to start on the sankhya explanation of the phenomenal world (due to the complicated nature of the topic), but I guess we have arrived there ...

“

and how do you propose to remove the sense of locomotion (the ability to move) and the sense of manipulation (the ability to interact with the environment, eg pick things up, etc) and draw the same result? ”
Locomotion and manipulation seem to be amalgams of other senses:
Manipulation is body awareness + touch.
Locomotion is body awareness + balance / acceleration (same sense)

once again, this seems like an issue of semantics
“

the study did indicate that electrical fields were detected through “touch” sensors (in other words an electrical field “touches” the bill of a platypus ”
Yes - and sound waves "touch" the ears, smells "touch" the nose etc.

all because of the element of air
“

if death is the result of the soul departing the body, there is no scope for the mind or intelligence to govern anything – just like if a driver leaves a car, the scope of the engine to generate motion, or the fuel pump to regulate flow becomes impeded (even if the ignition is left on, it will run out of petrol since a car has no capacity to fill its own tank up without the assistance of a driver) ”
Again with this analogy - which really doesn't answer anything of the question asked - as explained earlier.

How does the non-material interact with the material?
Does it interact?

maybe you could explain how a driver interacts with a car as an example of an approach I should take, since I can’t fathom your intentions

If you give me another analogy with a physical object ("consciousness") interacting with other physical objects ("materiality") then please be aware that this DOES NOT answer the question.

even a lay man can determine how a driver interacts with a car, without venturing into complicated issues like consciousness
“

I didn’t realize we had finished discussing the mode of goodness ”
I am not asking you to preach - merely enquiring of your process.

no, I’m just not sure if now is the time to start venturing descriptions of the activities after liberation, since I am not convinced we have covered all the ground work
“

usually such discussion begins after the primary aspects have been understood and tested – for instance if I was to ask you what are the inherent limitations in the mode of goodness in approaching the direct perception of transcendence, what would you say? ”
Don't be ridiculous - of course I wouldn't be able to answer.

then you don’t have a clear understanding of the mode of goodness, and there’s not much point in abandoning this subject so we can discuss further things

But if I wanted to learn how a Plasma-TV works I wouldn't go back to school to get a grounding in all aspects of physics, and from there to University etc.
I would get someone to explain to me - and then I would ask questions where I didn't understand, where my knowledge lacked.

my point is that discussion of the activities after liberation is futile unless one is thoroughly familiar with the activities of the mode of goodness – and a way to test such an understanding is through the question offered – anything less is folly
“

In other words there is an aspect of knowledge that has existential conditions (in other words in order to “know” something you have to act/exist/be in a certain condition) ”
Basically you're saying one needs to experience it for oneself to fully understand it?

yes – this “practical” element of knowledge distinguishes it from mere “theory” – particularly in the eyes of a person deeming the consistency of truths it presents

 

[Cris]

Why it will never be possible to refute LG's position.

This is not because he is right or wrong only that his line is perfectly internally consistent and that any objection raised can be met with a perfectly reasoned answer drawn from his chosen paradigm. And note that his story is based on concepts that have been developed and refined over several millennia.

Exactly the same can be said for a debate with someone who offers the Star Trek environment, or the Lord of The Rings environment, or the Harry Potter worlds, as true scenarios. Each consists of believable worlds that obey consistent rules and behaviors. Although these latter ideas are only a few decades old, give them a few thousand years to be refined and any apparent inconsistencies can be similarly internally resolved.

The commonality between all these story-lines is that none are based on any accepted human knowledge established by science. They are all based entirely on human creative imagination, e.g. fantasy.

The only argument that LG can offer to support his story is to refer to self-proclaimed experts who assert the story is true. Why would this be acceptable? The answer here is that such truths are only revealed at a personal level once one has attained a certain degree of attunement/purity. This and variations on this concept comprise the primary argument offered by most major religions, especially Christianity and Islam. How can the skeptic know if such personal revelations occur? They can’t and there is no answer to this dilemma.

With no reliable methods of testing claims of godly communications how can we proceed with the debate?

Perhaps we can test for credibility or need? Is a soul needed or is a god needed? Is there anything about life that necessitates that either of these imaginary concepts must exist? I would argue that neither is needed and that both are imaginary creations invented at times of considerable ignorance about how the universe operates but that the stories have developed into incredible versatility and detail and rationalizations that it has become very difficult for many to ignore them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why it will never be possible to refute LG's position.

This is not because he is right or wrong only that his line is perfectly internally consistent and that any objection raised can be met with a perfectly reasoned answer drawn from his chosen paradigm. And note that his story is based on concepts that have been developed and refined over several millennia.

Exactly the same can be said for a debate with someone who offers the Star Trek environment, or the Lord of The Rings environment, or the Harry Potter worlds, as true scenarios.

errata - you forgot to include empiricism as well

there is no empirical accounting for statements like “I have a pain in my arm”. Although it is understood by everyone, the word pain corresponds to no empirically determinable thing in the world. Pain is subjective. It does not avail itself to scientific observation. Even if the arm is connected to an instrument that detects a nervous reaction whenever the patient feels pain, we would not recognize a printout of that instrument's readings as corresponding to the word pain. Some empiricists have therefore issued a call to banish the word pain as we know it from science.

The logical positivist Carl Gustav Hempel argued that consciousness is not real. Thus the word pain is to be understood only through behavior and symptoms. I have a pain in my arm can have no meaning unless it is accompanied by moaning, gestures, and perhaps physiological evidence like a bruise or swelling. These external signs amount to what pain means, not the experience, a mere fiction.
But this definition would make real the dramatized pain of a stage actor. It would make false the inner distress of someone whose pain was not intense enough to evoke outward symptoms.

But will they also banish the word electron? The word electron corresponds to no observed thing. In the course of explaining to us the results of a cloud chamber experiment, a scientist might say, Here we can see an electron. But all we really see is a streak of condensation within the chamber. As little as the word pain corresponds to the readings of an instrument, so little does the word electron correspond to a streak of condensation.

Yet for some empiricists, pain is not a scientific word, while electron is.

:shrug:

Each consists of believable worlds that obey consistent rules and behaviors. Although these latter ideas are only a few decades old, give them a few thousand years to be refined and any apparent inconsistencies can be similarly internally resolved.

even though I could argue against this being the case with vedic claims, at the moment I think it is sufficient to show that at the foundation of your argument, empiricism and rationalism, the same thing is at work

The commonality between all these story-lines is that none are based on any accepted human knowledge established by science. They are all based entirely on human creative imagination, e.g. fantasy.

lol - pots and kettles

The only argument that LG can offer to support his story is to refer to self-proclaimed experts who assert the story is true. Why would this be acceptable? The answer here is that such truths are only revealed at a personal level once one has attained a certain degree of attunement/purity. This and variations on this concept comprise the primary argument offered by most major religions, especially Christianity and Islam.

qualifications also under ride empirical claims too

How can the skeptic know if such personal revelations occur? They can’t and there is no answer to this dilemma.

so there is absolutely no way for a high school drop out to verify the claims of empiricism (I would have thought an easy answer would have been "if they get qualified")

With no reliable methods of testing claims of godly communications how can we proceed with the debate?

as already mentioned several times, it begins by accepting empiricism for what is - an insufficient means to understand knowledge

Perhaps we can test for credibility or need?

you mean test it using your resources of logic and rationality?
What if we test it using someone else's (like say a qualified persons) resources of logic and rationality?

Is a soul needed or is a god needed?

being versed in the standard definitions of such terms (aka theory) would certainly be required before we begin such a discussion

Is there anything about life that necessitates that either of these imaginary concepts must exist?

its not even clear that you understand what you are talking about
then it becomes further unclear what empirical or rational means you have used to determine such things the status of imaginary (ie false). If your claim that god/the soul is false is not empirical/rational, then on the onset you have sunk your boat that empiricism/rationalism is the means for discerning truth

I would argue that neither is needed and that both are imaginary creations invented at times of considerable ignorance about how the universe operates but that the stories have developed into incredible versatility and detail and rationalizations that it has become very difficult for many to ignore them.

A high school drop out could also adopt a similar "rational" discourse for maintaining the position that electrons don't exist

lol - or alternatively

a physics professor at Princeton could also adopt a similar "rational" discourse for maintaining the position that pain doesn't exist

 

[Cris]

LG,

So your defense for your fantasy is now that no one else knows that anything can be true, is that it?

Isn't your only real argument that science etc cannot show that gods and souls dont exist, so they must exist?

Why argue the weaknesses of science when you have nothing of consequence to offer to support your claims - other than "believe me"? Arent you simply trying desperately to shift the onus of proof onto something else because you are entirely devoid of anything to support your own fantasy?

So instead of your endless attempts at misdirections about how bad science is how about providing any single instance where you can show that something immaterial could exist? Otherwise why should anyone believe that what you claim is not a fantasy?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

So your defense for your fantasy is now that no one else knows that anything can be true, is that it?

hey - its your argument that the claims of religion are not true like science

Isn't your only real argument that science etc cannot show that gods and souls dont exist, so they must exist?

no

Why argue the weaknesses of science when you have nothing of consequence to offer to support your claims -

we are at a point where you are not interested in either attaining nor inquiring about the qualifications/foundations of knowledge for theism, so I am just moving on to the next topic - namely the foundations of empiricism, since you advocate it as somehow superior

other than "believe me"? Arent you simply trying desperately to shift the onus of proof onto something else because you are entirely devoid of anything to support your own fantasy?

no - if you read what I posted - or the this thread that deals with it in more details, you would see that is an accurate description of empiricism however

So instead of your endless attempts at misdirections about how bad science

so in other words you are asking us to believe you that challenges against empiricism (despite their endless variety) are all merely attempts at misdirection?

is how about providing any single instance where you can show that something immaterial could exist?

given that you expect it to be shown by empiricism, and given that empiricism has difficulty even showing how material things exist outside of belief systems, it appears that we have the same problem -lol

Otherwise why should anyone believe that what you claim is not a fantasy?

OK

to begin with maybe you could elaborate on what empirical/rational process you have applied to determine that the nature of theistic claims are fantasy (other than just your belief)

 

[Cris]

LG,

hey - its your argument that the claims of religion are not true like science

No, that’s what you said.

we are at a point where you are not interested in either attaining nor inquiring about the qualifications/foundations of knowledge for theism,

Oh but I am but you cannot stay on topic long enough without reverting to criticisms of science.

so I am just moving on to the next topic - namely the foundations of empiricism, since you advocate it as somehow superior

No, that’s what you think I’ve said. My oft repeated request has been for you to show why YOUR claims have any validity? Your approach has been consistently to shift to say why science doesn’t work, except for the occasional unhelpful scripture quote.

I’m really not interested in empiricism or its weaknesses only in how claims for the supernatural like yours can be shown as possibly true. The problem may well be that there is nothing better than empiricism despite its potential faults.

“ So instead of your endless attempts at misdirections about how bad science ”

so in other words you are asking us to believe you that challenges against empiricism (despite their endless variety) are all merely attempts at misdirection?

Especially when you pay almost no attention to substantiating any alternative for showing something true. Even if you were to show empiricism is totally wrong that still leaves you nowhere in showing that what you claim has any truth.

The misdirection here would be a very long side argument about the validity/non-validity of empiricism and nothing about your claims of the supernatural.

given that you expect it to be shown by empiricism, and given that empiricism has difficulty even showing how material things exist outside of belief systems, it appears that we have the same problem –lol

And again and again, I have never said empiricism must be used, it is you that keeps insisting that that is what I am asking – it has not been the case.

The issue is and has always been – what methods/processes can you demonstrate that can show that gods or souls exist? Since empiricism clearly doesn’t work for you then, and I have stated before, demonstrate a believable alternative.

to begin with maybe you could elaborate on what empirical/rational process you have applied to determine that the nature of theistic claims are fantasy (other than just your belief)

Simply that you have not demonstrated any believable mechanism that can demonstrate they are anything other than fantasy.

Once we remove all the misdirections what you have is a claim that you know that gods/souls exist through personal revelation. This is the primary argument from all religionists that what they claim is true.

Why isn’t your claim and the same claims made by all religionists NOT simple delusion?

Continuing to insist that empiricsm doesnt work doesn't in the least help show why what you claim has any truth.

BTW - your long and interesting (2nd post in this thread) doesnt help your case very much - it is primarily religious assertions that are not supported. You somewhat need to show how those assertions can be shown as true.

 

[grover]

Empiricism is legitmate. Right now the closest thing there is to a science of mind is meditation (which amounts to little more than a technique of observing the mind). Observation is a legitmate mode of scientific inquiry. I can't think of any common sense notions mankind has had that have not turned out to be false upon rigorous investigation (the earth is flat, stars revolve around earth, meat turns into maggots). Why should we accept common sense notions of mind as opposed to what those people say who have spent years observing the mind and say that those who have not observed mind closely are the deluded ones?
The only difference between mystical/enlightenment experiences between science is that the mind can not be objectively proven to exist. Which is to say that there is nothing by observing the physical characteristics of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces mental experiences of any kind whatsoever. In other words physical science cannot even show that brains do the most important things that they do - which points to a serious limitation to physical science when it comes to mind. What is being suggested in this situation? That mind as a phenomenon should simply be ignored simply because it can't be objectively investigated by science?

 

[lightgigantic]

cris

“

hey - its your argument that the claims of religion are not true like science ”
No, that’s what you said.

what to speak of saying in previous posts - you say it in this one

Simply that you have not demonstrated any believable mechanism that can demonstrate they are anything other than fantasy.

and you even said near the beginning of your first post on this thread


The commonality between all these story-lines is that none are based on any accepted human knowledge established by science. They are all based entirely on human creative imagination, e.g. fantasy.

you should realize that words like "fantasy" "imagination" "delusion" and even "misdirected" are not neutral terms and indicate a positive stance - ie "I know you don't know"

to use them profusely and hide behind agnosticism every time I bring it to your attention is intellectual dishonesty

Maybe i should just ask you directly

When you use the words "fantasy" "imagination" "delusion" etc in connection with theism, do you apply an empirical process?
If you do, what is that process?

“ we are at a point where you are not interested in either attaining nor inquiring about the qualifications/foundations of knowledge for theism, ”
Oh but I am but you cannot stay on topic long enough without reverting to criticisms of science.

What are you talking about?
You made your debut on this thread without even addressing anything presented thus far with words like

The commonality between all these story-lines is that none are based on any accepted human knowledge established by science. They are all based entirely on human creative imagination, e.g. fantasy.

and you wonder why I switched track with an analysis of what this so called established scientific knowledge base is

:shrug:

“ so I am just moving on to the next topic - namely the foundations of empiricism, since you advocate it as somehow superior ”
No, that’s what you think I’ve said.

I'll quote it a 3rd time just so its clear


The commonality between all these story-lines is that none are based on any accepted human knowledge established by science. They are all based entirely on human creative imagination, e.g. fantasy.

My oft repeated request has been for you to show why YOUR claims have any validity?

then why did you make your debut on this thread (#11) without any inquiry into such validity, but instead begin with bold proclamations

Why it will never be possible to refute LG's position.

IOW - "there's no point into inquiring into the validity of LG's claims - here's why"

and it remains even further unclear why you think moving on to an analysis of your "here's why" is a blow beneath the belt or changing the topic or something

Your approach has been consistently to shift to say why science doesn’t work, except for the occasional unhelpful scripture quote.

and saying words to the effect "religion doesn't work - just look at science" isn't asking for an analysis of this "science"?

I’m really not interested in empiricism or its weaknesses only in how claims for the supernatural like yours can be shown as possibly true.

if you hold that true things are determined by empiricism (as is clear by your next statement) I suggest you review your interests

The problem may well be that there is nothing better than empiricism despite its potential faults.

empiricism has no potential flaws - it has inherent ones because it is based on these two assumptions
the world is objective
the world can be revealed to your senses
(in other words what is objective - phenomena or noumena?
and what is the act of perceiving something with the senses - phenomena or noumena?)

rationalism is a slightly better yet still flawed alternative
authoritative testimony however is the actual foundation

“ “ So instead of your endless attempts at misdirections about how bad science ”

so in other words you are asking us to believe you that challenges against empiricism (despite their endless variety) are all merely attempts at misdirection? ”
Especially when you pay almost no attention to substantiating any alternative for showing something true.

as indicated by phenomena/noumena, empiricism does the same, so its not clear why you have such a bias

Even if you were to show empiricism is totally wrong that still leaves you nowhere in showing that what you claim has any truth.

I guess taking that path would require you not being critical of such claims since you’ve yet to indicate how empiricism could approach them

The misdirection here would be a very long side argument about the validity/non-validity of empiricism and nothing about your claims of the supernatural.

If you keep on hanging on to empiricism as the ultimate authority in discerning truth, there is no alternative

“ given that you expect it to be shown by empiricism, and given that empiricism has difficulty even showing how material things exist outside of belief systems, it appears that we have the same problem –lol ”
And again and again, I have never said empiricism must be used, it is you that keeps insisting that that is what I am asking – it has not been the case.

and its you who insists on profusely using words like "deluded" "fantasy" etc - all of which indicate a positive stance, "I know you don't know" - to which the refutation will be "care to explain what you know and how you know?"
If you find my repeated pressing on the issue of “empiricism” its because that is the only thing you seem to suggest

The issue is and has always been – what methods/processes can you demonstrate that can show that gods or souls exist? Since empiricism clearly doesn’t work for you then, and I have stated before, demonstrate a believable alternative.

I was in the middle of discussing that with Sarkus before you came in mid stream

“ to begin with maybe you could elaborate on what empirical/rational process you have applied to determine that the nature of theistic claims are fantasy (other than just your belief) ”
Simply that you have not demonstrated any believable mechanism that can demonstrate they are anything other than fantasy.

how do you propose that I demonstrate a mechanism you don't believe (and further more, is your belief an empirical/rational process)?

Once we remove all the misdirections what you have is a claim that you know that gods/souls exist through personal revelation. This is the primary argument from all religionists that what they claim is true.

given your "beliefs" it also appears the same principle of "personal revelation" is what makes you eulogize empiricism

Why isn’t your claim and the same claims made by all religionists NOT simple delusion?

depends on which platform one ultimately proposes that truth can be distinguished from illusion - for instance if you say that truth can be ultimately distinguished from illusion on the platform of empiricism, certain issues arise

for instance suppose you have seen 10 000 black ravens - if you say "I have seen 10 000 black ravens" that is truthful. If you say "all ravens are black" that is delusional (after all, its not like a white raven would be a four sided triangle - a can of paint could fall on it, an albino one could crop up from the gene pool, etc).

So when you make statements like

Simply that you have not demonstrated any believable mechanism that can demonstrate they are anything other than fantasy.

it appears that the body of knowledge that you are calling upon to use such insistingly strong words as "fantasy" is (as indicated by the bold italics) your belief

in philosophy this phenomena is sometimes called "reflexive criticism" or shooting oneself in the foot -- in other words when you say statements like ...

Continuing to insist that empiricsm doesnt work doesn't in the least help show why what you claim has any truth.

..... I can say things like "neither does your continuing insistence of belief that theistic claims are fantasy"

BTW - your long and interesting (2nd post in this thread) doesnt help your case very much - it is primarily religious assertions that are not supported. You somewhat need to show how those assertions can be shown as true.

show them as true?
How?
through a mechanism you believe?

Simply that you have not demonstrated any believable mechanism that can demonstrate they are anything other than fantasy.

:shrug:

 

[Cris]

LG,

Fantasy - the free play of creative imagination. The probability that such ideas actually and/or accidently represent a truth would be very small.

The absence of any independent verification that such things could exist outside of personal claims tends to support imagination rather than actuality.

Credibility: The credibility of the claims makes belief also very difficult. The issue is the need for a massive underlyng and invisible supernatural realm to exist independent of the observable universe in order to make religious claims possible. As opposed to observation - the world appears to operate without the need for gods, and when living things die they appear to cease to exist.

Delusion: In this case people tend to believe what they want to believe and most have trouble coming to terms with their eventual non existence at death. The countless promises made by countless religions and superstitions that death is not final but is somehow a magical gateway to utopia or similar becomes a very attractive notion.

What I would like to see, and the request is very simple, is something that could show that something immaterial could exist. Without that most elementary of requirements I have difficulty seeing a starting point to examine religious claims any deeper.

A key to progress on this will be when science has explained how the brain operates with the conclusion that consciousness is the result of material processes or that there is a non material element. Until then I will likely remain highly skeptical of claims for gods/souls.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Fantasy - the free play of creative imagination. The probability that such ideas actually and/or accidently represent a truth would be very small.

so if you have seen 10 000 black ravens what is the probability of seeing a white one?
In other words how do you calculate probability with imperfect knowledge?

The absence of any independent verification that such things could exist outside of personal claims tends to support imagination rather than actuality.

given that probability is calculated by drawing upon information made by personal claims its not clear how you have made entrance into the realm of objectivity

Credibility: The credibility of the claims makes belief also very difficult. The issue is the need for a massive underlyng and invisible supernatural realm to exist independent of the observable universe in order to make religious claims possible.

when you use words like "observable we are once again back to the foundations of empiricism, namely

1) the cause (noumena) is objective
2) the senses (phenomena) can reveal the cause

how can the phenomenal indicate the nature of the noumenal?

In other words, even if your statements about transcendence are sound, you still have an identical crisis of belief with empiricism

As opposed to observation - the world appears to operate without the need for gods, and when living things die they appear to cease to exist.

yes it appears that way, but given the nature of our senses

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity .... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

there are numerous apparent appearances in this world

Delusion: In this case people tend to believe what they want to believe and most have trouble coming to terms with their eventual non existence at death.

you don't have trouble dealing with the notion that you won't cease to exist at the time of death do you?
and you don't have this trouble because of your beliefs in empiricism (that the phenomenal can reveal the noumenal) do you?

The countless promises made by countless religions and superstitions that death is not final but is somehow a magical gateway to utopia or similar becomes a very attractive notion.

its also an attractive notion that there is no governing authority in the universe, thus what ever takes one's fancy is okay as long as one can get away with it

What I would like to see, and the request is very simple, is something that could show that something immaterial could exist.

Without that most elementary of requirements I have difficulty seeing a starting point to examine religious claims any deeper.

ok, but you are not to allowed to weasel out of it by making science fiction influenced references to empirical claims that are totally bereft of peer reviewing

one could begin by asking "am I this body"
If you say "yes", the next question would be "which body are you", since due to the constant movement of matter, the body you indicate by the words "this one I am in at the moment" has already come and gone.

In other words despite all this constant flux/change/dissolution/creation of bodily atoms we constantly say "This is me"

What are we indicating by the word "this"?

A key to progress on this will be when science has explained how the brain operates with the conclusion that consciousness is the result of material processes or that there is a non material element. Until then I will likely remain highly skeptical of claims for gods/souls.

I am always curious what people (particularly those who claim empiricism is the standard for discerning the truth) are referencing when they begin talking about what facts they will uncover in the future ....

Are there rules in discussion for handing out post dated cheques?

 

[Cris]

LG,

But at best all of what you say perhaps casts doubt on how we determine facts. What none of that justifies are assertions as to the certainty of the existence of gods or souls. At best you still only have a speculation.

While unobserved white ravens cannot be rulled out as possibilties that analogy doesnt work so well on the need for an entire supernatural realm to be possible. We know at least that ravens exist and the issue is one of simple color - but the supernatural has no precedent for comparison - i.e. it isn't a simple matter of pojecting it as an alternate possibility, unlike white ravens.