‘Only if scientists substitute the word "describe" with "explain".’ / ‘Science can only expect to describe consciousness and its relationship with the brain.’
I suspect that you really don't understand science at all. Explanation is exactly what it does. Conversely, one thing it really doesn't do is description. I tend to think that this function is best tackled by poets, authors and artists.

‘I've been swotting up on consciousness and investigating it for many years. It's a fascinating subject.’
Then no doubt you have read the works of John McCrone, specifically ‘The Ape That Spoke’, in which McCrone presents an intriguing argument that consciousness or self-awareness is in essence a by-product of the acquisition of language, and fully rooted in the physiological functioning of the brain. Any comments?

'The neurones and electrical charges of the brain are physical representations of ‘consciousness action.’
Ah, a scientific statement, it would appear. So Andy, how did you prove that the physical is a reflection of the experienced, and not the opposite?

'The “observable scientific results” that you talk about can only represent physical actions of the brain. By definition, it can’t detect the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of one’s inner feelings or thoughts.'
Whatever you mean by 'is-ness'(!), this is plain wrong. Electrical activity in the brain changes in accordance with emotions and moods. It can be detected and measured. (Which is not to say that science has the capability of fully explaining the link between mind and brain ... yet.)

‘We’ve already described [how consciousness can control physical aspects of the brain …]'
Described! The very word you use to denigrate science’s contribution to the debate you now employ to promote your own side of the argument. Not exactly fair, let alone consistent.

'My Furry friend, your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are.'
Sorry Andy, you can use as many capital letters as you like but it still won't make this any more than a motherhood statement. And who are you to make this grand pronouncement? Others (including me) might suggest that my diary is who I really am, or my bank balance, my wardrobe, my dreams, my car, my politics, my CD collection, my diet, my charitable contributions, or even how I am perceived by others. If I'm a paranoid-schizophrenic and my 'inner-spirit' is that of a Venusian imprisoned on earth for purposes of sophisticated yet discrete psychological testing, is that who I really am? Seriously, is it?

‘I’m not saying that consciousness is anything magical or mystical. Rather, it is natural. Just as psychic ability is natural. (It speaks volumes about the depth and profundity of nature, mind.) At the end of the day, it’s all energy.'
Hmm, natural. Now, what exactly does that mean? Natural like flowers, or natural like uranium? Natural like the seasons, or natural like spina bifida? Ah, I see - it means nothing.
If consciousness is, as you say, energy, then science can detect it. And if science cannot detect it, then it is not energy, ergo it must be magical or mystical. QED, as we scientists say.

'The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.'
Absolute codswallop, and I have trouble accepting that you don't realise it, Andy. Change the units of measurement as much as you like, the speed of light is what it is – unchanging, independent of the observer, in a word – objective. This is a matter of measurement, not description; they are two very different things and should not be confused. If, to borrow your scurrilous scenario, an alien race from a different world had chosen to label our earth as ‘six inches' in diameter, the physical reality of the object in question would remain unchanged.

‘The Good News is that our Creator has placed a compass within our hearts.’
Now we get to the core of your argument. It is your opinion, and you are fully and unarguably entitled to it. You are even – at a pinch(!) – allowed to conclude with a quote from a fictitious dead guy. But …

‘Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs.‘
… so don’t make statements of supposed fact when they are statements of belief.

Andy, you can use as many capital letters as you like but it still won't make this any more than a motherhood statement

You’re right Furry, I was being a bit dramatic there. I’ll try to cut out the frills from now.

And who are you to make this grand pronouncement? Others (including me) might suggest that my diary is who I really am, or my bank balance, my wardrobe, my dreams, my car, my politics, my CD collection, my diet, my charitable contributions, or even how I am perceived by others. If I'm a paranoid-schizophrenic and my 'inner-spirit' is that of a Venusian imprisoned on earth for purposes of sophisticated yet discrete psychological testing, is that who I really am? Seriously, is it?

Furry, I can only assume that you’re either deliberately missing the point I’m making, or you have a ‘blind spot’ that is preventing you from seeing. Your diary, your bank balance, your politics, your wardrobe, etc. don’t experience your life. They don’t feel anything, they can’t sense anything, they can’t make decisions, and they can’t experience friendship. The part of you that does these things is your consciousness. It is your self-awareness - ‘who you are’ - in the sense of your inner-core. It's your sentient, experiencing being, who actually lives your life and knows things.

When I said that the essence (or “is-ness”) of your consciousness transcends inanimate matter, I was implying that consciousness, (another word for which is "spirit"), is of an ethereal substance, more so than brute matter. It is energy nonetheless, but it is distinguishable from inanimate matter because of its self-aware and ethereal qualities.

Then no doubt you have read the works of John McCrone, specifically ‘The Ape That Spoke’, in which McCrone presents an intriguing argument that consciousness or self-awareness is in essence a by-product of the acquisition of language, and fully rooted in the physiological functioning of the brain. Any comments?

I’ve never heard of John McCrone, to be honest. I’ve read books by the likes of Susan Blackmore, Daniel Dennet and Gerald M. Edelman, (the latter got a Nobel prize for his research), and many others. They all make similar conclusions to the points you have made. But spirituality and science are not in conflict, and none of it refutes religious belief, (unless you interpret it in ways that cause conflict). I'm not trying to create any conflict here either. I just enjoy reading about consciousness. It's a fascinating subject.

'The neurones and electrical charges of the brain are physical representations of ‘consciousness action.’

Ah, a scientific statement, it would appear. So Andy, how did you prove that the physical is a reflection of the experienced, and not the opposite?

Consciousness and the physical brain are not “opposites”. They are intimately related. Either one can effect the other. One’s consciousness can freely choose to respond to external conditions, (see the points about Sigmund Freud’s theory in the other thread), and one’s physical environment can also effect one’s consciousness. The point I have made is that a spiritually developed person can retain inner strength and a sense of peace, regardless of external conditions. In other words, it is possible for one’s consciousness to affect the outside world, as well as the other way round. (I tried to illustrate this point in the post about the Auschwitz survivor on the other thread.)

'The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second.

Absolute codswallop, and I have trouble accepting that you don't realise it, Andy.

It’s not codswallop at all. If you re-read the statement, you will see that it is actually very true. I’m coming at it from a different angle to you. “Light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is indeed a subjective notion, as I illustrated with the alien analogy. How much our notions are aligned with ‘what is so’ is not the issue I was addressing. (Myrrander’s comment about the speed of light happened to be aligned with ‘what is so’). But you missed the deeper point I was making, which is this:

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. . . . With this principle of subjectivity in mind, its logic can be taken to its ultimate level. Who can deny that in the face of “the Infinite”, we are all completely lost – intellectually speaking? . . . Whatever our views, they are necessarily subjective, because we’re all catching brief glimpses of the Infinite Reality through the small windows of our consciousness.

In the face of the Infinite, our intellectual concepts hang in limbo, floating around in an open sea, so to speak. This leads me onto your next statement:

I suspect that you really don't understand science at all. Explanation is exactly what it does. Conversely, one thing it really doesn't do is description.

Furry, science can only explore and describe the cosmos. It can't do anything else. From an ultimate point of view, science cannot explain anything at all. Notice here I’m talking from within the context of the Infinite Picture – which science can only begin to describe, albeit in part. How large is our perspective of ‘What Is So’? How deep and broad are the windows of human consciousness? Do deeper dimensions of reality exist that our mortal consciousness might be oblivious to?

Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat. Consciousness and human awareness expands deeper and broader than many (materialistic) scientists seem to know. Our extended awareness is simply known as "psychic ability". Heaven exists, believe it or not. God exists. Spirit guides exist. And death is not the end. Your consciousness – that ethereal energy of yours – will continue to experience life beyond the veil of death, in a "spiritual body", made of different stuff from our bodies on earth. The Next World is simply vibrating at higher frequencies of matter and energy than this crude earth realm. Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe? Love is the Ground of Being, the cause and reason of all of life. God is love.

… so don’t make statements of supposed fact when they are statements of belief.

From my point of view, they are statements of fact.

Now we get to the core of your argument. It is your opinion,

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s simply my point of view. All our views are subjective. And as far as I can see, everything is wonderful.

I'll keep this short, Andy - we're going nowhere, and I detect a certain deliberate obtuseness in your answers.

'Furry, I can only assume that you’re either deliberately missing the point I’m making, or you have a ‘blind spot’ that is preventing you from seeing.'
No, I'm asking what gives you the right to pronounce 'your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are.''

'Consciousness and the physical brain are not “opposites”.'
The question was nothing to do with opposites, it was to do with causality. You imply that the 'inner-spirit' causes electrical action in the brain, and I asked how you had proved that it wasn't the other way round.

'It’s not codswallop at all.'
Yes it is, utterly so. The speed of light is what it is, and one thing it ain't is subjective. Your 'deeper point' appears to be nothing but a statement of your religious belief - all well and good, but totally irrelevant in this context.

'From an ultimate point of view ...'
If it's ultimate, then it's not a point of view, is it? (See, you're not the only one who can indulge in wordplay.)

'Heaven exists, believe it or not. God exists. Spirit guides exist. And death is not the end. Your consciousness – that ethereal energy of yours – will continue to experience life beyond the veil of death. The Next World is simply vibrating at higher frequencies of matter and energy than this crude earth realm.'
Yet more woolly declarations of supposed 'fact'. Yawn.

'Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?''
And that's just pseudo-scientific crap.

'Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat.'
Ah, so you have special insight into these things? I have been civil here, but this is patronising sh*te. You know what you can do with it.

'From my point of view, they are statements of fact.'
Perversion of language. If they are facts, they should not require a point of view.

I thought you might have something meaningful to contribute, Andy, but no - like so many others, you attempting to subvert and bastardise science to fit your purposes because, in its undistorted shape, it makes you uneasy about your faith. Shame. I'm out of here.

I detect a certain deliberate obtuseness in your answers

I can be a bit blunt at times. You'll have to excuse me if I came across as rude. It wasn't intended.

I can almost *smell* the nag champa when I read you.

'Tis better to be drunk on the Holy Spirit.

'Furry, as a psychic, I feel like the spaceman that I mentioned earlier, who landed on earth and described his point of view to those who thought the world was flat.'

Ah, so you have special insight into these things? I have been civil here, but this is patronising sh*te. You know what you can do with it.

I've retained my integrity throughout, Furry.

If it's ultimate, then it's not a point of view, is it?

From God's point of view, (which by definition, is the ultimate), science is the enterprise that explores the Creation. There is no need for conflict.

'I can be a bit blunt at times.'
Obtuse means almost the opposite of blunt. I meant blurry, evasive, indistinct, fluffy, fuzzy ... hah! ... furry.

'I've retained my integrity throughout, Furry.'
Bully for you.

'From God's point of view ...'
Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.

'From God's point of view ...' Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.

It’s basic logic. Whether you believe that God is a hypothetical concept or a reality is another matter.

It’s exciting to come spirituality of age. Humanity has some exciting times ahead, because our spiritual awareness, as a 'global consciousness’, will begin blossom, not unlike a Lotus Flower. (See the Buddhist sutra of the Lotus Flower.) Speaking from within a spiritual context, the evolution is this: Ignorance, faith, intuition, knowledge. The future of human evolution is psychic ability and spiritual awareness. Soon we’ll see that our religionists have been right all along.

But this isn't a bad thing. By definition, you can’t keep the Truth under wraps for long. Thank God.

'Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.'
'It’s basic logic.'

It gets even better! Not only do you speak for God, but it's LOGICAL that you do so! You obviously understand logic even less than you understand science. And your megalomania knows no bounds! So don't stop now ... this is getting more hilarious by the moment!

Incidentally, I notice that, whoever you claim to be speaking for, you conveniently forgot to address several of the points I raised ... like ''Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?'' being pseudo-scientific crap. Perhaps you can cite some irrefutable 'proof' of this from one of your many religious sources ...

It’s basic logic

(it's basic logic that science explores the Creation. Not basic logic that I'm speaking for God. Just to clear it up)

Thanks for the clarification. Equally wrong of course, in that 'the Creation' is a matter of pure conjecture, but you can't have everything. Laugh? I had to wring my socks out! This is tremendous!

I've just seen your post, Furry. We posted them at the same time.

you conveniently forgot to address several of the points I raised ... like ''Did you know that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe?'' being pseudo-scientific crap. Perhaps you can cite some irrefutable 'proof' of this from one of your many religious sources

It's my own conclusion. And it's also something that's been concluded by many spiritual teachers over the ages. I believe that spirit is an energy which vibratres at higher frequencies than dense, inanimate matter. I believe that God is the 'Ultimate Spirit'. I also believe that "God is love". Put these things together, and I conclude that love is the highest vibrational frequency in the whole universe.

"Proof", regarding spiritual Truths, can be determined from within. Yet whether one's consciousness has blossomed, (i.e is vibtating at high enough frequencies), to understand higher esoteric truths and spiritual wisdom is another matter.

Sorry to sound like such a pompous wanker, but I'm just telling you the way it is from my point of view. That's all we can be expected to do.

I just can't keep up with your pearls of wisdom, Andy! Here's one from a little earlier that I missed ...

'By definition, you can’t keep the Truth under wraps for long.'
But by definition of what - 'truth'? Ah yes, here it is in the Oxford Bonkers Dictionary: 'Truth (n): that which cannot be kept under wraps for long'. Hahahahahahaha! Oh this is too much; I need a lie down!

Laugh? I had to wring my socks out! This is tremendous!

Too right dude. If we couldn't laugh in this world, then where would we be?

Why do I want to run up to you my Furry friend and give you a big hug? (No, I'm not gay.) It's just a happy reality we live in.

But by definition of what - 'truth'? Ah yes, here it is in the Oxford Bonkers Dictionary: 'Truth (n): that which cannot be kept under wraps for long'. Hahahahahahaha! Oh this is too much; I need a lie down

I'll get back to you later dude. I'm on my dinner time at the moment, which has just run out.

Andy

Ah, so when you use such words as 'proof' and 'truth' and 'science' and 'vibration' and 'frequency' and 'consciousness' etc. etc. etc. they are sufficienty flexible to mean (1) anything you want them to, and (2) nothing that requires you to address potentially awkward questions. I don't doubt your sincerity Andy, but the corruption of the language to this extent to obfuscate meaning is a mechanism that has been well employed by supposedly spiritual con-merchants and charlatans throughout this planet's history. Try as you might to dress up your religious beliefs in the language of science and rationalism, this is a dishonest practice. They are matters of faith, pure and simple, and you should be content to describe them in such terms. I would have no beef with you under such circumstances. That you cannot do this, but resort to scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo suggests only that you find your undisguised faith alone to be somehow lacking.

'Why do I want to run up to you my Furry friend and give you a big hug? (No, I'm not gay.)'
Wouldn't mind if you were. I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb. We each still think we're right, of course, and neither of us is going to give an inch, which is as it should be ... but I can't help but be impressed.

All right, here's a bit of my favourite 'mumbo jumbo' for you. It goes without saying that I think of it in purely Humanist terms, but if you choose to interpret it differently, that's strictly your business ...

'May the long-time sun shine on you
All love surround you
And the pure light within you
Guide you all the way home'
(The Incredible String Band)

See? I even have the occasional fuzzy moment myself ...

This is entirely incorrect. The speed of light, for example, is 186,000 miles per second no matter what you might "draw from your mind." The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.

It is NOT subjective! The speed of light is exactly the speed of light. Your alien analogy is flawed. While they may describe it as x ft per sec. and their second is different from ours, that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.

They are matters of faith, pure and simple, and you should be content to describe them in such terms. I would have no beef with you under such circumstances

Furry, when we’re talking about ultimate issues of existence, (and my main concern throughout this discussion has been with the bigger picture and the nature of 'who we really are'), faith is inherent to the human condition. From an intellectual point of view, the only way anyone could possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything.

“Faith” is only necessary from an intellectual point of view. I’ve already mentioned principles such as “intuition”, and “inner-wisdom”. As long as we're ‘coming from’ the level of our head alone, as opposed to our head and heart combined, spiritual matters and so-called “wisdom” will sound like hocus pocus, or like plays on words. But there is logic there, if you seek it. (“Wisdom”, to me, is soul-logic.)

I’m fully aware that most of my points will cut zero mustard for a scientifically minded person such as yourself Furry boy. Yet I don’t expect it to cut any mustard. I’m simply describing my points of view, just as you are.

I think it's great that Jesus taught that the Truth can be understood by nothing more than a “child-like faith”. This means that regardless of our intellectual capacity, we can comprehend ultimate truth with childlike simplicity and humble trust in God. But how can this principle mean anything to a hardened scientist? It can’t, as long as they remain in that frame of mind. In my opinion, such people simply aren’t ready for spiritual truths and higher esoteric wisdom. (Apologies for the pomposity, but sometimes I have to accept I sound like a complete tosser.)

The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us. It is NOT subjective! The speed of light is exactly the speed of light. Your alien analogy is flawed. While they may describe it as x ft per sec. and their second is different from ours, that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.

Drmiler, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was implying that all words and descriptive concepts are subjective. I know that the speed of light is exactly the speed of light, and I know that the notion that “light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is correctly aligned with ‘what is so’. (At least it is according to our concept of a second.) But I was trying to say that when we apply the same principle to “The Infinite Existence”, our measurements and descriptive words fail. (I described the necessary implications of Infinity in post 48).

In other words, science will not be able to answer life’s deepest questions, such as, “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”, or “Is there any purpose to the cosmos or not?” These are eternal philosophical questions, which transcend scientific enquiry.

If we can’t rely on science to answer these frankly significant - and ultimate - questions, then what can we reply on? The point that I’ve been trying to make is that there is something we can rely on. It is called “inner wisdom”, which is effectively like a compass within, which transcends the finite views of the intellect. In the words of Jospeh Benner, “Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness, which opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.”

I even have the occasional fuzzy moment mysef

Furry, “fuzzy” is a good word, especially when talking about ultimate issues of existence. Take quantum physics, for example. To show why both the scientifically minded and the religionists must necessarily get ‘wishy washy’, (at least in terms of the intellect), consider the following two quotes, and see how similar they are:

The first is from Zen Buddhist D.T. Suzuki:
“The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience which in its very nature transcends linguistics.”

Now consider the words of Werner Heisenberg, who is describing the nature of quantum particles:
“The problems of language are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms … But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.”

Interesting stuff, don't you think? Sometimes we can't escape getting "fuzzy".

I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb

I can’t see a battering anywhere. I can only see a delicious conversation with a Furry dude who seems to have a zest for the topic, just like me.

Interesting stuff, don't you think?

Obviously not.

Furry, I just wanted to say thanks for the chat. I’ve enjoyed it, and have got a lot out of it. I hope you have too in some way or another. I wanted to clear one last thing up, in case you scowled at it when you read it:

faith is inherent to the human condition

A lot of scientists would disagree with this statement. We don’t need faith to believe in gravity, for example. And we don’t need faith to believe that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. But faith is inherent to the human condition when we’re talking about ultimate issues of life, (“is there transcendent purpose to life and the cosmos?” etc.)

Even though our intellect must ‘drop its anchor in faith’ regarding conclusions about such issues, we can dig deeper than mortal consciousness alone. We can discern whether our ladder is against the right wall by getting in touch with inner-wisdom and intuition. So the question is, are we willing to look beyond the surface only, especially regarding this business about 'who we really are'? Once our ladder is against the right wall, we can “know the truth, and the truth shall set us free”, as Jesus said.

We haven't been left down here without a compass.

'Obviously not.'
But yes - it IS interesting! Apologies for the delay, but sometimes work, study, parenthood etc. do have to come first.

I still disagree fundamentally with your use of the word 'logic' to describe a requirement for faith, and with your assertion that faith is somehow necessary from an intellectual point of view. Intellectual perspectives in which there is no God / creator (insert your own preferred term here) can be completely consistent, and there are many notable examples throughout recent history. You may not find it particularly appealing, but that is a very different bone of contention.

Moving on, I agree with drmiler's assertion that the speed of light is not subjective, and believe that you are just indulging in wordplay here. However, I disagree with drmiler's argument ... he says 'that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.' So he's talking about how the speed of light is PERCEIVED by an individual human / alien ... which is exactly the kind of subjectivity that he purports to be arguing against!

'In other words, science will not be able to answer life’s deepest questions, such as, “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”, or “Is there any purpose to the cosmos or not?” These are eternal philosophical questions, which transcend scientific enquiry.'
Now here - horror of horrors(!) - I think we agree absolutely. Science has its own area of examination, philosophy and religion theirs, and (most of the time at the very least) there is little or no common ground. Whatever people want to have faith in is nobody else's business, in my opinion ... until they start claiming physically measurable outcomes, which is when I feel obliged to demand that they demonstrate the results they claim under scientifically controlled circumstances.

'If we can’t rely on science to answer these frankly significant - and ultimate - questions, then what can we reply on?'
We can't rely on eg. economics or sport or music to answer these questions either, but that's no reason for dismissing them; providing a reason for existence just isn't on their frames of reference, and we would rightly accuse them of 'not knowing their place' if they pretended otherwise. You have answered your own question a little earlier, more or less. Philosophy, religion (perhaps this is closest to your choice here, what you refer to as 'spiritual wisdom'), Humanism, reading tea leaves ... any or all of these, whichever rings your bell. Personally, I think what we can rely on is our own need to ask the questions in the first place, and that's about all. (But hey, that's just my opinion.)

'But faith is inherent to the human condition when we’re talking about ultimate issues of life, (“is there transcendent purpose to life and the cosmos?” etc.)'
I disagree - faith as a quality is not required in order to consider these issues. Faith as a topic of such consideration, absolutely. But you don't have to be a believer to ponder the meaning (or, of course, lack of meaning) of existence. Many of the philosophers I alluded to before were / are open and honest about their lack of any belief in an afterlife or a supreme being, but demonstrably capable of plumbing the same depths of intellectual, philosophical and theological debate as any of their religious counterparts.

'We haven't been left down here without a compass.' Hmm. I would suggest that not only are we without a compass, but we haven't been left down here either, as that implies 'someone' doing the leaving. None of which is to say that we shouldn't be thoroughly fascinated by the experience. As the scientist Michael Faraday said in 1849, 'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'

Right, now back to the work, study, parenthood etc.

Hi Furry,

I don’t have any qualms with anything you said there. I think it’s nice to end up (if this is the end) on a harmonious note. As you said, our views probably won’t have changed from this discussion. But I’d like to think we’ve extracted some good fodder from each other, which is always a healthy thing.

scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo

I admit I’ve probably gone over the top with use of phrases such as “vibrational” and “frequency”, (my word processor actually puts a red line under "vibrational", so I’m not sure if the word even exists?) But I hope you can understand what I was trying to say. When it comes to describing "love" using scientific jargon, things might necessarily get a bit fuzzy. (I’ll just add that I took the principle of higher frequencies of energy inherent in consciousness from science books. I merged it with my own experiences and perceptions of spirituality and love, and came up with those fuzzy phrases. Maybe I could have just worded it better?)

Anyway, feel free to share any more views of yours Furry, and anyone else too. It's an interesting subject, and a deeply significant one, I think.

I’ll catch you soon,

Andy

Just saw your last paragraph Furry. It might have been an edit, or I missed it,

'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'

Excellent stuff. I like that, and it's what I believe too. As for the compass thing, I think that's where our views differ. But to find peace with our model of the world is what really counts.

None of which is to say that we shouldn't be thoroughly fascinated by the experience.

Amen to that Furry!

'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'
You didn't miss it; it was a late addition. It took me ages to find the quote, so I'm particularly glad you thought it was worth it!

'I think it’s nice to end up (if this is the end) on a harmonious note. As you said, our views probably won’t have changed from this discussion. But I’d like to think we’ve extracted some good fodder from each other, which is always a healthy thing.'
Couldn't have put it better myself. Looking forward to bumping into you again around the cyber-traps, Andy.