Spiritual Blogs

Remember my definition for 'spirit' is just 'the unseen'. I don't pressume we know well what is in the seen matter that we may exclude it as we define 'non physical'. Then I emphasize that the word 'physical' is a misnomer and we should stop using it. My 'spirit' will look like 'physical' because in physics we call 'physical' anything that does affect the seen things in any way. So the dichotomy was actually between 'physical' vs the 'mathematical'. Naive people in the 'spiritual' camp hijacked the dichotomy as a way to justify spirit by terming it 'non-physical'. This phrase stems from imence ignorance of physics. Why not just stick to saying 'spirit is something we don't see and we don't understand well what it is', instead of packaging the ignorance in a knowledge-like envelope dubbed 'non-physical '? With this removal of cobwebs in the eyes, you are now ready to understand the spirit in space!

The apparent success of the 'physicality' chameleon stems purely from its ability to call anything it want 'physical'. If you insist that anything that can affect matter is physical, by definition, then the further claim 'everything is physical' (i.e. physicality) is redundant. But how can everything that can affect matter fail ti be 'physical' if by so doing, a physicist will automatically notice it in the lab? If a physicist go to siloam in Jerusalem , where the spirit came and stirred the water ( written in the bible), all he will notice is a strange physical phenomena. He might even say 'so Newton's first law of motion is not entirely correct after all ). He will only say 'physicality is stranger than we thought'. He will only expand 'physicality' to cover the new discovery, sweeping under the carpet everything we don't know/understand about the phenomenon!

Spirit And Forces Of Nature

What is the  difference between a 'Moses' moving the red sea water by waving a stick and a magnet moving another magnet? There is no substantial difference! In both case, something we don't know/ see is doing we don't know what to an object, with one object seeming to act on another distant object apparently with no intervening medium! The only difference is that one is in science books and the other is not. Both 'gurus' and physicists operates on the stereotype that if it is in science books, then it cannot be 'the spirit'. This is regardless whether or not anyone understands the phenomenon! We should get out of this jail! If the whatever is emitted by the magnet is the same as the whatever summoned by moses, both in its invisibility and in how it act on matter from remote, we cannot meaningfully call one 'spirit' and call one 'physical'. Our view of the world will be inconsistent! 

But a magnet seen as to have 'a' spirit is perfectly consistent with what ancient men, e.g. Jesus called 'spirit'. One would say it is a spirit that does a very specific event. Ancient men talked of 'the spirit of rain', 'the spirit of war'etc. They never saw spirit as something 'non-physical' in the modern sense of the word 'physical'. Thus they say Elijah was taken to heaven by a strong wind, in one verse, and then say he was taken so by the spirit in another verse. Clearly, they used 'wind' and 'spirit' interchangeably. The wind can be seen as a spirit, depending on how it behaves. They were a step wiser than modern 'gurus' and 'new agers'!

 'Field' is a deification of a concept. Physicist have no understanding of fhe electromagnetic phenomenon! They only have a profound illusion that they have one. Faraday coined the word 'field' because he did not understand magnetism. It was a hallmark of ignorance, not knowledge. Modern physicists have done absolutely nothing to further understand it. They merely deified 'field' into a physical object! This object behaves like an object only when the physicist wishes so. Then holus bolus, it morphs back into a concept that cannot possibly have any physical impact! Consequently physicists can think of the whatever exists in the vicinity of a magnet only in the context of pushing and pulling. But there is nothing existent that can only do a single thing. If I can push, and I am conscious, why can something have an ability to push but no ability to be conscious? Or rather, why is this duality only limited to forces. Why can a visible thing, e.g. a hand, push something and another invisible thing, field, does the same, while alsoinsisting that there is no equivalent when it comes to awareness? It rather seems natural to say similarly, consciousness, like ''pushing' can be done both by the brain and by invisible thing, incongruously called 'field'.

Consciousness Field

If we can talk of 'force field' that somehow pervade everywhere, which can behave like a pushing object, why can't we similarly talk of 'consciousness field' that similarly pervades the whole space that behaves like a conscious brain? Or in other words, if 'force', what usually requires a visible object (e.g. hand ), can happen without a visible  object, (e.g  in magnetic field) why can't consciousness similarly happen without a brain? There is absolutely no reason. Therefore the current scientific tendency to scorn at any idea of consciousness without brain, specifically as if it is illogical is without any philosophical merit! Instead, they operate on the non-sequitur logic that if consciousness is caused by the brain, then there is no invisible soul that can carry on consciousness!

Actually the correct reasoning is the vise versa. If consciousness is caused by the brain, then it is easily extended to the field around. If 'force' is extended even to the unseen, why can't consciousness? You may think that unlike in 'force', consciousness require the field to be solid-like. But you are totally mistaken. Light is a transverse wave, a phenomenon that is normally only possible in solids. So if apparently empty space can behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating transverse waves, why can't it also behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating consciousness, that is if you think that because the brain is a solid, solids are necessary for consciousness?

If 'empty space' can behave like a solid for the purposes of elasticity, then it can also behaves so for the purposes of plasticity. The latter helps us to understand 'disembodied soul'. Infact we model electromagnetic waves the way we model a spring. In the equations that describes a spring, it does so in such a way that the spring seems to have no plasticity. However, we know that all visible, oscillating mediums have some plasticity. This is to say that if you disturb an elastic material, it does not return to its original position in 100%. Elasticity is an unrealistic idealization. But this failure of things fo return to previous positions is the mechanism for all memory. So it is in this way easy to understand memory in space.

In Bruce Lipton's theory of consciousness, it is very easy to understand how consciousness can extend to the space around. According to bruce Lipton, consciousness is caused by the cell membrane potential. So configuration of charges in the neurons causes your identity. Since it is pure charge, then it can easily exend to the 'empty space'.

But we know that surrounding every charged particle, there are charges in the 'empty space' due to what they call 'vacuume polarization'. Infact James clerk Maxwell understood light as an undulation by means of polarization in aether. But when you close exermine what Maxwell called it 'displacement current', it looks perfectly like a neural signal! A neurone signal is a wavelike propagation of membrane pilarization. Iight too is a wavelike propagation of 'vacuum polarization'. So there is a good reason to think that behind light, there is something aware of itself as an actor (perhaps this is the spirit of God), especially if we think of Lipton's idea.

So if there is a cell membrane polirazation, there is a coresponding pilarizatoin in 'vacuum'. This creates a mirror image of the entire brain polarization but in 'vacuum'. This alone, if we go as per Lipton, means that awareness is effectively thus transfered to the 'empty space'. Then from 'vacume plasticity', entities like electrets remain even once the polarizing cells are removed, enabling the awareness to remain permanently in space, away from the body.

Thus we see that it is not too hard to understand a soul, or if you stick to the old version physical-non physical dilema, I should say we don't need a soul at all to understand how consciousness can be in space, any more than we need a 'soul' to understand how a force, energy or a wave can be in space.