The Problem of Seth's Origin: A Case Study...

I'm not sure science has anything definitive to say on whether consciousness is a required element for matter/energy to exist.  Sure, we've all heard of the observer effect at the quantum level, but has science gone on to show that consciousness is truly fundamental to the physical (matter/energy)?  I see it as Tim has described: should all conscious life cease to exist what remains is the empty house.  Well, what remains "here" I guess.

I've always found the "there's only consciousness" theory to be unsatisfying.  Sure, its easy enough to image a Matrix reality (what a great cinematic example!), but even in that there's still a there that's there.

If consciousness turned out to be universal (whatever that meant) perhaps everything  is observed all the time in some sense?

Yeah jury is still out on whether physics points to the necessity of a conscious observer though there are more and more challenges to "realism" which I take it as meaning a physical universe that has no need of observers.

It's always hard to gauge these things because religious fanatics in science academia who cling to their materialist faith throw out alternatives like the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and "Strong Emergence".

The debate over dualism vs idealism is as old as the argument between idealists and materialists. My intuition, like that of Typoz, is to accept the idealist view. It is interesting to me that many who are convinced of a spiritual reality leave a foot in the materialist camp - maybe because we are conditioned to believe that material is “real” and that mind can only produce something “imagined”. I contend that the so-called material is a manifestation of mind at large.

A question for the dualists, however. If the human soul survives physical death and finds itself in another reality, is that another material reality? Do they have another material body, subject to more physical laws? If so, how do you explain the accounts of beings without physical form or the reports of personalities being able to adopt the appearance of a younger, healthier version of their earthly body? Or the contention that the environment one finds oneself after transition is determined by our beliefs?

For me, none of those questions are a problem if I consider them in idealistic terms. I find it difficult to think of an adequate explanation from the dualist or materialist point of view.

A question for the dualists, however. If the human soul survives physical death and finds itself in another reality, is that another material reality?

Do they have another material body, subject to more physical laws? If so, how do you explain the accounts of beings without physical form or the reports of personalities being able to adopt the appearance of a younger, healthier version of their earthly body? Or the contention that the environment one finds oneself after transition is determined by our beliefs?

For me, none of those questions are a problem if I consider them in idealistic terms. I find it difficult to think of an adequate explanation from the dualist or materialist point of view.

1. Clearly if it exists, not a material that we can measure, I would have thought.

2. I have no idea, other than what I have personally read from 'reports' and the people I have spoken to personally. They say
that their deceased loved ones appeared to be made of light (that is the commonest description but of course what is light there.. obviously not we know as light on the electro magnetic spectrum ?). I don't really see much of a problem with astral bodies (whatever they might be, if they do exist) being more pleasing/younger in appearance

3. I don't think it is determined by one's own beliefs, is it ? People may see a being of light which they then interpret according to their religion etc and so on. I agree there are topographical differences apart from the typical summer land (whatever that is) but wouldn't one expect "heaven" to be diverse ? Don't know.  

4. I prefer dualism to idealism, the latter being needing a lot of imagination, the former not quite as much. Just in my opinion, though.

Yeah jury is still out on whether physics points to the necessity of a conscious observer though there are more and more challenges to "realism" which I take it as meaning a physical universe that has no need of observers.

It's always hard to gauge these things because religious fanatics in science academia who cling to their materialist faith throw out alternatives like the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and "Strong Emergence".

This thread has been very enjoyable reading because of the sincerity of the content.

The opening post raises the question: is there real communication from an immaterial domain of the universe - to a receptors in a material domain.  I am sure that it happens.  Parsing communication events is best done in the framework of the science behind communication and decision making.

The question becomes: are there means and processes that can do this?  Again, I am confident that it can be described as a natural process, where probabilities and information structures interact.  There are generative actions where information can change and manipulate how the past and future states relate to the now of physicality.  This would challenge the fundamaterialist outlook where only minds in physical bodies are thinking about the evolving states of reality.

4. I prefer dualism to idealism, the latter being needing a lot of imagination, the former not quite as much. Just in my opinion, though.

There it is in a nutshell. This again suggests an equivalence between mind and not-real ... just imagination. I'm surprised that you still think that way after ploughing through so many NDE accounts where people talk about the expansion of mind beyond the limits of the body and the creative power of intent. In other words, the creative power of mind. 

So, further to my previous question, where do you draw the line between the physical and the mind? Is an astral body physical? Are OBEs imagined? Or is it some perceived and axiomatic separation between the observer and the observed?

When materialists argue against psychic or spiritual phenomena, they will often demand to know how these phenomena, without physical reality, can interact with the physical world. It is a valid question if you assume the argument is aimed at dualism which I suspect that materialists often do assume in such debates. Idealism has no such problem to solve because the material and the mental and the spiritual and the psychic are all aspects of the same stuff - it is all mind.

There it is in a nutshell. This again suggests an equivalence between mind and not-real ... just imagination. I'm surprised that you still think that way after ploughing through so many NDE accounts where people talk about the expansion of mind beyond the limits of the body and the creative power of intent. In other words, the creative power of mind. 

So, further to my previous question, where do you draw the line between the physical and the mind? Is an astral body physical? Are OBEs imagined? Or is it some perceived and axiomatic separation between the observer and the observed?

When materialists argue against psychic or spiritual phenomena, they will often demand to know how these phenomena, without physical reality, can interact with the physical world. It is a valid question if you assume the argument is aimed at dualism which I suspect that materialists often do assume in such debates. Idealism has no such problem to solve because the material and the mental and the spiritual and the psychic are all aspects of the same stuff - it is all mind.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by that, Dave. Patients who float around the ICU (above their bodies etc) are already beyond the limits of their bodies.  I assume you are referring to when they report (sometimes) connecting/expanding into universal consciousness as Peter Fenwick subscribes to ? He certainly trumps me but I personally don't think that that is what occurs after death. I think we retain our identities/personalities and that is what I have personally found to be the case with the majority of NDE reports. It's also what I personally know to be true (for myself anyway, not for anyone else of course) from my own experience.

2. You know a line can't be drawn around the outskirts of a mind/psyche/soul. But 'something' leaves the body; I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt about that now. We cannot observe it but it is there, so what is it? The majority of experiencers (depending on which data you choose) describe themselves as being in an invisible (even to them) non material body, but a small percentage describe physical type features such as transparent hands and legs (is this a thought body or some kind of astral body?) 

To me that points to a retention of some kind of self but of course materialists find that hilarious.          

3. Yes, how can something non physical affect something physical (the brain) and what are astral bodies made of etc etc. 
The thing is, we don't have to take lessons from materialists over this. Their belief system doesn't work either. They can't tell us what thoughts are composed of. They just assume they must be made of some kind of matter and therefore that allows them to interact with brain cells. But thoughts surely cannot be material, what could possibly be the composition of a thought such as..."I hope this post I'm creating doesn't come across as pretentious nonsense".    

4. No. Idealism only has no problem to solve because you say/state it has no problem to solve. Idealism is all theoretical, you can't prove that the matter we observe is a property of the mind and isn't there absent mind. As I wrote earlier, if you plant a flag in the moon and then wipe out all living things (that can observe the flag) that flag will still be there on the moon. Why wouldn't it be ?

 Idealism is all theoretical, you can't prove that the matter we observe is a property of the mind and isn't there absent mind. As I wrote earlier, if you plant a flag in the moon and then wipe out all living things (that can observe the flag) that flag will still be there on the moon. Why wouldn't it be ?

I do find it odd to see the argument that idealism is all theoretical as though materialism or dualism or anything in between (pansychism, panentheism, all the other isms) is anything other than theoretical. How can you prove that the flag is still there if there is no observer? You just can't. It seems obvious to you because you are conditioned to think that way but you can't prove it. 

To me, it seems obvious that the mind is both the observer and the observed and that the separation of the two is an illusion. It may be a necessary illusion for the sake of evolving consciousness, but it is all one mind.