> > BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries.
> 
> Why 'spectre'. Is process theology a 'bad' or a 'good' theology? Or am I picking up the wrong meaning for 'spectre'?-"Spectre" as in "ghost" or "shadow." No negative connotation is intended; it just happens to be a very unexplored set of ideas. -Process theology is becoming more and more of interest to me as of late; in hardware design I was recently introduced to a graph-theoretic technique called "finite-state machines." It's significance to our discussions is this: the technique calls for creating nodes (circles) that represent "finite states." The inputs to the machine initiates a process from which the overall machine moves from one state to the next. -During these transitions, the only thing we can have 'proof' of in regards to the state of the machine, is its initial conditions, and it's final state. Without having a complete schematic of the circuits, we will always have a large degree of uncertainty, no matter how much we have tested the machine as to the actual nature or design of the machine. -Process theology would roughly state that God has no 'finite state,' and that its interface with the world is firmly rooted within that process of change; from state 'A' to state 'B.' All of our languages deal with states; we don't have a good language or vocabulary for processes. So if we don't have a good language to deal with processes, it makes it less likely that we would be able to truly understand God as a Process. Which, if you've read Whitehead, this is exactly the problem he decided to try and solve; he created an entire vocabulary to try and deal with it. -To me, process theology is the only hope theology has if it wishes to be relevant over the next two thousand years.


> BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries.-Why 'spectre'. Is process theology a 'bad' or a 'good' theology? Or am I picking up the wrong meaning for 'spectre'?

What occurred to me as I read the article was that this was a great image for the battle between good and evil. Of course viruses would disagree, and we all know that such terms are highly subjective, but I would use the image to criticize those theologians who insist with their interpretation of life's history that man is the origin of evil. If God exists and we are to understand how his mind works (pure speculation, of course), we can hardly ignore the fact that the live forces of destruction, like the live forces of creation and of healing, existed long before man came on the scene. If it wasn't those cold-hearted killers the carnivores, it was those vicious invaders the viruses that set God's pattern for the world.
> 
> I completely agree with your subjective perspective above dhw. "If" God exists we can certainly get a good idea of how his mind works by what we can see. The biblical scriptures says the same in Romans 1:20 [NKJV]: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." 
> 
> Like with the spectrum of colors, all mathematical possibilities, the space between yin and yang, the many personalities of man, etc., everything we see, is as much variety as this world of matter has to offer. Nothing is new under the sun, only reconstituted, rehashed, recreated, retrofitted, reincarnated, decaying matter. Yet, if we look longer and deeper at what we can't see, we might catch a glimpse of the eternal vision for it all.-BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries.

What occurred to me as I read the article was that this was a great image for the battle between good and evil. Of course viruses would disagree, and we all know that such terms are highly subjective, but I would use the image to criticize those theologians who insist with their interpretation of life's history that man is the origin of evil. If God exists and we are to understand how his mind works (pure speculation, of course), we can hardly ignore the fact that the live forces of destruction, like the live forces of creation and of healing, existed long before man came on the scene. If it wasn't those cold-hearted killers the carnivores, it was those vicious invaders the viruses that set God's pattern for the world.-I completely agree with your subjective perspective above dhw. "If" God exists we can certainly get a good idea of how his mind works by what we can see. The biblical scriptures says the same in Romans 1:20 [NKJV]: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." -Like with the spectrum of colors, all mathematical possibilities, the space between yin and yang, the many personalities of man, etc., everything we see, is as much variety as this world of matter has to offer. Nothing is new under the sun, only reconstituted, rehashed, recreated, retrofitted, reincarnated, decaying matter. Yet, if we look longer and deeper at what we can't see, we might catch a glimpse of the eternal vision for it all.

BBELLA: Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue.
> 
> The same problem. If that energy is not conscious, then it makes no difference to us whether it continues or not. To be "I" without awareness of being "I" is no better than being dead matter. But that is what we used to call the $64,000 question, and nobody knows the answer... and I think your post takes us as far as we can go. As you said earlier, "whatever it IS, I will know after I pass from here to there. Or not." -I'm not sure if it's really as far as we can go. We can look around and look for evidence of an afterlife in our own lives, the lives of people we know, or other credible witnesses or studies. We don't have to believe the evidence, even if it's something we ourselves experience. But that there is anything in our surroundings that even remotely suggest there might be an afterlife, should give us a step toward the possibility. -Of course, as we've said before, there is a possibility our minds are making us think these things are so, but it's just as true that my mind could be making me think I am writing this post to someone called dhw as well. My mind is open to both being true.


> Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue. 
> 
> >Does your brain tell "you" what to do, or do "you" tell your brain what to do? 
> 
> I would think that without the (I) energy that makes the body alive, the brain is just physical matter, like dirt. So I would say the body/brain is like a puppet. Once the (I) energy enters the puppet body, the energy takes on the puppets life. So it would seem to me, I, as energy, do not necessarily tell the brain/body (me) what to do, but enable the brain/body (me) to live a life.
> 
> Hope this wasn't even more confusing. I know you've heard this all before in some sense, as we all have, and is nothing new. So no trip to Stockholm for "ME" - and I was so looking forward to it.-This sounds just like the primary statement of my philosophy professor who said in 1949: "mind is energy on the inside and matter is energy on the outside". Bella's entire discussion sounds like the theologic discussion of 'ensoulment'in Genesis.

I had commented on the complexity of BBella's levels of consciousness, but she found her own statement confusing and has rewritten it: "I do try and not focus too long on any (other person's) supposed explanation of what I am observing."
> 
> Ah! In your original post, I misunderstood the provenance of the explanation, and thought you were switching off your OWN explanatory processes. It is, of course, far easier to switch off those of other people ... politicians, for instance, do it all the time!-To clarify (what doesn't really need clarification but for some dogged reason I will anyway), I found, in the beginning, I had an addictive need to follow any thought that came to mind about the mysteries of life, until exhausted, seeking to uncover just what IS. But then I'd find a book already written on what I was seeking to discover/uncover. Then when the internet came into my life, I became convinced that pretty much any thought I had was nothing new, only a reused idea from someone else. So I gave up following thoughts altogether that was looking to uncover the mysterious things of life. I realized, no thought I had is really my own, so why follow others thoughts? I figure whatever IS, just IS. And, whatever it IS, I will know after I pass from here to there. Or not. Either way, why waste my time and energy? I decided to just live on observe mode not seeking to understand - and that's when it seemed outside me became more conscious, seemingly to vie for my attention to relay some message. But by that time, I'd learned the comforts of observe mode and the discomfort of getting too far into explanations. (forgive me for my redundancy) 
 
>You later say: "there are no levels. There is only me and my comfortable place of observation." The great question is: WHAT IS "ME"? -If your question had ended here, I would have answered: "me" is the conscious/awake/aware I that was I before I became me and will be I when I am no longer me.->Materialists will tell you that all your mental activities are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. If we follow your simple camera analogy, the camera is part of your brain, so what is the "ME" that focuses the camera? -My explanation of the camera was given as a hypothetical of me being the camera. But that seemed to become complicated when you assumed (understandably so) me as the body and not the light/energy of how I meant me. -So, for a more realistic explanation, I will go back to the materialists explanation (to leave a not so good camera analogy) and say that I am the electrical impulses that causes the mental activity of the brain. But, once I, as energy, entered the brain/body of "ME", I became the totally new "ME" of who the body is or represents in this life. ->...I'm asking what "ME" is made of.-Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue. ->Does your brain tell "you" what to do, or do "you" tell your brain what to do? -I would think that without the (I) energy that makes the body alive, the brain is just physical matter, like dirt. So I would say the body/brain is like a puppet. Once the (I) energy enters the puppet body, the energy takes on the puppets life. So it would seem to me, I, as energy, do not necessarily tell the brain/body (me) what to do, but enable the brain/body (me) to live a life.-Hope this wasn't even more confusing. I know you've heard this all before in some sense, as we all have, and is nothing new. So no trip to Stockholm for "ME" - and I was so looking forward to it.


> Just curious. What's in Stockholm?-The Nobel Prize, and I'm sure he didn't mean the 'Stockholm Syndrome'

There's one other passage in your post which struck me as being quite extraordinary:-When I reread it, it seemed very confusing, even for me who wrote it, so cannot see how it would seem extraordinary unless it was extraordinarily confusing!
> 
> "[BBella] I do try and not follow any supposed answer too long for fear of getting lost from focusing on my own ability to continue to observe my own environment for myself and to relate with it and its uncanny ability to relate to me." 
> 
> This process is obviously vital for your own balanced existence,-Yes, absolutely vital! But! I want to restate the above and express it in a more clearer way (for me anyway), if I may. -I do try and not focus too long on any (other persons) supposed explanation of what I am observing, for fear of forgetting that it's not my observation but someone elses - so, I can continue observing and relating with 'my' own environment and its uncanny ability to relate to me. Afterall, someone may tell me what they have observed, but unless it's my own observation, it's really only hearsay (to me).->but at the same time it involves amazingly complex levels of observation and consciousness. -I would say it is just the opposite. I think I see in a more simplistic and unamazing way of viewing myself and my surroundings, possibly less complex than most. By observation, that's the way it seems to me.->You observe yourself observing other forms of consciousness relating to you, you look for explanations, but you also observe yourself looking for explanations, and from some kind of overall position you can actually switch off those two levels -If I observe and begin to focus on something, I wouldnt say I "switch" my observation off but more bring my focus back to central position (observation deck so to speak). This is only my focus, it's not me. Like using a camera lense to focus more closely on something, my focus is like a tool. ->in order to focus just on the observation level. -I pull back my focus and resume observation from my center not "in order to focus on the observation level" as it's more like I'm the light coming from a central position and my observation is the shine outward on all things in my surrounding, including my body. I might use a camera lense/focus to follow an idea, but I myself do not move from my center. If anything obstructs my view or vies for my attention (which is what I was talking about with numbers and patterns), I then mught use my focus on something that sounds like a promising explanation, for a bit, but I do not confuse that explanation as being something I myself have observed. ->However, I presume you can switch off these levels too, so that you can look at your environment on an ordinary everyday level. Otherwise you could never pick a flower, eat an apple, or peel a potato. -I would say that I observe all of life (that includes my body) from a center of being with no problem in carrying out my everyday life. I would even say I am more able now than before to carry out my life more efficiently than when I didn't know where my center was and followed everything I focused on like an addiction. Like I was trying to find my center (myself) in what I focused on. ->So just what is it that exercises all those different levels of control? If you know the answer to that question, get ready for a trip to Stockholm!-I would say, there are no levels. There is only me and my comfortable place of observation. Just like you are in yours, and so forth. Our observation center (hypothetically) may look to others like light shining outward from our being. Like stars in the night, we never leave our place, but sometimes we forget our place when we focus excessively on other stars and their place. -Just curious. What's in Stockholm?


> Let's explore this a little more... how do you think you can communicate with it?-I talk to IT, or Him, but only to give thanks. I have never asked for anything in my entire life. I have enjoyed my life very much, and feel very blessed.


> > Your post here reminds me of a burning question I've had for David for quite some time: Why believe in a God if you can't fathom anything about it? 
> > 
> > David?
> 
> If the presence of a UI is very obvious to me, I have no problem. Religious desriptions do not help me. I cannot get beyond my initial decision to recognize there is a UI. What should I look for, recognize, anthropomorphize? There is a UI. I am a tiny part of it. I can mentally communicate with it. Does it respond? Perhaps. My life has been guided, beyond my control. I know that. I know my guardian angel,without question. What more do I need? If this isn't analytical enough, too bad. I'm comfortable. Is this all emotional. It dosn't feel that way. It feels right. I know I love my wife. How do I know? Same question as you asked me. I know.-Let's explore this a little more... how do you think you can communicate with it?


> Your post here reminds me of a burning question I've had for David for quite some time: Why believe in a God if you can't fathom anything about it? 
> 
> David?-If the presence of a UI is very obvious to me, I have no problem. Religious desriptions do not help me. I cannot get beyond my initial decision to recognize there is a UI. What should I look for, recognize, anthropomorphize? There is a UI. I am a tiny part of it. I can mentally communicate with it. Does it respond? Perhaps. My life has been guided, beyond my control. I know that. I know my guardian angel,without question. What more do I need? If this isn't analytical enough, too bad. I'm comfortable. Is this all emotional. It dosn't feel that way. It feels right. I know I love my wife. How do I know? Same question as you asked me. I know.

BBELLA: Of course it is a possibility we create these ideas of tuning into God or our higher selves/consciousness or our connections to others consciousness.
> 
> DHW: Consciousness seems to be the key to all our concepts... and the first statement I've quoted above shows that you remain open-minded at least intellectually. However, I just wonder to what extent your experiences have actually made you FEEL that there is a form of consciousness beyond our own, and how you would describe it. I hope that's not an intrusion, and if it is, please don't feel obliged to reply.
 
To preface my response: No, I am not on drugs. 
 
I will take your question literally and try and answer it with a literal response, in a simplistic fashion, as if I were trying to relate my experience about consciousness to a 'conscious' being, though not of my own planet, and then sum it all up at the end. 
 
To answer your question, to what extent my experiences has made me feel there is a form of consciousness beyond my own: I've observed consciousness everywhere, all around me, beyond myself, all the time. For example, I am at this moment writing to a form of consciousness beyond my own, you. Everyday, I observe and consciously relate to consciousness beyond my own in many ways. Of course, I'm still not absolutely convinced these other conscious forms truly exist outside my own, but, as a conscious observer, I do feel confident I myself am conscious. 
 
So, taking for granted what I see and relate to outside myself is real, for the most part, it seems to me, other forms of consciousness around me seem more to relate with me than me with them/it. People, animals, even plants at times, as well as inanimate objects appear to be trying to relate to me on a conscious level at various times in my experience. Even in my dreams it seems some form of consciousness is always trying to communicate with me or get my attention. But that should be no surprise because other conscious beings have related similar occurances and some ended up in the looney bins while others have made reports and studies on what they have observed in these (literal) matters and even written books.
 
This might seem to need more explaining in detail, but something even more facinating, and in the beginning, more inexplicable, began to happen to me after my "frozen in time" experience sometime ago. I began to observe patterns and numbers appearing to vy for my attention as well, as if seemingly to relate some kind of conscious message to me I have yet to decipher (other than it appears to be done consciously). Eventually, I heard of others having the same experience - which is another part of these patterns and the way they seem to go. What I experience, I eventually hear of others on a wide scale experiencing, then a book gets written about it. Fractals seem to elude to if not possibily explain some of these pattern phenomenon (if not all?) which is why it attracted my attention. But I do try and not follow any supposed answer too long for fear of getting lost from focusing on my own ability to continue to observe my own environment for myself and to relate with it and it's uncanny ability to relate to me. 
 
Again, it is possible my conscious mind is playing tricks on me, making me think there is something out there (other consciousness) other than myself trying to get my attention. But on the other hand, like the planets surrounding mankind giving them something to reach for, maybe what my consciousness is really doing is what it does best. Giving it's young growing self food for thought, something to expand to or reach for instead of a circuitous life circling between my ears. After all, consciousness, just like everything else in our univserse is ever evolving. 
 
To sum it all up - Possibly, it is mankinds natural evolution to eventually relate in a conscious way to everything in its surroundings. Maybe as mankind loves, cares and appreciate ourselves (and each other), our abilities, our evironment as well as grow more appreciation for the arts and the beauty of life and what we have been given, we will all eveuntually recognize we are the directors of our own path of evolution and are able to relate with all of it in a conscious way. Whether or not this is my own ideas or the thoughts and purpose of an Ultimate Maestro, it is but a small insight into my own short span of experience with consciousness "outside" myself.