SPIRITUALITY Q

WHAT do you call something that is conscious but does not consist of matter?

A more relevant way of putting your question would be to say: What do you call something that is matter but does not consist of consciousness? Rocks do not think, obviously, but one can make a case for the evolution of consciousness just as one can make a case for the evolution of the complexity of the universe that culminates in a consciousness that can ask the question: What is consciousness???

Three things that suggest consciousness, on some level, is co-continuous with that which is not consciousness:

1) “The classical notions of space, time, causality--objective reality, break down at the quantum level. According to most physicists, the wave function is not quite a thing, it is more like an idea that occupies a strange middle ground between idea and reality, where all things are possible but none are actual. An electron is not a particle either, it is more like a process, always forming, always dissolving. It can’t be detected until it interacts with a measuring device and even if it does interact we don’t know if it interacts with the device per se, or if it interacts with the last link in the chain of events that define the experiment—the consciousness of the human observer, e.g. Schrodinger's cat thought experiment.

2) The mathematical proof (von Neumann) rejecting the notion of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. At the atomic level, it is not possible to visualize or describe waves because they are not there—they are purely mathematical constructs. Where things are not things, the quantifiers of inside, outside, before, after, between, and connected are not applicable, either. Where language and logic do not apply, nothing more can be said.

3) Quantum mechanics fundamentally concerns the way in which we observers connect to the universe we observe. According to new experiments, the separation between consciousness, information, and the physical event is at best tenuous: "It could very well be that the distinction we make between information and reality is wrong. This is not saying that everything is just information. But it is saying that we need a new concept that encompasses or includes both."
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06...


We we're born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone?

Yes, I believe the glory of God ought to be manifested by every human being. Making the world a better place one small step at a time (less violence/more care) is what I try to give to this very important project.


What is your favorite kind of paradox?

In The Beginning was the paradox: How does unity coexist with multiplicity? How does oneness make room for otherness? The answer to this paradox, I believe, will neutralize a list of other paradoxes. If, for instance:

1) If you move the source of paradox into the speaker speaking the paradox, you eliminate many logical paradoxes , paradoxes involving self-reference (koans to); to avoid contradictions such as occur in the Liar and other paradoxes, C.I. Lewis developed what he called pragmatic contradiction. It, pragmatic contradiction, treats together the speech and the act of speaking. “All statements are false” cannot be true because it implies, not a restriction against self-reference as Russell said, but because it implies the necessary truth of the contradictory opposite, “there exists at least one true statement.” Starting with a contradiction-free affirmation, the structures of knowledge can then be made to follow in a necessary and systematic fashion. In this way, the closed system problems that arise in mathematics are avoided.

2) The self/other paradox then becomes extremely important to solve because it's solution will lead directly to the neutralization of the “in the beginning paradox”. The omnipotence paradox and time paradox can also be neutralized with the answer of the self/other paradox I believe. Thanks for the question.