RAFH

And that's the real point here. Your IF, "If the acknowledgement of truth is an inner experience", hasn't been established. Its just an IF. You need to describe the observations that provoke such an IF. And you need to tie those observations to your THEN, "then it is that much closer to the dreams and myths that we also entertain in our minds."

You then make a statement of fact, "these are derived from the same essence of mind" in which you presuppose there is such a thing as an "essence of mind". Dressing for Word Salad comes to mind, especially since you back it up with "of which the mind is composed", suggesting mind is composed of essence of mind. Wow! What a concept. Do you read this stuff before you post it? Anyway, this is clarified with "as opposed to the "outside reality" that the mind simply observes." So that would imply there is an 'inside reality'? Which the mind does what with? Obviously not simply observe, because that's what it does with the 'outside reality'. It also implies this 'outside reality' is the opposite of 'essence of mind' which is what mind is composed of which I guess is the 'inside reality'.

Hate to break it to you but there's one reality. Anything in your head is not reality but your image of reality. That's where the ambiguity is. You see, we don't know what's in your head. Could be anything. But we all do see the same outside of your head. Well, most of us do. There are some broken minds, because there is something wrong with their brain, who see other outsides. But for the most part we all have the same image of the outside in our heads. I point to a red ball and say "red ball" and you know what I mean. I couldn't tell you what 'red' is and it would get difficult to describe 'ball' without getting self-referential. I could say it was a sphere but then you could ask what a sphere is and so on. Essentially we have a consensus and agreement regarding 'red' and 'ball' and its based on us all having the same image. I don't know what you see when I point to red ball, perhaps its what I would call a purple dinosaur named Barney but at least when I point to other things I see as red you agree with me and when I point to other things I see as ball shaped you agree with me. And so do others, nearly everyone else agrees what I see as red and ball are reddish and ballish. Common image. And you can see how if you were really seeing a purple dinosaur when I point to red ball and others saw other things it would soon get completely out of hand and there would be no agreement. But there is agreement which strongly suggests a common image. One reality. And when we discuss stuff and refer to things which we cannot actually point to, we still have common images. Maybe that means we are all tapped into the great common mind somewhere. Yeah, that would follow except when we speak different languages. A cultural thing. One wouldn't expect that if there were some great common mind somewhere.

These are the kinds of questions you are not asking yourself. You just imagine something up because it fits your current fantasy and everything flows from there because you don't do the hard work of looking at why its not sensible. Because you have the answer. Never mind the question. Only questions that fit the answer are considered. And of course, when you ask those questions, your answer seems so obvious. You really need to start asking other questions and answering them. You really need to start answering our questions. Honestly. Instead of just going back to the answer you predetermined and wondering why our questions don't fit it.

Iacchus

The mind is a thing, just like "the soul" is a thing. In fact the two are often equated.

The mind is as much a thing as the music we hear over the radio. In fact even more so, because the mind can listen to and, even appreciate the music.

Oh well, if we could speak to each other via telepathy then you might have something there. But, that would only corroborate the notion that the mind was a continuum.

Why, because science hasn't found the ability to "tune in" outside of the mind?

And, when people claim to see ghosts which, is part of the same phenomenon, what if they really do exist? Oh, and in what way does this not constitute "evidence?"

And, when people claim to have out of the body experiences which, is also part of the same phenomenon, what does that suggest? And, how does this not also constitute "evidence?"

And therein lies the great mystery ...

What is "truth" then, and why does it take a mind to discern it? ... not to say that the "inherent" truth of reality does not exist, whether there is one to observe it or not. This only suggests that a continuum of truth does exist, by which all things are "validated," simply by the act of existing itself. Meaining the fact that something exists, is either a "yes" or "no" propostion, and the truth is inherent with that.

RAFH

Do you have any evidence of such a claim, especially for there being a 'soul'? The only ones who make such equations are those deluded into thinking such things exist.

Huh?

But we can't speak to each other via telepathy. And there's no reason such would corroborate any such notion.

Uh, that's what science does, tunes in that reality outside the brain and explains it to us. All of us. Not just those that experience some vision.

Ah, the famous 'what if they do'. Those events may happen, but there's no evidence of such. At least none that meets common standards for trusting them. And that's why they don't constitute evidence, at least not reliable evidence. They are evidence these people claim to have seen something. I claim to have seen a 10,000 foot tall kitty cat outside my window this morning. Do you believe that? Isn't it odd psychics are never very wealthy? Except for what they bilk out of their clientele. You'd think they'd be gazillioniares. I mean, if I knew every move of the stock markets, and where to find buried treasure I sure as heck would be doing a lot better than Bill Gates. I could even donate 90% to charity and still have $trillions. Of course, I'd know where every lode of gold and other precious metal is and where every diamond is. And I'd have no trouble finding precious art that had been stolen and collecting the rewards.

They are jokes and frauds.

Same phenomena? Hardly. Its portions of that brain misfiring because of serious data flaws or high environmental stress. And its not evidence because nobody else experiences it. Really Iacchus, we've been over this a couple hundred times. You KNOW why its not evidence, because you wouldn't accept the same sort of evidence for other events which don't favor your fantasies, like me claiming you are a criminal, lock him up officers. I don't care what evidence he offers. He's a criminal and he's really killed the real Iacchus and stolen his body. Lock him up. Its true I tell you.

No mystery at all, other than why you are so gullible, but only when you want to be. I also claim you owe me $100,000. Lock him up officers, and make him give me my money.

I don't know about 'truth' because as you ask, nobody seems to be able to describe what it is. However, I do know about reality, what's there whether I believe it is or not, whether I want it to be or not. We don't know if it takes a mind to discern such, only that our brains do. Why? Because that's their job. That's what the organ we call a brain does. At least that's one of its jobs. It minds our existence. Mind is not a noun, its a verb. Your brain minds reality. The consciously aware portion of your brain is what mind's reality. Its the process of us being aware of that reality passing by it in the time dimension. We are aware because we have a memory which we have immediate access to. So, we know there is a past, the accumulation of the now passing by us. Because we are aware of a past and we experience the present we can propose and imagine a future. Does that future exist? Well, not any more than Schrodinger's cat is alive. It will exist, it will be the results of what's happening now, which is the present, the currently happening. The past is the result of what has happened. It existed.

Word Salad.

Truth, if I were to describe it, is reality. Its what really happened and what is really happening and what's really going to happen. It doesn't get verified, it is what verifies our image of reality. Its the picture, our images of it are our interpretations of that reality. Reality doesn't need verification, what needs verification is our image of that reality, to determine if our image of that reality corresponds accurately and reliably with reality. So we don't pick up the burning coal and stick it in our mouth thinking it was a nice strawberry. After all, its small, round and pinkish red and strawberries are small, roundish and pinkish red. Organisms that are unable to distinguish between strawberries and red hot coals don't reproduce as successfully as those that are able and actually do distinguish between the two. Ditto the rest of reality. Like being able to distinguish between the dead cave bear and the hibernating cave bear and the merely sleeping cave bear, because the dead cave bear is a massive resource, the hibernating cave bear is potentially more resource and less danger, though still a danger and the merely sleeping cave bear is still a potentially a resource though less so but a greater danger. People that are unable to distinguish this reality don't tend to reproduce as successfully as those that can and do.

So, yeah, truth is our reality, the one we hope our image of it is accurate and reliable.

Ieldra

@Iacchus:

You ask what is truth? I'd rather ask, how do we acquire knowledge?

At the end, it's rather simple: all the ways we acquire knowledge amount to a more or less elaborated version of: "I've seen it, someone else has seen it, and if you go *there* and do *this or that*, you can see it, too". If this works for everyone, or we have reason to believe it does, we consider the fact to be known.

Spiritual experiences aren't like this. They aren't reproducible, not everyone "sees it". In fact, most people don't see the same, if they see anything at all.

As for how spiritual entities come into being, here's a hypothetical example: when I was a child, there was a night when I dreamed the ceiling lamp in my room was alive, had a face and was flying around in my room, out to get me. It was very vivid, and I still remember it vividly more than 30 years after the fact. At the time, my parents told me it was not real and couldn't do anything to me, and finally the dreams stopped. But imagine what would've happened if they'd told me this was the big bad Flying Eye, Source of All Evil, it really was out to get me, and I could only protect myself by following the rules of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which are as follows... OK, I wouldn't have believed in something like the latter, but I would've been ready to believe in a less ridiculous but still nonexistent entity, because I was scared and my parents would've told me I had reason to be scared.
So, many people have hallucinations like this, but because they're all different they don't ever agree about what it is. But many of them might think there's *something*, especially if this was supported by trusted people. Somewhen in human history, people would compare their experiences and conclude the seemingly reasonable: if we all agree there's something, but everyone sees things differently, then whatever there is must be able to assume different guises. But something *must* be there: people would hesistate to dismiss their experience the more, the more emotionally disturbing the experience had been, so vividly it would have burned itself into their brains. The fear would be used to enforce group solidarity, which would give the group a survival advantage, thereby propagating the belief.
Finally, some rational people would see that this something never did anything, and that all evidence pointing to its existence would, in fact, be no different if it didn't exist, and would be more plausibly explained by something else which really does something you can perceive. So, we live in a world that , by the evidence, looks exactly as if there were no spiritual entities, but the emotional connection has been made and propagated, attached to the advantageous trait of group solidarity.

Truth? Truth is reality, the sum of what we can plausibly infer from it, plus anything that might be deduced from first principles (I doubt there is very much of this, if anything). Spiritual entities are not plausible, and their perceived attributes are inconsistent and can't be reliably reproduces. I must conclude that any real experiences of them are more plausibly explained as halluciantions.

angelo

A spiritual experience could be; listening to a fine piece of music,driving a Ferrari, the sight of a beautiful lady, looking up at the stars on a cloudless night in the country, any natural wonder, like the Grand Canyon. It does not mean to experience something that does not exist like the supernatural.

Iacchus

Yet it is quite clear that I'm referring to the "truth" of a greater "spiritual reality." Thus far, however, I've really only tried to indicate where the door is.

Yes.

And when we dream, and/or experience one of these mythological events, are we not conscious at the same time? So, how do we separate between the two?

Not so.

The fact that the mind is conscious and awake during said events -- to varying degrees, that is -- is an indication that the two exist in the same continuum. If, however, you wish to insist that this continuum is wholly imaginary and not real, then so be it. But, guess what? That makes you the solipsist, because you have no basis by which to accept the "objective reality" that you (the mind) are constantly referring to.

Iacchus

Yes, but in our ecstasy, don't we feel as if we're transported to some other realm, and thus allowed to experience that which is greater than ourselves? While these experiences all correspond directly to our mental state.

Iacchus

Oh really? And if I said I had an out of the body experience or, experienced things of a similar nature? At the very least it is evidence of science's inability to pin down what it is.

Iacchus

Albeit you seem to concede that truth is reality in your last statement.

Yes, of course. It still requires at least "one mind" to interpret the results, however.

Yes, because this spiritual "energy" is in a constant state flux. Even our thoughts can have a tremendous impact on it, and/or vice versa. And, since everybody thinks (and feels) a little bit differently, about different things and at different times, chances are it's not going to come across as making a whole lot of sense. But, it has to be this way, if there's to be a domain on the other side of time and space to accomodate each and every aspect of the human perspective. This is why people are apt to report different things, because it is taylor made to suit our own personal experience. Yet even at that rate it's constantly shifting, significantly in fact, depending on the things we think and feel about. This is what I meant by shooting at a "moving target" earlier.

Yes, I think just about everyone has experienced something similar to this when they were very young. Many of us would refer to this as "the boogeyman."

And yet being as sensitive and inquisitive as little children are, maybe they are aware of something that really is there?

One thing about these "hallucinations," however, is how real they can seem at times, this is what strengthens the belief that there is something else there.

Well, we all know that things aren't always a they appear. Maybe this is something that was done deliberately, perhaps to afford us the opportunity to think about and reflect on things? That, to me, would be evidence of a conscious Creator, who wishes us to understand who He is, from the standpoint of our being conscious as well. Otherwise there could be no genuine form of communication between the two, I would think.

And wasn't it Einstein that said reality was an illusion, albeit a consistent one? So, how do you really separate between the two?

GenesisNemesis

How can we observe this "spiritual energy"?

Just because they're inquisitive does not mean that something is actually there. They've pretty recently come out of their mother's womb, so of course they'll be inquisitive about the world around them. Fear makes the mind irrational.

Another thing about hallucinations is that they are created by the mind.

Things aren't always as they seem, yes, but that doesn't mean we should not trust reality simply because of our dreams.

I think Einstein was talking about how things are bizzare at the quantum level, because they are. However, since we are not evolved to directly observe the quantum level, then we have no viable alternative other than to trust the tangible reality.