String Theory, at 20, Explains It All (or Not)

I don't know what you mean by "relative human consciousness", and so I don't know what 'non-relative (absolute?) consciousness' might mean, either. I don't know what you mean by "absolute reality of the spiritual".

Human consciousness is characterized by incomplete knowledge; it forms conclusions which are "relative" to what is perceived. The earth appeared to be flat to a limited consciousness (relative) but the true form of the earth was discovered to be spherical as more information was obtained (absolute).

A building is conceived, designed and then constructed. It's absolute nature is in the original plan. If that building becomes damaged or destroyed (relative state) that does not change the absolute, original nature of that building. If for whatever reason that building is perceived incorrectly, that does not change the true nature of that building (the incorrect perception does create a false, relative reality for someone). The physical (relative) manifestation of the building is ultimately not as substantial as the original (absolute) idea or concept. The idea or concept (spiritual realm) has no limit of time, space or material.

String theory, etc. attempts to describe a relative manifestation of the absolute creative Principal. That absolute creative Principal is Spiritual. There lies the rub: it is difficult, if not impossible, to describe the absolute in relative terms. It is like the "deadly embrace" of computer programming - it creates an infinite circle, a lock-up, escape from which requires external input. I contend that is where human consciousness is now, locked up in a mortal, material illusion. And, the way out is knowledge - spiritual knowledge which may come from science, religion, both or from somewhere yet unknown.

To live in the spiritual is to live in the unlimited realm of perfection with infinite possibilities of expression. That concept is almost incomprehensible to human thought but we are slowly getting closer to the truth.

You wrote:

Human consciousness is characterized by incomplete knowledge; it forms conclusions which are "relative" to what is perceived. The earth appeared to be flat to a limited consciousness (relative) but the true form of the earth was discovered to be spherical as more information was obtained (absolute).

I would agree that our knowledge is limited, and that our consciousness has a 'vectorial' or 'directional' aspect ('intentionality'). But your flat Earth vs. spherical Earth example doesn't work. Understanding that the Earth isn't flat doesn't require us to transition from 'relative' consciousness to 'absolute' consciousness; it just requires us to recognize a mistake and correct it (same consciousness before and after, but before it had got things wrong and afterwards it got them right).

You wrote:

A building is conceived, designed and then constructed. It's absolute nature is in the original plan. If that building becomes damaged or destroyed (relative state) that does not change the absolute, original nature of that building. If for whatever reason that building is perceived incorrectly, that does not change the true nature of that building (the incorrect perception does create a false, relative reality for someone). The physical (relative) manifestation of the building is ultimately not as substantial as the original (absolute) idea or concept. The idea or concept (spiritual realm) has no limit of time, space or material.

You seem to be a practicing Platonist—whether consciously or not, I'm not sure. Plato's ways of speaking are enshrined in our language, particularly in the distinction you're employing between 'relative' (physical) and 'absolute' (ideational). However, he distinguished between 'ideational' and 'spiritual'; he thought 'ideas' were independent of 'mind' (human or divine).

You wrote:

String theory, etc. attempts to describe a relative manifestation of the absolute creative Principal. That absolute creative Principal is Spiritual. There lies the rub: it is difficult, if not impossible, to describe the absolute in relative terms. It is like the "deadly embrace" of computer programming - it creates an infinite circle, a lock-up, escape from which requires external input. I contend that is where human consciousness is now, locked up in a mortal, material illusion. And, the way out is knowledge - spiritual knowledge which may come from science, religion, both or from somewhere yet unknown.

A few comments:

"That absolute creative Principal is Spiritual." This view, while commonly held, lacks evidentiary support. Saying that it's so doesn't make it so.
Consciousness is now "locked up in a mortal, material illusion"? Maybe, but there's zero evidence that consciousness exists, or has ever existed, apart from this mortal, material illusion. In the absence of evidence, I prefer not to speculate.
"...the way out is knowledge - spiritual knowledge which may come from science, religion, both or from somewhere yet unknown." It's a widely held hope that there's a way out, but it lacks evidentiary support. Again, I prefer not to speculate.

You wrote:

To live in the spiritual is to live in the unlimited realm of perfection with infinite possibilities of expression. That concept is almost incomprehensible to human thought but we are slowly getting closer to the truth.

I don't doubt your sincerity. But too often terms like 'unlimited' and 'perfection' and 'infinite possibilities' are used panegyrically rather than meaningfully, as a way of exalting a condition or state rather than describing it. There's no evidence that such a state as you describe has ever existed or could exist. Again (you know what I'm going to say next), in the absence of evidence, I prefer not to speculate.

As the justly famous singer/philosopher, Stevie Wonder, put it:

When you believe in things you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain't the way, no, no, no

Most excellent response, thank you.

I agree that the "flat earth" example is quite limited but when human consciousness progressed from that appearance based conclusion to a more valid realization, it made an evolutionary step in the process of progress. It takes many such steps to reach what could be called an enlightened state of consciousness. Even in today's world it is possible to see the great difference between those living in amazing ignorance and those who are constantly striving for knowledge and are thereby raising their state of consciousness.

However, he (Plato) distinguished between 'ideational' and 'spiritual'; he thought 'ideas' were independent of 'mind' (human or divine).

That does not make sense to me. Mind is the source of ideas. The human mind and its ideas manifest as material experience (illusion) and Divine Mind and Its ideas define ultimate reality (Spiritual).

there's zero evidence that consciousness exists, or has ever existed, apart from this mortal, material illusion. In the absence of evidence, I prefer not to speculate.

There IS evidence of a Spiritual power beyond the mortal, material illusion. There are books filled with accounts of Spiritual healings which defy material explanation. Just enter Spiritual healing into a search engine. Just one example is the work of the "sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce. Also, virtually every religion has verified examples of spiritual healings. Because you are unaware of something or unwilling to believe it does not constitute an absence of evidence.

There's no evidence that such a state as you describe has ever existed or could exist.

As I explained above, there have been occurrences throughout human history which could not be explained in mortal/material terms; from this evidence it is reasonable to conclude that there is a realm beyond that which we are now perceiving. As I also explained above, there are things which exist first as an idea which may (or may not) be manifested in various ways (the building example). Do you believe that a building could exist without first being conceived in the mind of an architect or builder? That state where conception takes place is clearly different than the material state where the building is constructed. That is also evidence that there are realms other than the material.

As the justly famous singer/philosopher, Stevie Wonder, put it: When you believe in things you don't understand, Then you suffer, Superstition ain't the way, no, no, no

A very disappointing source for philosophical profundity. I have believed my whole life in a Spiritual Power which I do not completely understand and that faith has always provided helpful, sound, protective and empowering results - including experiences in extremely difficult human circumstances such as war, disease, severe injury, personal loss, etc. There was occasional suffering involved but it was only brought about by the human conditions not the faith in a power above those conditions. I doubt seriously that this unquestionable and reliable force for good in my life was the result of superstition.

You wrote:

I agree that the "flat earth" example is quite limited but when human consciousness progressed from that appearance based conclusion to a more valid realization, it made an evolutionary step in the process of progress. It takes many such steps to reach what could be called an enlightened state of consciousness. Even in today's world it is possible to see the great difference between those living in amazing ignorance and those who are constantly striving for knowledge and are thereby raising their state of consciousness.

I have difficulty distingushing between those who are living in an enlightened state of consciousness and those who think they are living in an enlightened state of consciousness. But that's probably due to my own benighted condition.

You wrote:

However, he (Plato) distinguished between 'ideational' and 'spiritual'; he thought 'ideas' were independent of 'mind' (human or divine).
That does not make sense to me. Mind is the source of ideas. The human mind and its ideas manifest as material experience (illusion) and Divine Mind and Its ideas define ultimate reality (Spiritual).

The Neoplatonist whispers to himself, "They bought it!"

You wrote:

there's zero evidence that consciousness exists, or has ever existed, apart from this mortal, material illusion. In the absence of evidence, I prefer not to speculate.
There IS evidence of a Spiritual power beyond the mortal, material illusion. There are books filled with accounts of Spiritual healings which defy material explanation. Just enter Spiritual healing into a search engine. Just one example is the work of the "sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce. Also, virtually every religion has verified examples of spiritual healings. Because you are unaware of something or unwilling to believe it does not constitute an absence of evidence.

People write books for many reasons, some of which include the desire to make money and/or the desire to become famous. In the late 1800's, séances were all the rage. As it turns out, they were sophisticated con jobs. Perhaps Edgar Cayce was in fact able to enter some sort of trance state (an altered state of consciousness), perhaps not. But it doesn't follow that he was therefore in touch with some sort of non-physical realm of spirits. Schizophrenics also hear voices, but we understand now that the voices they hear are brain-generated phantoms.

Semper, each neuron in our brain makes something on the order of 1000 synaptic connections with other neurons, which implies that our entire brain contains at least 100 trillion, and perhaps as many as 1 quadrillion, synaptic connections (link). That level of complexity is capable of producing a bewildering variety of experiences and behaviors, not excluding, I would argue, the sorts of experiences and behaviors that you're claiming lack natural explanations. We've only just begun to explore how our brain works. Premature conclusions about what the brain is capable of and what it isn't capable of are just that—premature.

You wrote:

...there have been occurrences throughout human history which could not be explained in mortal/material terms; from this evidence it is reasonable to conclude that there is a realm beyond that which we are now perceiving. As I also explained above, there are things which exist first as an idea which may (or may not) be manifested in various ways (the building example). Do you believe that a building could exist without first being conceived in the mind of an architect or builder? That state where conception takes place is clearly different than the material state where the building is constructed. That is also evidence that there are realms other than the material.

It's exceedingly likely that there are many realms beyond the one we're now perceiving (for example, the interiors of black holes). But those realms, if they exist, are physical realms, not non-physical ones. Current speculations in cosmology suggest that our observable universe is just the tiniest bit of a vastly larger 'bubble' universe, and that this larger 'bubble' universe is likely one among a myriad (perhaps even infinitely many) other 'bubble' universes. Hence there are likely to be physical realms (perhaps even with different physical laws and of different spatial dimensionalities) which are forever beyond our observational reach. But all of these realms, as I've said, would be physical, not non-physical. Indeed, it's just not at all clear whether the term 'non-physical realm' has any operational meaning at all.

As for the question whether the builder of a structure must have an idea (indeed, an archetypal idea in the Platonic sense) of the structure before building it, I call your attention to ant colonies, wasp nests, bird nests, beaver dams, etc., etc., etc. Would you argue that the construction of such structures by our fellow Earthlings implies the existence of a spiritual realm?

You wrote:

As the justly famous singer/philosopher, Stevie Wonder, put it: When you believe in things you don't understand, Then you suffer, Superstition ain't the way, no, no, no
A very disappointing source for philosophical profundity. I have believed my whole life in a Spiritual Power which I do not completely understand and that faith has always provided helpful, sound, protective and empowering results - including experiences in extremely difficult human circumstances such as war, disease, severe injury, personal loss, etc. There was occasional suffering involved but it was only brought about by the human conditions not the faith in a power above those conditions. I doubt seriously that this unquestionable and reliable force for good in my life was the result of superstition.

I'm very sorry that you don't share my high regard for Stevie Wonder. Philosophical profundity is where one finds it, it seems to me. But, be that as it may, I have no wish to in any way demean or denigrate the life experiences that you report. The only point I would make with respect to what you've said about them is this: what one experiences is one thing, the correct explanation of what one experiences quite another. Recall the example of the schizophrenic, who is quite sure that the voices he hears are real. We're fairly sure that he really hears the voices (PET scans show that the relevant auditory brain circuits are active), but we know for a fact that the voices he hears aren't really there (in the sense of originating from outside his body).

Best regards to you...

I have difficulty distingushing between those who are living in an enlightened state of consciousness and those who think they are living in an enlightened state of consciousness. But that's probably due to my own benighted condition.

I distingush the consciousness of people by the results in their lives. Those who live a worthy life characterized by productivity, intelligence, health, compassion, integrity, leadership, love, responsibility, security, etc. are those with an enlightened state of consciousness.

our entire brain contains at least 100 trillion, and perhaps as many as 1 quadrillion, synaptic connections (link). That level of complexity is capable of producing a bewildering variety of experiences and behaviors, not excluding, I would argue, the sorts of experiences and behaviors that you're claiming lack natural explanations. We've only just begun to explore how our brain works. Premature conclusions about what the brain is capable of and what it isn't capable of are just that—premature.

Yes, human consciousness is characterized by premature conclusions. Here also is a basic difference in our views of human consciousness: you seem to believe that thought is created by the physical human brain and I believe that the human brain (and its activity) is the result of thought. Evolving human/physical experience is the result of evolving thought/consciousness. From the limited human perspective, there is evidence for both beliefs. The more enlightened (from accumulated knowledge) that human consciousness becomes, the more one or the other perspective will be accepted. To me it is just logical that there is first a Principle and then a manifestation of that Principle. Maybe intelligence derives from non-intelligent matter, maybe "nothing" can create "something", maybe there is no actual Source to life, but none of those things make sense.

I call your attention to ant colonies, wasp nests, bird nests, beaver dams, etc., etc., etc. Would you argue that the construction of such structures by our fellow Earthlings implies the existence of a spiritual realm?

Sure, why not? These actions display intelligence (a spiritual element) on a level somewhat less developed than human but still part of the same overall life principle. It is not "by accident" that structures conform to certain principles to be sound. Those principles are not physical nor are they limited by place or time (although they can be manifested that way in particular cases). Why would not the "structures" of life be the same?

It is possible to learn about the principles of architecture by studying a structure and it is therefore possible to learn about the principle of Life by studying this particular physical manifestation (what humans now perceive). But, I contend that it may not be good to mistake any particular structure/manifestation for the substance of its principle.

Recall the example of the schizophrenic...

A questionable example. It is an illness, an anomaly which does not illustrate how the human intellect is designed to work.

Perhaps Edgar Cayce was in fact able to enter some sort of trance state (an altered state of consciousness), perhaps not. But it doesn't follow that he was therefore in touch with some sort of nonphysical realm

The reason people wrote books about Cayce and believed the claim that his nonphysical "readings" had validity was because a great many people were healed of all manner of illnesses by his efforts.

As I pointed out before, there are a serious number of accounts of spiritual healings from almost all religions. At some point, if prayer did not have tangible positive results, people would lose faith in that practice. There is somewhat of a "catch 22" element here: in order to experience spiritual healing, you have to have faith in that process. Most people will not have faith in something which they don't understand or don't need. It often takes a major traumatic situation with no hope of a traditional solution to cause people to turn to a "higher source" for help. That situation is much more rare today than in the past. I, however, have had no shortage of those extreme experiences. My faith is based upon this personal experience and logic. My logic will not make sense to you if you can't accept the premises. Maybe with more experience....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.