Interfacing With Immortality And Morality

(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Interfacing With Immortality And Morality:

Conundrum (?): Well, it seems no particular perspective of conscious mind could measurably or palpably express or manifest itself except in association or receptivity of a physical brain --- replete with nerves and synapses for stringing and conveying impulses. So, why, in respect of preserving parsimony and avoiding redundancy, should anyone conceptualize a spiritual or meta-mind as a necessary addition to a physical brain, merely in order to express moral consciousness?

This problem of how to facilitate or explicate an interface between spirituality and physicality seems to be --- “A hit, a very palpable hit.” (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.5.2.html).

Yet, there is a response. After all, one cannot palpably hit an eternally recurrent spirit.

If conscious mind is the superior reality, then matter, even a physical brain, is an inferior derivative. Intuitively, each particular expression of a brain serves merely as a perspective (or mathematical placeholder) for a common, superior source of conscious Mind.

The apparent death or conclusion of a particular expression of brain may entail merely the absorption of its perspective, either presently or potentially, into a holistic or meta source of Mind --- of which the time and space parameters for each apparent physical brain (or system for experiencing sensation) represents only a holographic perspective.

If so, each holographic brain-manifestation of consciousness would be merely a differently evolving perspective of one common, underlying, holistic consciousness (or source of consciousness).

In respect of such Source, mathematical potential for eternal physical recurrence is preserved --- in the revival, continuation, continuity, or evolution in becoming’ness of each of its perspectives --- regardless of apparent fits, starts, or deaths.

In that both “you” and “I” are derivative of such common Source, we are all merely perspectives of a same empathetic Identity, i.e., God.

Thus, such a notion is hardly redundant or without purpose. Rather, it is in respect that the perspective of each of us derives from a common source of consciousness that each of us has innate spiritual capacity for developing (and being inculcated with) an enlightened appreciation of empathy, i.e., a shared sense of moral purposefulness.

Now, if some scientist can find, explicate, or rationalize a rational, physical, non-spiritual basis for a civilizing ethos that is more parsimonious, consistent, effective, inspiring, sensible, or better, then I would be quite interested to learn about it.