I have been attempting to discover the means by which the spirit connects and communicates with physicality. I had been mainly looking at an information based solution, but here I want to take a tangent and explore our reality from an emotional perspective. …part of my ‘multi-perspective reality map’ approach.
First I need to clarify what I mean by ‘emotion’ here; to ‘feel’ or sense in either an emotional or tactile manner. To perceive via the sense of touch and experience.
Also…
To become aware of, by means of ‘sense/touch awareness’, by that I am stretching the notion [-if I can!] of sensing, to feeling the meaning of a thing. As if there is a manner by which we sense vibrations and frequencies en masse ~ or at a comparatively macroscopic scale i.e. not at the {individual} atomic level.
I think that this emotional level [if that’s the right term] of reality, is perhaps prior to all other thence more overt levels of understanding and communications. It is the beginnings of our experience, and I think covers a range of ‘intimacy’ from observation to deep touch.
This perception of reality places chemical emotion as reactionary, first comes spiritual/mental; emotion/feeling/sense. This is then wrong because that sense can and mostly will derive from said chemical emotions. I just wanted to explain that in a way which includes multi-perspectives, rather than one is right and the other is wrong, because it is all occurring at the same time.
Experience is irreducibly bodily. First comes the body’s immersion in its world, its enmeshment in an ecology outside of it, its enfoldment of that world. Then comes the stuff of conscious perception, feeling, observation, and so on. You have it backwards.
You ask after the spirit’s connection to the physical. That’s a misguided binary. All there is is the physical. The physical’s just capable of doing a lot more than we once thought. Why tie ourselves to outdated biology? Look into some complex systems theory, some dynamical systems modeling, some chaos mathematics, some self-organization science, and then reapproach your assumption that we need to invoke anything other than the physical at all.
Indeed, the capabilities of the ‘physical’ have become so broad that physicalism itself is little more than a philosophical commitment, not a description of how anything actually is. “The Physical” can be stretched to embrace gods and ghosts and leprechauns if one day needed, just as it was stretched to embrace electricity and gravity and time.
What is ‘physical’? More to the point; isnt reality greater than the universe, therefore ~ what is physicalism!? what is ‘Experience is irreducibly bodily’ when reality isn’t reducible to physicality?
So the perception isn’t there, then something happens and the perception is there?
I take it that perception is already there to receive incoming info and physical sensory input.
Its the usual thing, where we either have to show that electrical signals and chemicals produce mental things like perception [how?], or that mind/perception is in fact already ‘there’.
Here I was working upon the basis that the mental and physical are not the same [if anything is ‘physical’], that reality has a living tactile element or is that. Really I was looking to come off previous discussions which as yet haven’t shown that the mental derives from or is the physical.
In other words; because of the failure for anyone anywhere to show that to me, and because many philosophers agree that there may be a mental world, this thread was aimed at the mental world purely!
Otherwise we just get into the same debates we always have.
Assumedly you mean that those things are mental, where mental = neuronal?