Transcending The Limits of Matter Through A Synthesis of Science & Spirituality

YES! The concept that thought is for the most part "immaterial" (i.e.: internal to us and not necessarily an object that can be pointed at "in space and time"), but "real" (in that it motivates things extended from us, such as words or actions, that have definite effects externally), is SUPER important. A shift in perception can quite literally change our reality. Our potential is infinitely more than what we sense. This is part of the reason why I do not personally subscribe to a strict "materialism".

Some philosophers would use the term "mental world" for this domain, but I like the term "ideal dimension" that you use because it implies that it is an aspect of a larger framework (kind of like the term "X,Y,Z coordinates"), instead of seemingly separate "worlds". In other words, it accounts for an internal "idea" and an external "material" that only make sense in reference to one another.

Similar to what you've described, I interpret the mind as using sensory data and feelings as the "substance" for the formulation of our mental conceptions (whether they be memories, dreams, etc.). This is part of the reason why I study so much. By taking in lots of information, it gives a lot of "substance" for intuition to play with and connections start to become apparent that would take a long time to uncover otherwise. The more subtle aspects of reality become "visible" to "the Mind's eye" when both the "idea" and the "material" are taken together.

Some fun stuff happens on the "liminal" borders where these categories overlap (e.g.: when you say exactly what a friend is thinking before they say it, a sort of sympathetic vibration or synchronicity). There are measurable "mechanisms" behind such phenomena (e.g.: what the researchers at HeartMath would refer to as "energetic sensitivity" and "nonlocal intuition").

I also like how you highlight that mind and body as a whole are interdependent. I do not subscribe to a "mind-body duality" for this same reason. It seems that people often interpret the body as a kind of "vehicle" or "container" for a more subtle aspect of their being that is related to their thinking. But I liken "mind" and "body" more to the poles of a single spectrum (i.e.: they are not fully separated). Some of this process is "measurable" as well (e.g.: the formation of neuropeptides through the process of thinking has direct effects on the chemistry of the body; the field of "psychoneuroimmunology" has a lot of relevant research in this regard).

Again, like the concepts of "inside" and "outside", "mind" and "body" only make sense in reference to one another. One is more "subtle" and "flexible", one is more "solid" and "fixed", but they both constantly influence and become each other. I think most people would acknowledge that their bodies are similar to a condensation of all of the thoughts, feelings, and actions that they have had throughout their lives, and all of the events that have impacted them (whether as a consequence of those decisions or not). The sense of "I-ness" in the mind sometimes makes it seem as if the body is static when it isn't. I suppose the entirety of this "mind-body spectrum" (including the aspects of it that seem to lie outside of our direct awareness) could be given a label, like "spirit". This "spirit" is continually being shaped and directed by all subsequent thoughts, feelings, and actions that one chooses.

However, I do believe that there is a component of our being that is continguous and unchanging throughout (i.e.: a reason why we feel an "I-ness" that is not locatable within the body, but that transcends it and guides it until that moment that it can become manifest through it). Explaining precisely why I believe this to be the case is somewhat involved. Words are an imperfect tool and I understand that many would probably dismiss all of the following as fantasy. As wild as it sounds, it is an opinion informed by both logic and science, as well as personal experiences and in-depth study into spirituality. I will speak about it openly...

It seems possible that one could form a sense of identity (an "I-ness") that persists "in space and time" beyond the "death" of the body, an eternally enduring "soul" or "rainbow body" if you will. Some might refer to this process as "ascension" or "immortality". This is part of the reason why I do not subscribe to the idea of "consciousness as an epiphenomenon", but I am open to more thoroughly developing a kind of scientific "vitalism". My reasoning is thus: The pattern for a thing exists on some level before that thing can become manifest because it is this pattern that either triggers its manifestation or allows it to exist/persist. I wouldn't refer to it as an "idea" per se, because it exists before the formation of a brain, but we have some level of "conscious" access to it because we are connected to it.

We can show some of the "mechanisms" behind this too. For example, living creatures have a measurable "L-field" that acts like a scaffolding for the material that makes up their bodies. We constantly replenish our flesh through the intake of air, water, and food, cycling through all of its materials until a few years later we are completely "new"; this field keeps it all coherent. Some people have logically inferenced the necessity of these types of fields independently of their measurement (e.g.: the mathematician Robert Rosen's concept of "organization"). Notice the "chicken or the egg"-type conundrum that appears though. Is it the field that comes first or the body? I would posit that it moves "from the subtle to the gross" (i.e.: there are patterns that exist long before the things that are visible to our senses because it is these patterns which allow them to form). They have direct effects on the "material", but are not necessarily themselves "material" in nature.

Again, trying to articulate this is challenging because it is so outside the realm of many people's way of thinking nowadays. On the one hand, there are scientists who are highly reductionist and follow a strict "materialism"; they subscribe to a type of "Zeteticism" where they "only believe what they can see" and will ignore anything that sounds even remotely "spiritual", even if there is good scientific evidence of it. On the other hand, there are many fundamentalist religious zealots who will use vague concepts as an explanation of pretty much everything to the point that they become "anti-science". But there are ways of respecting the methods of both science and spirituality in acquiring understanding about reality without going to extremes.

There are many different fields (in addition to the "L-field") emanating from the body and overlapping with the environment. The sum total of all of the fields of all living creatures on Earth form what we might call a "Noosphere". One could reasonably postulate that some psychic abilities like "seeing auras" or reading the history of an object through "psychometry" are a way of tuning into these fields, but we don't even have to go that far. The "Noosphere" is behind many evolutionary processes that "do not make sense" otherwise (e.g.: "coevolution" or "symbiosis", in the sense of "mutualism", occurs because these fields act as communication systems between species). Some people have logically inferenced the existence of this field and the processes occuring through it (e.g.: Lyall Watson's concept of a "Lifetide", Rupert Sheldrake's concepts of "morphic fields" and "morphic resonance", Robert Campbell's concepts of "The Planet Mind" and "biospheric resonance", etc.), but there is a ton of related research that has been compiled and many people seem to be getting a fuller understanding of how these things interact.

For example, cells can send and receive signals to each other, not just directly through chemicals or mechanical oscillations, but at a distance through electromagnetic waves (e.g.: Biophotons and Fröhlich frequencies). They can also send and receive singals from their environment (i.e.: outside of the body). There is some "alternative" or "fringe" work that covers how this happens within DNA in great detail (e.g.: the researchers Grazyna Gosar and Franz Bludorf refer to this phenomenon as "Networked Intelligence"), but the fields of genetics and biochemistry as a whole seem to be moving towards this kind of understanding (e.g.: the so-called "Third Way" or "Third Evolutionary Synthesis"). Some of the core concepts behind it are ancient though (e.g.: as described within the work of Wynand De Beer).

Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea of "natural selection" because this communication process is not "random", nor is it based in "competition". It is intentional (what some might call "epigenetic control") and is founded in collaboration (what some might call "mutual aid").

We can go even further and show how all of this connects to physics in various ways (e.g.: through Luigi Fantappie's concept of "Syntropy", Chris King's "Biocosmology Thesis", Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's "Orch-OR Theory", Karl Pribram and David Bohm's "Holonomic Brain Theory", etc.).

In short, the electrical activities within the "Noosphere" are connected to ones within the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole. From atoms to stars, there is no separation between "life" and "non-life". Everything is "alive" and we are all connected together as One in Love.

...There I go talking about Oneness again. Haha!