Spirit In Space

Remember my definition for 'spirit' is just 'the unseen'. I don't pressume we know well what is in the seen matter that we may exclude it as we define 'non physical'. Then I emphasize that the word 'physical' is a misnomer and we should stop using it. My 'spirit' will look like 'physical' because in physics we call 'physical' anything that does affect the seen things in any way. So the dichotomy was actually between 'physical' vs the 'mathematical'. Naive people in the 'spiritual' camp hijacked the dichotomy as a way to justify spirit by terming it 'non-physical'. This phrase stems from imence ignorance of physics. Why not just stick to saying 'spirit is something we don't see and we don't understand well what it is', instead of packaging the ignorance in a knowledge-like envelope dubbed 'non-physical '? With this removal of cobwebs in the eyes, you are now ready to understand the spirit in space!

The apparent success of the 'physicality' chameleon stems purely from its ability to call anything it want 'physical'. If you insist that anything that can affect matter is physical, by definition, then the further claim 'everything is physical' (i.e. physicality) is redundant. But how can everything that can affect matter fail ti be 'physical' if by so doing, a physicist will automatically notice it in the lab? If a physicist go to siloam in Jerusalem , where the spirit came and stirred the water ( written in the bible), all he will notice is a strange physical phenomena. He might even say 'so Newton's first law of motion is not entirely correct after all ). He will only say 'physicality is stranger than we thought'. He will only expand 'physicality' to cover the new discovery, sweeping under the carpet everything we don't know/understand about the phenomenon!

Spirit And Forces Of Nature

What is the  difference between a 'Moses' moving the red sea water by waving a stick and a magnet moving another magnet? There is no substantial difference! In both case, something we don't know/ see is doing we don't know what to an object, with one object seeming to act on another distant object apparently with no intervening medium! The only difference is that one is in science books and the other is not. Both 'gurus' and physicists operates on the stereotype that if it is in science books, then it cannot be 'the spirit'. This is regardless whether or not anyone understands the phenomenon! We should get out of this jail! If the whatever is emitted by the magnet is the same as the whatever summoned by moses, both in its invisibility and in how it act on matter from remote, we cannot meaningfully call one 'spirit' and call one 'physical'. Our view of the world will be inconsistent! 

But a magnet seen as to have 'a' spirit is perfectly consistent with what ancient men, e.g. Jesus called 'spirit'. One would say it is a spirit that does a very specific event. Ancient men talked of 'the spirit of rain', 'the spirit of war'etc. They never saw spirit as something 'non-physical' in the modern sense of the word 'physical'. Thus they say Elijah was taken to heaven by a strong wind, in one verse, and then say he was taken so by the spirit in another verse. Clearly, they used 'wind' and 'spirit' interchangeably. The wind can be seen as a spirit, depending on how it behaves. They were a step wiser than modern 'gurus' and 'new agers'!

 'Field' is a deification of a concept. Physicist have no understanding of fhe electromagnetic phenomenon! They only have a profound illusion that they have one. Faraday coined the word 'field' because he did not understand magnetism. It was a hallmark of ignorance, not knowledge. Modern physicists have done absolutely nothing to further understand it. They merely deified 'field' into a physical object! This object behaves like an object only when the physicist wishes so. Then holus bolus, it morphs back into a concept that cannot possibly have any physical impact! Consequently physicists can think of the whatever exists in the vicinity of a magnet only in the context of pushing and pulling. But there is nothing existent that can only do a single thing. If I can push, and I am conscious, why can something have an ability to push but no ability to be conscious? Or rather, why is this duality only limited to forces. Why can a visible thing, e.g. a hand, push something and another invisible thing, field, does the same, while alsoinsisting that there is no equivalent when it comes to awareness? It rather seems natural to say similarly, consciousness, like ''pushing' can be done both by the brain and by invisible thing, incongruously called 'field'.

Consciousness Field

If we can talk of 'force field' that somehow pervade everywhere, which can behave like a pushing object, why can't we similarly talk of 'consciousness field' that similarly pervades the whole space that behaves like a conscious brain? Or in other words, if 'force', what usually requires a visible object (e.g. hand ), can happen without a visible  object, (e.g  in magnetic field) why can't consciousness similarly happen without a brain? There is absolutely no reason. Therefore the current scientific tendency to scorn at any idea of consciousness without brain, specifically as if it is illogical is without any philosophical merit! Instead, they operate on the non-sequitur logic that if consciousness is caused by the brain, then there is no invisible soul that can carry on consciousness!

Actually the correct reasoning is the vise versa. If consciousness is caused by the brain, then it is easily extended to the field around. If 'force' is extended even to the unseen, why can't consciousness? You may think that unlike in 'force', consciousness require the field to be solid-like. But you are totally mistaken. Light is a transverse wave, a phenomenon that is normally only possible in solids. So if apparently empty space can behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating transverse waves, why can't it also behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating consciousness, that is if you think that because the brain is a solid, solids are necessary for consciousness?

If 'empty space' can behave like a solid for the purposes of elasticity, then it can also behaves so for the purposes of plasticity. The latter helps us to understand 'disembodied soul'. Infact we model electromagnetic waves the way we model a spring. In the equations that describes a spring, it does so in such a way that the spring seems to have no plasticity. However, we know that all visible, oscillating mediums have some plasticity. This is to say that if you disturb an elastic material, it does not return to its original position in 100%. Elasticity is an unrealistic idealization. But this failure of things fo return to previous positions is the mechanism for all memory. So it is in this way easy to understand memory in space.

In Bruce Lipton's theory of consciousness, it is very easy to understand how consciousness can extend to the space around. According to bruce Lipton, consciousness is caused by the cell membrane potential. So configuration of charges in the neurons causes your identity. Since it is pure charge, then it can easily exend to the 'empty space'.

But we know that surrounding every charged particle, there are charges in the 'empty space' due to what they call 'vacuume polarization'. Infact James clerk Maxwell understood light as an undulation by means of polarization in aether. But when you close exermine what Maxwell called it 'displacement current', it looks perfectly like a neural signal! A neurone signal is a wavelike propagation of membrane pilarization. Iight too is a wavelike propagation of 'vacuum polarization'. So there is a good reason to think that behind light, there is something aware of itself as an actor (perhaps this is the spirit of God), especially if we think of Lipton's idea.

So if there is a cell membrane polirazation, there is a coresponding pilarizatoin in 'vacuum'. This creates a mirror image of the entire brain polarization but in 'vacuum'. This alone, if we go as per Lipton, means that awareness is effectively thus transfered to the 'empty space'. Then from 'vacume plasticity', entities like electrets remain even once the polarizing cells are removed, enabling the awareness to remain permanently in space, away from the body.

Thus we see that it is not too hard to understand a soul, or if you stick to the old version physical-non physical dilema, I should say we don't need a soul at all to understand how consciousness can be in space, any more than we need a 'soul' to understand how a force, energy or a wave can be in space.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!

Join Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community


  • Just to elaborate on 'electret' abit.

    An electret is an electric version of a permanent magnet. It is a kind of permanently charged capacitor! To create an electret, just put a hot substance in a strong electric field. Then the substance will get electrcally polarized, i.e. its molecules will reorient themselves so that the negative charge is on one side and the positive charge is in the opposite side. When it cools it maintains the reorientation even after the field is removed. So the strong field was like a mould or a scaffold.

    If you understand light well, then you will note that electret is a kind of 'frozen light'. Light is a polarization that gets propagated in 'empty space'. A permanent such 'vacuum polarization' will be a 'vacuum electret'. A 'vacuum electret' that is due to the field created by the neural memrane potential will be a 'disembodied spirit' of the cell, fo all relevant purposes. This is because it will 'print' the cell in 'vacuum' in is luxury of details, making it a living thing on its own!

    It is important to understand that when it comes to vacuum, heating followed by cooling is not necessary to form an electret out of 'vacuum polarization'. Heating greats what we call 'thermal phase transition'. But in vacuum, we use 'quantum phase transition' to turn an homogenous quantum field into a symmetry broken electrets.
This reply was deleted.

Latest Activity

Roaring Lovely replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion There Is No Future For Meat Eaters On Planet Earth ...Plant Based Products Are Taking Over
"I have explained in details what is wrong with this reasoning in my next blog post. It assumes that if the whole world go vegetarian, the livestock instantly disappears, paving a land for use in crop farming. However, the opposite is the case! If we…"
1 hour ago
Richard L liked Krishna Kalki's discussion What Are You Waiting For? It's You Who Have To Get This Planet In The Mode Of Goodness
1 hour ago
Richard L liked rev.joshua skirvin's blog post Benjamin Fulford 3/1/21 Report: Middle East Power Struggle Tip of the Iceberg March 3, 2021 by Edward Morgan
1 hour ago
Richard L liked Joanna's blog post Ashtar Command Council Meetings ✨💛
2 hours ago
Krishna Kalki replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion There Is No Future For Meat Eaters On Planet Earth ...Plant Based Products Are Taking Over
"If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
by Hannah Ritchie
Read full @ https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets"
2 hours ago
Roaring Lovely replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion There Is No Future For Meat Eaters On Planet Earth ...Plant Based Products Are Taking Over
"Note that this modern way of farming is what jesus would call 'bad shepherds that prey on sheep, kill them anyhowly etc' they are like wolfs. But is this not funny? Jesus was a meat eater in the end. Think about this carefully!"
2 hours ago
Roaring Lovely replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion There Is No Future For Meat Eaters On Planet Earth ...Plant Based Products Are Taking Over
"Also note that earlier on, people from say Israel could not have conceived the idea that it is generally immoral to eat flesh. Why?Because they had to eat it. In a desert, sometimes meat is the only thing available to eat! John The Baptist found…"
2 hours ago
Roaring Lovely replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion There Is No Future For Meat Eaters On Planet Earth ...Plant Based Products Are Taking Over
"Because you can be surrounded by a lake in a desert so that your only source of food is fish. Take for example lake Turkana in Kenya, or the sea of Galilee in Israel etc. I don't want to believe that God shove some pple with only an immoral way as a…"
3 hours ago

Copyright Policy: Always Include 30-50% of the source material and a link to the original article. You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. If you believe that someone's work has been copied and posted on Ashtar Command in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please Contact Us and include the links to these pages and relevant info.