Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

a reply to: spygeek

originally posted by: spygeek
While the gut and the heart do have their own neuronic system and can be said to have their own "intelligence", it is the brain that interprets the signals sent by them and it is the brain that does the conscious "understanding".

Trust your heart or follow your gut are simply turns of phrase which basically encourage you to go with your instincts when deciding who to trust or love or what action to take.. There is no way to literally "know" what the heart "thinks", outside of neurocardiology. I suspect the gut "thinks" mostly about crap.. Or mine does, anyway. xD
..

Maybe it hints at the notion that - since God created all life, and since emotions are what motivate life, by fulfilling your will and emotions (heart), you are fulfilling the will/intention of God.

On the other hand, to blindly fulfill your will based entirely on feeling and emotion can be equated to a primitive state of being, like the (non-human) animals.

----

There is also the notion of a 'spiritual' existence which is beyond reason, knowledge, and thought.

originally posted by: intrptr
It means butterflies, chills, racing heart are your glands trying to tell you something.

Ever been in the presence of a spirit? Your hair stands on end, get goose bumps, your heart races?

Time to listen within your spirit to what the spirit has to say.

Isn't attributing asmr to the presence of a spirit a bit superstitious?


How can one "listen within ones spirit"? Isn't a spirit metaphysical?

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: spygeek

originally posted by: spygeek
While the gut and the heart do have their own neuronic system and can be said to have their own "intelligence", it is the brain that interprets the signals sent by them and it is the brain that does the conscious "understanding".

Trust your heart or follow your gut are simply turns of phrase which basically encourage you to go with your instincts when deciding who to trust or love or what action to take.. There is no way to literally "know" what the heart "thinks", outside of neurocardiology. I suspect the gut "thinks" mostly about crap.. Or mine does, anyway. xD
..

Maybe it hints at the notion that - since God created all life, and since emotions are what motivate life, by fulfilling your will and emotions (heart), you are fulfilling the will/intention of God.

On the other hand, to blindly fulfill your will based entirely on feeling and emotion can be equated to a primitive state of being, like the (non-human) animals.

----

There is also the notion of a 'spiritual' existence which is beyond reason, knowledge, and thought.

Not being one who subscribes to the notion that the personification of the universe in a "God character" is in any way helpful for understanding that universe, I'll have to concede you have a point in that context and move on.

a reply to: truthseeker84

I've seen Man From Earth like five times. Great film.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The heart has neurons in it though, as does the gut.

Neurons outside the brain serve for autonomic function only

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Like the subconscious?

Back to the original post.Listening to the heart can be very liberating.The integrity that comes with that adds gravity to everything we do.Practicing doing the best to live life with no regrets helps one reach for the top.This goes beyond imagination...

a reply to: spygeek

Your soul is the real you, you know. The reaction I described is associated with a fear response, not pleasure.

The presence of a spirit gives us that response because we have no realm of experience for the encounter and people generally fear the unknown.

But some haven't been met and don't understand that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spygeek

Your soul is the real you, you know. The reaction I described is associated with a fear response, not pleasure.

Terms like "your soul" and "real you" are poetic expressions of one's individual conscious identity, not essentially literal physical things. Asmr can and does produce the exact same frission-esque sensations and increased heart rate you described, whether the experiencer finds it pleasurable or not is not really relevant, (although the first time it happened to me it freaked me out; I thought I might have been having stroke until I learned what it was and how I could bring it on intentionally to examine it).

The presence of a spirit gives us that response because we have no realm of experience for the encounter and people generally fear the unknown.

But some haven't been met and don't understand that.

The response comes from certain sensory stimuli and these can be blatant or extremely subtle. Both the trigger stimuli and the sensation itself vary greatly from person to person. I have had it occur apparently "of the blue" but also in direct response to a specific auditory or visual stimuli. Some people are able to cause the sensation through nothing more than cognitive intention. To ascribe the sensation to fear response brought on by the presence of an unknown "spirit" is quite superstitious and presumptuous, but each to their own.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Do neurons outside the brain have a role in the subconscious? Higher processes take place in the cerebral cortex; a specific region of the brain.

a reply to: spygeek

To ascribe the sensation to fear response brought on by the presence of an unknown "spirit" is quite superstitious and presumptuous, but each to their own.

Like I said if it one hasn't been witness then one doesn't know.

I don't mean by yourself or maybe you saw something out of the corner of your eye, either.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The heart has neurons in it though, as does the gut.

Neurons outside the brain serve for autonomic function only

Thank you, I always wondered about that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spygeek

To ascribe the sensation to fear response brought on by the presence of an unknown "spirit" is quite superstitious and presumptuous, but each to their own.

Like I said if it one hasn't been witness then one doesn't know.

I don't mean by yourself or maybe you saw something out of the corner of your eye, either.

Could you define "being a witness" for me? What precisely is observed by this witness and what special knowledge does this observation impart?

a reply to: spygeek

Exactly what I said.

I know you know what it means to 'witness' something happen.

What you 'feel' is subjective. Combined with what you (and others with you) experience , combined with reports that others have experienced over time that you have no connection with, lends corroboration.

'Thats not a belief, feeling or wishful thinking.

a reply to: intrptr

How can someone "be witness" to something abstract and metaphysical, such as a spirit? How can one definitively know that what one witnessed is in fact a spirit, when the "witnessing" is not anything other than a subjective 'feeling'?

Acceptance of the existence of "spirits" by its very nature entails a belief, feeling, and wishful thinking. One can not objectively "witness" a spirit, one can only ascribe a subjective sensation of perception to it.

originally posted by: Ladybug201
Proverbs 3;5-6

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

The system is built on understanding and look what disgust it causes. Buddhism teaches us to quiet the mind, but is that all that there is to it? Its purpose is to live from the heart. To become a man of deeds instead of a man of words. Faith without works is dead. All things of the mind are illusion. Let's say you have sex in your mind with somebody. Do you see it was not real? You did not have sex with the person, you were only imagining it. It's sad the illusion is taken for real and how it is based on fear. And the mind dissapoints time after time.

Wars are based on what? On understanding?

The heart knows what the mind thinks it knows and sometimes making no sense makes sense to people.

The text means don't try to interpret the bible with your own understanding. Instead you have to trust that all the pieces are in there and look for them. The Bible contains all the answers but you have to build a relationship with it. Then comes understanding. If something appears to be there like, say, DNA, don't dismiss it because your understanding says the authors knew nothing of it. Trust the Lord that it will be backed up somewhere and look for it. Find it and you have a straight path. You are applying your own understanding to the verse which it says not to. I'm applying my understanding to your interpretation, not the verse. I follow that.

a reply to: spygeek

One can not objectively "witness" a spirit, one can only ascribe a subjective sensation of perception to it.

Not if two or more experience the same thing. That was my point. It isn't just about a feeling, its a compilation of evidence that when all added up leads one the the conclusion it was more than subjective feeling as you keep isolating it.

Besides, do you "feel" with your eyes, too? Does someone else next to you also 'see' the same 'feeling' you get?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spygeek

One can not objectively "witness" a spirit, one can only ascribe a subjective sensation of perception to it.

Not if two or more experience the same thing. That was my point. It isn't just about a feeling, its a compilation of evidence that when all added up leads one the the conclusion it was more than subjective feeling as you keep isolating it.

Multiple subjective accounts of witnesses do not equate to an objective truth. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable as it is subject to the predispositions, prejudices, intentions and biases in the perception of the eyewitness. For something to be established as objectively true requires a standard of evidence higher than what you are describing here.

Besides, do you "feel" with your eyes, too? Does someone else next to you also 'see' the same 'feeling' you get?

I thought that because earlier you were describing the frission-like sensory stimuli, (goosebumps, heart racing etc.), which you associate with a spirit's presence, that this was what we were talking about.

Have people literally "seen with their eyes" a physical manifestation of a spirit that can be objectively verified? How do they know it was a spirit? Did it communicate this to them in any objectively verifiable way? Was a recording of the manifestation made that can be objectively studied? Is there an absence of an understood natural physical phenomena to describe it?

If so, that implies that spirits are more than abstract metaphysical constructs. I would like to see some objective evidence of this. If there is nothing more than the repeated testimonies of witnesses, no matter how numerous they may be, there is little to no objectivity to be found.

a reply to: spygeek

Multiple subjective accounts of witnesses do not equate to an objective truth. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable as it is subject to the predispositions, prejudices, intentions and biases in the perception of the eyewitness. For something to be established as objectively true requires a standard of evidence higher than what you are describing here.

I haven't described anything. But you weren't there, and apparently (if you aren't in outright denial) haven't seen anything out of this world yourself, how would you, could you possibly understand?

Like trying to describe color to someone born blind. I don't bother trying, especially if the blind person insists color doesn't exist, just because they have never seen it.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spygeek

Multiple subjective accounts of witnesses do not equate to an objective truth. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable as it is subject to the predispositions, prejudices, intentions and biases in the perception of the eyewitness. For something to be established as objectively true requires a standard of evidence higher than what you are describing here.

I haven't described anything.

I was referring to your describing that an accumulation of witness accounts, when "added up leads one to the conclusion it was more than subjective feeling", which it does not.

But you weren't there, and apparently (if you aren't in outright denial) haven't seen anything out of this world yourself, how would you, could you possibly understand?

This exclusivity of understanding troubles me. Sure, I've seen some curious things, but nothing that can not be adequately explained by natural phenomena. To suggest one has to see or experience something personally to believe or understand it only reinforces the subjective nature of the observation. If I can't be informed enough to understand it without physically seeing it for myself, how can a claim be made that it is anything other than subjective perception?

Like trying to describe color to someone born blind. I don't bother trying, especially if the blind person insists color doesn't exist, just because they have never seen it.

Blind people can quite easily understand and accept the concept and existence of colour. What they have trouble with is visualising what colour looks like.. Colour can be objectively measured and verified too; it can be described through various wavelengths through the visible spectrum of light.

A blind person not seeing colour is not really comparable to a sighted person seeing a spirit; there is no "spirit detecting" sensory organ, (of which mine is faulty?). Still, even if I am unable to visualise a material manifestation of a spirit, I can understand the concept of such a manifestation existing, and how it can be definitively identified as such. You have described to me that one manifestation of a spirit's presence is a subjective experience of frission-like tinging; hair standing on end, goosebumps, racing heart. This alone is not enough to differentiate it from natural phenomena, so I am asking for more information.

I have asked you to tell me what objectively constitutes the presence of a spirit, not so hard I would have thought, but you have simply turned around and effectively said, "you are not worthy of being capable of understanding it, so why should I share what I know?". This is most disappointing.

It appears that you think one has to be phychologically predisposed or have some kind of sensory or spiritual "qualificaton" to understand such an occurance, that is one of the most subjective things I have been told in my life.