Is the Origin of Consciousness Biological or Spiritual?
Assuming as we do throughout these essays that consciousness is nonphysical in nature (we say that it is virtual, or a pure potential, these terms implying that consciousness is nonmaterial), is there any way to prove or disprove this idea?
Well, consciousness is claimed to be a quality, invisible and not measurable. Therefore it cannot be observed or directly evaluated.
An experiment that purports to show the stupidity of those who believe in the non-physical basis for consciousness was performed a few years ago. A psychic who claimed to see auras was placed in a room with several compartments, whose doors were closed. The psychic claimed to see auras behind every doorway. When the doors were opened, the number of people present was less than the number of compartments, proving that the psychic was a fake.
Implicit in this experiment however, is the assumption that only a physical being has an aura. No allowance is made for the claimed properties of consciousness, which is said to exist independent of physical bodies. In other words, if consciousness is non-physical in nature, then non-physical personalities certainly exist, but the parameters of the experiment simply assume that consciousness comes in lumps, like physical matter, associated only with physical containers. It is not permissible to disprove something empirically, simply by ignoring it!
Of course, by the same token, it is impossible to empirically prove a non-physical basis for consciousness, for there are no points of reference for it in the physical universe. It is not measurable.
A non-physical basis for selfawareness is simply assumed and assigned to something ephemeral called consciousness, which is also impermissible experimentally. It is claimed without objective proof that although consciousness cannot be measured, its effects on physical objects are measurable. This empirically illogical reasoning (coupled with the fact that charlatans are known to exist) drives some scientists and skeptics batty, which is quite understandable. Nevertheless, we must admit a draw in this debate, for there are plenty of data fudgers, swindlers and con artists even in medical and scientific disciplines.
In short, if consciousness has a non-physical basis, it is automatically outside the realm of empirical proof or disproof. Intellectually, those on both sides of the debate must agree to disagree.
In these essays, we just assume a non-physical basis for consciousness without even trying to prove it.
Why? Because you either get it, or you don't. You either understand your quintessential spiritual nature, or you don't, and an appeal to the intellect with reasoned arguments or "proof" cannot succeed. That's because consciousness understands itself as love, and love is a feeling. You can detach yourself from love, and from yourself, but such objectivity can never lead to discovery of Self. Truth with a capital "T" cannot be found in Data, for data is the creation of consciousness. Discovery of Self is discovery of Truth, for Truth is sonsciousness, the creative potential. Christ said, "I am the alpha and the omega," and by that He meant that Spirit creates and expereinces what it has created -- a closed circle, but a circle of universal and infinite scope and meaning.