...can you explain to me how it is possible for ideas to be STRENGTHENED/INCREASED/SPREAD, in seeming defiance of the Third Law of Thermodynamics, by SHARING them between minds?? Usually, in the world of positivistic science, when someone breaks a "crumb" in half, one gets two half "crumbs." As George Carlin, in a more sober moment, suggested, "no, man. You have two crumbs."

What about the possibility of a holographic universe -- each piece of the hologram contains a view of the ENTIRE whole, intact hologram?

In my experience, both worlds are internally consistent -- the mind over matter world and the matter over mind world -- but is there a language and a set of meanings that can be used to communicate back and forth so that people from one worldview can communicate effectively with a person from the other (albeit imaginary) worldview?

What about "spirit" just being a dimension, or set of dimensions, where mental energy moves throughout the human body and across to other bodies? It could explain why some classes of neuropeptides change state before the chemical or electrical processes that these molecules apparently require even show up to interact.

Granted I never got past High School electronics (four years of both digital and analog systems...mostly Vo-Tech level stuff)...I still recall that in an inductive/magnetic coupled circuit, voltage (pressure) actually shows up 90 degrees out of phase from the actual current (electrons). Or something along these lines...forgive my aging memory.

Bottom line, I really do think that science and spirituality come together at some place in time and space...the theory of the universe as a singularity would tend to indicate this unity, would it not? Granted religiosity tends to make distinctions imprecise and distorted, these core religious concepts are just place holders for inductive suppositions as to how the world may actually work.

I repeat with some degree of certainty that it's not possible for science to grasp, explain AND experience totality while standing outside of the self-same totality.

My argument is that the universe is a field of intelligence without bias, judgment, thought or doubt.

If you'd like to take a stab at standing outside of this field, please show me how....?

...one can not accept science piecemeal any more than one can accept spiritual concepts piecemeal. Scientists are forever deriding religionists and spiritualists for their vagueries and inconsistencies, but scientists make the same sorts of errors, too.

First of all, I of course disagree that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive categories. They are two different and at times overlapping ways of looking at the same or very similar data; one method is holistic and heuristic, the other is systematic and, ideally, cumulative.

The error holistic empiricists make is that they believe that returning the human community to square one with every study, every narrative or every description of things as they seem to be can actually move humankind forward into higher truths. They expect us to accept on faith that the principles they speak of are apriori and ask us for patience, tolerance and time while they get everything worked out.

The error scientific empiricists make is that they believe that dissecting a map of reality and studying it in isolation for relationships and causalities can ALWAYS represent what is going on in ANY system. They expect us to accept on faith that the principles they speak of are apriori and ask us for patience, tolerance and time while they get everything worked out.

Both start ideologically pure and gravitate in time to become religions. The difference is the nature of the "intellectual root" used by science versus the one used by spiritualists. Science starts off using human reason and human perception, both of which can be demonstrated to be flawed approximations of the actual data, as their, "God." Spiritualists start off using mythologies, metaphors and allegories to explain the overall functioning of human-natural systems, ultimately inventing a God to explain the behaviors that can not otherwise be accounted for with other, or previous, information.

Both ideologies are flawed, but the scientific method comes closest to keeping humans from turning the whole of creation into some unrecognizable creature that no one will ever be able to feel atoned with.

Both ideologies leave the door wide open to the infiltration of human political gamesmanship, thereby limiting the impact of their positive qualities and maximizing the development, over time, of dogmatic explanations of anomalous or inexplicable data.

All data must be categorized, understood and included into the overall system of human perceptual reality in order for any theory or proposition to be considered internally or externally valid and reliable.

Mystics do a much better job of explaining holistic systems than do scientists. Scientists tear things into pieces and wonder why they never work as well as they do when they are a part of a whole system. Science refuses to acknowledge or explain the principle of synergy -- the part in the whole functions much differently and much more powerfully than it does when it is isolated out as a thing in itself.

Spiritualists refuse to accept that there can be great utility in breaking off a piece of a holistic system, studying it in isolation, and coming up with principles in a piecemeal fashion.

I want them both, but I would prefer it if the dogmaticists on both sides put a sock in their cakeholes.