slvr_phoenix
Splendid
Which is perfectly acceptable.I still think that the spirit is what the brain does.

This part didn't make any sense to me. Energy has no mass and is therefore not matter. Matter has mass. Energy and matter can share many similar properties. It is highly likely that the two are interconnected. Destruction of matter results in freed energy. Accumulation of energy can result in matter. You cannot 'destroy' one without creating the other. So yes, they are very likely to be "two states of the same stuff".Einstein says matter and energy are two states of the same stuff, so you can't have energy coming from nowhere. I believe Einstein before religion and philosophy.
What I do not understand is how you view this theoretical law of our universe as being relevant to proving that a construct of energy cannot interact with a construct of matter. Even assuming that Einstein is right (which is quite possible as he was a brilliant man, but no more absolute than any other scientific theory offered by anyone else) that still does not make it impossible or even improbable. In fact, it doesn't lend any credability to the possibility one way or the other.
Further, where does your view of "energy coming from nowhere" fit into any of this? Where did you get this concept as being an integral part of religion or philosophy?
This is also entirely possible. I have to ask though, if this 'something more' is <i>just</i> our brains having mapped out numerous possabilities and the best course of action to take in advance of our needing this information then the deeper question remans of how did our brains 'learn' about things which we have never come into contact with yet?I think that "something more" is a result of our amazingly advanced brains' automatically mapping out the rest of our lives to maximize survival of our genes on a subconscious level (everybody dies, so it's more important to pass on the code than for the body to survive, hence we have altruistic behaviour towards family members, with whom we share the most genes). I think this subconscious "auto-mapping" that our brains do for us is what people talk about when they say that they are acting with "God's will" or going on a "gut" feeling. There are many future paths and our brains explore all of them as far as they can whether we want them to or not.
For example a newborn baby would have no data about things like cars, tv, electrical sockets, knives, etc. to map out scenarios about. So either this information had to come from somewhere outside of that specific individual's life or else any time we encounter something new we cannot have a 'gut' feeling about how to respond to it, no?
So far what you've described really is just there being no 'something more' because our brains are more than enough, so it really isn't either of the two groups and it definately is not a mixture of the two groups. And that is what mainstream science does lean heavily towards, that there is nothing more to the universe than simply us (Earth's life forms) and it (our mundane universe).This is what science (and me) has to say about it and interestingly enough it is also a mixture of the two groups.
"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>