Pure Consciousness?

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn;

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have been working on a post about religion, and it is taking some time. My Aunt is also in the hospital, so that is a distraction. Please consider the following and be patient with the long awaited post on religion.

My observations, based upon myself and four siblings, plus several offspring, are that interesting people are born with predilections toward specific interests. A few are born with an intense focus.

Agreed. There is a great deal of speculation regarding child prodigies, and a possible explanation is reincarnation. Of course, one does not have to be a prodigy to have an abundance of talent.

Beon Theory claims that the mind/soul/beon or whatever one wants to call the essential component of human consciousness cannot learn enough in a single human embodiment to be of much use to itself, or to the universe that brought it into consciousness. Therefore it reincarnates in different bodies, in different times, various sexes and in-between states, so as to gain perspective. That is because beon is inherently both stupid and ignorant, which is exactly what one might expect of a non-created entity that has the potential to acquire self-awareness.

The above paragraph reflects many of the ideas in Eastern religions/philosophies that accept reincarnation, so there is at least some agreement. I don't really understand the point of what has to be learned, and also have a question. One of the things that I have noted in most theories is that they excludes lower life forms. I see this as a problem.

So does your theory explain how lower life forms are conscious, or does it only consider human consciousness. If you only consider human consciousness, then can you explain why it is different for humans? It is my thought that consciousness would evolve the same as physical life evolves.

Beon can only become intelligent by making the choice to learn that which it does not know, to consider the merits of ideas that frighten its dreadfully stupid brain (which, after all, is a machine), and to practice invention. While this might seem simple, it is the most difficult challenge a human-embodied beon will face.

I know that everyone thinks that intelligence is a goal, but I do not share that view. Why would "beon" need to become intelligent?

G

Gee,

This is a clear post, full of relevant questions. I'm not going to try to answer even the simplest of them here. You would not make sense of my replies. Nor would anyone else who had not read my book.

I didn't write and publish the damned thing to get rich. I wrote it as a presentation of alternative ideas about the nature of reality, the beginnings of things, and the origin of consciousness. If you had read it, and if you had read it slowly and carefully, rereading as necessary, perhaps asking questions of its readily available author as you went, you would never have posed those questions.

Human nature is not a mystery. Normal, average human beings will not read something that challenges their brains' preprogrammed beliefs. They just know that it will be dead wrong. That's the kind of brain-level attitude that keeps people ignorant. You've been trading posts with several members of that brain-set on this thread, so I assume that you must relate to them, and to their programs.

I'll also assume that you are a more or less normal female, despite a high level of intelligence and some curiosity into the nature of consciousness that might, or might not have been the consequence of some paranormal experiences. (I mention this because the only people I've ever met who were genuinely curious about the nature of consciousness have had OOBs or other extraordinary paranormal experiences.)

As a normal female, you've probably been a loving mother, with feelings about your offspring that no one who has not been through conception, pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, teaching and diaper changing can possibly understand at the emotional level. You've also harbored pets and watched Disney movies, a combination intended to re-program the human brain into confusing its genetically programmed empathy for its offspring into empathy for cats and dogs and two-dimensional cartoon characters on a TV or movie screen. So naturally your brain wants a belief system that allows consciousness for all critters, including Minnie Mouse and DarnOld Duck. Well, guess what? I do my best to do physics-based philosophy. I keep some outdoor cats partially fed and shed no tears when one of them disappears into the woods, or into the air to become food for baby hawks. After enough years and tears I've learned that human emotions are utter bullshit, programmed into the brain by its designers, to make human societies kind of, sort of work-- for a century or so.

You are obviously looking for some assurance that if you actually peruse my book, which you must have in hand by now, none of its ideas will disturb your brain's programmed emotional mindset. But the truth is, if they fail to get you to at least question the notion that dogs, cats, pandas, wart hogs, rats, crocodiles, rattlesnakes, politicians, and bacteria are in any way "conscious," I've done a worse job of writing it than I figured.

[Gee]

Gee,

I wrote it as a presentation of alternative ideas about the nature of reality, the beginnings of things, and the origin of consciousness.

Well, I don't study the beginnings of things or the origin, so I have no locked-in beliefs there. But I do study how things actually work. It is my thought that if one studies something carefully, it will expose it's nature, so I study to learn what it is and how it works. At this point I think that all of reality is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want in perpetual motion. I think that this is the nature of reality. Do you think my understanding will be capable of meshing with your theory?

Normal, average human beings will not read something that challenges their brains' preprogrammed beliefs.

I have changed my beliefs so many times in this study that I have to think hard to remember what they were at given times in my life. Discarding old beliefs is very difficult, requires a great deal of "soul searching", and can leave one feeling lost and disillusioned, but sometimes it is necessary if you want to find truth.

After enough years and tears I've learned that human emotions are utter bullshit, programmed into the brain by its designers, to make human societies kind of, sort of work-- for a century or so.

And I think that emotion is the key to unlocking the puzzle of consciousness. You told me earlier in this thread that emotion can not be a mechanism. Maybe "mechanism" is the wrong word, but I think that emotion (e-motion) is the "happening" with regard to consciousness. Consider the following.

When we see a person, who is alive and conscious, what we see is activity. The body and mind are both active and they respond. When a person dies, this activity ceases; there is no response from the body or mind. Consciousness no longer exists.

Does wind exist? Of course. We can feel it and see the things that it moves like windmills. But does wind exist when it is not moving? Well, no. When there is no movement, there is no wind. Many people see consciousness in this way; when it stops moving, it stops existing. So no movement equals: No wind. No consciousness.

But wind could not move if there was no air, and it could not move if it were not for temperature changes. So when consciousness "moves" what is moving? What is the "air" of consciousness? What causes it to move?

I think that the first division, knowledge, thought, and memory, is the "air" of consciousness. And the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, is the "wind" of consciousness. I think this because knowledge and memory have no ability to move. They are like a book with no reader, all knowledge but no awareness of that knowledge. But awareness, feeling, and emotion are all about movement, and I think that we feel this movement -- this activity is feeling and emotion.

You are obviously looking for some assurance that if you actually peruse my book, which you must have in hand by now, none of its ideas will disturb your brain's programmed emotional mindset. But the truth is, if they fail to get you to at least question the notion that dogs, cats, pandas, wart hogs, rats, crocodiles, rattlesnakes, politicians, and bacteria are in any way "conscious," I've done a worse job of writing it than I figured.

OK. But you are going to have to explain how life, other than human life, is alive.

G

[Blaggard]

Human nature is not a mystery. Normal, average human beings will not read something that challenges their brains' preprogrammed beliefs. They just know that it will be dead wrong. That's the kind of brain-level attitude that keeps people ignorant. You've been trading posts with several members of that brain-set on this thread, so I assume that you must relate to them, and to their programs.

Newsflash you are a normal human being, there is nothing big or clever about inventing a fantasy novel. There is nothing amazing about writing apriori sentiments and endless strings of non sequiturs in a stream of consciousness that reminds me why I am so lucky to be normal too, and not in a lunatic asylum.

I love the sheer arrogance it must take to ignore everyone and anyone who does not buy into your religion. It must be really cozy on that pedestal oh mighty sage and prophet.

Stop insulting everyone who is on this thread, fine you wont discuss anything with anyone who doesn't agree with your inane and presumably incorrigible delusions, but there's no need to insult anyone and everyone who you failed to address, and can't be assed to discuss anything with because you are absolutely positive that everything you say is somehow true by default due to some sort of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance process from your bunker and HQ in Imaginationland.

As a normal female, you've probably been a loving mother, with feelings about your offspring that no one who has not been through conception, pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, teaching and diaper changing can possibly understand at the emotional level. You've also harbored pets and watched Disney movies, a combination intended to re-program the human brain into confusing its genetically programmed empathy for its offspring into empathy for cats and dogs and two-dimensional cartoon characters on a TV or movie screen. So naturally your brain wants a belief system that allows consciousness for all critters, including Minnie Mouse and DarnOld Duck. Well, guess what? I do my best to do physics-based philosophy. I keep some outdoor cats partially fed and shed no tears when one of them disappears into the woods, or into the air to become food for baby hawks. After enough years and tears I've learned that human emotions are utter bullshit, programmed into the brain by its designers, to make human societies kind of, sort of work-- for a century or so.

I sincerely hope you are not this patronising and condescending when dealing with people generally, I doubt you could be and still either a) retain all your teeth b) have lived for more than 20 years.

It is not physics based philosophy it is religious based arm waving, you're delusional if you think what you are doing constitutes philosophy let alone science, remotely of any kind whatsoever.

See science has rigorous methodology, it demands any hypothesis must be testable or it is useless and relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas. Which incidentally is where your book is, it's not science, it's not even philosophy, it is a bible; it would probably suit your argument better and make you less hypocritical if you called a spade a spade, what you are selling is a work of imaginative fiction passed off as philosophy of religion and science, that doesn't make it philosophy or science any more than The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is Science because it makes nods to Christian theology and Roman pagan deities.

Philosophy of science is something that is based on accepted science but is a matter of interpretation, what you have done is run rough shod over several scientific areas only one of which you seem remotely educated to understand, and are busy running this steam train back and forwards over the corpse of philosophy to hide the evidence.

Habeas corpus?

Literally you may have the body?

In law meaning is there a case to answer for?

No there is not sufficient reason to proceed with a trial because there is no body of evidence and no crime and no criminal and for that matter the judge doesn't exist either or the jury or the legal system.

You are obviously looking for some assurance that if you actually peruse my book, which you must have in hand by now, none of its ideas will disturb your brain's programmed emotional mindset. But the truth is, if they fail to get you to at least question the notion that dogs, cats, pandas, wart hogs, rats, crocodiles, rattlesnakes, politicians, and bacteria are in any way "conscious," I've done a worse job of writing it than I figured.

They are conscious though, bacteria are not but having a brain and a cns means that animals are conscious, what they aren't necessarily is sentient?

This sort of denial of reality can't be good for you ell.

Does wind exist? Of course. We can feel it and see the things that it moves like windmills. But does wind exist when it is not moving? Well, no. When there is no movement, there is no wind. Many people see consciousness in this way; when it stops moving, it stops existing. So no movement equals: No wind. No consciousness.

Air is in motion whether there is wind or not Brownian motion. I see consciousness as an emergent property of chemical activity in the brain as a result of sensory input personally, it makes it less mysterious if you don't include extraneous souls into the equation, or place some sort of extensive religious gesticulations on the situation, life exists, most of it is conscious, the universe has given rise to life, that is all we can say with any certainty.

Basically dualism is pretty hard to rationalise, and even harder given where science is now, but you do have to admire Christian apologetics movements and their progeny for trying if nothing else.

Stroke victims lose function according to specific areas of brain damage, for example damage to the hypothalmus - and to any area that mediates basic unconscious functioning between cns and brain - extensive damage is nearly always fatal resulting either in locked in syndrome where a patient has no motor co-ordination and can only move his eyes, or brain death. People with psychopathy seem to undergo a degeneration of their frontal cortex in the womb causing them to lack empathy and to be superficial and often callous as well as prone to confabulation of the self or others skills. If you stimulate certain areas of the brain people can't remember words for things, and these areas appear specific and compartmentalised. For example you can cause people to lose the ability to name common tools such as hammers and saws by electromagnetically charging areas in the brain associated with memory and language. The evidence is fairly clear that the brain is a structure "designed" to mediate conscious processes by a process of selective selection over 3 billion or so years. Sentience is an emergent property of consciousness, all animals of the higher orders which have brains and cns share some form of consciousness, only the great apes, elephants and crows and dolphins appear to be self aware and sentient or cogniscent of the self passing the red dot mirror test. Chimpanzees seem remarkably good at learning number sequences and language exceeding human performance by some huge margin in some individuals who possess savant like memorisation and recall faculties, but lack the vocal cords for actual speech for example.

Incidentally Chimpanzees our cousins of evolution sharing a common ancestor at some point in our family tree with us also lack the ability to synthesise vitamin c and are the only other animal in the kingdom to lack this ability which is interesting. Such detrimental mutations are usually reduced by sexual selection, but clearly and ironically not being able to produce Vitamin C has lead to more adaptive vigour, the blind watchmaker stumbles over the shells of dozens of watch cases to find a watch that works.

There in the gaps between reason in that space that is not examinable by science and experiment goes God and the soul hides presumably in the mind of God.

Reincarnation into another body is an interesting diversion on a Sunday morning, but it is not a scientific concern, neither is it a philosophical one it is a product mainly of Eastern religion, where as Western religion seems to have taken the resurrection route.

[Greylorn Ell]

Gee,

I wrote it as a presentation of alternative ideas about the nature of reality, the beginnings of things, and the origin of consciousness.

Well, I don't study the beginnings of things or the origin, so I have no locked-in beliefs there. But I do study how things actually work. It is my thought that if one studies something carefully, it will expose it's nature, so I study to learn what it is and how it works. At this point I think that all of reality is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want in perpetual motion. I think that this is the nature of reality.

Everyone has an opinion about the beginnings of things. It is almost impossible not to, because this core opinion is programmed into the beliefs of almost all societies, and is functionally the same for both atheists and religionists. The opinion remains the same irrespective of study, because no one studies it.

Kindly prepare yourself for a somewhat different set of perspectives on reality. I hope you will come to realize that it is impossible to really understand how something works without understanding its beginnings. Moreover, you'll find that from a simple explanation of the beginnings, all the stuff that you've been trying to understand for so long just falls out of the tree or becomes low-hanging fruit.

Because of my focus upon the beginnings, my version of reality strikes a different balance than yours. I didn't write about that, so you'll naturally form your own opinions. The book invites its readers to do so, but the invitation is irrelevant-- you'll do it anyway. Were I to express my view in the context of yours, I'd call mine, haphazardly managed chaos-- with the managers desperately looking for Plan B.

Do you think my understanding will be capable of meshing with your theory?

Sure. And I think that your current understanding will morph into something else that you don't know yet, which will be an improvement on mine.

I didn't write "Digital Universe--Analog Soul" to get rich. Its purpose is to engage good minds with diverse perspectives, who will, in time, either invalidate or perfect Beon Theory.

Normal, average human beings will not read something that challenges their brains' preprogrammed beliefs.

I have changed my beliefs so many times in this study that I have to think hard to remember what they were at given times in my life. Discarding old beliefs is very difficult, requires a great deal of "soul searching", and can leave one feeling lost and disillusioned, but sometimes it is necessary if you want to find truth.

Then you've had exactly the right training for this work.

My beliefs have undergone only four changes, but each was major. We're dancing with ideas, and like all dancing, it gets easier to learn new patterns with practice.

After enough years and tears I've learned that human emotions are utter bullshit, programmed into the brain by its designers, to make human societies kind of, sort of work-- for a century or so.

And I think that emotion is the key to unlocking the puzzle of consciousness. You told me earlier in this thread that emotion can not be a mechanism. Maybe "mechanism" is the wrong word, but I think that emotion (e-motion) is the "happening" with regard to consciousness. Consider the following.

When we see a person, who is alive and conscious, what we see is activity. The body and mind are both active and they respond. When a person dies, this activity ceases; there is no response from the body or mind. Consciousness no longer exists.

Does wind exist? Of course. We can feel it and see the things that it moves like windmills. But does wind exist when it is not moving? Well, no. When there is no movement, there is no wind. Many people see consciousness in this way; when it stops moving, it stops existing. So no movement equals: No wind. No consciousness.

But wind could not move if there was no air, and it could not move if it were not for temperature changes. So when consciousness "moves" what is moving? What is the "air" of consciousness? What causes it to move?

I think that the first division, knowledge, thought, and memory, is the "air" of consciousness. And the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, is the "wind" of consciousness. I think this because knowledge and memory have no ability to move. They are like a book with no reader, all knowledge but no awareness of that knowledge. But awareness, feeling, and emotion are all about movement, and I think that we feel this movement -- this activity is feeling and emotion.

Let's quickly examine this statement, which shows the difference between a philosopher's perspective and that of someone who incorporates physics into the picture. You wrote, "Does wind exist? Of course. We can feel it and see the things that it moves like windmills. But does wind exist when it is not moving? Well, no..."

Wind consists of moving molecules of a gas. Gas molecules are always in motion. Even in perfectly still air, they move randomly, bumping into one another and whatever objects are about. However, standing in still air, this motion is detected as pressure rather than wind. Pressure is necessary to keep your body intact and prevent your internal fluids from boiling, but it is felt equally on all parts of the body. Thus our senses are generally unaware of it. Pressure is not wind.

Wind occurs when large numbers of gas molecules move in a vector, or a consistent direction. Wind occurs in conjunction with pressure. A body detects it because wind produces increased pressure on windward side, decreased pressure on the opposite side.

Your question, "Does wind exist when it is not moving?" does not have a "no" answer, because it is a meaningless question, the kind that some philosophers love because they can argue about it forever without resolution.

Essentially, your question is not logically formulated. Wind requires vectored moving air molecules. Therefore a correctly formed question would be, "Does wind exist when the air is not moving?" Any six year old with an IQ of 90 or better could answer that.

It is because of issues like this, faulty language furthered by an ignorance of simple physics, that I have so little regard for most philosophers. Perhaps you will choose to not become one of that glut.

We'll talk about this kind of thing as it applies to consciousness later, after you've obtained the context necessary to a productive conversation. In the meantime, you might think about arguing for your interrelationship between emotions and consciousness less obstinately. That will make it easier to see emotions in a different context later on.

You will be putting your practice in dropping old beliefs to good use. Here's a tip that will make the process easier. Don't argue determinedly for your current opinions. State them, of course, and then be done with it. The more you argue for your beliefs, the harder it will be to replace them later on.

I know a guy who always buys Fords. Why? A 1950 Ford convertible was his first car, nevermind that it was a piece of junk. I owned a 1955 Ford that was so badly designed that it was necessary to remove an engine mount and jack up the motor in order to change the #4 spark plug. It needed a valve job at 60,000 miles. An ex bought a 1980 Ford pickup, for which I became the repairman. It needed a lot of low-mileage repairs, being the 2nd worst vehicle I ever worked on, just behind a friend's old Subaru. The guy I mentioned has had similar fortune with his various Fords, but keeps defending them. So long as he defends them he'll continue to buy them. This is why Catholics, who only have to attend mass weekly, are being outgunned by Muslims who bow to Allah 5x daily-- the Muslims continue to reinforce their beliefs. I wonder if they prefer Fords?

You are obviously looking for some assurance that if you actually peruse my book, which you must have in hand by now, none of its ideas will disturb your brain's programmed emotional mindset. But the truth is, if they fail to get you to at least question the notion that dogs, cats, pandas, wart hogs, rats, crocodiles, rattlesnakes, politicians, and bacteria are in any way "conscious," I've done a worse job of writing it than I figured.

OK. But you are going to have to explain how life, other than human life, is alive.

G

Deal!

[Gee]

I see the misunderstanding. When talking about dualism philosophy puts everything under two umbrellas. Physical things can include anything that has extension in space and time. It can be a chair or a brain. Such things as Ego, Id and Super ego are all regarded as mental stuff. No distinction required. If one to were to make distinctions then this would be a pluralist theory, not a dualist theory..

Philosophy certainly does love it's "isms" almost as much as it loves it's "ologies". I looked up "pluralism" and don't think that this concept can work for me.

In metaphysics, pluralism is a doctrine that there is more than one reality, while realism holds that there is but one reality, that may have single objective ontology or plural ontology. In one form, it is a doctrine that many substances exist, in contrast with monism which holds existence to be a single substance, often either matter (materialism) or mind (idealism), and dualism believes two substances, such as matter and mind, to be necessary.

It looks like the multi-verse idea -- not sure. The only way that pluralism makes sense to me is in the concept of perspectives. If one considers that every perspective is essentially it's own reality, then pluralism works, but this is a subjective interpretation.

So far, it looks like realism is the closest to my thinking. The truth seems to be that the physical affects the mental and the mental affects the physical, so they seem to work together and maybe be interdependent -- at least in life. So I don't see the need to artificially divide the reality of them, except for study.

This is a difficult question to answer. If you don't count panpsychism as paranormal then I think property dualism doesn't stretch far enough to include ghosts and spirits.

This does not surprise me. Philosophy has stopped studying reality, and instead studies science's interpretation of reality or religion's interpretation of reality. This is the cause of the monism and dualism debates -- science v religion. Science dismisses the paranormal as not proven, and religion "cherry picks" the paranormal with regard to it's interpretations and beliefs. Since I know that the paranormal actually does exist, I study it along with what science and religion knows, or think they know. This, to my mind, is studying reality.

It depends what you mean by well studied. The Ego, Id and Superego are all mental stuff. This would probably come under the umbrella of psychoanalysis. This creates a problem as to the aspects of clinical psychology that can be regarded as scientific.

Well, psychology may be referred to as a "soft" science, but it is still science and has been recently incorporated into neurology.

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] Traditionally, neuroscience has been seen as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine and allied disciplines, philosophy, physics, and psychology.

It is my thought that neurology is finally figuring out that it will never find a "mind" in the brain, so it has called in reinforcements. Psychoanalysis is the study that actually analyzes the mind -- not the brain. Freud and Jung were both brilliant scientists, and the result of their collaboration was the breakdown of mind that we know of as Ego, Super Ego, and Id.

The study of consciousness (mind) is very difficult because we are never going to get "mind" to lay down on a lab table to be measured and weighed, but we also have no mathematical proofs regarding mind. So the only way to study it, objectively, is to see how it works, how the different mental aspects, thought and emotion, work with and against each other. So the original divisions of mind are classifications of mental aspects that are controlled differently.

The Ego, the rational mind, is the aspect that we control. It is the conscious aspect of mind that displays intentionality and logic and works with the senses to help us navigate physical reality. It is where we think out thoughts, plan our days, and imagine our futures. It also has "choice" so it is capable of lying.

The Id, the drives, is actually our instinctual aspect of mind, and we have no real control over it. It is unconscious, as we are not aware of it until it acts, and it mostly keeps us alive. This aspect of mind is associated with instincts and hormones, is hard wired, and controls the automatic and innate responses to our physical reality, like eating, sleeping, sex, and fear of death -- the things that motivate and drive us to continue life, our drives.

The Super Ego is an unconscious aspect of mind and is the fascinating part because it does so much. It temporarily stores thoughts and ideas that the Ego is not using, it is where we dream, it supervises a lot of bodily functions and absorbs a lot of sense information that we are not aware of, I suspect it is where we create, and it is guided and activated by emotion, so it also holds our beliefs.

Jung found that there is a kind of Oneness in the unconscious mind, as it classifies things in sets with regard to sameness and difference. So this is where a lot of prejudice originates. Jung's theory has been tested in clinical studies, and it is accepted that if we take the original unconscious ideas that produce irrational prejudice because of difference, and expose this thinking to the rational mind, it can be evaluated as to relevance in the given situation, so we can obliterate a lot of prejudice.

Blanco is the one who found a logic in the unconscious mind. Prior to his finding, it was supposed that the unconscious possessed no logic as it made no logical sense. But Blanco explained that if you consider unconscious thoughts to be symmetrical, there is a consistent logic. The symmetrical thought of the unconscious is consistent with the understanding that it does not consider time, and sees past, present, and future, as the same thing, because it does not know cause and effect.

In particular, 'Matte Blanco shows us that (to the unconscious) "the part can represent the whole" and that "past, present, and future are all the same"'.[2]

In The Unconscious as Infinite Sets Matte Blanco [5] proposes that the structure of the unconscious can be summarised by the principle of Generalisation and the principle of Symmetry, Matte Blanco's 'two principles: 1) The principle of Generalization: Unconscious logic does not take account individuals as such, it deals with them only as members of classes, and of classes of classes. 2) The principle of Symmetry: The Unconscious can treat the converse of any relation as identical to it; that is, it deals with relationships as symmetrical'.[6]

To show the illogical nature of symmetry, Matte-Blanco said, "In the thought system of symmetry, time does not exist. An event that occurred yesterday can also occur today or tomorrow...traumatic events of the past are not only seen in the unconscious as ever present and permanently happening but also about to happen'.[12]

These concepts have also been clinically tested, accepted, and are an important part of psychoanalysis. A classic example of how this works can be easily understood and demonstrated in this age of divorce, by how it causes a repeat of the cycle.

Mom and Dad divorce. Little girl watches Daddy, her first love, walk away. If she is traumatized by this event, she will class all real men, the kind that you love, as people who walk away. When she grows up, she may have good relationships with men at work, in the family, and in all other aspects of life, but she will fall in love with the ones who will walk away. If they do not walk away, she will push until they do. She will unconsciously choose men who will leave, or if necessary, she will manipulate them into leaving, but think that she is testing their reliability. Her rational mind will tell her that she is unlucky, hasn't found the right one, or some other excuse, but her unconscious mind knows that men she loves leave, in the past, in the present, and in the future.

So the solution to this is simple, just tell her. But she won't believe you because the unconscious aspect of mind is ruled by emotion and emotional thought is belief. Simply telling her will not sway her opinion. She must tell herself, which is why psychoanalysis can take so long; it depends on how good she is at lying to herself.


The point here is that the Ego, Super Ego, and Id are fairly well understood as they relate to the physical, time and space, and cause and effect. The Ego, rational mind, deals with physical reality; the Super Ego, the unconscious mind, has aspects that do not deal with physical reality and deal in a non-reality understanding. This implies that it could be non-local. The Id, the unconscious mind, is a self-balancing and maintaining system, that reflects the same kind of balance that we see in the body, in relation to other bodies, in an ecosystem, and in reality. The Id drives are closely related to hormones in the body, pheromones outside of the body, and hormones seem to activate consciousness. So I think that study of the unconscious mind is about as close as we are going to get to study of the Aether, or the chaos of reality. Unless you have a better idea.

It is a very complicated issue.

When I read this statement, I laughed right out loud. Yes. Complicated. And about a complex subject.

I made an edit because I didn't think the term "behaviour" was an inadequate explanation. I changed it to psychoanalysis

Good call. Behavioral psychology is an entirely different type of study that looks more to learning about how to control behavior, rather than analyzing the aspects of mind.

G

[Ginkgo]

Philosophy certainly does love it's "isms" almost as much as it loves it's "ologies".

Yes, it does.

It looks like the multi-verse idea -- not sure. The only way that pluralism makes sense to me is in the concept of perspectives. If one considers that every perspective is essentially it's own reality, then pluralism works, but this is a subjective interpretation.

speaking in general terms, I'd say this is correct.

So far, it looks like realism is the closest to my thinking. The truth seems to be that the physical affects the mental and the mental affects the physical, so they seem to work together and maybe be interdependent -- at least in life. So I don't see the need to artificially divide the reality of them, except for study.

Yes, this is why I think you are a property dualist. Having said this, I have actually changed my mind. It is a bit unusual, but I now don't see why property dualism excludes such things as ghosts, spirits and God.

This does not surprise me. Philosophy has stopped studying reality, and instead studies science's interpretation of reality or religion's interpretation of reality. This is the cause of the monism and dualism debates -- science v religion. Science dismisses the paranormal as not proven, and religion "cherry picks" the paranormal with regard to it's interpretations and beliefs. Since I know that the paranormal actually does exist, I study it along with what science and religion knows, or think they know. This, to my mind, is studying reality.

I think that once we sort this sorted out you are probably well on your way. This is still the sticking point from my point of view. Science for the most part will not acknowledge such things as near death experiences, ghost, spirits or God. The reason is that it is not part of its methodology. If science were to acknowledge these things the it strays from its methodology and we end up with metaphysics.

On the other hand religion deals with metaphysics. At this stage of human knowledge there is nothing that melds the two together. They are ad odds because they use a different methodology. It is almost as simple as that. However, I would like to quick add that this distinction is extremely important and should be maintained. Perhaps you would like to ask me why?

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] Traditionally, neuroscience has been seen as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine and allied disciplines, philosophy, physics, and psychology.

It is my thought that neurology is finally figuring out that it will never find a "mind" in the brain, so it has called in reinforcements. Psychoanalysis is the study that actually analyzes the mind -- not the brain. Freud and Jung were both brilliant scientists, and the result of their collaboration was the breakdown of mind that we know of as Ego, Super Ego, and Id.

For what it is worth (probably nothing) I am not that happy with this wiki quote.

The study of consciousness (mind) is very difficult because we are never going to get "mind" to lay down on a lab table to be measured and weighed, but we also have no mathematical proofs regarding mind. So the only way to study it, objectively, is to see how it works, how the different mental aspects, thought and emotion, work with and against each other. So the original divisions of mind are classifications of mental aspects that are controlled differently.

This is why think you are a property dualist.

Look I know this annoying, but you have to commit yourself to a particular methodology.

It is a very difficult task to straddle everything and present it as a concise theory of everything about consciousness. I'm not saying you can't , but it it is a monumental task at this stage of human knowledge.

[Gee]

Hi Ginkgo;

On the other hand religion deals with metaphysics. At this stage of human knowledge there is nothing that melds the two together. They are ad odds because they use a different methodology. It is almost as simple as that. However, I would like to quick add that this distinction is extremely important and should be maintained. Perhaps you would like to ask me why?

OK I'll bite. Why do you think this distinction is extremely important?

This is why I think you are a property dualist.

Look I know this is annoying, but you have to commit yourself to a particular methodology.

There are reasons why I do not like to commit myself to something like "property dualism". Partly because I am not sure exactly what I am committing myself to. Consider that if I tell people that I am a property dualist, and they are not, then they will feel free to argue against ideas that a known property dualist theorizes. So I will end up trying to defend myself against ideas that may or may not agree with mine. I have not yet found a known "methodology" that agrees with my understanding.

And the word "dualism" bothers me. A few centuries ago, when we could divide this issue by considering the tangible and intangible, dualism could make sense. But science has moved into the arena of the intangibles. Something that is physical is not necessarily material and tangible, so this brings the game into a new understanding.

It is my thought that the rational mind deals with and understands the physical, so it may well be physical, albeit not material. Emotion has to be physical, doesn't it? Emotion is external to the body and actually moves between life forms. It is my understanding that something that moves between other things, must be physical because movement is related to time and space. But some aspects of the unconscious mind clearly have no understanding of time and space, so it is my thought that this part of the unconscious is not within time and space.

The physical is no longer limited to material; the mental seems to be part of the physical and the non-physical. So the lines between physical and non-physical are blurring.

It is a very difficult task to straddle everything and present it as a concise theory of everything about consciousness. I'm not saying you can't , but it it is a monumental task at this stage of human knowledge.

But I am not trying to present a "concise theory of everything". I am still investigating and trying to validate or improve my understanding. But there is a lot to investigate and few people who will actually consider different ideas.

G

[Blaggard]

That's a wise course of action because there is no concise theory of everything, it's a complicated maze of science and philosophy at the best of times. Of course there are always some people who bypass both and think they have come to some pretty interesting conclusions which is fine, but religion I don't think is going to expedite any rational understanding of everything. Which is probably why I have such a good understanding of religion, and like to dabble in philosophy, badly it has to be said since it's not my area of study. It's also probably why I know more about parapsychology than many people and have attended lectures on it for many years. Parapsychology is a science, if it is done with the scientific method, anything you can earn a degree in BSc or whatever is ultimately a legitimate area of scientific concern. Ok some areas as I mentioned before are more art than science, but as also mentioned they still have something to contribute, even if it is only about the psychology of people or belief structure and culture in general.

People who don't like looking at areas outside their box are called ignorant. People who spend a lifetime in their comfort zones are idiots frankly, although theirs is of course their own choice, but if you are intelligent enough to question reality, it seems lazy; but the faculty of reason should not be so narrow as to exclude everything that is not within its compass by a sort of process of ignorance. End of the day the very fact you have not committed yourself in itself is wise, because philosophically and indeed scientifically the whole field is so wide open a blind man could score a goal from 5 miles without ever kicking a ball.

I think it's a good time to be alive we are at the point where we know where the playing field is and that there are goal posts, but we haven't quite marked them out yet...

But science has moved into the arena of the intangibles

This is not true particularly in the hard sciences although some people do like dicking around with their imaginary dimensions and physics that is unprovable probably always, let me say though such philosophical interpretation issues and pseudo theories are not science they are philosophy. There are some areas of science that deal in intangibles, when they do though that is the art side of their field. For example a nueropharmacologist who explores the pathways of addiction as it applies to GABA receptors in cell cultures is doing science. The same person who is trying to build a picture of consciousness from the understanding we currently have about neural pathways and chemical exchanges therein is doing philosophy. There is a serious distinction between the more artistic areas of theory and the more applied areas of experiment. That's not to say cracking open the area and musing about things we cannot prove is not ultimately valuable but it is not science per se. And no one ever got a Nobel prize for something that was non evidential unless it was in literature or peace, or economics.

"Wake up with a hypothesis, destroy it over breakfast, and then you are ready for work."

Anonymous Scientist.

[Gee]

You can discuss the paranormal with me, I have spent years as I said amongst parapsychologist learning their means and hence their science. I know full well how various groups both Fortean and those more biased.

Have any of these studies equated the paranormal/supernatural with emotion? I do not mean subjective emotion, and am not talking about what the subject "feels". I am talking about how emotion works, what it is, why it causes the reactions that it does and stores in memory the way it does.

I don't dismiss it out of hand I have spent years looking into it, what I might dismiss is only the reason why people think there is a supernatural, I personally think everything is natural, but am more than willing to discuss those things that are considered by some outside of nature.

So why did you get so dismissive when reincarnation was introduced earlier in the thread? I provided a link to the University of Virginia and Dr. Ian Stevenson's work. Did you look at the link? Do you have any information on reincarnation? Or do you simply wish to disprove it?

Gee stated: I suspect that whoever originally made these statements about the Piranha, had no true understanding of religion, spirituality, or the Piranha. This looks like the kind of thinking that had all people, who were not Christian, believed to be primitive heathens. How old is this information? I think that someone needs to go down there and talk to the Piranha. Or study them if this is actually true.

It was a Christian missionary seeking to convert them, who on learning their language and world view later posted several papers on their language, how it contains no numbers, no spiritual or divine references and no religion whatsoever,

Well, I certainly got the "Christian" part right. It appears that I also got the "study them" part right.

You got nothing right you just jumped to a conclusion based on your own biases which is not your fault, you have spent your entire life doing that at any time and without reasoning at any time, kneejerk conclusions is all you expect from religious apologists. And indeed it is all you will get.

Not even close to true. I study the supernatural because it is part of consciousness, and my understanding of the supernatural is that most of it is something that we interpret with our rational minds, but are aware of in our unconscious minds, and that we become aware of it through emotion.

If my understanding is correct, then a culture that does not know the supernatural would either have no emotion, to learn of it (not likely), or have no rational mind, to interpret it (also not likely). And concluded that we would not be discussing humans.

My interpretation of the Piranha culture's lack of supernatural beliefs was spot on correct, which helps to validate my understanding, except for the part where I thought they could not be human. My considerations are based on Freud's divisions of mind, and prior to learning about the Piranha, I thought that all human minds were the same in this respect -- I was wrong. Apparently there are human minds that do not clearly divide the three divisions, Ego, Super Ego, and Id, in the same way as other humans.

Learning that the Piranha do not use numbers and are limited in their understanding of time, both important features of the rational logical mind, explains why they do not note the supernatural. My evaluation of the Piranha was based on logic applied to my understanding and studies -- not on religion.

I would like to end by saying that you make assumptions about people based on nothing, which is only human, and of course it is by being wrong we progress more aptly to being right.

Assumptions are always based on something. If the assumption is not based on facts, then it is projected from the mind of the person doing the assuming. You appear to have religion on the mind.

I see people who just wont take criticism wont indulge in arguing with others who do not believe their religion is anything more than absolute, as nothing more than assholes in the world.

Again, religion on the mind. It is possible that you are too critical. It is also possible that listening and understanding may reduce the need to argue.

G

[Blaggard]

Again, religion on the mind. It is possible that you are too critical. It is also possible that listening and understanding may reduce the need to argue.

OK I am not going to trawl back to what I said and when, but what about what I have said shows a lack of understanding of the subject and why?

The documentary was called religion on the brain, I am pretty certain not one person watched it, and that's ok but it seems a little odd to throw religion on the mind in the mix henceforth.

I am I think not too critical, but critical enough, I am of course willing to be proved wrong about my criticism, which is more than can be said for some...

I welcome criticism of absolutely everything and anything I have said, some are not so open minded. Some claim they welcome it but have extensive ignore lists where those who did not observe the correct adherence to the persons views were put on ignore forever for being simple minded and ignorant. I think that is but another fall of man. I mention no names but we know those who do that, and they are marching boldly forth with their own personal flag and agenda, and just stepping rough shod over anyone who disagrees. I find no value in this, it is a philosophy forum not a soap box.

Learning that the Piranha do not use numbers and are limited in their understanding of time, both important features of the rational logical mind, explains why they do not note the supernatural. My evaluation of the Piranha was based on logic applied to my understanding and studies -- not on religion.

Of course I don't come back here to discuss this subject for my health but because different perspectives have and always will intrigue me, it's why I am clued up on so many diverse subjects. It's why I haven't insulted you by talking down to you, or in any way denied what you think is valid in as much as I have said that's bs you are talking babble and nonsense, that is not my style, nor have I expressed a view that you don't have a right to belief, or a belief you should follow to its logical conclusion. Which is more than can be said for some people on this thread...

So why did you get so dismissive when reincarnation was introduced earlier in the thread? I provided a link to the University of Virginia and Dr. Ian Stevenson's work. Did you look at the link? Do you have any information on reincarnation? Or do you simply wish to disprove it?

You can't disprove reincarnation, I have no idea what I said earlier, and I don't I am afraid have the time to search back to it, but reincarnation is a religious subject and I mentioned above why religion is not a subject science can tarry with, nor even philosophy really, except to perhaps point out where reincarnation is illogical or not.

As an addendum I am not going to sit back and watch people launch nothing but insults against people they have on ignore and call others ignorant or closed minded, or not very clever or dummards, or call Scientists dumb facks or not reply to people's points because they don't agree with theirs, or to keep throwing in insults at people who you have not and will not taken the time to address. Call me a robin hood of debate and reason, I am robbing the rich to pay the poor. I am standing up for those who have been cast aside, I am not at home to the self righteous wax collector, nor am I at home to the honey bee, or the mead on which its honey is made, nor the sincere and constant ability of some to just ignore everyone who is not on the same keg of intoxicants as them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w

Consider me a modern day Dennis Moore.

[Ginkgo]

OK I'll bite. Why do you think this distinction is extremely important?

I'll try an answer that towards the end. Basically two reasons.

There are reasons why I do not like to commit myself to something like "property dualism". Partly because I am not sure exactly what I am committing myself to. Consider that if I tell people that I am a property dualist, and they are not, then they will feel free to argue against ideas that a known property dualist theorizes. So I will end up trying to defend myself against ideas that may or may not agree with mine. I have not yet found a known "methodology" that agrees with my understanding.

You may be closer than you think

And the word "dualism" bothers me. A few centuries ago, when we could divide this issue by considering the tangible and intangible, dualism could make sense. But science has moved into the arena of the intangibles. Something that is physical is not necessarily material and tangible, so this brings the game into a new understanding.

I'm no sure sure about this . Science will often talk about non-material stuff , but the solution is to afford the non-material stuff the same ontological status as observable stuff. Again, it depends on what we mean by"non-material". If from a scientific point of view we mean gravity, then this is fine. If on the other hand, we mean, souls, ghosts and God, then from a scientific view these things have no ontological status.

This explanation would count as being important in terms of, "maintaining the distinction"

It is my thought that the rational mind deals with and understands the physical, so it may well be physical, albeit not material. Emotion has to be physical, doesn't it? Emotion is external to the body and actually moves between life forms. It is my understanding that something that moves between other things, must be physical because movement is related to time and space. But some aspects of the unconscious mind clearly have no understanding of time and space, so it is my thought that this part of the unconscious is not within time and space.

From a philosophical, rather than a scientific perspective we could look at things this way.. Stewart Hameroff, says that emotions are distinct entities that exist at the most fundamental level of the space time geometry. He is talking about scales even smaller than a Planck length. As to the ontological status of emotion (physical or non-physical) at this incredibly tiny scale? Probably pretty much left unsaid by Hameroff.

Hameroff calls this emotion, "qualia" roughly speaking it means the same thing. My feeling is that as a scientist Hameroff would want to say qualia has the same ontological status as observables. In other words, qualia is actually physical, even at a sub-Planck level.I don't think we can say that emotion (qualia] HAS to be physical. We can say it is, but this would be subject to volumes of debate.

You would need to ask Hameroff how qualia attaches itself to living organisms (for the want of a better way of saying it). This is where it really begins to get tricky (if not already). We need to be careful not to claim we can describe what reality is. Naturally we can, but we are no longer doing science. We have crossed over into metaphysics.

The physical is no longer limited to material; the mental seems to be part of the physical and the non-physical. So the lines between physical and non-physical are blurring.

Again, I think we need to be careful about drawing ontological conclusions and non-ontological metaphysical conclusions.

This is the other reason to maintain the distinction.

[Gee]

Ginkgo;

I am sorry that it has taken me so long to get back here. Please consider the following:

I'm not sure sure about this . Science will often talk about non-material stuff , but the solution is to afford the non-material stuff the same ontological status as observable stuff. Again, it depends on what we mean by"non-material".

This has been my point all along, I think that emotion does have the same ontological status as observable stuff. Thought and knowledge do not have the same ontological status as observable stuff as far as I can see.

Observable stuff has parameters. It is what it is and can not be anything else. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to discover what it is, but when we do, as in gravity, then our understanding of it is what it is, not what we would like it to be. Consider that thought can be whatever we choose to think, and knowledge can be whatever we want it to be, whether it is true knowledge or not is irrelevant to our "knowing" it. We can imagine anything that we wish, and call it thought or knowledge -- there are no parameters.

Emotion has limits and parameters just like everything else that is real. Consider the exercise that I explained to Greylorn: Summon up a strong emotion, love, hate, fear, etc., so you can actually feel it, then try to hold that emotion for one minute on the clock. Most people have no trouble doing this. Then do it a second time, but this time you are allowed no thoughts to help you summon the emotion. I have not met anyone who can accomplish this.

Then consider this second exercise: Get a coffee cup and set it on the table, then spend an hour every day for a week to try and summon some emotion that comes from the coffee cup, or goes to the coffee cup. I tried 'envy' and ended up in a fit of the giggles after only two days. Emotion does not work with inanimate objects -- unless you are "certifiable". Now I could think that my mother-in-law gave me the cup, so I could hate it. Or I could think that I paid too much for it and resent it. Or I could think that it is beautiful and admire it. But what I would "hate" is my mother-in-law, what I would "resent" is my own stupidity, and what I would "admire" is art.

What you will find between these two exercises, is that emotion can only exist between life forms, or between a life form and something we value like art -- beauty and or ugliness. In the first exercise, you will find that any thoughts regarding emotion come from a feeling that you have for another life form, or from a feeling that you have with regard to you and danger, pleasure, or some kind of art. We can be clear on one thing; emotion only works between things, either between life forms or emotion comes from us in response to whatever gives our lives value like art, or takes value away like death. So emotion is limited, it has parameters, it can not be whatever we choose it to be like thought and knowledge, because it is real.

If from a scientific point of view we mean gravity, then this is fine. If on the other hand, we mean, souls, ghosts and God, then from a scientific view these things have no ontological status.

This explanation would count as being important in terms of, "maintaining the distinction"

When you look in a mirror, is the person that you see real? Well, yes and no. The reflection in the mirror is not real, but it is a reflection of something that is real. This is how I think that spirits, ghosts, gods, and most of the paranormal/supernatural work. Consider that almost all of the paranormal/supernatural is related to emotion, and emotion does not work through the conscious rational aspect of mind -- it works through the sub/unconscious. God is about love, ghosts are there because of some betrayal or tragedy, angels are about protection and safety, demons are about fear, premonitions are about tragedy, (No one has a premonition that Mom is going to the store, unless the store is going to burn down or be robbed.) ESP is about emotional bonds between people, auras are about a person's personal power/emotion, religions are about morality/emotion. All of these things relate to emotion, and emotion is real, works between life, and has parameters. So does that make gods, angels, and demons real? Only in reflection or in our interpretation of the emotion; in and of themselves, they are not real.

Consider the exercise above where I asked you to summon emotion without thought or some kind of source. It could not be done. What if we reversed that idea, and stated that there can be emotion that does not have an image or thought attached to it. That it has no knowable source. If it has no knowable source, how would we even know that we experienced it? What memories could we possibly have of it, if there were no thoughts, images, sounds, etc.? We can't have any memories of it, much like the Piranha, we would not even know that it happened.

A good example of this is when we are given drugs. These drugs cause an emotional reaction without a source, so how do we know that we are experiencing this? What would we remember? Well, the brain fills in the blanks. There have been lots of studies that show us the brain's ability to "fill in the blanks" like we do when reading words that are not correct, but we will still interpret the meaning correctly. The brain's ability to fill in the blanks is the source of anthropomorphism and delusion. The brain interprets what it thinks fits the emotion that we are experiencing and shows us the interpretation. So if we are Christian, we will see Christ or Mary; if we are Islamic, we will see Allah; if we are Vikings, we will see Thor, etc., whenever we think we are in the presence of God.

Science is very comfortable with the idea that chemistry in the brain will cause anthropomorphism and delusion, but they like to forget that emotion can also cause chemical changes just as well as chemical changes can cause emotion. They also don't seem to know that emotion is external.

It is my thought that the rational mind deals with and understands the physical, so it may well be physical, albeit not material. Emotion has to be physical, doesn't it? Emotion is external to the body and actually moves between life forms. It is my understanding that something that moves between other things, must be physical because movement is related to time and space. But some aspects of the unconscious mind clearly have no understanding of time and space, so it is my thought that this part of the unconscious is not within time and space.

From a philosophical, rather than a scientific perspective we could look at things this way.. Stewart Hameroff, says that emotions are distinct entities that exist at the most fundamental level of the space time geometry. He is talking about scales even smaller than a Planck length. As to the ontological status of emotion (physical or non-physical) at this incredibly tiny scale? Probably pretty much left unsaid by Hameroff.

I am not sure what Hameroff is looking at and don't see emotions as distinct "entities". I see emotion as movement, and that the movement is felt by and moves between life forms. My thought is that something that moves between life forms has to be physical, simply because it moves in time and space. I relate emotion to wind because I am not sure that it exists when it is not moving.

Hameroff calls this emotion, "qualia" roughly speaking it means the same thing. My feeling is that as a scientist Hameroff would want to say qualia has the same ontological status as observables. In other words, qualia is actually physical, even at a sub-Planck level.I don't think we can say that emotion (qualia] HAS to be physical. We can say it is, but this would be subject to volumes of debate.

At this point, I can not agree with Hameroff. I think there is a distinct difference between awareness, or the "raw" consciousness of the universe, and emotion. I suspect that what he is studying and calling "qualia" is in fact awareness, not emotion. Maybe there is no difference between them, but I see emotion as being more tangible than awareness, maybe a mix between the tangible and intangible. Emotion always has a source, and that source is physical.

You would need to ask Hameroff how qualia attaches itself to living organisms (for the want of a better way of saying it). This is where it really begins to get tricky (if not already).

There is a lot of evidence that emotion works through chemicals, so that would be where I would start.

We need to be careful not to claim we can describe what reality is. Naturally we can, but we are no longer doing science. We have crossed over into metaphysics.

Maybe so, but we can describe how it works. But I'll save this explanation for another post.

Again, I think we need to be careful about drawing ontological conclusions and non-ontological metaphysical conclusions.

This is the other reason to maintain the distinction.

When people talk about consciousness, they relate it to thought and knowledge, but this is not so. Consciousness literally means awareness. We are aware of our thoughts and knowledge, but thoughts and knowledge do not give us awareness. It is literally the other way around, awareness gives us thoughts and knowledge. Just as vision gives us thoughts and knowledge; hearing gives us thoughts and knowledge; awareness is a sense and it works externally.

G

[Gee]

Gingko;

Apparently I have not done a good job of answering your post, as you have not responded. So I will try one more time to explain my views on the religion v science methodology issue.

Science studies consciousness using the "scientific method", which is as close to an objective study as one can accomplish. They have concluded that consciousness emerges from the brain, so we are the "source" of consciousness, which makes consciousness internal, and only species with brains can potentially be conscious. They do not necessarily equate consciousness with life, and have no idea of what magical force makes some things alive and others not.

There are some problems with this type of study. The first and most obvious problem is that science studies the physical, and it is not yet known if consciousness is physical. The second is that science can only make conclusions about things that they can validate, so they end up ignoring some realities because they can not be proven. This is one of the reasons why they desperately need philosophy to theorize possibilities regarding the as yet unknown.

To demonstrate an example of science's "ignoring some realities", consider this: "The contents of two containers can not connect magically". This statement is a clear rebuttal against the idea of ESP. It is not possible for two minds to connect and share information magically. Since consciousness is internal and private, ESP is not possible. But we know that "bonds" are a fact of life. The mother infant bond is necessary for survival of the infant, and if broken, the infant can simply quit and die. This was well documented in orphanages and is part of the reason for deinstitutionalization. There are family bonds, captive victim bonds, bonds forged in love and hate and trauma, some of which are lifelong; others are temporary such as the "mob" or "riot" mentality that bonds people and causes them to act in a way that is against their natures. This bonding is all a connection of minds and it is all coincidentally based in emotion -- just like ESP.

So if it is true that "The contents of two containers can not connect magically.", and it is true that minds connect in bonding, then it has to be true that minds are not solely the contents of a container. They have to be able to extend outside of ourselves. So I can not buy into the idea that the mind is only internal.

Religion studies consciousness/the supernatural/"God"/whatever you want to call it, by using introspection and interpreting "visions". Their methodology is a subjective study that interprets and explains the unexplainable. They have concluded that a "God" is the source of life and consciousness, and that this "God" has bequeathed us with life for assorted reasons -- each religion develops a philosophy that explains these reasons. Although there are many differences in religions, there are also universals. The universals are that the "source" of life/consciousness is outside of us, that spirituality (which means emotion) is the important component, and that "God" loves and wants us.

But there are some problems with these interpretations, the most important being the "'God' loves and wants us" idea. Many people have asked, "If God is good, why do bad things happen?" Why indeed? But I have a better question, "Why is life designed for bad things to happen? It is, you know." Every life that exists will also die. Every life that exists must consume life until it dies. Every life that exists will struggle to maintain it's life as is evidenced by the "survival instinct". These are facts.

So the facts are that we kill in order to eat and live, that the lion will eat the lamb -- not lay down with it -- that bacteria will sometimes keep us alive and sometimes kill us. That gravity will keep us on the planet and also make us fall off cliffs to our death. That water will restore us, but sometimes drown us. These facts do not paint a picture of a loving omnipotent "God". What they tell us is that any "God" or "Intelligent Designer" is limited by the laws of physics and nature. What these facts demonstrate is a cycle of life that consumes itself in order to continue. The idea that "life begets life" develops a whole new meaning.

Considering the above facts, I can not buy into either the "God" idea or the "Intelligent Designer" idea. It seems clear to me that the nature of life, and maybe consciousness, is to continue itself through change, which would be part of the reason why I called it a "self-balancing chaos motivated by want in perpetual motion". So is the "source" of life/consciousness outside of us as religion theorizes? And is spirituality/emotion relevant? Maybe. I think that science can help to answer these questions.

It is clear to me that neither science nor religion have all of the answers. It is also clear that science studies the "first division" of consciousness, which is knowledge, thought, and memory; but religion studies the "second division" of consciousness, which is awareness, feeling, and emotion. It is also clear that science studies the internal "first division" and religion studies the external "second division". Since I have concluded that both divisions are in fact components of consciousness, I can not in good faith choose to follow the dictates of either. If that means blurring the lines between methodologies and disciplines -- so be it.

G

[Ginkgo]

fixed up post below

[Ginkgo]

Apparently I have not done a good job of answering your post, as you have not responded. So I will try one more time to explain my views on the religion v science methodology issue.

Science studies consciousness using the "scientific method", which is as close to an objective study as one can accomplish. They have concluded that consciousness emerges from the brain, so we are the "source" of consciousness, which makes consciousness internal, and only species with brains can potentially be conscious.

Yes, this is the physicalists answer.

They do not necessarily equate consciousness with life, and have no idea of what magical force makes some things alive and others not.

As you say, science doesn't deal in "magical forces"

There are some problems with this type of study. The first and most obvious problem is that science studies the physical, and it is not yet known if consciousness is physical.

True

The second is that science can only make conclusions about things that they can validate, so they end up ignoring some realities because they can not be proven.

True.

This is one of the reasons why they desperately need philosophy to theorize possibilities regarding the. as yet unknown.

I think this is correct as well. Once possibilities are theorized then science looks to see if there is a way of testing these theories.
Using the scientific method of course.

To demonstrate an example of science's "ignoring some realities", consider this: "The contents of two containers can not connect magically". This statement is a clear rebuttal against the idea of ESP. It is not possible for two minds to connect and share information magically. Since consciousness is internal and private, ESP is not possible. But we know that "bonds" are a fact of life. The mother infant bond is necessary for survival of the infant, and if broken, the infant can simply quit and die. This was well documented in orphanages and is part of the reason for deinstitutionalization. There are family bonds, captive victim bonds, bonds forged in love and hate and trauma, some of which are lifelong; others are temporary such as the "mob" or "riot" mentality that bonds people and causes them to act in a way that is against their natures. This bonding is all a connection of minds and it is all coincidentally based in emotion -- just like ESP.

This is the problem of" ignoring some realities". Philosophers in certain disciplines have a different opinion to scientists as to the nature of reality.

So if it is true that "The contents of two containers can not connect magically.", and it is true that minds connect in bonding, then it has to be true that minds are not solely the contents of a container. They have to be able to extend outside of ourselves. So I can not buy into the idea that the mind is only internal.

Quantum mechanics has some relevance to this area. There have been a number of scientific investigations into entanglement and non-locality when it comes to ESP.

From my perspective, quantum mechanics seems the most likely stepping stone when it comes to bridging science and religion. But this is a fair way down the track.