Pure Consciousness?

[Gee]

Hi Ginkgo;

I hope that you do not mind my slow response. After taking too long to consider your post, life got busy. I also found it difficult to write this post because it is the first time I have shared the experience that follows outside of immediate family.

In your response to my posts, you made no mention of the religious aspects, or my observations regarding psychology. Is this what you meant by not mixing methodologies and disciplines? Just ignore anything that is not science, or science-based philosophy? Or is it that you don't understand psychology and do not want to comment? Why do you not comment about the religious aspects?

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.

I don't agree. Although quantum mechanics may one day prove that the metaphysical has some basis in reality, it is not going to explain how the metaphysical works within us and between us. If anything, it will just create more questions and confusion. This would be a lot like proving that everything is energy. OK, but what does that have to do with whether or not my furnace is working, or what there is to eat for dinner? Sometimes we need a more practical explanation of the workings of our lives, and quantum mechanics is not going to give us that.

The most likely next stepping stone is psychology, as it is already bridging that gap. Psychology is the only science that is really studying emotion, which is what moves and activates most of the paranormal/supernatural -- imo. Although neurology has finally teamed up with endocrinology and is making some headway, that study is more to do with discovering what emotion is and proving how it works in order to manipulate and control it, rather than teaching us how to live with our emotions or to understand how they work and affect us. Religion has always been the one to teach us how to deal with our emotions, and it is interesting to note that some Eastern religions are very compatible with the understandings of psychology.

First, let me state that I am not talking about "Dial-a-Psychic" as that is more about entertainment and chicanery than it is about ESP. I am talking about the average person, who seems to know things, but has no idea of how that knowledge was acquired. Knowledge does not come into our minds with a label regarding it's origin -- we have to figure it out if we want to know where the knowledge came from. Psychology helps us to label that knowledge and can help to identify what is ESP and what is not. Consider what ESP is; it is an Extra Sense that we Perceive things through. But how does it work? What is this "sense", as it does not seem to be the five senses that we understand. People have called it "a gut feeling", instinct, intuition, and various other things, but the truth is that we sometimes know things without rhyme or reason.

Ten years ago, my husband died from cancer. We used Hospice. He died at home, and I learned more about death than I ever wanted to know. It occurs to me that in this country, the U.S., we do our best to try to civilize death. When we think that someone is close to dying, we send them to a nursing home for care, and when we think death is immenent, we send them to a hospital. The person will then be given medications and sometimes surgeries to try to "save" them, and be put on an IV drip which can artificially prolong their death. If they are savable, this can be a good thing; if they are not, then it just looks like a good thing. Hospice showed me that looking like a "good thing" is not always a "good thing" for the patient, but that is a subjective consideration, and I want to discuss this from my perspective as a witness to death.

I have four different images of my husband in my mind on the day that he died; two of them make perfect sense; two of them do not. The first image is of an elderly man that most people would guess is about 90 years old. His body was frail and weakened to the point that he looked like a holocaust victim, mostly bones. This was caused by the ravages of cancer. The second image of him is of a healthy strong man in his late 50's, the true image of him. Science would say that the first image is the real one as that is what he physically looked like. I would say that the second image was the real one, because that is who and what he was.

But I also have two images of him in his early forties on the day he died. These images are almost identical, except that in one of them he has a glowing aura of light around his face that extends 10 or 12 inches out from him. These are the images that don't make sense.

Because of a set of circumstances that include my philosophic nature, my need to analyze everything, my training when I worked with the mentally handicapped, a stupid argument, and some dumb luck, I have been able to analyze why I have these two images in my mind that don't make sense. Although I can not give a full accounting of my considerations here, following is a synopsis of the events as I remember them.

When my husband passed, I was sleeping in a twin bed that was pushed up next to his hospital bed, which was where I had slept for months. My sister-in-law woke me up and told me that my husband was no longer breathing. I said, "Yes he is." and proceded to get up. It was my intention to get up, find my glasses, and show her how silly she was being, but as I started to move, I froze. I was on my right side and had lifted myself so that I was resting on my right elbow, when I felt my husband's presense along my left side. I could not have moved if my life depended on it because I felt as if getting up would cause me to push into or through him. It was disconcerting to realize that if he was on my left side, he had to be floating in the air. I could see my 90 year old-looking husband in front of me and feel my 40 year old husband beside me. I did not want to look to my left because the only thing more disturbing than seeing my husband floating in the air, would be feeling him there, but not seeing him there, so I looked at my sister-in-law, who was facing me. She did not look to my left, she did not react to him, so I concluded that he was not actually there -- which was a relief.

By this time, I was fully awake, so I took the time to consider what was going on. I realized that my husband was concerned that he had done something wrong -- maybe he was not supposed to die. I also realized that his "presence" was a reaction to my words, "Yes he is." regarding his breathing, and immediately confirmed that, yes, he was supposed to die. No one would want him to stay in that broken body. I then felt relief and maybe gratitude coming from my husband, and he floated away. From the time that I said, "Yes he is." to the time of him leaving was only seconds, but a lot transpired in those seconds. I proceeded to get up, check his body which was still very hot, and confirm that he indeed had stopped breathing. He had passed, but then I already knew that because of his presence next to me.

Later that night, I gave myself a kind of report where I "reported" the events of that night to myself so that they were translated into thought in my rational mind. This was something that I had been trained to do decades before while working with the mentally handicapped. In that job we were required to report all incidents by the end of our shifts. It was explained to us that emotional memory changes over time, so if something traumatizes us, it is very important to record the events as soon as possible, before they have time to change. I have been using this kind of self reporting since learning about it and find that it helps me to have more accurate memories of emotional events. I did not concern myself with the fact that my internal vision of my husband was of him in his early forties, because I assumed that, that was his self image presented to me. Like in the old days when it was said that the blind see, the deaf hear, no one is really old or sick looking, and the crippled are whole after they die, I assumed that this was a self image created by him.

I was comfortable with my understanding of what had happened until about two years later. I was going through photo albums when I came across one of my favorite pictures of my husband and noted that this was how he looked in my mind's eye on the night he passed. I smiled at the memory, then frowned. He hated that picture. I remembered arguing with him about it. When I looked at that picture, I saw the man that I loved; I saw his strength, his wisdom, his determination to protect and care for his family, his love. But when he looked at that picture, he saw a middle-aged man with his shirt off, whose muscles were not as cut and defined as they were years before. He said that the picture should be thrown out, which was why I found it in my small personal album. I had removed it from the family album because it looked like he might just "disappear" it. So why would he show me a self image that he hated? It made no sense. After 20 years of marriage there were plenty of images of him that we both liked.

After carefully considering everything that I knew about the situation, I had to conclude that the image of him in his forties did not come from him -- it came from me. So did I imagine the whole thing? It was a possibility and had to be considered. So I dug out the "report" that I had made to myself, and later written down, and compared it with what I had learned. After studying this for days, I concluded that the image did indeed come from me, but the emotion did not. The problem with the emotion was perspective. I could find no way to make sense out of his concern that he should not be dying yet, or his gratitude and relief when he realized that it was OK to die -- from my perspective. There were a lot of emotions from my perspective that night, and I could make sense of his fear of dying (but he wasn't afraid), or anger about him leaving me, or regret that our marriage was over, or my fear or love, but the emotions that I felt weren't from my perspective -- so they were not from me. And what about that "halo" that I now saw around his forty year old image? That was not in the "report", and it was not in the image that I saw in my mind that night.

The image of him that I "saw" that night was of a vague body along my left side and a face turned up toward me -- no halo. But the image in my mind when looking at pictures was of a frontal view of his head and shoulders like a portrait with a halo. When did the second image appear in my mind? I have no idea. It was many years before I finally got some answers to the "halo" question. I was reading about how emotional memory stores in the brain/mind, and that emotional memory actually grows or changes over time. One article likened emotional memory to film being put into chemicals and stated that it seems to almost "develop". Of course the next question would be does it develop as it interprets what the mind "saw", or does it develop with our imaginations? Or is it some combination of both? I suspect that it is a combination.

If I had not made that "report" to myself that night, which locked my memories into my mind, I suspect that the only image that I would have of "seeing" my husband in my mind, would be the one with the halo. I would have forgotten the original image and replaced it with the current image, so I would be spending some time trying to figure out if my husband was a better man than I thought. Maybe attributing some saintly or holy qualities to him. My husband was a good man, but he was not saintly, and had as many weaknesses as he had strengths. So if I do not see my husband as having been saintly, then why did my mind interpret a halo? Since religious figures and "Gods" are seen as having halos, it is a possibility that the mind interprets energy, essence, or spirit, whatever you want to call it, as a halo. If one could see the "aura" of a person in their mind's eye, but see no actual physical representation, it could be interpreted as a halo. The physical representation of a "God" would be part interpretation, part imagination, and part self-identity, so that any "God" would seem to be of the customs and race of the person interpreting.

Consider that of the three images that were in my mind that night, the 90, 50, and 40 year old husbands, all of them had emotion and trauma attached to the memories, but the 90 year old came into my mind from vision, seeing a physical thing; the 50 year old came into my mind through my memories and thoughts; only the 40 year old came into my mind through emotion, and this is the one that changed. After learning about anthropomorphism, I have come to the conclusion that I had an anthropomorphic experience when my husband passed, and suspect that this is how anthropomorphism works. We interpret emotions that we experience because we can not know emotion without thought, but we can know that the emotions are not from our perspectives. The two other things associated with anthropomorphism are a loss of the fear of death and a vague feeling that one has acquired knowledge without understanding how. I experienced both of these.

So in conclusion, I have a lot to thank psychology for; I would never have made the original "report" to myself and would have had no way of knowing my emotional memory changed. So there would have been nothing to investigate and no way to do it. I probably would have gone with the religious ideas and started building monuments to the memory of my husband. So, yes, I see psychology as the discipline that can build a bridge between religion and science.

G

[Ginkgo]

Hi Ginkgo;

I hope that you do not mind my slow response. After taking too long to consider your post, life got busy. I also found it difficult to write this post because it is the first time I have shared the experience that follows outside of immediate family.

In your response to my posts, you made no mention of the religious aspects, or my observations regarding psychology. Is this what you meant by not mixing methodologies and disciplines? Just ignore anything that is not science, or science-based philosophy? Or is it that you don't understand psychology and do not want to comment? Why do you not comment about the religious aspects?

Hi Gee

Psychology is definitely not my strong suit. I tend to think that psychology, being an empirical science, can only tell us why people have paranormal visions. I don't think psychology would accept the apriori assumption that there actually exists a paranormal dimension that has the potential to impact on our lives. I think it would be investigating the belief by humans there is such a realm that can impact on our behavior. The exception to this might be Carl Jung.

Can psychology be a bridge between science and religion? Even though psychology can be termed a "soft science" At this stage I don't think it is soft enough to make a bridge. Perhaps in the future.

On the other hand, I am very confident that there exists no bridge that can link science and religion at the moment. Interesting enough you expresses this incompatibility beautifully when you talk about quantum mechanics. I shall comment a little further down the track.

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.

Keeping in mind that one of the containers is an apriori assumption, I also don't buy into the idea that the mind is only internal.

This would be a lot like proving that everything is energy. OK, but what does that have to do with whether or not my furnace is working, or what there is to eat for dinner? Sometimes we need a more practical explanation of the workings of our lives, and quantum mechanics is not going to give us that.

Well said, and welcome to the explanatory gap that exists between science and religion. Sorry about cutting out most of the quantum bit, but standing on its own, your example is a very good one.

The most likely next stepping stone is psychology, as it is already bridging that gap. Psychology is the only science that is really studying emotion, which is what moves and activates most of the paranormal/supernatural -- imo. Although neurology has finally teamed up with endocrinology and is making some headway, that study is more to do with discovering what emotion is and proving how it works in order to manipulate and control it, rather than teaching us how to live with our emotions or to understand how they work and affect us. Religion has always been the one to teach us how to deal with our emotions, and it is interesting to note that some Eastern religions are very compatible with the understandings of psychology.

As I said, psychology is not really my area. However, I would be reasonably confident in saying that when psychology studies emotion it does so on the basis that it isn't disembodied, or exists in another realm. Again, the psychologist Carl Jung may be of interest because he takes a somewhat different view.

First, let me state that I am not talking about "Dial-a-Psychic" as that is more about entertainment and chicanery than it is about ESP. I am talking about the average person, who seems to know things, but has no idea of how that knowledge was acquired. Knowledge does not come into our minds with a label regarding it's origin -- we have to figure it out if we want to know where the knowledge came from. Psychology helps us to label that knowledge and can help to identify what is ESP and what is not. Consider what ESP is; it is an Extra Sense that we Perceive things through. But how does it work? What is this "sense", as it does not seem to be the five senses that we understand. People have called it "a gut feeling", instinct, intuition, and various other things, but the truth is that we sometimes know things without rhyme or reason.

Ten years ago, my husband died from cancer. We used Hospice. He died at home, and I learned more about death than I ever wanted to know. It occurs to me that in this country, the U.S., we do our best to try to civilize death. When we think that someone is close to dying, we send them to a nursing home for care, and when we think death is immenent, we send them to a hospital. The person will then be given medications and sometimes surgeries to try to "save" them, and be put on an IV drip which can artificially prolong their death. If they are savable, this can be a good thing; if they are not, then it just looks like a good thing. Hospice showed me that looking like a "good thing" is not always a "good thing" for the patient, but that is a subjective consideration, and I want to discuss this from my perspective as a witness to death.

I have four different images of my husband in my mind on the day that he died; two of them make perfect sense; two of them do not. The first image is of an elderly man that most people would guess is about 90 years old. His body was frail and weakened to the point that he looked like a holocaust victim, mostly bones. This was caused by the ravages of cancer. The second image of him is of a healthy strong man in his late 50's, the true image of him. Science would say that the first image is the real one as that is what he physically looked like. I would say that the second image was the real one, because that is who and what he was.

But I also have two images of him in his early forties on the day he died. These images are almost identical, except that in one of them he has a glowing aura of light around his face that extends 10 or 12 inches out from him. These are the images that don't make sense.

Because of a set of circumstances that include my philosophic nature, my need to analyze everything, my training when I worked with the mentally handicapped, a stupid argument, and some dumb luck, I have been able to analyze why I have these two images in my mind that don't make sense. Although I can not give a full accounting of my considerations here, following is a synopsis of the events as I remember them.

When my husband passed, I was sleeping in a twin bed that was pushed up next to his hospital bed, which was where I had slept for months. My sister-in-law woke me up and told me that my husband was no longer breathing. I said, "Yes he is." and proceded to get up. It was my intention to get up, find my glasses, and show her how silly she was being, but as I started to move, I froze. I was on my right side and had lifted myself so that I was resting on my right elbow, when I felt my husband's presense along my left side. I could not have moved if my life depended on it because I felt as if getting up would cause me to push into or through him. It was disconcerting to realize that if he was on my left side, he had to be floating in the air. I could see my 90 year old-looking husband in front of me and feel my 40 year old husband beside me. I did not want to look to my left because the only thing more disturbing than seeing my husband floating in the air, would be feeling him there, but not seeing him there, so I looked at my sister-in-law, who was facing me. She did not look to my left, she did not react to him, so I concluded that he was not actually there -- which was a relief.

By this time, I was fully awake, so I took the time to consider what was going on. I realized that my husband was concerned that he had done something wrong -- maybe he was not supposed to die. I also realized that his "presence" was a reaction to my words, "Yes he is." regarding his breathing, and immediately confirmed that, yes, he was supposed to die. No one would want him to stay in that broken body. I then felt relief and maybe gratitude coming from my husband, and he floated away. From the time that I said, "Yes he is." to the time of him leaving was only seconds, but a lot transpired in those seconds. I proceeded to get up, check his body which was still very hot, and confirm that he indeed had stopped breathing. He had passed, but then I already knew that because of his presence next to me.

Later that night, I gave myself a kind of report where I "reported" the events of that night to myself so that they were translated into thought in my rational mind. This was something that I had been trained to do decades before while working with the mentally handicapped. In that job we were required to report all incidents by the end of our shifts. It was explained to us that emotional memory changes over time, so if something traumatizes us, it is very important to record the events as soon as possible, before they have time to change. I have been using this kind of self reporting since learning about it and find that it helps me to have more accurate memories of emotional events. I did not concern myself with the fact that my internal vision of my husband was of him in his early forties, because I assumed that, that was his self image presented to me. Like in the old days when it was said that the blind see, the deaf hear, no one is really old or sick looking, and the crippled are whole after they die, I assumed that this was a self image created by him.

I was comfortable with my understanding of what had happened until about two years later. I was going through photo albums when I came across one of my favorite pictures of my husband and noted that this was how he looked in my mind's eye on the night he passed. I smiled at the memory, then frowned. He hated that picture. I remembered arguing with him about it. When I looked at that picture, I saw the man that I loved; I saw his strength, his wisdom, his determination to protect and care for his family, his love. But when he looked at that picture, he saw a middle-aged man with his shirt off, whose muscles were not as cut and defined as they were years before. He said that the picture should be thrown out, which was why I found it in my small personal album. I had removed it from the family album because it looked like he might just "disappear" it. So why would he show me a self image that he hated? It made no sense. After 20 years of marriage there were plenty of images of him that we both liked.

After carefully considering everything that I knew about the situation, I had to conclude that the image of him in his forties did not come from him -- it came from me. So did I imagine the whole thing? It was a possibility and had to be considered. So I dug out the "report" that I had made to myself, and later written down, and compared it with what I had learned. After studying this for days, I concluded that the image did indeed come from me, but the emotion did not. The problem with the emotion was perspective. I could find no way to make sense out of his concern that he should not be dying yet, or his gratitude and relief when he realized that it was OK to die -- from my perspective. There were a lot of emotions from my perspective that night, and I could make sense of his fear of dying (but he wasn't afraid), or anger about him leaving me, or regret that our marriage was over, or my fear or love, but the emotions that I felt weren't from my perspective -- so they were not from me. And what about that "halo" that I now saw around his forty year old image? That was not in the "report", and it was not in the image that I saw in my mind that night.

The image of him that I "saw" that night was of a vague body along my left side and a face turned up toward me -- no halo. But the image in my mind when looking at pictures was of a frontal view of his head and shoulders like a portrait with a halo. When did the second image appear in my mind? I have no idea. It was many years before I finally got some answers to the "halo" question. I was reading about how emotional memory stores in the brain/mind, and that emotional memory actually grows or changes over time. One article likened emotional memory to film being put into chemicals and stated that it seems to almost "develop". Of course the next question would be does it develop as it interprets what the mind "saw", or does it develop with our imaginations? Or is it some combination of both? I suspect that it is a combination.

If I had not made that "report" to myself that night, which locked my memories into my mind, I suspect that the only image that I would have of "seeing" my husband in my mind, would be the one with the halo. I would have forgotten the original image and replaced it with the current image, so I would be spending some time trying to figure out if my husband was a better man than I thought. Maybe attributing some saintly or holy qualities to him. My husband was a good man, but he was not saintly, and had as many weaknesses as he had strengths. So if I do not see my husband as having been saintly, then why did my mind interpret a halo? Since religious figures and "Gods" are seen as having halos, it is a possibility that the mind interprets energy, essence, or spirit, whatever you want to call it, as a halo. If one could see the "aura" of a person in their mind's eye, but see no actual physical representation, it could be interpreted as a halo. The physical representation of a "God" would be part interpretation, part imagination, and part self-identity, so that any "God" would seem to be of the customs and race of the person interpreting.

Consider that of the three images that were in my mind that night, the 90, 50, and 40 year old husbands, all of them had emotion and trauma attached to the memories, but the 90 year old came into my mind from vision, seeing a physical thing; the 50 year old came into my mind through my memories and thoughts; only the 40 year old came into my mind through emotion, and this is the one that changed. After learning about anthropomorphism, I have come to the conclusion that I had an anthropomorphic experience when my husband passed, and suspect that this is how anthropomorphism works. We interpret emotions that we experience because we can not know emotion without thought, but we can know that the emotions are not from our perspectives. The two other things associated with anthropomorphism are a loss of the fear of death and a vague feeling that one has acquired knowledge without understanding how. I experienced both of these.

So in conclusion, I have a lot to thank psychology for; I would never have made the original "report" to myself and would have had no way of knowing my emotional memory changed. So there would have been nothing to investigate and no way to do it. I probably would have gone with the religious ideas and started building monuments to the memory of my husband. So, yes, I see psychology as the discipline that can build a bridge between religion and science.

Firstly, let me say I am sorry to hear of your loss. Even though it was ten years ago your memories are still obviously strong.

Secondly, I don't doubt anything you say in your above explanation. I am not really sure what I can add to this.

Kind regards

Ginkgo

[Gee]

Hi Gee

Psychology is definitely not my strong suit.

I don't know how anyone can study consciousness without some basic information about psychology. Think of what consciousness is; it is communication. Whether you call it intelligence, knowledge, memory, emotion, awareness, or qualia, it is all communication that we are aware of in our minds. It can be internal like thoughts and feelings, or it can be external like vision, hearing, and emotion, but it is all information that is gathered into something that we call mind. So I would think that a good understanding of mind would be required.

The following video is only eight minutes long and talks about the day of President Kennedy's assassination. I think it can help you to understand my point with regard to psychology and emotional memory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNuARPcb5FA

I do not agree with the speakers conclusions and suspect that the "blue" blouse was an accurate memory, the school setting was an accurate memory, and the learning about the assassination was an accurate memory. If one could go back and study the curriculum for that teacher and that class, I suspect that one would find that a history lesson regarding the assassination was delivered by a teacher wearing a blue blouse. What I think the speaker did as a child was conflate the learning of the event with the actual event, then his mind "developed" memories of the appropriate responses and scenario. This is something that emotion does routinely, pulling things out of time because emotion dwells in the unconscious aspect of mind -- the aspect that has no regard for time.

So if one considers that religious "experiences" are always emotional, as are most paranormal experiences, it is easy to see that as much is interpreted as is actually learned in these experiences. Without psychology, how could we know which is which? It is amazing to me that religions got anything right, but they did. Our moral laws derive from the Books of Law in the Bible; our culture, government structure, societies, and family divisions derive from our religion. Religion provides us with the rituals that help us to navigate the emotional changes that accompany "coming of age", marriage, birth, and even death. They even provide for religious holidays that help us to celebrate life in the Spring, celebrate bounty in the Summer, and distract from the darkness that consumes the Earth in the Winter. They actually got a great deal right.

So when I talk about psychology building a bridge between science and religion, I am not stating that they will be in complete agreement. That would be silly. What I am stating is that psychology can show us that there is value in religion, that some of it is cultural, some of it is interpretation, and some of it is about emotion. So people who state that religion is delusion are just plain wrong. This bridge is about building understanding and respect.

Gee wrote: 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.

Keeping in mind that one of the containers is an apriori assumption, I also don't buy into the idea that the mind is only internal.

Sorry, you lost me. What does "Keeping in mind that one of the containers is an apriori assumption" mean?

Gee wrote: This would be a lot like proving that everything is energy. OK, but what does that have to do with whether or not my furnace is working, or what there is to eat for dinner? Sometimes we need a more practical explanation of the workings of our lives, and quantum mechanics is not going to give us that.

Well said, and welcome to the explanatory gap that exists between science and religion. Sorry about cutting out most of the quantum bit, but standing on its own, your example is a very good one.

Well, I have two thoughts on this. First, I do not see a great gap between what quantum physics is learning and the "God" idea regarding consciousness. I see this as a perspective problem. Second, I don't think that quantum physics or religion is going to give us the "nuts and bolts" of consciousness and suspect that chemistry, neurology, and biology are more likely to answer those questions. But I think that psychology can help with both problems.

Regarding the first problem: As I stated before, I know as much about science as dolphins know about climbing trees, so don't jump down my throat, just correct me, if I'm wrong. But it seems as if science is learning through quantum physics that time and location are not necessarily immutable facts and that matter can form from something immaterial. Both of these ideas are contrary to the laws of physics, but are consistent with the ideas of "God".

Science studies what reality is, but religion studies what reality feels like. So, if we consider the possibility that these little somethings, particles and waves, that are flickering in and out of existence cause "feeling" or emotion, then it is possible that what science has discovered is what religion interprets as the "God" of love. Now I know that this is just speculation, but it is interesting to note that the unconscious aspect of mind also has no understanding of time and space, and it is ruled by emotion. Makes you want to go, "Hmmm." Is it all about perspective?

Regarding the second problem, that will have to wait for another post.

G

[Gee]

Gingko;

After sleeping on my thoughts, I remembered the following quotes from your post a while back.

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.

Is there a rule that says size is relevant to physicality? To me, a water molecule is a little bit of nothing that has no real physicality that could affect me, but if enough of them get together, no one would doubt the physicality of a tsunami.

So is Hameroff talking about waves and particles here? The little quantum stuff? If so, I might like his thinking. It is the activity of these waves and particles that make them so intriguing, and the fact that they seem to defy time and space. Maybe he sees the comparisons between these waves and particles and the unconscious mind, which would lead to emotion. As to whether or not they are physical or nonphysical -- they seem to be trying to be both. (chuckle) Could they be both?

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.

Very "roughly speaking". I would not call this emotion, but can see why he would call it "qualia". I see "qualia" as being the precursor to emotion, or as I described it earlier, a kind of "raw consciousness", which would be consciousness before it is focused. So it is not really conscious yet -- "qualia" might be a better term than "raw consciousness". On the other hand, calling a "fundamental" level of space time "qualia" implies that either the Universe is alive or a "God" exists, because qualia is known to be subjective and is closely related to perspective.

When we are aware of something, we "feel" that awareness. When our feelings are strong, we call them emotions, so I see a commonality here. The "second division" of consciousness, awareness, feeling, and emotion, are all mental activities and all relate to qualia, so I think they have a common root. The "first division" is different as no activity is required for knowledge to exist, memory is stored knowledge, and thought is processed knowledge, so I think these also have a common root.

I am going to use my water metaphor again to try to explain my thinking on this. I am going to use water in place of qualia in this little metaphor. If you put your hand in water that is the same temperature as your hand, you can not feel the water. You actually have to focus on the water in order to feel it. This is like awareness; it requires focus in order to exist, so without that focus there is no awareness of the water (no qualia). If you put your hand in water that is moving slowly, you have no trouble feeling it. After a while it becomes a kind of background to your consciousness like feelings (not tactile) and moods, which are always with us. This is the second stage of conscious awareness and is always active, until death, so it does not require intentional focus to exist. If you put your hand in swiftly moving water, it can actually move your body physically. If you put your whole arm in, the water can actually pull you down or knock you over. This is the third stage, emotion, and it is very powerful, requiring no focus to exist.

So I see awareness, feeling, and emotion as being different degrees or types of the same thing. All of them are relative to qualia, but there is a difference in the way these different aspects of consciousness work. Initially focus is required to cause basic awareness, so the start of consciousness requires matter in order to create a point to focus from, a perspective, which would be why there is no actual consciousness prior to life. (This is one of the places where my thinking runs against the Intelligent Designer or "God as a being" idea.)

Once life gets started, it propogates and/or feeds on itself, and the bodily activity causes feeling and emotion. Although feeling and emotion do not require intentional focus to exist, they do require a life form as a source of that feeling or emotion. And because they are sensed in the unconscious mind, they also require interpretation to be known as thought and knowledge. They also require interpretation as to the source of this emotion or feeling. This part can get very confusing fast, and requires some knowledge of the workings of mind to it figure out. I suspect that the "visions" that are attributed to "God" do not actually come from "God", but from life.

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.

I am sure that I have heard of strong emotion as being described as "palpable", which seem physical to me. The truth is that emotion has tremendous power over the mental and the physical, so it is difficult to for me to believe that it is less than 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). 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.

I don't really think that it "attaches" exactly, more like it is drawn like a magnet draws iron. Then I think that life starts to produce it. Of course, I could be wrong here.

Is there something written about Hameroff's ideas that you think I could read and absorb? What would you recommend? If his work is too technical, has someone else written about his ideas? It is very difficult to find anyone who takes emotion seriously, as most either empathize or dismiss it.

G

Edit: I finally found Stuart Hameroff in Wiki. I was spelling the first name wrong, and adding an additional "m" to the last name. Yes, he understands psychology. He is a Professor of psychology.

[Greylorn Ell]

Gingko;

After sleeping on my thoughts, I remembered the following quotes from your post a while back.

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.

Is there a rule that says size is relevant to physicality? To me, a water molecule is a little bit of nothing that has no real physicality that could affect me, but if enough of them get together, no one would doubt the physicality of a tsunami.

So is Hameroff talking about waves and particles here? The little quantum stuff? If so, I might like his thinking. It is the activity of these waves and particles that make them so intriguing, and the fact that they seem to defy time and space. Maybe he sees the comparisons between these waves and particles and the unconscious mind, which would lead to emotion. As to whether or not they are physical or nonphysical -- they seem to be trying to be both. (chuckle) Could they be both?

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.

Very "roughly speaking". I would not call this emotion, but can see why he would call it "qualia". I see "qualia" as being the precursor to emotion, or as I described it earlier, a kind of "raw consciousness", which would be consciousness before it is focused. So it is not really conscious yet -- "qualia" might be a better term than "raw consciousness". On the other hand, calling a "fundamental" level of space time "qualia" implies that either the Universe is alive or a "God" exists, because qualia is known to be subjective and is closely related to perspective.

When we are aware of something, we "feel" that awareness. When our feelings are strong, we call them emotions, so I see a commonality here. The "second division" of consciousness, awareness, feeling, and emotion, are all mental activities and all relate to qualia, so I think they have a common root. The "first division" is different as no activity is required for knowledge to exist, memory is stored knowledge, and thought is processed knowledge, so I think these also have a common root.

I am going to use my water metaphor again to try to explain my thinking on this. I am going to use water in place of qualia in this little metaphor. If you put your hand in water that is the same temperature as your hand, you can not feel the water. You actually have to focus on the water in order to feel it. This is like awareness; it requires focus in order to exist, so without that focus there is no awareness of the water (no qualia). If you put your hand in water that is moving slowly, you have no trouble feeling it. After a while it becomes a kind of background to your consciousness like feelings (not tactile) and moods, which are always with us. This is the second stage of conscious awareness and is always active, until death, so it does not require intentional focus to exist. If you put your hand in swiftly moving water, it can actually move your body physically. If you put your whole arm in, the water can actually pull you down or knock you over. This is the third stage, emotion, and it is very powerful, requiring no focus to exist.

So I see awareness, feeling, and emotion as being different degrees or types of the same thing. All of them are relative to qualia, but there is a difference in the way these different aspects of consciousness work. Initially focus is required to cause basic awareness, so the start of consciousness requires matter in order to create a point to focus from, a perspective, which would be why there is no actual consciousness prior to life. (This is one of the places where my thinking runs against the Intelligent Designer or "God as a being" idea.)

Once life gets started, it propogates and/or feeds on itself, and the bodily activity causes feeling and emotion. Although feeling and emotion do not require intentional focus to exist, they do require a life form as a source of that feeling or emotion. And because they are sensed in the unconscious mind, they also require interpretation to be known as thought and knowledge. They also require interpretation as to the source of this emotion or feeling. This part can get very confusing fast, and requires some knowledge of the workings of mind to it figure out. I suspect that the "visions" that are attributed to "God" do not actually come from "God", but from life.

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.

I am sure that I have heard of strong emotion as being described as "palpable", which seem physical to me. The truth is that emotion has tremendous power over the mental and the physical, so it is difficult to for me to believe that it is less than 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). 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.

I don't really think that it "attaches" exactly, more like it is drawn like a magnet draws iron. Then I think that life starts to produce it. Of course, I could be wrong here.

Is there something written about Hameroff's ideas that you think I could read and absorb? What would you recommend? If his work is too technical, has someone else written about his ideas? It is very difficult to find anyone who takes emotion seriously, as most either empathize or dismiss it.

G

Edit: I finally found Stuart Hameroff in Wiki. I was spelling the first name wrong, and adding an additional "m" to the last name. Yes, he understands psychology. He is a Professor of psychology.

Gee,
You write eloquently and competently about every subject that you choose to address. Yet you refuse to address the beginnings of things. Questions about the origin and nature of the mind that generates the emotions upon which you dote, roll past your mind like water off a duck's back, or photons that pass the eye.

Thus you are a typical philosopher, essentially a mystic, someone who wants to understand consciousness, but does not believe that understanding the physics or microbiology behind the mechanisms that support consciousness could possibly be relevant.

You will be pedaling your donkey-cart loaded with psychological data and driven by emotion, down the same rutted road until you die, doomed to wonder why understanding has mysteriously eluded you. It will be because you lacked the courage to press your mind to the perimeters of its comprehension. I'd expected better of you.

Since you're obviously not reading my book, may I suggest another source of insight? "Consciousness and the Universe" was largely edited by Sir Roger Penrose, one of the few 0.01% minds in the world. He and Hameroff are buddies, so you'll find Hameroff's ideas at the front end of this book. The rest of it consists of ideas about consciousness from a variety of different authors, every one with at least one Ph.D., thus, better credentialed than I will ever be.

You will find much more grist for your particular mill in that book than in mine. You'll find none in this forum. I should have recommended Penrose's compendium over my own book, but I really wanted to rake in my $2.37 profit. I'll refund it upon request.

For the record, I think that Hameroff is F.O.S. The man is unquestionably brilliant, but he's taken the conventional track, trying to explain consciousness entirely as a function of the brain. I'd thought about trying to connect with him-- he's less than two hours down the road from me at an excellent university hospital I've had occasion to visit. But after studying his ideas I see no hope that he could extend his considerable understanding of the human brain beyond his current atheistic beliefs, to a model of consciousness in which brain and beon are essential participants.

Given your perspectives, however, Hameroff is a must-read for you. Don't screw around reading idiots' dumbed-down interpretations of his ideas, unless you want to base your personal understanding upon dumbed-down and half-assed opinions. Read Hameroff directly. You're smarter than the nits who deliver their dumbed-down opinions. Read Hameroff like I read physics texts--- three reads is a warmup. Around the fourth perusal you'll be ready to get the concepts-- provided that you've made good use of Wikipedia in the interim to look up unfamiliar words.

Otherwise, get on your little philosophical/psychological/emotional donkey cart, grab the reins, and ride off happily into your favorite sunset.

Gl

[Felasco]

Thus you are a typical philosopher, essentially a mystic, someone who wants to understand consciousness, but does not believe that understanding the physics or microbiology behind the mechanisms that support consciousness could possibly be relevant.

Physics or microbiology would surely be relevant, but not especially useful for addressing the needs of vast majority of human beings.

As example, to date Jesus the humble carpenter has had far more impact on far more people's consciousness than any microbiologist has. I would grant that there is a possibility that may change someday.

Like a true wanna be academic, you wish to make the subject as complicated as possible, and limited to the areas which you have studied, so that you can further your own personal ego agendas, which scream out like abused children from each of your posts.

I suspect you know this already, but just can't help yourself, just as I can't stop myself from pointlessly typing upon these pages. The two of us both have a bit of screw loose, and no amount of physics or microbiology is likely to be of help.

All of humanity has a bit of a screw loose, a situation which keeps us careening along on the perpetual edge of self extinction.

Unless you can share with us how physics and microbiology will solve this pressing problem, it seems wiser to make the subject ever more simple instead of ever more complicated, so that the greatest numbers of people might be able to access whatever useful insights have been accumulated.

[Gee]

Gee,
You write eloquently and competently about every subject that you choose to address. Yet you refuse to address the beginnings of things.

Well, thank you for the compliment, but I could not write very well about something that I know nothing about. I don't know about the beginnings of things. I don't even study it. You once stated that I had to have a belief about how things got started, but you were mistaken. I don't even think about beginnings and endings in a linear way. To me, a beginning is just the aftermath of an ending; an ending is just an indication of change, so I don't find a great deal of truth in either of these events.

I know that I have always had a different perspective from most people, but a few years ago, I finally got an explanation from a Professor of Archaeology, who told me that I am a holistic thinker. Which is now called a "systems thinker". You can look up "systems thinker" in Wiki and it will give you a better explanation, but basically speaking, I understand and study things from a whole perspective, rather than from a "from here to there" perspective. I see the relationship between things better than I see the individual things, so I study patterns and cycles and relationships, then compare them to find the truth of something. I don't look at the start and suspect you are a "linear thinker" -- also in Wiki.

Questions about the origin and nature of the mind that generates the emotions upon which you dote, roll past your mind like water off a duck's back, or photons that pass the eye.

Ah. But I am not sure that mind "generates the emotions" and suspect that emotion sets the parameters of mind. More on this further down.

I'd expected better of you.

Slipping off that pedestal again. Good thing I was raised in Michigan. With all the snow and ice we get every winter, I learned how to slip, slide, and spin my car without getting hurt a long long time ago. So I think that I may survive a slippery pedestal.

Since you're obviously not reading my book, may I suggest another source of insight?

I will PM you about your book. Probably tomorrow. This post is getting too long, so I may have to split it.

"Consciousness and the Universe" was largely edited by Sir Roger Penrose, one of the few 0.01% minds in the world. He and Hameroff are buddies, so you'll find Hameroff's ideas at the front end of this book. The rest of it consists of ideas about consciousness from a variety of different authors, every one with at least one Ph.D., thus, better credentialed than I will ever be.

I scanned Hameroff's website, but was not encouraged by what I found. Most of it was technical. He would have to give a technical presentation in order to get science to look at his work, but I am not interested in the technical. I need a general idea and slant to compare to other "patterns". I also found more about brain than I did about mind, but I did not look closely yet. Rather than buy the book, I think I will check and see what the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) has to say about Penrose.

For the record, I think that Hameroff is F.O.S. The man is unquestionably brilliant, but he's taken the conventional track, trying to explain consciousness entirely as a function of the brain. I'd thought about trying to connect with him-- he's less than two hours down the road from me at an excellent university hospital I've had occasion to visit. But after studying his ideas I see no hope that he could extend his considerable understanding of the human brain beyond his current atheistic beliefs, to a model of consciousness in which brain and beon are essential participants.

What does "F.O.S." mean? I understand what you mean about his being conventional, but I will still take a look to see if there are any little tidbits of information that most people miss because they are not looking for them. If he sees emotion and mind as related, there may be something there.

Otherwise, get on your little philosophical/psychological/emotional donkey cart . . .

The little "donkey cart" in my mind is getting too full, so I thought that I would dump some ideas here regarding philosophy, psychology, and emotion.

First Philosophy

You made some statements in this thread a while back that are quoted below:

Look at science, philosophy, and religion as separate mechanisms for validating theories.

Religion validates its theories by means of agreement, belief, and authority.

Philosophy validates its theories using logic.

Science validates its theories by incorporating all of the above--- agreement, belief, authority, logic (especially mathematical logic)--- plus experiments.

You used the word "validate" in each statement. This is what science does, they validate, test, prove, or whatever you want to call it; they focus on the end product, the result. Philosophy does not. Philosophy focuses on the premises, or as science puts it, the axioms, that the validating, testing, and proving are based upon. Without a valid premise, the work produced will be garbage, unless you are very lucky and/or very intuitive.

Science does not generally have to deal with premises because math, measure, and Laws of Physics are already established. But there are some subjects that don't work within the established boundaries, so philosophy is still working out the premises in these cases. If you don't start with some basic truth, any resulting work will not be true.

Second Psychology

If you look through a telescope, the world appears to be different than from normal vision; if you look at a television, there appears to be a different reality; if you listen to a radio or a telephone, you hear voices that appear to be coming from those devices. But we know that telescopes and televisions do not actually change reality, and we know that there are no people in the radio or telephone, because we know how these things work.

Do we know how mind works? Not really. We know some things, but mostly we know that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is somewhat unknowable, and the rational aspect of mind lies. But our minds are the only tools that we have to discern what is real and what is not; what is fantasy and imagination and what is reality; what are the lies we tell ourselves and what is truth. So I think that a basic understanding of psychology, some understanding of how the mind works, would be required in the study of consciousness and mind, so we can at least have a clue as to whether or not our thoughts reflect knowledge and truth.

Third Emotion

This is not going to be a discussion about how emotion feels, it is going to be about how emotion works and affects life, in our thoughts, minds, instincts, communication within and between species, and the paranormal.

Re: Thought

Emotion has the ability to delete, create, enhance and corrupt our thoughts and memories. Have you ever been in an argument with someone, and stated that you already told them something -- which they deny? They deleted the information as it was being delivered. Why? Because they did not want to know it.

Emotion routinely deletes information when there is shock and/or trauma -- to protect us. Some people have whole blocks of time, years, deleted from their childhood memories, and of course, there is amnesia, which can delete a person's whole identity -- sometimes permanently. The video link at the top of this page regarding Kennedy's assasination is a good example of how emotion can create memories that are false.

Regarding enhancement and corruption; have you ever met someone, who was average looking, fallen in love and found them to be beautiful, fallen out of love and found them to be a little ugly? Emotion changes what we know about people and things. How about the silver tea set that always sat on Grandma's buffet? I always wanted it, so after Grandma's funeral, someone sent it to me. But when I opened the package, the tea set within seemed a little tinny. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that someone stole the true tea set and sent me an inferior copy. But is that true? Or did Grandma's love and homemade cookies enhance the quality of the tea set in my memory?

Emotion has great power over our internal thoughts and can actually change our perception of reality. Science has noted this and subsequently finds that emotion is not reliable, so it tries to exclude emotion from it's work. Fine. But that does not change the fact that emotion has authority over our thoughts, so emotion has authority over what we are conscious of, so it can not be excluded from the study of consciousness because it is a major component of consciousness.

Re: Mind

Emotion also has tremendous power over mind. Emotion can actually separate the mind from the body. We say that the person died of shock, but the truth is that the shock was instigated by traumatic emotion. Emotion can divide mind into minds as in Multiple Personality Disorder. Each mind or personality has it's own self, and the dividing is caused by severe emotional trauma. On the other hand, emotion can also connect minds. Emotion can create bonds between people that last a lifetime; family bonds, bonds formed in love, hate, and trauma, such as captive/victim bonds, or shared trauma bonds like in war situations, or even bonds of friendship. Some of these can last a lifetime, or longer, and the people sometimes know that their bonded halfs are in trouble. I suspect that this is how ESP works between people.

There are also temporary bonds caused by emotion. This would be the "riot" or "mob" mentality that causes people to act and think like a group or herd, but only lasts a short time. It is interesting to note that many of the species, that are herding, flocking, and schooling species, also are known for their emotional temperaments and not their intelligence or rational behavior. I remember reading about the cowboys in the Old West, who would sing to the cows on cattle drives. Their thinking was "scare a cow, scare the herd; calm a cow, calm the herd". Now I can see how scaring a cow could radiate into scaring the herd, but how does calming a cow calm the herd? If this is true, then the only possibility is that the calming effect radiates in the same way as the scaring effect. This would imply that herding, flocking, and schooling species have a shared or connected emotional mind. Much like the Oneness that Jung found in the unconscious aspect of mind -- the unconscious aspect being the one that is ruled and activated by emotion.

Another point of interest is in Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation, where he noted that there seemed to be strong emotional trauma or bonding in a large percent of his cases of reincarnation. This could imply that emotion has something to do with reincarnation, or it could imply that emotion holds the mind/self in awareness so that people know that they have been reincarnated. As there is always the possibility that reincarnation happens without our being aware of it.

Considering all of these things together, and probably more that I have not thought about, it seems clear that emotion has some real affect on the parameters of mind, as it can remove mind, divide mind, and connect minds temporarily or permanently. So could emotion be what sets the parameters of mind? Does emotion give mind it's form? If so, then the different chemical make-up of brains in different species would cause a different type of mind in those species as emotion is very much related to chemistry.

Continued below

[Gee]

Re: Instincts

I started a thread on instincts a few years ago in a science forum and worked with some very bright professionals. Two of the most helpful posters were a neurologist and an animal behaviorist, but even with all of their knowledge, I walked away thinking that the subject of instincts is a mess. I learned that instincts are "behaviors" that other species have -- not humans -- but Wiki has a reference about someone who cataloged thousands of instincts in humans. No one knows what causes these "behaviors" in other species, but when humans behave in the same way it is because of our consciousness. There is such a thing as "learned instincts" which is absurd as the word "instinct" means that the behavior is innate. Apparently people take any automatic reaction like learned muscle reflex or intuition and dump it into the pail of "instincts".

I do not want to debate what is or what is not instinct, so in this post I am just referring to the basic survival instincts that keep life alive, as most people can at least agree on them.

The "fight or flight" instinct is clearly motivated by fear and may also relate to anger.
The "survival" instinct is motivated by a desire to continue living, and a fear of dying.
The "mating" instinct is motivated by lust and attraction.
Species eat because it feels good, and being hungry feels bad. They sleep because they feel tired. They look for shelter because it feels safe. They protect their young because that makes them happy, and losing their young makes them sad.

Please review the following regarding hormones from Wiki:

In mammals
Hormones have the following effects on the body:

stimulation or inhibition of growth
wake-sleep cycle and other circadian rhythms
mood swings
induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death)
activation or inhibition of the immune system
regulation of metabolism
preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity
preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause
control of the reproductive cycle
hunger cravings
sexual arousal
A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis.

Growth, life, and death, are all regulated by hormones. Any hormone driven need that requires the body to act is stimulated into action by feeling and/or emotion. Every basic instinct that keeps us alive is related to some feeling or emotion. Emotion is the mechanism that causes life to work for it's survival and continuance. It is not a coincidence that Freud's understanding of the "Id" is that it is also activated by emotion, and that the described "drives" of the "Id" match up with basic instincts. Because the "drives" of the "Id" and basic instincts are the same thing, and are hard wired into our bodies by hormones. They would not work without feeling and emotion.

The environment, behavior, and feelings/emotions can all activate hormones; and hormones can activate feeling and/or emotions. It goes both ways. Consider the following also from Wiki:

Hormone-behavior interactions
At the neurological level, behavior can be inferred based on: hormone concentrations; hormone-release patterns; the numbers and locations of hormone receptors; and the efficiency of hormone receptors for those involved in gene transcription. Not only do hormones influence behavior, but also behavior and the environment influence hormones. Thus, a feedback loop is formed. For example, behavior can affect hormones, which in turn can affect behavior, which in turn can affect hormones, and so on.

Without feeling and emotion, basic instincts would not work; everything would die. So emotion also has tremendous power over our bodies and our ability to survive.

Re: Connections Within and Between Species

Every multi-celled specie that exists has some form of hormone. In plants there is another name for "hormones" but they have chemicals that do the same work. Hormones are communicators, that is what they do, and they are sometimes referred to as "little messengers". The hormones in life forms control the internal homeostasis of the life form and control the instincts that activate behavior and interaction with the environment to ensure the continuance of that life form. So a rabbit eats because it is hungry, mates because it is lusty, and squeals and runs because it is afraid. Yep, every life form that has hormones and instincts also has feelings and at least some emotion -- which means all of them. If they did not have feelings and emotions, their instincts would not work. They would have no motivation to continue life -- no fear. They would die off.

Although I do not believe that all of the life forms have been tested for pheromones, it is presumed that every life form that produces hormones also produces pheromones. These are chemicals that work much like hormones, but they do their work outside of the body. They communicate intra and inter specie.

Of course everyone knows about sex pheromones for attracting a mate, but ants will also lay down a trail of pheromones to show other ants where food can be found. Some species use pheromones to mark their territory and repel other species. So pheromones can be used to attract or repel, but they work in the same way that hormones and instincts do, which means they cause a "want", a feeling to either come closer or go away; or they protect life.

We have known for a long time that trees will communicate with other trees, but we thought this was done through the root system. Nope. Oak trees will send out pheromones warning other oak trees to produce a chemical that will discourage a pest infestation, but this communication does not extend to maples, pines, or elms. Hmm. Some grasses will produce pheromones to active a chemical that makes them less tasty when herds of cattle drop by. Plant pheromones are really interesting, and you can learn more by Googling "plant communication".

So one could argue that just because pheromones and hormones work through feelings and emotions in us, it does not mean that other life forms have feelings and emotions. True. But if every life form that we can test shows indications of emotion, then why would anyone think that it is different for other life forms? If I turn the steering wheel in my car, and it turns the wheels; then I turn the steering wheel in you car, and it turns the wheels; and I turn the steering wheel in lots of other cars, and it turns the wheels; I am not going to assume that when I turn the steering wheel in yet another car, the radio will change stations. That is absurd thinking. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation, I am going with feelings and emotions, because the "want" of life is a given in all life. All life wants to live -- that is what the survival instinct is.

So just as hormones cause a homeostasis in life forms, I suspect that we will find that pheromones cause a homeostasis in ecosystems. This implies that feelings/emotions are necessary for life to exist.

Re: The Paranormal

The paranormal/supernatural has long been associated with emotion. Anthropomorphism, visions of angels and demons, and religious experiences are loaded with emotion. Ghosts are here because of tragedy or betrayal, ESP is about emotional bonds or tragedy, and aura readers talk about the power of one's emotions. It has only been recently that I connected the paranormal/supernatural to hormones.

I was reading a post on delusions where the writer stated that he had "profoundly powerful experiences while meditating or while stargazing (albeit, some of these were probably anticipated by teenage angst brought about hormonally or through social anguish.)" While reading the above sentence I watched my cat jump three feet into the air to attack nothing. She does that a lot. We say she is attacking "thick pieces of air". A pet handbook explained that the reason cats do this is because they have an over abundance of hormones. Is she attacking delusions? That thought triggered a number of others.

I remember reading that a poltergeist was not really a ghost. That instead it was discovered that an "agent" living in the home where the poltergeist resided was the actual cause of the disturbance. That "agent" was usually young, under 20, and female. Hormones?

More recently I read an article that explained that pregnant women have premonitions, and if one is going to have a premonition, it would most likely be when pregnant. It was also noted that the reason for this phenomenon was that pregnant women were reaching out mentally for the child they carried. But pregnant women are also full of hormones.

In ancient Egypt cats were revered and thought to have some connection to the spirit world. The current explanation is that they were valuable in killing rodents/snakes, bullwhacky, they do that all over the world and no one else reveres them. I personally have long believed that their value was in their ability to attack scorpions without being damaged -- good for dessert life. But I think maybe I was wrong. Maybe ancient Egyptians noted the cats' "delusions".

So I got on Google, confirmed the poltergeist thing, and found two more occurrences of hormones and "delusions". Psychiatrists are now using hormones with anti-psychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia (delusions) with some success. Doctors are also using hormones to correct sleep apnea problems with older people, as some cannot drop into REM (delusional) sleep if hormone levels are off.

Now we have six completely different situations where hormones are linked to "delusion". Who was the guy who said that when too many indicators point in one direction, it is time to look in that direction? Is there any chance that these "delusions" are in reality unfocused and ill-defined connections to other consciousness? That hormones play the role of telephone?

Monks use starvation, sleep deprivation, and intense physical discipline to help them reach enlightenment--all of these things will throw off hormone levels.

Shaman of old often used drugs to enhance their experiences, which will throw off hormone levels.

The Oracle(s) of Delphi lived in a cave that is thought to produce a gas, which would throw off hormone levels.

I have heard of two different cases where people were hospitalized and received large doses of steroids (hormones) and morphine, who refused their morphine because they saw angels and demons. They would rather deal with the pain.

It appears that hormones not only connect us physically to life, but may also connect us through conscious awareness.

Conclusion

Clearly emotion can have a dramatic effect on our thoughts. It can change the parameters of mind, and may actually formulate those parameters. Emotion activates our instincts and keeps the body alive, but also connects us physically to others of our specie through pheromones, and may well play an active role in balancing ecosystems. Emotion also connects us to consciousness other than our own. So why would any sane person exclude emotion from the study of consciousness?

I know that science thinks that consciousness is produced by the brain, but I just can't buy it. Although I will agree that consciousness is processed by the brain, and it is worth noting that the brain is "saturated" in hormones and chemicals.

G

[reasonvemotion]

Gee wrote:

By this time, I was fully awake, so I took the time to consider what was going on. I realized that my husband was concerned that he had done something wrong -- maybe he was not supposed to die. I also realized that his "presence" was a reaction to my words, "Yes he is." regarding his breathing, and immediately confirmed that, yes, he was supposed to die. No one would want him to stay in that broken body. I then felt relief and maybe gratitude coming from my husband, and he floated away. From the time that I said, "Yes he is." to the time of him leaving was only seconds, but a lot transpired in those seconds. I proceeded to get up, check his body which was still very hot, and confirm that he indeed had stopped breathing. He had passed, but then I already knew that because of his presence next to me.

My question may cause some difficulity, but I am curious to know.
If you do not wish to elaborate, I will understand.

I would like to ask you, to interpret for me "he floated away".
Did you see this as a finality, a beginning or maybe something else.

[Gee]

Hi Reasonvemotion;

It has been a long time since we talked. Hope you are doing well.

As to your first statement, if I were not prepared to answer questions regarding my husband's death, then I had no business writing that post. So I will try to answer your post as fully as I am able.

My question may cause some difficulty, but I am curious to know.
If you do not wish to elaborate, I will understand.

I would like to ask you, to interpret for me "he floated away".
Did you see this as a finality, a beginning or maybe something else.

The words "he floated away" are not very clear are they? They leave way too much to the imagination, but you must remember that I did not actually see my husband, these are mental impressions. And I do not want to change my memory by over interpreting, as this is all too easy to do with emotional memory.

So I can say that I used the word "floated" because I had the impression that he was hovering over me. When I used the word "away", it was because I felt him withdraw from me in a southwesterly direction for a foot or two. Then he simply dissipated or dissolved from my awareness.

I can not say that I saw anything as a beginning, as to finality, I had two impressions. The first was that I gave him the answer he needed so he was able to leave, and he was relieved that he could leave his body. The second was that it was a permanent separation from his body. The only other impression that I had was that he continued, that his dissolving from my awareness did not mean that he had dissolved -- he seemed to want to be somewhere else. You could interpret that as a beginning, but it would be an interpretation, so I don't know that it is true.

If you want to learn more about these types of incidents, I would suggest that Hospice workers are well informed and full of stories, as are EMTs, emergency technicians, who work for ambulance companies. It is difficult to get the EMT's to talk, except among themselves, because it is frowned upon, but Hospice workers are more open about it, because that is their business.

Also Dr. Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia has a lifetime of studies regarding near death, reincarnation, out of body experiences, and more. I don't have the link handy right now, but you can Google the U of V. They have a webpage on Dr. Stevenson's work.

G

[Blaggard]

Gee you keep saying science thinks that consciousness is the result of the brain, no scientist thinks that, scientists say that consciousness is a result of feed back between the brain the CNS and the environment. No scientist worth his salt, has ever said consciousness only resides in the brain because that would be ridiculous, the consciousness science talks about is a holistic process based on the CNS, the brain and its reaction to the environment. Now no offence if you mean that it only takes place in several areas, and if you meant that I wish you would just say that. But to say science has ever believed the brain is the b all and end all of consciousness is not just wrong it flies in the face of all modern science, so I would ask that you stop saying that. No one in science believes the brain is the only thing. No one ever has, or will.

The whole of the human body has more nerve bundles than the brain and is hence a far more complex system of neurones than the brain itself, the digestive system has close to the same number of neuronal connections as the human brain which has lead some scientists to call the vaso vagal nervous system that is digestion for the most part, the second brain. Our stomach our instinctive stomach can and will tell us what to eat when we need to eat it, if you have a craving to eat ham it's because your stomach is telling you brain that you are low on protein and vitamins that food contains, hence when you go to the cupboard and decide on a food it often doesn't depend so much on what you would eat, weirdly it depends much more what the instinctive nervous system that is your stomach is suggesting you eat so that it can more properly function. Have you ever noticed if you eat the same thing all the time you get bored of it, now this is not you saying well I eat that a lot now I am bored of it, this is your stomach telling you, you are now tip top on al the nutrients you need from said food source, and perhaps should change to eating something that will provide you with a more balanced nutrient equation that will suit you far better.

A pregnant woman is told by her stomach to eat odd food because it contains minerals and vitamins the developing foetus needs to grow so even if it is a taste for eating coal that coal has the nutrients in it that makes that coal taste lovely, even though to most people coal tastes like shit. Our whole body is one great Neuronal connective function. Hence the whole body system is where consciousness resides in as much as it responds to the environment in which it is based. That is consciousness, that is all they have ever said about it. Saying the brain is consciousness alone is so far removed from how scientists see the conscious it is unfathomable that people still say this. Now of course science and scientists are really not anywhere in a place to claim how consciousness works atm, in fact they are not even in a place to describe anything concrete about thought. But where they are or are not is not helped by people who make claims about where science is even though it is not. Stop saying science thinks consciousness resides in the brain, ok, it just does not say that.


There's a reason why people say gut instinct. Instinct exists in humans, and again that is another thing you are confusing on the issue, no one has claimed humans don't have instincts, for example the fight flight response is an instinct that all high order mammals share. Humans seem to be able to procreate, even when they were never taught about sex and how to do sex, we just seem to know that we can stick things into others of ours species and it gives us pleasure to do so, and so we fell like doing it sometimes even if we have no real understanding that it is sex, and that it will produce a chance at a human child. Humans also seem to be naturally afraid of heights in general although it is a spectrum. These are all instincts, no one who has any sense has ever claimed humans have no instincts, what they might claim is that compared to other animals they have relatively few which is of course quite true. Humans didn't need to have instincts as much as other animals do, they tend to learn in different ways, mostly by being told things, this means instincts aren't laid down as readily as they are in other animals. We have instincts but they are more to do with our ancestors than they are to do with genetic imprinting over time that creates an instinct.

The idea that a consciousness and a sub consciousness exist within the human brain is also false it's all just one big conscious thing, there's no such area of the brain that deals in a sub conscious process per se. Ok certain functions like our heart beat are actually not within our conscious control and they are truly sub conscious, but these few simple processes are not considered sub conscious and they should be. If you fall asleep and dream you are not experiencing a distinct sub conscious, although you might call it that it is only something that is conscious, but not as conscious as consciousness. Some people are aware they are dreaming it's called lucid dreaming, it's not hence valid to call that sub conscious any more than it is to call the dream state sub conscious. In fact there is no distinction between either conscious or the dreaming state you are conscious in both, although it is a different state of consciousness.


As for NDEs well if someone did rise up above their body and see the room from the ceiling that should be pretty easy to prove, leave a random number on the top shelf and if that person really is outside of his body, when he floats back down he can tell us what that number was. NDEs are basically easy to mimic by using drugs, if the human brain has developed such a means, it is easy to prove if it is astral projection or if it's just the human being experiencing something that they can also experience by doing too much drugs.

[Gee]

Blaggard;

I want to make sure you are finished before I post. You keep adding more.

Don't make it too long, or I will have trouble responding.

G

[Greylorn Ell]

Gee,
You write eloquently and competently about every subject that you choose to address. Yet you refuse to address the beginnings of things.

Well, thank you for the compliment, but I could not write very well about something that I know nothing about. I don't know about the beginnings of things. I don't even study it. You once stated that I had to have a belief about how things got started, but you were mistaken. I don't even think about beginnings and endings in a linear way. To me, a beginning is just the aftermath of an ending; an ending is just an indication of change, so I don't find a great deal of truth in either of these events.

I know that I have always had a different perspective from most people, but a few years ago, I finally got an explanation from a Professor of Archaeology, who told me that I am a holistic thinker. Which is now called a "systems thinker". You can look up "systems thinker" in Wiki and it will give you a better explanation, but basically speaking, I understand and study things from a whole perspective, rather than from a "from here to there" perspective. I see the relationship between things better than I see the individual things, so I study patterns and cycles and relationships, then compare them to find the truth of something. I don't look at the start and suspect you are a "linear thinker" -- also in Wiki.

Gee.

Looks like I've just received this month's homework assignment. I'll begin by quibbling about your opening paragraphs. In the course of time and events I'll nibble away at the rest of this post and its continuations.

I submit that you are just a half-holistic thinker. The kind of approach that you take to answering questions is definitely not linear, and the value of your comments comes from the rich context in which you present them.

However, I propose that unless you include beginnings and endings, you are merely thinking in "holistic groups." Don't try to look that up, as I just now invented the term. Most of the excellent scientists, astronomers and physicists, with whom I worked also thought that way. Dealing with cosmology as a whole is an enormous problem, so the way they worked was to deal with subsets of problems.

For example, basic physics tells us that most of the energy from stars is filtered out by the atmosphere. So, astronomers trying to master the art of extended (e.g. ultraviolet) observations launched their instruments into space. However, observations are also limited by our detectors (eyes, photographic film, etc.), so another group of astronomers got the notion to build radio telescopes, and discovered all sorts of surprises that neither eyes nor film can detect. Hawaii's mountains are the bases for the huge eyes and specialized instruments required for infra-red observations. We have telescopes hanging out in space that observe nothing but microwaves, others that observe x-rays.

Simply developing the concepts and tools necessary for observing any subset of the universe's energy spectrum requires exactly the kind of holistic approach that you have perfected. You would have made a superb astronomer. I'm guessing that somewhere in early childhood some dipshit authority figure told you that girls can't do math or science, back when you were young and impressionable enough to believe that ignorant nit.

Anyway, I'll label your style of thinking as "holistic group" thinking, and put you in the same category as astronomers. This is good company, so don't be quick to fret about "category." We can expand it.

Now let's look at linear thinking. That is the province of engineers. Suppose an astronomer decides that he wants a UV observatory in space, equipped with at least seven instruments, each with different properties, to observe the light from any star in seven different ways at the same time. Astronomers do not usually know how to build instruments (Galileo was a notable first exception), so they hire out that job to engineers who design telescopes with filters and spectrometers. The engineers, the linear thinkers, build the telescopes.

Of course some way must be found to get the telescope launched into space. Once again, more linear thinkers are employed to build rockets and launching mechanisms. Those engineers could care less what is being launched or why. However, in the course of building a functional launch platform, they were also required to take an holistic group approach. A rocket is the sum of its parts, and many of those parts must be engineered with an understanding of how they work in relationship to other parts. Perhaps the fuel-pump designers can afford to focus upon nothing else than the pump, but the guidance-system engineers must know the whole machine, including the locations of the fuel pumps and any effect that the rocket's motion might have on their input/output pressures and delivery rates.

Space telescopes cannot be operated manually. They are controlled by a built-in computer, which is controlled by telemetry from earthbound transmitters, which are controlled by computers. The telemetry and transmitted commands are all determined by a programmer sitting on his ass in a comfy chair in a NASA instrument-command center, sometimes at 2 am. That was my first after-college job. Programming at that level is entirely a linear process, pretty much like designing a fuel pump. Neither the programmer nor the fuel pump engineer needs to know squat about what UV stellar radiation is, much less care about it. They only need to get their limited but essential end of the job done right.

Moving upward from linear thinking (programmers, engineers, etc.) to holistic-group thinking (astronomers, rocket scientists, etc.) we get to the idealistic version of holistic thinkers. These are the astrophysicists/cosmologists. Their job is to absorb the data from all aspects of physics and astronomy, to study the results of WMAP observations, x-ray studies, black hole observations, radio telescope array studies, UV observations, etc. and put it together into a coherent explanation of how the universe works, how it came into existence, and how it is going to end. Many of them will do this important work after hours, entirely on their own time, over a few beers at a local strippers bar.

And so far, the best that these silly holistic nits have come up with is Big Bang theory and multiverse-theory, neither of which can be experimentally verified, and neither of which explains human consciousness. Perhaps holistic thinking is over-rated?

No surprise. I'd be astounded to find a modern cosmologist capable of installing a new fuel pump on his family car, much less capable of designing one. However, I have encountered several guys who were part astronomer, part engineer. (One was a world-class chef-- holistic work at its culinary finest.) They had a natural feel for physics, and therefore for mechanics, and were often superb computer-programmers.

One of them was, IMO, genuinely holistic in his styles of thinking-- physicist, cosmologist, metaphysical inquirer, technician, programmer, and chef. Larry was his name. He had planned to become a physicist until he realized that quantum mechanics was a false theory, but despite his 180 I.Q. did not feel qualified to correct it. He chose astronomy as a field wherein he could use his physics knowledge to good effect without worrying about QM. He was a first-rate applications and instrumentation developer, excellent programmer. He also cared about the beginnings of things, and was one of those whose insights contributed to Beon Theory. He is the closest to a genuinely holistic thinker that I've ever encountered.

Finally, to categorize me as a linear thinker is, I think, mistaken. I think in all kinds of different ways. Dancing is a good example. When I learn a new step, or new move, I do that in a linear, brain-level fashion. I literally program my brain with new patterns of movement until I can perform those patterns by an act of will, without thought. This is an entirely linear process, and requires practice, repetition. Linear dancing.

The next step toward holistic dancing is assembling various steps and moves into more complex patterns that can be performed correctly on an open floor with plenty of space, populated only by other dancers who know and follow the rules of dance-floor etiquette.

Next step is to take the patterns onto a rowdy country-bar dance floor populated with stumbling drunks and half-wits who think that etiquette is about wiping their boogers off their fingers under someone else's bar stool.

Another step is to teach some of these people how to dance.

Another is to invent new moves and patterns of your own, and the final holistic step is to enjoy the entire process. (Except maybe the boogers on the underside of your bar stool.) (And also, except elbows in your kidneys and the bouncer's garlic breath.)

Ultimately, we are all linear thinkers. We started life knowing how to cry when hungry and suck on a nipple to get fed. When crawling, we learned to pick our little heads up just enough to see the next insect, button, ball bearing, or dinner leftover waiting to go from floor to mouth We learned to walk by putting one foot ahead of another. We learned to write after memorizing an alphabet.

Some of us learn to assemble our inherently linear processes into complex patterns. Walking morphs into walking backward, not stepping on sidewalk cracks, running, skipping, jumping, hopping, skating, playing outfield and wide receiver, and dancing-- each just a more holistic version of putting one foot in front of another.

As for me, no, not simply linear. When I'm writing code, I go linear. If I'm teaching a gal who does not dance how to do the flying two-step, I go linear. But back when I was writing linear computer code to control a space telescope, I was questioning astronomers about the various theories for the beginnings of the universe they were studying, on my way to developing my own theories on the subject decades later. I also studied astronomy, learning why the instruments my code was controlling were useful to the field in general. I wrote a few papers, one published in, I think, The Astronomical Journal. I knew how the computers we used worked internally (EE was part of my degree) and could fix them, as well as the printers we used for data output. (That came with learning how to repair automobile transmissions as a teenager.)

While working with these astronomers, supporting my family and keeping an ancient house and two used cars running with the tools of linear thinking, I was also writing my first book (a novel that got published by someone else, and became a best-seller in Brazil and Holland) on the theme of theology, physics, and serious metaphysics.

Thinking is a lot like mechanics. Every mechanic has a set of tools. Good mechanics know what tool to apply to a particular job. There are those who are so linear that for them a hammer, screwdriver, and pliers are the only tools in their kit. Others prefer to work with a full machine shop at their back, and often with helpers.

IMO, an holistic approach means knowing how to use a screwdriver as proficiently as a milling machine, and also knowing when and where to apply these different tools. It also means integrating the tools in subtle fashions. I do not discuss physics or biomechanics before teaching a beginner how to two-step (in one dance on a busy country dance floor), but without my knowledge of physics I could not teach her anything.

I don't discuss psychology either, but if she's wearing a little gold ring on her left hand, I know enough to get her husband's okay before inviting her to the dance floor, and to dance her on his side of the floor where he can observe every move.

Dancing is inherently a linear process. But dancing with another person, amid variable company, is entirely holistic.

What I'm doing with all this Sunday afternoon bullshit is inviting you to become a genuinely holistic thinker, one who can forget the compliment some paid shrink gave her way back when, blow off her self-imposed limitations, overcome her fears of math and science, and open her excellent mind to a wider range of thought than she had considered possible.

Back to my day job, with trust that our conversations will become a graceful dance.

Greylorn

[reasonvemotion]

Gee wrote:

After carefully considering everything that I knew about the situation, I had to conclude that the image of him in his forties did not come from him -- it came from me. So did I imagine the whole thing? It was a possibility and had to be considered. So I dug out the "report" that I had made to myself, and later written down, and compared it with what I had learned. After studying this for days, I concluded that the image did indeed come from me, but the emotion did not. The problem with the emotion was perspective. I could find no way to make sense out of his concern that he should not be dying yet, or his gratitude and relief when he realized that it was OK to die -- from my perspective. There were a lot of emotions from my perspective that night, and I could make sense of his fear of dying (but he wasn't afraid), or anger about him leaving me, or regret that our marriage was over, or my fear or love, but the emotions that I felt weren't from my perspective -- so they were not from me. And what about that "halo" that I now saw around his forty year old image? That was not in the "report", and it was not in the image that I saw in my mind that night.

I think behind your elaborate descriptions you believe there is a human transition into a spiritual transition.

From a scriptual perspective, or as you put it a religious one, it is clearly stated "the dead know nothing", there is no transition.

I don't really know what exactly you are searching for, but your confusion increases with every sentence. Would it not be wiser, to put down your text books and find your answers in this life time, out there in the "real" world, find your purpose once again and in this way your knowledge would be "richer" than any book could provide.

[Gee]

Blaggard;

Please review my following responses to your post. Take some time to consider my words, because we are not as far apart in our thinking as you suggest.

Gee you keep saying science thinks that consciousness is the result of the brain, no scientist thinks that, scientists say that consciousness is a result of feed back between the brain the CNS and the environment. No scientist worth his salt, has ever said consciousness only resides in the brain because that would be ridiculous, the consciousness science talks about is a holistic process based on the CNS, the brain and its reaction to the environment.

First let me state that I have a great respect for science and do not mean to insult the work that science does. In fact I count on science to give me the facts that I need to do my work -- but science is not philosophy.

If you take your above statement, "a holistic process based on the CNS, the brain and it's reaction to the environment", and you exclude the word "brain", would you still be talking about consciousness? No. Science has expanded into new areas, but still sees a brain as necessary for consciousness to exist. Hence plants are not conscious, although they are alive; religion's ideas of a conscious "God" have to be projections from the brain; all paranormal has to be projections from a brain; there can be no consciousness after death -- because there is no brain.

The whole of the human body has more nerve bundles than the brain and is hence a far more complex system of neurones than the brain itself, the digestive system has close to the same number of neuronal connections as the human brain which has lead some scientists to call the vaso vagal nervous system that is digestion for the most part, the second brain.

The fact that they call it a "second brain" just reinforces the idea that some kind of brain is necessary for consciousness to exist. (Although I do enjoy learning about all of these ideas regarding how the body works. Thanks for the info.)

Hence the whole body system is where consciousness resides in as much as it responds to the environment in which it is based. That is consciousness, that is all they have ever said about it. Saying the brain is consciousness alone is so far removed from how scientists see the conscious it is unfathomable that people still say this. Now of course science and scientists are really not anywhere in a place to claim how consciousness works atm, in fact they are not even in a place to describe anything concrete about thought. But where they are or are not is not helped by people who make claims about where science is even though it is not. Stop saying science thinks consciousness resides in the brain, ok, it just does not say that.

In another forum, a science forum, I had some interesting discussions with a working neurologist, Neuro. Neurologists know a LOT about consciousness, and can describe different states, degrees, and gradations of consciousness, but what they know is all related to the CNS and the brain. So I asked, "What about life forms that do not have a brain?" Neuro replied that all life is sentient.

So what does "sentient" mean? It means that the life form will react to stimuli, so if food is placed within it's reach, it will eat. If something dangerous is placed by it, it will try to avoid it. If something nurturing or pleasurable is placed by it, it will try to absorb or get it. So it is aware of what is good for it and what is bad for it, and it is aware of the need to continue, to advance, promote, and protect it's life. This awareness is consciousness, as the words mean the same thing.

So by this definition, every cell in our bodies is actually conscious, which means that you are correct, the "whole body system is where consciousness resides". But it also "resides" in every cell of every life form. So does this mean that every cell has a mind? I doubt it, but don't know. So far, it looks like cells are conscious, are aware of the need to survive, but are also aware of the need to promote the life form that they reside in, so it looks like they are serving the life form, like they are working in an interdependent way to ensure that the life form survives.

If you look at an ecosystem in comparison, it is very much the same. All of the life forms within the ecosystem work to survive, but also promote the continuance of the ecosystem. Almost like the plants, insects, animals, etc., are cells in the ecosystem. Interesting. We are still trying to figure out if every life form has a mind, and may never know if cells do.

I believe that it was Gingko, who stated that consciousness "resides" in the brain.

There's a reason why people say gut instinct. Instinct exists in humans, and again that is another thing you are confusing on the issue, no one has claimed humans don't have instincts, for example the fight flight response is an instinct that all high order mammals share.

The fight or flight instinct is an instinct that all MOBILE species share. Plants and sponges don't flee because they can't, but they still have a survival instinct. And a lot of people have claimed that human's don't have instincts -- all over the forums. I know, I have read their posts. I don't agree with them, but you can not state that idiots do not say this.

Consider the history of "instincts". When science first started to study other species, it was assumed, probably because of religion (humans have souls/mind, other species do not), that these behaviors were caused by something other than thought. When humans behaved in a certain way, it was considered that the behavior was caused by thought/mind. So the word "instinct" was created to explain the behavior of other species, because they could not think. Or so it was assumed. Many people still believe this.

Science has now learned, through studies, MRI's, the Mirror Test, etc., that other species do actually have thoughts and many more than we knew also have language. I watched a documentary about the language of, I believe it was mercats (not sure of the spelling). In the study it was learned that not only did the mercats watch the humans, but they had a word/sound for specific humans, and even had a word/sound for the different color clothes that the human was wearing. So this issue is not as cut and dried as we once thought.

We have also learned about hormones and pheromones and know that humans have automated behavior caused by these hormones and pheromones, which are instincts. The fact that we can choose to ignore our instincts, does not negate the fact that they exist. If you read my prior post again, I think you will find that I "reported" these idiotic ideas about instincts -- I made no claim that they were true. And I specified that my discussion would be limited to instincts that are proven to be instincts through the studies of science and psychology, as they related to hormones and Freud's drives.

The idea that a consciousness and a sub consciousness exist within the human brain is also false it's all just one big conscious thing, there's no such area of the brain that deals in a sub conscious process per se. Ok certain functions like our heart beat are actually not within our conscious control and they are truly sub conscious, but these few simple processes are not considered sub conscious and they should be.

When I discuss conscious/unconscious/subconscious, I am not talking about the "brain". I am talking about the divisions of "mind". There is a difference. Neurology has connected some aspects of mind and brain through a similarity in function, but no one is claiming that the mind is in the brain. Well, no one with any sense is claiming that.

As for NDEs well if someone did rise up above their body and see the room from the ceiling that should be pretty easy to prove, leave a random number on the top shelf and if that person really is outside of his body, when he floats back down he can tell us what that number was.

People have given information that validates this claim. They have heard things and seen things that they have reported afterward that could not have been learned if they were still in their bodies. But I don't want to debate this with someone, who is not interested in learning about it.

NDEs are basically easy to mimic by using drugs, if the human brain has developed such a means, it is easy to prove if it is astral projection or if it's just the human being experiencing something that they can also experience by doing too much drugs.

What makes you think there is a difference? Did you read my prior post? Did you understand it? Emotion seems to set the parameters of mind; emotion is activated by chemicals; too much drugs could actually affect the parameters of mind. It is really that simple.

G