Page 29 of 35

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:40 pm
by Blaggard
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:...
What a racist country America is.
The USA elected an unqualified half-black man to the presidency, then re-elected him four years later after he demonstrated that he was a racist, and was as incompetent as he was unqualified.

You may freely accuse the USA of stupidity and abject ignorance. but not of racism.

How many Muslims do you non-racists have in the House of Lords? Any blacks or Arabs in the Royal Family?

Stick your racism accusations up your dorsal orifice.

I'll deal with the rest of your bullshit later.

G
Start a different thread if you want to discuss politics is my advice, whilst I don't think he was entirely on track, America is not the most liberal nation on Earth.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:47 pm
by Blaggard
Aw bless Gee go put your knickers on and make the men folk a cup of tea, while they talk about serious things, and would a sandwich be out of the question love?

Yeah I get the impression that amongst Els faults there is a certain bias that leads him to assume if you make an argument it has to do with your sex. I mean it might I might make an argument about how pink is not facking magenta it's just pink, but that might at least be based on the fact men can't see as many shades of colour as women generally. And that of course would be a scientific fact.

El seems to have some very loaded social biases, which he presumably picked up by having some very loaded social biases thrust upon him in general. It's not something you could discuss with him though, as that would lead to tragedy much further down the line...

I would in fact suggest you keep to the topic, and how you can in fact put up with his constant consdescension is a matter for further debate on a thread in a galaxy far far away.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 2:21 am
by reasonvemotion
Oh dear, she has been intellectually fucked and didn't even see it coming.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 3:31 am
by Arising_uk
Greylorn Ell wrote:The USA elected an unqualified half-black man to the presidency, then re-elected him four years later after he demonstrated that he was a racist, and was as incompetent as he was unqualified.
:lol: There are qualifications to become president?

Don't you mean half-white?

Given the USA twice elected an all-white draft-dodging imbecile I'm not surprised they went for a change.
You may freely accuse the USA of stupidity and abject ignorance. but not of racism.
Given you apparently have race as a category upon your birth certificates I'll stick with thinking you a racist country thanks.
How many Muslims do you non-racists have in the House of Lords?
Specifically Muslim? About six I think. Now given they were installed when the muslim population was under 2% I'd think that about right.
Any blacks or Arabs in the Royal Family?
What's this got to do with politics as the royal family has no say in such things. Still, given peers in the House of Lords are aristocracy then I'd say about 50. If you mean by marriage then only one so far in the 1000 year history of British Aristocracy, Emma McQuiston.
Stick your racism accusations up your dorsal orifice.
Nah! I'll stick with the tales I hear from mixed race married friends who visit your fair land.
I'll deal with the rest of your bullshit later.

G
If you mean Obama's birth certificate please don't bother yourself as Gee has already informed me that fruit-loops such as you exist with respect to this matter and given Gee's unassailable logical deduction I think you have not a leg to stand on in your racist patriarchal bed.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 1:53 pm
by Blaggard
The way El goes about discussion if I was going to use a metaphor I'd say intellectually raped, because it feels like you're being violated by someone who is forcing their doctrine on you in a way that abrogates your opinion without tolerating that you may have a point at all...

It's like being talked to by your dad when you were 12, only I don't remember him being quite so patronising, perhaps because I was 12 and you tended to expect a bit of patronising as they are your dad and that is what the word means quite literally. :P

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 11:21 pm
by Gee
Knickers, Blaggard?

Isn't that underwear? If it isn't, then it is at least some kind of pants. How can you call Greylorn sexist, when the first thought you have about me is that I am missing my pants? If it were not for the fact that your post was very funny, I would have been seriously offended.

I expect to be off-line for a few days as my Aunt, who is like a second Mother to me, passed away a few hours ago. I will be expected to write a eulogy as I have for previous family members, and it will be hard to do.

While I am gone, I would appreciate it if this thread did not degenerate into an off-topic mess of ridicule. It is difficult to not notice that since Greylorn's last post, subsequent posts have been negative with regard to Greylorn, and even myself. My post was a rebuttal, as was Arising's. But ReasonvEmotion's two cents worth of comment was off-topic and not productive. Of course, I have never noted that ReasonvEmotion had more that two cents worth to offer, so I have no right to expect her to deliver thoughts that she does not possess. Blaggard, your comments were also off-topic and unnecessary.

You once asked me why I defend Graylorn. The short answer is because you attack him, and I respect him. If you have never been a writer, then you do not really understand how much courage it takes to write your personal thoughts and ideas down, then expose them to the world through publishing. Then to admit that some parts of your ideas were wrong, and to invite scrutiny and criticism so that you can learn. This is not an invitation for ridicule, it is a quest to learn. It takes courage, and I respect courage.

It takes no courage at all to hide behind a forum nickname and poke at someone whose work has been published. TheDoc started a thread on "Ridicule", which I planned to comment on, but it turned into another missmash of nonsense before I got to it. I agree with TheDoc in his belief that ridicule is a tool used to inhibit thinking, to inhibit questions, to inhibit philosophy. I don't like it, and don't want to see it in my thread.

When I return, I want to bring up the subject of "mind" from a different perspective. It is my thought that this interpretation of mind will be complimentary to Beon Theory, and will also expose some of my reasoning regarding mind.

Talk to you all soon.

G

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 11:34 pm
by Blaggard
It was irony Gee. Sheez is irony only something that tastes like iron in your neck of the woods. You use a joke to establish the humour to then establish a better point about how stupid shit was.


So suffice to say you hope it wont devolve into what, send in the clown... don't bother he's here.

I think it's too late to worry about this thread devolving Gee it did the exact moment not when Greyhorn posted, but when he started ignoring 90% of the questions he was asked, but sorry to hear about your familly issues.

If you have never been a writer, then you do not really understand how much courage it takes to write your personal thoughts and ideas down, then expose them to the world through publishing. Then to admit that some parts of your ideas were wrong, and to invite scrutiny and criticism so that you can learn. This is not an invitation for ridicule, it is a quest to learn. It takes courage, and I respect courage.
Any idiot can write their own thoughts down, it's called a diary, get your thoughts published by an agent though and then it becomes something worth reading presumably because an agent has got involved and a whole team of people have got together and decided it might have legs; of course it might not the proof of the pudding is in the eating but publishers wouldn't remain in business long if they didn't know how to pick a talent.

He self published, he didn't write a book a publisher thought would merit a wider audience. Wow if I write everything I believe down and then have it published out of my own money, will you respect me. Anyone could do that, if it had any real merit though I'd have the courage to send it to a publisher and for what it's worth I've written a lot of stuff down in my life, some I have played to an audience and had good reviews from. But when you have 5 reviews on amazon, for a self published work, only a few of which are positive. You really have to ask if you are cut out for the writing game. Shit I got more than that when I wrote a play in school at the behest of our teachers because they just liked mine and a friends style, and probably more to the point they were busy and wanted us to fill up an assembly with a few entertaining moments they didn't have time for. Big whoop a self publicist with his own money can get his own thoughts published.

No offence and I doubt you care but yeah he has some thoughts, yeah so do we all, but those who can write can very well get a work published by someone else, there are 7 billion people on this planet who could get their own thoughts published by themselves assuming they had the money, who cares. Courage, it takes courage to be peer reviewed by a field, to stand and fail according to what other people think, he hasn't done that in the media he writes in, nor will he ever do it in science, philosophy or anywhere else and that's courage is it? That strikes me more that he is a coward, and since 90% of posts people write here he ignores too presumably because like everything else he has ever done he cherry picks his way through life. You can of course go on imagining he's a valorous itinerant knight on a holy quest if you want, I just think the guy is tilting at windmills and wonkey buggers at that too.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sun May 18, 2014 10:40 pm
by reasonvemotion
Blaggard
The way El goes about discussion if I was going to use a metaphor I'd say intellectually raped,
She is more than willing to engage, that is not rape and curiously I find them both, Grey and Gee, almost identical in their attitudes.

Gee
But ReasonvEmotion's two cents worth of comment was off-topic and not productive.
reasonvemotion
Oh dear, she has been intellectually fucked and didn't even see it coming.
It was quite appropriate and relevant, I used "intellectually" fucked, keeping in mind who I was posting to, but after reading some of your previous posts, I see you do not have an aversion to using the word "fuck". It does have it uses.

mind fucked
Web definitions
(mind fuck) a situation which calls into question the way your mind currently sees a certain idea or the world in general

Gee
Of course, I have never noted that ReasonvEmotion had more that two cents worth to offer, so I have no right to expect her to deliver thoughts that she does not possess.
In response to the above remark, I give her my two cents worth.

I see right through you and this is what irritates you.
The condescending and dismissive behavior displayed by you, is an attempt to look down on people and is not conducive to a "philosophical mind".

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 4:09 am
by Sarah Jones
Gee wrote:While reading a thread in another forum, I saw the words "pure consciousness". Is there such a thing as "pure" consciousness? If there is such a thing, then what is impure consciousness? What does consciousness mix with that makes it impure? The obvious answer is that consciousness mixes with matter and makes us, but this answer mirrors Christianity and reeks of religion. (Pure consciousness (God) mixes with matter (us) for the purpose of creating life for the following reasons--fill in the specific religion's theories.) Or maybe that is not what he meant, as the thread was not about religion. So is this about gradations and degrees of consciousness? as exhibited by other species? What makes consciousness more or less, pure or impure?

How can there be degrees and levels of consciousness and awareness? I don't know, but believe that there are. Look at dogs and cats; both are mammals; they are similar; they are house pets; and they are loved by their owners. But they are very different in their consciousness. My dog will look me in the eyes and try to read my moods. If I am sad, he will sit quietly beside me; if happy, he will jump around and play; if angry at him, he will whimper; but if angry at another, he will jump to my side, bark, and help me to defend myself. Man's best friend. My cat is totally different. She does not look into my eyes, she looks at me; her eyes turn black when she stalks me in play; she blinks at me to show that she has forgiven me, and we can be friends again; she closes her eyes to show trust in me; but if I died, she would be more likely to wait and see if anything twitched so that she could attack it, than whimper in remorse. Cats are aloof. So although these animals are similar, they are very different in aspects of consciousness regarding emotion, empathy, thought, and awareness.

We have named many different types of energy, different types of force, even different kinds of light. We know that there are different kinds of chemicals, and matter, and life--so why does consciousness have to be one "pure" thing? I suspect that this concept is a holdover from religion. If consciousness were pure, and only one thing, how would it do anything? How could it "happen"? Where would the action come from? There must be something that it reacts to or balances with or bounces off of or mixes with, else nothing would happen. We are either talking magic, or God, or maybe consciousness could have more than one component in itself.

What if we look at this another way. What if we consider that consciousness is not, and can not, be pure? That instead, consciousness is a mixture of mental aspects that cause life. I don't think that this is such a huge stretch. Consider that consciousness and life are very closely related--actually, life is our only real indication of consciousness. Whenever we try to purify life, we end up killing it. We even have a name for this phenomenon--we call it sterilizing. When we purify life, we sterilize it, which kills it. Life and purity do not make good bedfellows, so why would we assume that consciousness and purity do? I can not think of anytime in nature or history where purity and life were compatible, but I can think of many instances where purity and life were and are incompatible. We have learned not to wreck our ecosystems--as neatening them up and disposing of the less savory aspects does not work. Historically, purifying races and cultures tends to lead to stagnation, whereas culture clashes tend to lead to growth. I don't think that it is a wicked sense of humor that pits men and women against each other in the ongoing "Battle of the Sexes", and suspect that this is a struggle which is necessary for life and growth. Diversity, chaos, and struggle seem to be more congruent with life than purity is--can the same be said for consciousness?. I think that purity is an ideal. So to say that something that we can not see, hear, touch, or understand is pure, is idealism and probably illusion.

Is it possible that there is more than one type of mental aspect that causes consciousness? Maybe two or three? I suspect that there are at least two different types of raw consciousness. When I say raw consciousness, I am considering the theory of consciousness known as panpsychism and see it as something that is pre-life. The problem with panpsychism is that it does not differentiate between life and non-life, so I think that it is only a part of an explanation for consciousness.

Of course, we don't have to take that path, we can instead agree that pure consciousness is all that there is--we can take the view of the solipsist. But I have problems with that path, probably because I am not narcissistic enough to believe it. Then there is the "dream" reality, where nothing that we believe is real, is actually real. But again, this does not answer my questions of how and why. Why would there be a dream reality? What is it's purpose? What would our personal dreams be? Dreaming of dreams? And how could we dream of things that don't really exist? Where would the ideas come from? Where is the cause and effect? It seems that we would need a great illusionist to pull off this kind of dreaming, and who would that be? I think that the illusionist would have to be God--and we are back to religion.

Anyway, this is what I think. I know as much about science as dolphins know about climbing trees, so I am not trying to present a theory of consciousness--just speculating. Wondering how things are possible, and what would be reasonably likely. I could very well be wrong, but seriously doubt that consciousness can be pure.

Gee
I think pure consciousness is purity of heart and mind. "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, body, and mind." And any other consciousness is not being pure in the heart. Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" meaning go to Heaven. This is the way to Heaven. However only Heaven is is effect pure consciousness.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 9:59 pm
by Greylorn Ell
Sarah Jones wrote: I think pure consciousness is purity of heart and mind. "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, body, and mind." And any other consciousness is not being pure in the heart. Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" meaning go to Heaven. This is the way to Heaven. However only Heaven is is effect pure consciousness.
Sarah,

No, you do not "think." Here you merely reiterate dogmas that you've memorized. Thought demands more than that.

This is a philosophy forum. Philosophy requires logic in conjunction with available information. This is not a good place for mindless religious tracts, biblical quotes, and meaningless assertions of faith interpreted according to your expectations.

Does "purity of heart" mean that if the arteries running through your pump are clogged with cholesterol, and the pump itself is choked with fat from too many pizzas, you won't go to heaven?

And what is the mind? Is it the mind best defined by Descartes, or by Freud? Could it be the conscious mind that disappeared into unconsciousness when Wilder Penfield sought it with an electrical probe? Or do your religious tracts include a definition of mind that suits their purposes?

Perhaps you can find a welcome home for your assertions elsewhere. Not everyone here is a nice person like me, who will treat your proselytizing as the irrelevant rantings of a ten-year old whose brain was falsely programmed in Bible school. The Catholics have a large forum where you will happily fit in.

If you want to play here, perhaps you should start a thread of your own focused upon the more philosophical aspects of your beliefs. E.g:
1. What are the properties of God? And are these properties logically possible?
2. Why did God create the universe?
3. Why mankind?

If you do that, don't figure on answering questions with Biblical quotes. Brush up on your understanding of Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza. Several of those who post in this forum are well-studied, and actually know how to spell and pronounce those names.

Also peruse this entire thread, in which individuals of with varying degrees of insight discuss the mind. With the extreme exception of Gee, many of us are the kind of ill-tempered louts who try to conceal ignorance beneath a cloak of bad manners.

Greylorn

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 9:49 pm
by madera
I find it amazing that all the awareness on this subject you have all failed to see your
lack of self awareness.
Amazing.

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 6:16 am
by Gee
Greylorn;

Hello and thank you. The e-mail you sent regarding the "wonders" was a tremendous help to me. I had reached an emotional block and could not finish the eulogy/remembrance that I was writing for my Aunt. Your e-mail helped me to remember that it is not what we know, but what we reach for and wonder about that is most important in defining who we are. This change in thinking and perspective helped me to complete my work in time for the funeral service. You really are a nice guy when you want to be, but don't worry, I won't tell anybody.

Some time back you brought up the question of who we are. Where does the "self" come from? I wanted to address that issue at the time, but got distracted. The concept of self is central to any investigation of consciousness, so questions regarding mind are inevitable. You and I go about our studies from very different perspectives, so I would like you to consider some of the ideas that I have formulated regarding mind.

In the thread, "Supernatural" in the science forum, we were discussing reincarnation, and although it is a different subject, it is all about consciousness and there are some similarities, so I copied some of it for consideration here. It is pretty long, but read it twice and think about it before responding.

Because of technology and the advances in science, we can now track the development of a fetus from it's inception to birth, and it is almost like tracking evolution. Fascinating. Yet with all of this fascinating technology, we still don't know where the mother's consciousness and the fetus's consciousness begin and end.

Religion has tried to answer this question, and many religions accept that the new consciousness begins at birth, some think that it begins when the sperm and egg meet, others put the child's consciousness after birth. I read somewhere, it may have been the Bible, that the child is introduced to society at 2 or 3 months. This makes sense if you remember that there are some medical reasons why a child can be born, but not survive more than a month--such as in cases where there is a difference in the positive and negative RH factor. I think it was the Eskimos that thought a child should be introduced to society when it is two years old. This actually makes more sense than any of the prior considerations as a two year old is no longer dependent on it's mother for survival. Although the child is still dependent, the mother and child can be separated, the child can eat, walk, and make it's needs and wants known, so any adult can care for it.

Secular law does not have a clue, as is evidenced by the famous "Roe v Wade" Supreme Court case on abortion and the right to life. After considering reams of information and debating for months, the Jurists finally decided to break down a pregnancy into trimesters. So in the first three months, the woman's rights dominate; in the last three months, the fetus's rights dominate, as a fetus can be viable if delivered in the last three months; and the middle trimester is up for grabs and pretty much open to interpretation by the various states. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that as science advances, the fetus can be made viable at earlier, and earlier, stages until the argument about viability becomes moot.

But all of these are physical considerations and do not explain consciousness. Are there any facts? Any indications that can tell us when a fetus develops it's own consciousness? When do I become "me" rather than being a part of my Mother? I think that there are some facts, maybe even enough to put together a good guess as to how this might work.

So let's start at the beginning with the sperm and the egg. Are they alive? The answer to that would be yes. This is the easy part because if something is alive, it can be killed. Removing the egg or sperm from it's natural environment will cause it to die and rot, so it is alive. All life is sentient, which means that it reacts to stimuli and is aware of that stimuli, so the egg and sperm possess some rudimentary form of consciousness just like every other cell in the body.

For those who disagree with my assessment, please consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Do the egg and sperm possess "want"? Again the answer is yes. The egg will break out of the ovary, find the fallopian tube and travel along it to the uterus, where it will wait for fertilization. Whether this activity is caused by a physical prompt or whether it is caused by an awareness, it still exhibits a "want" to contnue, as all life does. I have watched films on sperm when they reach the egg, and can tell you that there is a frenzy of activity. So whether there is an awareness and knowledge of the egg, or if there is some chemical attraction to the egg, the sperm are in serious competition to reach and join with the egg. So again, this activity exhibits a "want" to continue, but is it any different from other cells in the body? I see no reason to think so.

The immune system seems to "want" to fight off unwanted bacteria in the body; blood cells seem to "want" to carry nutrients and oxygen to parts of the body that need them; tissue cells seem to "want" to reproduce themselves when it is necessary. All of the cells in our bodies seem to "want" to do their job in promoting the health and welfare of the body, so I can't see where the "want" of the egg and sperm are different or are separate in their consciousness. The end result is a separate consciousness, but it does not appear to exist at this level--there is certainly no evidence of it.

What about after the egg and sperm join? Many people believe that this is when a new consciousness arises. I don't think so. First, there is no evidence of it; second, there is evidence to the contrary.

People know that the joining of the egg and sperm creates a new DNA, which is assumed to indicate a new person, and so a new consciousness. It must have been a man who thought up this idea. It would be like someone receiving the architectural designs for their new house and asking, "So I have the designs. Where the hell is the house?" An appropriate response might be, "Well, the materials have been ordered, but they won't show up for months." Having the design does not mean that we have what was designed. Just like the separate sperm and egg, at this point we only have a potential for a new consciousness.

The arguments contrary are very clear and based in fact. Although the brain is not our consciousness, it is clear that the development of our consciousness is dependent upon the brain. Taking us from the awareness of a cell to the awareness of a human requires a brain, and a very advanced brain, so human consciousness for a fetus is not possible at this level. Another point to consider is that the mother's body may still reject the fetus, which often happens in the first few months. This rejection can be caused by a flaw or misforming of the fetus, but it can also be caused by a weakness in the mother. If the mother does not have the strength to carry the fetus, her body will reject it in consideration of the mother's health and needs. Clearly the consciousness and life of the mother takes precedence.

The next stage, where people believe the new consciousness arises, is at birth, and there is some evidence to support this assumption. First there is the obvious physical separation of the mother and infant into two different bodies, so there are two different consciousnesses. The problem with this is that, although the mother acknowledges this separation, the infant does not. The infant will be six to eight months old before acknowledging the fact that it is physically separate from it's mother. Prior to this time, the infant is unaware of any separation--physical or otherwise. This information came to me from the magazine "Psychology Today" which I studied carefully while raising my own children. It explained why a reasonable sweet baby of seven or eight months would suddenly become panicked when mom left the room. This is because the infant has finally examined him/her self from fingers to toes and has just become aware of the fact that mom is NOT connected. Oh no! She could leave! Hence the panic. So it appears that the first clues that we get regarding self-awareness come about six months after we are born. Prior to this point, awareness of the "self" includes the mother and probably most of the immediate environment. And we still don't know that mom has a mind and her own ideas--that comes later.

The second argument that consciousness starts at birth is the "want" that the infant exhibits that initiates the labor and subsequent birth. However, doctors are not in agreement in this matter. There are some doctors who will schedule a C-section birth based on ultrasound readings, but most will not, and prefer to wait until the labor starts naturally, then proceed to other methods of delivery. Many years ago I read an article about hatcheries where it was discovered that opening eggs to help the chicks hatch at a preconceived time often caused weak or less healthy chicks, so it was determned that it is best to let the chicks break out of their eggs themselves. I suspect that this is the kind of thinking that most doctors employ, that it is better to let an infant determine when it should be born. So this is a stage of development, but my thought on this is that the starting of labor to cause birth is very similar to the egg initially breaking out of an ovary. This appears to me to be another part of the process rather than an indication of human consciousness or intent.

So although religion and medical science have many opinions and theories regarding a new person's consciousness, these theories and opinions do not seem to reflect the facts of the matter. Psychology, I think, gives us our best understanding, and psychology states that a new person does not possess all of the aspects of human consciousness until they are seven years of age. Awareness of a separate body starts at 6 months, separate ideas from Mom's starts around 2 years, understanding that other people have a perspective starts around 5 years, and the rational aspect of mind starts around 7 years. So it does not appear as if a whole "soul" or mind is dropped into a vessel as stated by religion. And if a new consciousness grows or developes as it appears to, then what material feeds this growth and what activity prompts this development?

When and how does the conscious awareness of a single cell turn into the conscious awareness of a person? When does mind form? How does it form? When does the consciousness of the child separate from the consciousness of the Mother? What causes these changes?

1. When a human is born, their mind/brain is not a blank slate waiting to be written upon. It is already full of knowledge and understandings. One could almost consider it like a dos (disc operating system) already installed and waiting to be used. If anyone disagrees with this, please consider:

Innate ideas from Wiki: [url]http://en.wikipedia....iki/Innate_idea[/url]

2. When a human is born, they already have a personality. If you talk to someone who works in a nursery, they can tell you that some infants are agressive and dominating, some are shy and quiet, some are flirtatious and charming, some are quiet and curious--they already have distinct personalities. Just like a litter of pups or kittens, if you study them a while, you will note different personalities from birth. Where do these personalities come from?

3. Either this knowledge, understanding and personality are in the egg/sperm, or it develops. I don't think that many of us believe that eggs and sperm have personalities, so most of us suspect that these things develop or emerge. So what do they develop from, or what do they emerge from? If I am wrong, and it has been noted or theorized or proven that eggs and/or sperm have knowledge, understanding, and personalities, please let me know.

Most people will assume that these mental aspects come from DNA. Sounds good, but it is not true. DNA is no more than an instruction or mapping of what needs to be grown, it does not supply the building materials. A map of a city does not a city make. So DNA is more of an influence, and not even a very stable influence as it can be perverted or corrupted rather easily by chemistry.

For example, see Thalidimide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

The building materials actually come from Mom, and her circumstance can seriously influence the development of baby. This has been well studied. Mom's intake of food, vitamins (or lack of), her emotional and mental state, and her environment all contribute to and influence the health, development, and well being of baby. Since we know that Mom provides the building blocks of what will be baby, why do we assume that she provides the physical building blocks, but not the mental? And that is what this is, assumption, as there is absolutely no evidence that she provides only the physical body of the infant. Why do we assume this? Is it because we believe that "God" provides the soul? I think so, because there is no other reason that makes any sense.

And we know that Mom's mental state and emotional health can influence baby, and baby's development. We also know that an emotional shock or trauma can actually cause a miscarriage, so emotion is definitely an influence. We also know that emotion is linked to chemistry in the body.

So let us throw out the assumptions and consider alternatives. We know that Mom provides the physical building blocks, but she does not deplete her body while accomplishing this because she eats to maintain the nutrients for both mother and child. If she also provides the mental building blocks, how does she not deplete her own mental resources? Well, there would have to be a way to intake mental resources. How could she manage that? With hormones. All pregnant women, as a matter or fact, all reproducing females of all species, are loaded with hormones. If you review the Post on Emotion, Re: The Paranormal, dated 5/4/2014 a few pages back in this thread, you will see that there seems to be a drawing or activating effect of consciousness which is produced by hormones.

So if reincarnation can happen; if an old soul a new soul or a Beon can initiate the development of mind, I expect that hormones are part of the mechanism that allows it to happen.

G

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 8:59 am
by Greylorn Ell
Gee wrote:Greylorn;

Hello and thank you. The e-mail you sent regarding the "wonders" was a tremendous help to me. I had reached an emotional block and could not finish the eulogy/remembrance that I was writing for my Aunt. Your e-mail helped me to remember that it is not what we know, but what we reach for and wonder about that is most important in defining who we are. This change in thinking and perspective helped me to complete my work in time for the funeral service. You really are a nice guy when you want to be, but don't worry, I won't tell anybody.
G
Gee,

I'm grateful for your discretion. But if you did tell anyone, for example anyone reading this thread, they'd blow you off and would be correct to do so. The word "nice" is commonly associated with ordinary people who behave in a non-offensive, politically/socially correct manner in public, only disclosing their asshole-side in private, or when among like-minded hypocrites. I'm not keen on "nice" people, having found that they cannot be trusted. I was pretty dubious about you until you came down forthrightly on some of the dickheads trying to hijack your thread, myself included.

I'm prepared to love or appreciate people, but only one at a time. Experience has left me with little tolerance for pretentious jackasses. I can find better people in a biker bar full of strangers than at a faculty party, although it is easier and much safer to get laid at a faculty party. I've danced with 6-7 year old children at my favorite local saloon who demanded hugs before they went home, but was nearly kicked out a few weeks ago for facing down an asshole who deliberately bumped my partner on the dance floor. Yes, he was bigger and 30 years younger, and I'd have hurt him badly while he returned the favor.

You'll have noticed that except for an initial verification, the "7 Wonders" piece was the only use I've made of your email address. I expect that this use was the result of a psychic kind of prompt. Initially I was going to PM you and request a copy of the eulogy. Instead, "7 Wonders." I'm delighted that it worked for you, and not surprised.

That attachment is but one of many diverse forwards that I get from a retired U.S. Army Special Forces guy, career military, retired; the only commander to get all of his men out of Vietnam alive. He isn't "nice" either, but he manifests his personality differently. He doesn't need or invite any more fights, perhaps because he's won all of his. Those wins, and his absolute trustworthiness, came from some emotional place that excluded "niceness."

This post may seem off-topic but is not. For me, consciousness involves making distinctions between beon and brain. In my experience, "nice" people have well-programmed brains but are untrustworthy at the beon level. Of course it is possible for an individual to have a well-mannered brain and trustworthy beon (you are a good example), but such individuals are not common.

I'll reply to the rest of this (and other neglected posts) later. We needed to get "niceness" out of the way.

Greylorn

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 4:13 pm
by Arising_uk
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
If you do that, don't figure on answering questions with Biblical quotes. Brush up on your understanding of Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza. Several of those who post in this forum are well-studied, and actually know how to spell and pronounce those names.
:lol:
Also peruse this entire thread, in which individuals of with varying degrees of insight discuss the mind. With the extreme exception of Gee, many of us are the kind of ill-tempered louts who try to conceal ignorance beneath a cloak of bad manners.
:lol: :lol:

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 4:14 pm
by Arising_uk
madera wrote:I find it amazing that all the awareness on this subject you have all failed to see your
lack of self awareness.
Amazing.
Do you. Care to give examples?