tar

knownothing, Why yes, I have a thought. Our actions or inactions are important, and matter to at least two judges. One emodied in our own conscience, and one embodied in the world. There are actual consequences involved in any action or inaction a person takes, in regards to both judges, Not only is "feeling good" important, but "feeling good about oneself" is important to. That is, I think we are responsible for ourselves twice, once to "do the right thing" in accordance with our own rules, and once again to "do the right thing" in accordance with nature/reality/society/lover/workmate/friend/science/family/("truth", "justice" and the "American Way"). As that "human judgement" is involved in what a person does or does not do next, said person is about to make someone feel good (or bad), and about to do or not do something with consequences to both the internal judge and some external judge or another. The changing "standards" that are set, for which one is to judge themselves against, are not thusly completely "made up". They are real and manifest in a multitude of ways. Demonstrable ways. Thusly a person is not a quark, and not bound by only the laws of physics, as a quark is simply bound by, but by the laws of man and nature, as well. A quark can not decide how to act, but a person can and does repeatedly decide what to do, or not do next. By all rights, they should be held accountable for their actions or inactions. By whatever human judges are available. Regards, TAR2 We can and do promote to the pedestal, those who are capable and trustworthy. For good reason. And likewise tend to demote the inept and the deciever for some of the same reasons.

Cladking, I am neither sure of my point. Only that we have been at this "knowledge of the world" thing, for quite a few millenia, as a language using species, and each of us, has been experiencing the world from the vantage point of our own societies, and concurrent stories, as well as from our own private history of sensation and muses. There is a dual awareness, we each thusly carry, and both warrant respect and both are true. We are personaly subject to the world, and all of it is personally an object, to us. And from the other perpective, from the collective vantage point, from the viewpoint of the object, from the "god's eye" view, we are personally objects in or to this "greater" thing, both as individuals, and as societies of individuals. So everything we know, both as individuals and as a society, MUST be natural, must be true, must fit together, either figuratively, or literally, or both. We can claim ownership of the fact that it MUST fit together, without knowing exactly HOW it is so. We need not, or cannot know what is going on in the cave on the planet 100 ly from here, but can still imagine some "possible" thing or an other, being the case, and thusly "link" ourselves to that cave, with the knowledge that a huge bright explosion, eminating from the cave, would possibly be noticable from Earth in 100 years, thusly binding that cave, to THIS reality. We cannot however claim with certainty, that in 100 years a tiny spot of light will appear from that location in the sky, because I made up the planet, I made up the cave, I made up the explosion, and although it is a natural and possible thing I am imagining, the thought of it, does not make it natural and possible, as if it is actually the case. This is the realm, or nature, of supernatural ideas, in my thinking. This is my "point" perhaps. That there are many "blanks" we fill with imagined certain things, that need not be the actual case. And its better to leave certain things ambiguous or blank, than to fill them in, with the "wrong" idea, that would turn out causing one to have to falsify something actually true. Regards, TAR2

But neither would have gotten "in there" unless there were things that were Oak trees, in and of themselves. The "ideal" tree is not required for the initial sensation that placed the image in my mind. Just an actual Oak tree is required. The "ideal" tree is manufactured as a consequence in the commonality of each of our representations of it. As language is a symbol system, with one thing standing for another, the representational nature of it, is important and instructive as to the nature of the original tree, and the nature of the existence of an "ideal" tree. The original tree is certainly an Oak tree. The "ideal" tree, is a commonly held idea about it.

Villian, Imperfect meaning, but commonly understood meaning, none the less. The existence of the ideal tree is somewhat in doubt, but the existence of a tree, a particular tree, is beyond doubt. It is my awareness of a tree, that establishes it as real, and likewise establishes me as a viewer of it. The tree in my mind is not grounded, not as securely as the one with its roots in the Earth I am standing on. And I can tell you this, and you have no doubt that not only are you standing on the same Earth as I am, but you know of a tree, that has its roots in the same Earth, and you know what I mean, by talking about a tree. In fact, if you would come to my house, and put your hand on the particular tree, I am talking about, you would agree completely, with no doubt, that that indeed is a tree. An Oak, in this instance. It matters not whether a person calls a tree by its Japanese name, or its Russian name, or describe it by its scientific classification name. If its the Oak, standing in my backyard, the meaning is the same. Regards, TAR2

Was reading the Wiki article on Schopenhauer and was particulary taken with his critique of Kant. When disussing the establishment of phenomena and nomena and their roles and existence in relation to each other, it occurred to me strongly, that abstraction and understanding of the outside world, is done, primarily in terms of what one can say about it. It is hardly coincidental that the same language we use to form ideas is the one we use to communicate our ideas to others. And if we translate our personal abstractions into a common language, understood by others, and understand the words another says to us, the mere fact of the communication, establishes the speaker as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is" to the listener, and establishes the listener as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is", to the speaker. The "ideals" of Plato, thusly become abstractions indeed, shadows of reality, but commonly held ideas, between two instances of "the thing as it is". Thusly the arguments between philosophers about who has a better grasp of the reality of the situation are somewhat mute, since they have already used each other to base themselves. Regards, TAR2

Cladking, Well, where there is infinity this does point out quite a limitation. Any number you think you have a good concept of can easily be made tiny in comparision by multiplying it by itself or taking it to a power or simply doubling it. All these operations will make you aware that your concept is much closer to nothing, than to infinity. But, given the fact, that we are thusly very well insulated from infinity, its rather silly to suggest there is any value in thinking you have infinity well under control. Rather its rather a sure sign of limitation, so that one can feel rather good, just surpassing a former limitation, and extending ones reach, based on that. Then a doubling of reach is great. Its twice the reach you had before. Are you suggesting that thinking about what is going on in a cave on a planet a hundred thousand ly from Earth, has much bearing on what you are going to have for dinner tonight? I am thinking that what is within our sight, and within the reach of our radio telescopes, is plenty large enough, and plently complicated enough and plenty old enough to provide food for thought if being tiny and brief in comparision is what you are after. I doubt anything we discover is going to make us superior to such immensity. Seems the best we can do is associate with what we see of it. We already know its plenty. Why do you feel the need to add even more hypothetical stuff? Like I said before, if you have a hint, or an idea of what it is you are talking about, and where we should look for it, or how we could test and see if its true, why don't you mention it, and try it out. Besides "supernatural" means beyound nature, so you are not likely to find it IN nature. Its more likely to be found in our dreams and imagination. And if and when we do find "more", we will automatically include it in the natural state of affairs. By all accounts, I would think it more likely to find "truth" in nature, where we look for it, then find "truth" by closing our eyes and making something up. Regards, TAR2

Thorham, While I agree with the direction of your post. I don't think your conclusion is accurate. Science has found many things about reality. Hardly close to "nothing". Imagining you know something that "we" have not run into yet, that IS part of this reality is sort of a guess, or a hope, or an imaginary thing. The God of the gaps, so to speak. Filling in a variable with a "known" that is not known. To illustrate, we already know about magnetism, and would not be suprised to find that there is a magnetic field surrounding various objects and materials. If our senses were such that we could "see" these fields, we might find them rather beautiful and interesting and more readily see why a bird would fly this way or that, and how "random" motion of insects was actually "guided" by these fields in some way toward or around or through...and things that did not make "sense" would make a little more. But these would be "real" things that our unaided senses, are just not "built" to notice. Science has amplified and refined our sight (telescopes and microscopes), our smell (various strategies and sensors to determine the chemical composition of materials near and far) our hearing (microphones and amplifies, and sensors that pick up vibrations above and below ear's ability. Our skin's abillity to sense pressure and heat has also been mimicked and improved in sensitivity and range, by our technology. And the radio waves you mentioned we didn't know about were "found" as a result of scientific investigation of the "real" world, when equipment that could generate and sense changes in magnetic and electric fields (at frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum far below the frequencies the rods and cones in our eyes are sensitive to) were constructed. It has allowed communication across oceans, and has allowed us to "sense" the microwave background radiation. If you have a theory about what might be "going on" beyond the reach of our senses, test it out, and see if its true. Find the "next" thing that will increase our reach into, and our understanding of what the world around us is doing. And we will call it progress. Considering that you know there is more, but you don't know what it is, so you plan on just making something up, that then you will claim a kind of knowledge about that no one else has any access to, is rather unhelpful. Regards, TAR2

Gees, Well I think you will find it rather impossible to do any philosophy at all, without thinking about it, and without applying ones own understanding to the case. And without noticing "how you feel" about any conclusions you might draw. Are they "sound" conclusions that others could draw as well, that have a basis in fact, in more than one way, or are they opinions that no one else ever "wondered" about, or that require a "different" reality, than the one apparent, to explain. And while my opinion might not matter to you, it on the other hand might. There are things you say that make sense to me, and I guess there are thing I say that make sense to you. But each of us has a "worldview" that we consider consistent and proper, and where we "differ" is the important area of discussion, because we already agree on everything else. "No. What I am saying is that at age seven, children begin to accept a different reality--this one." This exactly is the point I am trying to elucidate. The "former life" that the child is imagining DOES NOT BELONG to this reality. This is the central "problem" with supernatural thoughts. Or if you will, the best explanation for thoughts that do not fit with this reality, that is, that if they do not fit with this reality, then they do not belong to this reality, then they MUST be imaginary. Also, in your last post, you began to retreat from your position a little and talk about consciouness "developing" as a child learns more about reality and is less influenced by "false" beliefs about it. This, if true and important, speaks very poorly about the "childish" beliefs that people that believe in Santa Claus after the age of seven, might be exhibiting. Which correspondingly casts a childish pall over beliefs in reincarnation, fairies, angels, imaginary friends, ghosts, boogie men, large slimey monsters in the closet, and so forth. And in the eyes of scientists and rational believers in "this world", such thoughts are akin to the belief in a heavenly father, or eminations from the gods, and such, that are the basis for the "beliefs" of a large portion of the "adult" population of the planet, which makes such scientists and rational believers in "this reality" wonder when the rest of the world is going to "grow up". Related to the reincarnation idea, you also laid out a few of the "possible" ways a child could have such thoughts and feelings, that have bearing on "this reality". I would just like to point out, that the person, who the child feels they remember the life of, was ALSO a member of "this reality", and there is no possible mechanism in "this reality" to get that "information" from one person in this reality, to another person in "this reality" that would require a route through a different one. Also, you started to explain consciousness through the use of the "unconscious" mind. Interesting choice of words. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, Point is, you know what is true, and why. I can hide a 2 1/2 ton truck behind my thumb at arms length, if its far enough away, yet I don't believe its really that small. I can easily discount the appearence as an "illusion". That fact that is ALWAYS looks small when its far away is not an indication that my senses are lying to me. We will have to take the illusions one by one to determine which are incorrect cognitive adjustments, and which are examples of "correct" cognitive adjustments that just do not apply to the situation. Like the checkerboard with the cylinder casting a shadow over it. It is a picture, it is not a real black and white checkerboard, with a real cylinder casting a shadow from a consistent light source at a particular angle. The cognitive "adjustments" that we make are "correct" in the real situation. We know the white squares are actually white, even though they are are a darker shade of grey in the shadow. That the picture can be constructed to "fool" our normal expertise in accounting for shadows, is clever, and indicative of the nature of perception, but the picture is the lie, not our ability to account for the effect of shadow. My favorite experiment to set your understanding of illusion and reality, at the proper point, in respect to "how things seem" and which parts you should "believe" and which parts you should remain a bit skeptical about is this. Stare at the same thing, keeping your eyes as stationary as possible for 30 secounds. Then shift your fixed stare to a point on a white sheet of paper, or a white wall. An image of the thing you were staring at will appear on the wall or sheet, and it will be in complementary colors. This is because you have used up the chemicals in particular cones that were actively firings during the first stare, and when you look at the white wall, which is ALL colors, requiring all the cones to fire, the ones a little depleted will not at first be able to send the full strength signal required and the same pattern you were looking at first will "appear" for a moment or two, until the slightly depleted ones catch up (or the other cones get equally fatigued). Your senses are only telling you a little "white lie" in this case. A fib you are able to see right through. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, Well thanks for the link. Read and followed some other terms and ran into two that are important to me, and fit in well with a discussion I am having with Gees and Moontanman on the supernatural and superstition (and probably tie in well as well to the "people who believe in God are broken, thread". The two terms are "ground and figure", and "unsupervised learning". Given the fact, that we are human, and capable of unsupervised learning, unlike a humanly programmed machine (except perhaps the Baysian, probabilistic neural processing machines in alternate "sleep and wake mode"), it is quite reasonable and proper that we "believe" our own eyes and ears and nose and touch and other "senses" that inform us of the world around around us. These senses, bring us an analog representation of what is "true", and we learn such, immediately, in a consistent manner, that links up, or makes sense in accordance with that about the world that other people learn in this direct and unsupervised way. As such, much of the "processing" and pattern matching, and analogies, that make up "thought" about the real world, are "tried and true" understandings about the nature of the world that is just past your fingertips, just outside your view, still exhistent with your eyes closed and your ears covered. A world that you have learned about, and continue to learn about, unsupervised. Supervised learning, or "teaching", speeds up the process and improves ones "reach" when information comes from a trusted source, but the individual already is grounded, already has a ground to interpret the moving and changing figures against. There may be illusions of "ground and figure" possible, but required to have an illusion is the capability to "get it right" as well. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the moon and the Earth are revolving around each other, and the Earth is rotating on its axis and so on, but this is completely consistent with what we see, when we look at these bodies in the sky. The Sun comes up, every day, tracks across the sky and goes down in the West. The moon comes up in the East and tracks to the West across the sky every day, but day to day seems to be making a monthly repeating progression in the other direction. Our senses wouldn't lie to us, about either the figures or the ground we notice behind them. Not consistently lie to us. "Mistakes" are made, but predictions that turn out to be false are quickly discarded and the "real" facts, accepted and our model thusly repaired or expanded, of the "reality", that our perceptions are of. Regards, TAR2

Gees, You have outlawed religion, outlawed opinion, and want to stick with the facts. What about the fact that everybody has an opinion, and most people have a religion. And what about the fact that 100% of the people that anybody has ever known live on, or lived on, the Earth. There is a commonality amoungst us, regardless of the particular history and attributes, and the particular emotions and thoughts and will an individual person might have or exhibit. Enough that I can use my imagination to put myself in the shoes of another. So its not a precise science, so its rarely on the mark, doesn't mean I am not in the ball park. I am not claiming rules with no basis in fact, like your statement about people forgetting about their former life, by the time they are 7. What do you base this scientific fact on? It presupposes "a former life", without description of what exactly this means. Could you be talking about some "intouchness" to "nature", and "memory" of the chain of life that flowed through the childs parents and grandparents? This would make some sense to me...but not if you disallow, a person "remembering" or feeling a real connection to their bloodline, after they are 7. Are you saying that people, all people are lying to themselves by the age of 7 and have "forgotten" what truth they used to know? I had a thought similar to this, and related to the "supernatural" about 10 or 15 years ago. What if young children "sense" things, and people like their parents, tell them its only their imagination, enough times, in insistent enough tones, for the child to "learn" to discount a "sense" for a "thought". "Grandma couldn't have been in the rocking chair, knitting in your room, Grandma died and went to heaven two years ago." Who is a child to believe? Her own eyes, or her parents? I am guessing a child would tend to agree with her parents, that she must be imagining Grandma, because she misses her, and wished she was still alive." But what if we DO see ghosts early on, and learn to NOT see them, as we are socialized? Wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it "better" to NOT see ghosts? And if our imaginations are more readily confused with reality when we are young, wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it better to teach a child the difference between imagination and reality, early on, let's say, by the time they are 7? Either way, ghosts are not supposed to be seen. They are either bad news, and best forgotten, Or they are imaginary in nature. So where does that park "reincarnation" in your scientific, philosophical mind? A reality, that its best to forget about, or an imaginary thing, that its best not to consider real? Are you calling me a liar, or a forgetful person, or a person afraid to accept the truth, if I DO NOT believe in reincarnation? Well if so, I call you a name back, and suspect that you must think you have the ability to sense and percieve and know the difference between imagination and reality, similar to the abilities of a 6 year old. Maybe Regards, TAR2 (depending on whether or not we are still on speaking terms)

P.P.S. Consider the importance of "a story", to a human being. I think it says a lot about "how" and why we think and act the way we do. From several directions, and operating on several levels. There in addition, seems to be a concurrent "need" that the story be true. Enough of a need, to where some pretense or imagination is required inorder to "believe" the story. To make it "fit". In some things, some poetic license is understood and allowed. In others its best to tell the story that fits the facts, All the facts. If the story doesn't make complete sense, I think a human, for good reason, will reject it. Perhaps this is partially the "nature" of consciousness. The ability to tell your own story. (while living it)

Mike, Well if its any help, we do seem to be talking about the "same" external reality, that we each have what we consider to be a "complete" model of, inside our individual "tubes". Since it is impossible for the universe to exist "completely" in your brain, AND exist completely in my brain, we must be "imagining" a consistent and real thing that has such a "complete" existence, outside our brains. That we have this ability to imagine the whole thing exists, beyond and bigger than our abilities, sounds paradoxical and impossible, but actually serves to verify the existence of external reality. Sort of "neat" that we do this, and all "know" the same world, at the same time. Under the circumstances, I don't think its required to come up with something "better". Its rather fine, the way it is. And unlikey to change a whole hell of a lot, according to something going on separately within the confines of a single "image" holder. Nice to come up with a thought that fits the case. But better to come up with a thought that REALLY fits the case, so much so, that it makes complete sense to any other image holder, as well. Somewhere in there I think one can find the difference between an internal thought, and a thought about external reality. Also some where in there the literal and the figurative can get jumbled. Easily. Regards, TAR2

Gees, Wondering about what you are going on about, I searched out and read Dr. Stevenson's article on birthmarks. As I was reading it, I found myself constantly returning to the same "explanation", and that was that in all cases the child HAD the birthmark(s) or birth defects and therefore would undoubtably have speculated about why they had these wierd marks or malformations that nobody else had. Imagining how such a thing could be, or what could have caused it. As most of the examples where in areas of the world where reincarnation is a commonly held belief (and evidently home to a fair amount of shotgun incidents) it is not hard to imagine a child wondering about the "story" that could be "behind" the marks. With a little talk amoungst friends and family, these hypothetical stories could be woven, and considered something like "memories"...etc. etc. The good doctor was good enough to mention this objection, (and then downplay it, unconvincingly). Ian Stevenson's article on birth defects and reincarnation: "Because most (but not all) of these cases develop among persons who believe in reincarnation, we should expect that the informants for the cases would interpret them as examples according with their belief; and they usually do. It is necessary, however, for scientists to think of alternative explanations." All in all, I found myself NOT forced into to a corner, where I had to think of alternative explanations. The explanations I had, already covered it. I remember considering reincarnation when I was young, and searching my "memory" for any hints of a former life. Had some "feelings" and such, but nothing that made any sense, and certainly nothing that I had a lot of evidence, or any evidence to believe was the case, or even possible. Later in life, as a young adult as a lifeguard at an apartment building, on a day when no one was at the pool, I remember thinking quite long and hard about the topic of reincarnation, and decided that it was a consideration that did not make ANY sense. It just doesn't fit. No mechanism, known or unknown, would allow it. It wouldn't "explain" anything. You can't have somebody elses memory, and call it yours. You can't have somebody elses soul, because you then would not have your own. The whole idea is fatally flawed. I discounted it, that day, and it remains discounted. You and Dr. Stevenson might present things that you think require some unknown force or mechanism to explain them. Why do you just pose the question, without coming up with a testable theory about the kind of mechanism that must therefore, or may therefore, be in play? Show some "other" examples of the same mechanism at work, and such. If "reincarnation" is the valid and only explanation for the happenings, then how do you propose "reincarnation" works? How is it possible? How does it make sense according to ANYTHING else, we know? Besides, you would have another issue to resolve. Is reincarnation a "possession" of the body of the second part, by the soul of the first part? In which case you would have to explain what happens to the soul of the second part? And come up with some arbitrary rules about cohabitation of a body, and one soul being stronger than the other, and such, which would be pretty hard to sort out, being as its imaginary and not based on reality at all. Then, (and I just thought of this) you would have the problem of where the soul of the first part came from, and whether or not that soul of the first part, was a "pure" starter soul, or whether he/she him/herself was possessed by a previously exsisting soul...etc. etc. Nothing testable suggested, nothing that makes sense, studied. Just questionable things, lumped together, for no good reason. You might as well conclude that clouds will gather, anywhere where TAR asks them to, because it happened the two times I was contracted to make such a request. What other explanation could there possibly be? Regards, TAR2 As for the question of where and how and why life and consciousness "started", I would guess that the answer, the plausable answer lies in more of an evolving presention, than a sudden start. It had to have come from the universe, but it did not exist prior its emergence. To think otherwise, you would then have to explain where the consciouness that was poured into the material, came from, and you are back at the same question. So since reality had to either start at some point, or had to have always been the case, there is no need for consciousness to exist by any other rules than the universe goes by. The rules of the universe should be sufficient to explain the case. They HAVE TO be.

Moontanman, OK I think brain tumors, or drugs, or sleep deprivation, or sensory deprivation, as in a cave, can throw one rather off their game. Broken, or temporarily broken, or working without all their facilities, and such. But I have always been a little off, myself. A little crazy, but in a controlled sort of way. I of course can't know how crazy or sane I might appear to others, other than going by what people say to me, or how they act toward me, or by a consensus opinion, or by a comparision of my thoughts and actions and motivations and such, to others around me. I may be able to express my opinion and be understood, or not. I may score badly or well on one kind of "test" or well or badly on another. The criteria for crazy fit most everybody, in small ways, or every once in a while everybody's "judgement" slips. My thinking on this, or my theory about it, is that there is a general standard of sane, rational behavior, that becomes "understood" to an individual, and it consists of, or an individual is informed of this, by not only the actions and determinations and observations of those humans around them, but of the actions and determinations and observations of others one learns about from news reels and history and literature and such. There IS a standard that one can hold themselves too, or compare themselves against. So take it one step further. Is it "rational" to consider that there is a general standard of unbroken, rational, complete and solid, proper human behavior? Evidently there is, because we normally lock people away, who wander dangerously away from the standard. But since the standard is based on what other people think, and how other people behave, the standard tends to vary between families and groups, and societies, at any one time in history, and also varies in any one family or group or society over time. So if you believe that there is one standard, that fits all, that anyone, anytime, anywhere, can judge themselves against, and call themselves either broken or fit, in reference to this standard, it is possible that the standard exists. Such a standard could be rationalized by a humanist. Or rationalized by an idealist. Or rationalized by a theist. Or if some theist makes a promise to God, or submits overtly to this God's judgement, it should not be considered a completely, apples and oranges, different kind of thing, if one makes a promise to his/herself, or relies completely on one's own judgment or conscience, or if one submits to the laws and judgements and considerations of science or the courts. We are not "broken" to submit to the reality around us. Its evidently, the proper, fitting thing to do. Regards, TAR2

WWLabRat, I wasn't insinuating you had lost any grasp. Sorry. I was trying to answer the thread question. I look at things with the aid of linquistics, because I feel that the way we put sentences together is strongly related to the way we put ideas together, and hence "thought" and language can be looked at, at the same time, and say something about each other. I did realize on the drive home though that I a made a mistake. I didn't mean proper nouns as opposed to abstract nouns. I meant concrete nouns as opposed to abstract nouns. Anyway, StringJunky answered the question well. In the direction I was clumbsily headed. I do believe it is important to grasp the idea that a concrete world exists outside of our individual body/brain/heart group, that we interalize and build a model of, through one or more of our senses. With this understanding, it is also apparent that the perception of the thing and the internal model of the thing is distinct from the thing itself. Not at all unrelated to the thing, and with direct analogies to the thing, but seen and felt as being distinct entities, because the thing in and of itself, is NOT the same entity, as the understanding we have of it, or the model we have of it, or what we perceive of it, or what we sense of it, or what we think about it, or what we say about it. The thought or perception is real, in and of itself, and the thing thought about is real, in and of itself. Thus perception and reality are seen as distinct entities because they are distinct entities, according to both our senses and our understanding. Regards, TAR2

WWLabRat, I think we all usually have a grasp of reality. That is, we know what is a proper noun, and we know what is an abstract noun. We know which and what parts of reality are PROPER and fitting and which take a bit of imagination to understand or concieve of. And generally we know by the actions and words of a person, when they have lost their grasp of the distinction between the two types of nouns. Regards, TAR2

doG, Exactly. There is a much difference between an apple and an orange, as there is between having an idea of God, and believing in the ideal. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Not at all. The opposite maybe. Thoughts are metaphyscial. Nothing is supernatural. But there is a mixture of human thoughts into reality that cause logical conflicts, if one considers that thought is unreal, impossible or magic, or presented to us by some outside force, that is not apparent. My take, which I evidently am having a hard time expressing, is that therefore there MUST be a real, logical, cause and effect, unmagical way that humans and human consciousness emerged, or came to be, or developed WITHIN the contraints and rules by which the universe operates. We exactly could not have arrived here without fitting real well with reality, at every stage of our developement. The universe may have "popped" into existence, and to an idividual, it may seem that they also popped into existence at their birth, and will pop back out at their death, and it seems this way, because its mostly true...but not completely true. The Earth and humankind existed prior the birth of anyone alive today, and will exist, hopefully long after everyone alive today dies. There is good reason to consider oneself part of this continuum. There is nothing "supernatural" required to associate yourself with that which came before ones birth, exists now and will exist after ones death. Here is where I think there is confusion about what people believe, when they believe in God, or an afterlife, or "another" reality, or the reality "after" this one. Or when people "worship" ancestors or "creators" or that about reality that provided us with our personal birth. Room, plenty of room to have quite a number of "different" takes on the matter. People with different beliefs, different personalities, different capabilities, different associations, different purposes and different "wills". But you have your pessimists and your optimists, your victims and your victors, your masters and your slaves, your haves and your have nots, and all in all it is no wonder that one person thinks they get it, but feels another doesn't. So no, I don't think thinking is supernatural. I think its metaphysical and real. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, "My definition is that anything real has a measurable effect on reality." I think we have the same definition. And here is where "thought" is sometimes mischaracterised, because sometimes it DOES have an effect on reality, and sometimes it does not. Perhaps illustrated well by a few of "examples". A sage reaching nirvana on a mountaintop does not cause the entire universe to collaspe into a black hole. The "thought's" effect on reality is minimal. Thinking you should go at a green light and stop at a red, actually reduces the amount of collisions at intersections. Here thought DOES effect reality. Perhaps you would accept the lack of piled up wrecks at the intersections to be evidence of thought's effect upon reality? The amount of twisted metal and injury at these intersections is certainly measurable. To say nothing about the effect of thought on one car happening to be traveling in one direction or another on one road or another, or the effect on reality that thought had in creating the roads in the first place, and the lights, and the laws, and the cars. Certainly a lot there, that you can measure, and a lot there that you can sense and know to be real. That would NOT exist, but for thought. So thought HAS a measurable effect on reality. It also does not have the "reach" we sometimes think it might, and thinking you are the king of the world, does not make it so...unless you ARE the king of the world. Many sayings and realities illustrate this point. "Big fish in a small pond", "no man is an island". "My eyes were bigger than my stomach", "He is too full of himself", "You promised!" etc., etc.. There is much evidence that thought effects reality, and there is much evidence that it has limited reach. So here is my take. Reality is real. We are in and of it. We are mortal and tiny in respect to its apparent longevity and immensity, but what we "think" about it, is not either completely true or false, but rather somewhere inbetween. You can neither discount a thought to the level of non-existence, nor inflate it, to encompass everything. Metaphysical things exist. For us, and our reality, the one we commonly consider our mutual "frame of reference", the Earth and the Solar system and this Milky Way, there exists, in small but measurable ways, THOUGHTS within it, and about it, that effect it...for real. Gees seems to feel that thought floats around and settles in things, you seem to think that thought has no real effects or demonstrable existence, I am rather sure that although it can be taken either way, the reality of the situation is that our thoughts have had, do have, and will have effect upon reality, and therefore there MUST be something real about them. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Well I was about to plus arrow your last post, until the metaphysical comment. There IS a lot going on in our imaginations, and collective imaginations, and these things have "something" to do with reality. I am not talking about flying because you think you can fly...well maybe I am. After all, I have flown to Japan and back a couple of times, and it didn't have nothing to do with the Wright brothers' imagination. There are many things in this world that are here, that were not here, before somebody had the idea...and made it work. While I constantly get in trouble with iNow and others, for "conflating" stuff on these threads, its not something I do to obfiscate, but something I do to clarify. I SEE the imaginary nature of god. It can not be otherwise. BUT, the "idea" of god is therefore the only thing we have to talk about, since the "real" one, has not shown up on the radar. Gave a woman at work three pears today from our pear trees. She said she was going to offer them to Lord Vishnu tonight at a religious ceremony. I joked with her about whether or not god would be offended for giving back the pears, as if they were no good. She said "you gave them to me, I will offer them to Vishnu...its auspicious". Another woman, from the Phillipines was confused at the first woman's and my conversation about Ansestor whorship being related to Vishnu, since she believed her ancestors "joined" Vishnu and such, and I suggested to the second woman, that "you have to use your imagination", the first woman agreed, and it all was a rather friendly and understanding exchange from all three sides. My "understanding" does not require there actually be a Vishnu to offer the pears to, for you to offer pears to "something". And such is my understanding of God, that I came to some 10 years ago. God is that "something" that we are all commonly aware of, in that general "metaphysical" way. It can be friendship, or hope, or simply association with each other, but its real stuff. Everybody DID have ancestors, who still are "alive" in their memories, and that they are beholding to, for the helpful efforts that established and maintained the societies and civilizations and technologies and rules of behaviour and philosophies and ways of life, that we currently reap the benefits of. The hopes and dreams of our ancestors is the reality of today. We walk on their streets, drink the water from the aquaducts they built, inhabit the buildings, and enjoy the works of art and technology that their imaginations and efforts created. Not a one of us "started from scratch". Not a one of us can live, but for the Sun, and the Earth, and the countless former lives that concentrated the carbon we use in every cell and strand and fibre in our bodies. There is nothing wrong with "feeling" an association to the universe, to the Sun, to the Earth, to life, to rain and wind and soil, to your ancestors, and to the "other" people currently alive. Nothing wrong with it at all. Its the reality of the situation. Yogi Berra once said that 90 percent of baseball is half mental. I think he got it, exactly right. I would rather you not use metaphysical as a curse word. Supernatural sure. Superstitions sure. But metaphysical means something real and shouldn't be lumped into the same basket. That is unless you accept the metaphysical as real, and intend on using it, to explain our beliefs in the supernatural and to explain our superstitions. Then you can lump. Regards, TAR2

And not too irrelevant to the thread, that 50 years ago Rev. King had a "dream".

I am blessed this week. Iggy was amazed at the fact that I accidentally said something relevant. And now I've won an award for irrelevence. It's a shame that I actually understand my own logic, and see the connections...I must be broken. John, Your culture? Which one is that? I work 8 hours a day to pay the bank. Not a far cry from the coal mining days of the company store. Which was not so far from the cotton fields. And I would say our society, regardless of the fact that we elected a black president, is still "working on" issues that slavery caused. Detroit just went bust and it didn't have nothing to do with the black population, and the reluctance of white money to engage in the place. We are attempting to "grow out of it", but to say it is no longer relevant, would be untrue. Regards, TAR2 Ideals die hard. And take a long time to foster.

I disagree John. Every society in the world, or at least every society I can think of, has a history of religion. And although an organized society can exist without god (since they do, and there isn't) there are few that operate without the ideas that their forefathers taught them. And just about everybody has a history of religion. Faith in things that have no mass or energy or any scientifically measurable quantities. Courage, sacrifice, promises, integrity, and 100 other virtues require reaching into a well that has no physical existence to pull out a thing with no substance, that then exhibits itself in your actions or restraint and affects the world.

John Cuthber, Well lets suppose we had a sense a fairness, long before the Bishops were around to enforce it. Is there a requirement that it be enforced, or not? Would everything work out well with no one to dole out the bananas equitably? Capitalism and Communism are still at odds, in terms of whose reponsibility it is, to determine what is fair and proper. There were in Arabia warring, idol worshipping tribes, who had no overaching, binding idea, with which to settle the cases, other than the sword and arrow. Christianity had such a thought, and Mohammed borrowed it. Western society doesn't find the rules so equitable...so we fight over whose rules we are going to go by. The "Church" was highly male oriented, and this is not "equitable" to the females. So what should rule the day, money, power, religion, philosophy, science, laws, logic, or what? I agree with iNow, that there are no dieties. But take John Lennon's song "Imagine" and put everybody naked in field, loving each other...which is a nice thought, until everybody realizes that nobody brought any bananas, and its time for lunch. Sometimes it might require "imagining" that there is an "ideal" way to be, inorder to proceed in a manner equitable to all. And even now, with everybodies best efforts to make it so...plenty of people wind up with too few bananas, as far as they are concerned. Humanist thoughts that strive to prove that we might have developed laws and ideals, that would bind us together, without the thought of God are missing the fact that thought about God, got us to where we are, in the first place. That such a progression can be done without God, is an obvious fact, since we did it, without there being a God. But it is also obvious that we got here, with a lot of people involved "thinking" there was/is a God, or acting like there was, or acting as if there were a God. In this, given the fact that there are no Dieties, acting "as if" there are, seems to be a thing everybody is capable of doing, none-the-less. Acting "as if" there is a chair, is not required, you can just sit in a chair. Acting "as if" there is an ideal to adhere to, IS required, because the ideal only exists if you hold it in your mind, and is only society wide useful and functional, if EVERYBODY holds it. Regards, TAR2 To be "godless" is still a problem if it can be thought of, or "redefined" as iNow would blame me for doing, as "operating with no ideals or principles, or societal values". And if anyone, could pick these values out of the air, and sense and know them, without a church, and without a court, and without parents and society and with only logic and sense to guide them, then I would argue that then these values ARE universally present, and anyone that believed in them would be believing in a "true" god.