tar

questionposter, But human intelligence is confined to humans. Any restriction that would apply to a human, in terms of their brain size, and the environment they must be in, to have a functioning brain, would set the limits of human intelligence. Still within this possible population, there are people smarter than me, and people not so smart. Certainly, when you are talking about intelligence there are components to it, and I might be good at problem solving but have a terrible memory for the names of things and so on. But you are probably right, that my bell curve analogy is improper, in the sense that ones intelligence is not a point on any curve, but the intersection of many abilities, and memories, whose collective characteristics define the person's intelligence. In this sense, you are right, you can not be more or less intelligent, just differently so. But if you take standard intelligence tests, that have been constructed with much careful consideration of the varied mental abilities of humans, it is possible to score higher or lower on the test than another human. Except for the highest living scorer, who would have no living human, that took the test, which could be more intelligent...given the abilities and capacities that the test was designed to measure. Such a test, administered in English, to a blind backwoods native in a remote part of South America, might yield a similar score, as administering the test in English to a Sighted Goldfish. Would not mean that the native and the goldfish had similar intelligence. So I will accept your discounting of my theory, but not on the basis of human intelligence having no size limit, but on the basis of human intelligence having no single measurable component, upon which all people could be ranked, meaningfully. Regards, TAR2 Except of course the professional sports real competition test.

Perhaps that is the God I believe in. That intelligence that the world exhibits, which cannot be trumped by a human. Science does not win, hands down. Reality always has a higher card to play. So are we agreed? People who believe in god are not broken?

Question poster, Well most certianly you are right. Logic tests would be rather hard to design. And the designers would probably be biased in that some subjective criteria would likely be used to define logic and illogic in the first place. That was sort of my point. If you take belief in god as a sign of illogic, then the stronger one's belief the higher you would score on the illogic test. Not really part of this thread question, or maybe it is, is the "idea" of intelligence. What exactly could that be, that some people have more of than others, that we can scientifically determine the exact quantity of, that a person contains at a particular moment in their life. We can only do it with a quotion, a relative scale, comparing A to everybody else, tested for their mental abilities exhibited in performing certain standard tasks of memory, knowledge, pattern matching, problem solving, logic, mental manipulation, recognition of causal relationships, or whatever is deemed to be important components of intelligence. But lets say someone was "more intelligent" than another. What would that mean to the person, less intelligent. If the less intelligent person could do the things, mentally, that the more intelligent person could do, then the less intelligent person would BE more intelligent. Sets up a theory that I have had, since I was 17, that one cannot know what it means to be "more intelligent". For if you knew, you would be such. You can imagine someone doing a mental thing you do, faster, or differently, but only if you are capable of doing it yourself, would you know what that means. When others have something in mind, that you do not, you are the fool, and they are the fooler. They "get it" and you do not. What this set up for me, is the idea that you can know THAT somebody is more intelligent, but you cannot "fool" such a person, as you could someone less intelligent. You can know what it means to be less intelligent, by subtracting abilities, but there is no way to "add" intelligence to your image of someone else, if you can't imagine what that means. Follow up theory, was that there is always someone more intelligent than you, unless you are the most intelligent person on the planet, and this would put you alone, or in a very very small club of equals. So in theory, an adult can fool a child, and an adult can fool another adult of lesser intelligence any time they want, and one of equal intelligence some of the time, and one of greater intelligence, with great difficulty. My "proof" of this, was an inspection of professional sports, considering the amount of people that considered a sport "real" competition. I believe at the time I set roller derby and wrestling at the bottom, since I knew they were NOT real competition, with boxing and horse racing, being a "maybe" in my mind, and football, baseball, basketball and hockey being sports that I believed were "real" competition. (except for flakey holding calls in the fourth quarter that changed the outcome of the game, or noticing that sometimes the shortstop waves at a hit up the middle and sometimes he makes a diving grab and flip to the second baseman). Sort of the TAR2 intelligence test. Assume that all professional sports are not real competition, and the fewer you KNOW are not, the more intelligent you are. I know I am getting further and further away from the point here, but only to get back to it. Last week I heard on the radio the outcome of the night before's Rangers vs. Senators playoff hockey game. I went to talk to a hockey fan I know at work about the game, he told me that they play playoff games every other night, and they had not played the night before. I told him the radio had said the Ranger's scored two goals in the opening minutes of the first period, and wound up losing the game by a goal. He said "no, they didn't play last night"...that night the Ranger's scored two goals in the first six minutes and lost 3-2 in overtime. Are we dupes? Did a radio announcer read the script ahead of time? Are we "broken" if we believe in what people more intelligent than ourselves tell us? Perhaps there is another TAR2 intelligence test. Which of the world's religions do you KNOW are not real, and which seem somewhat reasonable. One thing is for sure though. The most intelligent person on the planet, though he or she can fool everybody else, cannot fool God. Regards, TAR2

Questionposter, So I suppose we should grant each other a modicum of logic and a modicum of illogic. If this is how we operate, then the spectrum of humans might run from 100% logical, with not even a hint of illogic exhibited, to 100% illogical, with no sign of any logic attempted. If we plotted this out, we might get a bell curve like distribution. The "broken" people would be those that lay three or four deviations from the norm. In either direction. And then we could answer the thread question, if we could equate belief in god to extreme illogic. Unfortunately we would also have to question the integrity and soundness of the few individuals, with no capacity for illogic. However there seems to be a problem, in that the meat of the bell curve, lets say 62% with the proper mix of logic and illogic, would be made up of mostly religious and agnostic people, even if all the athesists on the planet were within that 62% So I would have to surmise, that given all of humanity, from the first to the current, only the outliers on any spectrum should be considered broken (or gifted), and the rest of us, can consider ourselves functioning, sound, normal human beings. Regards, TAR2 Except, if you considered every possible spectrum, upon which a human could be plotted, each of us, probably has some characteristic or another that would put us out on one or the other fringe of a particular spectrum. And we would be an "outlier" and broken or gifted, only in that regard. It would leave all the other spectrums upon which we could be plotted available for us to fall within the norm on. So, all in all, I would have to answer the thread question as NO, people that believe in God, are not broken. And not specially gifted either.

Moontanman, Perhaps "honesty" is something we do not automatically grant others. We seem to always be on the lookout, for where and how somebody could be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We after all do not like being played for the fool. Nobody likes being the dupe. In science we seem to take the approach, "trust, but verify". In religion we seem to take the approach, "trust, and if you have a question, just believe in the wisemen/women, and if they don't seem to have the answer, just believe in God on your own intuition" The two approachs above, are of my own construction, so they may not be actual approaches that people take, but if they are a little bit true, they have some common attributes in that in both cases there is you looking for truth, verifying it with others, and when in doubt, leaving the truth up to a perceived, greater reality, that holds the truth for us to find. Take this paragraph from the Wiki article on Dark Matter. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Perhaps I misunderstood the premise, but we are trying to decide whether people that believe in God are broken or not. Just trying to keep both sides honest. Regards, TAR2 Are people that believe in dark matter broken? If not, were they broken prior believing in dark matter? And now they are fixed?

Moontanman, Nice video. Struck me though as rather one sided. As if science is responsible for the planets, and evolution. And as if nobody that believed in God ever made any contributions to science. I am not saying that creationism is a better theory than evolution. It is not. It is quite obvious to me that Adam and Eve did not pop onto the planet full blown, 4000 years ago. That makes no sense, and fits neither logic nor fact. But similarly, science has never been the exclusive purvue of atheists. And scientific facts are found all the time by people looking for them. Are you willing to throw away the contributions to science made by any individual that happens to believe in God? A rocket is still a rocket, whether you believe in a supreme being or not. It would not be that difficult to put together a video of "science" being a villian. Burnt babies at Hiroshima, deformed squirrels after a nuclear power plant disaster, polluted rivers, industrial plants spewing black smoke into the air, fetuses being yanked alive from the womb and disected and studied or whatever. Knowledge wins over ignorance, but what is in the "good" pot is not only, or entirely science, and what is in the "bad" pot is not only and exclusively creationism. And creationism should not be the strawman that allows easy attack on believers in God, because it is possible to believe in God without taking the Bible as literal fact. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Trickle down. Might have some scientific, real stuff behind it. Follow this logic, if you will. Much life on Earth gets its energy from the energy the sun gets rid of. Sort of piss de sol. Regards, TAR2 Something about caves I like myself, but not tight places in them, I am a bit claustrophobic. But its interesting that Mohammed got his messages from God when the angel Gabriel would speak to him in the cave. The "evidence" that people have of God, if of this sort, where anybody else can easily dismiss it, from a scientific point of view, as an halucination, or drug induced fantasy, or chemical malfunction of the brain, is not an easy thing to prove as "real". And I am sure that all of reality is not affected substantially by a monk reaching nirvana on mountain top. Or by any one person's epiphany. But there remains the absolutely true, scientific fact, that whatever account I might have of reaching an understanding with the universe, and what ever account any other human has, no matter what the circumstances, the two have two actual provable, repeatable, unarguable components. A human and reality. If either one of us claims a connection with the universe, it is certainly a justifiable claim. Our very atoms have a history as long and intricate as the universe's, and the patterns in our brains that mirror the world, include impressions made by photons pissed by suns hundreds and millions of light years away, that have been urinating in this direction, constantly, for billions of years. We are not "actually" the whole universe, but we certainly contain an impression of it. And every neuron that takes part in the feat, IS an actual, scientifically existant thing. To have an "ideal" one must indeed add a bit of fantasy to the facts, and project such fantasy back upon the universe. But there is "something" already built into the process, that is nothing but real, from the neurons and their configuration, to the greater reality that the neuron configuration is of. The figuative is of the literal. The literal, on the other hand, exists with no help from the human imagination. But the follow up conclusion would be that you can certainly know God, but you can't make one up.

Moontanman, and Mooey, Well I was about to answer the "universe in a thumb" line, with "something like that", till Mooey came to the defense of the intent of my post, and after the LSD post and others, I might suggest that it may be useful to accept that we all may not have to be sober, or drunk, or high, to still enjoy the discussion, the warmth of the fire, the beauty of the stars, and the companionship of other humans. I prefer to be sober myself. Gave up getting high and "tripping" after finding the experience rather unsettling, back when I was 18. And I gave up getting drunk, after a history of several blackout experiences (none of which caused any problems that I know about) left me thinking that between the danger of doing something stupid, killing brain cells, and the expense of the liquor, it was probably something I should do without, (That was back in 1980 when I was in the U.S. Army in Germany). So for better than 30 years, I have been able to think about this stuff, with a clear head, AND any "advantages" that being in those states might have had, are also in my memory/toolchest to draw upon, if and when required. To the LSD/mississippichem that you, Moontanman, refered to I would agree with your points, up to the point where you discounted any value at all to feeling you "are god". 'cause when you think about it, there really is no other possibility. The insight is true, but the implications are many and varied. Some rather comfortable, and some, rather frightening. Some rather workable, and some quite impossible. Sorting those things out, might be what I have been "working on" for the last four decades. Current conclusions on the matter, that I have drawn, are probably included, every time I post. I am after understanding both the things that really make us part of "all reality" and the things that make us individuals, that are in it. It is important that we recognize both, because...that is the way it is. We can't contain it all, nor can we do without it. Regards, TAR2

There are those things, people and ideas we consider our own. There are those things, people and ideas we consider to be the pervue of others. Sometimes mutual ownership is reasonable. Sometimes it does not work. Sometimes you have to trade one thing in, or loose it, to acquire another. Sort of a simplistic starting point, but if you look at the stuff you defend, and the stuff you seek to eliminate, and the stuff you have no interest in, and multiply it by about 16 billion people doing that same thing over the history of humanity, it explains a lot. The agreements we have come to, the institutions that have been built, the wars that have been fought. All in all, I think we are doing a rather nice job of it. After all, there are about 8 or 9 billion wills at the moment, that would like to see things go their way. Regards, TAR2

Yes, I am sort of the opposite. I have a line at work that I use, because it is so true, its funny. "I can make any simple thing complicated." By the time I take everything into consideration...it's the next day. The world has moved on to other stuff, and I'm still on the previous thing. I am very happy with myself...but it doesn't seem to hold much value to anybody else. But I suppose it is a good thing to like yourself. You sure wind up spending a lot of time with that particular person.

Perhaps this is not such an easy topic to discuss, as I thought. I was sort of hoping for an "around the campfire under the stars" type of conversation a group of humans could have together. Seems people are pretty set in their beliefs, and are not too anxious to let a line of argument in, that would potentially undermine any of their own reasoning, or strengthen the argument of a contrary point of view holder. And of course, I am no different. I, like everyone else, has had a lifetime to think about this stuff. And I, like everybody else, think my reasoning is sound. Not likely either, that any two of us has had the same series of life experiences, and not likely that any two individuals have had the same collection of insights. Wouldn't mind the "around the campfire, just a bunch of diverse humans finding common ground" type of discussion. But I am not that hopeful for such a thing, at the moment.

Well, Perhaps the idea we are talking about, is personality. Does the universe exhibit a personality or not. Seems to me that it is logical and possible and meaningful to both ascribe personality to the universe and to recognize it, itself is not a human. Humans are something of the universe though, and it is not logical to assume that the universe was completely devoid of personality, prior the birth of TAR2. Or prior the first man (or woman). Or prior the first rat or ameoba, or prior the first strand of protein, or prior the first living cell, or prior the first snowflake. If one does not ascribe a modicum of personality to a snowflake, or a sun, or a hydrogen atom, then where does one start ascribing personality to anything. I can not be the only "person" in the universe, and I cannot be "other than" the universe. Any and all traits I recognize in myself, I can find "out there". I cannot be anything, see anything, feel anything, think anything, do anything, without the universe's involvement. Regards, TAR2 I think "random accident" is a weak argument. It discounts the achievements that had to have come before. To roll a 7 you need a pair of dice. And as many times as you roll, you will never come up with the queen of spades. For that, you need a deck of cards.

I suppose I have some explaining to do. How can I at the same time declare I have no belief in an Anthropomorphic God, AND go around personifying everything. I think the answer I would give at this point, is that I have a "theory" that we, as human's tend to understand things in human terms, because...well...we are human. It would be rather difficult to have a thought that was not a human thought. With this in mind, I figure that metaphors and analogies that I use, as a human, would have the possibility of meaning something to you, as well. I do not expect you to think that I mean a big human brain sitting "out there" somewhere cogitating upon where to next wield his/her power and authority. But when the tsunami hit Japan last year, it was certainly powerful, and did point out to me, at least, that we as humans are not in charge. Not that "anybody" is. But that when taken together, as one thing, nature has the upper hand over us. (And this does not require there being an actual big hand hovering above.) Regards, TAR2

Absolutely. You are the best example of a mind that the universe has, that I can point out to you. Zapatos, What evidence do you have, that your mind is not of this universe? Regards, TAR2

Well, The bickering back and forth about what god can or can't be, in terms of exhibited characteristics, at least is justification in belief in god, in that everybody here seems to have an idea in mind as to what their beliefs are in respect to the universe they find themselves in, as well as a general feeling that they have it figured out, a little better than the next guy/gal. I keep going back to the idea that there is something about the linguistic finding, "that people tend to put the same idea framed in the first person in a good light, framed in the second person in a questionable light, and framed in the third person in a bad light", that is very pertinent to this discussion, and the discussion of God and religion, and human psychology, and a bunch of other stuff. If we as individual organisms, have a feeling of belonging to the universe, and a personal "knowledge" of what that is, that we are talking about, those are not feelings and thoughts without justification. Its sort of plain truth. There is no evidence I know of, that would suggest otherwise. We ARE made by the universe. There is nothing else we know of that could have done the job. And the universe is rather big enough and old enough for anybody to, with justification, hold it in rather the highest position possible, in terms of power and authority. I think the "problem" with religion, is when somebody, or some group of somebodies, usurp the power and authority of the universe, as if they could really have any kind of special "in" with it. That their own idea of it, somehow trumps anybody elses. And I think the power of religion, lies in the fact, that every person has knowledge of and unseverable connection to, the very same and singular reality. There is no other universe but this one, to refer to, or be subjected to. If an intelligent insightful person like Moses, or a Mayan Priest or a Monk or wiseman or a Stephen Hawkins or brilliant philosopher for that matter, exhibits a special understanding of it, people have no problem "going along" with them and giving them a leadership role. Its not like anybody could really be talking about any other god than the one and only that really does exist. Regards, TAR2

Mooey, Don't mind at all, this being in speculaltions. It is where it should be. But Temporocitor and Fatio and TAR2 all have had the same intuition, and I see no harm in once again going over it, to understand why it could not be the case. Regards, TAR2

question poster, Hum... If matter curves space and the curvature of space tells matter how to move...and the gravity can not catch up to the photons...where exactly are the photons headed? Toward what? And do the photons that leave a mass cause the mass to accelerate at all, in the other direction? Is there such thing as photon propulsion? Would two equally "shining" galaxies have a tendency to push each other away? Would putting more space between them, look the same as space expanding? Regards, TAR2

End of story? Ophiolite, Few years ago somebody noticed something about the "behavior" of galaxies that suggested dark matter and dark energy make up most of the universe...and we never noticed that before, and we don't know why it has not affected our local calculations concerning gravity and motion around here now, nor do we know what it is, or how to find it, around here now. Why does that not suggest to anybody the possibility that what ever it was twisting that galaxy about was some feature of an earlier universe, that does not currently apply to the Earth's neighborhood? Depends upon what someone's definition of IS is. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, Sorry as well, to hear about your loss. It brought to mind a tearful speech I gave at my mom's memorial service. All present knew her strong belief in Jesus. I allowed as I was not a believer. I explained that she still existed in the memories of those she had touched in her life, and ended my speech with "she is in the loving arms of Jesus Christ, who she loved." I was not lying, and everybody there, believer or not, knew what I meant. In retrospect, and in concert with this discussion, perhaps "Jesus's Love" can be a real thing, with or without Jesus being a semi-deity. If, that is, that people exhibit it. If she (my mom) is held in the memories of the people she touched, is she not indeed firmly in the embrace of sons and daughters of the "supreme being"? Regards, TAR2

Mooey, You delivered your point very well. And I don't disagree with any of it. I am on the side of science, in these discussions, but that does not automatically make science the last resort, and the final word. It is obvious to both of us, that at best it is "the best" way we have developed to reach a consensus as to what is true, and what is probably not. But I am sort of after a two edged tool to use in determining truth. Let me raise the question by addressing an interesting nature to something you said above. If a thing is true, it most likely is true, before we notice it. It doesn't become true at the moment we notice it, in an objective sense, only in a subjective one. Now science provides an interesting redefinition of objectivity and subjectivity. It allows us as subjective individuals to invest our trust and confidence in a larger consciousness, one that includes all the people around us. We accept as true, not only that which is noticed by us, but that which is noticed by the equipment we have designed to extend our senses, and we invest our trust and confidence in what is noticed by others, especially if they do the noticing in a careful, methodilogical fashion, that we would use ourselves, and they record the process, so we ourselves can "verify" its authenticity, and bring up any ways in which they might have been incorrect in setting up, or describing what they noticed. But with the whole process the thing we find out is subjectively true, and objectively true to the extent that it is a thing that can be accepted by any and all humans. But even still, a thing that "becomes" true to "science", in this fashion...was already true, beforehand. John B. Smith discovered it, but he could not do such a thing, unless the possibility of putting things together in such a fashion existed in reality, already. That is, that "invention" is using components of reality that exist already, in a configuration they before did not have, and "discovery" is the noticing of something about reality that was not before noticed and recorded for all to inspect. In this respect I think we have to put things in perspective by considering our "model" of the universe as being one thing, and the actual universe as being something else. And any argument used to discount the validity of an individual's understanding, in favor of the validity of a consensus, carefully considered "scientific" view, can once again be used to discount the validity of any human claim at all, in light of the "greater" reality that exists around us, chock full of things we are yet to notice, or about to be locally chock full of things we invent, as a species. Before the ipad, such a thing was not true. Now it is real. We brought that possible configuration to reality. We invent it. When the apple fell, Newton discovered gravity. But it was already true. When the UFO lands in Paris, and the inhabitants emerge and do an interview on CNN, the object will no longer be unidentified, and our collective consciousness will include space travelers, or undersea world envoys, or whatever they turn out to be, in our collective understanding. But those entities would have "already" been true, just "becoming" true to us, at the noticing. Our noticing does not bring them from nothing to reality. They were already so. In this sense, an awareness of "more than we know" or "beyond our understanding" is not equivalent to fairies and unicorns. It is eqivalent to the reality that exists before we notice it. And this is a rather large and complex, and real thing. When taken as one thing, it is a "supreme being" and it encompasses all those real things we have not yet internalized into our model. Perhaps we are quite wrong to give something this large and long and intricate a single name at all. But if we call it the universe, or call it God, it remains the real thing that has many many components that are beyond our current understanding. Regards, TAR2

Mooey, I am with you on the "who created God" question. I do not think God is much of an answer. Just raises new questions. And to think of God as a mind that has the whole shooting match planned out, from start to finish, is sort of strange, because it raises the whole group of other questions, as to whether God is moral or not to allow suffering and evil and such. Why indeed would an all powerful God allow Satan to stick around at all, and why, if he knew from the beginning that John B. Smith was going to burn in hell for eternity, why indeed would he bring that poor soul into the situation in the first place... No, the idea of an anthropomorphic God, a human with no beginning and no end, that is all powerful, omnipresent, and extremely judgemental to boot, just doesn't work on too many levels. I knew since I was 13 that such a god would be a lonely, pityable soul. He/She would have no way of experiencing joy or sorrow or surprise or wonder. He/She couldn't look at anything, or feel anything, experience the passage of time or explore anything. It would all be already known, one thing, stagnate and empty for such a God. Such a fellow/gal, would not even be able to GET bored. He/she would already be, whatever it was he/she was. But I am not proposing such a God. Nor any entity outside reality. Seems rather in the definition, that anything outside reality, would have to be "unreal". I was asking doG if he would agree or disagree that all there is, is reality. To me, it is rather plain. If it is real, it exists, did exist, or will exist. Other than real things, there is no things, an absence of things, nothing that would ever come into play. If it did, or has, or will come into play, then it is real. But this demands a bit of flexibility, in determining what is true and real about the universe. If there are "things" that are not explained by the Big Bang, alone, then one would have to accept that indeed there might be a "beforehand" and a "because", and a "surrounding" cosmos that the universe belongs to, or a "nature" to the thing, that is not predetermined, and has yet to play out. I am not saying that if the universe did not create itself, then there must be a God that did it. I am saying that whatever the case, whatever the nature of the universe is, it has to include at least the possibilty of consciousness, and the possibility of TAR2, and Mooey talking to each other, because here we are, doing it. I am all for figuring out how such a thing came about. But I do not look to unreal things to explain it. Its got to be real. And if the universe did start and become with no before and no other, then all the answers to anything and everything that exists will be found within the universe, within reality...and there is nowhere else to look. And if the universe has a before or around or any other aspect that is not noticable to us, and affects us in absolutely no way, that we could even see its required presence for something to be the case, then it really has no bearing on this reality, and does not exist as a real thing. On the other hand, if something is required for things to be as they are, then it is an aspect of reality, and it exists, in this one. If God is required, then God exists. If God is not required, then other explanations will do...as long as they account for everything that is the case. Regards, TAR2

doG, And in what way does the scientifically adhered to theory of the "Big Bang", the explanation of how all of time and space came in to being, allow for a "before" or a "because"? Either we can think that the universe is all there is, or we can think that there is something "outside" the universe. "We don't know" is sort of a cop out. What does the evidence suggest? To a theist, perhaps "supreme being" allows for an "other than" the universe answer. To a scientist, such an answer is equated to the belief in pixies and unicorns and Santa Claus. When backed against the wall and asked to declare your beliefs...is the universe all there is, or is there evidence of something more? Like for instance, if there are rules that the universe goes by, is there any reality in which these particular rules do not apply? And is there any possible "intersection" where two or more realities can overlap in any way? It seems as a scientist, you should be required to explain how you can be so sure that nothing exists outside the universe, and at the same time allow that nobody knows if this is actually the case or not. Did the universe create itself? Or did something else cause it? Regards, TAR2

seriously disabled, Well the proofs "against" god, are all well and good. I am an "atheist" myself. I have come to the conclusion that "inventing" a god is not required. The existence of reality is quite enough proof of itself. But "scientists" seem to require that there was nothing that preceded or caused reality, that it is self contained. That being the case, there can be no removing oneself from it. Its sort of the only thing there is. And if that is the case, one has to determine what this means to them. Since there does seem to be strong evidence against TAR2 being the only consciousness in the universe, then there must be consciounesses other than TAR2. For purposes of argument, I would propose "seriously disabled" as an "other" consciousness. I don't believe I have to prove that this "seriously disabled" entity exists, and that this "seriously disabled" entity is conscious. It is a given, accepted, understood thing, to everybody reading this, that this condition exists. Thus it is plain and clear that within reality there is consciousness, and consciousness that is not confined to one individual's consciousness. There is consciousness, other than your own. But since we need as "scientists" to confine all consciousness to reality, any and all NOUS must as well be real...God does exist, as the whole of which TAR2 is a part. Regards, TAR2

IGGY, Nice passage. And here I thought Nugkta and I had a private understanding. Guess not. Regards, TAR2