LimbicLoser

Anyway, just for the purpose of sharing, here: This is not going to cut it at all. First of all the usage of the word 'thing,' is misleading. The sentiment of 'self' is deeper than the processing which amounts to the condition of having a state of consciousness. (1) The state of having consciousness does not always mean that 'self' is identified. Sometimes what is normally registered as 'self' (that is, one's own body, or mental processing results) is registered as 'not self.' In these cases, self is broken because brain processing has gone astray.(2) This is incorrect in a number of ways. The better of the aggregate evidence (I'll leave the citation aside due to time limits; but trust my research, please.) gives the greater vote to 'self-related' cognitive processes as being more right hemisphere, than not. Inner speech is most usually left hemisphere and is quite disconnected (so to speak) from the right's 'self realizing.' Again, this is largely pre-conscious cognitive activity for the more thinkable part. (Consider: Eagleman, David (2011) Incognitio--The Secret Lives of the Brain. Pantheon Books: New York; Damasio, Antonio (2010) Self Comes to Mind--Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon Books: New York.) As for the understanding that we can only know of things which we classify as 'physical,' I know for a fact that you, chandragupta, cannot go out and secure anything at all which does not at least supervene on physical substrate, and put it here on the barrel head for all of us to see. Words empty of any value at all, are words of worth nothing. At least I am glad to see that you do not subscribe to panpsychism. I am sad to see, nevertheless, that you are so entrenched in your categorical error, and are yet so impoverished by that error's power to hide itself, that you have no idea at all what is wrong with what you have typed out here. However, I do understand. (Compare: Shermer, Michael (2011) The Believing Brain--From GHOSTS AND GODS TO POLITICS AND CONSPIRACIES--How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. Times Books, Henry Holt and Company: New York) And, as a side note... So what's the problem? You like to use an Indian sounding name, but cannot understand Hindi? Interesting role play, there. 1. Baer, Ruth A., et al. (2012)Emotion-related cognitive processes in borderline personality disorder: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review 32(5), pp. 359-369. Blanke, Olaf, et al. (2005) Linking Out-of-Body Experience and Self Processing to Mental Own-Body Imagery at the Temporoparietal Junction. Jour Neuro Sci 25(3), pp. 550-557. Wei, Min, and Angelaki, Dora E. (2006) Foveal Visual Strategy during Self-Motion Is Independent of Spatial Attention. Jour Neuro Sci 26(2) pp. 564-572. Thirioux, Berangere, et al. (2010) Mental Imagery of Self-Location during Spontaneous and Active Self-Other Interactions: An Electrical Neuroimaging Study. Jour Neuro Sci 30(21), pp. 7202-7214. Longo, Matthew R., Azanon, Elena, and Haggard, Patrick (2010) More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex. Neuropsychologia 48(3), pp. 655-668. 2. Bradley, Walter, G. (2009) Treating the Brain - What the Best Doctor's Know. DANA Press. Giumarra, Melita, J., et al. (2011) The third hand: Ownership of a rubber hand in addition to the existing (phantom) hand. Cortex 47(8), pp. 998-1000. Sacks, Oliver (2012) Hallucinations. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.

To those whom it may concern: Is the allowance of such, surely obviously insincere as to explaining in any at least understandably-so degree of scientific thinking posting allowed to continue for some particular purpose? To the OPP. You are mistaken because--as the evidence most clearly demonstrates--you have failed to keep up with what is known, as opposed to what had been imagined in the Bhramic, Vedic, and Yogic traditions of the Arians. Additionally, you have never worked in clinical situations, nor have been exposed to them, where the brain processing which amounts to the 'self' is disrupted so as to allow a 'run-away-brain.' No, there is no non-physical substrate activity at all. When the individual organ of each separate and distinct individual produces the effect of an emergent self, it is exactly due to the processing centers of that organ which does so. This is not mere opinion, this is fact. When you, chandragupta (kay app bharat men rahte hein?), write that off, it is because you are not informed. (ji, eyh tik-tak bhat hai) Please do more carefully consider it. (bahoot shukriya ji) LL

Two conditions (at least) will have to be met to demonstrate any high enough truth value in your assertion to even leave it as plausible enough to not throw in the garbage can. For one, you will have to demonstrate that with evidence. Secondly, that evidence will have to out weigh the evidence for the conclusion that brain is required for consciousness, and a certain dynamic processing across and amoung certain rather specific structures within the brain, is required for consciousness. It very much appears that you are skating on the thin ice of a wild-eyed imagination--be it one that makes you feel good, even, nevertheless is nothing more than fantasy. I see that this is another one of those good examples of just how much public education is still needed. Not only the SfN, but AAAS (and I am sure other organizations are working towards that too) are encouraging their memberships to be active in that so need a work. We are not going to be able to get everyone, that's true, of course, but we should strive to reach out and cover as much ground as possible. The OPP has demonstrated a great lack of scientific method mentality, and is evidently weak in some other areas of 'should-have-been-investigated-firstly' domains--it does appear. Again, I wish to point out (and hope all will take fair note), it is surely better to be more careful with the use of the noun forms 'god' and 'God.' These are not the same, actually. The OPP is not talking about God in any sense of the term that is of a more accurate and standard usage nature. If we use the lower case form 'god' we should be careful to use it with the proper article (usually the indefinite article). The OPP seems to wish to talk about his, or her, god. It is the god which that person has created, and not any god, or goddess, which we can find described/prescribed to date. (to the best of my concerned knowledge)

I am going to take a different approach here. First of all, we need to take care of the linguistic aspects as best we can--working towards higher accuracy and correctness in a more pragmatic, and accepted standard. This is incorrect terminology. Since the word 'god' is a countable noun (and thus has multiply references) it must receive the standard, correct English handling. One can be a theist, and conceive of a god, or the 'the god of something, something theist-involved belief system, or, one can conceive of 'gods' in different, various ways. Additionally, it may also soon be argued that since 'goddesses' have been left out of the equation (as best as can be understood with all that we have so far, to work with), the attempt has already failed. (If there is a god, there is a goddess.) Now, if one wishes to talk about the deity of the later late Christian theist-involved belief system (the one that is to date), then one will need to capitalized the word 'god,' and thus have the proper noun form 'God.' The same is especially true if one wishes to talk about YHWH. Some will allow the deity of the Quran, but I argue that the confusion which that causes, is simply too great to be a properly considerable choice. If, however, one wishes to talk about YHWH, then the information given in the Tanakh which describes and prescribes that particular deity, will have to be adhered to that information source--one cannot go taking it from there (as so many ill-fated [though doubtlessly with good intent] philosophers of ere [and even today, sadly] have done) and claim to know that that original source is mistaken. (An argument which would be beyond the scope of at least this particular thread, I would argue.) The same is true for the biblical god (the triune god of the later late Christian system) and the Quranic god. This is inaccurate and incorrect. First of all (again) we do not know which particular god you have in mind, other than the one which you have dreamed up--for which reason, as best I can tell, you really don't need the word 'god' at all. This is true because the word has a fixed definition, you see, and that involves a male being. We can in no way at all ascribe to the known universe, the condition of being a male being--as we only know of such state in an organism. Next, we know (and again, a better, and considered definition will take us a lot further down the argumentation road) that the condition of having a state of consciousness, is not something that comes about absent certain brain cell (both neuronal and glia) processes at certain levels of dynamic recurrent activity. We know, for example (and this is by mere definition) that a human being in stage 4/5 Non-Rem Sleep (NRS) will not be an instance of a brain expressing the condition of having a state of consciousness--in other words, a deeply asleep brain (dolphins do it hemisphere at a time, however) will not have consciousness. Therefore, brain is necessary for consciousness, consciousness is not a single point of absolutely non-dimension, and outer space does not constitute the requirements for expressing consciousness. Both panpsychism and panenpsychism have been quite throughly dismantled of all pragmatic truth value. With this, therefore, we can see that the proposition put forth has failed. Is there some way in which you might want to alter some of the points which you wish to work on? If you are actually interested in being as accurate and correct as can be, I am willing to work on some of those points you might wish to debate or discuss.

Oh but for the fun of having fun for no more better, nor of greater fun, than that reason of simply having fun! After a short break for other things here, and not wanting to get back into the deadhead thread I had been in with revolving images of a brain which does nothing more than revolve, I was well humored by this one. Thanks guys ! (of course, congregation would surely have been a better word choice than 'church,' but suffice it to say that the point has been taken.)

In responding to the OP, and the circumstances of any particular person committing suicide, my heart-felt emotional surge rises in the moment. It is sad, most sad, that such will happen (suicide, that is) regardless of any state, or putative cause. I lost a dear and very loving sister in that manner. (Bipolar had been doing its evil work for some 10 or more years, and it finally took over.) As for bullying, I personally think that is too, is too bad--a blemish in social animals which we humans, one would think, would have overcome by now; alas. As for whether her suicide attempt could have been prevented, I would surely answer in the positive. That, however, is not talking about the moment of the act, or even the events of the week in which it built up to that, but in the whole history and social environment in which such a situation accumulated. Without a whole lot of further details, the last question is totally unanswerable in any realistic way. It is a sad event, indeed.

Hi there Notexceling ! First of all, let me sincerely express my appreciation for the trouble you have gone to in presenting your hypothesis. I know that can be hard work, and I know it represents a good chunk of your time, energy, and researching abilities. I do, honestly, appreciate that. Let me also say that I can, in some idiosyncratic way, empathize with your wordiness, and length of OP. I am (and I will put this in a fair way) guilty of doing the same, at times. (Although there are times when 'guilty of' would be a stretch of the imagination, in all pragmatic fairness... we do, at times, have to balance all the waffle that is out there.) Then, let me see if I can help out a little here. Mathematics and arithmetic are wonderful, fun, and challenging things. While it baffles me, my mother was a math teacher, and my father was too. (Although he was a physics teacher) One thing that is interesting, is the binary aspect which you had mentioned. Another interesting thing is the 'mass,' 'volume' sensory perception which even Zebra fish have demonstrated, which is at the core of mathematical reasoning too. Of course, as you may know, mathematical ability is a left hemisphere function for the most part, in most brains--including non-human primates (Great Apes, at least). But enough rambling; to the 'helping out' point. The above quote is where your hypothesis essentially breaks down altogether, into a fatal error (save other points for this post). You had started out which some philosophical (as much as, if not more so) issues related to mathematics, and then went down to some pragmatic, basic level. The basics of going from one is pragmatic and realistic, and, does not have any use of the burdensome philosophical fluff that we find. Of course, as John Cuthber had pointed out, above, zero is an important starting place. The farmer whose fencing and barn works had been blown down in the typhoon, found that there were zero cows on his premises. He had to start from zero to get to having one cow, at least, again. The main problem, however, and one especially tied in to this particular sub-forum, is that you have suddenly, without any further explanation, background, referencing to sound knowledge and belief, thrown in the word "God." Of course, if one wishes to use an English translation of the Arabic A'llah, one can use that form (God), but it is not a good idea due to confusion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, and the many more present and past systems, did not talk about God at all. God is the deity of the Jewish system as of late First Temple Period, and Second Temple Period, as it is a plug-in substitute for YHWH. In Christendom, it is used for the deity of the modern Christian biblical god. Therefore for one, you have misused the word, putting it in an incorrect form. You should have written 'A god ...,' or you should have given the name of the particular god you had had in mind; which leads to the next point of concern with this fatal error the hypothesis commits. The god of the Quran has no name, only epithets and titles, addresses and honorable dressing. Before the Quran had been compiled and edited, the post third century Christian system's information source's god had no name either, only the same--except for the understood dogma of the character Jesus' being a part of a single godhead. Both these systems, of course, derived from the Jewish system, and the Jewish system's information source's god did have an exact name, namely, יהוה (YHWH). Thanks to some nonsensical superstitious, emotionally laden ignorance, and the now known-to-be-the-case non-existence of such an external factuality of nature, the personal name of that said supreme being went out of common knowledge due to non-oral usage. (The crowds were illiterate.) Before that, say, around pre-800 BCE, there was no such system, and there were many gods and goddesses. Before that, say, around the year 25,000 BCE, there were no real gods that can be determined to have been published. To make a long story shorter (since I have, as I had hinted at in the opening lines, dragged it out a bit already) the notion, definition of a god, arose from the Homo genus' activities related to social bonding--powerful warrior leaders and 'kings,' on up to invisible 'big-brother' protectors of the in-group coherence and togetherness. There has been no short supply of gods and goddess over the course of these past 10,000 years. What that amounts to in the way of sound knowledge and belief, is that the very concept, and definition, as it is at present, is due to a figment of the human imagination. Therefore, you have thrown in a premise predicate which in no way matches the course data for your argument start up. Not having a single yen to your name, is having zero yen--a very real, and pragmatic matter. Having one car, is having a very real, external factuality of nature' count--a car is a very real thing. Looking at that old photo, and recalling the number of strands of hair which have now returned to earth (I suppose), is understanding real count, and mass. A god, or a goddess--any god or goddess will do, you know--is not a real thing in this sense in anyway. Although your statement that "God does not tamper with whatever," is very true. That is like the truth that because the figment in my son's mind will never demonstrate a consistently perfect test score result, that figment does not tamper with anything external to my son's mind. In the end, therefore, this point will have to be removed, and then that will surely have to cause us to go back to the drawing board. Any theological concern will not be shown to have any bearing on any pragmatic mathematical matter, and the opposite is true too. Therefore, without that portion, what is it that you wish to show. I would like to hear that. Again, thanks for your time and hard work, and your thought sharing--even though... and look at this post, will you!?... hee, hee, hee...

Thank you for the notice and heads up, iNow. I do appreciate that. I checked out the score, pitched the idea around of starting a new thread to present and discuss the finer points with any interested and capable, but eventually have decided to go ahead and stick with this one. I am now only looking towards readership at large, and not directed in any ways towards the OPP. (Although from the start I had not worried so much about whether the OPP had been reading up.) I will continue. While there are actually a good number of instances which I do have lined up (and, to be honest, surely another three-fold which I could pull out from my several sources), I have decided to present only another four or five here. The point of all this presentation so far, has been to fully demonstrate the fact that the English noun form 'god' is a common noun, and is a countable noun. It does not receive a capital unless at the beginning of a sentence, in a title which uses the 'each major word capitalized' pattern, or has some kind of special usage--which is seen to not be used at large. It receives an article or possessive at all times, practically, depending on contextual usage. The capitalized form is a plug-in for YHWH, or the biblical god model, or is seen as some as being useable for the Islamic model; which is more of a 'politically correct' instance than anything else. (More on that later.) These final examples begin to highlight at least there major points of great importance. One, as I had mentioned earlier in this thread, is that any word in any language from which we are translating out of, and then into English, which due to contextual usage in the original tongue will be assigned the noun 'god,' will be assigned that because the referent and concept in the original equals that of the English. The second--and it should come as no surprise at all, due to the first one--is that the actual English noun came about due to the very notion and referent (definition) which human kind had developed in the hundreds of centuries before even Middle English had been around. The idea is not new at all. Thirdly, it is most obvious that of all the god models which we find, by far, the vast majority of them have personal names. Even though I have worded it as I have, it is even possible to consider that 99.99% have personal names. A personal name (a proper noun) is always capitalized. On this matter--and before I go into original language points in the text (as well as resource material to back up the matter of distinguishing between an epithet, a title, and a personal name)--I wish to present one last quote. This one is from Michael Shermer's more recent work, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies--How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths:

Oh boy, oh girl, oh me, oh my... now how in the world did I miss that one too? (hee, hee, hee... as though to insinuate that it were strange for me to make such mistakes in my typing and spelling in general) Thanks for the heads up. I find, sadly, that I can no longer edit that post. Immortal, I am still waiting for your answers, rather than very, very unrelated quotes stuck in a post which says nothing to deny what the quote actually presents. You have some work to do. You will need to go out and bring a bit of hard, cold evidence back and put it on the barrelhead here. I am waiting.

I see. I will yet give a touch of the benefit of a doubt a bit longer, and see. I cannot, in the same breath, so fully and drastically disagree with the notion entertained. (Oh, and in appreciation, you helped me find an error in my spelling--which happens at times--which I have now corrected in the main text. Thanks !) I do appreciate that. I can fully and quite strongly emotionally feel, that nothing less than very good luck will draw those out.

I am going to be busy for awhile now here and the particular rubbish (that portion which is such) which is being passed forward by immortal is being done so with an attitude that has presented itself as being unfixable, and I have another thread (or two [at the moment) which I wish to focus my energies and time for SFN on. Over a few more posts, other than correcting for a few errors, I will simply see if I can get responsible, matture answers to some of the questions I had asked along the way here, which were not answered. The first thing you need to deal with, immortal, is my prime question in my post #232 linked to here which comes under the first quoted section. You need to show that is not groundless and false--which I argue it is. Then, there are still outstanding questions from the 7th paragraph (under the 3rd quote) which you have not answered yet on my post #226 linked to here. I am waiting to answers to these, please. Then, please do take note of the better understanding, and higher in accuracy and correctness (as well as the matter of the more correct and original standard English usage of the noun form 'God') as presented below. This is what you had said in your post #233. I responded to that with the following: What I have pointed out is that the descriptive terms in the Vedanata texts of Brahman, or the systems of gods it gives, does not match that of the ancient Jewish system. This is a fact. You came back with a twisted response, as seen below: The first thing is the matter of the source of what you had written-- since obviously it had not be you, yourself . For the second, see below. The Kabbala, or Cabbal tradition is far more post 11th century by any means of understanding. That some textual fragments of mysticism can only slightly likely can be said to be found by second century Jewish writers (non-Talmud and non-Mishna) in no way at all makes the largely Spanish developed theosophy ancient and exactly Jewish.(1) It is quite clear that the system was a revolt in some Jewish quarters of Medival Europe against Maimonides. That thought-up name, En Soph, is nowhere to be found in any single known ancient Hebrew scroll or fragment or manuscript extant; and neither do we find any alluding to it. It was not even a sideline sect in Second Temple Judaism. The name of the god which the ancient Jewish system published is YHWH. (I'll go into textual detail on the thread The Word God linked to here as time goes on) All the descriptrive material of that god in no way allows a match between it and the model of Brahman, or any other model. The is the fact of the matter! Additionally, it is a very secure understanding that what you had presented there is not true. In light of that being the case, the author of such nonsense is either lying, or is hopelessly misled into a certain blindness towards what is securely known and understood--otherwise gross error. For one to verbatim assert that with the exact following words, "I don't speak likes," one can be expressly asserting that they do not orally communicate that a matter is such as A, while being fully and consciously aware that the matter is actually B--in other words, they do not SPEAK lies. That assertion could be held to be true while written communication would not be participating in the asserted statement. A person would not be lying (asserting a known truth to not be so) if (s)he were to assert that they did not SPEAK lies, all the while communicating lies in written form. (Because writing is not speaking) The wording, "I do not tell lies," would be a different thing, however. Nevertheless, if a person passes along in whatever form of communication, an assertion or claim which quite fully contradicts a substantially known-to-be-so truth, it can be said that they are either a) telling lies, or lying, or, b) presenting gross error. If you were to look carefully at my wording, you will notice that I am talking about the specific statement. What I said is true. It is additionally a fact that you wrote those words into your post--whether directly typed in, or pasted from a copy--and to that degree a fact that you said such was so. In that the statement itself is either a lie, or gross error (in the form of blanket statment), it is necessary to discover the originator of such statement if it were not you, immortal, yourself. The source is either lying, or making gross error in the form of blanket statements. Which is it? I know, that it is not you. I know that that idea is from around the 13 century, or so, and is essentially Spanish Jewish in origin, and is false. The other things you have written are of course not true at all ! I know that, immortal, and will deal (as I have said above) with parts of them elsewhere; in time. I am awaiting your very carefully researched, mature and rationally thought out answer to the questions which you still have not responded with answers towards, or to. 1. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Vol II, p326; Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 8, p 1514. EDIT: I have edited just now to see if I could make a third indention. I had done that successfully on this PC in my studio, but at the office it didn't allow that today. It doesn't work; probably due to some coding in the link from immortal?... anyway...

For a quick response, if you will, probably there is no absolute answer. I envisage this due to the possible fact that it may depend on the person and the social in-grouping of a person doing so. It may also depend on the actual make up of the beads themselves. To the best of my knowledge the 'prayer beads' (or 'worry beads') were prevalent in Buddhism and Hindism before they were taken up into the Roman Catholic tradition. Here in Japan today, if one were to wear a set of beads around their neck which were clearly of the make up of those used for the Mahayana theist-involved Buddhist system here, most likely few would give it much further thought than 'that person's trying to show off in bad taste now, isn't (s)he!' The word 'anti-god' stands to be corrected, actually, however. The far better word choice for the general situation--and possibly what you might have wanted in such general case--would be 'blasphemous' ( or possibly 'sacrilegious'). Additionally, in that the contextual setting (though greatly lacking in background information) appears, at least, to be in reference to Roman Catholicism, it may also be possible you could have used 'anti-God.' The former suggestions, however, would be the more commonly registered-at-first-sight ideas by the readership at large; I would think. If this is a serious question in regards to any idiosyncratic attire, or dressing habit, I would suggest that one probably shouldn't worry about what some stricter folks of that theist-involved religious belief system sect thought. Go ahead and alter your fashion to your artistic whims.