LimbicLoser

Actually, this is getting quite stupid, immortal. The consistent inablility of concentrative logical anaysis is tripping you at every single turn, it seems. All the talk about quantum studies, research results (which I read up on too, of course, though much less than other areas), and theories providing us with extremely way-out-there concoctions about there being some factual element of nature at large which no one can know anything about at all, is just stupid. This carries no weight at all. Of course quantum mechanics is an external reality of nature at large. It always has been. Did you think it was created in the nineteenth century? And, was there any major, noticable change in classical physics, for any major degree, when quantum theory began to be worked with? The folks whom you wish to appeal to on this, are wrong on this; period! It is one major additionaly error that some have made in trying to assert that quantum machanics is what is directly responsible for consciousness, that is worthlessly incorrect. And yes, you have been talking about the condition of having a state of consciousness without even knowing that you were. This demonstrates the incoherency in your whole hodge-podge of an attempt to espouse falsehood. And that very well takes us back to the points I had highlighted earlier in my #128. There is not any possible way to demonstrate any said, or putative, factuality of nature at large, when that same said item is simulataneously declared to be unknowable to the human mind (the condition of having a state of consciousness). It has been sustantially enough demonstrated over a large enough sample space, and length of time and testing, that claims made in the past by a good number of people (especially those who adhered to, or were part of, the various theist-involved religious belief systems) about the brain, and brain and mind, were incorrect. What is wrong--not a fact of external, natural reality at large when asserted to be so--is wrong, and no amount of quoting and pleaing will alter that fact. Just as you, and all, and every single poster on this forum, is not in the condition of having a state of consciousness in slow wave sleep (although plasticity still occurs to some extent), we will not be in that condition when all the neuronal and glia cells which make up the tissue of brain, die. This is not the stuff of some human dreamed up god of a model (for no external factuality of nature at large exists), this is the stuff of earthly material. It's real. It's inclusive of the external elements of the facts of nature. It has come to my full attention now as to just what degree of irrelevant, and unrelated to the heart-of-the-content-provided responses you can make. At almost every single turn, you are resonding in a quite totally irrelevant tangent. Scientific method at large, is THE ONLY way to know of anything (in the common parlance usage of that term). That, immortal IS the bottom line from which we work upwards towards increments in understanding of any and every problem. There is not a single normal range human being on the planet who does not exercise scientific method from infancy onwards, and none who never did. The writers, leaders, and mainstays within all the world's past and present theist-involved religious belief systems used broad imaginative schemes and stories, steeped in ignorance-driven superstition overkill. The accumulation of empirical knowledge which we have access to today, through the exercise of scientific method, has proven parts of the imaginative narratives, dogma, and doctrine and ritual, to be falsehood. You obviously understand working procedures in the field, but you are twisting, spinning, and mishandling logical analysis. Steel couldn't be forged without the knowledge of how to make charcoal, charcoal could not be made with the knowledge of how to make the instruments and materials needed for the circumstance of making charcoal... and on back. It is exactly in light of the above, that it is not the case at all that a practicing member of any theist-involved religious belief system has a different process through which knowledge is accumulated mentally so as to be active in the condition of having a state of consciousness (mind). The claim that the information sources (written documents which remain from the past, the doctrine they hold in that time-locked format) had been written and accumulate because the human individuals and groups which composed them had a way of knowing things that any person living today does not have, is a false claim--little more than childish story telling. No, immortal what you are saying is false. The external reality, taken in full pragmatic concern (as that is the most efficient and applical mode of taking understandings and sound knowledge) does not amount to something which is not the only factuality of external reality that we have to deal with. It has been so hard to get any quantum things going at room temperature because it is something that has to be kind of forced to be able to get any sound knowledge about it at all. Sure external reality has an element which, as far as we can understand and describe it, amounts to a connectivity of wholeness. Big deal; the world we humans have evolved in, and are experiencing consistently over thousands of years, has no bearing with which we can tool anything, or effect causes through, or with. In other words, its totally useless pragmatically--and pragmatism is what saves lives, works towards eleminating in/out-group contrasts, can be applied to better lifestyles, improve quality of life concerns for some, and help work towards bring internationa society together as one. Talking about some particular god, or reading off some text of some ancient work, will simply not cut the mustard.

That is complete nonsensical dancing among figments of the extreme imagination, immortal, and is one great and burdensome problem with too much of the world's populace. (even today) A major fallacy in in later late Christian doctrine, is that they had abused the information source of the deity of the Hebrew system's information source. They used neo-platonist error (of course, far less substantiated as being error at that time, so some allowance for excuse can be found) to structure elements derived from the tradition of earlier, early Christian's body of information. Yahweh as well as the later Christian biblical god model have both been demonstrated to be nothing more than internal fancies of their authorship. Thus to appeal in any manner at all, so as to couch the postitive propositions made within the appeal as being knowledge about the external world we live in, is of very little worth, if of any at all. You have nothing at all by which you can ground any claim to sound knowledge which backs the silly things you are saying in the post above. You are wrong.

I see we have a major defect within your logical analysis processing flowchart--either that, or intellectually willful disingenuous tactics. Let me see if I can draw out your true colors here. I will take it that English is as much one of your mother tongues--if not the only one--as any other language may possibly be. I will take it that you actually hail from the Western hemispheric area of the globe, as per common usage. You have still failed to answer the question I had asked in a rational, honest, and fair way. Let me run it through one more time, please follow through on the facts of the verbatim statements and the chronological order, as well as the logical connectivity between it all. It is a fact that there is an error in your statement made in that post in question. It is not in relation to the transliteration you had provided. (And this is a big hint) Do you see where the fault lies? Do you understand that you have made an incorrect statement? I am not being unnecessarily rude with you at all. It may well be the case that you might tend to have some emotional activity which leads to such internal interpretation, but I am simply trying to correct your errors. For your information, I have a copy of Barnes Notes on The New Testament (1982 printing, Kregel Publications) on the shelf in my studio library. I know what it has written in it. Additionally, and just to fill you in, I have two Greek lexicons and copied portions of two different Greek grammars I had studied in the past. I have three Greek recensions, the best being Nestle & Aland's #27, so I know the various mss readings and possibilities, as well as the original tongue text. I have all this (with journal collections) in the studio library at my house. BUT see : You have essentially contradicted yourself. One point in the falure I have mentioned at the beginning of this post. Or, you have either corrected yourself--a display of cognitive plasticity function at work. (A very good and important thing.) I have earlier on in the thread provided the correct methodology and reasons for transliteration within the English translation of a text, and I do suggest that you pay attention to it--there is learning within. Here, you demonstrate the inablity to cognitively express plasticity in a functioning manner. What I have said is true. Your statement above is completely incorrect--amounting to the value of hardly more than mere 'garbage can-bound' waste. While I am fully aware of an amount of Dr. Lightfoot's work, this is the first time to see it be taken out of contextual and purpose rendered reasoning, to be twisted into an example for some immature nonsense. Anyway, I am waiting for a reasonable, honest, and fair response to the question I had asked some time ago. Thanks !

That does not answer the question, please go back to your #7, and see this:In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,. Then go back to my #23 on page two, and check the question one more time. Also, your using my text to construct your answer has caused a seeming syntactic error, of sorts. I believe you have not read properly, or simply didn't pay attention; for whatever reason. What you have said, again is totally incorrect. I do not understand how you can sit there and be so dogmatic about it. Go out there and count the number of translations into English of the NT, and come back and tell how many times that very noun, as well as the verb form which is its root connexion, is transliterated. You simply will not find it, immortal, and there is a very sound and valid, as well as methodologically correct, reason for that. The fact of the matter is that what I have presented herein is the truth of the matter. I am waiting for you to proper answer that question !

I have chosen to post what I will present, here, on this thread. The reason for doing so is multi-layered. One is due to my not wanting to open a new thread on a subject matter, or topic of presentation/discussion which is fairly covered in an already existing thread. (Unless it has been sleeping for a long enough time to call it a 'dead thread.'(1) Another is due to the no-response status of this thread--which in my eyes, at least, gives me more 'right of way' to present here. One more, and perhaps the greater-weight carrying reason, is that the title exactly fits the theme and topic I wish to deal with. I wish to ask that I please be given the 'green-light' to go ahead with this, from you, pmb. Most of what I present will have been also done elsewhere. I would hope that rather than some 'copy and paste'-like thing, all would consider it the 'previous studies have shown that ...' portion of the paper which deals with the studies done previously and which support the grounding conclusions for a present presentation. I will not comment on the page linked to in the OP. It has some shortcomings which will be covered otherwise, and it also takes an unnecessary approach--one which has also already been substantially enough demonstrated to be a dead-end approach. I will do this in a good number of posts, and more likely over a good number of pages. It is a matter which requires some detail, but I will not be able to give all; at times I will summarize. (But always on sound and valid knowledge and beliefs.) With that, I will begin. At the top of the sub-sub forum on religion, there is one pinned post, namely this one, talking about a "definition of God." It is closed (fair enough) and cannot be responded to directly, yet it does stand to take some adjustment and correction as well. A big first here is that we are communicating in English--a fact that will have a direct bearing indeed. The English usage of the old words 'good' and 'gode' from which our 'god' came to be left only, fit exactly that of the term which ran alongside the others for a while, and eventually won out. While in some older texts, we can see that capitalization in English was rampant (without hard fixed rules of thumb), it eventually became more settled and standardized. Another point to keep in mind, is that Middle English, and its forerunner, were not really so solidly in place until after a degree of Christianization of the 'English' isles. Eventually, the word form 'God' became standardized as the proper identifier of the Christian god for a number of reasons, in a number of applications. For one, Jewish superstition suppressing oral pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was protected by using the capitalized form. One would not upset Jewish sensitivity by uttering Yahweh, Jehovah, or Yahowah. Also, 'God' would fit the nature of capitalizing proper nouns and YHWH is in fact a proper noun. Therefore, the capitalized form came into being as accurately operating as an English plug-in proper noun (a name) for the god of the Jewish canon, and the Christian canon, and, simultaneously, such form clearly distinguished and identified which god, from among the several, would be being pointed to, talked about, or intended in written communication. English, however, is a very new tongue; it does borrow from older tongues, but it is still new. Now, it is a fact that there is no word without a meaning, definition, or referent towards which it points, in any language, and English is no different. The definition then, of the English word 'god,' will be one which can be borne out through translating into English form earlier language texts and usage. While this will be supported later, I wish to firstly place out a few examples of definition and senses of the English noun 'god:' In translating from other languages using the proper and acceptable methodologies, whenever and wherever the English word 'god' can be assigned to a word in the original tongue, we can be sure that the definition in English substantially enough and fairly enough matches that which the original language demonstrates through its usage and context. I will provide some examples forthcoming; and will post this much now. I ask that all readers carefully and analytically study the dictionary entries above. There are others, but the above include some of the main dictionaries of the English language. 1. The matter of time down under (other threads), and whether that will make a thread fall into the 'dead' category will also depend on the activity level of a sub-forum, of course.

For the record, that positive credit is from myself (at least as of now it is just one). The reason for that is the candor and all. Yes, I understand the slip. I do make slips too. At times I cannot fully proof read my posts before posting--but I do make every effort to review and proof read before sending. Thank you for the compliment, Alan. I will be the first to admit that I can quite wordy at times, quite detailed and loaded with embedded clauses which work to leave no stones unturned, and all relevant angles covered. It does make for hard reading at times, I am aware. While I have lived here in Japan for more than half my life, I am from the USA. Please do feel free to ask me to repeat and reword any section (in the future) which you may find hard to read through smoothly, or cannot understand. I cannot promise, but will always try, as oft as humanly possible, to respond.

While you are making false claims and assertions as usual, you have a number of jobs in your 'to do' box, actually. You need to answer the question I had asked you first. There is error in the quotes from the citations too. (Another example of cherry picking to support a completely groundless and unsound claim!) Some things you are saying are correct, some aren't. I am not pointing out the correct (such as Pauline treatment of the congregation at large [church] being figuratively the body of the messiah) because they are correct. I am working on correcting the wrong. The deal you have from the OP with the meaning of the noun in question, is a fatal error. The Greek word which is the noun form, which is rooted in connexion with the verb, means simply, and only, 'fullness.' What matter it is that is given which is doing the filling, is another thing; and will always come from the immediate and overall contextual setting. What that had been referring to at the textual point in question, is no problem--you have that right, it seems. The meaning you are trying to bury with untrue statements. Additionally, in translation there is no need at all to transliterate (for the nth time). Also, the meaning intended by the author within the confines of the historio-cultural point in time and position of both the author and the direct and immediate audience, cannot be altered. Interpretation best be left within the boundaries of such too--for the most part, usually. And now, the answer to that first question is ... ? I am still waiting.

While I must apologize for not being to help you out here with past experience in running such experiments, I would actually suggest that you run the tests yourself, to find out just what the curves would curve like. Then you will have the answer from your own studies--although it looks like it would be quite involved, and take a good amount of time.

Alan, it may not have served any purpose to have quoted my whole post, there. Just in case, I might add that there is a button at the bottom which reads 'Add Reply' which can be used for a short come-back; or just using the quick box at the bottom of the page. If a portion is need to be clearly identified, as having been answered to, or deal with, it would be of course better to quote that portion--and that portion only. Thanks for getting back, and please do allow me to point out, that what are saying in your sentence is something which I fully agree with--other than putting in slightly more precise wording. There are some problems, however what some further comments of yours. I feel that your intention is in line with the facts. It is the case, nevertheless, that the insertion of the word 'yet' insinuates that the writer holds claim to knowledge, or opinion, that it is knowable that there is anything we could evolved into beyond being H. sapiens. Actually, that would prove wrong by mere definition. It is through evolutionary process that the Homo genus came to be out previous geni. The class of H. sapiens will always be only that class by mere definition. Humans will always be only humans. Of course you probably did intend to insert that insinuation, I bet. I am just pointing this out for clarity, that's all. While the matter of brain-centered, human-like in intelligence and mental processing, etc., is possible, it is very dimmly so. In fact, it is so slight (perhaps unfortunately?) a possiblity, that we would be wasting our time to seriously consider it. As for the concept of gods, it would not fit at present. If we were to actually come face to face with some beings which were so overwhelmingly powerful mentally and physically, than us, we might want tend to re-apply that word (god) so as to go back to the simple idea of super strong beings. There would then be as many gods (and goddesses?) as there would be individuals in that society (world). In the end, here and now, and most pragmatically, there is no reason at all to even consider it.

As John Cuthber has pointed out, there is a fatal error on what Denise Yeo has in part, posited. (Or expressed in the form of opinion.) I think I would like to get back with some points within that, a bit later--if the need proves to yet be after the following. I will touch base with Alan firstly; as I think it may cover those portions of post #30 which stand to be corrected. This particular line is very, very, oh too very commonly thrown out by many who long for something else emotionally. While I can understand the circumstances of the emotional longing for something else, I cannot stand what amounts of the laziness (not charging you here, Alan, with that quality) I find in such statements. I do appreciate, Alan your tone, and your expression of what you think; I do. I wish to help clarify the muddled part (which is nothing of yours, I can accept, but just what you have surely adopted from others) and correct some things. As I will have been saying slightly for some while now, on even this forum, it is not 'science,' that is to be compared with other disciplines or academic (or professional) inquiries, but rather 'scientific method' that we should focus on for clarity's sake in understanding the world we are in and are part of. It is most realistic, reasonable, logically soundly and validly accurate and correct to assert that humankind, as a species, will far most likely never understand everything. We can set that as a fact. What follows is what we must be careful about. The most common error in following up on that, is to assert that variant bits and pieces of expressed, or held, understandings of those who lived in ages of ignorance--relative to the sound knowledge that we have now--which bits and pieces are written in he texts, and remain in other forms of evidence, compiled by the theist-involved religious belief systems of those uninformed peoples, or the philosophical pondering of theirs, represents sound knowledge of facts of nature at large. This is completely incorrect; and has been fully enough demonstrated to be so. Scientific method is the way those people learned the world about them in their daily fight to survive--to that degree. Their rampant emotional imagination (which climbed above their day to day living and in-group efforts to bond into a social unity) had been fueled by the empty space where sound knowledge and experience were absent. Superstition was the trump card of the day, but all that could be acknowledged and known, was so because of brain, and the brain was not so different at all, from ours today. Again, one must be careful not misconstruct and thereby think that everything they said was mistaken; for it is not. What holds up under testing through multiple instance, with a high degree of consistency, over as long a period of time as possible, is what is kept. It amounts to sound knowledge. The frog, we can say, will have absolutely no idea of what the thing is that runs over it as it is simply out catching insects which fly close to the pavement after a rainy evening. NO IDEA AT ALL !! Therefore, what we humans have no idea of at all, we have no idea of at all, period. We can say nothing further on it, nor should we even try to imagine, and then present our imagined figments, as claims to know of a certain factuality of nature at large. This is also an error in the attempt to follow up from the 'there are surely things which we do not know and understand, and never will know of and understand' statement. (Which statement, again, is correct enough to hold as fact.) What we do know that is without brain, there is no consciousness. Tononi's IIT is something which deals with consciousness, but as for non-biological systems which integrate information, I have been (and am) arguing that we should not apply the word consciousness due to the confusion that will surely result. AI at that level is waaaaay off. Without the ascending reticular activating system, for example, we know that we have no consciousness. Studies underway, in light of results from connected studies, clearly appear to be moving ever so slowing into understanding at the module connectivity level, some of the reentry processes which build to amount to the state of having consciousness. Again, brain is the factor, and not just that (for most brain activity is pre-conscious), but the connectivity and activity levels. For this reason, we can clearly state with sound knowledge that life--in the sense of having a state of consciousness--does not exist as an external event in nature without the living, processing, biological cellular structures which substrate consciousness through the above mentioned manners and structures. Thus, in layman's terms, there is no life (in that sense) when there is no living organ which amounts to it. By extension, a dead cell is a cell which is not alive, and thus the processing which is life, is not a fact entailed by such a cell. The bulk of a human body which is the total cellular build (and water and fabric within that), when all those cells are dead, is not a living body, and in this sense too, after all cells have died, there are no living cells by which we could say that there is life in the cells after they have all died. With the full death of all neuronal and glia cells, there is absolutely no consciousness--and no content of consciousness (memory recall, inner speech, etc.). With the full death of all the cells of the body, there is absolutely no life which those same cells are partaking of. In short, therefore, and overall, there is no life after death. This is a fact, and we need not entertain it any longer. In summation on this much, scientific method is the only method of gaining sound knowledge about the factuality of nature at large. Science is an academic/professional field of activity, and is not some collective unity per se--we need to be careful with how we use it. It is through the brain that we know, and in the final analysis, the brain alone (meaning we may use tools to better our sensory input, but in the end, it is the brain that allows the perception and knowing). We surely cannot know all there is to know about our universe, but that fact does not deny, nor does it cancel out or negate, the sound knowledge that we do have to date. There is no life after death. God is not an external factuality of nature at large. (Now this last one, I know I did not touch on above, but just threw it in here. It is sound, however, as I will later present (I am pretty sure) somewhere on the sub-forum.)

Quite well said, Phi for All, the claim and presentation of OP is worse off than mere ignorance; although I would not tend to go so far as to say the 'whole thread' is useless. There is some information herein from which learning can be obtained. Even taking the view that learning just what type of error and misguiding there is out there, and how to avoid and counter it, would be something making the thread worth the while for those still learning. I have been in this field for at least 13 years, and though I am no longer active in the study, I do keep up with it all. It is not the first time to have to work towards protecting the public from the fanatical-like positions which come flooding in, from time to time. I agree that most will by now have understood the error upon error which is rampant in the presentation immortal is giving. It can be argued (at least) that people have the right to be wrong, but it cannot be accepted at all, that people have the right to wrong! The OPP is doing just that, and what is being wronged in the locked-in-time intention of the author of that letter, within the contextual setting therein, which setting was written so as to have the understanding of the direct and immediate audience of that letter. Also, better knowledge, understanding, and methodology of linguistic concerns is being wronged. I will not let that go unattended to. Now I know you do have a language problem, immortal. What you are doing (as more than simply what you are verbatim saying in written form here on this thread) is hard to describe in any other way than simply blatant intellectual dishonesty. What that refers to, is the matter of ignoring sound knowledge and facts while cherry picking, and twisting, and spinning things, after they have been removed from context. It is a good example of the immaturity of the less capable, those without the connectivity build which allows progress in learning, and/or those who have nothing better to do in life that run on rampant imaginary scenarios. You still did not answer the question I had asked you earlier about whether you understood the error in what you had written. You are still doing the same kind of thing over and over again. This is sad. It is the down side of the world wide web--most discussion boards get all kinds of folks. No. What you have said is completely rubbish, and your efforts in presenting what in your eyes can somehow be seen as evidence to support what you have erroneously posited, is very faulty. Wording things incorrectly and misleadingly, so as to pose them as representing what you have written, is something that I will not idly sit by and let go unopposed. You are not being intellectually honest about this. Answer the question I had asked earlier on, then, see below. The silly Wiki page you keep using, and which is nothing to even support the 'way-off-the-wall-out-of-the-blue' interpretation which some had held way before even the internet had been dreamed of, says the following verbatim: Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full" If you think conscientiously and introspectively about it--and I do wish you would demonstrate that you are doing more of that, darn it--you will note that this is exactly what I had said in my previous post. The word MEANS fullness! Could you not mentally grasp that in my post? Here is an example of sloppiness seen in your nonsensical position. You have demonstrated the inability to comprehend the difference between the verb phrases 'refer to' and 'mean. Can you not see that? If not, then I very strongly suggest you simply stop talking about something which you cannot understand the language well enough to be in a position to say anything at all about it. I see error in the lists which you got from ... guess where?! Early Paul was hardly esoteric at all. Additionally, the earliest writings of the authentic documents attributable to Paul, is the first Thessalonian letter. The other information is besides the point, and not worth thinking about (in that it has been demonstrated already to be false assertion on the part of those who had originated those lines of thinking). So here, you have a few outstanding things to do: You have an outstanding request to answer what I had asked you before. You have to work on grasping the understanding of the accurate and more correct terminology of the language you are using (English) [or any other language, for that matter]. It is demanded that you understand the difference between the collective application of the word 'religion,' and the specific identifying application of it. You need to inform yourself of the more accurate, and proper standard for the origin of the capitalization of the word 'god,' and then you have a need to stick by that. You to pay attention more closely so as to be able to understand, for example, the difference in meaning between the verbs 'refer' and 'mean.' It would only do you good to pay attention, as well, to the difference between the words 'definition' and 'meaning,' and 'sense.' I am waiting for you to prove your honesty here. So far you have not. Get back with me on those questions, and show me that you have learned what is correct.

Actually, immortal, I have good reason to say, among other points, that the parts which you have presented regarding quantum mechanics having anything to do with consciousness, for example, has been fully demonstrated to be incorrect; false.(1) Some other applications which you wish to make, also, are false, as well as a number of things you have said regarding the pragmatic world we live in. Penrose, as A.N. Whitehead, also, is just as guilty of misleading folks in kind of similar ways; as are a good number of others who tend to wish to hold some 'status quo' as it relates to the theist-based religious belief systems we have inherited from the ancients. (Who were very uninformed on such things. ) I am not talking about quantum theory, per se, or all the studies and such done in that area, and the progress that is slowing being made. I am not talking about mathematics. (and I know folks can take that to meaningless (trivial) planes as well.) I'm talking about the corrections which you need to make regarding the best understanding of cognitive neuroscience and consciousness science to date, the better and more correct usage of certain English terms, and the matter of more precisely and clearly presenting. First of all, I will say up front, that if you are by any chance imagining that you are practicing philosophy in what you are doing here, I would suggest checking to make sure there are at least some bushes down below, when you fall. Yes, I know that there are those who think that by claiming to be writing within the discipline of 'philosophy,' they have some license to say anything at all. The 'cold-cash-on-the-barrelhead' truth, if academic circles were approached, would blow those clouds away real fast... resulting in a hard fall into reality. A reality check only hurts those who have not had it yet. I know for a fact that you cannot go out and find anything which you can bring in and set on the table in any realistic way at all, which is not physically subtrated. But again, that is not the real beef here. You have made false claims about the ability to know, the processing which is what the condition of having a state of consciousness is. Quantum has absolutely nothing more to that than the oval window of the ear has to do with color perception acknowledgement. Well, please do provide the citations, immortal, if it is in fact true. I mean, you have been making an assertion (a claim to know) all along, and have not presented anything other than textual passages from some Vedic text, or from some writers of Buddhist or Hindu philosophy schools, or maybe a misunderstood, or misconstructed Wiki page. I have told you, and it is correct, that simply quoting someone will not do the trick if they are simply saying, or writing, it without, themselves, presenting some hard evidence for their having reached that conclusion. Yes, I know that the word religion can be used in that generic sense of the community of all the theist-involved religious belief systems. I am pretty sure I had demonstrated that much. Your usage, nevertheless, is incorrect. First of all, again, there is absolutely no reason at all to capitalize the word. Secondly, when you couch the opening of some claim along the lines of, "... Religion says... , then you had better put something there that each and every system agrees on... otherwise you will be as guilty of ignorance you seemingly wish to cast on others--and without any information, or clues, at all, upon which to back such desired prancing. Do you understand what I mean? I have corrected your understanding faults. You have yet to learn. It is not 'science,' not 'religion.' It is scientific method (in the broadest sense), and theist-involved religious belief systems. Everything that you can learn, is learned through the process of scientific method. It works like this: A. The primary and necessary elements. 1. There must be an observation primarily involved. a. a matter of a state of circumstance/condition or an operation/process of observational things. b. a means, or access by which, to observe. c. a logically and properly developed process (method) of identifying and classing the distinct and distinguished elements involved with/incurred through, the observation. 2. There must be an act of testing for further observation. a. an act of application of natural, or non-natural, elements (and/or events) in relation and juxtaposition to those in (A.1.a.) b. a means, or access, by which to act (see A.2.a.) and to observe during and having acted c. a logically and properly developed process (method) of identifying and classing the distinct and distinguished elements and/or events (A.2.b.) as contrasted to the lack of an act of (A.2.a) which leaves on (A.1.) B. The secondary and practical elements. 1. A reason (objective), or cause (mental disposition), for executing (A.). a. a circumstance, condition or predicament of a personal or social nature which needs, or is deemed to need, some alteration, improvement of, or release from, (A.1.) b. an emotion condition, circumstance, or disposition of mind by which a deep desire to know of, and/or understand the matters of, (A.1.a. and A.2.c.) c. a proposition, or understanding obtained of the nature of (A.1.a.) which due to (B.1.a. or B.1.b.) is acted on as per (A.2.) and verified through such by reproduction of the same over sample space and time 2. A summary and/or interpretation towards a summary/conclusion of (A.1.a., and/or A.2.c.). a. a statement of exact and nearness of exactness of all observations (A.1. and A.2.) b. a proposition (assertion/claim/prediction) of down-stream matters of states of circumstances, conditions, or operations/processes which are thus understood to will have been (established) due to (A.2.c.) c. a statement which identifies a working value (interpretation) which data of (A.2.c.) is understood to involve, represent, or be worthy of relative to other non-involved but operationally, or categorically relative to (A.2.c.) matters. (This will be followed up in another post, for reader-friendliness.) Your error is of course clear to me. What you are doing, of course, far too many are guilty of, but, notwithstanding, it is essentially incorrect. Again (and I'll do this elsewhere too), in the English language, when you write the word 'God,' you are doing so to identify a specific god, namely, in the first place YHWH (and in that case, YHWH ONLY) and in the second place, the biblical god of post third century Christianity (basically). In the third place, there is usage of it for the god of the Islamic system. (A usage which I very strongly suggest be dropped.) You are using the written form incorrectly, and I have corrected you on that. The common noun 'god' is not uncountable, and so you cannot write, and be correct in doing so, the following: "... all names corresponding or representing God from different religions are.... This is utter nonsense and silliness. YHWH is not Baal, neither Ra, neither Dagon, neither any of the following: Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatilpoca, Tialoc, Chalchihuitlicue, Xiehtecutli, Centeotl, Omaacatl, Yacatecutli, Mixcoatl, Xipe, Dis, Tarves, Moccos, Epona, Mullo, Damona, Esus, Drunemeton, Silvana, Dervones, Adsallta, Deva, Belisama, Axona, Vintio, Taranuous, Sulis, Cocidius, Adsmerius, Dumiatis, Caletos, Ollovidius, Albiorix, Leucitius, Vitucadrus, Ogmios, Uxellimus, Borvo, Grannos, Mogons, Sutekh, Resheph, Anath, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Ninib, Sharrab, Melek, Yau (which may possibly be the link to YHWH's creation), Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Horus, Khnum, Montu, Amun, Amun-Ra, Anubis, Molech, Ashimath, Asherah, Bel, Gad, Rephan, Meni, and so on... Gods have names, you know, in almost all cases of human created gods. There are some overlapping attributes, and such, but the given activities and such, by the several information sources we have, do not allow that all these god models equal each other. It just doesn't happen. You have an urgent need to adjust your usage of the English written form, and stick with the lower case form, 'god.' Then, you need to make sure that you use as it actually, is, a countable noun. If you are talking about a certain god, then you use the indefinite article a. If you are talking about plural gods, then be sure to pluralize it properly. If you are talking about a specific god other than the biblical god, or the Islamic god, then please use the personal name of the god you are talking about. If you are talking about the Jewish model, then feel free to use YHWH--it's not going to kill you, or cause you to loose eyesight. It is absolutely false that all theist-based religious belief systems are presenting the same single god concept. That they are all presenting gods, is of course true, the concept of a god, does not amount to the fullness of the descriptive terms they give for their models. Try any way you like, and you will never find any room at all to match the concept provided for YHWH, and that provided by the collected texts describing Horus. Not all theist-involved religious belief systems are talking about the same concept of a single god because all their gods are different. You should have worded that as follows, to be correct: all theist-involved religious belief systems talk about a concept of a god.. Your usage is uninformed, incorrect, and needs to be adjusted. You have not been talking about God, to date. Is that clear to you? Other errors will have to be dealt with in time--some at more proper locations so as to save space here on this thread (although they are very relevant). 1. For each of the following entries, at least 10 others can be included, as well as personal communications. Alexandrov, Yuri I., and Sams, Mikko E. (2005) Emotion and consciousness: Ends of a continuum. Cognitive Brain Research 25(2), pp 387-405. Baars, Bernard J. (1997) In the Theater of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press. Baars, Bernard J. (2003) Cognitive Theories of Consciousness. IN: Nadel (ed.) Encylopedia of Cognitive Science, vol 1, pp 738-744. New York: Nature Publishing Group. Baars, J.., and Gage, N.M. (2010) Consciousness and attention. IN: Baars, and Gage (eds) Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness, 2 Ed. London: Academic Press. Bussche, E.V.d.,et al. (2010) The relation between consciousness and attention: An empirical study using the priming paradigm. Cons Cog 19(1), pp 86-97. Block, Ned (1996) How can we find the neural correlate of consciousness? Trend Neurosci. 19(11), pp 456-459. Block, Ned (2001) Paradox and cross purposes in recent work on consciousness. Cognition 79 (1, 2), pp 197-219. Bodovitz, Steven (2008) The neural correlate of consciousness. J Theo Bio vol 254, pp 594-598. Clark, Andy (2011)Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New York: Oxford University Press. Cleeremans, Axel (2011) The radical plasticity thesis: how the brain learns to be conscious. Front Psy 2(86), pp 1-12 (doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00086) Cook, N.D. (2008) THE NEURON-LEVEL PHENOMENA UNDERLYING COGNITION AND CONSCIOUSNESS: SYNAPTIC ACTIVITY AND THE ACTION POTENTIAL. Neuroscience vol 153, pp 556-570. Cytowic, Richard E., and Eagleman, David, M. (2009) wednesday is indigo blue--Discovering the brain of synesthesia . MIT Press. Damasio, A., and Meyer, K. (2009) Consciousness: An overview of the Phenomenon and of its Possible Neural Basis. IN: Laureys, and Tononi (eds.) The Neurology of Consciousness, pp 3-14. San Diego: Academic press. Damasio, Antonio (2010) Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain.New York: Pantheon Books. Dietrich, Arne (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of altered states of consciousness: The transient hypofrontality hypothesis. Con Cog 12(3), pp 231-256. Eagleman, David (2011) Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. New York:Pantheon Books. Edelman G., and Tononi, G. (2000) A Universe of Cosciousness. New York: Basic Books. Edelman, Gerald (2003) Naturalizing Consciousness: A theoretical framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(9), pp 5520-5524. Feinberg, Todd E. (2012) Neuroontology, neurobilogical naturalism, and consciousness: A challenge to scientific reduction and a solution. Phys Life Rev (in press) Ganzzaniga, Michael S. (2008) Human--The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. New York: HarperCollins. Greenfield, Suzan A., and Collins, Toby F.T. (2005) A neuroscientific approach to consciousness. IN: Laureys (ed) Progress in Brain Research Vol 150, pp 11-23. Elsevier Gruberger, Michal, et al. (2011) Towards a neuroscience of mind-wandering. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5(56), pp 1-11. Hanna, Robert (2011) What is self? Ann. N.Y Acad. Sci Vol 1234, pp 121-123. Hohwy, Jakob (2009) The neural correlates of consciousness: New experimental approaches needed? Cons Cog. 18(2), pp 428-438. Hutt, Axel, (2009) Sleep and anesthesia. Front. Neurosci. 3(3), pp 408-409. Jennings, Richard (1998) A philosophical consideration of awareness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science57(3, 4), pp 201-211. John, E.R. (2001) A Field Theory of Consciousness. Con Cog 10(2), pp 184-213. Kelz, Max B. et al. (2008) An essential role for orexins in emergence from general anesthesia. Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. USA 105(4), pp 1309-1314. Kinsbourne, Marcel (2006) From Unilateral Neglect to the Brain Basis of Consciousness. Cortex 42(6), pp 869-874. Koch, Christof (2004) The Quest for Consciousness--A Neurobiological approach. Englewood: Roberts & Company Publishers. Koch, Christof (2009) The Neurobiology of Consciousness. IN: Gazzaniga (ed.) The Cognitive Neurosciences 4th Ed. , pp 1137-1149. MIT Press. Knight, Justin B., et al. (2010) Neural correlates of attentional and mnemonic processing in event-based prospective memory. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 4(5), pp 1-10. Kouider, Sid (2009) Neurobiological Theories of Consciousness. pp 87-100; IN: Banks (ed.) Encyclopedia of Consciousness Vol 2. Boston: Academic Press. Lamme, Victor A.F. (2006) Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends Cog. Sci. 10(11), pp 494-501. Laureys, S., Perrin, F., and Bredart, S. (2007) Self-consciousness in non-communicative patients. Con Cog 16(3), pp 722-742. LeDoux, Joseph (2002) Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Penguin Books. Maruyama, M., and Larkum, M.E. (2009) Enhanced dendritic activity in awake rats. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(48), pp 20482-20486. Morin, Alain (2006) Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views. Cons Cog 15(2), pp 358-371. Noe, Alva (2009) Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang. Prichep, John E.R. (2005) The anesthetic cascade: A theory of how anesthesia suppresses consciousness. Anesthesiology vol 102, pp 447-441. Ramachandran, V.S. (2004) A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Ramachandran, V.S. (2011) The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscienist's Quest for What Makes Us Human. New York: W.W. Norton and CompanyLtd. Rosenthal, D.M. (2009) Concepts and Definitions of Consciousness. IN: Banks (ed.) Encyclopedia of Consciousness, vol 1, pp 157-169. Boston: Academic Press. Sanberg, Kristian, at el. (2011) Measuring consciousness: Task accuracy and awareness as sigmoid functions of stimulus duration. Cons Cog 20(4), pp 1659-1675. Schiff, Nicholas D. (2010) Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis. Trend Neurosci 33(1), pp 1-9. Searle, John R. (1998) How to study consciousness scientifically. Brain Res Rev 26(2-3), pp 379-387. Seth, Anil K., et al. (2006) Theories and measures of consciousness: An extended framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(28), pp 10799-10804. Seth, Anil K., et al. (2008) Measuring consciousness: relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trend Cogn Sci 12(8), pp 314-321. Schier, Elizabeth (2009) Identifying phenomenal consciousness. Cons Cog 18(1), pp 216-222. Song, Xiaolan, and Tang, Xiaowei (2008) An extended theory of global workspace of consciousness. Prog Nat Sci vol 18, pp 789-793. Tononi, G., and Edelman, G. (1998) Consciousness and Complexity. Science 282(5395). pp 1846-1851. Tononi, G., and Koch, C. (2008) The Neural Correlates of Consciousness: An update. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol 1124, pp 239-261. Tye, Michael (2009) Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts. IN: Putnam and Block (eds) Representation and Mind (book series) Cambridge: MIT Press. Zahavi, D. (2009) Phenomenology of Consciousness. IN: Banks (ed.) Encyclopedia of Consciousness, vol 2, pp 175-186. Boston: Academic Press. Zeman, Adam (2005) What in the world is consciousness? IN: Laureys (ed) Progress in Brain Research Vol 150, pp 1-10. Elsevier. Zopf, Regine, et al. Perfusion imaging of the right perisylvian neural network in acute spatial neglect. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3(15), pp 1-8.

Greetings from the heart of Japan, Maryan! While I would not counter, per se, the suggestions in post number two, above, I would yet tend to more strongly suggest cognitive neuroscience. Having talked with some of the molecular biology, and bio neuroscience professors in this area (at least), they all seem to deal, well, basically at that level--and that is pretty much intra/inter-cellular, and modal, and never quite getting up to 'mind.' I would tend to think (and could of course be somewhat mistaken, but...) that in order to match with your psychology major, you will want to be dealing with the neuroscientific aspects which work more towards understanding consciousness, mind, and higher-order theories. I find that cognitive neuroscience can be tooled (personal adaptation) to act like a hub; a hub from which the "more rigid" neuroscience is just an arm's length away, consciousness science is just an arm's length away, and psychology (especially 'experimental psychology') can be reached fairly easily too. Cognition (and this is something I am working on [regardless of how almost hopeless it may seem at the moment]) is a bit too often, by a few too many, easily chunked into the bin with linguistics. That is sad. Cognition is the processing which amounts to all the processing above a certain, relatively clarified point. It includes the processing which is pre-conscious as well as that which amounts to acknowledged cognition. Going too far down in reduction is simply non-pragmatic, and is hard to tool, and make application with. Therefore, cognitive neuroscience does not deal only with thinking in the sense of linguistic inner speech, nor visuo-spatial mentalization. It is true, I think (and please correct me if I am too far off the mark here), that probably neurology (and also see post #2) deals more with the problems of brain in the sense of mind affected ailments, and strives to understand and work towards medical remedies. However, I am of the conviction that in a personally adapted cognitive neuroscientific position, with psychology as the main stay, you will be able to at least work in an area, or niche, of the field, that you'd like to. When doing grad work, or post-doc, and such, if you have to work in a lab, you may have to hold what you really want to do, on the back burner for a while, as you get experience and such. I do wish you the best of luck in your choices and actions, and the outcomes they lead to !! Keep up the good work ! (Oh, and one thing I didn't mention, is that maybe by choosing cognitive neuroscience to back your psychology, you may (and it could be my bias, here) have a touch more going for you at hiring time... I mean, we all have to work...) Who knows?!

Let me see here, then... I reason that it is important to make sure what has need correction has been corrected before offering more proof-texts to demonstrate the error here. This immediately above is what you had written in your post number 7, on page one. The assertion is incorrect. Do you understand how it is incorrect? Please respond honestly to this question. I will then go on to see if I can help you learn the more, and most, correct understandings on this matter, and a little bit and inflection and conjugation. I have deadlines coming up, and may be sluggish, but will try to stick with it.

As usual, I appreciate the timely response, immortal, and can only say that I, too, will strive to be as consistent with such. I will slip away from time to time as certain deadlines and events and activity here prevent presenting and arguing here. I ask that you please bear with me on that. Error upon error makes straightening things out a bit time consuming, but for the moment I am willing to work with you to see if I can help you grasp the more accurate and correct information (on a number of areas that you wish to express thoughts on). If I may here, I would like to second the request motioned by Ben Bowin, above. His, or her, earlier input in the form of questions will have a degree of bearing. Otherwise, one, or two points here. And like Penrose, among a few others, he is incorrect in his position, and makes false statements and claims. Those statements and claims are what must be looked at and fully inspected. To simply spurt out a statement made by any one of them on, for example, the condition of having a state of consciousness, does nothing more than repeat the error they had originated. This does not account for the capitalization of the word, except to signify an attempt to desire to point out the reason why the fifth rule of thumb is being attempted to be appealed to. Esotericism, like Mysticism, falls under the definition of a religion. If one is talking of that religion, they should use that proper noun, namely, Esotericism. The Esotercist will find points of Esoteric dogma across the spread of various interpretation, and textual wording, from among any number of information source materials of the standard theist-involved religious belief systems available. This in no way negates, nor causes exception to, the standard common definition, and usage of, the noun 'religion.' While the word 'religion' does operate as a non-count noun within certain contexts, it is not always the case, and doing so habitually only leads to confusion and a big mess--as we can see evidence of here. Moreover, it is a fact that such usage does not call for capitalization. This is a fact, immortal, not just an opinion of mine. What I hope you will be able to do, is accept the proper usage of the term. If you wish to talk about the (usually-so)theist-involved religious belief system which is Mysticism, or Esotericism, then please specify the entities so as to assure clear and accurate referent identification. Your capitalization is incorrect here. As I had said, this is a false statement. I will have to work on showing that to you later, however, as if we were to go to any exhaustive degree of presentation on that, it would easily take a whole thread in and of itself. This will have to done elsewhere and later too, for it too is hopeless inaccurate and misguided. The English form 'God' is a proper noun; that means (again) it is a given name for a certain god. For the information source of any theist-involved religious belief system to have one god as being supreme above the others, to whatever degree and to whatever extent, in no way cancels out the other gods and goddesses presented by the same information source. The Tanakh, closed by the late Second Temple Period, on the other hand, presents only one deity, Yahweh, as being the true (thus said-to-be) actual god of all. (It does not deny Baal, or Dagon, or the others, but simple posits them as figments of the imaginations of men.) Again (and I guess I'll have to do this later, elsewhere, also) the noun 'god' is not a countable noun, so you cannot write the following sentence: I think that god is silly. If you were to say that orally, it would be talking about Yahweh as the referent for the spoken form 'God.' This too, immortal, is a fact--like it or not, it is a fact. We have to deal in facts, or the as-close-as. Completely false statements. Please don't conflate or confound here. I have no where used the terminology 'science,' as though it were some mass of a thing with some uncountable nature of no self-holding form, or boarders. Scientific method, in its broadest sense, however, is the only method we have of knowing anything at all. This too, is a fact. It is fine for one to speak their mind, tell others what they think, and all; that is the beauty of free speech, indeed. It is a different thing all together to go around misleading and misrepresenting things in a public arena. Yes, you said what you think probably a number of times, and you have worked towards defending them, but as I have correctly stated above, error on top of error, will correctness make not!! False. I'll have to deal with this later, there a number of synethesia types (grapheme-color being the most common, but with also time unit-color, muscial sound-color, general sound-color, phoneme-color, smell-color, sound-touch, vision-taste, sound-temperature, touch-temperature, etc.). That sugar carries the property which signals the cellular identification of sweetness (as opposed to sour, salt, unami) in the properly functioning pathways, is a fact. Of all the studies, and contact with those who have done studies with synathesia (which is not a malfunction so as to say that one 'suffers' for the polymodal sensory connectivity), I have never heard of any who conclude from their studies that due to the results of their studies, cognitive neuroscientists should pay more attention to quale. That is completely incorrect, and off-the-wall. Actually, not. I am correcting the confusion which has been forced upon you, immortal. It is a fact that it is through the organ which is the brain, consisting of the various cell types which amount to the tissue which is brain (as opposed to the brain, the organ), and is through this organ only, that perception, such as is acknowledged through the process which amounts to consciousness, can be achieved. It is the same for you, as it is for me, as it had been for those who had walked the ash covered terrain of Africa--whose prints we have record of. The authors of all the theist-involved religious belief systems ever created by humankind, gained information in exactly, and only through, the brain. This is a fact. Actually, I may not be as ignorant of the Eastern philosophies as you may emotionally be lead to think at the moment. Especially should this be obvious with the amount of time we have interchanged, and have presented on this board so far, right?! Jumping to conclusions is not a good thing. ps I have no time to proof-read at the moment, as will do so later (depending). Please forgive and allow for any errors or typos. Thanks and apologies. LL

This seems kind of hopeless--a total disregard for proven translation procedures, for sound and accurate knowledge, and for even for logical thinking--as far as I can tell. How is one then to translate Leviticus 19:29b where the LXX uses a form of the very same Greek word? (And there are many others which greatly stretch the present assertion so thinly that no one would properly run out on that thin ice.) How, even getting closer to home, would one then translate Romans 11:12c, 1 Corinthians 10:26 b, Galatians 4:4? No, there is nothing else that really needs be done here, immortal than to work towards understanding the fallacy you have committed in taking others who wish to mislead and brainwash into following for the sake of their own benefits alone. This is absolute nonsense which you have been putting forth here, yet I wish to work with you somehow (at least so as to ascertain the fluidness and agility of your working space), to see if I, along with others here, can help you correct that which is mistaken.

Thank you for getting back, immortal, and spending the time to put forth your arguments. I see a major problem at the root, nevertheless, and wish to look that over some--investigate it, attempt to falsify it, and see it there is actually anything pragmatic worth keeping and propagating. I would greatly appreciate your care and concern--and level-headed reasonableness and fairness--in doing so. By what line of reasoning can the following assertions be demonstrated to be based on sound and valid knowledge, and what can you show that would allow the disinterested third party to acquiesce that you (and the original authors) have attained that knowledge through a means that any individual would equally have access to, and opportunity to learn: 1.The word religion in the above is capitalized. On what grounds do you reason there is a linguistically pragmatic reason for doing so? Can you provided equivalent application of the 'special assignment identifier function in English which would help draw out the need for such. (Capitalization function usually follows the patterns of a. new sentence identifier, b. proper noun identifier, c. standard title/heading/sub-heading identifier, d. abbreviation identifier, and e. special assignment identifier.) Hinduism is a religion in the sense of being a loosely grouped theist-involved religious belief system. There is no need at all to capitalize the word religion there. Shintoism is a religion, Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion, Baha'i is a religion, Zoroastrianism is a religion--and all of these are theist-involved religious belief systems. (Buddhism, especially the Mahayana, amounts to a theist-involved religious belief system in that the Buddha has all but become a god in most sects and lines of the general, overall system.) Patriotism is a religion, as is Nationalism, but neither of these are theist-involved religious belief systems with information sources spelling out doctrine, or describing and prescribing any gods or goddesses. 2. The words mind, and intellect are capitalized too. Please do the same as expressed in 1. above. 3. In English when one uses the capitalized form of the common noun 'god,' it is no longer a common noun, but becomes a proper noun. (see capitalization function rule of thumb above) When one writes "God," at the best (and allowing some room for the misguided confusion which can come from it for sake of political correctness [spits on the ground]) that one is either talking about Yahweh, the later late Christian biblical god, or the god of the Quran, period ! The more accurate and original standard will only allow talking the referent for the word form 'God' to be Yahweh, or the biblical god--not even the Arabic Allah falls under that classification. It is a fact that not all theist-involved religious belief systems have Yahweh for their referent when their information sources give us descriptive and prescriptive information on the gods of those several systems. It is a fact that not all such systems have the biblical god for their referent either. That means that not all religions are talking about God. Talking about a god (or goddess), yes; and there are many different and distinct systems which had been, have been, or are, talking about a total of thousands of gods. 4. In the above, when you use the phrase, "God's stuff,' it is far from clear just what you might have in mind. It can be gathered, from reading you, what you might wish to insinuate, or lead the reader for formulate with her, or his, mind, but that is not productive enough for any sound argumentation. First of all, even taking up the proper use of the common noun 'god,' (which is countable noun by the way, and must take the indefinite article unless otherwise filled in by other words [such as the, my, this, etc.]), it makes no sense at all to say that my mind is a substance which is equivalent to being a god. That mind is brain is as close to fact as we can get, and we might as well go ahead and call it a fact. (And please do not confuse this more precise wording with that of 'the mind is the brain.') Neither the mind which is of the processing of my neural tissue, nor that which is of yours, has anything to do with a superhuman male being of a human-like nature which has some degree of power of nature and the minds and acts of human beings and animals! (compare goddess) To demonstrate the opposite is an external fact of nature, you will have to demonstrate in the third person perspective without executing any action on your own. In other words, to argue the a priori external (not a figment of anyone's mind to begin with) fact of nature, you will need to demonstrate the connection of known facts of external nature to a particular described god. You will have to cross out by elimination any contrasting claims among the several claims to that privy information by the sources which make the several theist-involved religious belief systems first, however. One tell tale sign here is your usage of the pronoun 'we.' Interesting. While I have lost much of my Hindi skill, and only have the English-Hindi dictionary (and not the Hindi-English one; and feel no need to go on line, for here), I can sense the Sanskrit coming through in those compound words. However, be that as it may, it makes no point in argumentation towards the sound knowledge that we have on hand today, so as to refute it in any way at all. There is no such thing as a metaphysical sense organ at all! Every single sensation that enters the attention of consciousness (which is clearly dissociable to a degree) that you, immortal, and I, can report on at all, is due to neural (and glia) function within the bounds of certain connectivity, chemical, and protein processing, interaction, and attraction/repulsion events. This is as pragmatically close to fact as one can get, and so we might as well go ahead and call it a fact. Yes, that would be off subject, and thus not best for the thread, actually. For that reason, therefore, we should leave all talk about 'mind' aside. The reason for that is because you have made some very well demonstrated false assertions, and to demonstrate the fallacies here would take a whole bunch of off topic discussion. (If you were to wish to defend your view, take it to the sub-forum wherein we can deal with cognitive neuroscience, and consciousness science, and I'd be more than happy to see if I can help you understand the inquiry better. ) Yes, I am aware of that, and (as I do belief I have said elsewhere), their assertions and claims must be demonstrated to be grounded in sound and valid knowledge--they must stand the test of trial and error in observation, over the largest number of sample spaces possible, over a long stretch of time, to hold. They have failed already. Plato was incorrect due to a lack of sound and valid knowledge. Much of Western Philosophy has erred by taking that route. Even Aristotle missed a good bit. Had he figured out the vestibular system's input into self-motion relative spatial conditions, his On The Soul would have been written up a bit differently in some places; to say the least. There is no experiential acknowledgement of acts, the results of acts, and the connection between the experiences as recorded and properly retrieved memory, and the external facts of nature, that does not pass through the broad sense of scientific method. Nothing ! The mere sound knowledge that normally functioning people will not sense a sweetness when they drink coffee into which salt, instead of sugar, has been stirred. This is a simply instance of scientific method learning and knowing--unless otherwise mentioned, I always use that in the broadest possible sense. 'Prana' consists of nothing other than air, and the intake of air for the purpose of certain cellular functions. Again, however, this would be totally off topic. I appreciate the effort in locating and sharing the other links. I am aware of the cases in general, and am aware of the fallacy in reporting on the in the mass media. I am aware of the twisting and sensationalizing that goes on in order to, basically, make sales. I will not deny that it even can creep into the world of science publications--which really a shame, but reflects the matter of being essentially a part of the world of life forms. Again, off topic. However, since you, the OPP, have raised this, please do allow me to share another one with you. It's called 'The Brick Test of Mindfulness.' A subject is strapped to a heavy, and bolted-down chair, so that the subject cannot interfere with any limbs, nor can move the upper torso. A professional baseball player is handed a standard kiln-dried, high density brick. The athlete then throws the brick as he would a baseball, so as to have the brick hit directly on the subjects forehead, from a distance of 6 meters. If the subject through both observation and accurate report demonstrates no change in the state of mind (flow of consciousness as an acknowledged and reportable identifier of same-selfness in a consistent pattern), then we have empirical evidence that mind can be thought to have a substrate other than the tissue of brain. Would you be convinced enough in the incorrect claims and assertions of the ancients to take that test?

I shouldn't be so surprised, but would neither be able to remain openly honest to myself, and others, if I were to deny have a tingling sensation of that very emotion. Of the degree of error involved in the OP, there need not much else be said, actually (as has been said above). If we were to position ourselves in the seat of a certain open mindedness (perhaps not going as far as 'too... hee, hee, hee... Joke !! Take it in good heart, too open minded [if I have that user name correct, here]) and cultivate the interest in learning further--as far as we can--I am quite certain that we will work towards a betterment; a far more desirous circumstance of pragmatic, more productive, and positive-in-outcome social potential. I wish to help towards that goal of learning, to the degree that I can. I do feel, however (and I cannot deny it) a certain anguish that such error, as seen here too, is being perpetuated. While this is a side note, of course, it is not the right question from the perspective of approach. (as this thread has been presented) The right question would surely have been, "What's there in Christianity-at-large that other theist-involved belief systems do not have in their doctrine (as presented in the information sources they are built on)? First of all, in the way of correction, the above sentence portion which is not English, is not a translation. A translation will always be in the target language translated into, using only the words (inclusive of loan words, of course, however) that that target language uses. What is given, correctly identifying it, is a 'transliteration' as imatfaal had pointed out above. The better recension gives us, " ὅτι ἐν αὐτῶ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,...," and the transliteration provided by immortal is correct. This is false. A quick check of the various texts (mss, fragments, papyri), and the translation of them, instantly demonstrates the falsehood of such an assertion. Additionally--as touched on before--in translating, the better methodology is to use 'one word assignment.' What that method is, is that for the target language (the language translated into) a single word will be assigned to a single word (or one of its grammatical forms) in the original tongue being translated out of. This is assigned word is pinned on the original word as consistently and accurately enough understood, and relative to immediate and overall contextual setting; as well as in accordance with precedence in idiomatic usage. One does not (and I guarantee you that such will not be found in scholarly handling of the texts, and translations) mix transliteration forms in with the translated text (of the target language) unless it is a proper noun, or its original meaning (referent) is in some material degree of question and uncertainty. The only instance of any exception to that rule-of-thumb that I am aware of, is when an original language word is held in transliterated form within an otherwise translated textual portion, so as to hold the translation aside for the moment. This tooling is aimed at getting the contextually more accurate translation in the target language, and to avoid misguided, misunderstood, and otherwise simply incorrect traditionally proposed translations, leaking in while translating. It is usually used in papers arguing for a more correct translation. We do have a pressing need to be as correct, and accurate as we can, on as practical a range of points as possible, when doing this kind of work.

I probably should not, by any means, allow myself to fall into the midst of this wild-water stream, but yet have just now gotten my feet a bit wet. (With the emotional surge that prefrontal executive processing could not inhibit enough, leading to this very post.) I do not, to save my life, see how the above claim to know can be soundly and validly demonstrated, so as to leave it with any truth value worth causing it to be held on to any longer. First of all, there are many religions in the world. We would be better off in precise discussion to label them as theist-involved religious belief systems. The 'world of religion' (and I have no idea how that requires capitalization) then means the 'world of emotional content,' is it? At best, I would like you to please more fully expound on the details of the referent for that term; and along with that the definition and a couple of examples. Please. I think that would very much help out. Leaving Kant, D'Espagnat, and a number of other, earlier on and yet-to-be-more-fully-informed thinkers aside, for the moment (due to lack of any actually relative and sound enough bearing on the matter, in what they had to say), this assertion here needs some reference work cited. Let me make quite clear, all the while, that simply quoting the philosophers who made such like statements, in no way whatsoever amounts to referencing any pragmatic, scientific method-based studies and trial-and-error learning about things related to mental processing. Knowing, as we will, that Aristotle's 'metaphysical' works kind of got misnamed along the way, picking up a meaning which more evidently the great naturalist had not intended, we are in dire need to ascertain evidence for the ramification of how it's taken by far too many. If you were to wish to claim to know (and making an assertion as you have, immortal, so strongly insinuates a claim to know), then you will need to provide the evidence of that knowledge's source. How is it that you have come to know of something which I presume, based on common misuse, you can in no way at all sense through your sensory functions? In other words, how can you claim to know of something that cannot enter into the state of consciousness upon which only you can claim to know? (Pre-conscious activity can be acted on, can lead to observable acts, but cannot be accurately reported on by the first person subject.) This can be tested to see what pragmatic results it might have, however. Imagine (a pure mental act alone) eating and drinking for 15 days without actually eating and drinking actual, real (and externally so--that is, not just in the neural structure of imagination) food and liquids for that same period. After the test is finished, please report on your findings. We can judge and decide on the pragmatic and sound conclusions as to what is an external factuality of nature, and what is a figment of the mind (internal formation which decays with the breakdown of the organic substrate upon which it convenes), from those results.

Please allow me a quicky here, Alan; and I will try to explain more on the words god, goddess, and God. (but possibly in another thread to supplement?) As I had hoped to have made clear enough in a post above (I think, at least... I'll have to recheck that myself too), there is nothing wrong with the wording of the title, per se, but simply that it is out of date. It has already been demonstrated soundly and validly enough, that YHWH is not an external-fact-of-nature-being, as he is made up to be in the Tanakh. When we use the English word "God," we are (in better accuracy and standard usage originally) talking primarily about YHWH (יהוה). (By extension, post late 3rd century Christianity's god model, the biblical god, can be identified by that stand-in proper noun, "God.") While this is quite scholastic, and hardly a pragmatic concern at all (and almost not relevant towards the OP, or the title), we still do not have sound and valid enough reason to apply the word 'creator' to whatever kind of energy, or energy source, may be at root where and whenever in our known, or unknown, universe. It simple is a non-functioning, non-toolable, and non-conclusive imaginative dream of a concern. In the real world, we have much more down-to-earth, pragmatic concerns to place on our philosophical (even) thinking tables in front of us. Nature is grand !

I understand. There are times when bits and pieces of information may somehow manage to escape notice, or/and at the same moment fail to strike up neural connections which amount to eposodic memory recall. KJ are the initials used by a number, back then, to save having to fully write out 'KaseiJin.' Now that, should without doubt send potentials firing and draw out enough activity to 'pull' the spotlight of attention to that memory formulation. I look forward, ever so cautiously, to any serious and good discussion on the facts, and as-good-as-facts,' on the matter. Thanks, Alan.

I appreciate your getting back to answer towards the pondering-like questions I had posed; an effort to see what understanding the presentation is coming from, so as to see if I can work with that at all. I stand by what I had mentioned in my previous post, but hope (in some hopelessly-given-to-mere-emotion way) to be proven wrong; maybe you will have learned since days gone by. Do the letters KJ ring a bell? Then, since it is clear that you are not talking about any gods or goddesses, there is no reason to use that word 'god.' This is a big error on the part of so many people, that it just really is a shame. We have so many thinkers out there who refuse to think about what they have missed along the way, or have been mislead, or misguided, into thinking. 'Intelligence' will usually have two more commonly used senses, and the one which is pertinent (definition-wise) in the case of gods and goddesses, is the matter of cognitive executive function--basically as in the brain, or a model of brain processing. The to-date, empirically demonstrated, sound and valid knowledge that we have accumulated through scientific method has already shown that we know of no brain processing in nature beyond brains, or ganglion plexi, themselves.(1) We thus have no room whatsoever to presuppose the external existence (that is, not just in the mind) of a center of intelligence (a brain, or an equally similar brain-like processing entity) in nature. It would be best, therefore, not to make application of the term 'intelligence.' While the title of this thread does allow for a totally different discussion, the simple fact that it lies in the 'Religion' sub-forum, and includes the matter of a deity, or a god (or goddess), more heavily brings out the matter of: 'scientific method reasoning being able to determine if there is evidence to understand that a certain god, or goddess, actually exists externally, as a factuality of nature.' Well, of course, we are at least now in the position of knowing the fallacy of starting off with the assertion (hypothesis) that there is this certain god, or goddess (and one can pick any one of the thousands that mankind has come up with through our Homo history), and then working to see if we can ascertain evidence to falsify that claim. That's right, today we have no sound and valid choice but to start with the understanding that no to-date offered god, or goddess, has demonstrated itself beyond the information sources which describe and prescribe that particular god, or goddess, to be an external reality of nature at large, and work to see if we can find evidence that such a god, or goddess, does, in fact, exist. (and here on out I will simply type 'exist(s)' with that modification understood) Do you see what I mean, Alan? In this manner, we can pick, for example, Baal. We can check out the information source on that particular god, see what is described and prescribed, the detail of overlap with prior god models, and such, and then test that against what sound and valid knowledge we today have. If the results of that testing demonstrates that the majority of assertive claims made by the information source are false, then we can conclude that no such god exists; and chalk it up to another fancifully created story (myth for a purpose at the time) by humankind. The notion of a 'mover,' or of a 'first cause,' divorced from the Platonic mishap that it generally tends to come from, and be married to, need not be anything other than what we can know about nature at large through the best means that we do have for thinking and learning about it at all, namely, scientific method. (And I do use that in it's broadest sense, not just the academic, professional sense.) To sum up this much, therefore, I agree that your methodology is correct in not taking any particular god, or goddess, of any of the theist-involved religious belief systems which we humans have developed over time, and holding firstly that that particular god, or goddess, is an external fact of nature at large, and then arguing from there. One thing that follows, however--and is where you have made a misstep--is that we therefore have no sound and valid grounds upon which we can argue that we need to use the word 'god,' or for that matter, 'goddess,''deity,''divine,' and so on and so forth. I most humbly do hope you can follow through on the reasoning leading to this more sound and valid conclusion. If we are not talking about gods--and the word is fixed in limited definition, actually, and honestly, speaking--then we are not talking about gods. It is thus shown that even while it will more likely not be the case that we humans will have a theory (as opposed to hypothesis, or educated guess) of everything within the reign of our existence (as I reason), we already have fairly and substantially enough come to learn through sound and valid knowledge, that we do not need any gods, or goddesses, to explain the fact of nature at large. (And this is as close enough to fact, actually, that we might as well go ahead and put it in that class of understanding.) The question posed by the title of thread, therefore, has been answered. It is an open topic, but pragmatically reasoning on it tells us that we will probably never get to the level of a 'theory of everything' (holding the term 'theory' is its strictest sense). However, we have already come to know, through this pragmatic reasoning, that no gods, or goddesses, exist. (And I am holding these in their prime senses; we all know that some hold Elvis to be a god, but that is not the prime sense, right?!) I hope you can follow through on this, Alan. Of course, it is nothing new to you from me, we both know. 1. In that I appeal to 'nature at large,' it could be held that AI is as much a development of natural activity as the evolution of the Homo genus, and that therefore we do find intelligence (in the sense of brain-like processing outside of the condition of being ganglion/brain). However, I reason (for now, at least) that doing so only leads to a great potential for confusion and misunderstanding. I hold that we have a need to maintain our classifications and category groupings--even if simply for the sake of progressing along with our understandings, and efforts to understand. (We can always adjust them later, based on any better, sound and valid knowledge that arises.). I do not include AI in this presentation, but hold it on the side as a human activity (for now).

Not to either intentionally, nor out of any sudden emotional impulse, interrupt the exchange, folks, but I wish to highlight, and probe just a little here; if I may, please. Quite a correct observation in general. Before I explain further, however, allow me to present the following quote too. While I fully agree that the question of the soundness and truth value inherent in what is written in any given manuscript that has made its way into our Bible would surely be more off-topic than not, in this particular thread. I am equally quite sure that there are actually a whole bunch of topics given in the OP. In short, the OPP is lost in regards to the general field of inquiry that he, or she, had been trying to make statements towards. (I consider the possibility that we are looking at rhetorical tooling to be much higher than that of looking at real questions so as to learn.) I would like to hear from the OPP, just what the intended purpose had been in writing up the OP as he, or she, had done; really! I will leave the matter of 'this thread's topic as being any one, single topic' aside, as I reason that it is not the case, actually. What I wish to probe a little here, is more precisely the following idea, namely, that it is necessary to know what a document being looked at actually is, in order to accurately translate it. Could I please get you to expound on this embedded thought, chilehed? Thank you.

I was actually slightly shocked to find you here, Alan, and with having been here longer than myself, even. Wow... I will give notice, up front, that I do not reason that I can discuss any such topic as you have raised here in question form, but I would like to purge out one matter a bit (and see what I can get out of it). Which particular god might you have in mind? Also, why not a particular goddess? (There are at least thousands of non-carry-over gods and goddesses.)