Gees

I probably would enjoy it as I have read some of Penrose's work, but have too much on my plate already. I will check it out later after I contend with this current project of Federico's. Most people have no idea of how massive the study of consciousness actually is. They see it as a study of the brain, maybe physics and cosmology, a little religion and a little philosophy. In reality consciousness study affects all of religion, probably 80%, or more, of philosophy, and most if not all branches of science -- a massive study indeed. Federico's theory touches on too many of these separate ideas, so my mind was reeling just trying to keep up. Then I realized that Federico probably does not even see all of these implications because he does not study consciousness and so does not realize all of the leads to other branches of science, etc. I started to take notes while watching the video, but half way through I quit as there were just too many points to address and no context for the explanations that are necessary in order to understand and address those points. In order to give context to many of those points, I would have to write a damned book -- and that book would only be about what I think I know, not what I am still trying to figure out. So I am going to select a few of the ideas to discuss that his theory clarifies or enhances. Federico starts out with a bang saying that consciousness is not in the body and compares the experience with that of using a drone. This very much aligns with my thinking. Years ago, I was corresponding with a physics professor, who explained to me that thought has no power. He said, "If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down or save them on a disk then wait a day, a year, or a hundred years; when you check them, you will find that they have done nothing. Thought has no power, no force, no ability to do anything." He was right. Federico finds similar conclusions about AI. So I spent some time breaking down consciousness into parts. I found that knowledge, memory, and thought are digital, work within time and space, and are internal and private -- I know my thoughts/you know yours. But emotion, feeling (not tactile), and awareness are not digital, they are analogue/fluid (emotion does not work within time and space but actually ignores time) and these are external and shared -- unless we intentionally hide our feelings they show. This is why emotion can cause bonding, because it works between us -- it works between life. It is a force. It is external. It was not long before I realized that the digital part of consciousness was the rational aspect of mind -- what most people think of as consciousness. The analogue part of consciousness was the unconscious and it is ruled by emotion. So why did we ever decide that digital thought was consciousness? I think there were two reasons. The first is because we control thought and the rational mind, whereas the unconscious is strictly reactionary so we have very little control over it. And Descartes did not help when he stated, "I think; therefore, I am." So did that mean if I don't think, then I am not? Yes. That is exactly how it was interpreted, so infants, deaf people, the mentally handicapped, and many indigenous people (having an unknown language) were treated as though they were NOT. The reasoning here is very simple; if you do not have language, then you have no way to prove you think, therefore, you were not considered conscious. This means that all other life was also not conscious, not aware, not alive? Science has been systematically changing this belief as it proves consciousness in different species, but is not willing to state categorically that if something is alive, then it is conscious. (The thought thing again.) So to start off one must understand that Federico is not talking about thought, he is not talking about the brain, he is talking about the unconscious aspect of mind, which is ruled by emotion, feeling, and want. This is what consciousness, or awareness, derives from. Where is the unconscious? No one knows. It does not seem to have a location. We have no idea of it's size or parameters. We know that it connects to other life forms because it could not promote bonding if it did not and this is where psychic phenomenon originates and it is where "God" ideas originate. Jung could tell us some about the unconscious and "God" ideas, but Matt Blanco could tell us about the six or seven levels (stratums) in the unconscious that he discovered through math while he was looking for a logic in the unconscious. He found it. He realized that the unconscious was thought to have no logic, but this was because it ignored time. (Yes. This has been clinically proven and is the reason why childhood trauma can affect an entire lifetime and why PTSD happens.) Logic, "this therefore, that" is part of logic, and the "therefore" requires time, so this logic does not work in the unconscious. Blanco found that the deeper levels of the unconscious used another method to evaluate, but it has been a while since I read it, so I am going to have to look it up. There is so much more, but this is hopefully a good start and all I can do now. Tomorrow I will try to address some of the other points made in the video. Gee

Ant Sinclair; Thank you for showing us this video -- it is absolutely brilliant. Because I am no scientist, I am going to have to study the video three or four more times, so that I can try to understand how he explained his idea with science's terminology. For myself, I came to similar conclusions about consciousness by observing, using logic, and studying nature -- more of a philosopher's study. And yes, we can prove that a tree is conscious as long as one does not expect it to have a brain and thought, as that is not consciousness. The brain is what produces the rational aspect of mind and thought, which is a product of consciousness -- it is not consciousness. I don't understand why people do not see the obvious comparison with Maimonides thoughts, as I saw it immediately. Thanks again, Gee It helps me to think of the brain like I would an antenna. If the antenna is damaged or broken, so is the picture (conscious thought) that it produces. First there is conscious awareness (the unconscious aspect of mind) which feeds into the brain (antenna), then the brain produces digital thought -- the rational aspect of mind. In my understanding. I don't know this, but suspect that F Faggin understands this part. I have more studying to do. Gee

You are right! There is nothing unscientific about that. Why are you arguing about this? It's kind of silly. Gee

I bet you do. It makes you feel like you are not the only one. ☺️ I know little about science and less about math, so I did not know that. It is why I asked. Thank you for the information. You won't mind if I don't give you an up vote as you usually get them from people who are entertained by your abuse of members. I see you already have two, so I figure I don't owe you any more. The only thing you might be sorry about is that I might die and you will have one less person to abuse. Gee It is not wrong. It is just very limited. Arguing that you named and described laws of the Universe -- after the Universe came to be -- does nothing to add to this thread. Gee

These are questions that have been around forever and so far have no resolution. I agree that there is no "nothing", but when we agree to that, it opens the door to the "God" concept or to intelligent design, as it is clear that there is some organized growth in life and in the Universe. So I propose that we accept that there is something that is unknown to us -- that is immaterial -- but seems to have properties. What if we look at this backward and examine what properties would have to be present in order for the Universe to evolve? Some "time"? Time did not exist before matter and the Universe existed. You are talking about the "Invisible Spirit" as if it were some thing, or individual, or self -- this is where people come up with "God" ideas. I think it is a mistake to immediately interpret an anthropomorphized being; I prefer looking at properties. So there was never nothing; there was always something. Most people think that the "nothing" is related to consciousness, whether you call that consciousness "God" or not, but there is a problem with this. The conscious rational aspect of mind does not work outside of time, so it could not have been here before the Universe was here. Let's look at this backward. Let's reverse engineer the start of the Universe. 😁 There was no time -- so no rational mind. There was something that makes us think of "God" -- spirit? There was something that both the Laws of Physics and math are based on -- balance? There was something that had power -- a force? There was something that was self-balancing and could seek it's own level, much like water. There was something that can cause matter to form. There was something that caused things to bond together or create a oneness. All of the above are properties of emotion. Science has decided that emotion is nothing. Gee You do realize that you are posting in the religion forum and that your above comment could be used to validate the "God" idea, because it does not need to be tested or observed? And how do you make a hypothesis or prediction if you do not "observe" what you are talking about? This is the reason why science does not really study consciousness; they study the brain, and generally ignore emotion. Gee

This was your response and question: It looks like you made an assertion -- and did not give a description. In order for it to be scientific, it would have to be tested or at least observed. Yes? So did you observe "nothing" or did you test "nothing"? Gee

Dimreepr; It doesn't happen often that you help me, but the information about Maimonides was very helpful and informative. Thank you. Gee It is NOT all the same. I have wondered for a long time what the "Phi" in your name stands for as it is very clear you are no philosopher, so the "Phi" can not be short for philosophy. Will you tell me what it stands for? Gee I am going to guess that a few hundred years ago, if a person turned a cup of water upside-down, let it drain, then turned it back upright, it would be assumed to be empty. So nothing would be in it. Right? But science knows that is not true, as there is, at least, air in it. But I suspect that Trurl was actually thinking of philosophy, rather than science. Isn't it philosophy that says one can not prove a negative? Does that mean that we can not describe a negative? Hmm. I seriously doubt that "nothing" existed before the Universe. Gee

I know why they do it. But when people often say, "what you propose is magic", or "that is supernatural", one has to wonder what those people know about magic and the supernatural, or what they are hiding about their superstitious natures. For me, I see magic as something that entertains children and the supernatural as a word that is used by some to explain the unexplained -- neither term has any real meaning for me personally. I actually worked a thread in this forum, while trying to get to the bottom of the "supernatural" dilemma. So either the people who accuse others of magic and/or the supernatural in this forum are superstitious fools, or they are being insincere, insulting, argumentative, disingenuous, and royal pains. This is off-topic, irrelevant, and it looks like misdirection. Have you been studying Trump's methodologies? You missed the point. You said, "The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. " This is not true. You have oversimplified something because you do not understand it. I responded with, "So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life?" which is also not true, which would be why I phrased it as a question. I was mimicking your rather simplistic statement, which obviously had nothing to do with truth. iNow missed the point also. Maybe he should consider some help with his reading comprehension. It was not answered. Gee

I always thought that the self balancing of ecosystems was interesting. How does it put itself back together and maintain its self-balancing nature after we mess it up or after a natural disaster messes it up? What law or principle causes all life to work so hard to maintain itself and cause life to continue? We use math to measure these principles, but I don't see how math causes them. Gee

Yes. One could make that argument. Philosophy would talk about balance, science would talk about math, and religion would talk about the "God'" plan, but they would all be talking about the same thing. Congratulations. You finally got off the Science v Religion merry-go-round long enough to think. Think about this: Spinoza lived hundreds of years ago, so what has science learned in the meantime that would support or detract from Spinoza's work? Einstein used math to make his conclusions. Quantum theories and holographic theories built on his original ideas. So is there a personal "God" concept and a universal "God" concept? Two of them? Look to psychology for an answer to the personal "God". Jung taught us about the "God" archetypes, Blanco taught us about the logic in the unconscious by explaining that emotion ignores time, psychology tells us a lot about the personal "God". Even ordinary principles are worthy of study. Gee

Asking would be a waste of time. After 12 pages, you should realize that nobody cares. I have watched members in the religion forum abuse every idea that is presented in this religion section, whether it is good or bad -- for years. They pretend interest, then gradually change the conversation to be about science, then ridicule anyone who does not agree with them. This thread was never about abiogenesis -- it is about the "God" concept, which none of the members study or understand. The members here are reasonably intelligent and capable of reading and following a thought process, so this is a bait and switch tactic. Entertainment for the forum members. Normally I would not even respond to a thread in this forum, but when you noted that there is a difference between the spiritual and religion, and you made that comment without regard to any religion or practice, I thought that you might be worth talking to. If you google abiogenesis, you are informed that the Oxford dictionary calls abiogenesis a theory. Science can study it, but they don't. They study the brain, or they study behavior, or they study societies. They do not study the mental and barely study consciousness. I have been studying consciousness off and on for decades and have come to the conclusion that some aspects of consciousness can interact with the physical. Some aspects of consciousness may actually be physical. I have asked members in other forums if they can tell me the properties of mental aspects, and they have no answer. Some aspects of the mental do have properties. But I must tell you that I have been fighting MS (multiple sclerosis), which slows me down, for about 50 years, and now I have cancer to fight also. I start my radiation treatment next week, which I have been told will make me even more tired, so I have no desire to provide entertainment for the masses. I sent you a PM with my email address so that we could continue this conversation if you are interested. I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread. It is just too hard and serves no purpose. Gee

Swansont, Do you have any idea of how many times the words "supernatural", "magic", and "mysticism" have been used in this thread? The interesting part is that the words are always used by "science" people. So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? It is no wonder that Luc and I are having trouble in this thread, as we don't think either of those things happened. I didn't think this thread was about abiogenesis, but then maybe it is. Gee

I know a lot of Catholics, so if you are indeed a practicing Catholic, then you know a lot more about Catholicism than you do about the "God" concept. It is also likely that you have been trained in your beliefs since childhood, as that is a policy of the Catholic church. Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point. As far as the Pavlov's dogs comment. I would like to thank the members who went out of their way to repeatedly downvote my post and provide evidence for my guess that rep points are used to discourage opposition to the science forum's agenda. I went back and looked. I did not see where Luc Turpin misrepresented abiogenesis. I did see where he questioned it, but that is not misrepresenting. The only thing that I could find him guilty of is intelligence as he would not accept as fact something that has not been proven as factual. You, on the other hand, may have misrepresented the worth of the abiogenesis methodology? process? hypothesis? Please provide evidence of Luc Turpin's misrepresentation. So you think that he used misrepresentation in order to introduce "very ill-defined concepts"? Do you know what this thread is about? One could honestly state that the "God" concept is the big daddy of "very ill-defined concepts". Is it your intent to be humorous? You can't honestly believe that you or science have an answer to the concept of "God". There is nothing wrong with that logic. Yes, science progresses, but science can not progress beyond science because then it would stop being science. Science uses a methodology that tests the physical -- that is science!!! Science can not use that methodology on the spiritual or even on the mental. You can't slap god down on a lab table to study, so you either have to use philosophy or you have to use religion or you have to be clueless. Just like we can not use religion to study the physical as there is no way to validate and test what we think we know using the methodology of religion. The same is true for philosophy, which is why we created science in the first place. This is what is called a no-brainer. Luc Turpin was not the only one that brought up alternate hypothesis, so your complaint seems excessive. I will tell you that I bought the book, The Holographic Universe, read it, and still can't explain "WTF that means", so I don't know why you would complain that Luc can not explain it fully in a post in this thread. I can tell you that in the back of that book are hundreds of references from page 303 to page 327 -- way too much information for me to absorb. Science can't do it alone. Some of life gets kind of "wooly and vague". Years ago, I looked up the posts and comments that were made when this forum was creating, or maybe recreating, itself. A lot of the members did not want to have a philosophy section or a religion section, so why is there one here? Because it was discovered that it was needed. No matter why it was needed, it became clear that it was needed. Science can't do it all alone. Gee

Luc Turpin, I have very much enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, and find it amazing that you have managed to receive only 13 down votes in nine pages of comments. You actually seem to understand that there is a difference between spirituality and religion, and yet know that these concepts are related. You have been very tactful and very careful to try to gain information without implying that science may not have the ability to know all of the answers. I would never be able to accomplish that as I have a tendency to tell people exactly what I think. Everybody here knows that science does not study the "God" concept, so they are generally clueless about it. Mostly the science members will call it imagination or nonsense or something similar, and yet there are hundreds of posts in this thread, many of which are from science people, who are obviously relaying the information they received in childhood regarding the subject matter. Go figure! As far as people calling you "crackpot", etc., do not take it personally and use the brain in your head. This is a science forum. It's purpose is to promote science. So if member (a) comes to the Religion/Philosophy section and finds a comment that is not 100% pro science, they can make a derisive comment and down vote that person, which is quite likely to cause someone to up vote member (a). Am I saying that this is a game for the purpose of establishing reputation? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You are not going to learn much about the "God" concept, religion, or spirituality from these people, as they do not know and are not teaching -- this is about training, like Pavlov's dogs, only they use rep points instead of treats. A "willingness to reconsider ideas" is not fundamental to science -- it is fundamental to philosophy. Science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, religion studies the spiritual (emotion). We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings so we need all three disciplines to understand ourselves. Do you think I will get a downvote or two for this post? Maybe. Gee

The members of this forum are seriously biased against religion and even philosophy, so I don't know why you posted in this forum. I suppose you read that this was the philosophy forum so you thought it would be OK. No. The members of this forum believe that science is the beginning and end of knowledge. This means that if the information did not come from science, then it can not possibly be knowledge. It could be imagination, speculation, or maybe garbage, but it is not knowledge. But I found your thoughts interesting. You still need to do some work on your ideas, but I doubt that you will get any help here. Gee

Yes it is. Philosophers study truth and lies, so it is probably a bad idea to lie to a philosopher. You probably don't want to know this, but the lie is very obvious -- so I am not the only person, who caught it. I am just the only person, who said something about it. Sorry about this. I am not used to this program that combines posts. Gee

Beecee, this is a lie. Maybe you are trying to rationalize something that you don't understand, but it ends up being a lie. The truth is that religion studies the supernatural and calls it "God". You have serious problems with the idea of the supernatural and have stated it repeatedly all over this forum for years. The only conclusion that I can reach is that you are superstitious and in denial. If you are taking these beliefs of yours and seeing them as comparable to philosophy, then it is clear as to why you don't like philosophy either. This is the only conclusion that the historical facts in your years of posts can support. There is difference and there is sameness -- both are beliefs -- no matter how those beliefs are formulated. The logic of the thinking applies to both of them equally. It is the logic that flew right over your head. This is what Studiot stated: "In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic." So that would be why you earn a Ph D in the various subjects of science? That would be a Doctor of Philosophy? Right? Ooh. Maybe one day I can earn a Sc D in philosophy? That would be a Doctor of Science. Right? Beecee, if you don't understand the above, ask someone. Gee PS I don't think that I have a problem being too thin skinned; my problem is different. After a few years in this forum witnessing so much ignorance based in bias in the subjects that I knew, I began to wonder about the other subjects. If I don't know about a subject, would I be able to tell if ideas were slanted because of bias? No. So I lost my faith and trust in this forum and left. I check back once in a while, but I no longer play here.

Beecee, I can't believe that you actually wrote the above. I know that you have a serious bias against religion, and it became clear to me, while reading the other thread about science and philosophy, that you can not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. But how could you not know that your statements are almost the same thing that religion would believe? Read the following where I changed just two words: A religious theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, faith supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. The thinking in your statement is exactly like the thinking that religion uses to promote the "God" idea. It is the same kind of thinking that validated drowning "witches", because it solved the problem of witches and made everyone else feel satisfied and self-righteous. No truth was required, no examining of the premises, no philosophy -- it just had to work. Well, Beecee, logic does not change by subject matter, so what is good for science is also good for religion, which would be why I stated that Studio's logic validated "God". Yes, I have seen this video many times and even used his examples to help me explain some aspects of consciousness. Feynman was brilliant, but had a bad attitude toward philosophy, which is kind of funny because he was very much a philosopher. Did you know that he took at least one philosophy class when he was young? He took his brilliant mind to an academic philosophy class which turned him totally against philosophy. He never got over it. I can understand his attitude because my first philosophy class gave me a similar disregard for academic philosophy, although I believe there are some classes that are worthwhile and taught well. I don't believe this for a minute. It looks like you cherry picked, adlibbed and generally corrupted what Wiki had to say. Considering the bias that I have read in your posts, this is not surprising. You can't tell the difference between religion and philosophy and talked about "absolute truth" with regard to philosophy, so I know you are clueless on this subject. Truth is subjective and is not "absolute" -- that would be either religion or maybe idealism. Gee Studiot; Because you asked me to explain what I see as the differences between truth and facts and how that relates to this topic, I wrote the following: I have spent the last week, or so, trying to verbalize how I see the difference between philosophy and science; it has not been easy. I think that a lot of the miscommunications and misunderstandings between us have been caused by very different ideas of what science and philosophy do, so I thought it would be helpful to clarify. My thoughts are that most people in science forums divide philosophy and science by the physical and the non-physical; the physical (real) being science and the non-physical (imaginings, ideas, ethics, etc.) being philosophy. Or they divide them by subject matter, such as ethics is obviously philosophy and mathematics is obviously science. Is some of this familiar to you? I think that Russell's explanation is a lot better and more accurate; science is what we do know; philosophy is what we don't know. Why is that? I am sure that some people believe that science knows what it is doing because it is superior or advanced, and philosophy does not know because it is inferior or confused -- this is nonsense. Earlier I stated that philosophy studies truth and science studies facts -- this is the biggest reason for the differences between these disciplines. Truth is subjective; facts are objective -- so truth (philosophy) is at the beginning of the process (where the observation, idea, or experience starts) and fact (science) is at the end (after confirmation or collaboration). Because truth is subjective, it can change because of perspective, time, and/or circumstance -- so truth can almost always be countered. It is rare to find a truth that is also objective, which makes it damned difficult to know anything for certain or come to any consensus in our conclusions. Hence, philosophy is what we don't know -- yet. So how can we know facts? Well, philosophy took the liberty of "establishing" certain truths to make them easier to deal with, so technically these truths are made-up. We took a one-to-one association of objects and ideas and called it counting, then we created numbers and then math, which allowed us to do all kinds of calculating. We established measures of liquid, distance, weight, volume, etc., and used numbers to measure many things. We broke down time into increments that allowed us a detailed measure of time. We established directional words like north and south, inside and outside, left and right, up and down, etc. With these objective truths that we actually created, or established, we could finally have a solid foundation for science and learn things that can be known. Hence, science is what we know. So it looks like science is an advancement of philosophy, and maybe does not need philosophy any more. Many people think this, but the problem here is that facts do NOT necessarily give us truth. For example: There was a hundred dollar bill in my hand that transferred to your hand -- that is the fact of what happened. So what happened? Did I give you money? Did we complete a contract? Did you steal it from me? What is the truth? Facts require interpretation and seldom, if ever, stand alone. Since science has become the "answer man" and philosophy has pretty much been removed from consideration, we are starting to learn just how dependent facts are on philosophy and truth. Just watch the evening news or see an advertisement; you will be inundated with facts, but will you see any truth? Facts are easy to manipulate because they do not stand alone and do not give us truth. These are some of the reasons why I think that philosophy and science are necessary to each other and interdependent. Although I can see why people think that philosophy is the beginning or base that started the process, but is no longer necessary, that is rather short sighted. Every new discovery is another beginning, every improved understanding is another beginning, every question that is answered prompts two or three new questions, which are two or three new beginnings. The only way that philosophy will ever become obsolete is when there is no new knowledge, no new discoveries, no new beginnings. By the way, it is not necessary to be a scientist in order to experiment and it is not necessary to be a philosopher in order to experience -- both disciplines use both methods. Facts can and do expose us to new truths and truths can and do uncover new facts. Gee

Bullshit. This idea of "valid" is ridiculous as it has little application to reality and none to truth. I suspect you would like to idealize reality and turn it into a model that fits your rules. (Plato is not the only one who has that problem.) The Plague is a highly contagious deadly disease -- truth. Some people when exposed to the Plague do not get it and/or do not die -- truth. Does that negate the Plague as a highly contagious deadly disease? Men grow beards -- truth. If a woman grows a beard does that invalidate her as a woman? I have no idea where your thoughts of "absolute" and counterexamples come from, but they are idealized nonsense. It is not good Philosophy and it is not good Science. It is piss poor communication, so I will apologize for my part in that very bad communication. So what you are saying is that a premise does not need to be true; it can be false as long as it works and does what we require of it. Philosophy is not therefore necessary. Congratulations studiot. Religion will be so happy, because I think you just validated "God". Gee

You ask some difficult questions, and I think the answers are that both influence our ideas of who we are. Identity is a difficult concept because it requires an understanding of "self", which is very complex because "self" is a simple thing, but not a singular thing. I don't know everything about "self" and identity, but I can share some information. Since it has already been brought up, I should clarify the idea of identity as to birth. When a person is born, they are physically separated from their mother, but retain the emotional bond and identity for a period of time. We know this because infants, who do not retain a bond (or quickly develop a bond) die of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). These babies do not possess the instincts that are necessary for life, like the ability to suckle and the need to breath. These instincts and the bonding both work through the unconscious aspect of mind and are part of Jung's collective unconscious, which could be called the larger "self" and causes us to identify with other humans. This human identity is a chemical or DNA internal concept; the bond with the mother is also internal and originated through the shared body. At about 8 months old, the infant has discovered his fingers, toes, and the extend of his physical body; it is at this time that babies start to cry whenever mom leaves the room because they now realize that she is not connected and could leave them! So prior to this time, babies have no idea that mom and baby are separate things, which leads me to believe that baby sees his identity as the same as his mom's identity. This is a good time to start playing peek-a-boo with them so they can learn that out of sight does not mean gone. At about 2 years old, the baby finally has enough of it's own identity that it can survive a break in the bond with it's mother/caregiver, which is why SIDS is no longer a threat. It is about this time that baby realizes that mom has her own mind and could possibly disagree with baby, which causes a lot of stress, so baby tests this idea in the form of the "terrible two's", where baby disagrees with everything. This is when we get signs of an individual mental self. Then around 5 years, the child realizes that other people have their own minds and points of view. At 7 years the child has a fully developed rational aspect of mind. Although more changes will happen for years to come, this is the age when the child is considered to have the ability to choose rationally and to have identity. Most people consider the rational aspect of mind to be their "self" or identity. So far we have talked about the parts of identity that come with the body. Then there is identity that is acquired by living: the school you went to, your hobbies, sports, religion, culture, family, friends, social status, race, college, work, city, country, home, or anything that you put the word "my" in front of adds to your identity. So identity comes from a lot of different sources, and "self" is like a drop that lands in still water causing an infinite number of ripples of "self". Does this part of identity affect your image of your "self"? Of course. Gee

Yes, that is a good example. Another might be the discovery of pheromones. Science thought that trees communicated along their root systems because it was obvious that communication happened, and it was not otherwise tracible. In the 1960's we discovered pheromones and realized that trees were communicating through the air, which solved that mystery. But then we learned that all multi-celled species communicate with pheromones (pheromones communicate more than just sex) and there is a whole world of communication that goes on in a forest or any ecosystem. This is probably how an ecosystem stays in balance, or at least it is part of the solution. I don't know why, but most of the people in the science forums have the general idea that philosophy does not observe, or they think that if the observation is done through technology, then it is not relevant to philosophy. This is not true. Without observation, I don't think there would be philosophy, or science. Gee

I think we are both having trouble understanding each other. It may be that I did not recognize your offer of a counter example to my absolute claim, because I did not make an absolute claim -- at least in my mind. There are very few things in reality that are absolute, so I was talking about a general understanding of how things work. If you take a hundred year old science book and a fifty year old science book, and a current science book on the same subject, you will find some differences over time in what science finds to be factual or true. Some subjects will have little or no change, others will have a lot of change. This is usually because the subjects with a lot of change found that false assumptions caused the flawed science, or you could say a false premise caused the flawed science, or you could say the flawed philosophy caused the flawed science. This is what I meant when I stated that without (good) philosophy, the science can turn to crap. It is possible that a scientist's experiment is flawed; it is also possible that the scientist is deceitful in his/her reports, but I find that mostly this is not "necessarily so". Mostly it is a false assumption or bad premise that screws up the science, which means bad or flawed philosophy. I like all of Gershwin's music. Great(er) is a word that is used comparatively. Look at your examples above to see the truth of this, so it is a word that is all about opinion. You are asking for opinions in this thread and then making the assumption that the opinion is in some way relative to the truth or fact of the matter. It is not. Whole threads have been devoted to explaining this, so I doubt that I can explain the difference, but I can tell you that truth is subjective and facts are objective. Cotton wool sandwiches? Are you serious? I don't think that I could eat something like that and hope I never have to. No. I am the one who used the word "dominant" because I see it as a problem in psychology/psychiatry. I see this as a left over problem from the monism v dualism nonsense, which causes science to treat consciousness like a problem that has to be treated with chemicals. Not a problem. I look at things a little differently, probably because of my studies of consciousness. I refuse to accept that the study is about either religion/"God" or about the human brain. But if one eliminates both of those things, what is there to study? How it works -- so that is what I study -- how things work. More facts or truths? Are we counting them? So more is better, or more is greater? Well distance, measure, numbers, and trees are of philosophical interest. I don't know a damned thing about "the production of high quality concrete", so I did not respond. Is there a point that is relative to this thread? Gee

Sorry it took me so long to respond. We had a bad storm and more than 300,000 people were without electricity for about a week. I still have pieces of a hundred year old maple tree strewn across my backyard where the electric company left it after cutting it off the power lines. No. Just what the doctor told me, but I have no reason to doubt him. I do remember that 40 or 50 years ago, Ocean Spray, cranberry juice had a note on its label that it was "partners in a kidney foundation". I always assumed that this was because of the "old wives tale", but that notice was removed a good 30 years ago. I assume that the removal of that notice coincided with the scientific testing that showed that cranberry juice did not fight bladder infections. I have no references and am not even sure if cranberry juice causing bacterial infections to slide off the walls of the bladder is a mechanical or chemical effect. You would need a scientist to figure that out -- I just keep cranberry juice in my cupboard. Generally speaking, I don't agree because physical therapy and surgery would not be part of medical science if mostly the chemical were considered. In my mind, only in psychology and psychiatry is the chemical too dominant in treatments. Not sure why you are referencing this -- the Bible is a history book(s). I have never read any history book that does not contain lies. Do you have a point? Well, whether "Great Britain", "The United Kingdom", or "The sun never sets on the British Empire", I think that it means that England thinks very well of itself. If you think that science fits the description of greater now, then you would have to agree that religion fit that description 1,000 year ago. Is that what you think? Philosophy is the study of knowledge, truth, and wisdom. Science and religion have both created methodologies to find their own knowledge and truths, which would be why they are both children of philosophy. Kind of like a teenager, who thinks he knows more than his parents? Not sure what you want here. Philosophy deals in truths, science deals in facts. Can facts exist without truths? No. Agreed. I did not state that they were doing science, what I stated was that they were working science; maybe I should have said working at science. Just as thinking is not doing philosophy, but it is a start. Gee

You are still misquoting people in order to make yourself look good and make them look bad? I thought you just did that to me. To be fair, I should note that jonnobody did use a complex sentence, so maybe you were just confused. I will underline the main parts of the sentence so that you can follow it. You see that word "haven't"? That means that Dennett did NOT use a spiritual basis. Does that clear things up? Gee Thank you. I have a starting point now. Gee

I did not know that. I have been wondering for some time now if thought is real; I know that emotion is real -- physical -- but was not sure about thought. Can you give me some reference so that I can study this? Well I don't know about the internet, but Jung's collective unconscious could be called a superconscious. Gee The integrated species-consciousness that you are referring to would be called the unconscious in us. Jung studied the collective unconscious and found there is at least one for every species and that it contains an unbelievable amount of information. You can find information on this in Wiki. No we don't have the obvious chemical perception of ants, but if you consider the riot mentality, you will find that chemicals produced through strong emotion causes a herd-like effect on our behavior. This collective unconscious does not really integrate, but instead connects us through bonding and emotion. Yes, trying to digest that much information would make anyone or anything insane. I spoke to a neurologist, who explained that just the information in a person's own unconscious mind would be too much to absorb, so trying to absorb the collective unconscious of a species would be ridiculous. Gee