Gees

Ajb; Please consider my following thoughts: This is not true. If it were true, then there would not be so many people in this thread doubting the paranormal based on "scientific testing". Obviously, a lot of testing has been done. What do you think the "obvious reasons" are? Don't count me as an anti-evolutionist. I rely heavily on the idea of evolution in my studies and suspect that consciousness also evolves. It is the suspicion that consciousness evolves that puts me in direct conflict with the "God" idea, as it seems unlikely that a conscious "God" could exist before advanced consciousness. I don't think so. If there were only one problem, we might be able to solve it, but there are many. First, the paranormal has been linked to religion and witchcraft, so we have to sort through all of the superstitious nonsense that has been added to our understanding of the paranormal through these venues. Second, the paranormal looks like magic, so now we have all of the crackpots, shysters, and frauds that want to believe they are more than they are. Debunking them can be a full-time job. What is left is the actual paranormal. But paranormal activity is not very controllable and rarely repeatable. If you add to this the idea that everyone does not experience it equally, then you find that you have many doubters. So trying to test it is a lot like trying to catch moonbeams in a cup while blindfolded. There is reliable evidence that relates to observation, just not repeat testing. Until we have a better idea of what it is, I suspect that we will not be able to test it well. We need to understand mind, not the brain, but mind, and consciousness. How they work. Don't go all Freudian on me now. Actually psychology is leading the study of the paranormal. They are finding that some of it is imagined, some of it can be explained by deep seated emotion, but some of it is not explainable. Your reaction is exactly what it should be for an intelligent, logical person, who has not experienced the paranormal. But I am an intelligent, logical person, who has experienced some of the paranormal, so I disagree. I suspect that you "imagine" that I can not tell the difference between what I "imagine" and what is real. I am too logical a person to fall into that trap. So is your imagination dictating what is real? And how could you possibly know, if you have not experienced it? Gee Swansont; Thank you. This is the answer that I expected when I asked if life contradicted the laws of physics. As we learn more, it is quite possible that these laws will be adjusted or even new laws made, but it is my thought that they are called LAWS of physics, because they rule. I reviewed the link and it answered all of my questions. It is damned irritating to me when frauds work their magic and call it the paranormal. Gee

Swansont; Sorry!! You said "later" admitted, so I did not think it was part of the link. I will check it out today. Gee

Ajb; Please consider my following thoughts: I hope you are not including me in this statement. I think science is brilliant. What I object to in paranormal testing is what the tests are testing for. I am not a scientist, but I do remember my elementary education. When doing a scientific test, you try to remove any interference that is not what you are testing for, so that you can test for one specific thing. Yes? In paranormal testing, it is assumed that the paranormal is not normal; therefore, not natural, so they remove any possibility of natural influence -- they are testing for magic. Since magic does not actually exist, this testing seems to me to be less than brilliant -- and less than scientific. It is the original premise, or the assumption that the paranormal is not normal or natural, that I take issue with. Philosophy is all about the premise. Although I see your point, I think that you are forgetting something. The paranormal is about mind, so it is about consciousness, so it is about conscious life. We have detected conscious life; we just don't know how it works. Every cell in our bodies is sentient, sentience being a lower form of consciousness. We can manipulate a cell, or clone a cell, or make a cell duplicate itself, but we can not create a cell -- we can not cause life from non-life. We don't understand the mechanism. I don't know anything about "electromagnetic binding atoms together", but every cell in our bodies is aware of the need to maintain itself and is also aware of the need to maintain and support the whole body, so this looks like a kind of binding to me, or at least an awareness of the binding. We also know that bonding outside of the body and between life forms is real. How does it work? Through emotion. Can it affect things that are not alive? Don't know. Most of the paranormal that I have looked into, the mechanism is emotion and/or bonding, and emotion works through the unconscious mind, so it is not very controllable. It is for this reason that I am very skeptical about telekinesis and telepathy, as it is claimed that they work through the self directed rational aspect of mind. On the other hand, there have been monks, who have been able to control parts of their bodies that should be controlled unconsciously, like breathing and heart rate and an indifference to pain. So they are controlling unconscious activity consciously, kind of like "wagging the dog", so it may be possible. Don't really know. Don't know what these are, so I will ask you. Does life contradict any laws of physics? If it does, then it is most likely that the paranormal will also; if it doesn't, then the paranormal most likely will not. Actually we have lots and lots of evidence, but it is all subjective. Consciousness is subjectivity. Are you implying that the human mind is not natural? Swansont; I apologize. Normally I check links and read or view them, but I skipped it this time. Home life was kind of hectic, so I just asked my questions. It won't happen again. Just for the sake of information, did he state how he committed the fraud? It would be nice to know for future reference. Gee

StringJunky; So you are saying that "telekinetic forces" start inside the skull? Do you have proof of this? It amazes me that people are willing to deny the existence of telekinetic forces, while assuming its origin. (chuckle) Clear glass is different. We know that water is necessary to conscious life. We also know that glass, and I suspect plastic, share properties with liquid/water. My studies suggest that although water seems to serve almost as a conduit to conscious life within the body, it has a blocking effect outside of the body. It is for this reason that I doubt any "paranormal" testing that puts glass or plastic between the person being tested and the test. I expect that the glass or plastic would nullify the results and invalidate the test. Ajb; i) Neither did gravity for a very long time, and neither does conscious awareness. ii) This is an assumption since we don't know the mechanism, we don't even know if laws would be broken. But laws of physics have been broken before and will probably be broken again. iii) Why do you think they have been investigating it for 130 years? Most of the paranormal gives us occasional glimpses of what seems to be true, but has never been proven, and we really do not know what it actually is. This makes it a tantalizing idea that we keep returning to. Swansont; You have had some good ideas and advice in this thread, but I have questions regarding the above quote. Are you saying that he could not move the test object when the chips were there, or are you saying that he also moved the chips? If he also moved the chips, it could be possible that he lacked the control to very delicately move one thing without moving another. It would also mean that we are assuming that telekinetics does not also move the air. Lot of assumption to my way of thinking. Gee

Phi for All; Please consider: No. It would only be a strawman fallacy if breastfeeding in public was not also considered to be sexual activity in public. But it is considered to be sexual activity by many people. You don't really think that women have been arrested for feeding their babies in public, do you? Are women arrested for bottle feeding their babies in public? This is about sex. The problem with stating that public sex is wrong, and/or should be banned, is that you have to define what is sex. No one has done that in this thread. So should we say that public sexual intercourse is wrong? Wouldn't that mean that blow jobs are OK? Clinton thought so. Or maybe we could be more specific and say that when people put one of their body parts inside another person, and an exchange of body fluids occurs, in public, then it is wrong. That would take care of sexual intercourse and blow jobs, but it would also include breastfeeding, sucking out the venom of a snake bite, french kissing, and may include organ transplants. Hell. I don't know what your background is, but I retired from law. When people start saying that something is wrong, soon enough a law is passed that supports their belief. Although the intent of that law is important, the letter of the law is the bottom line -- or one could say that the words of the law are the law. As stated in my post #29 above, breastfeeding and sexual intercourse can be described with the same words; and therefore, interpreted as the same kind of act. It is difficult to write a good and fair law. Too many times there are circumstances that were not considered, and the law becomes a corruption of what should be fair, moral, and just. Sex is not immoral. It is not wrong or bad; it is natural, wholesome, good, and ensures life. Should sex be private? Many people think so. But does that mean that if sex is not private, then it turns into something that is wrong? If you are having sex in your bedroom and some child comes and looks into the window, does that turn your activity into something that is wrong? Should there be a law that says that you have to close your curtains? I think there may have been a law like that at one time. There is a difference between private sex and hiding sex. Hiding it implies that it is wrong or bad, so what is a teenager to think when hormones kick in and he wants to do something that is bad? This is how perversions begin. It seems that we have different ideas about the word "considered". My idea of the word, considered, means to read the post, think about it, try to see it from as many perspectives as I can think of, maybe do some research, think about it again, then write my post. You have been at the science forum long enough to know that good logic requires good information. If a person is not knowledgeable enough, they will not understand the logic. So the question is: Is my logic poor, or are you lacking information? I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I simply showed that your words can be interpreted many ways, as you were not clear enough. When people use emotion to decide what is wrong, they often do not consider the full consequence of their words. Gee

Lyudmilascience; Please consider the following: I do not remember ever seeing spiders having sex. One has to wonder if all of those legs are a hindrance or an asset. (chuckle) But I am absolutely certain that I have many times seen spiders crawling across the ceiling of my bedroom, so have spiders seen me having sex? Probably. By your logic, that would make spiders superior to humans. Are you sure about this? Gee Phi for All; Please consider: The following should explain what I find awkward with your thinking. An act where two people expose their skin to each other and fit their bodies together for the purposes of pleasure, satisfaction, bonding, and the promotion of life, and where this act causes an exchange of body fluids is what? Well, most people would call that sex, but it also clearly describes nursing, breast feeding, a baby. So is nursing a baby sexual? It certainly can be described that way. Is it a physical relationship between an adult and a baby/child? Yes. So should it be publicly banned? Many people think so. While doctors, nurses, and hospitals all over the country are trying to get women to start breastfeeding again, legislators all over the country are trying to pass laws to ban public nursing of babies. Women have actually been arrested for feeding their babies, because this natural act embarrassed someone. I wonder if the women also ended up on some sex offenders list because of their lewd behavior. I wonder how many porn stars are on sex offenders lists because of their lewd behavior? Oh! I forgot. Porn stars are not breaking laws, just nursing mothers are breaking laws. And I wonder how the jails manage the women? If the woman is not bonded out within a few hours, her milk is going to start causing her pain because baby is not there to relieve the pressure. Do they take the baby away and feed it a bottle? Leaving mother to be in pain? (Serves her right for being so stupid?) Or do they put the nursing couple in a cell together? That would be alright as long as it's private. Right? We all want to protect our children. But what do we protect them from? Do we hide everything that is natural, wholesome, and good, treating it like it is some kind of perversion, while exposing them to the lewdness of public media? This does not look like a solution to me. Gee Moontanman; I agree. Gee

Lyudmilascience; I don't think that science has an answer to your question, but there are some things that you might want to consider. You talk about this "one person" as if people were static, unchanging. This is not so. You are not the same person that you were five years ago, and you will be different in many ways five years from now. So even if you could find a person who matched you perfectly, would that person match you perfectly in ten years? In twenty years? As we grow, we change physically, mentally, and emotionally. We adapt to the circumstances of our lives, and the "one person" is also adapting to the circumstance of life. If some event in your life causes you to emotionally mature in order to deal with it, babies often bring this about, then will your one person also magically mature just because you did? Not necessarily. This circumstance can often cause people to state that they are "growing apart". I am old and can tell you that over years of marriage, people fall in and out of love more than once. This is caused by the changes. There will be times when the one person is behind you in some aspect of your development, and there will be times when that one person is ahead of you in some aspect of development. It is the commitment of the parties that gets them through these times, while waiting for the perfect match to again match perfectly. So look for what appears to be your perfect match, then work to help that perfect match maintain itself as you both grow. Bonds and love are things that grow, so be a good gardener and care for the relationship. A person who has learned how to be part of a perfect match, will often be able to again build a perfect match if something destroys the first -- such as a premature death. This second match will be different, but not necessarily less perfect. imo Gee

Well, this is an interesting thread! Imatfaal and I do not often agree on anything, but in this case I think the above post makes some good points. We have such a schizophrenic view of sex and sexuality that it is no wonder that many people, and children, are confused. When a new person is born, one of the first questions asked is, "Is it a girl or a boy?" Then we start to coordinate their lives around pink or blue, their toys around dolls or trucks, and we dream of them growing into a beautiful woman or a powerful man. At the same time, we tell them and show them in hundreds of different ways that sex is irrelevant to them. By the time their hormones kick in, they are sure that their parents, and most adults, do not have a clue about sex or sexuality -- and I can not blame them for this very logical conclusion. The following phrase from paragraph "A.", "promoted as highly sexed and highly sexual" is a good example of this warped thinking. I remember having an argument with my, then 12 year old, daughter. She wanted to wear clothing that was totally inappropriate for her age, but I said, "No". She argued that "everyone" wears clothing like that, and Brittney Spears wears clothing like that and things that are even more revealing. I said, "Fine. You can wear clothes like Brittney Spears wears as soon as you can afford to hire the same number of bodyguards that Brittney Spears has to protect her from people who misunderstand." Why did my daughter want to wear that clothing? Because she wanted to learn to become a woman, and we have taught her that looking sexual is being sexual. Since women are kick-boxing, men are looking for their sensitive side, and media is ruling a great deal of our education, we have given the impression that sexuality is sex -- and that it is physical. So it is not surprising to find that many young people are experiencing early sex in order to validate their own sexuality. Fifty years ago, a man validated his maleness by keeping his word and knowing how to work and support a family; now a man validates his maleness by being attractive and having sex. Fifty years ago, a woman validated her femaleness by being generous and kind of heart and by sewing, cooking, and maintaining her family's needs; now she validates her femaleness by being attractive and having sex. Sexuality is not just physical. It is also mental and emotional, and it is more subtle and less obvious than just the physical. As we all know, sexuality is also not as "black and white" as just the physical. When we ban public sex, are we also inadvertently banning sexuality, even as we inadvertently promote sex? When one does not understand the difference between sex and sexuality, this could happen, and the evidence would seem to support this possibility. No. No. You have it backward. It is because we are intelligent and because we believe ourselves "superior" that we have this problem. Many, many years ago, I read a book called Rape of the Ape that clearly explained this problem. I was quite young, maybe late teens, so I don't know if this book can be found now, but it was written about the same time that evolution started to be taught in schools. This book was written from the perspective of an ape and chronicled the changes and edicts that society put on the ape as time advanced. It was written with a great deal of humor and explained "thinkery-fuckery". Basically, if I remember correctly, thinkery-fuckery is where you think about your fucking to the point where you fuck-up your thinking and take the fun out of fucking. (Unless you do it right as Migl noted.) The ape also could not understand why, when he got something stuck in his eye, everyone was concerned and wanted to help, but when he got something stuck in his nose, others seem to take offence. The book was a fun read if you can find it. Gee

Geordief; My understanding of art is that it is an interpretation and expression of feeling and emotion, so it could be said that art gives feeling and emotion form and substance. Since emotion is pretty "undefinable", this idea would also follow with your thinking. If you read your post again, with this idea in mind, I think that you will find that your examples all fit within the parameters of expressing some kind of feeling or emotion. But I had never even considered "artistic action" and find the idea intriguing. Art had to start somewhere. We can all use our actions to display our feelings, whether it is a jump for joy, grovelling, shouting or singing out, or even moaning. But these actions are all short lived. It is possible, maybe probable, that in viewing these actions, other people emulated the action when they had a similar feeling in order to convey that feeling, which over time could evolve into art. Jumping, hopping, and groveling could very well evolve into dance; shouting, grunting, moaning, or even changing the tone of a voice could evolve into singing. If you add rhythm, then the dance could evolve into something that is remembered and repeatable, just as adding words could make a song evolve into something repeatable. I wonder if drawing started out as people trying to coordinate an attack, give direction, or draw a picture of something. Did people long ago notice foot prints in the earth and start thinking about immortality? Or did sculpture start as an attempt to copy something? Who knows? Thank you for thinking of and sharing this idea, but I have no clue as to why it is in speculations. Art is more a philosophy topic than it is a science topic. Gee Acme: Interesting link. Women are often summarily excluded when considering historic "facts"; which of course, has little to do with the facts.

Eldad Eshel; Hi. First I should tell you that I have never studied telekinesis or telepathy and know very little about them, so I do not dispute, nor do I agree with, your original post. But I have studied some of the other things that people call paranormal, and it is the information that I have gleaned from these studies that I think may be relevant to you -- primarily in relation to testing. Also consider that I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher by nature and habit, so my concern is more related to what is true. The truth is that IF the paranormal exists, we have no idea of how it works. So what are we testing for? After reviewing Strange's list, it occurs to me that we are eliminating any possibility of natural involvement, so we are testing for magic. Since we all know that magic does not exist, the people being tested are doomed to fail. Now many people will not agree that we are testing for magic, so I ask that you consider the following: I had the opportunity to speak with a woman who sees auras. She did not really want to talk about it, as she knew that most people would doubt her, but was convinced by a friend to share her experience. She has never charged money for aura reading, does not do it professionally, and sees it as something personal known mostly to her family and intimate friends. After listening to her, I believe that she actually does see auras and is not one of the charlatans, who pretend to see auras. I had the opportunity to talk to her briefly and ask some pointed questions. The following is some of what I learned. She only sees auras in face to face situations and does not see them through any medium; such as, pictures or television. She believes that a claim to see auras through a medium is hokum. She does not see auras through glass, plastic, water, or even sheer material. I forgot to ask her about window screens. She explained that she often wears sun glasses when going out in public for the express purpose of not seeing auras, as she is a strong reader, and the auras popping in and out of focus are very distracting. This information surprised me as I always thought that seeing auras meant that we all glow to one degree or another, rather than auras popping in and out of focus. Not so apparently. She explained that when viewing a crowd, each person that comes into focus brings a focus on their aura, but when her eyes move past that person the aura fades, except for some people whose auras are so strong that she sees the aura before she sees the person. While she tried to explain this, I tried to reconcile this information with anything that I could understand, and eventually realized that she was talking about the way recognition works. Imagine that you are laying in the grass looking up at a tree. If a squirrel was in the tree looking back at you, you would probably not see it initially, but after recognizing the squirrel, it would be easier to find within the leaves. The squirrel would be like the auras coming into focus. On the other hand, if an elephant were in the tree, you would not be able to miss it, and it would be doubtful that you would even know what kind of tree you were looking at. This would be like viewing a very strong aura. So recognition seems to be very much a part of aura reading. So to bring this back to my point. Every test that I have seen that invalidates aura readers put a glass, plastic, or sheer cloth shield between the reader and the target people. If what this aura reader told me is true, then there is no way that any of the aura readers could have seen the auras. It would have been impossible. So what were the testers testing for? Magic? This is why I take most "paranormal" testing with a grain of salt. Unless they can show me that they are testing for something specific, they are usually testing for magic. It puts me very much in mind of the "witch" testing that occurred a few centuries ago. In order to survive the test, one had to be a witch, which carried a death sentence. Or they had to confess to consorting with the Devil, which would sentence them to Hell, and most Christians in that time would rather die than end up in Hell. So if I were in your place, I would go ahead and buy the glass bowl. Then, considering the above information, I would see if the glass bowl nullified the results. After many tests, if it did seem to nullify the results, then I would try to get the wheel spinning, and then get someone or something to set the bowl between me and the wheel to see if it has an effect on the spinning. Of course, you would want to keep meticulous records on the results of your testing. If you found that the bowl affected the results of your tests, then you would be testing whether or not something that is between you and the bowl is blocked by the glass. Putting you and the wheel in separate rooms would be a little bit different. You may be testing for distance, but you also may be testing for obstructions between you and the bowl, so I would do the glass test first. Gee

DevilSolution; Since Ajb got a + vote for acknowledging your excellent point, I thought that you deserved a + vote for making your excellent point. Strange; This is all true. But one must also consider that few people expound upon the wisdom of science, so maybe philosophy has some purpose. Gee

Tar; Please consider: "Talking philosophy with a squid"? Is that what we are talking about? If I remember correctly, you stated that you felt companionship with a tree and talked to trees -- a Chestnut in particular. I picked up on the word companion because it seemed to me to be on topic as companionship requires a connection that is outside of the body, just like consciousness in death would be considered outside of the body. I then set up a scenario where the choice would be isolation or companionship with a squid, and chose the squid because it seemed to be one of the least companionable species that I could think of at the time. The scenario was meant to show that isolation or bonding between life forms is very relevant to life, and that these connections seem to be outside of the body. You stated that a squid is not very intelligent. I disagreed. Now we are talking about "talking philosophy with a squid". If I am following your reasoning here, it seems that you are talking about communicating with other life forms, but that communication is through language. I am also talking about communication with other life forms, but the communication is through feeling. We are aware of other life; we know that isolation from other life can damage us; we know that bonding with other life can make us healthier and happier, but none of this requires language or talking to other life. You are talking about language and the rational mind; I am talking about feeling and the unconscious mind. Hence we are talking past one another. Also consider that you appear to think that trees are more intelligent than squid. I know of no evidence that supports this assumption. "Whether or not he agreed with my ideas, he would still be able to understand my reasoning, so this could work." Please review the bold italicized statement above that was taken from my post. Note that I do not ask for agreement, but only ask for understanding as to my reasoning. If my reasoning is invalid, then that would be worth discussing and considering. I was raised as a Christian and for at least 50 years, I knew that reincarnation was some mystical eastern belief. I would never have even considered the possibility of it, except that my research and studies of consciousness sent me in that direction. The reality is this; one has to either accept science's explanation and ignore anything that does not fit within their parameters of what consciousness is, or one has to accept "God". Neither explanation satisfied my mind. Because I have experienced some of what people call "paranormal", I included these studies in my research. I have found no evidence to support the idea that reincarnation can not happen, only religious belief that it does not happen, but have found at least some evidence that it does happen. Anyone who was raised Christian and did not have my experiences or do the same research would believe that reincarnation is not possible. That does not mean that it is not possible. I did not suggest that reincarnation is indicated by Freudian psychology. That is an unbelievable corruption of my words. Psychology indicates reincarnation as much as the road in front of my house indicates that I am at the grocery store. I am not. Actually, I am housebound, but if I wanted to get to the grocery store, I would probably make use of the road. I am talking about paths; you are talking about destinations. I am talking about logic and reasoning; you are talking about conclusions and theories. Hence, again, we are talking past each other. It would be a little difficult to agree on conclusions while talking about different things. Magic is for children and the incredibly ignorant. Why do you bring it up? Have you ever heard of Thales? He was a philosopher thousands of years ago, and he was fascinated with magnets. Why do you think that was? Did he think that maybe magnets were magic? I suppose that a lot of people in his time would have thought they were magic -- they look like magic. But if you know anything at all about Thales, you know that he was fascinated with how things work -- what causes the effect -- how things happen. So when he looked at magnets, he knew that something caused the attraction and repulsion that makes a rock into a magnet -- something caused the force that was between them. In his time, he could not know what that cause was; hence, the life long fascination. Like Thales, I like to understand how things work. I do not believe in magic, so when I study consciousness, I am trying to discover how it works -- the cause and effect of it. I'll say it again real slow. I want to learn how consciousness awareness emotion bonding and mind actually work. This is a little too fanciful for me, but I wish you well in your infinity. Gee

Tar; We have worked in a thread together that ended up being over 15 pages, yet in all that time, we never had a "meeting of the minds". After reviewing your last post, it occurs to me that, again, we are talking past one another, and I begin to doubt my ability to convey my meaning to you. If I remember correctly, you told me that your Father was trained in analytic psychology, and maybe worked in that field. So it is my thought that if I explained my ideas in a way that an analyst could understand, and you showed it to him, maybe he could explain what I can not. Whether or not he agreed with my ideas, he would still be able to understand my reasoning, so this could work. Maybe. Please consider: The rational aspect of mind, the Ego, is the part that we call our mind and the part that is directed by us. This is where we think our thoughts, plan our days, and direct our activities. This aspect of mind accepts information from our five senses, interprets, organizes, and processes this information, while relegating unneeded information to the unconscious aspect of mind. The primary purpose of this aspect of mind is to help us navigate physical reality. Most people think of their minds as being one whole thing, and they think that this one whole thing is the rational aspect of mind -- that this is their "self". Kind of like, "God" drops in a soul/mind when we are born, or conceived, and removes it when we die, but this idea is not supported in evidence. Although it feels like the rational aspect of mind is the "self", we do not even fully develop a rational aspect of mind until we are seven years old. Anyone who has worked with children knows that they have a very clear idea of "self" way before seven years old, so the rational mind can not be the "self". I believe that Dr. Blanco found five distinct layers in the unconscious mind, and I don't even know if that included what is known as the Id -- the instinctive aspect of mind. So mind does not possess the wholeness that it feels like it possesses. Although the rational and unconscious aspects of mind are clearly distinct from one another, they trade information back and forth, so the unconscious aspect of mind holds our experiences, memories, habits, and a great deal more. This may be why it is called the Super Ego, as it has information that the Ego has, but it also holds information that the Ego does not have access to. The unconscious aspect of mind is not rational and works primarily through emotion and feeling. The only things that I know about the workings of the unconscious mind are that it understands more and less, it recognizes difference and sameness, it recognizes self and other, and it organizes information through relationships. It was Dr. Blanco, who first realized that there is a logic in the unconscious aspect of mind; all you have to do is eliminate time to find the logic. Example: If Mary is Ruth's mother, then Ruth is Mary's mother. Of course, the previous statement is ridiculous and impossible, as they can not possibly be each other's mother -- time would not allow it. But if you remove the idea of time, then what is left is the relationship, so "mother" is the relationship between Mary and Ruth. As I stated before, the unconscious mind "thinks" about things in relation to other things, not in relation to time. So if we think about the prior information and apply it to death, what do we find? The first thing we find is that the rational aspect of mind could serve no purpose after death. It no longer has senses to give it information and does not need to navigate physical reality. It would be unnecessary, superfluous, and useless, so it is unlikely that it would follow us in death. If we no longer have the rational aspect of mind, doesn't that mean that we would not be aware or conscious of our death? Quite possibly; it might be like a nice long sleep, but I can not give assurances. So does that mean that the "self" would die? Not necessarily since the rational aspect of mind is not the "self". There is nothing about life that suggests beginnings and endings; it all suggests cycles, so it would be an assumption to guess that consciousness does not also cycle. We actually have to kill and eat conscious life in order to maintain conscious life, so although one could look at eating as an ending for one life, it is also a cycle of life maintaining life. So if any part of mind exists after death, it would be some level, or levels, of the unconscious mind. This is why I study emotion because the unconscious works through emotion, and emotion works between things. It has not escaped my notice that emotion works between things and the unconscious "thinks" by noting relationships -- so they work very similarly, and both respond strongly to bonding. Bonding is something that we know very little about. In studies of reincarnation, it is interesting to note that the few things that are remembered all relate to bonding and the unconscious aspect of mind. The few people who remember mostly remember their names, their families, and their homes, but also retain their likes and dislikes and their habits, which is unusual. A person who smokes too much and hates green beans, may reincarnate to be a person who loves the smell of smoke and hates the smell of green beans cooking. So we should all be careful with our vices, as they may kick us in the butt in another lifetime. It is my opinion that when people experience the paranormal, what is really happening is that the rational aspect of mind is getting a glimpse of something that is normally reserved for the unconscious aspect of mind. The paranormal works through emotion, and I know that it is real because I have experienced it. Mind is very much under the influence of emotion, and there is evidence that strong emotion can set or change the parameters of mind. So I suspect that emotion can distort the boundaries of the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind, either temporarily or permanently. Also consider that "God" could be called the President of the Paranormal Club. Religions study the paranormal and emotion. Although some would dispute it, the reality is that some very great minds have studied religion, and they have come to the conclusion that it is what you believe, rather than what you think, that will guide you after death. If the unconscious aspect of mind is all that follows after death, then this would be very good advice, as what you believe is based in emotion. What you think would be as irrelevant as the rational aspect of mind -- after death. So are the possibilities infinite? Probably not, but there are a lot more than I would like to have to count. Squid are actually rather intelligent, and some species actually hunt in packs, so they communicate and work together. This is language. It is only your assumption that they can not share their experiences with each other. Gee To the click-it club: If you don't like something that I said, then have the balls to make a response. The only thing that I will learn from a down vote, is that you are too inarticulate to state your ideas, or too cowardly to put them up for criticism. This is philosophy, not a sporting event.

Tar; Please consider: Agreed. But it is an assumption to think that mind, consciousness, and brain are the same thing. The only evidence that mind and consciousness are in the brain, is the same evidence that could be used to prove that everyone that I talk to on my cell phone is actually inside my cell phone. Since we are pretty sure that these people are not in my cell phone, it is difficult for me to accept this evidence as conclusive. It is also an assumption to think that thought is consciousness. We can not think ourselves aware; if we could then computers would be conscious. Since all things that are conscious have a sense of self and survival instincts, if computers were conscious, then they would be trying to take over the world. We would be living in one of those bad horror flicks. I was talking about mind and consciousness; you were talking about brain and thought; the assumption was that we were talking about the same thing. I have no idea what you are talking about here. The idea seems silly. Let's forget about the talking to and language ideas and just think about the "companions" idea. Can a person be companions with a coffee cup? Not unless they are insane or maybe very young. We can only feel companionship with something that is alive. Why is that? Before you give a flippant answer, actually consider this idea. If you and a squid were the only life forms left on this planet, that squid would become very important to you. You could kill it and eat it so that you would survive a while longer, but then you would be alone. It would be a struggle for you to decide on either isolation or hunger -- neither being preferable. What is it that other life offers us that is so very important? How does this exchange of feeling work? See my answer to Phi for All below. Oh. My apologies. I do not like to give false information, so since this is a Science center and you are a scientist, please teach me. Which life forms or species are not sentient? And how do we know they are alive if they are not sentient? Are you saying that daffodils have brains like we do, so they would also have minds and thoughts? Thank you in advance for the information. Give me another day or so to gather some information. In the meantime, please provide references to any valid research on "invisible pink unicorns". It is not so baffling if you understand it. There is a two-fold problem that generally prevents productive discussion. The first part of the problem is in the definition of evidence. Science has their own definition, which generally means peer reviewed, published, evidence that can be tested through the scientific method. Evidence can also be testimony, experience, and observation, which would not necessarily comply with the rigid requirements of science -- but is still evidence. The second part of the problem is obvious to anyone who looks at it. Science studies objectivity; consciousness IS subjectivity. There is no subjectivity without consciousness; there is no consciousness without subjectivity -- as far as we know. So when science tries to study consciousness, they are actually trying to study subjectivity objectively -- which can quickly become ridiculous, as it is unreasonable to expect subjectivity to bind itself to the rules of objectivity. This is why philosophy studies consciousness, because philosophy studies the objective and the subjective. But philosophy has been wasting its time on the Monism v Dualism debate for more than a thousand years. This debate argues science's opinion that consciousness comes from matter, the brain, against religion's opinion that consciousness comes from "God". For myself, I have come to the conclusion that both, science and religion, are partially right and partially wrong. Mostly because of the advances in science, we now understand reality a lot better than we did before, so if we throw out the old "brain", "God", and "thought" ideas about consciousness, I think that we finally may be able to understand what consciousness really is and how it works. Gee

Tars; Please consider: I have no idea what you are talking about here. Are you assuming that without a brain nothing can be known? That would be an assumption, if that is your thinking. Assumption is not philosophy. I suspect that you are overthinking this. Consider that my table is not aware of anything, or if it is, it shows no indication of awareness. But when it was still a tree, it was aware of the need to seek out water with its roots, and it was aware of the need to turn its leaves to the sun, and it was aware of pests and disease, so it would send out pheromones to warn others of its kind of possible infestations. Trees are aware of what their shape should be, so if they start life halfway under a piece of concrete that causes them to grow crooked, they will try to straighten themselves through growth to produce the correct form. If they are damaged, or the ground at their roots erodes, trees will grow in a direction to try to compensate for the poor balance in order to preserve their lives. This is simple awareness and has nothing to do with "what we have to say about it" and probably has nothing to do with thought -- but it does show knowledge. I do not doubt that emotion and chemistry are intimately connected, and you have never heard me say otherwise. But we all know that chemistry affects emotion and emotion affects chemistry. What I find amusing is that people will admit that chemistry affects emotion, but try to pretend that it does not also go the other way. When people are far enough apart that their five senses can not communicate, what is it that keeps their bond connected? Why is it that breaking a bond with an infant in an orphanage can cause the infant's death? Something causes bonds and that something has to do with emotion. You can say that this is just a product of the brain, but that, again, is an assumption. Well, you could always try Google. The University of Virginia has information, and I think that a University in Phoenix studies some of the paranormal. There are lots of investigations by reputable sources worldwide. Gee

Thorham; Please consider: We are all in love with our "brains", but the idea that the brain produces awareness simply does not hold water. I must have explained this a hundred times, and no one has been able to dispute it: All life is sentient, which means that all life is aware, but all life does not have a brain. These are FACTS. All life has survival instincts, which is why viruses do not qualify as life, because they do not have survival instincts. Survival instincts are activated by feeling/emotion. So all life reacts to feeling and emotion. All life does not have a brain. These are FACTS. A lot of philosophers have studied this for a very long time, and there are two possibilities. Either awareness, feeling, and emotion do not come from the brain, or they do come from the brain, and our brains are responsible for all awareness, feeling, and emotion in all life -- or we thought life up. Many philosophers have come to the conclusion that life is not real, that it is only an imaginary reality produced by our brains. The problem with this idea is that it makes evolution a very long and old dream, produced by beings that apparently did not evolve to human form -- or we are "Gods" that created this reality. When you follow the path that attributes life to our brains, you can find these ideas all over philosophy forums and in book stores. I have been studying consciousness for decades, and rather than follow the path described above, I simply noted that there really is no evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain. When neurology talks about consciousness, what they are talking about is our ability to know that we are conscious, or what philosophy calls being "aware that we are aware". I am not disputing the fact that the brain processes consciousness and adds layers to our consciousness, I am only saying that it does not produce consciousness, as that is still an unknown. The confusion of neurology's definition of consciousness, and philosophy's definition of consciousness, awareness, is a confusion of terms and ignorance of the subject. So if I throw out science's brain ideas for lack of evidence, and I throw out religion's "God" ideas for lack of evidence, what is left? The only thing that I could find to study is how consciousness works. This led to the understanding that thought is internal, but awareness and emotion are both external -- in the way they work. Bonding is controlled by emotion and also works between lives, and mind is very much controlled and regulated by emotion, so this puts awareness, emotion, bonding, and mind all under the control of emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind. None of this precludes these from being physical, until one learns about the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious mind does not even acknowledge the existence of time, and works as though all times and now are the same thing. This is why a childhood trauma can affect a person's whole life, because the unconscious, ruled by emotion, sees all past events, now, and all future events as being the same. So a danger that is past, appears to be imminent now, and the past memory can be triggered by the most inconsequential things. After learning about the unconscious mind, I went back to study the paranormal and realized that it also was ruled by emotion and awareness, and it also had a discernible lack of regulation with regard to time. This was when I decided that there is a good possibility that awareness, emotion, bonding, and at least some aspects of mind, may not be constrained by time. Gee

Elizsia; Please consider: Although it is true that having authority can give the illusion of intelligence, these concepts are not really connected. Having authority means having rights. Having rights means that a person also has responsibilities. So having authority "does not mean all your choices are correct", but it does mean that you alone are responsible for the results of your decision. Or it means that "the buck stops here". Gee

Strange; Please consider my following thoughts: The above quote was in response to Thorham's post, which suggested that there may be more than just the physical realm. I disagree with your response. I think that there is a good deal of evidence. Consider that mind, awareness, emotion, and bonding have no physical presence that can be measured, weighed, or even directly observed. We can not even prove that they exist, but we are sure that they are real. We only know about them because we can observe their effects on other physical things. Now it can be argued that in order to have an effect on physical things, they must be physical in some way, and I agree. The problem seems to be in the definition of physical. Last I understood, physical was still locked into time and space. Most of the paranormal works through emotion and awareness, with a little bonding on the side, but does not have much regard for time and space, such as with premonitions. Now if you don't like thinking about the paranormal, you can go directly to psychology. Psychology tells us that the unconscious aspect of mind has absolutely no regard for, or understanding of, time and space. Emotion and awareness work through the unconscious aspect of mind, so this, and the way they work, would seem to preclude them from being physical. Just as we changed the definition of physical, when we decided that it was more than just material, we will have to change the definition of physical to include things that have no regard for time and space. In the meantime, I see no reason to object to the term "realm" as there really is no good term to describe things that ignore time and space -- unless you want to use the word "mystical". And yet, in the quote below from the Charity thread, you remembered that this is the Philosophy forum. One of these days you are going to have to explain to me exactly what you think the difference is between philosophy and science, because you appear to be inconsistent and a little confused. Gee

Phi for All; Up vote for the recognition of a philosophy topic, but the chuckle was also good. Ganz; Please consider my following thoughts: Now that this thread is in the philosophy forum, there are a few things that need to be considered, the first of which is, "What is real?" Whether or not "infinity" is real, one has to wonder if everything that "exists" is real. My imagination exists so it is real? Then what I imagine is also real? Or not? Ideas, concepts, and thoughts exist, so are they real? There are philosophers who have come to the conclusion that only thoughts are real; that everything else, like matter and forces, are a product of thought. There are religions that seem to follow this line of thinking and see thought or "God" as the reality, but I have problems with this thinking. The biggest problems that I have regard perspective and focus. If thought is the only thing that really exists, then what differentiates my perspective from yours? Why can I focus and understand things from my perspective, but not from yours? Why can I not know your thoughts, nor you know mine? There has to be something else that regulates these seemingly independent perspectives. Now "sentience" is real. We know this because we use sentience to judge whether or not something is alive. The question is; When something dies, does the sentience cease to exist, or does it just cease to be apparent? Science says that it ceases to exist; religion says that it leaves the body, goes back to "God", returns to oblivion, or maybe reincarnates. There seems to be evidence that could support each of these ideas, and a growing body of evidence for reincarnation, so this is very much of interest in philosophy. For myself, I do not equate consciousness with thought. Consciousness is actually awareness, not thought, and although thought is how we measure consciousness, that does not mean that it is consciousness. It is interesting to note that awareness works very much like emotion, in that we know about it internally, but it actually does its work externally and between things. We have the central nervous system to tell us what is going on internally, and awareness and emotion to tell us what is going on externally, with both feeding information into the brain. When we die, there is no longer a brain to receive information, no longer a central nervous system to give information, and no longer a rational aspect of mind to sort through the information and turn it into conscious thought. But does that mean there is no longer awareness, emotion, or the unconscious aspect of mind? Not so sure on that. Until we are clear on which aspects of mind constitute the "self", it would be difficult to say. It is interesting to note that bonding and emotional attachments are some of the things that are most strongly noted in studies of reincarnation. Bonding works through emotion and emotion works very much like awareness. Emotion and awareness both work through the unconscious aspect of mind; focus and perspective work through the rational aspect of mind. Also consider that religions study spirituality -- which means that they study emotion. So I think that it is quite possible that awareness and/or emotion can exist after death. For how long and in what manner, I could not say, but I suspect that the reality is much more complex than most people even imagine. Until we understand awareness, emotion, mind, and especially bonding, we won't know. imo Gee

Strange; I know, which is why I felt the need to point out what it looked like. As usual, you are so busy nitpicking at the definition of a word, that you have completely missed the point of his post. Do you see anywhere in his post where he compares poor people with rich people? Do you suppose that he suspects that the "dopamine reward system" in rich people is better or more profound than it is in poor people? Or do you suspect that he threw in that stuff about dopamine just to confuse us? Above is Petrushka's OP, which is made up of two questions. The last time I checked, questions were possibilities, or . . . . . . questions, but not conclusions. Conclusions are usually statements. So I am having trouble identifying the "ludicrous" conclusions in his questions, but have no problem identifying the ludicrous conclusions in your statements. Maybe you could give me an assist here? Well I know you are wrong. "No true Scotsman" is about the ideal Scotsman; it is idealism. When you doubt "any examples of 'altruism' will be claimed to be not 'true altruism'", what you are doing is expecting me to argue against it because of my position set in idealism -- which would be why you brought up the "no true Scotsman" nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have it exactly backward. I am not an idealist, Strange. My philosophy runs to analysis, not idealism. You should know this by now. So I think that if a man was born in Scotland and has citizenship, he is a true Scotsman, unless some evidence proves otherwise. An analysis of the "self" and extended self, along with various motivations, and chemical reactions in the brain like dopamine, would have to be studied in order to see if an act was truly altruism. This is a much more complex issue than you would like to assume. Gee iNow; I did not get to read your response before posting and found it to be on point and enlightening. But it deals primarily with charity. In keeping with the OP ideas about wealthy philanthropists, I think it would be good to add that being in a position to guide and structure a society/nation has to be very stimulating. Wealthy people can be in a position to support and guide some activities while discouraging others by simply giving or withholding monies. Like kings, they can often choose the direction that their society will move into or away from, which has to be a very big power trip. Some would say that because they have the right to do this, they also have a responsibility to do it well. Is this altruistic? Gee

My, but don't we just love to hate the rich people. Strange and Delta have done a good job of implying that charity is not really charity unless sacrifice is also part of the giving. There is just a little too much of that self-sacrificing Christian attitude in their posts for my taste. If my belly is empty, does it really matter if a millionaire fills it or if a bum off the streets shares his meal and fills my belly? Either way, I got fed and will live another day. There is the thinking that if millionaires did not hoard all of the money, then everyone would be fine -- but that is nonsense. I remember the argument where the poor man told the rich man that if the rich man would only share his money, everyone would be fine. The rich man responded that if he gave ten dollars to every poor man, by the end of the week there would be one more poor man -- himself. A rich man must be able to hold onto his money, protect it from those who would steal it, and spread enough of it around to promote growth -- this is where the philanthropy comes in. Not an easy job. Consider that in the above quote, the "emergency relief" was for their "twin town". (Italics and bold are mine.) Is giving to your "twin town" a lot like giving to your own town? There is a definite self identify here, so I am not so sure that this could be called altruistic, as I suspect that these people would expect their "twin town" to do the same for them if the situation were reversed. Ten Oz has a point; does altruism really exist? I suspect not. Gee

TheGeckomancer; You have received some very good responses in this thread, but they do not seem to be resonating with your thinking. What if we try a different approach? I tend to analyze things, so consider the following: Having raised and worked with a lot of kids and teenagers, teenagers being perpetually bored, I have had considerable reason to analyze boredom. What I found at the root of boredom was, "I want to be, but can't.", "I want to do, but can't.", "I want to go, but can't.", etc. No matter what the supposed cause was for the boredom, the common factor was always "I". So the solution was to get them thinking about someone else's feelings, wants, or needs. It was not always easy, but it was always successful in dissolving the boredom. After reviewing your posts, it is clear that you have a problem connecting to other people's feelings, wants, and needs, so it is not surprising that you constantly deal with boredom. Connecting to other people, or even other life, on an intimate level requires emotion. When you looked into Buddhism and Stoicism, you were probably trying to find answers to your problems, but these disciplines work specifically to control, limit, regulate, or stifle emotion. So instead of find a solution to your problem, you were actually finding a justification of your problem. It does not surprise me to learn that you broke with your prior religion. Religion is the discipline that studies emotion; and although some religions regulate emotion, other religions celebrate emotion. So the problem with boredom is a problem with emotion. Are purpose and meaning also related to emotion? Yes. A rock has no purpose that it knows of, it has no meaning that it knows of -- a rock has no feeling or emotion -- only sentient beings can experience purpose and meaning, because only sentient beings have feelings and emotions. We are a social specie and require an emotional connection to other life in order to experience contentment and happiness. Consider that even zoos have learned that social species need to have an environment that acquiesces to their social needs, or we end up with depressed, neurotic, and unstable animals. We know that emotion works through chemistry in the brain, so it is possible that medicine can provide you with a solution, but it is also possible that this is a mind set that you have acquired and reinforced through misguided thinking. Whatever the cause, the reality is that you are going to be bored and find little meaning in life unless you can learn to connect to other life in an intimate way. What about a cute little puppy? I wish you luck in your endeavors to resolve this problem. Gee

Studiot; Thank you. Although this is the Philosophy forum, it is not often that a well reasoned argument is acknowledged. As to the self analysis, that is the easy part. Like most people, there is a great deal that I know, and there is a great deal that I am clueless about, but the wide gap in between is the part that proves interesting and provides the most fun. So a Venn diagram's primary purpose is to show the relationship between two or more things as to their entanglement. (Not quantum entanglement, just entanglement.) I could draw three Venn diagrams: The first would be two circles that are separated, and I could name them "boy" and "girl". Then I could draw the same circles overlapping and name the diagram "marriage". Then I could draw the same circles almost eclipsing each other and name the diagram "50th Anniversary". Yes? If this is essentially correct, you do not have to answer. So you are saying that I over thought it. A common occurrence for me. I would like to say that I will curb the impulse to over think things, but I would be lying. My mind is my favorite playground, so maybe people will just be patient with me. Thanks again. Gee

Studiot; Please consider my following thoughts: When I was proofing that post, I realized that I should have stated "some" of the posters or "many" posters, but was not sure which word was correct. I remembered that YodaP's post was not in conflict with my thoughts, so I intended to go back over the thread to review, then rewrite my opening sentences, but I got distracted and forgot. So I will accept your little scold. But I do not think that what I articulated was the same as what I read in your Venn diagram. Now I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of math is very elementary, and I know of no significant difference between a "Venn" diagram and a regular diagram. To me, a diagram is simply a picture of a concept. So when I looked at your diagram, what I saw was a large section of Philosophy, over 50 %, that had nothing to do with logic -- a frightening prospect. Then I noted a large section of Science, over 50 %, that had nothing to do with logic -- a terrifying prospect. Then I saw a large section of Logic, over 50 %, that related only to logic -- which seems impossible, as logic relates to other things. Maybe I do not understand your diagram, in which case, I hope that you will educate me. If I were to diagram these concepts, I would start with a large circle, maybe 4 inches across, and name it Philosophy, because all knowledge starts with philosophy. Then I would put a smaller circle, almost 1/2 the size in the middle of the large circle and name it Science. The science circle would be smaller because it limits itself to the objective and does not deal with theology/religion, leaving a lot of study open to other disciplines. This circle would be centered in the middle of Philosophy because science has become the heart of philosophy. I would not make a separate circle for Logic, but would instead choose a color -- say, blue. Then I would color in all of Philosophy and Science with a light blue, except for maybe a centimeter around the edge of Philosophy, and add a concentrated blue about the size of a dime within Science to represent Logic in Maths, and add a concentrated blue about the size of a dime within Philosophy to represent Formal Logic. It seems that we do not agree on boundaries. I agree that Philosophy does not deal with the numbers, but we have our own way of dealing with probability -- we call it wisdom. Although probabilities and numbers are very useful on an objective level to businesses, governments, and policy makers, knowing the probabilities are not always useful to a person on a subjective level. Wisdom is very useful. Gee

Please consider: For a long time I thought that if a thing existed, it was real, and that if something was real, it existed. But in the last few years, I have begun to separate these ideas. At this time, my definition of real is something that can cause an effect. So I think that matter is real, forces are real, and emotion is real, but I am not so sure that thought is real. I have not yet worked out how thought and emotion interrelate. If we consider that matter is not actually solid, that it is motion at the lower levels, what we find, by my understanding, is that matter, forces, and emotion are all based in motion. Motion is what causes effects, so motion is what is real. imo You science guys can beat this idea up -- but be kind. I agree with you. When I apply my reasoning to this issue, this is what I get; a donut has a hole -- both the donut and the hole exist. Can a hole cause a donut to exist? Not that I can see. Can a donut cause a hole to exist. Yes. So the donut is real, but the hole is not because it has no causation. Why did I add emotion to my list above? Because emotion makes a big difference; consider: If I drop a hammer on my toe, I will have no doubt that the hammer is real because of the effect on my toe. But if I imagine dropping a hammer on my toe, it will have no effect, because imagination is not real. On the other hand, if I believe that the imaginary hammer is real, then I will react or jump out of the way, so there will be an effect. Belief is thought backed by emotion, so the emotion makes it real -- even if that "real" is only temporary, until I realize that it was an imaginary hammer. So to bring this idea back to the original topic: Was Jesus real? As a historic figure, Jesus of Nazareth? Possibly. As a symbolic figure taken to be a God? Yes. I went back to the original thread and watched the hour long video that started all of this drama. What I found there was a history of "Gods" that followed humanity's thinking through many centuries, nations, and societies, and culminated with the Biblical Christ. So are "Gods" real? That depends on your definition of real. By my definition, emotion is real. But emotion is not and can not be known in a rational way. Emotion does not come to us through our five senses as facts do; emotion is interpreted and comes to us through the unconscious aspect of mind. So emotion is always interpreted, and it is my opinion that knowledge of "Gods" starts with emotion, which would make "Gods" just as real as poetry and art -- which are also interpreted emotion. If we are going to use cause and effect as a measure of what is real, then history is saturated with the reality of "Gods". But do "Gods" exist? Not that I have ever noticed. Ophiolite; Thank you for thinking of and posting this. I enjoyed this little brain teaser. Gee