Gees

Debrule 1: You have considered some interesting ideas, but I doubt that you will get much discussion on them here. Your idea of relating consciousness to computers and the internet is very much like Daniel Dennet's explanation in his book, Consciousness Explained. I have not read Dennet's book, but you might find it interesting, and it may even answer some of your questions. Philosophers have long studied the concept of consciousness, and tried to determine if it comes to us or from us and whether or not it is universal. But there are very few people here, at this forum, who understand philosophy, so you will not get your discussion here. If you send me a PM, I will be happy to recommend some Philosophy forums that may better suit your purposes. Regarding the supernatural; religion picks and chooses which "supernatural" that it wants to recognize, modern philosophy seems to be scared of it, and science won't even acknowledge it, so be careful to not fling this word around. (chuckle) G

Kristalris; Per the underlined above, who or what dictates which data is "relevant"? Because if you choose which data is relevant, then it is your opinion/judgment of that data that causes a circular and self-supporting evidence. Would that be imagination? Or would that be reality? G

Hello Everyone; While reviewing this thread, I came across the statement, "Well, we agree that the OP is not true." in Kristalris's last post to me, so I thought that I should clarify my position. I have no idea if YodaP's proofs of the statement, "If I can imagine it; it is possible", are accurate or not, because I do not know enough about math to evaluate the proofs. But I am in full agreement that the statement is nonsense. I have no doubt that a person can find truth using math, if they know what they are doing; on the other hand, I don't use math, because I do not understand it, so I often use emotion to find truth. Why? Because emotion is inherently honest--it does not know how to lie. So this is how I would consider the problem: You are reading a newspaper and come across an article about a man, who got high on drugs, imagined that he could fly, and jumped out of a third story window to his death. Would you think to yourself, "It is a shame that he tried that on a Tuesday, because any other day it is possible that it would have worked." or " What a waste. The man was an idiot." Better yet, we will say that the person, who imagines he can fly out the window is someone that you love or care deeply about. Would you think, "Gosh, I hope this works for him because he has always wanted to fly." or would you jump forward, grab the man and wrestle him to the ground to prevent his death? If you chose the first sentence in either or these scenarios, you are lying. We can pretend to believe anything that we can imagine, but once emotion is involved, the pretense falls away. If we consider people who are suffering from illness, people who have survived death camps, and people who lay for days on a battlefield praying for death, it is pretty clear that "If I can imagine it; it is possible" is just not true. Imagination has no causal effect on possibility. Since we have already ruled out Solipsism, the only possible argument that can be made is that imagination exists and possibility exists, and that they can happen together. Here is the problem with this argument. Per Wiki: "Superstition is a belief, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that future events may be influenced by one's behaviour [imagination] in some magical or mystical way." It is an argument for superstition. That is what superstition is, the idea that something can be imagined and possible with no causal relationship. The rational mind has an amazing ability to corrupt itself, as is evidenced by our history, and when one bases their considerations on imagination, then the possibilities for corruption are endless. But this is not truth--not reality. I am not sure why, but I have noted that when some people turn on their computers, log onto SFN and scroll to the Philosophy Forums, they seem to think that reality jumps on the back of a Pooka and takes a midnight ride. (chuckle) Not so. Reality is still here. While reading this thread, I came across a statement that explained that science starts out with imagination and a guess, which develops into hypothesis, testing, theory, and proofs. I have read this before, in this forum. I believe that someone was quoting Feynman, who was purported to state, "First you guess." When I read that, I was sure that it had to be a misquote, or out of context, because Feynman was a very smart man. But it is possible that science has moved so far from philosophy that it has forgotten it's roots and really believes that imagination and guessing is how truth is discovered. This might explain threads like this one, and the silly ideas that come from using imagination and guessing as a starting point for scientific exploration. To be honest, I suspect that using guesses to start scientific studies would cause one to run out of funding before they got anywhere. So I am going to share my layman's self-proclaimed version of how studies start with regard to philosophy. (chuckle) First, you observe or experience something. Then you must go through the very tedious process of stripping that something of your beliefs, projections, and perspective. This is a very important step, because if you can not accomplish this, then what you are studying is yourself, your beliefs, your projections, and your perspective, so you are not studying the actual "something". If you manage to strip away all or at least most of your biases, then you can start to analyze this "something" as you now can know the truth of it; what it is, in and of itself. As you analyze and study it, you will have questions like, "What is it? Why is it? How does it work?" At this point your imagination can come into play while attempting to answer these questions, so this is the guessing part. Imagination can work here because the parameters of imagination are limited by the truth that you have uncovered of the "something" that you are studying. Then you form a hypothesis and pass it off to science, so that science can test and prove it. Science will prove the hypothesis false and call you an idiot, or prove it true and claim the credit. Either way, philosophy rarely gets the credit. So if science forgets philosophy's truths, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. If philosophy forgets science's proofs, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. They are a team that works hand in hand. imo Maybe this will help someone to understand the imagination problem. Unlimited imagination belongs in Hollywood. imo G

Kristalris; After reviewing your last post, I had a lot to think about. Most of the problems with your argument are not due to bad reasoning; they are due to misinformation. This is a commmon problem in the Philosophy forums, and not your doing, as this misinformation is perpetuated by the current attitude toward philosophy. I am probably not the best person to explain this to you, but you deserve a reasoned explanation rather than ridicule or condescention, and I don't see a lot of philosophers cueing up for the job. My knowledge of philosophy has been gained informally, so you will have to accept my layman's simplified version. It is my hope that I can explain this problem without offending you or the scientists, so please consider: I think this is the crux of the problem. Philosophy has never been under scientific rules, science has always been under philosophic rules. You may have heard the statement that, "Science is a child of philosophy."? But you have never heard that philosophy is a child of science, which is because science got it's rules from philosophy. Although science and philosophy share a common root, they are very different disciplines, and this difference is what is not well understood. Consider that philosophy started out as a discipline that studied what is real and true, then early on philosophy found that some things that are real and true are "fixed", others are not. These "fixed" truths are true to all people no matter the perspective and no matter the time; such as, a book which is a "fixed" truth. A book will remain a book from one day to the next no matter how many people look at it, it will still be a book and will still be in the same place unless some cause moves or changes it. As more and more was discovered about "fixed" truths, an entire discipline evolved to study these "fixed" truths. That discipline is science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts. Science studies the facts of reality. Philosophy continued to study truths that are not "fixed" and the unknown. A truth that is not "fixed", is a truth that is relative to perspective and/or time, as time can change truth and each different perspective can have it's own truth. The unknown is extremely difficult to study because it is just too easy to imagine what we wish the "unknown" to be and rationalize our imaginations into supposed truth. So the discipline of philosophy must adhere to much more strident rules, that science does not have to deal with. Philosophy studies the truth of reality. Although the study of probabilities is based in science, math and fact, the results of the calculations are probable--not truth. Probabilities study predictability for purposes of decision making, control, and power as regards the unknown. This is not a study of reality or truth. This may well be true, but it is also true that one can always find a solution to a problem while considering only one assumption. That assumption is that the problem fits the solution. (chuckle) Philosophers are sticklers about reality and truth, so we like the solution to fit the problem, which can sometimes complicate things, but we really do like truth, so we put up with the complications. I retired from law and would like to discuss this, but it would take us off topic. So another time. Probability does not equal truth, at most it equals "close to truth--probably". So no it does not answer my question on "if". Bayes theorem is also not fact, it is theory. Truth can be based on fact, but it can not be based on probability, and can only be considered on theory. Here you are mixing science and philosophy again. Mathmatics is a study of facts that can find more facts, but that does not mean that these facts will find a larger and unknown truth. And there is no such thing as "absolute truth". It does not exist. In order for a truth to be "absolute", it would have to be true in all times from all perspectives, so it would be a "fixed" truth, which means that it would be a fact. Try going into the science forums and telling them that you have found THE ABSOLUTE FACT. Let me know how that works out for you. (chuckle chuckle) It may be true that it is a speculation, but that does not make it a philosophical truth. This may be part of the problem that blurs the distinction between philosophy and science. When science started to speculate, it may have also started to view philosophy as speculation. Speculation is based in some facts; philosophy is based in some facts. Speculation deals with unknowns; philosophy deals with unknowns. Speculation is often pseudo-science; do people think that philosophy is pseudo-science? Maybe. This may be how the comparison got started. Philosophy holds a very high standard for truth and speculation does not meet that standard. But possible does not mean a probability in philosophy. Here you are playing a word game that destroys your logic. The sentence was, "If I can imagine it, it is possible". It was not, "If I can imagine it, it CAN be possible." This is yet another example of changing the problem to fit your solution. Philosophy studies that which is real and true, so we can not adjust reality to fit with our solutions. The original statement is not true. Maybe so, but this is still about "guesses" and probabilities, it is not about truth. This is a philosophy forum and we deal in truths. The statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." is not true. It is a word game. Consider: If the statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." were true, then I could imagine that it would be true for me and false for you; therefore, anything that you imagined would become impossible. But being the clever person that you are, you could simultaneously imagine that everything that you imagine is true, but everything that I imagine is false; then neither of us could imagine anything that would be possible. But then Harry Potter, who is more clever than both of us combined, could see this problem and immediately imagine that everything he imagines is possible, but everything that anyone else in the world imagines is not possible, so he would win. He would be King of the World, Almighty God, the beginning and the end--a solipsist. But I thought you agreed that solipsism is nonsense. What do you think Monty could make of this? G

Kristalris; If we are going to continue this discussion, it must be between us and not include negative comments regarding other member's abilities. I do not always agree with YodaP, but have read enough of that member's posts to come to the conclusion that YodaP has a good mind and an understanding of philosophy. So I have no wish to debate the merits of any third-party member's posts, and would like to keep this between us. The problem that I have with your argument is that you seem to interchange the word "probability" with the word "possibility". They are not the same. Now if the original statement was, "If I can imagine something that fits within the parameters of science and Bayes probability theorem, it is possible!". Then I might have to agree that this is possible, but that is not the case. The original statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible" sets the parameters of "possible" under the parameters of "imagine". Imagination has no parameters. And according to you, imagination is garbage and does not fall within the rules of Bayes Theorem, as follows: So I don't agree that Bayes Theorem even applies in this case. I certainly hope you will forgive me for this observation, but it appears as though solipsism, the religious "God" idea, and Bayes Theory have something in common. They have each taken an idea that they "imagine" to be true and applied logic to this idea in order to rationalize it and make it appear to be real. This is not reality. (chuckle) Lucky for me, I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher. Did you notice that this is the General Philosophy forum, not the General Science forum? The fact that the formula requirments dictate a testable hypothesis indicate that the formula is self serving and somewhat circular, so I would question it's ability to find truth. This formula seems to be a statistical game of probabliities, designed to predict reality, but it does not define reality -- or truth. G

Hypervalent_Iodine; Thank you for answering my questions. I had hoped that there was a time limit on the warnings, but did not really anticipate it. As I suspected, the warnings will remain and have a "building" affect on my reputation so that any grey area will be colored by the warnings prompting more warnings. A spiraling effect. The problem is that I have a tendency to write some very interesting and thought provoking threads. Most of the time moderators like my threads because they are rarely boring, generate new ideas, and a lot of lively discussion, but I have never written on the Supernatural before. (chuckle) I do not post very much in the Science area because I am not a scientist, although I do read there. I try to avoid the religion forum because I always end up defending religion, even though I am not religious, so most of my posting is in philosophy and mostly in my own threads. You are correct in that I am not posting much because I can not start any threads unless I can find a way to trust moderation. I had hoped that this thread would lead to some trust, but it does not look like it. So far, in this thread, I have taken the defensive position as I saw no purpose in finger-pointing, but it looks like I may have nothing to lose. I will have to do some research and consider my options. G

Hello Kristalris; I very much enjoyed the video that you presented, and got a lot of laughter out of it. Thank you. I have never broached this subject before, but would like to take a stab at it, so please consider the following. It may well be true that a "hypothesis is held to be true until falsified", but it is also true that a hypothesis must be testable in order to falsify it. So is "possible" testable? The problem with the word "possible" is that it has no parameters, so only the consequence of that possibility, in hindsight, is testable after it becomes real. So one is not really testing "possible". Is "imagination" testable? Only after it becomes realized in reality. So I don't see how you can call this a hypothesis, as it is not testable. Now one could say that "if you can imagine it, it is possible" is a truism. But again, truisms are always true, so how could one know that it is always true? In hindsight, many things that were thought impossible became possible through someone's imagination, but not all things imagined became possible, so we can not call this a truism. Because the statement begins with the word "If", it implies a relationship between "imagine" and "possible"; "if this, then that". There are two ways to look at this, either "imagine" is a prerequisite to "possible", or "imagine" causes "possible" -- neither are true. Rain turns into snow because of temperature, not imagination, so there are things that are possible that do not require the prerequisite of imagining. Imagination is thought and is produced by the rational aspect of mind, so it can not actually cause a change in reality. Thought has no power over reality, so imagination, on it's own, does not cause anything to be possible. Think of imagination as you would a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is a very handy tool to have when building a house, but a hammer can not build a house. Imagination is a very handy tool to have when considering possibilities, but imagination can not cause those possibilities to become real. So I see this as a word game that has nothing to do with reality or logic. The only other way to view this is to say that "imagination" actually causes reality, which is the solipsist's view. Solipsism is nonsense. imo Do you disagree? G

Swansont; I apologize for being so late with my response, but life seems to be moving faster than I am lately. There is no contradiction. Being civil means drawing a line in the sand where you will do nothing to abuse the other party and will accept no abuse. Nice and polite demand much more. Being polite means holding the door open for someone else. Being nice means sometimes stepping back and letting another person's desires take precedence. In a forum where people commonly use the tactics of debate, holding the door open can get you locked outside, and stepping back can be seen as a retreat or withdrawal that encourages attack. If you don't believe this, I can show you examples from my own thread. Regarding tactics, you and I both know that behaviors can be used as tactics, but that does not mean that all tactics are behaviors. Either you have not read the thread, Supernatural, or you were not looking for the tactics as they are obvious. When I first decided to try to write about the supernatural, I knew it would be difficult. This subject is surrounded by centuries of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, and religious belief; but even so, I think it is important to understand in order to fully understand consciousness. Normally it takes proof to change beliefs, and all I had was some evidence, so a serious strategy was required. In the first paragraph of the OP I stated that I study the philosophical understanding of consciousness and use the supernatural to that end. A strategy--designed to set the parameters of the discussion. I then compared people, who refuse to discuss this, with "screaming virgins". A tactic. -- This was a dare designed to get past the knee jerk response to the word, supernatural, and add some humor to dispell some of the tension associated with the supernatural. In the second paragraph, I went into the history of the word, supernatural, and painted religion as the cause of the problem and science and philosophy as the heroes. (This was easy to do because it is the damned truth.) A strategy -- designed to let people know that this was not about religion and "God", but rather about a serious analyzing study of the supernatural. Later I stated that "God" is arguably President of the Paranormal Club. A tactic -- designed to show that I have no allegiance to religion. Then I went on to explain why I thought that it was important to study the supernatural. There were two more things that needed to be addressed almost immediately; acceptable evidence and rationalization. I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson as his work on reincarnation has been peer reviewed, challenged, but not refuted, so it is acceptable as evidence. Then I took advantage of something that EdEarl said to introduce the concept that rationalization can not be used with an unknown. This was a necessary strategy because people will imagine whatever they like, rationalize it, then call it truth, so this needed to be addressed immediately before that nonsense started. Later I sent EdEarl a PM and explained my taking advantage of him, which was a tactic. He said he understood. We are still friends, which is good as I respect his mind and value his friendship. The rest of my strategy was to debunk myths, demystify mystics, and explain anthropomorphism, while comparing acceptable phenomenon with supernatural phenomenon; such as, ESP and human bonding. Both are a connection of minds, but no one understands the mechanism for these connections even though they both work through emotion. The tragedy of this farce is that I never got to explain anthropomorphism, and without an understanding of this concept, no one can understand how the supernatural actually works. But I lost control of my thread and never truly regained it. I tried to get the moderator to close it--no luck. I tried leaving it, and the other members used it to gossip, tell jokes, and generally abuse the topic, so I went back and tried to steer it back on topic. On page 14 I finally learned a new tactic--ridicule. Ridicule is what people use in this forum to get rid of someone or close a topic, so I ridiculed the other members theories on consciousness, and mercifully, the topic finally closed. Silence on your part would mean that this thread would never have been started, so apparently this issue is not "(temporarily) resolved". I have another question. When do the warnings come off? Or do they ever? Your point is understood. It is also understood that you do not want an explanation. G

YodaP; Not even close. I was first attracted to your title because I just spent 15 pages in the thread, Supernatural, explaining that imagination is a poor tool to use in philosophy. But I don't think anyone was really listening. I do think that my explanation that rationalization can not be used to find an unknown was understood, but I don't think that people realized that rationalization is just logic applied to imagination. People take an unknown, imagine what they think it is, then create logical steps to whatever they have imagined--and they call this rational. The problem here being that the rational part of the mind is the only part that knows how to lie. It seems to me that imagination is a coping ability. We take what we don't know or don't understand and use our imaginations to make it more palatable. But that does not make it more real. Philosophy studies what is real, not what is palatable. I do agree with you that math is a definite way to find and establish truth, and suspect that this is because math evolves from innate understanding. The innate understanding of more and less is at the root of math, but this is not the only innate understanding--not the only available truth. I study consciousness and life, so I do a lot of work on awareness and emotion, which are also innate understandings. If you can supply me with a formula that explains awareness and/or emotion it would be wonderful. Until you do, I will have to simply rely on the old tools of observation, experience, logic and reason. G

Swansont; Thank you for your prompt response. Please consider the following: I did not at any time "describe this approach as a successful tactic". It was not successful. It was not a tactic. It was bad temper. I was angry and made a personal attack; I recognized the problem and asked for moderator help; the help was like throwing oil on fire; then I was furious and got worse. This is not an excuse, it is what happened. Now if you want an excuse, one could say that I was PMSing, or that I was in a lot of pain at the time, or that I am half Irish, but the reality is, I was very angry. ***Not a tactic.*** Because you did not address my above-mentioned tactics, I am going to consider that you did not find them to be specifically against the rules. But you did find them offensive. They were not meant to be offensive, but to be informational. I probably could have used a better term than "pack" mentality, like maybe "team player", but that would imply that a philosopher can join the "team", and this is not possible. I know that there has been more than one thread in this forum made by a philosopher, who believes that they are not being treated fairly--I have read them. But I also seriously doubt that anyone is intentionally trying to abuse the philosophers. I believe that this difference is caused by the different way that scientists and philosophers think and work--because their work is so different. It was my intention to try to explain how a philosopher must present their ideas in order to get any help in a science forum. So if there are any philosophers reading this, please consider the following. In elementary school, we are all taught how to do a science experiment. We must study whatever we are testing and ensure that the only variable is what we are testing for; otherwise, we are not testing anything. Science is about focus, control, details, and proof. It is an exacting and precise discipline, and can only accomplish it's goals by adhering to these rules. This is what makes science great. Philosophy, on the other hand, deals mostly with unknowns. It would be a little absurd to try to focus on the details of an unknown. So philosophers observe, and use reason and logic to find commonalities or recurring patterns to try to put some parameters around something that is unknown. So our work is more expansive than focused. So let us take a very simple example of an unknown problem. We will say that someone gave me a puzzle in a jar. I have no picture to help me, and hope that I have all of the pieces, and no extras. I take the pieces out and turn them all up and study them. It looks like a country scene, but there is little that I can discern, so I start to sort them by color. I have a fair amount of red that looks like flowers and maybe an old barn and some other pieces. So I take them to my local science forum and ask, "What do you think?" Those very focused and precise people will state, "Not one of those pieces is evidence of anything. There is no correlation between the pieces except color, and you don't even know if they belong together." Then they will go on to explain how every piece is completely different from the others in various ways, and is proof of nothing. My topic will close. I will feel like an idiot. So for my advice: Just take the puzzle pieces that look like a barn or shed. Hold the rest in reserve, and you may find that some of those detail oriented people can help you put the barn/shed together. Then pull out some other pieces, and maybe someone will note that one piece looks like a pump and there are often pumps by a barn for watering and washing the animals. Just because you think that it looks like a barn, does not mean anyone else will. Have pictures of barns. Have blow-ups of your puzzle pieces that show the wood grain. Have some kind of evidence that backs up your thinking. . When the first person states that it does not look like a barn, whip out your evidence. Do not wait. If three different people agree that it does not look like a barn, your thread is dead. Once there is agreement, you are working against belief, so evidence becomes invalid and proof is now required. If you let it get to the point where people start demanding proof, you are finished. Science deals with proof; philosophy does not. I actually had a person in my thread tell me that philosophy only knows what science has told them, so it is clear that respect for and understanding of philosophy is at a low point. If you let yourself be a doormat, someone is going to wipe their feet. Be civil, be informed, be intelligent, and have references, and you may get to learn something from these science guys. G

Hi YodaP; I really enjoyed your post right up to the last paragraph, then I wondered. Are you talking about me? G

Hello Swansont; This question has been bothering me for a while now, and I would have rather addressed it in a PM, but you stated that it should be addressed here--so here I am. While posting in the Speculations forum, I gave what I thought to be some very good advice for philosophers, who post in a Science forum, as follows: You responded with the following: The problem is that I don't think that my tactics earned me warnings--my temper did. This was when I did not have any tactics to solve the problem, so I fell back on simple manners. Which just encouraged the problem, so I hit the report button. The moderator's "help" is what actually blew my temper. This happened twice, so now I don't touch the report button, and I don't get any more warnings. Simple. But back to the point. I think that the advice that I gave is sound and necessary for any philosopher to know when working in a Science forum. I also do not think that what I advised is against the rules, but I could be wrong. So did you assume that my warnings were caused by the tactics, or is there some specific reason why you think that the above tactics are against the forum rules? Thank you for your considerations. G Edit: I apologize for misspelling your name. I corrected it in the post but do not know how to correct it in the Title.

Hello Ringer; You asked some reasonable and intelligent questions, so I will try to explain my position. Terminology. Definition. Neurology's definition and Philosophy's definition. Which definition is chosen is relevant to the source of conscious awareness. "Part of the brain"? I am aware that neurology explains that, their definition of consciousness, is processed by and emerges because of the brain, but have no knowledge of a specific physical piece of the brain that is consciousness. Am I wrong? Regarding our single-celled ancestors, did you notice that I stated that the idea of life coming after the brain was "nonsense"? There is nothing "ill defined" about neurology's or psychology's concepts of consciousness. They are very well defined concepts and similar in some ways. I have studied in neither discipline, so you will have to accept my layman's interpretation, but I think that neurology's concept is about being aware of yourself and surroundings, psychology's concept is about control of your mind. Both concepts imply intentionality and some control or power over your awareness. Philosophy would call this being aware that one is aware. But people who are unconscious and even in states of coma have been known to hear what was said around them, and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind will sometimes surpise you with a "Freudian slip", so these states of sub/unconsciousness are still aware. Being unconscious is not the same as being dead. So yes, brain activity is very much a part of these definitions of consciousness. This is why philosophy theorizes that a tree has no idea that it is aware (alive) -- no brain. The psychology that understands feeling, emotion, and awareness is not much more than 100 years old, so it will take a while for it to overturn thousands of years of belief. Also note that psychology is considered a "soft" science, as are animal behavior studies. Psychiatry, endocrinology, and biology do study some forms of emotion because they can study something physical like the brain, chemistry, and hormones -- instincts. All of these things relate to the brain and neurology, which reinforces the idea that consciousness comes from the brain. But if you need further evidence, go to the Philosophy forum where you will find yet another debate on the "Brain v Computers". Debates like this are all over the science and philosophy forums. Or if you need a more respectable reference, go to the on-line SEP (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), which is a very well respected and peer reviewed encyclopedia. In the SEP you can find out all about Dennett's book, "Consciousness Explained" where he shows that computers are going to miraculously become aware, and you can find out about Chalmer's book, "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" which is a rebuttal to Dennett's book and brings up the "zombie" theory. It is a great deal of fun. If you type in "emotion" for a search in the SEP's Contents, you will get Stoicism, some articles on feminism, and a great deal on how to control emotion, mostly from eastern religions/philosophies. So in science, studies of emotion are "soft", and in philosophy studies of emotion are about controlling it. I think that psychology is the first to really study emotion, feeling, and awareness, and I expect that psychology will be the forerunner in the quest to understand consciousness. I did not make a "straw-man" argument. Well that is the question, isn't it? Everybody seems to have a different idea, and all of the disciplines have a different theory. But no one has a valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it. I looked at the ideas from science, philosophy, and religion, then went further and considered the paranormal/supernatural. What I decided was that they all knew something about consciousness, but were slicing and dicing it to make it fit into their interpretations. My conclusion was that consciousness is much more vast and complex than people realize, so I decided to break it down into aspects rather than disciplines in order to study it. I think that consciousness is all of the mental aspects. It is what we are aware of, what we feel, our emotions, our knowledge, our memories, and our thoughts. Instincts, imagination, dreams, and creativity are all combinations of the first six aspects. All species possess at least some of these aspects in different combinations, and I suspect that consciousness in it's simplest form is part of our reality. The simplest way to define consciousness is that it is communication. Whether that communication is internal or if it deals with the external reality--it is all communication. I am not sure that I want a discussion of the philosophical idea of consciousness in a "speculations" forum. G

iNow; Is your response in reference to my post or someone else? G

Hi Unorthodo_x; Welcome to the forum. . . (chuckle chuckle) This is all true and I agree with you. Ophiolite's rebuttal is, of course, nonsense. I expected that it would be, but checked just in case I was wrong. All of the links are about the brain, and the brain's relationship with consciousness--not about consciousness. I am not sure that science actually has a position on consciousness as there is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it, but scientists seem to think that it emits from the brain. It is my thought that they are confusing the medical neurological explanation of the conscious, unconscious, and preconscious aspects of mind, with actual conscious life. There are some huge problems with this position, the least of which is the ignoring of emotion, feeling, and awareness. Then there is the problem that all life is sentient, therefore; all life is conscious, but all life does not have a brain. So if we decide that consciousness comes from the brain, then the brain came first, caused consciousness, and life followed. The really sad part of this thinking is that if you exchange the word "brain" with the word "God", this is a mirror explanation of the account in Genesis. It is nonsense. Consciousness does NOT come from the brain. The brain processes consciousness, and develops it, and expands it, but the brain is not the source of consciousness. It can't be, because our brains are a latter development in evolution, so they can not be the source. Another problem is that equating consciousness with thought, memory, thinking, and knowledge, while avoiding the aspects of feeling, emotion, and awareness, make a human brain and a computer essentially the same thing. They are both processors. But a computer is not alive, it does not possess feeling, emotion, or awareness, and can only mimic these things--it is not conscious. Science is making progress in it's search for consciousness in many different fields. Neurology is finally learning something because it has teemed up with endocrinology, and so it is finally studying emotion. Biology is learning a great deal about pheromones, which is another aspect of consciousness. Physics seems to be knocking on the door, and psychology knows a great deal more than people realize about consciousness. So work is being done, but most of these other fields do not state that their work is relative to consciousness--but it is. As far as alternate ideas being shunned, consider that religion offers an alternate idea, and most science forums have a religion forum where the members spend time ridiculing religion. Also consider that philosophy has a very different view of consciousness, which includes all conscious life and has theories about consciousness in the universe, but in this forum the words "idiot philosopher" are used without any fear of reproach. Also consider that this thread was split off of a thread in the Philosophy forum, and deposited in Speculations in the Science forum, so that the definition of consciousness would be accepted as emerging from the brain. Hell yes, alternate ideas are shunned, ridiculed, and strategically avoided. If you are going to spend time in science forums and have "different" ideas, then you need to know what you are dealing with. There are some very bright people in these forums, but most of them are already well ensconsed in their beliefs, so you have to work and have back-up to get them to listen to a new idea. The large majority of the membership is made up of "wannabe" scientists, and for some reason that I do not understand, these wannabe scientists think that philosophers "wannabe" scientists. (chuckle) So there is not a lot of respect for philosophers. What we have is a few good leaders and a lot of followers, which creates a kind of "pack" mentality. If you were out in the woods and came upon a pack of wolves, what would you want to have? First, don't be carrying too much--just present one idea at a time. Second, you would want a weapon--make sure that the idea you present has some back-up that is acceptable. Third, you would want to do as much damage as possible to the first wolf that approached to discourage the others--so hit the first one hard and fast. Be intelligent, civil, informed, and have references at the ready, but nice and polite gets you nowhere. I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic. Good luck, and I hope to be able to see more of your ideas. G

Hi Jduff; Before responding to your post, I would like to discuss your title. Jumping from belief to religion is a big leap, and I don't think that it is a valid assumption in this case. Religion requires that there is a concept belief, but also requires rituals, events, and dogma, along with some kind of persona to believe in. So I don't think that Atheism qualifies as any kind of religion, and is more an anti-religion. I will grant that many Atheists lean toward the Eastern religions, but that is mostly because they are more a philosophy than a religion, so this works for many of them--but does not make Atheism a religion. Here I agree with you. If people believe that there is no life after death, then they accept science's take that consciousness is the brain. If people believe that there is life after death, then they accept religion's take that consciousness is God. Neither of these beliefs are fact as there is no valid theory of consciousness that explains life or death. G

Hi Believer; Just some thoughts for your consideration. I suspect that the problem you are having comes from the term "nothing", as I doubt that "nothing" actually exists. Now the concept, "nothing", exists; as in there is nothing in the fridge to eat or there is nothing in my coffee cup. But when we use the word this way we are talking about a specific something that we are looking for--something that is missing. The fridge and coffee cup are not actually empty, and if nothing else, there is air in them. But using the word "nothing" in relation to reality is a little different. You are essentially saying that no thing exists. Things can exist, but how could no thing exist? What holds the place that is presumably empty? The Ancients considered this problem and named the Aether as a chaos that the universe sat in and determined that this was the placeholder. Einstein also considered the Aether as real and necessary. So I doubt that "nothing" actually exists in reality--there is something there, we just don't know what it is. I have to go with option two. If we think that there is something that existed before time and space, then we must consider that it is outside of time and space. If so, then it could well be eternal as far as we can understand it. Without matter, time seems to disappear, so cause and effect would not work that same way that it does for us. Tell me, which came first--the inside or the outside? G

Moontanman and Tar; Well, I must admit that you have made some pretty strong arguments. I am occasionally wrong, so this may be one of those times. Consciousness must come from the brain as there is no other possibility. Since consciousness comes from the brain, I can understand why the "supernatural" is not possible. It even makes sense now why people are always saying that "God" is something that people just make up. There really is no "God" as we created him so that we could feel better. Makes perfect sense. It is also clear as to why we always knew that lower life forms do not possess consciousness, as they obviously do not have a human brain, so they could not be conscious. Although many of them appear to be conscious, that is just projecting. We are projecting our consciousness onto other species. Tar would probably say that we are anthropomorphising our consciousness onto other species. This is wonderful. So first there was the human brain which created consciousness, then the brain created God, then God created the world and the lower animals, then God created us, so we could create God. I knew it. We are the beginning and end and the center of everything! It is cyclic! A kind of new twist on solipsism. Where do I join up? Of course, this would mean that the scientists who have found evidence of consciousness in lower species must be wrong, and of course, evolution must be bullshit because everything actually comes from us, but (sshh) don't tell anybody cause this is a science forum. People might get mad if you throw out all of their facts. Scientists are like that. Well, at least I have my sense of humor back. Your theories on consciousness are almost as funny as Moontanman's statement that subjective experience is not evidence of anything in a thread about consciousness--since consciousness IS subjective experience. ROFLMAO. G

I don't think this is true. Although people always say that we are here to learn, and many people probably are, there are different motivations at work on these forums. Some come to learn, some come to teach, others come to share a social environment that they enjoy. There are people who come here so that they can immerse themselves in a topic that they value, and others who come here to explore the depths of their own ideas. There are a lot of different motivations. TrappedLight; Forgive me if I am wrong, but after reading this thread, I have the idea that you have come here to teach. You seem to want to give information to others, probably thinking that you are helping them, and then are disappointed when they do not seem to appreciate it. I am a philosopher and know almost nothing about science, so I can not tell you if your words are valid or even helpful, but if you are trying to help people, it may be necessary for you to consider the differing motivations of the people you are dealing with, and have some patience with them. The people who truly want and need your input will be appreciative. I have been to a lot of forums and find that the most popular forums have a "rep" system. It is my thought that people like being able to push those little buttons--makes us feel important. So I think this system is here to stay. Is it fair? No. Is it always based on intelligent civil answers? No. While reading in the Religion forum, I became very aggravated with some of the posters who seemed to need to bash religion. This is a routine past-time for science forums, but they were getting carried away implying that religion was the root of all evil. So I noted that according to archeologists, religion has been around for almost 40,000 years, but in less that 1,000 years, science has managed to create weapons of mass destruction and pollute the entire planet. My statement was intelligent, true, and civil, but it still got a down vote. So no the system is not always used the way people claim it is used, but it is here to stay. (They did let up on religion after that.) I am not a religious person, but I also try not to be biased. Everyone knows that science is a child of philosophy, but I think they forget that religion was the first born. I don't really know about the "rep" system in the Science forum, but science people seem to be happy with it, so it must be working. If I could remove the negative rep in the Religion forum I would, because people tend to be too emotional there. And I would remove the system entirely from Speculations because it encourages a "pack" mentality and discourages speculation. But I don't know if these changes are even possible as I don't know how the system works. Just thoughts to consider. We can't please everybody. G

Moontanman; Please consider my responses. I have numbered them for ease of answering. 1. I asked for Tar's opinion, not your opinion. Are you answering for him? Do you think that he can not answer for himself, that he does not know his own mind? 2. If you believe that there is "no empirical evidence of a 'soul'", then you should tell Tar, as my question was in response to his statement about a "soul". 3. Again, tell Tar. I do not believe that Dr. Stevenson considered a "soul" in his studies. If I am wrong please cite Dr. Stevenson's statement regarding evidence of the "soul". 4. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness and includes all aspects of consciousness as described in the OP. It is not about the brain. Please try to keep up. 5. There is also no reason to presume that we do not exist after we die. 6. See # 3 above. 7. So you are saying that there is no evidence. 8. If I reincarnated, then I have a new body. There is no other "guy". Moontanman, you and Tar have made it very clear that there is no evidence to support the phenomenon that is called the supernatural. You have also made it very clear that it is your position that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore your position is not based in evidence, which does not exist (in your opinion), so your position is based in belief. Whether you know it or not, whether you understand it or not, it is clear to me that I am trying to argue this matter against ingrained beliefs. I generally do not argue beliefs because it is like arguing with a drunk. It gets nowhere. So if you can not limit your responses to "fact", reason, and logic, and insist on making assertions and denials that are, according to you, based in belief not evidence, then please take your arguments about belief to the religions forum where those kinds of arguments are welcome.......... G

Very cute. I did not ask about consciousness outside of your body or my body, I asked about consciousness existing outside of THE body. That means consciousness without a body--just to clarify. So can it exist? Give me your opinions, theories, and/or facts; just make sure you tell me which you are using. You are again limiting consciousness to humans. What about other life, are they conscious too? Do they have a "single 'soul'" also? So if it can not "transfer" then it can not exist outside of the body. The containers magically connect. I will agree that the "focus" is the cause, but can not agree that it is a full explanation for consciousness. So it is your opinion that when we die, and lose that "focus", we cease to exist. I suspect that this is not true. No. My comments were made as a rebuttal to your comments that Dr. Stevenson did not have very high numbers of reincarnated individuals. Dr. Stevenson only accepted cases that he could prove, where there was some evidence to track. All cases are not provable or even acknowledged. But once he provided evidence, it must be considered that he did not invent reincarnation, he examined it. So prior cases that were considered by religions/philosophies may well be valid if one is giving the "proper value" to human intelligence and is not stuck in some kind of culture bias. This is too much nonsense to even respond to, but you will note that, again, it is all about Tar. If a person's consciousness belonged to a "dead" guy, it would make no sense, but there is no "dead" guy. G

Believe me, I understand your point. The supernatural is "an impossible realm", "above and beyond", "magic", and "not real". That is your point. And what is the supernatural? Well, it is Gods, angels and demons, ESP, fairies, ghosts, reincarnation, and any other consciousness that is outside of the body. How do we know that these things are not real? We know because consciousness is within the body, so if someone thinks that there is a consciousness that is outside of the body, then that person must be imagining, pretending, or being superstitious. Simple. This is your point. It has been your point for 14 pages now. All of your arguments are based on one premise, which is that consciousness is within the body--exclusively. Do you have any facts to support this premise? Because it is my thought that this premise is false and is based in belief, and it probably originated with religious belief. If I am wrong, and there are facts to support the premise that consciousness resides exclusively within the body, please present these facts. I like to use facts. If that is "ascending" then so be it. Until you explain otherwise, I am going to continue to think that the contents of two containers can not connect magically. G

Tar; Well, now I have a clearer picture on what you are talking about, so maybe I can make a better response. But Dr. Stevenson did find a "trail". His work has been peer reviewed, so your opinion that this "trail" does not exist, is simply your opinion. And again, you are forgetting the thousands of years of study by religions/philosophies that have also found this trail. If reincarnation happens once, just one time, then it CAN happen, so I would like to know how it happens. Learning how it happens can teach us a great deal about consciousness and the formation of mind. You can "imagine" anything you like, but as I have stated before, imagination is a poor tool to use when trying to do philosophy. Philosophy is the study of that which is real, but I think that our ideas of reality are very different. If you go through this thread and read all of the posts made by Tar, you will find a consistency. Tar's understanding of consciousness is through the perspective of human consciousness, and specifically of Tar's human consciousness. This is not reality; this is Tar's reality. The problem with this type of thinking is very like the problems that occurred when we thought that we were the center of the Universe and all revolved around us--it was not reality--it was our perspective of reality. Stepping away from one's own perspective is difficult, so when I study consciousness, I try to consider the perspective of other species. Regarding reincarnation, some religions/philosophies believe that we can reincarnate into other species, and this is hooked to moral or immoral behavior. I have some problems with this idea as it implies that some species are more moral than others. There is also the problem of innate ideas and group-think, as all species seem to be in possession of these two innate and natural developments of consciousness. Instincts are specific to a specie, as herding species herd, predatory species hunt, all species seem to follow the directives of pheromones produced by that specie--so there is innate knowledge. If we are going to propose that reincarnation can happen in humans, then we are going to have to have a reason that it is exclusive to humans, or we are going to have to assume this is how consciousness can work in all species. If one considers evolution, then there would have to be a mechanism in place that sorts or develops consciousness into the minds or brains of the specific specie. And this would have to be something that adapts along with evolution. How can something be "supernatural" in "nature"? There is no such thing as an "unreal" connection; either it is a real connection, or it is not a connection. Instead of thinking of connections, consider this idea more like a cycle, or the Circle of Life. If an ugly little cockroach was walking along in the woods and died, then it's body decayed and provided fertilizer for a plant. Then that plant grew a flower that a cute little rabbit decided to eat, and just after the rabbit's dinner, a hawk came and carried it away to a field and ate it, bringing some of the meat home to it's nest for the young ones, Then the rabbit's remaining body decayed and fertilized the grass that was growing there, and a cow ate the grass. Then the cow was killed and processed into hamburger, which I ate. Did I eat a cockroach? From my perspective no; but the little cockroach may think that he is feeding the world. Consciousness is about perspectives, but it is not perspectives. G

I would love to break this down, but after reading your post, I noted that you did not address this issue in this post. Let us be honest here, Tar. You have no memory of being born. You probably have no memory of your first year of life, and maybe your second. You don't deny your birth because you CAN'T--there are probably pictures. You can not base consciousness or lack of consciousness on your memory. I would like to see your "lot of evidence" because I think that you are full of it, and suspect that you have no evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To sum up; we all came from our Mommys and Daddys. This is not news. This is also not an explanation of consciousness and does not even try to consider evolution. So we came from the "first pack, the first herd, the first troop, the first tribe". Where did they come from? Your answer to that would be that they evolved. But what did they evolve from? This is the biggest problem with the Theory of Evolution--it theorizes evolution after life starts, so it does not tell us anything about consciousness or how life began. We know that our physical bodies recycle. We call it the Circle of Life. There is no reason that I can think of to assume that our consciousness does, or does not, recycle. Most religions, that have studied consciousness for thousands of years, think that we recycle in some way. Dr. Stevenson has actual evidence that we may well recycle. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Besides your memory? You did not address any of the points in my prior post. I am beginning to think that the screaming virgins may be preferrable to jumping on a barge and floating down the River of Denial. G

Tar; Please consider my responses and let me know what you think. No, that is not what I would say. What I would say is that humans have minds, many other species have minds, probably all mammals have minds, and there is a good possibility that some birds have minds, but as far as I know socks and alarm clocks do not have minds. Consciousness is a confusing enough subject without assigning "mind" to various inanimate objects, so unless you have a theory of mind that includes inanimate objects, it would be less confusing if you limited your metaphors to things that are more in aline with life and/or consciousness. Imagine? So again you are imagining what you think that I imagine? Then you go so far as to imagine what Dr. Stevenson imagines? You don't even know Dr. Stevenson. People do not imagine observations, they observe to make observations. Do you understand the difference between imagination and fact? And how do you know the "first mnd" died? As far as I know, we have no information on whether or not a mind dies. Are you using your imagination again? Or is this a religious thing? First, I thought there was a difference between freckles and birthmarks, if I am wrong please provide a citation. Second, I would expect some similarities between my children and their ancestors because of DNA and family tendencies. Other than that I would not assign anything to anyone on the basis of liking or not liking strawberries, but might consider an allergy to strawberries if it ran in the family. Now if my youngster stated that her name used to be Bridget, that she was born in Ireland, that she came over to the New World with her little sister, Annie, after the Great Potatoe famine, and married a wealthy farmer by the name of William, then I might listen. What you are forgetting is that the physical evidence is in support of the statements made by the child, not in lieu of statements made by the child. One can not dismiss the subjective realities when dealing with consciousness. When we do, we make fools of ourselves because consciousness IS subjectivity. A third child is my first born? Do you mean another child? Yes, I would rule it out. Although it appears that the awareness that I suspect is the Aether has no relation to time, and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind has no relation to time, I am not sure that this is so after awareness and matter have activated each other. There are some indications that after awareness and matter combine to create life, the consciousness that emerges may indeed be relative to time and space. There is no conclusive proof, but there are indications that for at least some amount of time, there is an emergent something that exists within time and space. Consciousness is not simple; to underestimate it and make assumption would be folly, as there is no reason that I can think of to assume that it takes only one form. I moved this statement to the bottom, because I agree with it and have a lot to say about it. We have discussed a great deal about how an egg and sperm grow into a fetus, which is born as an infant, that develops into a child. There is also a great deal known through psychology about the development of the mental aspects of a child after it is born. But what about before it is born? What do we know about that? When and how does the conscious awareness of a single cell turn into the conscious awareness of a person being born? When does mind form? When does the consciousness of the child separate from the consciousness of the Mother? What causes these changes? These are some of the aspects that I suspect are "unconsidered" or "improperly assigned". 1. When a human is born, their mind/brain is not a blank slate waiting to be written upon. It is already full of knowledge and understandings. One could almost consider it like a dos (disc operating system) already installed and waiting to be used. If anyone disagrees with this, please consider: Innate ideas from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_idea 2. When a human is born, they already have a personality. If you talk to someone who works in a nursery, they can tell you that some infants are agressive and dominating, some are shy and quiet, some are flirtatious and charming, some are quiet and curious--they already have distinct personalities. Just like a litter of pups or kittens, if you study them a while, you will note different personalities from birth. Where do these personalities come from? 3. Either this knowledge, understanding and personality are in the egg/sperm, or it develops. I don't think that many of us believe that eggs and sperm have personalities, so most of us suspect that these things develop or emerge. So what do they develop from, or what do they emerge from? If I am wrong, and it has been noted or theorized or proven that eggs and/or sperm have knowledge, understanding, and personalities, please let me know. Most people will assume that these mental aspects come from DNA. Sounds good, but it is not true. DNA is no more than an instruction or mapping of what needs to be grown, it does not supply the building materials. A map of a city does not a city make. So DNA is more of an influence, and not even a very stable influence as it can be perverted or corrupted rather easily by chemistry. For example, see Thalidimide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide The building materials actually come from Mom, and her circumstance can seriously influence the development of baby. This has been well studied. Mom's intake of food, vitamins (or lack of), her emotions and mental state, and her environment all contribute to and influence the health, development, and well being of baby. Since we know that Mom provides the building blocks of what will be baby, why do we assume that she provides the physical building blocks, but not the mental? And that is what this is, assumption, as there is absolutely no evidence that she provides only the physical body of the infant. Why do we assume this? Is it because we believe that "God" provides the soul? I think so, because there is no other reason that makes any sense. And we know that Mom's mental state and emotional health can influence baby, and baby's development. We also know that an emotional shock or trauma can actually cause a miscarriage, so emotion is definitely an influence. We also know that emotion is linked to chemistry in the body. So let us throw out the assumptions and consider alternatives. We know that Mom provides the physical building blocks, but she does not deplete her body while accomplishing this because she eats to maintain the nutrients for both mother and child. If she also provides the mental building blocks, how does she not deplete her own mental resources? Well, there would have to be a way to intake mental resources. How could she manage that? With hormones. All pregnant women, as a matter or fact, all reproducing females of all species, are loaded with hormones. If you review Post # 132 on Page 7 of this thread, you will see that there seems to be a drawing or activating effect of consciousness which is produced by hormones. So if reincarnation can happen, I expect that hormones are part of the mechanism that allows it to happen. G