Gees

Tars; Rather than addressing your last post now, I will instead submit the following that I have been working on regarding the fetus, consciousness, and reincarnation. Later today I will try to address the points and concerns in your post. So let's start at the beginning with the sperm and the egg. Are they alive? The answer to that would be yes. This is the easy part because if something is alive, it can be killed. Removing the egg or sperm from it's natural environment will cause it to die and rot, so it is alive. All life is sentient, which means that it reacts to stimuli and is aware of that stimuli, so the egg and sperm possess some rudimentary form of consciousness just like every other cell in the body. For those who disagree with my assessment, please consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Do the egg and sperm possess "want"? Again the answer is yes. The egg will break out of the ovary, find the fallopian tube and travel along it to the uterus, where it will imbed itself in the side of the uterus waiting for fertilization. Whether this activity is caused by a physical prompt or whether it is caused by an awareness, it still exhibits a "want" to contnue, as all life does. I have watched films on sperm when they reach the egg, and can tell you that there is a frenzy of activity. So whether there is an awareness and knowledge of the egg, or if there is some chemical attraction to the egg, the sperm are in serious competition to reach and join with the egg. So again, this activity exhibits a "want" to continue, but is it any different from other cells in the body? I don't think so. The immune system seems to "want" to fight off unwanted bacteria in the body; blood cells seem to "want" to carry nutrients and oxygen to parts of the body that need them; tissue cells seem to "want" to reproduce themselves when it is necessary. All of the cells in our bodies seem to "want" to do their job in promoting the health and welfare of the body, so I can't see where the "want" of the egg and sperm are different or are separate in their consciousness. The end result is a separate consciousness, but it does not appear to exist at this level--there is certainly no evidence of it. What about after the egg and sperm join? Many people believe that this is when a new consciousness arises. I don't think so. First, there is no evidence of it; second, there is evidence to the contrary. People know that the joining of the egg and sperm creates a new DNA, which is assumed to indicate the new person, so a new consciousness. It must have been a man who thought up this idea. It would be like someone receiving the architectural designs for their new house and asking, "So I have the designs. Where the hell is the house?" An appropriate response might be, "Well, the materials have been ordered, but they won't show up for months." Having the design does not mean that we have what was designed. Just like the separate sperm and egg, at this point we only have a potential for a new consciousness. The arguments contrary are very clear and based in fact. Although the brain is not our consciousness, it is clear that the development of our consciousness is dependent upon the brain. Taking us from the awareness of a cell to the awareness of a human requires a brain, and a very advanced brain, so human consciousness for a fetus is not possible at this level. Another point to consider is that the mother's body may still reject the fetus, which often happens in the first few months. This rejection can be caused by a flaw or misforming of the fetus, but it can also be caused by a weakness in the mother. If the mother does not have the strength to carry the fetus, her body will reject it in consideration of the mother's health and needs. Clearly the consciousness and life of the mother takes precedence. The next stage, where people believe the new consciousness arises, is at birth, and there is some evidence to support this assumption. First there is the obvious physical separation of the mother and infant into two different bodies, so there are two different consciousnesses. The problem with this is that, although the mother acknowledges this separation, the infant does not. The infant will be six to eight months old before acknowledging the fact that it is physically separate from it's mother. Prior to this time, the infant is unaware of any separation--physical or otherwise. This information came to me from the magazine "Psychology Today" which I studied carefully while raising my own children. It explained why a reasonable sweet baby of seven or eight months would suddenly become panicked when mom left the room. This is because the infant has finally examined him/her self from fingers to toes and is just becoming aware that mom is NOT connected. Oh no! She could leave! Hence the panic. So it appears that the first clues that we get regarding self-awareness come six months after we are born. Prior to this point, awareness of the "self" includes the mother and probably most of the immediate environment. And we still don't know that mom has a mind and her own ideas--that comes later. The second argument that consciousness starts at birth is the "want" that the infant exhibits that initializes the labor and subsequent birth. However, doctors are not in agreement in this matter. There are some doctors that will schedule a C-section birth based on ultrasound readings, but most will not, and prefer to wait until the labor starts naturally, then proceed to other methods of delivery. Many years ago I read an article about hatcheries where it was discovered that breaking the eggs to help the chicks hatch at a preconceived time often caused weak or less healthy chicks, so it was determned that it is best to let the chicks break out of their eggs themselves. I suspect that this is the kind of thinking that most doctors employ, that it is better to let an infant determine when it should be born. So this is a stage of development, but my thought on this is that the starting of labor to cause birth is very similar to the egg initially breaking out of an ovary. This appears to me to be another part of the process rather than an indication of a human consciousness, want, or intent. So although religion and medical science have many opinions and theories regarding a new person's consciousness, these theories and opinions do not seem to reflect the facts of the matter. Psychology, I think, gives us our best understanding, and psychology states that a new person does not possess all of the aspects of human consciousness until they are seven years of age. So it does not appear as if a whole "soul" or personality is dropped into a vessel as stated by religion, and if a new consciousness grows or developes as it appears to, then what material feeds this growth and what activity prompts this development? I think that psychology and a better understanding of the supernatural can answer these questions. G

Tar; I am late getting back to you again. Thank you for your patience. I don't have a problem with this. As I stated before, science seems to be very supportive of my thoughts and understandings. Although Ms. Saxe's work is related to consciousness, it is actually about behavior, but still supports my understanding, and Dr. Stevenson's understanding, that the rational mind appears to dominate around the age of seven. I think that you are considering the "soul" in a very religious context, as though it is one singular thing, so you suppose that is what I am talking about. It is not. In reincarnation, I see some aspects of the prior personality in the new person, but only some aspects, as the new personality eventually becomes itself--by age seven. The idea that a whole "soul" or person takes over a new person's persona is 'possession', not reincarnation. There was one example of possession in the videos that I provided earlier, so I will review it again to see if I can find more information about possession, but for now I would like to stick to discussion about reincarnation. I don't understand you here. The first sentence seems to be about empathy. The second sentence makes some sense, but supposes and assumes that it is one or the other. Consciousness is too complex to make such assumptions without facts to back them up. And I don't see how the two sentences relate to each other. Agreed. Because of technology and the advances in science, we can now track the development of a fetus from it's inception to birth, and it is almost like tracking evolution. Fascinating. Yet with all of this fascinating technology, we still don't know where the mother's consciousness and the fetus's consciousness begin and end. Religion has tried to answer this question, and many religions accept that the new consciousness begins at birth, some think that it begins when the sperm and egg meet, others put the child's consciousness after birth. I read somewhere, it may have been the Bible, that the child is introduced to society at 2 or 3 months. This makes sense if you remember that there are some medical reasons why a child can be born, but not survive more than a month--such as in cases where there is a difference in the positive and negative RH factor. I think it was the Eskimos that thought a child should be introduced to society when it is two years old. This actually makes more sense than any of the prior considerations as a two year old is no longer dependent on it's mother for survival. The child is still dependent, but it can eat, walk, and make it's needs and wants known, so any adult can care for it. Secular law does not have a clue, as is evidenced by the famous "Roe v Wade" Supreme Court case on abortion and the right to life. After considering reams of information and debating for months, the Jurists finally decided to break down a pregnancy into tri-mesters. So in the first three months, the woman's rights dominate; in the last three months, the fetus's rights dominate, as a fetus can be viable if delivered in the last three months; and the middle tri-mester is up for grabs and pretty much open to interpretation by the various states. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that as science advances, the fetus can be made viable at earlier, and earlier, stages until the argument about viability becomes moot. But all of these are physical considerations and do not explain consciousness. Are there any facts? Any indications that can tell us when a fetus develops it's own consciousness? When do I become "me" rather than being a part of my Mother? I think that there are some facts, maybe even enough to put together a good guess as to how this might work. But I am tired now, so I will let you consider the above, and will write more on this later. G

Tar; Actually, I don't think Ms. Saxe is studying consciousness. What she is studying is the brain and human behavior, which is a part of consciousness, because we can not have behavior if we are not conscious. How we behave and why we behave that way is only relevant if we are first conscious. Well, we can't get all of our predictions right. If anything, the video supported my findings and ideas. You will note that she tested a three year old, a five year old, a seven year old, then went straight to adults. Why did she not test a nine, ten, or twelve year old? Because it was not necessary. At seven years we have learned to process information in the same way an adult does. When I stated that a seven year old learns to lie, it was not because I think that seven year olds are bad, it was because by age seven we learn to choose and select our thoughts. This ability to choose is a product of the rational, processing, part of the mind. We can take what we observe, take what we think, and put them together to interpret a scenario that makes sense to us. Is it true because it makes sense to us? No. In fact, the seven year old lied. He stated that the "wind" knocked the sandwich down, but that is not true, it is what he imagined happened. What actually happened is that Ms. Saxe moved the sandwich. When we mix our thoughts and beliefs with our observations, we can unknowingly corrupt truth with our imagination. This is because of the rational mind which allows us to choose between what we think and what we observe. The three year old simply observed and stated the facts as they were from a personal perspective. The five year old simply observed and stated the facts as they were from another person's perspective. This shows an advance in social understanding, but is still inherently honest. It is my understanding that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is inherently honest, because it does not know how to lie--it has not learned to choose. Just like in the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes", the young child states the obvious truth, "The Emperor is not wearing clothes." because he can not fool himself with thoughts and imaginings. I find it very interesting that people think that young children are too imaginative, when in fact, I wonder about their ability to imagine at all and suspect it is more interpretation. Well the video would probably be very good in that kind of thread as it is about intent and morals. It is a mistake to assume that my statement about a seven year old's ability to lie is about morals, as it has nothing to do with morals. I am simply referring to a development of the mind. Many people equate lies with immorality. In my childhood, the Nuns used to say that to lie was a sin and against the Commandments. Bullwhacky. There is no Commandment that states, Thou shalt not lie; what it states is to not bear false witness. So as long as we don't lie to get someone else in trouble, there is no problem. Have you ever seen Jim Carey's film, "Liar, Liar"? Lying is a social necessity. (chuckle) Well, I found it very interesting. Mostly it dealt with intent and how intent relates to morals. Having retired from working in law, I know that law has some very specific ideas about intent and they follow mostly the physicalist approach, which is not always just. So I think that the work Ms. Saxe is doing is very important, but does not relate to my interest in consciousness. Her explanation of how autistic people understand intent was also very interesting. G

Agreed. In order for the evidence to compel belief, it would have to prove that it could be predicted or tested by scientific standards. This is not going to happen prior to a valid theory of consciousness, as we don't even know how it works, so there is no way to test or predict it. But there is enough evidence to indicate that something is going on here, which is enough for my purposes. Please remember that it is not my intent to prove reincarnation. It is my intent to understand consciousness. If you consider Dr. Stevenson's work, which is just one very small aspect of what we call the "supernatural", and compare it to the many other aspects of the "supernatural", what you find is that consciousness is not known or understood, and that it is not God or the brain, and that it is not limited to the body. First, you do not know that it is "un normal", as that is your belief--not fact. Second, the lack of respect for children prohibits much of this knowledge from becoming known. Third, you seem to have forgotten the thousands of years that this has been studied by some cultures. Fourth, you seem to have forgotten that Dr. Stevenson did not accept cases where he could not establish some proof, which does not mean that the cases did not exist. Last of all, if my thoughts regarding cold and consciousness are at all significant, reincarnation may be more active in countries that are closer to the equator. I don't agree with either. I see Dr. Stevenson as being a forerunner and mentor of people who will investigate the "supernatural", because of his meticulous standards and procedures. He has shown that this area can be investigated if we follow careful practices and procedures. First you say that they are all imagination, now you say that they are observant? I agree that young ones are very observant. They also have a pure kind of logic and are often intelligent, but they interpret their observations through their lack of experience, so we must listen to them carefully. They do not yet know how to lie, so their statements are naive and honest. Around seven years old, children learn how to lie and steal, and they like to bring home measels, mumps, and chicken pox. The diseases come from socializing. The lies and stealing come from their ratonal minds. G

Hello Thorham; Welcome to the thread. I reviewed your profile and noted that you have an interest in physics, so knowing what is real would be of interest to you. We are in agreement that there could be a lot more to learn about reality, but I am not a scientist and know very little about science. So I ask a lot of questions, and, of course, have questions for you. If you, or anyone else that is knowledgable, could consider the following and give me your understanding, it would be very helpful. I think that consciousness, or what we call consciousness, exists outside of the body, but can not prove this because we can not really measure or identify it. One of the reasons that I think it exists outside of the body is that it seems to be affected by density and temperature--specifically cold. This leads me to believe that it is something that is real because I do not see how "thought" or a mental aspect could be affected by temperature. But as I stated, I know nothing about science, so my question is: Can cold affect energies or forces, of does it just affect matter? G

Hello Imdow123; Yes, in many ways that is a correct assessment. In another forum, there was a member who used to say that philosophy studies what something is, and develops a theory about it, then passes it to science for validation. Science tests the theory and establishes whether or not it is correct and valid, then if it proves valid, they pass it on to business. Business then develops this thing into a product and makes a fortune off of it. (chuckle) Philosophy goes back to thinking, science goes back to finding funding and endowments, and business smiles and waits for the next development. But what is philosophy? It is the study of that which is real. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But how can we know what is real? This question prompts all kinds of questions about knowledge; about how knowledge is aquired and whether or not that supposed knowledge is true. So before considering anything else, we can spend a lifetime just trying to establish what we know, how we know it, and whether or not that knowledge is true and valid. Then sometime in our old age, we realize that lies are also real, so we must understand knowledge, truth, and lies before we can attain wisdom. G

Tar; Sorry I'm so late getting back here. Well, there are a lot of people who claim to be "thinking" when in reality they have a "thought". Thinking generally requires a little more work than just having a thought, and it is necessary to doubt any understanding that we already have if that understanding is not based in fact and is in conflict with the facts. The same holds true for any feelings that we might have, as what we "feel" is what we believe, so it must be based in fact to be valid. If we allow our beliefs and feelings to corrupt the facts, then we are not really thinking, are we? We are just promoting our beliefs and opinions. Here you go again, relating "sound" conclusions to popular conclusions. Sound conclusions relate to fact, not opinion, not popularity, not belief. People thought the world was flat for a very long time. Was it because they were stupid? No. Based on the facts as they knew them, it was a sound conclusion and a rational conclusion, because anything else would be absurd. But they did not have all of the FACTS. Consciousness is an unknown, so anyone stating that they have enough facts to form a conclusion is a damned liar. Considering how little we know about it, we can not afford to take actual facts and dismiss them because we don't want to believe them and don't understand how they can work. Everyone has opinions; some are good, some are bad, and most are relevant at some point in time to some situation. I will always consider opinion, but if I can not find a basis in fact for any given opinion, then I will dismiss it with only a slight consideration. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is likely that I will give opinion no more than a 3 consideration unless I can see that it was formulated using facts, experience, or training. The only training that I know of that involves reincarnation is religious, and you have claimed no experience or religious training. You also seem dismissive of the facts, so your opinion is not very valuable to me in this specific instance. There is nothing "proper" about my world view. The lion is not going to lay down with the lamb, unless the lion's belly is very full, which is only a temporary reprieve for the lamb. Life is not proper, consciousness is not proper, and the only thing consistent about it is our inability to understand it. But the Birth and Death Certificates regarding the "former life" do belong to THIS REALITY, so your argument is nonsense. You are using that word "imagining" again. Stop using your imagination in lieu of facts. So what you are saying here is that "supernatural thoughts" do not fit in this reality, so they are not of this reality, but instead imagination. Since imagination is produced by the mind, which is undefinable by science, I must conclude that the mind does not fit in this reality. So the mind is supernatural? Is this your point, because I don't agree with it. Or is it your point that thoughts that you agree with are real, and thoughts that you do not agree with are supernatural? I don't know how you can call this retreating. The psychological theory that a child "develops" their consciousness supports my position. Do you remember me stating that conscious is not simple? That it in fact is extemely complex? Do you think that it is complex for all life? Do you think that a tree has an Ego, Id, and SuperEgo? Do you think that a tree has a mind? The idea that a whole "soul/mind" is dropped into a person is a religious idea; the concept that this "soul/mind" is then dropped into subsequent people, reincarnation, is also a religious idea; the concept that this "soul/mind" then goes on to heaven, hell, or nothingness is also a religious idea. I do not hold with the idea that consciousness is a whole "soul" or "mind" that is dropped into a body because it does not make sense with regard to evolution or other species. I see conscious awareness as a kind of ingredient in life, like water and chemicals are ingredients in life. So like water and chemicals that are simple, in their elemental state, they can become very complex when mixed with other things. I think that conscious awareness in the universe is very simple in it's elemental state, but when activated by, and activating, matter--it can become very complex. When discussing a new human life, it is clear to me that the part of the mind that is under-developed is the rational aspect of mind. This also makes sense as the rational mind is predominantly what we use to interpret our five senses and to negotiate with the physical world, so it would be kind of useless prior to having a body. My thought is that the rational aspect of mind develops as our bodies develop and that by age seven, it dominates our thinking. So there are two ways to look at this; either we don't think before age seven, or we start out using some other aspect of mind. Babies are born with instincts, the Id, and with emotions and desires, the SuperEgo, and if Dr. Stevenson is to be believed, and I do believe him, we can also start out with memories. So prior to age seven, it appears that any thinking that we do, and knowledge that we possess, is from the unconscious, or subconscious aspect of mind. This is the reality to which I referred--not "false beliefs". This is so much nonsensee that I don't even want to address it. Go to Wiki and look up the unconscious or subconscious mind and do some work. It is clear that you did not consider any information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article. When people start to use ridicule to make their points, it is because they do not have points. I find your argument childish and devoid of facts. No mechanism that you know of, and just what do you think "this reality" means? Do you want me to start making up words? When a person is unconscious, they are not dead. The body is still aware of, or conscious of, the need to keep functioning. The only thing that is truly unconscious is something that is not alive--like my table. But these are the words that I have been given to try to discuss this issue. Do you have a better idea? G

Tar; You have made some interesting comments here. Please consider my responses. I don't think that I "outlawed" religion or opinion. I just don't find that they provide useful answers in this type of study. The study of consciousness is actually metaphysics. Wiki definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics Metaphysics has been traditionally studied using introspection, and religion, looking into the mind to find answers. But we don't have to limit ourselves to introspection anymore, because science has learned a great deal about life, so we can add "facts" to what we already understand. When I study consciousness, my questions are: What can we know? and, How can we know it?. I try to answer these questions by considering, "How does it work?", so I need facts to answer my questions. And I refuse to limit my studies to "human" consciousness, so if you want me to accept opinion, you are going to have to find out the opinion of some other species for a comparison; otherwise, the human ego is going to get in the way of facts. Well sure you can, but what happens to their perspective when you do that? You can assume their perspective, you can rationalize their perspective, but you can not imagine their perspective unless you listen to them. So you can either listen wholeheartedly for understanding, or you can assume, rationalize, and imagine whatever you want--marginalizing their perspective and making it more compatible with yours. There is no other option that I can see. I am not even considering "bloodlines" as that is a different development of consciousness. What I was referring to is Dr. Stevenon's observations. He noted that almost all of the children lost interest in their "prior" life around age seven, and became fully engaged in their current lives. The change that children go through around age seven is well documented by psychiatry, religion, and even secular law. Consider the following from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Holy_Communion Many religions consider age seven as the appropriate time to induct the child into the congregation, as it is considered that by this time, the child is fully cognizant of the realities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages Secular law considers a child below the age of seven to be too imaginative to know the truth, which makes it difficult to prosecute child abuse and pedophilia cases, unless there is corroborating evidence. So there is a great deal of support for Dr. Stevenson's observations. A lot of people will look at the above information and conclude that a child below the age of seven is simply too young to be believed. It is all imagination. But I look at it differently because I know that most of the "supernatural" is put off, and explained away, as imagination. So if a child's testimony is that a person lived and died before the child was born, and the child knows the person's name, city where s/he lived, family and their names, and the child knows the person's occupation and the way the person died--and the child is right--then how was this information acquired? There are only a few possibilities; either it is fraud, or reincarnation, or possibly ESP. Dr. Stevenson's work has been too closely scrutinized by too many people for too many years for me to accept that this is all fraud. Although ESP is a possibility, why is it that the children relate to the prior life in the first person, as ESP does not generally bestow subjectivity. So it appears to me that reincarnation is a viable answer, and it can happen. No. What I am saying is that at age seven, children begin to accept a different reality--this one. I read an article in Wiki, not sure what title it was under, that explained that children are not born with a full compliment of consciousness as we know it. They develop their consciousness during their childhood. This makes sense to me as I have watched children experiment with gravity, space and time, and cause and effect, so I think that the rational part of the mind is still defeloping in childhood. Since most of the "supernatural" that I have studied, works through the unconscious aspect of mind, it is hidden from the rational mind, but still part of us. This would go a long way in explaining unusual abilities, like child prodegies, and some personality traits. This may well be true, expecially if children are working with the unconscious mind as well as the conscious rational mind. Regarding reincarnation, if I saw a birthmark on my child while bathing him, and mentioned it, and my child responded, "That is where I got shot." I am pretty sure that I would respond, "No, darling. Momma would never let anyone shoot you." But a Hindu mother might say, "Oh really. When did that happen?" and the child might say, "When my name was George." This would be put off to imagination in the West, but might be considered in the East. The only way that we know of to reach the unconscious mind is questioning. Whether it is Socratic questioning, or Freud's psycho-analysis, both require questions to learn about the unconscious. Statements denying the child's perceptions would shut down the avenue of information. This reminds me of a story I read many years ago in a magazine. It was written by a psychic, who was pretty famous at the time, though I don't remember her name. She explained that she was sharing the story in the hope that it would help other people to understand children, who also may experience this trauma. She was four or five years old and going on a trip to the country for the weekend with her family to visit her grandparents. Her grandpa was her favorite person in the whole world, so when she got there, she ran up the porch steps and flung herself into his arms. He picked her up, swung her around, then leaned back to get a look at her. When she looked at his face, she saw a skull. She screamed, scrambled down, and refused to look at him or come near him for the rest of the vacation. She broke his heart and never saw him again, as he died soon after. As an adult, she knew that when she sees a skull instead of a face, that means the person is going to die soon, but she did not know this as a child, and there was no one who understood and could advise her. So do you think the ignorance that caused her grandpa's heart ache and her years of guilt was better than knowledge? People are not that altruistic. (chuckle) Remember that six year olds are learning that dogs sometimes bite, cars can smash you, and your bicycle sometimes throws you down on concrete--life is dangerous. This new information causes the fears and night terrors of a six year old. So what do the parents do? They take full advantage and invent the "Boogey Man" to keep the children where they belong, in the yard, close to home, or in bed, so mom and dad can have some fun. How do you know they are not supposed to be seen? It parks it in the section entitled "probability". Since I believe that all things work off of cause and effect, but life works from multiple causes, it is my thought that any "reincarnation" that happens would simply be an influence. So the reincarnation information, the DNA of our parents, the environment, and our experiences would all work together to create a new personality. This works with the psychological idea that a child's consciousness grows along with the child. It also appears that the mind, or some parts of it, can exist as a single unit for some amount of time after death. So I will have to expand my thinking, again. No. You can believe whatever you want Tar. I think that everyone should be able to have their own beliefs and their own Gods. I just don't want people doing philosophy with their beliefs and Gods. G

Tar; Please consider the following responses. Well, good. Did you also watch the videos? And what "explanation" would you be referring to? Are you trying to say that Dr. Stevenson thought that the children "speculated" about their marks? I highly doubt that, as Dr. Stevenson was a psychiatrist, and would know better. Kids don't work the way you seem to presume, when they are 2, 3, 4, or 5 years old. They simply accept. Children do not start comparing, and therefore speculating, until they reach the age of seven, or close to seven, which is also when they forget about the past life. So this explanation is not valid. And one can not use imagination to conjure up a real person, who lived before. So you are calling them liars. No matter how nicely you put it, the reality is that you believe that they either intentionally created a fraud, or they simply are so imaginative that they don't know the truth. And what do you base this opinion on? Nothing but your belief. There are no facts to support this belief, only your opinion. Since you stated, "and evidently home to a fair amount of shotgun incidents", it is also clear that your opinion is biased. Here in the US, suicide rates beat homicide rates two to one, so I don't think you have cause to consider us better than them. Since your argument is based on biased opinion, belief, your imagination, and no facts, you will forgive me if I consider it to be the garbage that it is. Yes, alternative explanations based in fact. This does not mean that we get to call people liars. Yes. I have noted for some time now that you tend to use your imagination to do philosophy. We had this discussion about imagination early on when discussing ESP. Remember? I noted that some people imagine that they know what other people are thinking, and that this thinking is actually imagining that what the other people know is their imagination. Instead of running in these circles, it is easier to just deal with facts and leave imagination to Hollywood. How young? You would have to have been under the age of seven, and probably had never heard of the word reincarnation at that time. Before thinking about a topic long and hard, I find that it is best to acquire some facts, so that there is something to think about--otherwise you are imagining. These questions regarding "souls" and explanations are religious questions. I don't really care about your beliefs. This is the Philosophy forum, not the Religion forum. Oh. So you want us to come up with a "testable theory" on consciousness? You must think that Dr. Sevenson and I are geniuses. Thank you for the compliment, but I don't think that I can oblige you yet. Actually, there is very little that we really "know" about consciousness. Dr. Stevenson thought that it worked off of "will" like most religions do. I think that it works through emotion. These are religious questions. G Maybe so, but it is not philosophy. G

Hi EdEarl; Not being much of a scientist, this is probably a stupid question. But is it possible that the viruses don't recognize the bacteria as life forms, so they do not attempt a parasidic relationship with them? After reading the link, which explained how slow the metabolism in these bacteria could be, it reminded me of endospore. Wiki link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore Endospore can go for centuries or even hundreds of thousands of years without eating and sometimes have a metabolism that it not discernable. I suppose they could be in asteroids. G

Moontanman; Please consider the following: This is absolutely true and totally misleading. You seem to have a talent for this kind of misleading logic. A more true statement might be, "If you believe you can, it becomes possible, but if you believe you can't, it becomes impossible." Sure it will. Belief allowed us to put a man on the moon, which was impossible. Belief allowed us to burn witches for consorting with the Devil, which is impossible. Here you go again. You try to equate belief with something impossible, then use that to deny the value of belief. It is nonsense. It is like saying that if a person can not do math like the "Human Computer", then they can not do math at all. Or if a person can not think like Einstein, then they can not have a valid idea. Bullchit. It would help if you could separate belief, magic, and religion in your mind, as they are not the same thing. Isn't that what Dr. Stevenson did? I was raised a good little Catholic, so reincarnation was a totally foreign concept to me. I did not believe it was possible, and thought it to be a religious concept. Somwhat silly, and mostly wishful thinking. But I was wrong. I had to, again, expand my ideas on conscious awareness because I am an analytical thinker, so I can not allow my personal beliefs to override facts. Facts are facts. If you watched the videos, you would find empirical evidence. You would also find that testing was done to verify claims. But can I convince you? No. You believe that consciousness comes from the brain, even though there is no evidence of this. You believe that the mind is probably in the brain, even though there is no evidence of this. You believe that the mind/soul is within the body, even though there is no evidence of this. Your belief, not facts, makes this all possible. You and I must have very different views on what constitutes empirical evidence. The following is Wiki's definition: So if I am reading this correctly, then evidence can be acquired by observation and does not require experimentation in order to be valid empirical evidence. It is also noted that memory and testimony can be used as secondary or indirect empirical evidence. So the birth records, death records, medical examiner's reports, autopsy reports, birth marks, deformities, and names and locations of deceased individuals would be empirical evidence. (1) The memory of the "reincarnated" individual would be secondary or indirect evidence, and the testimony of others would be secondary or indirect evidence. (2) So a man, who was born with the tips of his fingers on one hand missing and remembers a past life, would provide memory evidence (2). His medical records that show the deformity at birth would be evidence (1). Finding that a person did indeed live before by the name and in the city claimed by the "reincarnated" individual would be evidence (1). Finding a birth and death record for the past life individual would be evidence (1). Finding medical records that show the past person having lost their finger tips would be evidence (1). All of the (1) evidence would support the (2) memory evidence. A child who would starve herself to the point of being hospitalized for malnutrition because she was not allowed to go and live with her prior family, would only be memory (2) evidence--but it is very compelling evidence. A child who greets and hugs strangers as if they were family, provides some compelling evidence, and when she asks after family members, by name, who are not present, that is very interesting and difficult to dispute. Was there testing? Of course. People are not going to simply accept a child on the child's own say so, especially people with money. In one case, the father of the deceased child told the mother to hide in the house prior to the new child's arrival. The child greeted her prior father, then asked after her mother. She was told to find her mother, and although there were women present, she did not accept that any of the women were her mother. She went into the house and found her mother. When all of this evidence is viewed together, it is difficult for a rational person to dispute. Of course, there can always be lies and fraud, but Dr. Stevenson's work has been too closely scrutinized for any fraud to have not been found. And Dr. Stevenson, himself, has been observed to be a person of high integrity. So my thought is that the evidence must be believed, or alternatively, one must believe that the medical examiners records, death and birth records, autopsy records, and all the rest must be discounted as not valid. The only reason that I can see to discount all of these records would be if there were reason to doubt the people who made the records. If one thought that the belief of the culture could influence the professionals to corrupt the evidence. But this would be a culture bias and a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Exactly what do you think metaphysics is? G

Moontanman; If this is an example of what I will find in the Skeptic, then I am disappointed as it reads like a gossip magazine. I find that it provides a great deal of innuendo and much is implied, but it is logically inconsistent with the facts. Please consider the following from your quote from Skeptic. This starts out by stating that the study is about children. Most people assume that children can not be trusted to know or tell the truth, so this implies that the study can not be believed. What the Skeptic fails to mention is that only corroborated testimony is accepted, so the study is not based exclusively on testimony or on children, and in fact incorporates actual evidence. Dr. Stevenson's study is about personal experience, so testimony has to be a part of that study, but why did he use children? Why didn't he use adults? Two reasons that are logically valid; first, the children remembered the past lives and it is always better to get testimony before time and influence can change memory. Second, if he used adults, then skeptics would claim that the adults had time to interfere with the corroborating evidence. So he had to use children. What about his "lifelong interest in psychosomatic issues", or the "usefulness" of reincarnation concepts in medicine? He was a psychiatrist. So of course he had an interest in psychosomatic issues, and if a person were reincarnated, or believed that they were reincarnated, that would seriously impact treatment, as this is not the same as psychosis. Well, every disease is not explained by heredity or environment, and he had reason to consider that some things are influenced by consciousness. He would not be the first. When a man, who was born with the tips of his fingers missing, claims to have lived a prior life where his fingers were amputated in childhood, then he died and was reborn; and then to find that the man's story accurately depicts an actual life that existed--one has to consider the possibility. Or to learn of a child, who claims to have been shot in a previous life and find that this child has a small birthmark that matches where he claims to have been shot, and that the child has a larger birthmark that would appear to be an exit wound from the bullet. Any intelligent rational person, who has seen this evidence, must consider the possibilities. Consider the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scOQ7alpMBg This statement implies that Dr. Stevenson was obsessed with reincarnation, but I am pretty sure that there were a few other questions floating around in his mind. (chuckle) Although Dr. Stevenson is most noted for his work regarding reincarnation, his work was not limited to this study. This is pure nonsense and implies that Dr. Stevenson rejected science. He did not. In his early work, he rejected any evidence that could not be gathered by scientific methodology, and eventually came to believe that he was missing the larger picture by limiting his evidence. The key word here is "limited", as it is possible that there are other influences that affect these things. When there are three children in the same house with the same hereditary factors and the same environment, why do only two children get sick? Any intelligent person will consider that there may be other influencing factors. These two statements are logically inconsistent. If in fact, the person and the person's body existed separately and independently, then the question of birthmarks and birth defects would be irrelevant. One can not state that they are independent and also state that the birthmarks are dependent upon the personality. Make up your mind, Skeptic. This would be the birth marks and birth defects he found that related the deceased personality to the new person. It is an interesting idea that does have some plausibility if one considers emotion rather than will to be the instigator of this phenomenon. Most theories denote "will" to cause much of the religious or paranormal experience, but I think that it could be more accurately explained by emotion. In the studies that I have read, the "reincarnations" seem to be caused by tramatic death or some kind of bond with people still living--both relate to strong emotion. I don't know if "will" can affect the body, but I know that emotion can. Although it is well argued whether emotion causes physical reactions or whether the physical reactions cause the emotion, consider that hormones can cause emotion, and emotion can also cause the production of hormones--it is cyclic. Also consider that hormones can produce other hormones, then consider that hormones can actually turn off and on different parts of DNA, and there is a plausible physical path to follow. Does this mean that emotion can affect DNA? No. I don't know enough about science to state that, but it seems to be possible, considering my limited knowledge. Maybe worthy of investigation. Could this be an aspect of evolution? Could lizards that are eaten too easily, prompt an emotional response, that produces hormones, that cause a change in DNA to produce a better color, so that they can camoflage themselves and hide from predators? Maybe. A lot of peoplle have speculated this. I don't agree with it, but there is nothing wrong with speculation. It is what thinking people do. The following video from the BBC shows the religious side of this question, and religion seems to consider this as being a matter or "will". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDI3M9VB8BU Naive? Like Plato? Or maybe we should consider the thoughts of Carl Jung? As in this link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOeQZZYx34&list=PLvHIIBAPFw9pHKDxMJVi6TVgyie0UAdTv Then there is a peer review from a philosopher, as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg Or if you are looking for a newer idea, consider the thoughts of Michael Talbot, who wrote "The Hollographic Universe", which alines with the thinking of two prominent scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holographic_Universe#The_Holographic_Universe Most of the people that I went to high school with experimented with drugs. I was actually uninvited from a party once because they thought I might be a "NARC", because I did not do drugs. Those "druggies" are now the doctors, lawyers, politicians, and leaders of the community. So this does not impress me much. In this video, he is a good deal older and points out some of the things that he had not considered when he first started his investigations. These are things that science would not consider like personalities, food preferences, emotional attachments and bonds to strangers--the subjective self. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0 If even one of these cases is a true example of reincarnation, then it means that reincarnation can happen. So the questions are: How does it happen? When does it happen? Why does it happen? And under what circumstance? Dr. Stevenson is trying to answer these questions. G Well, I believe that I am a neutral monist or something very close to that. Since there is no positive empirical evidence that you have a mind, then I am sure you will not mind if I ignore the scepticism associated with what may be your mind. (chuckle) It is either evidence of personal experience or it is evidence that they are liars. Science may not think so, but Courts feel very strongly about this. Personal experience is the only evidence that we have of consciousness. This is something that people say, but it is pure nonsense. I suspect that the "belief" that is being discussed is religious belief--like moving mountains and walking on water. So I can agree that there is no evidence of that except for religious historical interpretations. But belief is not always religious. Why do we tell people that they must believe in themselves? What is confidence if not a strong belief in our abilities? Why are we told that the "right attitude" will take us half way there, but the "wrong attitude" will get us nowhere? What is attitude or confidence if not belief? Do you really think that an athlete can get "in the zone" without belief in him/her self? Belief seriously impacts our success, and lack of belief can cause failure, which is why we follow charismatic leaders, and employ coaches and cheer leaders, who instill belief. If you want positive evidence, then consider motivational speakers. I know a woman who earns a six figure salary and vacations for free in the Cayman Islands. Why? Because she is a motivational speaker, who works for an advertising company. She flys into town, makes her speech, and sales sky-rocket. She makes people believe that they can, so they do. Businesses are not run by kindly altruistic people, who want to give away free vacations. They pay her because the statistics bear out the truth of her worth--this is positive evidence. So to say that belief has no "discernible effect" is just as big a lie as stating that you can walk on water. Belief is not magic, but it does influence us; and therefore, our reality. G

Hi Guys; I am sorry that I have taken so long to get back, but life seems to be moving faster than I am lately. Although I do want to discuss Dr. Stevenson's work, after reviewing this page, I thought that I should address my concepts of consciousness. I don't want to spend a page and a half arguing about whether or not I think a rock is conscious, or the idea that "souls" are floating around looking for bodies. So please consider the following: That is exactly what I think, that all life has some sort of recognizable consciousness. Life is consciousness, as all life is "aware" of, or conscious of, the need to survive, which is one of the indicaters that we use to define life. This "awareness" of the need to survive is the survival instinct that all life possesses and demonstrates by eating, reproducing, the fight or flight instinct, or generally doing whatever it is capable of to ensure that it continues. This "awareness" is consciousness, but does not imply that all life thinks--thinking requires a processor, a brain. I know that my ideas of consciousness seem kind of different, but once a person understands how I think of it, it actually does make some sense. I spent many decades studying what consciousness isn't. It isn't God, as God is an interpretation of consciousness. It isn't the brain, because some things that are conscious don't have a brain--like plants. It isn't the dream reality, where the physical is just in our minds, like the Matrix, because there would be no purpose for inventing a physical reality, (People tend to forget that there was a physical reality in the Matrix. It is just that the robots ran it.) and, as science has proven, consciousness works with and is affected by the physical. But neither can I believe that any amount of physical complexity can bestow subjectivity, as this looks like wishful thinking to me. So none of the theories that I have seen seem to be complete explanations. Regarding what it is, I have always believed that consciousness was real, probably because of my studies of the paranormal. But also suspect that consciousness has degrees and complexities, as I doubt that a flower can think, or that a rock is aware. Tar seemed to understand when I compared consciousness to energy, but I don't really understand energy, so I use water to symbolize and understand consciousness. H2O is everywhere. It is in the air, in a rock, in the earth, in us, but would anyone call a molecule of H2O water? Yes and no. Technically I suppose that it is water, but it does not flow or pool or self-level, in fact it does not act like water at all. This is what I think consciousness is in the Universe, something that exists, but does not have the abilities or properties of actual consciousness as we understand it. So what makes H2O become water? Well, that would be physical effects like temperature to cause condensation, and some kind of matter to condense on, and some kind of matter to hold the water so that it pools. I think that consciousness in the Universe works like this, and it is activated by matter, and activates matter to become aware (alive), then life evolves into something that has a brain and knows consciousness. I understand that this is just an idea, and that there is no evidence for this idea. But this idea uses logic and reason, considers the things that consciousness can not possibly be, the different aspects of consciousness, how consciousness seems to work, the consideration that consciousness is both physical and mental, and it conforms pretty well with the theories that I have read, so it makes sense to me. This concept is also supported by Panpsychism, although there are differences. There is no reason that I can think of to assume that consciousness is the complex consciousness of humans, except the religious ideas. It seems much more likely that consciousness starts out as a simple something that evolves, just like life evolves, and that physical matter is what enables this evolution. Just as we are physically more evolved that leaves, we are consciously more evolved than leaves So no, I do not think that a rock or the Universe is actually aware of anything or conscious as we understand it. If there is a better explanation, I have not found it. G No one can have a third-person perspective of another person's thoughts. It is not possible, as that would require mind reading. But all of us can have a third-person perspective of other person's feelings/emotions. We can see the anger emitting from one person, and the reactive fear or anger that is activated in the second person for a third-person perspective. The only way consciousness can be observed is by observing feeling and emotions. This is why I study the supernatural and religion, because they are all about emotion, so some things can be learned. I will grant that it is not easy to get real information, but at least it is obtainable, eventually, with hard work. There can be a thousand individual drops of water, each separate and distinct, yet they are all the same thing, and at some point, through evaporation and condensation, will join to be one. This is how I view consciousness, as individual separate minds or awarenesses, that are all connected. Believe me, I thought about it. Does consciousness exist? Can you show it to me? There is no evidence of consciousness except that we think we are conscious--we feel it. Then there is bonding and the emotion and feelings coming from another person or animal, so the only thing that we can prove about the location of consciousness, is that it is between us. Consciousness is only apparent in life, but how does it get there? This is not apparent, and I do not believe in God or magic. How does life start? G

Tar and Moontanman; I am exhausted, so I am going to bed. It appears that I have the conversation that I have been looking for, so give me some time to find some links. Then I will respond some time tomorrow. G

Moontanman; A few pages back, I stated that I would examine this thread and your posts to see if there was a chance that we could discuss this subject civilly. Since I stated it, of course, I did it. What I found was that your first post, as follows; was all assertion and denial. You did not feel the need to present citations regarding these assertions because they are accepted beliefs--in science. But they are not accepted beliefs in reality as is evidenced by the polls that I posted from the paranormal Wiki article and the statistics regarding religion. So to me, this is all opinion. Philosophers study reality; not science. This is the Philosophy forum. Also if you review my OP carefully, you may note that I study consciousness. So although I USE the supernatural to learn about consciousness, and I USE religion to learn about consciousness, this thread is actually about consciousness. Do you have an interest in studying consciousness? In your third post, you made a comment that I found conflicted, as follows: Absolutely no one, not even a crazy person, would consider something for 60 years that they believed did not exist. So my thought is that you have spent this time trying to prove that it does not exist, and that other people have opposed you; otherwise, you would not have continued to fight. So again, although science denies the supernatural, it appears that other people embrace it. It is not a done deal. Well, this gets a little sticky. The comment in question was ancillary to the point, which was a comparison of physical Gods interested in spiritual things, and spiritual Gods interested in physical things. It was not my intention to prove or disprove anything in the Bible, and I actively avoid religious arguments most of the time, as they are a lose lose situation. If I lose the argument, which is likely because it is difficult to change beliefs, then I lose. If I win the argument, then I have damaged someone's faith and belief, and they lose. So what is won? I don't like to damage people unnecessarily, and conscious awareness is confusing enough on it's own, so I will not allow my threads to be drawn into religious debate. It simply isn't worth it to me. I use religion to learn about consciousness, but try to treat it with respect and not delve into the details. I am more interested in pseudo-philosophy than pseudo-science, and many of the things that have been demonstrated as not true are being re-evaluated using better techniques. I think that I discussed this early on, but will provide links if asked. I don't know what other people accept. You may believe that people do not accept the supernatural at all, but the statistics state otherwise. To tell you the truth, when I try to leave the posting area to look up links, I always lose what I have been writing. Not sure why. I need to work on this problem. And I am not always sure what I am going to address, so I don't have links prepared, but if you ask, I will look and then post. Like I did for Cladking when he asked about Freud, or for Tar regarding religions; specifically the Hindu gods question. So you are another one of the people, who think that "belief" and "feelings" and "emotions" are invalid forms of evidence. Has it occurred to you that these are the only aspects of consciousness that can be studied from a third-person perspective? I am not willing to jump into the 2,000 year old debate of religion (feeling) vs science (thought) in regard to consciousness. In the first place, anyone with half a brain can figure out that if either side were right, they would have won by now. In the second place, it is simply a power struggle about who rules, God or man. Of course not. Just ask me why I think so, and I will look for sites. Then if you want, you can work to refute those sites. Think questions, like in discussion; not attack, like in debate. Thank you for this site. It has much more than just Dr. Stevenson and will be good study material for me. I will grant that it opposes many of my views, but I am not right about everything that I think. This will give me a base for comparing the negative and positive regarding the supernatural and god issues, which can only clarify my concepts of consciousness. http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html Why didn't you present this site on the first page? OK, but are you interested in consciousness, or are you just here to continue your valiant struggle against religion and the paranormal/supernatural? Because all that I really care about is consciousness. If not for Tar, I would have done an Elvis and left the building. Monologues don't help a person learn much. G

Tar; Well, if I have succeeded in nothing else, I believe that I have shown that the reason for most of the contradiction is our simplistic view of the problem. When I started to study this years ago, I had the same simplistic view, but as I learned more my ideas expanded, then expanded again to incorporate new information. A few years ago, I was reading a post about cosmology and realized that my view was of Earth only. Earth does not get to have it's own rules of physics, so I had to expand again. That was when I compared the way the Universe works with the way an ecosystem works and the way that life forms work to come up with the idea that conscious awareness is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want. OK, but from my perspective it still looks like they believe in magic. Either they believe in God and attribute the mental aspect to God, or they believe in nothing and attribute the mental aspect to a magical development of the physical. The ones who believe in God make some sense to me, because God is an interpretation of conscious awareness. But the ones who believe in "nothing" make no sense at all. The physical does not magically turn into the mental, and I seriously doubt that "nothing" actually exists. How could it? How could "things" be held in a space of "nothing"? Hundreds of years ago we believed that a cup that was empty held nothing, but we know better now--it is full of air. Whether you call it the Aether, the in-between, space, or conscious awareness, it exists. And what "facts" would those be? I was asked for a citation with regard to a metaphor that I used to explain a principle--a metaphor, Tar. I was asked for a citation to explain an ancilary topic, and this citation would have supported a strawman argument designed to turn this into a religious debate. I was informed that I must provide citations whenever asked even if they are off point and counter-productive to the discussion. When I introduced the concept of aura readers, was I asked for a citation? No. When I commented on some people's ability to get information about a person by holding a personal object, was I asked for a citation? No. When I explained that emotional memory does not work the same as regular memory, was I asked for a citation? No. When I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson and provided a link to the University of Virginia, did anyone read the work? Not as far as I can tell. So, again, I ask, what "facts" would those be? It was explained to me that subjective personal experience is not evidence of conscious awareness, which is the most laughable of all, since conscious awareness is nothing if it is not subjective personal experience. I like personal experience and often look for it when considering a doctor, lawyer, plumber, lawn maintenance person, babysitter, parental advisor, teacher, etc. But apparently I am wrong, it is opinion based in ignorance, bias, and superstition that is factually valid. Right? In the story, yes, but in reality there is blindness and deafness. There are a variety of people with a variety of abilities and perspectives. We are here to share our perspectives, but that is a little difficult to do if people do not read the links. This is like willing oneself to be blind, refusing to see, so that the other perspectives that I need are uninformed perspectives, and so worthless to me. My Aunt is deaf and lived with us most of my life, so I am familiar with the problem. She will be 86 next month and is well loved by the family. She lost her hearing as an infant, and although it was a tragedy for her, it had surprising benefits for me. When I started school, my teacher asked my Mother if I had had a speech problem, as it was clear to her that I had received some kind of speech therapy--my diction and enunciation was perfect. Mom explained that this was a result of trying to be understood by my deaf Aunt, as she read lips and would not understand me if I did not clearly enunciate my words. A benefit to me. It was also easier for me to accept people, who are different, whether from handicap or culture. Another benefit. But the gift my Aunt really gave me was the ability to appreciate different perspectives. As a teen, I noted that my Aunt enjoyed slap-stick comedy, because the comedy is visual, but she did not understand most TV shows. So I would turn off the volume and study shows to find the ones that she might be able to follow and enjoy. This study led me to an understanding of the serious dichotomy between what is said and the action. In most of the shows, if someone had not informed me of who the "good guy" was, I would never be able to tell by his actions. This experience showed me that what we know, or are told, seriously impacts what we believe, even if what we see is very different. I learned to observe what is, then compare it to what I am told that it is, as these things rarely truly conform. A great benefit to me. So exactly what am I supposed to do to get people to read the damned links? G

Tar; You know, for a guy who claims that all perspectives are necessary to see the whole, you sure do limit them when it is convenient to your theories. I am like the bird flying overhead. I can see the lay of the land, and I can see the elephant, but I can not tell if it is an elephant or a large boulder--until it moves. After years of watching this thing move, I know that it is not simply rolling down hill. It has direction and purpose, so it is alive. You will forgive me if I feel the need to question the blind men. Some, who think it is a wall, have noted that this wall seems to breath, some have noted that it seems to have a heartbeat, all have noted that it is warm. The men studying the snake have noted that it should not be examined too long, as holding the snake for a long time can sometimes cause your feet to get wet. Now I wonder why that is? The only people, who are lying, are the ones who want to believe that it is a boulder, because they are aftraid of elephants (the supernatural). (a/k/a wimps) I thought of another rule. 11. Do not limit your studies of conscious awareness to humans, as you will end up studying the human ego instead of conscious awareness. G

Agreed. G

Windevoid; I think you are right. I have studied consciousness all of my life, and there were times when i left myself with nothing to believe in, so that is pretty scary. But I kept on pressing for the truth of things because I am a philosopher, natural born. I need to know. Philosophy is supposed to translate to "love of wisdom", but it starts out as a love of truth. Philosophers are always raving about finding truth, but truth is not always a nice thing, and it is not always wise to tell the truth. When the wife asks, "How does my butt look in this dress?" the wise man will give a better answer than the honest man. (chuckle) I think that philosophy has three levels. In the first level we try to discern what is true, what is real; in the second we learn about lies, about the discrepancies, about the many different perspectives of any truth that can cause truth to be lies and lies to be true. Every conflict has truth and lies on both sides, and one person's truth may well be lies to another person. So I think this must be sorted out before one can reach the third level and know any wisdom. It can take a lifetime to achieve wisdom, so this is probably why we like to write down what we learn for future generations. While considering your OP, I had a thought. We all know that religion got a little out of control a few thousand years ago (the Dark Ages), then the Enlightenment came and science exploded on the scene. But was there a cause for this? Did something push people to make religion get out of control? When Augustine wrote his proclamation that the people did not need to think, they just needed to trust God and the church, was there a reason for denying thought? I have always blamed religion for this mess, but now I wonder about the coincidence that this happened on the heels of the great thinkers, the Ancient Greeks. I think that life runs in cycles and patterns, and that it works off of cause and effect. So if the Ancients asked too many questions, explored too many possibilities too fast, then the people could have become disillusioned and frightened, not knowing what to believe. This would have made the people ripe for a religion that took away the need to think, and after 1,000 years of not being allowed to think, it would have caused science to explode in a hundred different directions because the need was dire by then. I have never studied societies and cultures, but it is possible that the philosophers started this whole mess. Scary stuff. Do we think about a new idea (philosophy), then decide how we feel about it (religion), then act on it (science)? Maybe. Yes Ed, we talk and talk and talk. (chuckle) G

Tar; Had to give you a green up for that last post as it was very insightful. I must also apologize. What I am asking people to understand is unreasonable, and I know it. We are talking about almost 50 years of study and considerations that differ from accepted thought. When I first started to discuss my thoughts, I had no idea that they were so different from everyone else's, but I know better now. So when I present a site like Dr. Stevenson's, there is a dual purpose. Yes, I am presenting the site so that people can review it and learn, but I am also looking for a person who has already reviewed it. Someone who is closer to my way of thinking, but so far, I am not finding that person. I can not be the only person in the whole damned world who sees conscious awareness as real and logical, so I suspect that there are others who will simply not expose themselves to the ridicule that comes with different thought. When I state that "conscious awareness is not simple", it is probably the most understated statement ever made, as conscious awareness in some form or another is part of all sciences, all religions, all philosophies, all life, and all reality. Then if one considers that I am a holistic thinker, it becomes clear that I am asking people to see the connections between puzzle pieces of conscious awareness, that they have not yet examined. It is an impossible request. You have been a great deal of help to me because you show me where my thinking is different from others, you ask questions that cause me to explain my understandings, so that they are in written form and clearer to me and others, and you are open minded enough to consider new ideas. My abilities to sort and organize are seriously diminished post MS, so I am never going to write a book. And I tire easily. It is my hope that people will start to consider that there is another way to look at these things, and that some bright person will figure this out eventually. For anyone who wants to look at conscious awareness as I do, there are some rules to consider that may help you, as follows; 1. Conscious awareness is not simple. Do not underestimate it. Most theories and religious beliefs find a truth about conscious awareness, then declare that it is THE truth about conscious awareness. It would be like seeing an acorn drop from a tree and declaring that all things that drop acorns are trees, and all things that don't drop acorns are not trees. Wrong. There is more to understand about conscious awareness and will be for hundreds of years. 2. Magic is for children. If it looks like magic, you don't have the answer. (chuckle) 3. Coincidence is a word that is most often used to cover a lie or hide a truth. When you see a commonality between things, like all societies belief in some sort of God, then there is a reason for this belief. To find the reason, you must trace the most common threads of the beliefs, then discover the roots and causes of those common threads. 4. Mental aspects work off of cause and effect just like physical aspects. 5. Until science has a better grasp on what conscious awareness actually is, the way that we know and understand it is through personal experience. So if one is studying conscious awareness, and decides that personal experience is not a valid source of information, then what source of information are we using? An idiotic idea. It may well be that all of the crap that is thought is just our imaginations. We need to consider personal experience when studying conscious awareness. 6. Conscious awareness is not discovered through our five senses, with the information transferred to the rational mind. It is discovered through our sixth sense, emotion, and is known in the unconscious part of the mind, then the information is interpreted and transferred to the rational mind. So personal experiences that reflect a knowledge of conscious awareness (God) are all interpretations. This is important to remember. Psychology can be of some help here, as long as you do not consider the ramblings of people, who try to explain the experience away. There is only so much that the Momma/Daddy complexes can explain. 7. Keep to simple truths. Do not draw conclusions. If Dr. Ian Stevenson's work convinces you that reincarnation can happen, as it has convinced me, that does not mean that it always happens. Drawing conclusions from simple truths is what religions do, and it is a mistake. Because something can happen, does not mean that it does happen, so we can not conclude that reincarnation is how people are born. The next step would be to examine when it happens, how it happens, why it happens, and under what circumstance. Conscious awareness is an extremely complex subject. Do not draw conclusions. Keep to the simple truths. 8. If you can not pass Conscious Awareness 101, the knowledge that conscious awareness is not God, is not religious, and is not supernatural, then fold up your studies and look to some other subject. 9. Always bear in mind that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, so conscious awareness which is arguably life, is also physical, mental, and spiritual. 10. Everything about conscious awareness relates to perspectives. I think this is the key to truly understanding it. Philosophy considers the mental perspectives like Plato's forms and the dream realities. Religion considers the spiritual perspectives and studies how this makes us feel and interrelate with each other. Science considers the physical perspectives like the brain, and ecosystems, and biology, and hormones and pheremones, and temperature, and energies, and electro-magnetic fields. All of these things are part of conscious awareness. Then there are the individual perspective, the oneness that is shared by a species, and an overall idea of what conscious awareness actually is. Lots of perspectives, none of them telling the whole truth. There are probably more rules, but I am tired now. Tar, thank you for all of your help, and your patience with me. G

Tar; I can respect the fact that you would trust your own opinion, as I trust mine--intelligent people do this. My problem comes when people will not look at the information offered, will not consider the ideas, but will argue that I don't know what I am talking about. This is what does not make sense to me. I realize that I look at consciousness in an entirely different way, but there are reasons for this that seem sound and logical to me. How could anyone judge my reasoning if they don't look at the information that caused me to think this in the first place? One of the things that drives me crazy in these forums is how science people argue God with religious people. It is a joke. Science people will say that religion states that God is thus and such, and since thus and such is not possible, God does not exist. And they call this logic. It would be like me stating that I have known Tar for some time now and am sure that he is a cross between an orangutan and a goldfish. Then some science guy explains that there are a thousand reasons why it is not possible for Tar to be a cross between an orangutan and a goldfish, therefore Tar does not exist. Weird logic. Then some philosopher notes that it is possible that Tar does exist, and that Gees has simply misinterpreted what Tar is. I am that philosopher. God and the "supernatural" do not exist as interpreted, but they are interpreted all over the world all through known history, so something does exist. I think that the something is conscious awareness and that it is part of our reality, and that it works just like anything else--by cause and effect--but that there are also reasons why it is interpreted rather than known. Now see, this is confusing to me. The "thinker" that Cladking and I were recently discussing was Dr. Blanco, who is a psychologist and psychiatrist that worked with Anna Freud. As far as I know he does not believe in reincarnation and there is nothing in the Wiki article that connects him to reincarnation. Here I don't see the connection between the "numbers" and "layers" and "'greater' reality" and "rats" and "semi-gods", nor can I figure out how you could come up with these ideas in relation to any of the links that I provided. Are you making stuff up, or maybe referencing some religious belief? All of these questions might be interesting to consider in relation to reincarnation. Did you read Dr. Ian Stevenson's link on the first page of this thread? Why didn't you bring up these issues then? By the way, Dr. Stevenson never uses the word reincarnation. He simply presents his facts and lets people come to their own conclusions. I have no idea what this is about and assume it is in relation to some religion. I think you are still mixing religious ideas with conscious awareness ideas. Agreed. But didn't you state something to the effect that we are all part of this together in an earlier post? And we all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, and an innate understanding of conscious awareness that is universal. G I know that you did not get any nonsense like this from Dr. Stevenson's site. Is this a religious idea? Are you actually expecting me to validate a religious interpretation? You have to be kidding. If someone was reincarnated from 600 years ago, I want proof. G

Good. I am glad to meet someone who understands that there is truth hidden within our language, and that this truth can be found. One of the things, that I did not put in the prior post, was my considerations of how cold affects conscious awareness. I am relatively certain that it does and have been looking into this for a long time. From the coldness felt when in the presense of ghosts, to preservation of food and life, to the start of life, to hibernation, I think that cold affects conscious awareness by causing an inability for conscious awareness to move or be activated. This creates a separateness or isolation of the conscious awareness that falls below a certain temperature. I have not yet tried to explain my thoughts because no one seems to be able to wrap their brains around the idea that conscious awareness is real and could be affected by something like temperature. But it is interesting to note that this idea is also reflected in language. Per my new understanding of entropy, I can see that life is a gathering of energies, a growing, building, putting together, and language notes this by references to temperature. Consider that a cool reception denotes separateness, a chilling response actually pushes one life form away from another, but a cold-blooded response causes isolation. On the other hand, a warm welcome means acceptance, a hot response draws minds together, and a hot-blooded response is an explosion of activity that causes life forms to merge whether it be in love or war. It has been stated many times that love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and I think this is the reason why--this drawing together. This idea is part of the Gordian Knot of morality that I have been working on. Regarding the idea that the word universal is presumptuous, please consider that I am using the word in a way that would be explained by universals in metaphysics. If you look up "universals (metaphysics)" in Wiki, I think you will find an adequate explanation. I would provide the link, but I make it a policy to not go to the trouble unless I suspect that the person will actually read the link. Regarding "eternal", I am not even sure what that means. It is like the word "infinite" and has no reality that I can comprehend through my perspective. I expect that it exists, but do not understand it. Well this is very interesting, Tar. Per the above underlined statements, I can conclude that you have not read the links that I provided. (I think this is against the forum rules) But you have clearly made your conclusions based on your admitted lack of information. So I have to assume that the rest of your statement is assertion based in ignorance. This is not surprising or even disappointing, as I have learned to expect this from "science" types. It is also the reason that I prefer to discuss these things with philosophers, but sometimes need knowledge from science, so we must endure. From a philosopher's perspective, it is easy to see the similarities between science people and religious people, as they both like to stay in their comfort zones and not see things that disagree with their beliefs. At least the religious people are honest about it and know that they are limiting their knowledge--they call this faith. For myself, if I think that a truth can be uncovered, or if it can be seen by standing up and looking, then I will stand up. If it rocks the boat, oh well. G

You are probably right, but since I contemplated the idea that reality is perpetual motion, I keep wondering if temporary things are really temporary, or if they are eternally and repetitiously temporary. Which would make them not temporary. Ouch. This is giving me a headache. (chuckle) I suspect this is true and that life actually creates, or causes, another form of consciousness. Even Dr. Stevenson, in his work regarding reincarnation, does not imply that a full complete consciousnesss moves from one body to the next. It is more a few memories that move and then are merged with the new consciousness that is caused by the new body. So, as promised, I have been working on a post about universal truths and language. It is far from perfect, but I will post it here for your consideration. Universal Truths and Language Universal Truths A number of people have expressed the idea, in this thread, that universal truths may not exist. This surprised me as I have always believed that universal truths do exist, and I use them rather extensively in my studies. One can never know the individual mind of any specific person, but there are commonalities in all people, with few exceptions, and these commonalities can give us an insight into the truths that we hold inside. It is my thought that little girls want to grow up to be beautiful like their Mothers and be cherished by their Fathers. Little boys want to be strong like their Fathers and admired by their Mothers. Lovers want to be left alone to pursue their dreams; adults want to build a good life, parents want their children to be safe and happy, grandparents want to enjoy the fruits of their labors, and all people want to be loved and respected for whom and what they are. These are universal truths that exist in all people no matter their race, country, society, or religion. There are other truths that are reflected in our language, and just like body language, many of these truths are universal. Even though the words and the language differ, the concepts behind the words seem to share a commonality, so I have considered some of these ideas in my understandings of consciousness. I suspect that we know a great deal more about consciousness and how it works than the rational mind is aware of, so I have been actively seeking clues to these commonalities in language, sort of like looking for a Freudian slip in our speech. Awareness and Density If I were in an argument with someone, who refused to consider my position, and there was another person there, who was in sympathy with me, I could point to my opponent, knock on my head and roll my eyes, and the person in sympathy would know what I mean--that my opponent is rock headed, thick skulled, wooden headed, thick between the ears, or generally dense. It would not even matter if we had a language barrier, because denseness in the head is commonly understood to be someone who is not very aware. It does not even matter if the person is intelligent or stupid, denseness implies a focus that is simply not aware of anything except it's focus. On the other hand, a person who is too aware and not focused is called an airhead, space cadet, flighty, nothing between the ears, or scatter brained. I find this very interesting, as it looks like density is all about matter and focus, and open space is about awareness. After spending years studying consciousness and connections, I concluded that connections between people can be broken by density (matter). From the rain and fog that makes the air more dense, and that Hollywood uses to promote a feeling of isolation, to the aura reader's explanation that auras can not be seen through water or glass, to the connections that people feel around other people, animals, and nature, to the isolation that is felt in solitary confinement, and through all of the other observations that I included in my water metaphor over the years, it appears as though density affects connections between people. This idea contributed to my considering the Aether as the source of awareness and matter as the source of focus. Now I am beginning to wonder if we have always had an innate understanding of this concept, but did not consider it because we think that conscious awareness is all in our heads or it is God. It is a little irritating to think that I spent years learning something that everyone already knows--even if we don't realize that we know it. If I checked in other languages, I suspect that I would find a comparable concept that density indicates focus and nothingness indicates awareness in people's descriptions of other minds--consciousness. Someone, who is level headed, is balanced--not too aware (flighty--Aether), not too focused (dense--matter). The Divisions of Consciousness, Thought and Emotion So what about my other thought that the first division, knowledge, thought, and thinking, is internal, and the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, is external? Are these concepts also reflected in language? Yes. And these concepts are reflected in body language. Body language has been well studied, and we know that some body communication is cultural, some is social, but a great deal is also universal. Understanding of the internal/external aspects of thought and emotion seem to be universal. A person who is wearing clothes that are tailored, buttoned up, and closed, with hair that is subdued and arms and legs that are held still and in reserve, is considered a thoughful person. Their appearance and demeanor suggests that all activity is internal, and we have an innate understanding that the internal is thought, knowledge, and thinking--and it is private. The first division of consciousness which is internal, private, and not shared. A person who is wearing clothes that flow like loose or unbuttoned shirts and flowing skirts, with hair that is loose and blows in the wind, and arms and legs that are swinging, is considered an emotional and feeling person. Their appearance and demeanor suggests that all activity is external and that they are relating to and very aware of the things surrounding them. We have an innate understanding that the external is awareness, feeling, and emotion, and that it is not private, it is shared. The second division of consciousness, which is external, shared, and not private. Many a young woman has been injured by projecting this "sharing" demeanor, while not understanding that she is actually inviting others to share, when that it not her intent at all. She may well be oblivious to the people around her. Just as a shy reserved person is often considered to be snobbish or aloof, because they are projecting an uninviting private appearance. This person may well be aware of and studying everyone else in the room, but still gives the appearance of being separate, private, and unapproachable. We can not know another person's individual mind, but because we have an innate understanding of consciousness, we interpret emotion as sharing and thought as private. Spoken language also reflects this internal/external aspect and understanding of consciousness. We describe the first division, thoughtful, as a person being still, quiet, reserved, reflective, so when we consider a thoughtful person, we describe internal activity. When we describe an emotional person, we describe joy radiating, fear being palpable, anger rolling off them in waves, love surrounding them, happiness flowing, so what we are describing is external activity--the second division. It is my thought that this is a fairly common way to describe the internal and external aspects of consciousness, and I suspect that it is described this way in all languages. This means that it is an innate understanding. So I think that we know a lot more about consciousness, and how it works, than we realize, because we talk about it all of the time. G I wasn't actually thinking about ideas when I made that statement. I was considering that many people can sing or make music, some can write poetry or create art, others can build, others can comfort, there are many abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence. OK. G

Hi Tar; Seems like a long time since we talked. Yes, the procedure went as planned, and I can say that I feel a lot more like I do, than I did. (chuckle) I still have my foot, the pain is less, and I am off the codine, so things are better. Thank you for asking. It is the unintended consequences that I am considering. Science is moving into areas that have never before been manipulated by man, so it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that we will unintentionally affect some things in nature. But it would be irresponsible to just assume that God will take care of everything, so we don't have to think about it. When I first learned that I had MS, I went to websites to learn as much as I could. There was not much information. It is treated by neurology, but is not a neurological disease or disorder. Multiple Sclerosis translates literally to "lots of scars", and those scars are on the nerves or brain matter. MS is actually an immune system disorder, as the immune system seems to decide that the coating on the outside of nerves is dangerous, so it attacks it eventually causing scars that break down the nerve's ability to function. Although there are known areas of the body that MS attacks, it is not limited to these areas and can strike any nerve. Eventually through intermitten attacks or a gradual progression, the victim will be brought to a state where function is not possible and will be resigned to a bed in a nursing home where (s)he will receive morphine shots for a year or two while MS finishes it's work. Not a terribly pleasant demise, which is why I have already purchased, Final Exit, a suicide handbook. We don't know what causes MS, and we don't have a cure--viruses are, of course, suspected. But we do know some things; a woman will not have an attack when pregnant, but will most certainly have an attack six months to a year after delivery, so hormones are indicated. There was a town in France, I believe, that was heavily bombarded with chemicals on D-Day in the war, and the people in that town have a very high percentage of MS, so chemicals are indicated. There is also a geographical indication, which I thought would be around industrialized cities, but it is more a world placement. If you divide the world at the equator, then divide the top half into thirds horizontally, the middle third has a high degree of MS victims--same with the bottom half. This is weird. Twenty years ago, I had barely heard of MS, but now I know at least 10 people, all women, who have MS--and I don't know many people. Auto-immune "disorders" are becoming almost epidemic, as are consciousness "disorders" like Autism, and there must be a reason. There is not enough evidence to say that playing with chemicals and hormones causes these disorders, but there is enough evidence to consider and investigate the possibility. It is also somewhat disconcerting to discover that my investigations into science, and how science relates to my understanding of consciousness, seem to support these "possibilities". This statement convinces me that it would be possible to tell you how I first learned about anthropomorphism--when my husband died. It is a long post, so I will put it together after I finish with universal truths and language, which I expect to post later today or tomorrow. Can't it be both? You and I are both. I'm not sure that this is true, except maybe from a perspective. I think that reality is patterns within patterns within patterns and cycles within cycles within cycles. Perpetual motion. I know that science is always looking for the source, the one thing that started everything. But tell me which came first, the inside or the outside? Sometimes I think that things appear together. How could you know this? Agreed. G

Hi Cladking; As usual, I can not address all of the points you made, but have comments on some. Freud gave us a universal truth when he explained the process that causes the "Freudian slip". That one explanation made it clear that we have at least two different levels of consciousness in our minds, and that the one that we think we are making decisions with, the rational mind, is not as in charge as we thought. This is not so. We have to find some way to justifiy the belief, to find some kind of truth in it. Even if that truth is made up of fiction, we must be able to see it, or we can not believe. Generally, I agree with this. Most of what we believe is not based in reality as much as it is based in the familiar. A neurologist explained this to me some time back and stated that we develop a kind of comfort zone around things that are known to us; the sun coming up, coffee being hot, and a Coke being cold. They don't seem to be right if they are different or unfamiliar, like the "supernatural" is different. But this "belief" still follows the rules of emotion, as it is the emotional feelings of comfort and familiarity that allow the belief. Agreed. (chuckle) When Descartes stated, "I think therefore I am", I don't believe that he realized his statement could also be interpreted as "if I don't think, then I am not, or I am less", but it has been interpreted this way. I suspect that a lot of this great love of intelligence, and need to justify and test intelligence, is directly related to this concept. When were IQ tests invented? Not sure. I am sure that a person's ability to think well seems to give that person more value in the eyes of the world. It is an artificial value, as IQ is just one indicator of ability, there are many more. At least once a year, I run across one of those white supremacists, who start threads that explain their wonderfulness, while using IQ statistics to try to prove the value of the white race. This kind of thinking has caused a lot of damage, but I don't believe that we can blame Descartes any more than we can blame Freud for the misuses of their understandings. I vehemently disagree here. There is a very important ultimate truth in Freud's work, as he took the mental aspects and removed them from the realm of magic and placed them in the realm of cause and effect. This, in my opinion, was his great gift to the world. Prior to his work, there were only two mental abilities that could be understood and trusted--logic and rationalization--but these abilities do not always find truth; they do not always agree with reason and sense; they can not discern the lies that we tell ourselves; and they do not stop us from believing lies. In short, they have little to do with a reflection of reality. All other mental aspects were considered unknowable. It was too confusing to sort out emotions, instincts, intuition, imagination, creativity, moods, mental conflicts, and insanity, as there was no road map to understand how these things worked. Even reason and sense, although trusted, are not understood because we have no idea of how we produce reason and sense. Mental aspects were all judged as magical thinking and considered either good or bad by whatever the thinking produced. Freud gave us our first insights into the mental aspects and showed that each of these aspects comes with specific properties, specific abilities, specific sources--they are not magic--they are knowable. Whenever I read the words "magical thinking", "wishful thinking" or "imagination" as an explanation of some kind of thinking or phenomenon, I know immediately that the author of those words has no understanding of psychology. I don't care how brilliant the person is, or whether or not the person has studied psychology, they still look like crackpots to me, as they don't have any idea of what they are talking about. The mind is not magical, it is not mystical, it is not God, it works by cause and effect the same as physical things do. This was Freud's universal truth and the gift that he gave us. G