Gees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding that others have a mind looks like a natural progression to me. At six to eight months the child learns that mom is separate physically, but it takes a lot longer to discover that there is a mental separation. At two years old, the "terrible twos", a child starts to challenge mom and begins to learn about disagreement. At this age a child will yell, "No. No." to almost everything, then check to see if this disagreement affects the relationship between mom and child. This goes on for a good year and is very frustrating for mom, but a necessary learning experience for the child. It is at this time that children are thought to be too imaginative as they will talk to their teddy bears and everything else, but I am not sure that this is an accurate portrayal of what is going on. It is my thought that the child is experimenting and trying to learn what this "mind" thing is, and who has it. It would take a while for the child to understand the difference between animate and inanimate objects, so I don't think this is imagination. I think it is learning. This does not surprise me, as we don't even know what "mind" is. If there is a mechanism that explains this, it would not be rational, it would be emotional. And we are not talking about an "intact" mind as that would be possession--we have been through this before. Try to keep up. Another thing to consider is that 2 or 3 year olds do not develop "birth marks". Birthmarks develop before the birth, which is why we call them birthmarks, so memories from any of the cases that Dr. Stevenson found that involved birthmarks, obviously had to have "transferred" prior to birth. If you go to the Psychology forum and read the OP of my thread, "Formation of Mind?", you will get an idea of why I think that emotion is the key to understanding the development of mind. So far no one has been able to answer my questions in that thread. What? I don't understand this at all. A connection prior to birth? I'm not following you here at all. G You may be right. It's been a long time for me too. No. 100 % consciousness would be all knowing--aware of everything. It would be what is referred to as God. To "raise" our consciousness, we would simply be focusing on or tuning into the consciousness that we already possess. It would not allow us to possess more awareness than we already have. No God thing going on here. Why are you mixing things up? What I said was that at age seven, we have all of the "aspects" of consciousness. We have the logical rational aspect of mind, we have emotion, feelings, moods, thoughts, memories, knowledge, and instincts--all of the aspects. You talk as if learning, thought, and consciousness are the same thing--they are not. Consciousness is not what we are aware of, it is our capacity to be aware. But how do we arrive at that state? What train to we get on? What is the process? So it is your opinion that the contents of two different containers can connect magically? If your socks are exhibiting life-like behavior, I would suggest that you change them more often as there seems to be too many small life forms imbedded in them. G

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