Gees

Interesting thread with lots of ideas. Although I did not read the whole thread, I do have some reservations about the original post, which were also pointed out by Petur and Delbert. What about responsibilities? I am not a lawyer, but studied then worked in law for many years before retiring. This does not make me an expert in government, but it gave me a good grasp of law and how bad law can affect people. Studying law also gave me some insights into just how difficult it is to write a good law, as the law is essentially the words of the law. As an example of this, consider the problem below that we studied in Family Law. This case was in California in the 70's, I think, and I don't remember the case name of this matter, but it goes like this: A married man and woman were on the brink of divorce. The woman told the man that she would take half of his home, money, property, and business, then because she was pregnant, she would also make him pay for the next 18 or 19 years for her child. California law would allow her to do this, as it was all within a married woman's rights. Apparently, the husband did not take this well and decided to mitigate his damages, so he intentionally beat her until she miscarried. I believe that there was some question as to whether or not the child was his, which would not necessarily be relevant to the law as they were married, so the child was legally his. Of course, people were horrified. This man had cold-bloodedly premeditated the murder of a fetus. But when they went to charge him for this "murder", it was discovered that there was no law against a man murdering his own potential offspring. It was not a crime, and no Civil Court could make him sue himself, so all that he could be charged with was assault and battery. This would never do, so the Legislature called a special session and wrote a law to prevent this from ever happening again. Problem solved. Right? Then the real trouble started. Pregnant women started to die from accidents and traumas that the emergency rooms, hospitals, and doctors refused to treat. Apparently the medical community was accepting of the possibility of being sued if they made a mistake and a fetus died, but they were damned reluctant to be charged with the crime of murder and go to prison if they made a mistake. So they refused treatment, as was their right. This law has, no doubt, been rewritten over and over in attempts to make it more feasible, but it is still not perfect. What we can glean from this case, and many others, is that intent can not be written into law. We can allude to intent and try to prove intent, but we can not write a law that discerns individual intent. We can not create a government that dictates or presupposes intent. The only thing that we can do is define and establish rights and responsibilities, and these must be matched. Many legislators confuse crime and punishment with rights and responsibilities, but crime and punishment is the result of a failure to understand rights and responsibilities, it is not a replacement for them. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. I can not be held responsible for something that I have no authority and rights to, just as I can not have rights to something that I refuse to be responsible for. This is a simple truth. If you look to law and governments, I think that you will find that where rights and responsibilities match, it works. Where rights and responsibilities do not match, or are artificially divided by law, it does not work and eventually falls apart. So it is my thought that this would be an important aspect of considering any new form of government. Checks and balances are also important, and can stop a government from turning on itself and us. The Constitution does encourage mob rule, but the Bill of Rights is there to check some of that mob rule. It is somewhat awkward that the Bill of Rights does not extend to other countries, so our businesses and government seem to have rights that they should not have when dealing with, or working within, other countries. This is an unexpected and unplanned aspect of democracy. Because I see a lack of wisdom and continuity in my government, if I were to create a new form, I would probably choose something close to the democracy that we now have, but would Constitutionally limit the power of said government with tax curtailment and an advisory council. This advisory council would be made up of three representatives from each of the disciplines; science, philosophy, and religion--like a group of elders. These advisors would be appointed and chosen by the disciplines that they represent and would answer to no other. It would be their responsibility to advise government about the needs of the people in relation to their specific discipline. This council would be supported by a set percentage of the tax base and would have little authority except to veto any law or war on the rare occasion that all three disciplines were in agreement. My thought is that religion, science, and philosophy would routinely check each other, and since they are rarely in agreement, they would not cause too much disruption with their influence. They would have no real power otherwise except to advise. Because we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, it is my thought that we need science, philosophy, and religion to keep tabs on each other and us, and provide an equal consideration of our needs in this regard. G

Cladking; Sometimes I am an idiot. You asked for information regarding Dr. Blanco, and I gave it above, but did not realize that in copying and reposting the link, the program would put another "http" in front of the first and make the link invalid. Hopefully you had the good sense to go to post # 89 on page five to get the correct information. My apologies. I did learn something really cool, though. If you go to "search" at the top of this forum page and type in "Blanco", it will pull up every post in this topic that mentions Dr. Blanco. Handy tool. You and I have some serious differences of opinion regarding Freud and his studies of the unconscious mind, and considering some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his work that I have read, I can't really blame you for your opinions. It is true that Freud had some real "Daddy" issues, and these issues would impact his understandings and his work, but it is my opinion that Freud was a genius, who was well ahead of his time. Because he is so misunderstood, I found myself writing a post about infantile sexuality sometime last year. In that post I tried to show how his understanding of that issue was spot on, but not accepted because of religious interpretations and silly unrealistic beliefs. That post also shows how beliefs can cause change, and that it is more a matter of influences than direct cause that makes real changes in life. So please consider the following from that post. Original post on Freud "If I thought that Freud was an interesting man before, I am doubly convinced now. Everyone has an opinion, and either hates him or thinks that he is brilliant--though not always sure why. (chuckle) There seems to be no general concensus about him, as there are articles that deny the value, applaud the value, and deny him as originator, of his work. The only real concensus that I could find is that he is the Father of Psychoanalysis, and he was a genius. He thought of himself as a scientist, called himself an "adventurer", had serious "Daddy" issues, and wanted to prove that psychology was a science. I believe that many psychologists turned their backs on him and would have liked to deny him, but neurology has now proven some of his ideas, so instead of losing Freud, psychology has the dubious honor of favoring him because his work helped prove that psychology could be considered a science--a clear vindication for Freud. As far as his ideas are concerned, they are still as shocking and misunderstood as ever. I can not explain my thinking on many of his ideas, so I will pick one--infantile sexuality--and explain why I think that understanding this one idea is important to our happiness, culture, and way of life. An act of intimate bonding where two people expose their skin to each other and fit their bodies together for the purpose of continuing life and enjoying pleasure and gratification is what? Sex. But I am not talking about sex, I am talking about nursing (breast feeding) a baby. But this can not be right because babies are pure, innocent, and not sexual. Sex is about adults, and perversions, and morality, and maybe being bad? The concept that sexuality is the opposite of innocence and purity is a cultural and religious idea, and goes against everything in nature--everything in our nature. Freud saw this conflict clearly and realized that this conflict would cause guilt, which would manifest itself in many different ways. When nursing a baby, the baby is an active participant in the act--and I am not talking about suckling. The baby must seduce Mom and does this by stroking her, wriggling it's body against hers, smiling, cooing, licking, and sometimes nipping at her. Doesn't this sound like sex to you? Baby must draw her attention and make her relax, so that the "let down" reflex will be stimulated and milk will flow; if baby can not accomplish this, the milk does not flow. The "nursing couple" enjoys a stimulating and gratifying exchange that begins with desire and causes bonding--just like sex. Psychologists understand that Mom's instincts will turn her attention to the baby, and often tune out Dad, in her desire to protect and promote life. But because we do not consider this a sexual act, we often don't realize the other consequence of it. Mom is stimulated. But baby can't help with this, so Mom is redirected back to Dad. Dad begins to realize that Mom's body is looking good, losing weight fast with nice sized breasts, Mom can't get pregnant again for about six months (while nursing full time) and baby is providing foreplay, so Mom is stimulated and ready for Dad. So he helps out, with a sparkle in his eye, and thinks that baby is not so bad. All parties bond creating family--life balances. It is a shame that we lost Freud before we understood hormones and environmental ecosystems, as that information would have been very beneficial to his work. He clearly saw the Id as being a center of chaos, but he could not know that this chaos is directed by hormones, and that this chaos is self balancing. Like a forest that is teeming with life that seems bent on surviving and destroying anything that stands in it's way, we find that each life form balances what another destroys, causing a system that can continue for hundreds of thousands of years. Our instincts (Id) are like this and create a balance within and between us--if we do not disturb the balance too much. But what if we disturb the balance? What if we change things, and decide that babies are not sexual, so this need not be considered? We can avoid all of that time consuming and messy nursing, and replace that with formula and bottles--much more efficient. Freud could probably explain that this is just like deciding that married couples will bond without sex--not likely, or at least not as well. The family bond is emotional and physical, and the aspect of our minds that holds emotion, and instinct, is also the aspect that holds belief--so what does this do to beliefs? Well, the baby's bond with Mom becomes iffy, and must be developed in other ways. (I should note here that bonding always requires strong emotion, but does not require "positive" emotion.) If not developed this new person may spend his/her life in an isolation that does not include a sure bond with Mom/life. And because bottle fed babies are required to do nothing but accept, another aspect of this is that the baby may well grow up believing that pleasure is to be expected, and that active participation in gaining this pleasure is unnecessary. (The Me Generation?) There has been a lot of study in hospital procedures regarding bonding, as this problem has been noted. In the 50's, a woman was often put into a "twilight" sleep and was "cured" of her labors, but now the hospitals have policies that try to limit intervention, promote bonding, and even teach a new Mom how to nurse her baby. There are a lot of people trying to figure out what causes this breakdown in bonding. It would take time and a few generations before the problem became obvious, but that time is now, as this breakdown started in the 40's and 50's in this country. Then there is the instinct that turns Mom to baby and from Dad; there is nothing in nature to counter this turning unless the Mom nurses. Could this cause an isolation to start between Mom and Dad? A breakdown in their own bond? Could it cause Dad to believe that Mom married him just to gain a child? Could it cause Mom to believe that Dad does not really care about the baby because she is instinctively pushing him away, but does not realize it? Could this be the reason for the well known Barbie joke that says that a Barbie doll costs $20, but a divorce Barbie costs $200 because it comes with all of Ken's property? Could this be the concept behind the movie Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage? I think maybe so, and at the very least, it is part of the problem. There are many facets to a marriage, and I do not mean to say that not nursing a baby will cause a breakdown in a marriage, as that is not so. But one must consider that bonding is emotional, and sexual gratification creates and reinforces an emotional bond, so it is very much a part of family. I can not tell you how many marriages break up within a year of having the first child, and many of them are due to this instinctive mess. Dad believes that he was used because Mom wanted a child; Mom thinks that Dad does not care about the child; and the child grows up in a mess where everyone resents everyone. Then we add on the tons of guilt. When the baby is seen as the dividing factor in marriage, the guilt is tremendous--because everybody knows that babies are innocent. Struggle is part of life and growth. Without struggle, life ceases to be, but when we add on unnecessary struggles, like cultural dichotomies that are untrue and interrupt the natural balance of our instinctive drives, the game can change. Either the additional struggle promotes an excessive growth of life, much like a cancer that consumes life; or the additional struggle causes life to extinguish itself. My thought is that this one small change separated the connections, that are a natural part of family, from the physical processes of feeding. So over time, family became a more cerebral idea, rather than an emotional bond. A cerebral idea is temporary like thought, or a contract, an emotional bond is life long. We must learn to either accept life on it's own terms and not interfere, or we must understand life so that we can maintain it's balance--like we are learning to do in ecosystems. Freud can help us to know and understand ourselves if we choose the latter. I have not found anyone else who understood the divisions within the mind like Freud did. I found people who say that Freud's ideas were not original, and that he took information from other sources, and this is true. I know this because Plato was the first that we know of to try to structure the mind--we all stand on the shoulders of the philosophers who came before us. But this does not change the fact that Freud understood the mind like no one else does. It takes an intelligent mind to comprehend the abstract; it takes a very high intelligence to define and conceive an abstract idea; but it takes a genius to conceive, define, and then interpret the interdependence and exchanges within the aspects of this abstract idea. Freud was a genius, who studied the mind--consciousness." Cladking; The point of this post was not to say that a woman must nurse her baby to save her marriage, it was to show that influence, rather than cause, creates the changes in life. In the 40's there was a war on, so the men went to Europe and the women went into the factories. This has happened many times in many countries over history where women took the dominant role at home, but we have not recovered our family structure from that time. The family is continuing to dissolve. People feel isolated. During the war, the government encouraged bottle feeding to get the women to work, and used our new knowledge of germs to push the idea home. Even after the war, women were encouraged to sterilize themselves with alcohol swabs before nursing their babies because it became known that bodies are covered in bacteria. Of course this idea is somewhat ridiculous considering that we managed to fill up the world without the benefit of alcohol swabs, but people bought into the idea that nursing a baby was not clean, so they stopped. I think that the consequence of this idea is that sex and sexuality was reduced to a simple bodily function, like eating or relieving ones self. A singular, isolated, and personal task, nothing to do with connections, emotions, or bonds. This was a mistake, and I doubt that we have seen the end of the trouble. G

Tars; I just read your last post and must agree that all of your concerns are valid. I have considered them. The study of consciousness is not remotely simple and has attracted some of the greatest minds in our history, and I believe that many have found the answers to their questions, because I see truth in most of the theories, ideologies, and religions. But finding an answer and telling that answer to another person is an entirely different matter--expecially with regard to perspectives. Perspectives in consciousness become confusing very fast. Consider that I am a daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, aunt, niece, grandmother, great-grandmother, wife, and widow; but I am also a friend, enemy, neighbor, co-worker, teacher, student, etc. I am the person who saved another from pain, loss, and heartbreak; but I am also the person who caused another pain, loss, and heartbreak--it just depends on whom you are talking to. If all of the people, who knew/know me got together to describe who and what I am, what do you think they would come up with? What would the employee, fired for his negligence, say to the aunt, who adores me? What would the competitive and resentful sibling say to the student, who thinks that I am brilliant? What of my Grandmother, who sees me as her continuance, or my child, who sees me as the source of life? Then if you throw in an "invisible" factor, what kind of magic would I end up being? And I am only a speck of temporary consciousness. So studying consciousness from personal perspective is fraught with inconsistencies, and that is not even considering delusions and anthropomorphism that come through the unconscious mind. So the personal perspective, although interesting, is not able to give much useful information. The three disciplinary perspectives, science, religion, and philosophy, all have some good information, but are in competition. They are not working toward a common goal. Then there is the supernatural/paranormal that no one wants to see. My thought is that each of these studies are incomplete. Like Cladking stated, we are slicing and dicing consciousness to see little pieces and aspects of it, but until we look at these ideas together, we will not know consciousness. But the Knot is unraveling, and this is mostly due to science. For the first time in known human history, we can take the interpretations of religion, the analysis and critical thinking of philosophy, and add the facts as defined by science and put them together for a better understanding. When problem solving, the first and most important step, is to define the problem. When a problem can not be solved, it is usually because someone skipped or undervalued this first step. One must be very clear about what the problem is, so what is it about consciousness that we wish to solve? We already accept that it is real. What we don't understand is whether it is real to us in a personal way, or if it is real in actuality; if it is something that we feel, something we know, or physical. How does it work? We want to put some parameters around this concept. Philosophy studies what we think that we know about consciousness; religion studies how we feel about consciousness (God); and science studies what consciousness actually is physically. I started out looking for an answer to the paranormal questions, but now understand that this is a study of consciousness, so I am not afraid to see the "supernatural"--no one must convince me that it exists. I have no loyalty to any specific religion, so I can compare religions and their ideas and concepts without worrying about corrupting my soul. In philosophy, I have no ingrained teachings that prejudice my ideas. I know nothing about science, so again, my ideas have not been biased by other people's understandings. Luckily, philosophy and science like to share what they know, and I have a computer. I am a holistic thinker, so I see connections very clearly, and this is what is needed now, someone who can see the connections, the way these things relate to each other. I will not solve the problem of consciousness. I will create no grand theory, propose no hypothesis. I have a curious mind and time on my hands, thanks to MS, so I will study the connections between ideas and disciplines, then share what I see. If I can present a more whole concept for others to review, maybe it will help some very bright person to figure this out eventually, so I don't think that I am "barking up the wrong tree".. You are talking about consciousness as if it is a simple singular thing. I seriously doubt that. Since you are more of a science guy, think of consciousness like you would think of energy. It has been stated that everything is actually energy, so why do we need batteries? Why can't we just plug something into reality? (chuckle) Because there are different kinds of energy and the energy is sourced and controlled in different ways by different forces and materials. Consciousness is like this. There is the source of conscious awareness that I suspect is the Aether, but this consciousness, or pre-consciousness, is not within time and space--it has no substance, nor does it have perspective and will. But in conscious life, it is clear that there is a marriage of consciousness to some specific matter, so how could it be part of the matter and have no substance? Science has proven over and over that consciousness is directly affected by the matter in life forms, so this consciousness is within time and space. This consciousness also has perspective and will. An understanding of awareness and emotion tells us that this consciousness also has a source, the life form, and can directly affect another life form in real time and space. There is some kind of consciousness that seems to be created by life. A person, who reads auras will explain that a powerful person will have a powerful aura, and that a person, who is sickly or near death, will often have an aura that is almost invisible because it is so weak. This implies that the aura is produced by, and is a by-product of, life. What about people, who can sense a person's consciousness, while holding an inanimate personal object? Some of these people have worked with law enforcement and helped to solve crimes. What is it that they are sensing? Do we leave a kind of fingerprint of consciousness on the objects that we constantly touch? And what the hell are ghosts? None of these things seem to have any will, but all of them seem to relate to the perspective of the person, who caused the consciousness. The subject of conscious awareness is extremely complex--there is nothing simple about it. If one then considers the levels that Dr. Blanco found in the unconscious mind, the levels that the Eastern religions/philosophies found in the unconscious mind, and the work that science is studying in the conscious rational mind/brain, then it is clear that there is a great deal more to consciousness than anyone prior has even considered. I suspect that we belong to consciousness as much as it belongs to us. We each have an individual perspective of consciousness, but I suspect that we also have a collective perspective of consciousness, and that there is an eternal and universal aspect of consciousness, but I don't think it has perspective, and these are all very real and part of us as we are part of it. What I have been working on is the rules--how it works. So far I believe that all consciousness, whether it has a perspective or not, is a "self-balancing chaos motivated by want". That the "want" is always caused by some form of matter. That it is a perpetul motion machine that affects all universally. That it can never stop moving and changing. That it can not be overpowered or be constant. That everything influences everything either directly or more likely indirectly. That all causes are also effects and all effects are also causes--so it is going to give science coniptions. It can be studied this way also. Agreed. Life is an adventure--death is simply the doorway to the next adventure. We all want a peek. G

Tars; If you only see two problems, then you are not looking hard enough. (chuckle) The Gordian Knot that I am referring to is understanding how all of the religious, anthropomorphised, supernatural, and moralistic interpretations relate to the reality of a physical concept of consciousness. You see, I think that conscious awareness is real and is part of our reality--not something mystical--just something interpreted and misunderstood. But this information will not change religion or morals very much. It will just explain it. Just as a full and complete understanding of your body and your wife's body will help you to understand sickness and health, or identify your needs together or separately, it will not change your internal, experiential, or emotional relationship with your wife. So an understanding of consciousness will have little or no effect upon religions and morality except maybe to help us identify when they go off course. I'm not sure what intelligence and memory have to do with this, as I have never had an interest in studying intelligence. So I think that your concerns are something that other people will deal with, as people are always trying to find something to do with new information. I am just looking for a real explanation of consciousness. Today is the Service for my step-great-grandson. Jason made it less than three years, and struggled for most of that time. His struggle is finally over. Prayers are always appreciated by any and all and may help his Mother, Father, and two sisters. After the Service, I have to give blood at the lab, then my procedure is set for tomorrow. It should be an easy thing. So take your time considering these ideas, it will be a few days before you hear from me. G

So you know that the "gods" in the Hindu religion/philosophy are not really understood to be gods. They are more like characters for examples to learn from. I very much enjoyed Dr. Brown's paper because he gives a one-page synopsis on most of the better known religions. One could spend a lifetime studying religion in order to gain the knowledge that he put together for our review. If you took a few minutes to look at the work, you know that he addresses everything from tribal spiritual religions through Quakerism, and Eastern religions/philosophies, to the Abrahamic religions. So for someone like me, looking for an overview for comparisons, the work is wonderful. He does not go into a great deal of tedious detail, but gives a good overview of the ideals, goals, and general slant of the religions. Although, he is not without his biases. I noticed that he thought that Buddha would be unhappy with the use of his statue as a representative "god", but Dr. Brown did not seem to notice that Jesus would be rolling over in his grave if he could know some of the things that Christians did in his name. Good thing he ascended. Well, if enlightenment is all that they say, we can get a peek at the "all", the "there" and the "then" through the unconscious aspect of mind. But you are also correct in that living life is the purpose of life. We are in agreement that the chasing of what we were and will be, can cause us to neglect the life that is. Now. Sometimes Eastern religion/philosophy seems to not note this purpose. I don't think it is a third. This is based on my observations of elementary schools and teaching methods. Between 70 to 80 percent of children fit into the norm or average category, ten to fifteen percent fall below, and ten to fifteen percent are above. The average child will get a reasonable education even if the teacher is incompetent; the below average have programs to help them learn; and the above average make up too big a pecentage of our drop outs. Education should be more about fitting in and filling a requirement of life, than intelligence, but it's not. My Grandmother used to tell me that our motivations behind our actions would affect our goals. She was right. I think that IQ testing started out as a kind of justification; the Nobles wanted to prove that they were better, and the Common people wanted to prove that they were capable of learning as well as a Noble--so someone invented a test. We still test for the same reason--justification. The average are considered fine, the below average are assisted, and the above average are assumed to be well off, because they already know everything. Don't they? (chuckle chuckle) Of course this thinking is absurd as we all need to learn about ourselves and our abilities and our value to the rest, so that we can find our place in life. If I could choose an intelligence level for my children, I would place them on the high side of average. This would give them the ability to fit into society, but also to think on their own and occasionally lead, so I suspect that this is where most of our professionals and leaders are. As to the 3%, I think that is a MENSA thing. You know MENSA don't you? This is a group of people who test at or above the 3%; MENSA stands for May Everyone Note the Superior Asses, or something like that. Maybe I am wrong? I like and agree with this, but find that although death ends life, I doubt that it ends existence. I am lost here and don't see the forgone conclusion. To clarify, you mean the "we" in "how we managed it" to be ourselves in a relationship with the Universe? OK. If this is so, then when the "action" occurs, what moves? Many people are content to say that the movement is caused by the brain, but they are only talking about the first division, knowledge, thought, and thinking, the internal aspect of consciousness. When considering the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, this becomes more complicated because these things "move" without an obvious physical source outside of the body--the external aspect of consciousness. Emotion actually moves between life forms, bonds them, and connects them, so what is moving? This is why I study the supernatural, because it is the ONLY way to observe the movement outside of the body, until science finally figures out what consciousness actually is. Consider this another way; is the wind real? Does it exist? Of course it does as we can all feel it. We can see the effects of it on other matter, so it is real. What about when it stops moving. Does it exist then? Well no, once it stops moving, there is no wind. Many people relate this idea to consciousness, so when it stops moving, they see it as not existing--death. Without air, the wind could not move. What is the "air" of conscious awareness? What moves? It sounds like you think that I am an intellectual snob. I am not. I was always overly intelligent, but won't be apologizing for it, as I must grab onto the few virtures that I have. There is nothing wrong with knowing one's self and appreciating our virtues, but we also have flaws that we know rather intimately. If, in fact, a decent personality were required of life, I would have self aborted decades ago. (chuckle) My husband thought himself to be a rather dumb man, probably because he was dyslexic and did not learn to read until his forties. But I thought him to be warm, wise, and full of the understanding of life that I lacked. I learned a great deal from this "dumb" man and loved him for it. Because we are also matter--and matter, matters. This is one of the best arguments against solipsism, the dream theories, and even Plato's cave. I think that science probably uses this argument as our bodies, matter, lock us into time and space. So, Tars, after my idiotic ranting about how I am not learning anything, I find that I am wrong--again. While doing a poor job of trying to communicate my ideas on consciousness to others, I have been working on the way morals fits into this Gordian Knot in the back of my mind. Your explanation of entropy helped, and I think that the reason we fear ghosts so much is because we recognize that ghosts are an entropy of life. Life cycles and comes back together, but ghosts bleed off of this cycle and remain separate, apart, rather than returning to the source. More on this later. G You can review the discussion in Post # 89, Page 5 of this thread. http://http://en.wikipedia....io_Matte_Blanco G

Well I have been reviewing this thread, all nine pages, and am discouraged. At this rate, I will never get to the meat of the matter as no one seems to understand where I am going with this. How could I possibly present the clues that I have noted that tell me that conscious awareness is affected by cold, if everyone thinks that conscious awareness is all in their heads? I will look like a lunatic. It would be very much like a physics professor trying to teach me some theory of physics while I try to comprehend it with my math skills and belief that I already understand the matter. So I think that I need to back up here. In reality, I should probably be pleased that I was able to present some logical proof that other species have awareness, and that it is at least possible that there may be some connections between people that are as yet not understood. So in a forum where most of the members really believe that consciousness is God (religion's take) or consciousness is the brain (science's take), I suppose that I accomplished something. But I am not learning what I need to know. What to do? How to approach this? One of the biggest problems is that I did my studying on my own, so no one knows the background that I assume because of my studies, and I don't know where I need to explain myself in more depth, because I assume that they already understand some things. Too much assumption. It occurs to me that I probably presented the best evidence with regard to connections, but I am not sure if that was because of my personal experiences or because I presented studies from Wiki. I only presented those ideas because I was challenged, but I am not getting challenges on most of my thoughts. Preconceived notions are getting in the way. This became clear when I was challenged about connections. People see ESP as being something magical, but I see it as natural, so I simply considered the different ways that people are connected without an obvious source and looked up ESP, bonding, and attraction. Then I decided that, if the connection was as important as I thought, then there would be affects if this connection was broken, which led to isolation, institutionalization, and marooning. It took about an hour and a half to find all of that information, and I did not post half of it, so it is not like the information is not out there. We are just not seeing it because of preconceived notions. This is what I meant when I stated that science seems to back up my ideas rather regularly. As soon as I look, I find. So I think that I will focus on something that is poorly understood, emotion, and bring in some ideas about language and psychology's take on the unconscious--just to make Cladking crazy. (chuckle) G Your theory does not do a very good job of explaining how the Dark Ages managed to follow the great thinking of the Ancients. Nor does it explain the short life spans, disease, and general poor living conditions of that time, after being exposed to the hygiene issues that are enumerated in the OT. I suspect that most of our differences in understanding the unconscious comes from perspective. I see the unconscious from the perspective of "mind" as in psychology. Do you see the unconscious from the perspective of neuroscience? This would explain our differences. Did you review the information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article? You are still equating the supernatural with magic and power. I know this may look a lot like the "pot calling the kettle black", but I wish you would either expain some kind of logical or reasonable understanding of how this works, or desist. My idea of the supenatural is consciousness that is part of our reality, and that this consciousness is affected by matter. Specifically, this consciousness is activated by chemicals within life forms and can be detected by the emotion and feeling that accompanies the activation. People may not agree with this, but at least I have some explanation of how I think that it works. So please provide some evidence or rational, or maybe you could go to your local video store and pick up a Disney movie--they are all about magic. Tar; I am sorry that I was so sharp with you. Seeing this post clarifies your thinking. There are so many people, who are willing to treat this issue as a joke, that I find my sense of humor lacking. I apologize for feeling kind of froggy and jumping. Maybe I can help you to understand this. There is a Dr. Robert Brown, Physics Professor at Duke University, who wrote a break-down of the major religions, which I think explains your issues. I will find it and post a link at the end of this response. I think you will enjoy it, as it is a quick easy read, but concise and clear. If I understood him correctly, all of these Hindu gods are not really supposed to be gods, they are just stories--teaching and learning tools. It appears that the thinking was that most people can not absorb the abstract concepts that are part of the Hindu philosophy/religion, so these "gods" are characters in stories to help people relate to the lessons. So it is more a case of pick and choose the story which applies, rather than consistency. This actually makes sense to me. Remember the breakdown of complex, average, and simpler minds that I told you about? Well, I am not the only person who knows about it, as this is old wisdom. All religions and all good leaders know that in order to reach the majority of minds, they need to be able to provide the concepts for the complex minds, the events for the average minds, and the personification for the simpler minds in order to lead. So religions and leaders provide the idea, then they provide parades or rituals, and they provide some kind of persona. This is why the Buddha is not supposed to be a "god", but everyone has a statue, and probably why Atheism does not catch on as well as most would like. How would they teach the children? http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node14.html G.

Big Tom; Good question. Because it makes us feel dumb? That is what I think. Talking is supposed to be communicating, but if one can not communicate properly, then that means that someone is an idiot--and we all know that it could not possibly be us because we understand ourselves--so it must be them. I am not sure how much of a role intelligence plays in miscommunication as there is so much more to consider. Common education, goals, experiences, and perspectives also play a large role in communication, so it can be difficult when in a forum where there are so many different backgrounds. Often we don't take, or have, the opportunity to know a person well enough to establish common ground, so we often mistake their interest or goals or perspective. In my college days, we had a special instructor come into class for one day to talk about communication, and she brought up the way people learn and understand. She stated that although people learn through visual, audio, and kinesthetic, one of those types of learning often dominate their understanding. So she explained that a person who is a visual learner will sprinking words like, "see", "clear", and "picture" in their speech. An audio learner will use words like, "hear", "sounds like", and "rings true" in their speech. A kinesthetic learner will use words like, "feel", "absorb", and "works like" in their speech. So sometimes, bearing these ideas in mind, I have been able to repair a misunderstanding and make my ideas clearer to another person. "Clearer", yes I am a visual learner. Then there is the way people think. I found this site very enlightening, so check it out. http://anidea.com/etc/ten-types-of-thinking-youll-find-in-a-digital-agency/ But even if we can get past all of this difference, there are the stopping points. No one can get the answers to all of the questions in one lifetime, so at some point we stop. We decide that we have learned enough about a specific thing. We draw our line in the sand, and then we start to defend that line as being the answer. It is inevitable. On the other hand, it would be nice if people remembered that their stopping point may not be mine. G

Tar and Cladking; There are so many interesting responses in your posts, and I would like to address all of them, but can't. For the past six weeks, I have been fluxuating between too much pain and too much codine, so I am not at my best. If I do not respond immediately, don't give up on me--I am thinking about it. Next week a procedure is scheduled that may help. In the meantime, I would like to address a few points. If you consider this point from the perspective of Panpsychism, which theorizes that all matter has a mental aspect, then the question is answered. When two different chemicals mix to make a new more complex substance, then that new substance is a different thing. If you then assume that all matter knows it's own identity, then it is easy to see that this combining caused the matter to "learn" what it now is. So just as the "want" of attraction and repulsion in matter becomes the "want" of awareness in life, I suspect that all matter and life are capable of learning. Matter can only "learn" what it is, but that is still change and learning. Life can learn what it is, but can also learn about things outside of it, because it is aware. imo I suspect that there is a collective consciousness, and that it is shared rather intimately by all of the individuals in any species through the unconscious aspect of mind. Jung, Dr. Blanco, and many others have considered this oneness, and suspect that it is something we share unconsciously and probably through our dreams. It is my thought that this is one of the reasons that dreams are so important, and why we can actually lose our mental control when we can't dream, much like the way we lose our control when put into isolation. I think that dreaming is just another connection, like a computer that downloads into a mainframe at night, without this connection we go a little nuts, and sometimes die. This also helps to explain why we make these leaps into new ideas, where historically we seem to be able to "leap" into whole new concepts as a species. I think that we are sharing much more than we know, so many different minds begin to ask similar questions causing the answer to be found. More on this when I can explain it better. Just as a book has memory, but no reader, so no awareness. There are a lot of people, who study the paranormal, that have an interest in crystals--but I know nothing about them. Well, I am glad you find it interesting. Your comments are also interesting and stimulating. We agree just enough to find common ground, but disagree just enough to promote discussion. This is good for learning. Although I agree that consciousness is more a matter of degree, there are different aspects of consciousness, so this makes it more a case of degree(s) which can complicate the mix. Bear in mind that when we are discussing consciousness, what we are really discussing is what a species can be, or is, aware of. Take the comparison of a pack animal like a wolf and a territorial animal like a leopard. Pack animals tend to keep their young within the pack and create a larger pack, but territorial animals like the leopard tend to push their off-spring away when they are grown. Why? It is my thought that a pack animal is more aware of social memory, but a territorial animal is more aware of property memory, so the pack animal can afford to keep it's young around because they can remember who the young belong to. But a territorial animal would not remember that social connection, would see the young as just another of the species, so this would promote too much inbreeding. Species that do not have a strong social memory would therefore push their young away by the time mating is required. So I suspect that it is a distinct difference in awareness that causes this instinctive behavior--part of the balance. imo Please note that I agree that there is more similarity in species' awareness than difference, but was just trying to provide logical proof that they are in fact aware. It is not my thought that "flocking species" are different as much as it is my thought that their development seems to have stopped. It is my belief that flocking, or group-think, behavior is an aspect of the unconscious mind, just as individual thinking is an aspect of the rational conscious mind--or the emergence that science identifies as consciousness. Since the unconscious mind came first, it seems to me that all species have the capacity for "group-think", but some seem to function by group-think behavior more than by individual behavior. These species tend to also not be very bright individually and tend to be very emotional. The unconscious aspect of mind is ruled by emotion. I remember stories told by cowboys that they used to sing to the cattle to prevent stampedes. The thinking was scare a cow, scare them all; calm a cow, calm them all--group think. Because I am not a very social person, myself, I have trouble seeing those "advantages", but will take your word for it. (chuckle) I agree that there is no real leader and that this is more a matter of a flowing group behavior. There are a lot of people who will deny ESP and state that any "awareness" comes from body language and other observations. I do not agree. I can see where a running, bawling cow could make the others run, as in the example above, but I fail to see how a calm cow could make the others calm. Of course, these observations come from cowboys, so what could a bunch of wisened old cowboys know? (chuckle chuckle) While I agree with most of this, I think that you may not appreciate all of the layers of the unconscious aspect of mind. While thought can influence and "allow" growth in the unconscious, it is just as important to remember that the unconscious came before the conscious, so there is more going on there than you imply. I agree. Sometimes I tend to think of the various unconscious collectives of different species as a kind of area, or country code, that connects them, or dials into their oneness. There has to be something that causes a connection between individuals in a specie, but limits it to that specie, much like pheromones seem able to communicate with a specific specie. Although pheromones can give some information to other species, most of the information is limited for the use and prosperity of the intended specie. I remember reading a quote once that said, "What makes mankind so superior to other life?" My answer was, "Mankind's opinion." (chuckle chuckle) Degree(s). G

Tars; I agree with your assessment, and many of your concerns were also mine. At the time I wrote that post, there were a large number of people at that forum, who were denying that other species possessed any kind of awareness, so my idea was to present logical proof that species were aware and why I thought so. Yes, many of the levels would conflict with others and may even be skipped, or duplicated in one species. They also would not necessarily be in that order. But I think that I made my point that species are aware. The truth is that we can not know for sure that all species are not as aware as we are--they may be. How could we know? But we can logically prove some of it. The other point that I was interesting in making is the difference between the conscious and unconscous aspects, as I am not sure that all species would be aware on a conscious level, and was interested in starting to define where the dividing line might be. There is a kind of oneness that is present in the unconscious aspect of mind, and I suspect that this oneness is a feature of herding, flocking, schooling, swarming types of species, so this is interesting also. I had no choice but to put people at ten, or I would have had to deal with the arrogant denials of humans, and I put viruses in nonlife because this is what biology has decreed and I have no authority to dispute this. G

Thank you for this confirmation. It is difficult for me to keep spilling my thoughts onto this page when all I receive in return is criticism. Discussion is nice, and helps me to learn. I agree, and your post gave me quite a few chuckles in this regard. Sometimes, being a woman has it's advantages, in that I was never encouraged to reach for "enlightenment". Although there are some sects that do encourage women, most do not, so I was spared this experience. But neither can I completely discount the philosophy, as I do see value in it. Of course, I can see value in every philosophy, philosopher, religion, and science, because there is always some truth there. Religion is about faith and science is about facts, but that does not change the reality that they both reveal some truth. I suspect that the reason most western thinkers have problems with eastern philosophy is that we miss the point--eastern religion/philosophy is about acceptance of what is real and true. Most western religions are based on reward; the Jews are "chosen", the Islamists have their "virgins", and the Christians have their "heaven", so when we look to the eastern religions/philosophies, we hone in on "Nirvana" and "bliss"--seeking the reward. We really are kind of paganistic from a certain perspective. Since I have never really studied these philosophies, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Nirvana and bliss are simply terms that describe the feeling that one experiences when they reach enlightenment--so the purpose is enlightenment. To learn. So learning for the purpose of sharing a truth would be that of a teacher or monk, but learning for self satisfaction would be self serving. Yes, a point of focus is required. On the other hand, "being" has been long studied because where, who, and what we actually are is in question. Some believe that we are the actual body of ourselves, some believe that we are the thoughts of ourselves, some believe that we are the soul, or spirit, of ourselves, so "being" is not really answered. And then there is the question of whether or not "being" still exists when there is no longer a body, so I can see the interest in this type of introspective study. While I see your point and agree with it, it seems to me that what these people are actually trying to accomplish is to remove their awareness from the Ego, the self or rational mind, and place their awareness in the SuperEgo, the unconscious mind. This would be very difficult to accomplish and would take years of practice and meditation, but I think that some people have accomplished it. I base my opinions on the similarities between Dr. Blanco's studies, what is known about the Aether, statements about the Vedas, understandings from psychology, and my own studies. So I see their "loss of self" as terminology that explains this foray into the unconscious mind, but I am not at all convinced that this is the "real reality", just another perspective of reality. Agreed. Prior to life, this is a moot argument as there would be no containment of the information. Agreed and a wonderful argument for validating what we call the supernatural. We should not let our imaginings assume that they are a greater reality than our feelings and observations. But what happens when they die? Are they still here? This is the ultimate question in all minds, so a foray into the unconscious is not out of bounds with regard to these questions. I think there is a process that regulates and refines the growing complexities of consciousness. I was not going to do this, but at the moment people seem to be less obstructive and adversarial about my thoughts, so below I will post my latest attempt at defining the levels of consciousness in species for your review and thoughts. (As soon as I find it.) G Awareness In Species (copied from a post that I made in another forum) This is my second attempt, after studying consciousness in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), to interpret the levels of awareness in species. It is a little long for a post, but I could not find a way to shorten it. If anyone has the patience and interest to review it, please bear in mind that this is only one aspect of consciousness, and not meant to interpret more than simple awareness. I have numbered the levels for ease of discussion, and your comments are, of course, welcome. 1. The first level would be a classification of non-awareness, or things that can give the appearance of being aware, but do not really qualify as aware. This is where Dennett's computers belong, as they can only give the appearance of being aware if someone remembers to change the batteries. It is my understanding that viruses would also be in this category, as they are not really a life form, but will take up the qualities of a life form when in a parasitic relationship with an actual life form. In both of these cases, the "source" of awareness comes from other matter, so it is my opinion that a virus is probably the only form that is actually representative of the idea that lower species are more mechanical and robotic, than aware. 2. This level, and on, would be true life, so it would represent an activation of the "universal (potential) awareness" and matter. As was previously discussed, universal awareness is theoretically aware of all knowledge, but is actually aware of nothing, because it has no ability to focus. So the first life forms would be at the microbial level, or more probably below that level, and would give universal awareness a focus point. Does that mean that a small piece of nothing chemical compound now has access to all knowledge? No. It would have no ability to hold the knowledge, sort the knowledge, or use the knowledge, so it would only be aware of awareness. Like a spark that starts and quickly dies, this first life would be fragile and short lived, but it would possess an awareness of the need to continue. All life needs to continue, so it would access any knowledge that supported that goal. So one of the first things that life would do is learn how to reproduce, or duplicate itself. This means that the first two instincts of all life forms would be to continue and to reproduce toward that end. This first life form would not be able to distinguish between matter and non-matter, or self and other, and would have only a focus point, or identity, for universal awareness. 3. This level would be "communal", and it should be noted that this level precedes the division of plant life from animal life, as the "communal" aspect is prevalent in both plant and other life. This "communal" level would be the result of life forms duplicating themselves repeatedly until they have formed a mass of identical life forms; such as, clumps of grass, sponges, cells, or microbes. Not being a biologist, I don't know for sure, but I have never heard of microbes being cannibalistic, and suggest that it would not be conducive to survival, so I think they work together. This would also be where hormones/pheromones come into play to create a communication between cells which turn individual cells into a single unit. I do know that trees will communicate with trees of the same kind, and will even merge with other trees, if they are the same kind. So this leads me to suppose that communal species experience a "oneness" or communal awareness that helps them to survive. This "oneness" is compatible with Dr. Blanco's understanding of the sub/unconscious mind, and I believe that Jung had ideas on this "oneness", and this may be the root of the sub/unconscious mind, and like the sub/unconscious mind, it would be more aware of non-matter than of matter. 4. This level is where plant life forks away from other life forms, and shows an awareness of matter for the first time. Of course, we are not really talking about plants and animals because this is a very primitive level, but there is a distinct difference in the way food is acquired. Some life forms begin to move within their environment in order to find food, and these will evolve into many different species of animal, fish, and fowl. But others, instead of moving within the environment, actually manipulate themselves in order to acquire food, and these life forms will eventually evolve into plants, as plants are the only life forms that can actually grow in a direction that will provide them with food, water, sunshine, etc. Although this level exhibits an awareness of matter, it does not, in my opinion, exhibit an awareness of itself as being distinct from that matter. This is where the evolution of awareness in plant life seems to come to a halt, as plant life does not seem capable of seeing itself as being separate from, or distinct from, other life, the environment, or even matter and non-matter. Rather it seems to be aware only of it's 'oneness', the need to continue, and the need to reproduce. 5. This level is where life develops senses and can distinguish between itself and other. Through sight, smell, taste, sound, etc., life begins to be able to discern what is itself, and what is not itself, and exhibits this awareness by moving within its environment, seeking food, and fleeing danger. Once senses are developed, the species becomes more ensconced in material awareness, and less in non-material awareness, and I suspect that this is also where we start to find a "brain" or something similar within the bodies of these species. The rational conscious mind is designed to absorb information from the senses and use that information to support the bodily needs, so I think that this is where the rational mind, or actual consciousness, starts. So the development of senses is what causes the individual life form to be aware of itself as an individual; and although, I could not call this level "self-aware", it does learn what is and what is not part of itself. This level seems to also develop a whole fresh batch of instincts and is knowledgeable about many dangers, what is good to eat and what is not, what environment it does well in, and even develops self protections, such as camouflage. 6. This is not really a "level" per se, but should be acknowledged as a separate division of awareness in species. This is the "communal" species which is a throw back, or carry over from (3) above, and involves the herding, flocking, swarming, schooling species. These species have a number of things in common and, with few exceptions, are not known for intelligence, are often considered emotional, will share their offspring, make very good snacks for other species, and seem to move as if they are of one mind. Although well along the path of evolution, communal species, like sheep, do not exhibit the individualized independent natures of other species and do not really manipulate their environment. Instead, they seem to move or migrate within the environment as do the species noted in (3) above. Although individual, their awareness seems to come mostly from instinct, emotion, and a sort of "oneness" that choreographs their actions, which puts me in mind of the sub/unconscious mind. So could they have a communal mind or awareness? It is certainly possible, and I don't believe that I am the first person to come to this conclusion. If you check in the Old Testament of the Bible, I believe in Genesis, you will find a reference to foods that are allowed and not allowed. If I remember correctly, it was told that prior to the flood, meat was not eaten, but now it was necessary to eat meat, so specific animals would be allowed as a food source. Most, if not all, of the species allowed are herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species--with a few exceptions thrown in or out for specific reasons. When I first read Genesis, 40 years ago, I did not understand the significance of communal species, but now believe that people were trying to find a way to eat meat, while still obeying the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." It occurs to me that "culling" a sheep from the flock for dinner could be considered the same as picking an apple from a tree, as you are not really killing the life force. So I suspect that someone considered that communal species were of one mind, one awareness, one life force; so culling a sheep from the flock would be like pruning a tree for the health of the tree. 7. This level may be self-aware, but it is disputable. A distinct level should be made for species that can and will manipulate their environment for their own purposes. This level would include animals like beavers or birds or insects that make a home in the environment, but would also include any species that will use a stick or shell or leaf as a tool. Even a rabbit that digs in the ground to create a home would be included, but a species that moves into an already dug or formed hole, would not be included, nor would something like worms that dig instinctively as a way to survive. This level shows increased intelligence, but also an awareness that it's environment can be manipulated and is at the disposal of the species. This gives some indication of an awareness of "self". 8. This level is self-aware and exhibits that self-awareness with the concept of "mine". I understand that many people do not think that other species are self-aware, but hope to change those minds with the following examples. In each of the categories below, the species in question exhibit an ownership of something, and will fight to retain that ownership, so it is my thought that one can not have ownership without also having a self. a. Family Species: From mice to whales, there are many species that raise their young in a family unit. It does not matter how long it takes to raise the young, or even if there is a continuing relationship after the babies have grown, as that is more to do with memory than self-awareness. What matters is that the parents believe that the young belong to them--this is possession, ownership, and denotes a sense of self. In family species, the parent(s) will protect the young, nurture the young, and often defend the young from attack, like birds that will dive-bomb us because we are too close to their nest, or whales that will shadow or attack a ship when a young one is caught in a net, or a cat that will scratch because someone picked up her new kitten. Now it has been argued that this is simply instinct, and I agree, it is instinct--just like ours--which is irrelevant to self-awareness. It is also instinct for a sea turtle to lay her eggs in the sand and swim away leaving her young to make a mad dash for the sea to avoid predators when they hatch. And it is also instinct for a black widow spider to paralyze her mate and lay her eggs on his body to feed her young, and walk away. In these last two examples, instinct was involved, but there was no "mine" concept regarding the young. Species that raise young in a family unit are self-aware. b. Territorial Species: In order for a species to be territorial, it must choose a territory that is "mine", then it must defend that territory. From eagles to lions to dogs defending their homes, these species are all staking a claim on some property and defending that property from all comers. To claim any property for themselves, they must first have a self, so it is my opinion that all territorial species are indeed self-aware. c. Pack Species: Pack species go beyond self-awareness, as they also have to be aware of others within the pack. In a pack, each animal has a position, or rank, and it has to maintain that position, improve that position, or lose that position and possibly be exiled from the pack. There is a hierarchy within a pack, so if the leader dies, then others will challenge for the position of leader and a new leader is found, then the others will fall behind the leader in order of rank and authority. Instinct can provide the concept of "pack" and most of the behavior, but it can not account for the desire of one animal to lead the pack, and for the other animals to accept that leadership, only to challenge it at some future point. Instinct also does not explain an animal's ability to maintain its position within the pack, as that is a social skill. Pack animals are most definitely aware of themselves and their position. 9. This level of awareness is about species that are more than simply self-aware, as they are also aware of other selves within other species on a personal level. These species can form attachments to other species and even adapt to life with other species, and would include horses, dogs, elephants, pigs, some apes, etc. An animal, let's say a horse, that can live in it's own environment, then adapt to a human environment and even bond with a human exhibiting loyalty and friendship, shows tremendous intelligence, emotional and social maturity, and awareness beyond it's own self and the limits of its species. We often refer to these species as being "tame" and assume that we have some magical ability to make them aware of our wants, but this is not so. This is an awareness that is part of the species' abilities, and if anyone does not think so, please explain why we can not really "tame" a house cat. 10. This level of awareness involves a species' ability to understand the abstract. Much has been made of the "mirror" test, and it has been stated that this test shows that an animal is self-aware. But I think that it shows much more than that, because in order for an animal to understand that the image in the mirror is actually him/her self, then that animal has to be able to conceive of, and identify with, a third-party abstract of him/her self. This is awareness of the abstract, the intangible, and it is awareness that understands the tangible material world and the intangible idea world--just like us. So is there anyone else who has studied species' awareness in this way? Can anyone see where I have made major mistakes in my understandings? Any comments? G

Iwonderaboutthings; Thank you for your advice. This sounds like introspective study as taught by Eastern religions, and although a valid way to study consciousness, it is not the path that I have chosen. If, in fact, I were a teacher, who could guide other people with my understandings, then this might be a valid way for me to study, but I am not a teacher, and that is not my circumstance. So if I chose to study my mind in order to obtain "bliss", then it would be a selfish study for my own purposes and my own satisfaction. You will forgive me for "just being" me and choosing another way. G

Agreed, but what causes that distinction? When is awareness truly awareness? A lot of philosophers have struggled with this concept because something causes that awareness--something natural. What is it? Some philosophers have tried to define and name this "thing" that causes awareness, the term "monads" comes to mind and reminds me of "bosons", but I have no right or authority to try to make up terms to describe this phenomenon. Instead, I try to see where awareness comes from and how it works. My studies, experiences, and observations tell me that premonitions do exist, but that would put thought outside of the bounds of time and space. I know that emotion is primary in premonitions and that emotion rules the unconscious mind, so when I read Dr. Blanco's explanation of the logic of the unconscious mind, I turned to the Aether for the source of awareness. Dr. Blanco discovered that the unconscious part of our minds has absolutely no concept of time and space, and this is accepted by psychology. So if it has no concept of time and space, it has no understanding of matter. This makes the Aether the only reasonable logical choice when looking for potential awareness, or the raw material that causes awareness. Many philosophers have also come to this conclusion that awareness is beyond, above, or distinct from matter, which explains Plato's cave example, dream realities, solipsism, and the God concept. But in my studies, I found that emotion was the mechanism for premonitions, and emotion is controlled by chemistry, so this is not simply a matter of the "mysterious" Aether. This is more a combination of matter and the "in between" of the Aether. This thinking led to a consideration of the Aether and the idea that there could be no real ability for awareness of anything in the Aether. Because there is no matter in the Aether, there is no point to focus from in order to focus on a single thought, so the Aether can not have the ability to actually be aware of any single thing, as it would require a point to focus from. So only when the Aether and matter activate each other, is actually awareness possible. Matter supplies the identity point of focus, per Panpsychism, that prompts Aether's potential awareness to be known--we call this life. This also explains why all life has a "me" awareness that exhibits itself in it's instinct to survive. I disagree. How can life "want" to be alive before it is alive? There has to be an organising constant influencing life's emergence. A cause for the effect. Life needs no justification. It is simply part of the process. The romantics would say that we are simply pieces of stardust. Butterflies are fleeting, fragile, and quite temporary, but are still part of the process. The simple fact that the Universe has everything to do with life is enough explanation that it is in favor of life. To me, this looks like a good explanation of a self-balancing chaos motivated by want. We are close to agreement here, but I see water as a cause and an effect; life is a cause and an effect; consciousness is a cause and an effect. Just because something emerges, that does not mean that it is at an end, as it can also cause effects. It is all a process, a perpetual motion machine that continues it's own momentum. imo Agreed. Actually it is my opinion that the processes that start life are active all over the Universe all of the time. The reality that life seems to be very rare does not dissuade me from this thinking. If you have ever been a Boy/Girl Scout, then you may understand how difficult it is to start a fire without matches or a lighter. One must be able to produce a spark or enough heat to start a small flame, then be able to protect and encourage that flame while ensuring the right amount of air and burnable material. Even then, the fire may burn itself out and have to be started again. So I think that this is how life starts with the correct combination of energies, forces, matter, and a little luck. There are some people who believe that "a little luck" means God, but I don't agree. Consider how vast the Universe is, and what that means to our perception of it. If we broke that idea down to something that we could comprehend, we could say that the Earth represents the Universe, countries represent galaxies, and cities represent solar systems. Then we could say that barns represent planets. How many barn fires have you ever heard of? We know that barns do catch on fire and that this is a natural phenomenon caused by damp hay stacked in the barn, but how often does it happen? I can't think of one. I think of life starting in the same way, and just as a barn fire will promote and expand and encourage more fire; life promotes, expands, and encourages more life. As to water, I used to think that water attracted life, like it attracts lightening, but have since revised my thinking. I think that chemistry activates potential awareness and water insulates this process so that it can develop; much like we would cup our hands around a smal flame to protect it so it can grow. So I think that water, or something very like it, would have to be present for life to start and continue. But I agree that the electrons, photons, and all of the things that I don't understand are probably trying to start life's dance all of the time. I love this quote. G

Tar; Damned you're good! You should be a teacher. Prior to this, the best I could understand is that entropy seemed to be a word that explained a natural tendency for matter and/or energy to evaporate, but I knew that was not really the full, or correct, explanation. This makes so much more sense. The Ancients thought that chaos was outside of the Universe, or maybe that the Universe sat within chaos; I see this chaos as the Aether. My first thought is that entropy is a term that explains a natural tendency for everything to return to the chaos from whence it came. This looks like a natural next step to me like breathing out after breathing in, but I believe that I will give it more thought. I agree that life seems to collect energy, but not that it stores it. My investigations into the supernatural tend to support the idea that life changes this energy into something that we call consciousness, or spirit, and disperses this energy. And in various balances, some known and some unknown. One of the most difficult things that I have had to do in this study is to remove the religious training from my thinking. It was difficult and led to a great deal of soul searching, sometimes leaving me in a position where I did not know what to believe in, but it is also necessary if one wants to see these issues clearly. People keep talking about an "orchestrator" or "instigator" or intelligent designer or God, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about natural laws of physics and reality, so what we call the supernatural is not a leader on high that guides us, it is simply a step in the development and natural processes of reality. So rather than the "supernatural" being a guide, I think that it is more likely a product of life, so it and life are both dancers, but they also help to make the music. Well, if I understood your explanation of entropy, then there clearly is a greater, or at least different, reality that exists. The word, supernatural, is a lousy description of a natural process. Are you picking on my pattern finding? This is one of the few skills that I was always really really good at, that I have not lost. So what you are saying here is that if you can not see the logic in something, then it can not exist? I think this is the same argument that men have used for centuries to prove that women don't have minds. Women use this same tactic on men. No logic equals no reality. (chuckle chuckle) I think that "fairies" are also part of anthropomorphism, but can not explain it to people who have not been able to remove "religion" and "superstition" from their thinking. But I disagree with your statements. I can answer your post now. Look for it tomorrow. G

Tar; Before answering your post, I will need some help from you. Do you remember when I said that I lost the ability to learn some terms? Well, "entropy" is one of those terms. I have had 4 or 5 people try to explain it to me, have looked it up at least 20 times, but am still not clear enough on this concept to be sure that I understand your meaning. There are ten or fifteen terms that I have this problem with regularly, and it is very frustrating. I looked up "solipsism" about 15 times before I realized, while reading the definition, that a person would have to be narcissistic in order to believe that concept. Since I knew what a narcissist was, I could then comprehend solipsism. So what I need is a term that I can relate "entropy" to that I understood prior to the brain damage. All part of my new MS experiences. If you can not think of a specific term that has a very similar meaning, maybe you could think of a phrase that would mean the same thing as "entropy", and I can substitute it in your post. Thanks for your help in advance. G

Agreed. There are always people more intelligent, capable, accomplished, and knowledgable, but most importantly, people have different experiences, perspectives, and ideas to share. It is true that intelligent people tend to trust their own judgment, but it is also true that any person can have only one perspective of any issue. Agreed. I think that this is the way most people view these things. But it might be worth noting that historically we have a tendency to ridicule and destroy some of our greatest thinkers, and then value them a few hundred years after they are dead. If I am even close to correct and the supernatural is in fact consciousness that is poorly understood, and that consciousness works, not by magic, but by cause and effect, then we may greatly regret some of the things that we are doing now with chemistry. I have grandchildren and expect to have great grandchildren. Here you are confusing the supernatural with religious interpretations of the supernatural. When religion stated, "Ask and you shall receive.", it would have been better interpreted as, "Don't ask, and you will get nothing." All life and consciousness are motivated by "want" in my opinion. "Our consciousness", yes. But what source in the "external" made up our consciousness? Why are we connected? How does it work? What causes these obligations and responsibilities? If it is not God, then what is it? We have two different concept ideas that cause us to disagree here. The first is that people can not wrap their brains around the idea that conscious awareness is real, complex, and has degrees. Try to think of conscious awareness like I do--I see it as being comparable to water. Water is everywhere, in the air, in the ground, in us, in a rock--much like the "God is everywhere" concept--but water does not look like or feel like water when it is in the air or in a rock. Only when water is concentrated, liquid, and held in some kind of a container, is it recognizable as water. I see conscious awareness in the same way, in that it is everywhere in the Universe, but only when it is concentrated in a life form does it have "will" and the ability to direct and know itself. Just as water that has evaporated, frozen, or is mixed too thinly in matter has no ability to flow, self level, or move. The second difference is this "poured into your vessel from the outside" nonsense that is distributed by religion. Nothing is poured in. Conscious awareness works off of cause and effect just like everything else, so if one thinks of this like water, it is easy to see that rain pours down for reasons that science can understand. Conscious awareness is also influenced by cause and effect so what causes it to "pour" into life? This is what I have been studying and I think that chemistry, actual water, temperature, and probably something to do with electro magnetic fields creates this cause and effect. Well, I doubt that I will be studying Hegel. I expected that when I retired, I would spend 20 years studying the "greats" of philosophy. What I did not expect is to retire early, have a scarred up brain, lose my vision in my dominant eye and when it returned be dyslexic. I spent two years learning to read again, found that my vocabulary was easily cut in half, and that I could not learn some new terms/concepts. I had never before had the experience of not being able to learn anything that I wanted to learn. I think that I would enjoy your Aunt and have had some thoughts about an "ascending spiral", but I am a systems thinker. Did you know that at least ten different types of thinking have been identified? I didn't. Most people would call me a "holistic" thinker as I see things from a whole perspective. Systems thinkers are people who see the relationship between things better than they see the individual things, so they are used rather extensively in environmental studies. When I state that I believe conscious awareness is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want, I am not talking about your consciousness or my consciousness--I am talking about all of it from the Universe to grass to us. So my idea of "want" is the will that different life form possess that cause them to act the way they do and to survive, but I am also talking about the laws of physics that explain the attraction and repulsion that causes matter to move--it is all "want" to me. When I talk about a self-balancing chaos, I am not considering the balance of a scale or a teeter-totter, because when these things are in balance--they stop. I am instead considering the balance of a perpetual motion machine, where constant movement and balance are required to maintain that constant momentum. So this balance requires more than two forces working to influence the others--not like a scale. From my perspective it looks like the Universe, an ecosystem, and life all work to maintain these balances, so balance is more a matter of influence and change, rather than any one power and constance, as that would create a stopage and death. If you look through our history, it is easy to see that when one concept or power becomes too dominant, life performs a correction that is not always pleasant, to correct this unbalance. This correction is also made when life becomes too constant, so balance is not something that we ever achieve, it is something that we strive for. The supernatural is part of this. imo G

Tars; After reading your last post, I must assume that I tweaked you, but that was not my intent. Because I do not wish to leave this misunderstanding between us, I will try to explain my thoughts in this matter of intelligence. Please note that I should probably be offended by your attitudes about the differences in people's intelligence, as I have never in all eight pages of this thread, stated or implied that my ideas were more important than anyone elses--only that they were different and just as important. People, who state that very high intelligence is superior, are in my opinion idiots. I suspect that most of the people who state this are actually people who are pretending higher intelligence. People who actually experience higher intelligence understand that with every gift given, something is also taken away. There are no superior people, only people who know their own strengths and weaknesses and have learned to use them correctly. In the fourth grade, I was given my first IQ test; it was the most fun I had ever had in school. But afterward was terrible because the school called in social workers and tried to imply that I was being abused at home. I did not understand the problem at that time, but in the seventh grade, I was again given an IQ test by the school. When they called in a psychologist to examine me, I was old enough to figure out the problem. I had tested way too high, and my grades did not match my abilities, hence the shrink. I never took another IQ test because it made other people kind of nuts, and have no idea of my scores. But I can assure you that I have seen my MRI films and that the scars on my brain from MS have reduced whatever abilities I once had. In the fifth grade, my teacher had a plaque on the wall that stated; Complex minds understand ideas, average minds understand society and events, simpler minds understand people. I have found this to be true and spent most of my childhood alone, because I could not relate to my peers. When I was not reading, I was playing my favorite game where I would take ideas, thoughts, and observations and put them in my mind just to see what would come out. My mind was my favorite toy. I have played this game for most of my life, and this is how I learned about consciousness. So now, I am trying, with my MS scarred up brain, to remember what caused me to have the ideas that I have, where I got them, if they are valid, and when and how, over the last 40 years, I put them together. So do I need help? In a word, yes. You may have noticed, with my two warnings, that I am still not very good with people. I was always intelligent, but never very smart. G

Nouveau; Although I have travelled all over the US, made forays into Canada and Mexico, and even taken a couple of trips to Europe, my best experience was getting on a motorcycle and riding from Michigan to Arizona. I was in my early 20's, had less than $50 in my pocket (gas was about $.25 per gallon), and took five days to get there, but I will never forget it. I camped out at night under the stars, ate picnic foods at rest stops and beside the road, and met a lot of people. The difference in driving a car to Arizona and riding a bike, is like the difference in driving down a road fifty times, then one day walking down that same road. There is so much that we miss when driving by; the difference is in passing something, or experiencing something. I felt the climate around me, smelled the grains growing in the fields, saw a lot of animal wildlife, and was approached by many different people with different accents, circumstances, situations and problems. A lot of people felt the need to welcome and protect a woman alone on a motorcycle. So I was invited to share meals with families and even invited to pitch my tent by theirs, because they were worried about me. Truckers went out of their way to tell me where the Smokies (traffic cops) were parked and where the roads were under construction. Other people advised me about weather problems, bad parts of town, scenic routes, and being careful, and they talked about their lives, their loves, their problems, and their dreams. Whenever I feel down or disillusioned, I just think back to that time and remember that there are a lot of very good people in this country. Of course, on that trip I also learned about a dozen ways to sit on a bike (sore muscles), got a sun tan that went from my shoulders down to the second knuckle on my fingers, because the tips were shaded by the handlebars, and got my picture in the paper in Arizona. Apparently, not very many women made 2,000 mile trips alone on a motorcycle. So I guess it was unique. G

Tar; I hope you enjoyed your family reunion. Regarding your above statements (I cut some comments out to preserve space.) there is a clear pattern. You identify with society, community, and family, and are a very social person. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but you also view consciousness from this perspective, so you see it from a "me" or "we" human perspective. This is where our difference begins and ends, because I see consciousness from an "it" perspective as an abstract concept. Now you may disagree, but consider: If a person that you know told you that they had just had a baby, you may ask how they felt about parenthood, you may ask about their feelings, plans, arrangements, and thoughts regarding the new life, but you would also ask about the baby. You would want to know about the sex, health, length, weight, etc. For eight pages now, I have been waiting to find someone who would ask the appropriate questions about consciousness. I have given out more than enough hints that I see it as a real thing, but there have been no takers. No one is asking about the "baby", so I know that they can not see consciousness as a reality except through personal perspective. Personal perspective is an important viewpoint of consciousness, but it is not the only viewpoint. It is my thought that examining consciousness from a personal perspective is about as wise as when the Ancients examined the Universe from the perspective of Earth. They saw Earth as being the center of all, so their viewpoint distorted the truth of the Universe. I understand that consciousness is intangible, so it is an abstract idea, and only about 3 percent of the population is capable of holding an abstract idea in their minds for examination. But this is what I need; one of the 3 percent, who has a strong interest in consciousness. I disagree. Your statement limits your considerations to humans. The supernatural, including religion, is the explanation of how we interpret, or think about, what we feel. All of the things that I listed in my prior post as supernatural bear one similarity, in that they are all interpretations of feeling/emotions. i would like to bypass one step and examine what causes the feeling/emotion to happen, rather than examine why we feel the way we do about the supernatural. To state that consciousness can "understand" itself is to give it a persona, or call it God. Not buying it. But I am a philosopher, and we study reality. I have enjoyed talking with you, but expect that I will get no answers at this forum. G

I disagree. Although it is true that the concepts of awareness and consciousness are often confused and do not have a very clear and distinct difference in definition, consciousness is generally regarded as thought. Greylorn is correct in the position that people become aware of an idea, become aware of the fact that it is accepted, and simply accept the idea without study, experience, or thought. As a friend of mine has often noted, "People would rather die than think." History bears out this simple truth over, and over, and over. G.

Well, I think we are in the same book, but not in complete agreement. I think the thing that frustrates me is that people, who believe in cause and effect, will also believe that mental attributes are somewhat magical. People will argue that physical things can only work in specific ways for specific reasons, but mental things can be whatever we imagine. Nonsense. The mental works through cause and effect just as the physical does. The only real difference is that we have not bothered to learn the rules that regulate the different mental aspects--so it looks like magic. We have learned a great deal about the first division, knowledge, thought, and thinking, as is evidenced by our knowledge of computers. But we know almost nothing about the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, so this is where study is required. Mostly we have relegated the second division to religion and/or the supernatural, but until we understand both, we can not understand consciousness. OK. But after life grabs form, then the form dies, then what happens? If we decide that consciousness is floating around, inhabits life, then leaves life--we end up with the "God" idea, or panpsychism (everything is alive). For people who do not buy into religion and think that rocks are not alive, this is a problem. If we believe that there is no consciousness except in life, then we have to explain how this magical thing happens and where knowledge and awareness comes from. We end up back with the "God" idea, or we deny the mental aspects and accept that only the physical exists--and there is no logical explanation for knowledge and awareness. In which case, we ignore the supernatural and pretend that it does not exist. If we go the solipsist route and deny the physical, stating that only the mental exists, we have a pretty logical argument. But there is no purpose for this theory, no why, no reason to even consider physical reality. No reason for evolution. No reason for life. So although the solipsist theory does make a good argument, there seems to be no point in it. This idea also tends to be somewhat magical. It is my opinion that each of these theories make the same mistake. They each choose one aspect of life and use it to explain all of the others, but it does not work. Many philosophers have debated this issue, and many ideas have been brought forth from Plato's forms to Panpsychism, but they each fall short of the explanation and philosophers have long noted that there seem to be at least two divisions. The first is knowledge (forms, matter, and the all-knowing God). This division is the beginning or source of knowledge and awareness, but it is static and has no will or ability to intervene--like a book that has no reader. It is knowledge that is there, but unknown until read. The second division is awareness (spirit, life, and the God of love). This division has will and can manipulate the environment. But it is either short lived, or supernatural. So it is my thought that consciousness is very complex and that each of these theories is only one perspective of consciousness. I think that there are degrees of conscious awareness, and that these degrees are regulated by cause and effect. So this would mean that when we die we have lost? Everyone of us will die, so what is it that we have won? Why is it necessary for all life to continue? Why reproduce? This is not the answer. But why does the universe wish to accomplish this? What is the purpose? What does life give to the universe that is so important that all life has a mandate to continue? True. But how did it happen? Could it happen somewhere else? Because you stated that you were examining this event for truth, I will give you my take on this. First, it was a long time ago, so unless you did something to record the events at that time, you can not trust your memory of them. (If I can find the video on memory, I will post it at the end.) It was probably summertime, which does not tell me a lot. But the age of your young cousin suggests that she would be hormonal, which fits. Because sticking your hand in water caused no shock, it would be my guess that this was kinetic energy rather than electrical shock. So before deciding that she was "wired" differently, I would investigate whether or not she had a synthetic carpet in her room, or if she wore a lot of synthetic clothing, like hose, which caused friction and kinetic energy to build up. Well, hearing a piano is an experience, so this part makes sense. I would want verification on the furniture being rearranged, but the hand on the shoulder could be valid as this is part of awareness, and she was at the right age to be hormonal. I would also ask if she had heard about this "ghost" before. Too many kids. This looks like a group looking for trouble, and makes me wonder if the "new boy" was getting pranked. Feelings of hysteria at this point would be useless to consider because there were too many teenages with excited hormones. How could anyone track down where the emotions came from? If you weren't getting pranked, where did the rag doll end up? Was there some significance to a rag doll and the "ghost"? Did any of the other kids have a younger sister, who may own a rag doll? As to the distributor cap, has it ever popped off before or since? Seems to me that I have heard of distributor caps popping off before, but I am not sure. Why would a "ghost" want to keep you there? This does not make sense, so I doubt this part of the event as being supernatural. Do you think you saw a ghost? How could you know? You should have stopped. Well, if I were investigating this, the first thing that I would do is track down the rumors and compare them to the facts. So check records regarding the ownership of the houses, and if/when you find the owner, check death certificates to see if he actually committed suicide in the way described. These things have a tendency to be exagerated over time. If you get that far, then you would have to try to give a description of the "ghost", a drawing would be nice, then search for a real photo or painting of the man. If all of these things pan out, and the description is valid, before seeing a picture, then you may have seen a ghost. But I am still not buying the rag doll. That was a private reference for someone else; I am no Socrates. Most people hear the word, "collaboration" and believe that Socratic discussion is "nice", "cooperative", or even "civilized"; it is anything but civilized. It could be more closely related to psychoanalysis and requires an openness and honesty that can be quite traumatic. Debate is much more civilized as a person is expected to cross their arms, squint their eyes, and hold a facade of their thoughts up for debate, while never really exposing their true selves. This is a very interesting video that explains why and when we can not trust our memories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNuARPcb5FA G.

Moontanman; Although a little condescending, all of your above statements sound reasonable and intelligent. This would make anyone reading them think that you are reasonable and intelligent. But there is a bit of a perversity here. Following are the assertions that I made in post # 143. The post that initiated this conversation: Twelve assertions, and each and every one of them could, and probably should, be questioned. Were any of them questioned? No. Did you even ask for clarity on any issue? No. Did you ask for elaboration, references, a citation? No. What you did was ask for a detailed explanation of all of the things that I stated that I could not discuss. You seem to look for the things that I don't care about and have no position on, or the things that I specifically state that I won't discuss, and question only those things. This is not debate, it is not discussion, it is not even conversation--it is a perversion of information. Then you throw the rules in my face and state that I must have a nonsensical debate over these issues that you have carefully selected. And I am supposed to believe that this is accidental? Your accidents are too consistent. So if you want me to leave the thread that badly, I am out of here. Note to all: Socrates was a very passionate man, and his passion was vested in what he liked to call the "virtues". Socrates has been said to leave his opponents "a quivering mass of jelly" after his questioning, but some of his opponents were not so easily intimidated, so instead of quivering, they were enraged. Socrates could "sting people and whip them into a fury", which is probably why he was condemned to death by his own people. The following statement was part of the warning given to me by Imatfaal: Because you were so kind in giving me this warning, I would like to return the favor. So I would like to warn you that if you do not close this thread, you will look like a damned liar. Because: You need a ruling on the rules. Your protocols of debate are not really protocols and do not even bear a similarity to procedures or any kind of reasonable process. Your etcetera is invalid as it follows words that are invalid, so this also needs to be refined. G

No, I should not have. Any discussion would have to be with someone who is at least in the same book as I am, if not on the same page. An honest understanding of religion, God, and the supernatural/paranormal is required before attempting to comprehend consciousness. So Consciousness 101 could be considered a break-down of the supernatural. Consciousness is not simple to understand. You will receive no citations, elaborations, or references regarding any of my ideas, and if I decide to discuss them, it will be a discussion--not a debate. If you again feel that you have the right to demand that I support a position, just because you believe that I hold it, then make more demands. I will simply leave the thread. Enough is enough. G

Tar; I should not have brought up my health, and you don't have to be sorry, but if you are, then you can apologize for making me jealous. I would love to be able to jump in the shower and go to work--I loved my job. I think that the work we do is a treasure that we give to ourselves, so enjoy it while you have it. As far as my ideas are concerned, this is what I know. There are 34 people following this thread and I have -4 points. Since I have discussed and introduced many different topics and provided links and references to many of my ideas, it appears to me that my ideas are not worth noting. Or people are simply waiting for me to fail, so that is why they are following this thread. Most of what I have been doing so far is trying to dislodge many of the ideas from religions and the supernatural superstitions that corrupt our understanding of consciousness. If we were in fact discussing my ideas, we would be talking about why life cannot spontaneously start in space, why it started around the equator, and why it diversifies more often around the equator. Why some species hibernate, why a child that fell in a river and was "dead" for more than 15 minutes can recover fully, what water has to do with consciousnes, what temperature has to do with consciousness, and why density affects consciousness. We would be discussing universal truths and body language and language, and what these things tell us about consciousness. I have not come close to discussing my ideas. True, but that is introspective. Consider that when you see something, a vision is stored in your brain; when hearing, a sound is stored; but the act of seeing or hearing is not stored--that is experienced. Emotion and feeling work the same way, so what we feel is stored by the thoughts that accumulate around our emotions. Emotion, by itself, is not stored in the brain any more than seeing or hearing is, but we know that hearing comes from the ears and seeing comes from the eyes, but where does emotion come from? Emotion and feeling work through chemicals, but chemicals in a jar are not emotional, they have no feeling, so they do not really produce feeling. I think that they connect us to feeling and emotion, and the connection is, or is to, consciousness. Agreed. And if words are not necessary, then there is no reason to dispute the idea that all life knows this stipulation as language is not required. All life has a knowledge of what we call God. Agreed. So I see only two ways to avoid religious differences. Either all people have to be of the same language and society, or all people have to respect the differences in other's society/religion. Since people have a tendency to group, causing different dialects and customs within the same country, it is unlikely that all people could be of the same society--so I recommend respect. Agreed. But I doubt that Mohammed did this intentionally with malice. It is my thought that he did this while looking to his own people and their problems. Whether it is called prophesy, visions, premonitions, or something else, it is very difficult to discern what comes to you and what comes from you when attempting to understand prophesy. This is because it works through the unconscious mind, so it is a lot like dreaming and must be interpreted. imo G

Well, apparently someone, who is less than eloquent, took exception to my last post. This is evidenced by the red -1 that has been tacked to the bottom of my post. I wonder why someone took exception to it. Could it be because I stated that there is some truth in religion? Because I stated that the supernatural is not something that we can just make up? Because I stated that simple truths can lead to truth? Or maybe it is because I made a request regarding ghosts? My guess would be that this is about religion, and that there are some people who are so involved with hating religion that they could not find truth if it was pinned to their noses, if that truth had anything to do with religion. But maybe I am wrong. Any comments? G

Tar; You and Science4ever both deserve answers to your posts. It has not been my intention to ignore you, as I have been too ill to respond. The frustration that I deal with in this forum has little to do with the members, and is more about my inability to formulate the words that will help people to understand my ideas. So I never quite get to the discussion that I need because no one is on the same page, and unless the doctors do something brilliant, my health is going to cause me to run out of time. You are a smart man, so you know that 9/11 has as much to do with politics as it has to do with religion. In this thread religion is a subset of the supernatural, and the supernatural is a perspective of consciousness, so religion, God, and the supernatural are just study guides for learning about consciousness. No. Imagination is not the only explanation, it is one explanation, and it is a poor one. If, in fact, there was no truth in Mohammed's interpretation, then it would not be a belief. It would have died out before it began. This is a truth that people like to ignore, but it can not be ignored. Consider that you go to a movie, watch the whole thing, then walk out believing that it was an absurd plot, a bad story line, and lousy acting--there was nothing believable in it. That movie will be a flop because no one can identify with it. You can watch another movie and find it to be one of the best you have ever seen, but both movies are just imagination. So what is the difference? The second movie has truth in it, it is believable, so it has value. Religions are like this. If they have no truth, then they have no value and die off in a very short time. Islam is very old, so it has value, and it has truth. It also has a lot of other stuff, some of it imagination, some of it culture, some of it personal interpretation, some of it a guide to living and morals, but some of it is truth. So how do we discover which is which? I think that the issue that I have with this paragraph are the words "imagination" and "make it so". This implies that the supernatural can be whatever we wish it to be, and this is where I disagree. The supernatural is what it is, we can't change that because it would be convenient. Good question. My thought is that the only way to understand what is real and what is projection is simple truths. We know that belief in God and the supernatural is common, so it is likely that there is a reason for this--simple truth. We know that different religions interpret God to be of their culture--simple truth. So we know that people consider God to be personal--simple truth. Therefore, God can not be a being, and has to be a mental abstract. When you have six witnesses to a crime, and five of them agree on a description of the suspect, you go with that description, as it is most likely true. So what are the common descriptions of God? He is all knowing, the source of life, all about love, and he is unknowable. First, the all knowing part makes one thing clear--God does not think. When we think, what we do it compare, deduce, and extrapolate information in order to get new information, so this would be a silly waste of time for a God that already knows everything. So God is knowledge, not thought--simple truth. God is the source of life, not the source of humans, so all life is in some way connected to God--simple truth. God is about emotion, and that emotion can be negative or positive. This is the source of our morals, but this is also interpreted through religions and cultures, so a more valid interpretation of what causes negative and positive emotions needs to be made. We need to find the simple truth here. What about the God is unknowable? That always looked like an intentional mystery factor to me, but what if it is true. Could God actually be unknowable? Well, if God is all knowing, then we could not wrap our puny little brains around all of that knowledge. If God is emotion, then we can not know God, because we can not know emotion--we can only experience it. Emotion must be interpreted and connected to thought before it can be known in our minds, so if God is emotion, then he can not be known except through interpretation--simple truth. So tell me about your ghost. Where were you? Country and state. Did you have prior knowledge that a ghost was there? Was it a one time only? Were there other witnesses? What season was it? What was the weather like? What did you experience? G