Gees

I am not sure if I have ever read more nonsense in my life, but I doubt it. You have compared the supernatural and ESP to Imagination, magic, the unexplainable, power, pretend, play, a feeling entity, outside knowledge, and even wondered if clouds experience emotions. Are you serious? The supernatural, ESP, and all the rest are just interpretations of awareness and emotion. That's all. We all feel awareness and we all feel emotion, but that is all that we know about it. We don't know what it is, we don't know how it works, and apparently, we don't want to find out. Maybe I should have watched more scary movies when I was growing up, because this hysterical reaction to emotion was more than I anticipated. G

Tar; You do understand that the point of my last post was to compare the different circumstances where hormones seem to cause an effect of delusion, didn't you? I must agree that your last post was not off-topic, because with consciousness nothing is really off topic. On the other hand, an honest evaluation will sometimes show that although on topic, the conversation imparts no feeling of integrity to the topic. So, if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that hormones and delusions are simply ways that we learn to win, and we intentionally cause this because we are addicted to winning. I can see where this type of thinking could be applied to the monks, shamans, and seers, but question it in other circumstances. So you think that cats intentionally cause delusions, because they are bored, and want something to attack so they can win? This is amazing. We should report this find to science as I am sure that they had no idea of a cat's abilities in this matter. It is also clear why a young female would imitate a poltergeist, as that way she could get her temper out, throw things around, and not get blamed for it. Very clever. Of course, women are always getting pregnant just so they can have more hormones and be a smarty pants. And it is clear that elderly people intentionally reduce their hormone levels so that they can not drop into REM sleep. This helps them to experience memory loss, a little psychosis, maybe some alzheimers, and prepares them for being the losers that will soon die. But I draw the line at schizophrenia. Anyone stupid enough to think that living in a nightmare, where one can not know what is real, has anything to do with winning or is acceptable or has any value at all, is too deluded in their thinking to be of any value in this conversation. G

Ah ha! Now I get it. We are looking at this word from two different perspectives that reflect the way we think about this issue. You are considering it from a very rational mind perspective and seeing it as something that is imagined, "putting ourselves in the other's shoes". I am looking at this from the perspective of the supernatural or religion, and see it as something that is perceived--not thought. From Wiki: "Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes." So my understanding of anthropomorphism is more in line with what you would find under the religion section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism When a person believes that they have encountered a god, or angels and demons, or ghosts, or relatives when near death, it is assumed that they either imagined it, or it was delusion. That is the answer. But it is not an answer, it is a dismissal, as neither of these explanations give a cause for the experience. When we imagine something, it is an activity that we actually do, so we know we are doing it. If it is delusion, then what causes the delusion, because these people are not crazy, so something is going on. Looking for the answer to this is what brought me to emotion. Well I never said that it comes from "outside" the Earth, but Dr. Stevenson's work does suggest that there may be some flitting about. I think that it is stretching things to say that there is a "human consciousness" that permeates the universe and think that it is much more likely that we interpret it as a human consciousness--anthropomorphize it. The simple fact is this; there was knowledge and awareness before there were humans, like it or not. This is evidenced by lower life forms. Agreed. G Following is a post that I wrote a few years ago in response to a Blog about Delusions in Religion. Below is a paragraph from your Blog which deals with ideas about delusion and your considerations. Mine follow. While reading the above paragraph I watched my cat jump three feet into the air to attack nothing. She does that a lot. We say she is attacking "thick pieces of air" and laugh. Many years ago a pet handbook explained that the reason cats do this is because they have an over abundance of hormones. Is she attacking delusions? That thought triggered a number of others. I remember reading that a poltergeist was not really a ghost. That instead it was discovered that an "agent" living in the home where the poltergeist resided was the actual cause of the disturbance. That "agent" was usually young, under 20, and female. Hormones? More recently I read an article that explained that pregnant women have psychic experiences, and if one is going to have a psychic experience, it would most likely be when pregnant. It was also noted that the reason for this phenomenon was that pregnant women were reaching out mentally for the child they carried. But pregnant women are also full of hormones. In ancient Egypt cats were revered and thought to have some connection to the spirit world. The current explanation is that they were valuable in killing rodents/snakes, bullwhacky, they do that all over the world and no one else reveres them. I personally have long believed that their value was in their ability to attack scorpions without being damaged--good for dessert life. But I think maybe I was wrong. Maybe ancient Egyptians noted the cats' "delusions". So I got on Google, confirmed the poltergeist thing, and found two more occurances of hormones and "delusions". Psychiatrists are now using hormones with anti-psychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia (delusions) with some success. Doctors are also using hormones to correct sleep apnea problems with older people, as it seems that they cannot drop into REM (delusional) sleep if hormone levels are off. I checked Wikipedia and could not make sense of it, except to note that there are three classes of chemical hormones, Peptide, Lipid and Phospholipid, and Monoamines. The SEP has one reference to hormones that does not involve "feminism", and that is Connectionism involving cognitive science. Sorry, not much of a scientist. Now we have six completely different situations where hormones are linked to "delusion". Who was the guy who said that when too many indicators point in one direction, it is time to look in that direction? I can not say that delusion does not exist, but it appears to me that something more is also going on here. I have watched schizophrenics and thouht that they seem to have an untuned, out of focus type of radio/TV going on in their heads that they can not turn off, which would drive anyone mad. I am sure that their minds try to absorb and make sense of the information coming in, and so, if they were religious, they would apply their knowledge to the problem and "see". or interpret, angels and demons. Science has been trying to find and identify consciousness for some time now. And I believe that "feelings" and/or "emotions" is one of the identifiers of consciousness/life. Is there any chance that these "delusions" are in reality unfocused and ill-defined connections to that consciousness? And that hormones play the role of telephone? Just a thought. After posting this, other members there noted that monks use starvation, sleep deprivation, and intense physical discipline to help them reach enlightenment--all of these things will throw off hormone levels. Shaman of old often used drugs to enhance their experiences, which will throw off hormone levels. The Oracle(s) of Delphi lived in a cave that is thought to produce a gas, which would throw off hormone levels. I have heard of two different cases where people were hospitalized and received large doses of steroids and morphine, who refused their morphine because they saw angels and demons. They would rather deal with the pain. So this is what started my investigations into hormones, pheromones, delusions, and finally back to emotion. It appears that hormones not only connect us physically to life, but may also connect us through conscious awareness. G

Note: Today's life lesson is that it is a bad idea to take the medications prescribed by the good doctors, then try to sound intelligent while typing in a philosophy forum. My apologies to all. Tar; In my opinion there are two problems with your theory that are obvious. The first is that you have not incorporated the attributes of the mental aspects into your thinking, the second is that you still think that it is "all in our heads". Regarding the first; remember that emotion is inherently honest, thought is not, and this information comes from science, psychology. So using thought to decide what is real with regard to the supernatural, without considering the attributes of emotion and thought, is looking for deception. Imagination is something that is thought, not felt. The supernatural is felt. Regarding the second; when I stated that emotion (e-motion) is external, I meant that it is external. It may feel internal, but it works externally. It is movement and connects two or more things, so when discussing unrequited love, it is an internal feeling. But it is also an external expression. There is nothing that will pump up a mood better than love and adoration being aimed at you, whether that love is returned or not. I don't see how this fits with the definition of anthropomorphism. Imagination is thought; the supernatural is felt--big difference. The problem with religions is that they must also interpret their information, so it is easy to get wrong. People, who experience anthropomorphism do often state that they also get knowledge, but this knowledge is dumped into the unconscious, not the rational mind. Often they will state that the knowledge becomes known to them in their dreams, but this is after they have incorporated any "knowledge" with their own thoughts, personalities, and values--so it is not necessarily true knowledge, and is probably corrupted. A person must first determine if it is imagination or supernatural. Then they must stop themselves from getting too involved in the emotional aspect and corrupting the information. Then they must have the ability to logically analyze what actually happened, and try real hard to not incorporate their imagination into the analysis. It is not easy. An understanding of how emotion works is necessary, or deception is inevitable. I think that the key is hormones, and science is already using this key. I will post the Delusions in Religion after this post so you can see what I mean. Mother Teresa is gone, and I am not sure that a generous spirit is supernatural. Emotion is an external communication and affects the people around us--this is well known. But if you need examples, consider; the "party pooper" that makes everyone feel bad; the "ball of energy" that is the life of the party; the maternal figure that brings comfort; the father figure that makes people feel safe; the sneaky person, who makes people uncomfortable; the radiant person, who brings joy; the coach or motivational speaker, who seem to be able to impart strength. This is a small example of the feelings that we routinely get from other people. Often these feelings are understood unconsciously, but they exist and are real. G

Tar; I apologize. I feel like I am letting you down, and you are working so hard to understand this. But I am not sure what to do. If I bring up personal experience, then I just open myself to ridicule, and if I bring up religion, the whole thread becomes a denial of any value in religion, so I am not sure how to get my ideas across without explaining how I learned about them. After talking about the physical aspects of hormones, I intended to go over the mental aspects, but I learned about them in a thread named, Delusions in Religion, so that is bound to stir up some trouble for me here. As far as anthropomorphism is concerned, I had an experience when my husband died that led me to understanding how anthropomorphism works, but that is personal. Not sure how to approach this. So I was sitting here waiting for the codine to kick in so I can sleep when I saw your post, and will try to address some of the issues. You are correct when you stated that something that is not noted by others would be supernatural as the supernatural is subjectively known. Next you have to define if it is something that you think or something that you feel. It can sometimes be difficult to tell, but you must be sure. If is it something that you think, then it is imagination--not supernatural. It is like the difference between talking and listening, so if you have been thinking about it, you are probably imagining it. The supernatural comes to you like listening, so you don't expect it, and are not sure why you think it--sometimes it makes no sense at all because it was not on your mind and may even be irrational. Like my irrational fear that my last child would get stuck inside me and die because she could not deliver. That is ridiculous. I knew it was ridiculous but could not shake the fear and talked to my husband, mother, friends, and even the doctor about it. Eventually, I threatened the doctor and was changed to another doctor. When I went into the hospital to deliver, my labor was very fast and no doctor was there, so they held my legs together so I would not deliver until another doctor could be called in--hospital policy. She was stuck inside. When she finally delivered, she had an APGAR score of 1 at 10 minutes, which means that she was a blue lifeless ragdoll with no muscle reflex and was not breathing on her own, but had an irregular heart beat when she was ten minutes old. It was years of doctors to correct the damage from that birth. The codine must be kicking in. I wasn't going to talk about this. The key to anthropomorphism is belief. People who experience this often have a life changing belief that is attached to this experience. They also often lose their fear of death. So we are talking about emotion, and it is strong emotion. If the emotion is not there, or if the emotion is fleeting, then it is definitely imagination. Anthropomorphism is not something that you "get over" tomorrow. So belief is the key to knowing what is supernatural, which means that it is all about emotion. And how does emotion work within our bodies? Chemicals and hormones. I do not think that chemicals are conscious within our bodies, but I know little about science. I used to think that chemicals and hormones draw consciousness like a magnet draws iron, but think that maybe it is more of an activation of consciousness. But however it works, emotion causes the production of chemicals, and chemicals cause emotion--it is circular, not one way. So when people say that these experiences are caused by chemical changes in the body, they are only half right. Regarding anthropomorphism, I am going to use my water metaphor again. When you look into still water, what do you see? Is it the water, or your own reflection? You see yourself, not the water. This is how anthropomorphism works. What you actually get is emotion, no pictures. Often people will feel like they also gained knowledge, but don't know what it is, probably because it is in the unconscious part of the mind. But there are no pictures, so why do people believe that they have seen God? The problem here is that there is no memory slot in the brain for emotion--it does not store by itself and must be attached to thought. So if one can not store emotion in memory without thought, how would anyone remember that the event happened? Well, they wouldn't. So our efficient little brains evaluate the emotion, attach whatever it thinks matches that emotion, then stores it as a memory. So if one is a Christian, they may have a memory of Jesus or Mary; if one is a Viking, they may have a memory of Thor; if one is near death, they may have a memory of family members that have passed and feel like home or love; if they just watched their friend die in a terrible accident, they will see their friend whole and unharmed. This is the delusion that everybody believes invalidates anthropomorphism. It is just the brain's interpretation of the emotion that was experienced. My foot doesn't hurt anymore. I'm going to sleep. G

This is an assertion and it is also false. If nothing else, all of the churches, temples, etc., all over the world give empirical evidence of human belief in God. Whether or not the belief exists is already fact, so what I am trying to find out is why the belief exists. What causes the belief to exist? How does it happen? How does it work? This is an assertion and it is also false. It may imply it, but it certainly does not require it. There is aware, and there is self aware--two different things. Did you consider the information that I gave earlier about the "Mirror" test? You can look up Mirror test in Wiki if you do not believe me. This is an assertion and it is also false. Let us try to be honest here for one little minute. There is absolutely no evidence that Darwin's theory and idea of advancement is correct. It is correct only from our perspective and religious declarations. The facts state otherwise, as bacteria can survive quite well without humans, but we can not survive without bacteria. So which is the higher life form? Maybe we evolved to give bacteria something to do. (chuckle chuckle) Consider this from another perspective: Bacterium A states: I am starting to feel bad because we are damaging these human forms, and I think that they might be aware. Bacterium B states: Whether or not they are aware is not relevant, the fact is that they would not even survive without us, so they should be damned well grateful for the time we give them. (Life is a chuckle.) This is a strawman argument as I did not assert any such thing. The whole end of the video was about TV evangelists. Did you watch the video? This is nonsense. This is an insult. I review every link that is offered in my threads--even when I can not see the connection or relevance of it. If you look under Forum Announcements and find the thread Science Forum Etiquette, under section II Replying to Threads, you will find the following rule: "Read Links If a user provides a link for more information, and you don't believe them, read the link. It may provide better information for you; if you ignore it, you may be missing vital information that supports their point. Purposefully ignoring it is strawmanning, and nobody likes that." Purposefully ignoring information offered is also a promotion of my own ignorance, and I like to learn, so I review anything offered or give an explanation of why I did not review it--as when people provide too many similar links--2 or 3 links make the point. Since you either do not understand, or will not disclose, your position in this matter, I have decided to review this entire thread to see if I can determine your position. After this review, I will post my thoughts here for your review. Maybe we can establish our positions and start to find a way to see some common ground. That is my hope. G

Andrewcellini; I apologize. It was not my intent to offend. Most people in a science forum equate consciousness with thought. It is reasonable to do so, because we test a person's thoughts to see if they are conscious, comatose, brain dead, etc. I don't find it to be a very large leap to call bacteria conscious because all life is conscious, and bacteria is alive. Consider how we recognize life, we look for something that will eat, reproduce, and maintain it's life in anyway that it can. All life has an internal mandate to continue, and exhibits a survival instinct when it works to continue--so it is aware (conscious) of this need. The question is not if life is conscious, the question is what are different life forms conscious of? G Please explain. I think that my definition of consciousness is limited to life--but what do I know? So none of the things on the list are real, ergo the supernatural does not exist. Correct? This looks hopeless, and I am too tired to try to explain it--again. You want me to explain something mental using only physical things. I can probably do it, but not now. Tomorrow I am going in for my last test, then the good doctors will probably chop off my foot. At some point in the future, when I have no more pain and am not so tired, I will work on this for you. Well, I don't like TV evangelists either, but the video is not about critical thinking. It does not even make a very logical case as it is mostly assertion. G

Cladking; I loved it and watched the whole thing. Thank you for finding this video. Four and a half minutes into the video the speaker stated that bacteria produce a chemical molecule that works like a "hormone", which is how they communicate. This is very much like the way that other species use pheromones to communicate outside of the body and is very compatible with my understanding. Science is again working hard in support of my ideas. Prior to this, the only evidence that I had that bacteria were conscious was the endospore. Some bacteria can turn themselves into endospore and go into a kind of hibernation for hundreds of thousands of years. In this state, bacteria seem to have little or no metabolism and have a thick coating that is protective and can sustain them through harsh chemicals, freezing cold, and high heat. One source claimed to have found endospore that were 400,000 years old, which is amazing. When the endospore finds itself in an environment that is compatible to life, it simply turns back into bacteria and starts to eat and reproduce. Of course, a lot of people will say that this does not prove consciousness. But my thought is, if the endospore is wrapped in a thick shell, how could it possibly know when it is in a life supporting environment, so that it can turn back into bacteria? It would have to be aware. Andrewcellini; It might help if you read this thread. Consider that we are not discussing thought--we are discussing awareness. Generally speaking, when people can not wrap their minds around this concept, it is because they equate consciousness with thinking. We can be aware of thinking, but we can not think ourselves aware. Consciousness is not thought, it is awareness. G Moontanman; How could I possibly show you a connection between consciousness and the supernatural if you disagree with my concept of consciousness and won't define what you think is supernatural? It is like asking me to connect something you don't believe with something that you don't know. An answer to this request is impossible. Where is your logic? G

Science4ever; I am very sorry to hear about your Mother's stroke. It is difficult to see the people we love in pain and confusion. I hope she improves. I understand the problem with definition as I have studied consciousness for most of my life. This is why I specifically stated that it was the philosophical definition that I was using. I don't think that general science actually has a definition, the definition that science uses is the medical, or neurological definition. And you are correct, this a the study of the higher consciousness. Consciousness is not a single thing, it is degrees of many different mental aspects, and that is how I study it. When I use the word consciousness, I am talking about life. All life is aware, but all life is not aware of the same things. I am pretty sure that a slug is not aware of the same things that I am, but it is still aware of the need to eat and reproduce and live. You can argue that plant consciousness is just chemical. OK But so is our consciousness, just chemical. G

Andrewcellini; Yes. Like all life forms, plants are conscious of the need to survive and exhibit this in many ways. We have long known that leaves and flowers will turn toward the sun, and that roots will grow toward water, which proves sentience. Wiki's definition of sentience: Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. But the recent discovery of pheromones has pretty much put the question of consciousness to rest with regard to plants. Through pheromones, trees will inform other trees to protect themselves chemically from pests in the area, and grasses will inform other grasses to produce more tannin to make themselves less tasty when a herd drops by. The last time I Googled "plant communication", I got an article about tumble weeds that could recognize their own spores over the spores of other plants. I did not check to see how valid that testing was, because I was laughing so hard at the absurdity of it. But there is a lot of new information in this area. This is not even considering that plants are the only species that I know of that regularly exhibit what is essentially mind over matter. It can be argued that I possess mind over matter when I demand that my body do something and it does, but I can not control the growth of my body. Plants can and do. They will even warp their natural form in order to survive. That is pretty impressive. If I can find the site for the unusual trees, I will post it. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/amazing-trees.shtml These trees really worked to survive, and warped their natural shape. G Moontanman; Do you ever have a position, or do you just argue about everyone else's position? In what sense are these things real? Any sense? Are they just superstitious beliefs about the supernatural? Do you have an opinion, rather than a denial? If you can not name your position, you are certainly not going to earn much respect from me. It is very easy to pick at other people's ideas and never have one of your own, as it takes less courage. Anthropomorphism is an effect of a real thing. I expect that I know a lot more about it than you do. G

Science4ever; So it is your position that consciousness can only exist when there is a brain? Then please explain to me how life forms that do not have a brain can be sentient, aware, and have feeling and experience. G

Moontanman and Tar; You are correct in that I have not really defined what I think that the supernatural is, with regard to consciousness. I forget that other people have not been studying this for 40 years, and can not read my mind. My apologies for that oversight. So I went to Wiki and picked out the relevant things that were listed under the supernatural/paranormal and listed them below. I think that every one of these things can be real and works through consciousness outside of the body. Please review this list and indicate which of these things you think are real, and which are supernatural. God angels and demons reincarnation prophesy premonitions ESP ghosts spirit souls spiritual healing auras channeling near death visions anthropomorphism Moontanman, following is the definition of consciousness from Wiki: "Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind." You will note that this does not define consciousness as being exclusively related to the brain. All life is sentient, a leaf is conscious of light, but has no brain. I made it clear from the beginning of this thread that I was not talking about the medical scientific definition of a conscious brain, so to reinterpret the word for the purpose of confusing the issue is a strawman argument. G

Science4ever; Consciousness is a term that is used by science to explain certain aspects of mind produced by the brain. Consciousness is a term used by philosophy that means awareness, and is not exclusive to the brain. Consciousness in philosophy is more closely related to life, as all life is sentient and therefore aware. If you review post # 27 on page 2 of this thread, there is an explanation of consciousness in philosophy and references as to where you can go to learn more. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness, so please read the thread as questions like this have already been answered. Thank you for your interest. G

Moontanman; Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science. Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread. If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch. If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed. If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches. If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum. If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room. We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works. Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God. So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe. If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity. G

Tar; I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I missed answering this post. Don't know why except that I have not been well, and doctors are a pain. I have never read Kant's Pure Reason, but I know that a lot of other people in different forums have used his work to challenge mine, so I don't believe that our thinking is in aline in this matter. As a philosopher, Kant was brilliant, and i agree with much of what I know about his work, but his ideas regarding God tell me that he was more involved with the rational mind than the whole mind. Considering that he lived and worked in the 1700's, it would be expected that he would delve into learning about the rational mind, which needed to be understood. But he believed that God was not real, only a necessity for ethics and morality--a belief that many people share today. So I don't believe that he understood emotion, the unconscious mind, the "supernatural", or God. Although many people may disagree, it appears that Kant was a dualist, as he saw emotion, the unconscious, religion, and God as something separate. Most people consider a dualist as a person who accepts God and sees matter as different from spirit, but anyone who sees them as divided is actually a dualist. The important word here is "thing". He studied the rational mind only. Well, I think he missed something, and doubt that the intuition of time and space are already "in there". I think that these "intuitions" are learned. If one considers the adult rational mind, then the concepts of time and space are well entrenched, but they are not known and understood at birth. Have you ever watched an infant sitting in a high chair pick up a piece of food, drop it off the side, and be delighted with the way that it always goes down--just like magic! They will often smile and clap their hands like they performed some great trick. Peek-a-boo is another example of a baby learning that things can still exist when they are not seen. For the first few years of life, an infant spends most of it's time studying cause and effect, gravity, and time and space, so it is reasonable to consider that they do not know about these things yet. Dr. Blanco's study of the unconscious mind indicates that it is not familiar with time and space. But the rational mind is designed to work with physical reality and the senses that show us physical reality, so I expect that we start to learn about this as soon as we are part of physical reality--when we are born. Spinoza's work is much more in aline with my thinking. He was not a dualist, but a neutral monist, even though he lived 100 years before Kant. Spinoza was also a determinist, so our ideas are not fully compatible, but he understood emotion better than anyone I know of--for his time. His understanding of the passive and agressive sides of emotion has been called a precursor to Freud, so he studied emotion. I do not believe that he studied the supernatural. He believed that God was real, but not a being--as I do. He saw God as an impersonal part of nature, or maybe one could say a law of nature, much like laws of physics. I first became aware of Spinoza when someone mentioned to me that his understanding of consciousness was in aline with the Verdanta tradition, or philosophy, of India--so was mine. We are not perfectly in accord in our thinking, but it is close; Spinoze saw life, consciousness, as being motivated by "need", I see it as "want". Neither of our words are actually correct and other philosophers have tried to name this motivation as "will", but we are all talking about the same thing. It is my thought that I have a real advantage over the philosophers that came before me, because of science. People like Spinoza had to deal with physical cause and effect that could be understood, but I know about pheromones; I know about radio; I know about cell phones. So I can conceive that a communication and connection does not have to be magical to exist without an observable cause. G

Tar; A very insightful post. I feel like I am finally reaching some people. After spending almost 40 years studying the paranormal, religion, life, and people, I finally started to look at philosophy and science in the last few years to see what they think of the understanding that I developed over the years. As I stated before, philosophy does not seem to know much, but I think that science is investigating consciousness in a number of different fields and does not realize it. Most of science still believes that conscious awareness emits from the brain, but they don't seem to remember that the brain is saturated in chemicals and hormones. I think that hormones are the key to unlocking consciousness. So I will try to share some of the things that I have learned about hormones. First, we have not come close to mastering hormones. Second, hormones are much more than sexual hormones, they are the stuff of life. Consider: 1. We know that hormones are communicators. That is their job. They govern communication between cells, between body systems, and between the body and the world outside of the body with regard to bodily needs; such as, food, shelter and habitat, danger, and sleep, to name a few. 2. All species, whether plant or animal, have hormones of some kind--if they have more than one cell. We have a different name for the ones that are in plants, but they do the same job. Since all species, up from one cell species, have some kind of hormone, and hormones are communicators, it is pretty safe to say that hormones are necessary to turn a group of cells into a single life form that works as a unit. So hormones create a sort of cooperation that promotes the life form. 3. All of our most basic instincts that hold us to life work with basic hormones. From Wiki: Hormones have the following effects on the body: stimulation or inhibition of growth mood swings induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death) activation or inhibition of the immune system regulation of metabolism preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause control of the reproductive cycle hunger cravings sexual arousal A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis. 4. Hormones will substitute for each other--most people do not realize this. An example would be when a person has all of the symptoms of low thyroid, but testing shows the thyroid levels to be good, but the estrogen levels to be very low. The doctor theorized that the thyroid hormones were substituting for the estrogen hormones, which were low, so he wrote a prescription for estrogen which solved the thyroid problem. Once the estrogen levels improved, the thyroid hormones went back to doing their normal work. In another example, a patient was given massive doses of steroids in the hospital because of inflamation, and in response the body shut down the insulin produced in an attempt to balance the hormone levels, resulting in the patient becoming a raging diabetic while in the hospital. As soon as the problem was resolved and steroids were no longer needed, the patient stopped being a diabetic. Hormones are self balancing, which means that they can get very tricky when we think that we are correcting or adjusting a problem. 5. Pheromones are very much like hormones, but they seem to work outside of the body. We are discovering more pheromones almost daily, and it is pretty safe to assume that all species that have hormones most likely also produce pheromones. The thing that I find interesting about pheromones is that they again seem to be a communication between like life forms. In the example that I gave earlier about the oak trees, it was noted in the article that this information regarding pests did not inform elm trees, or maple trees, or pine trees--only oak trees. So it appears that hormones create a kind of communication between cells and systems within, but the pheromones create a kind of communication between the species. There will be more on this when I discuss the mental aspects. 6. Another interesting thing about hormones is that they have the ability to turn on and off different parts of DNA, which makes me wonder how involved they are with evolution. When a new species does evolve, do the pheromones from the prior species interact with the new, or is there a new set of pheromones that is unique to the new species? Is there an overlap between species regarding pheromones? Could pheromones unintentionally influence another species? There seems to be some disagreement here, and if I can find the article in, I think if was Scientific American, I will post it here. I actually know very little about hormones and am far from an expert, but the above are some of the physical attributes of hormones that I have discovered. I will post the mental attributes later. G Couldn't find the article--no surprise. I am horrible with Google. If anyone else can find it, there was a group of scientists who were arguing with the EPA and stating that hormons/pheromones work differently at different levels, and it does not take a lot to create unforseen changes. The EPA disagreed.

Moontanman; We do have a communication problem, and I expect that it is because we think differently. I will answer your question this time, in the hope that you can understand how I view these things, but I do not wish to debate it as we are getting off topic. The answer to your question would be no, as I don't care if the governor stated it or a begger stated it. It is not relevant to me whether the statement is true or false, as I am not looking for belief or faith in the novel or the Bible. What I am looking for is facts. Because this is a statement out of context, we are going to have to posit, or assume, some things. First I will assume that you are still talking about the people and places being accurate, and I must assume that the twin towers are the ones that regard 911. So following is how I might consider the above assertion. The assertion is that a "current governor", so this tells me a lot. First that governors change and that this is not a king, or president, but a governor; so a review of the types of governments at the time of this event will bring me to democracy and that will give me lots of information. Next we have the governor "decided", so are we stating that this governor has the authority to decide this issue? This goes to validity of the statement, as I would have to investigate whether or not a governor would have the ability and authority to simply decide the issue. A governor is not a king and answers to other people, so there would be much to consider here. Then there is the "mile high replacement"; so in this part of the statement I would have to consider feasibility, utility, and general usefulness of a mile high replacement. Mile high elevators? There are questions regarding the technical abilities of this time, the feasibility of a building this tall, the ability to maintain a building this tall, the usefulness and marketability of this building and whether or not people could park their cars, get to and from work, there would be safety issues and even insurance issues. There would be a lot to consider to see if this is a real idea. If I decided that it is simply not feasible, then I would have to consider whether the statement is a lie, or if the governor lied, and for what reason. Are we talking about a political move to make people feel better and vote for the guy, or are we talking about a pipedream of an arrogant and phallic symbol? Is this a civilization in decline that is claiming things that are unreal, or is it a civilization that is growing and accomplishing things beyond their prior capabilities? Then there is the "twin towers", so this brings the world politics and issues to the front because it was the "world" trade center, was on US soil, and was destroyed by a faction of a small nation that is not happy with world trade. So there are a lot of world political issues here. So whether or not the statement is true, one can extrapolate a wealth of information by considering these ideas and comparing them to everything else that we know about that time. This is how I study the Bible. I pull it apart and look for facts, truth, and wisdom. I do not accept what it says at face value simply because it says so. G Tar; I will respond to your post later. I have to rest now.

iNow; My thought is that it is comprehension. I have the same problem when reading Moontanman's posts. Consider his following response to me from post # 84 above. I think that Moontanman's point is that information from the Bible is invalid, but his example shows otherwise. If I read "a novel about alien invasion set in New York City that uses the names of real people and places", I could glean reams of information from it. First there would be a description of New York City, then the people, then the places, how they relate to each other, their routines and values, that Moontanman states would be valid information. Then because I know enough about psychology to understand that entertainment is simply adult play, and that play is how we learn about things that concern us, I could extrapolate reams of information from that depending upon how popular the novel was. So I could learn all about the fears, emotions, expectations, and values based upon the characters in the novel. So it can be difficult to comprehend Moontanman's ideas if one does a lot of thinking. His point is not clear. G

Cladking; You are a philosopher. I almost fell off of my chair laughing when I read your above statement. I love it. Regarding the Egyptians, here is something that I find interesting. I read somewhere that the Egyptians thought that consciousness was something that came from the heart, not the head. This, of course, was laughed at, because we now know that consciousness comes from the brain. But the more I study this subject, the more convinced I am that conscious awareness is more related to emotion than it is to thought, as we cannot think ourselves conscious. It is something that we feel and are aware of, and when we think of feeling and emotion, we identify it with the heart. It will be damned disconcerting if we find out that Egyptians, who lived thousands of years ago, were smarter than we are. (chuckle chuckle) Before all of the silliness happened, you were discussing your views on the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, and I wrote a response to you in my computer. So please consider the following: I know that you have issues regarding the sub/unconscious mind, and many of your complaints are valid. But that does not negate the fact that the unconscious exists. I will grant that it is interpreted badly and many of the ideas are ludicrous, but there is one man that I know of, who has studied it, and I think that you would find his work interesting. If you go to Wiki and look up Ignacio Matte Blanco, who worked with Anna Freud, there is a one-page synopsis on his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco He broke the unconscious aspect of mind into levels or layers and defined each of them, which may be interesting if you have done any research on the Eastern religions as some of them also broke the unconscious into levels. A comparison would be interesting. Another thing that he did was find a logic in the unconscious, and this is the part that I find interesting. The unconscious does not recognize time and sees past, present, and future as the same thing. Psychology recognizes this and knows that this is the reason that a trauma from childhood can seem real and imminent in the present and future. What therapy does is identify the trauma, and expose the idea to the logical thought of the rational mind, so that it can be seen as over, finished, in the past. This is the cure. The other thing that he discovered is that the unconscious expects connected things to be equal. It recognizes only the link between two thing. As an example, the unconscious would know that if Mary is Ruth's mother, then Ruth is Mary's mother--a connection, but no cause and effect. Psychology also recognizes this aspect of the unconscious. So emotion, which rules the unconscious, would imply a sameness to things, which is probably where "projecting" and bonding comes from. The unconscious would expect that if I like you, then you like me; if I hate you, then you hate me. So this creates a lot of "group think" that explains our tendency to gather together with like people, and to push people that are different away. It is an emotional reaction guided by the unconscious. Again this has to be brought to the attention of the rational mind for review. But I do not study psychology, I study consciousness, so I see these things from a different perspective. If the unconscious aspect of mind sees past, present, and future as the same thing, then it has no concept of time. If it sees connections as being equal, then it has no concept of cause and effect. That means it does not understand time and space. Why would that be? Well, the obvious answer would be that it has no experience with time and space. Again, why would that be? Because it is not within time and space? Maybe. I am sure that other people have realized this, but it is just too spooky to think about. (chuckle) This is one of the things that brought me back to the idea of the Aether as being the source. Of course, some people say that the Aether does not exist, but Einstein thought that it did, and he was a pretty bright guy. So I am going with Einstein on this one. What do you think? G

Well I didn't. I was in my early 20s and shocked that I could be so blinded by assumption and belief. It was an important lesson for me. This is probably why I remember the riddle so well, as I use it to remind myself to question my assumptions. This is also the point of being here, for others to question my assumptions as long as they do not assume my assumptions. You mistake me. One does not need to have an emotional grasp of reality in order to understand that emotion is a fact of reality. And yes, I have learned to expect trouble, as my initial innocence is gone, and it no doubt shows. While I agree with your point, there is a difference. Homosexuality is viewed as an act. I don't know that this assumption is true, but that is how it is viewed, so there is an argument that supports defining it as a moral or immoral act. I do not agree with this argument, and find it to be idiotic and invalid, but the argument does exist. There is no way that being born male or female can be viewed as an act, so there can be no question as to the morality of this issue. But it is questioned from the initial story of Eve all the way through the Bible. Being female and being immoral are often synonymous in that text. There are quite a few people who have studied this and see it as a "battle of the sexes" that originated with women being the religious leaders initially and men becoming the religious leaders later. The story of Eve is sometimes equated with the story of Lilith. This was touched on in the book/movie The Divinci Code, it's predecessor, Holy Blood Holy Grail, and I believe that Dr. Brown wrote a book entitled, Lilith, but I have not yet read it, so I don't know which way it slants. Well, I agree with you again, but this is not how I discovered that God, as described, could not exist. The problem is perspectives. Every person that exists has a personal relationship with God, but they also have disputes with each other, so how can one God be on everyone's side? It is not possible. When we thought that there were multiple gods, this could work, but since we have evolved to believe there is only one God, this turns into a paradox. Many people have realized this, and I believe that it accounts for at least some of the Athiest considerations, but we still all believe that we have a personal relationship with God, hence God can not be a being. Well, there is a great deal more on this subject that you do not seem to know about, but I can not comment on it. Before walking back into that swamp, I would need a map of the quicksand, as I still have no idea of how I stepped in it in the first place. So we will not share. I do not agree. The first thing that must be understood when trying to find truth is that there is no THE truth--it does not exist. There are truths, but not a singular truth. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell something. I am looking for small simple truths that can be used to build an understanding, and maybe one day a theory. Like looking for facts. When dealing with emotional issues, and religion is all about emotion, one must be able to first sort the emotions out logically. I thought that it was very insightful of EdEarl, when he explained in another thread that his issues with parents were entwined with his issues with his religion. This is generally true and psychology has noted it. So to study religion, one must be able to sort out God, religion, the Bible, and parental issues. Long ago I decided that the concept of God exists, but not in the way described in religion. Religion is a necessary social requirement for spiritual understanding. The Bible is simply a history book, and I forgave my parents for their little idiosyncrasys. There is no reason to disregard a history book when studying history. There is also no reason to take it as absolute fact. Agreed. Everything is natural or man-made. I am not sure what you are arguing about. Emotions are very real, and I can't imagine how you got the idea that "'feeling' at one with the world" was relevant to anything. What? Are you talking about connections? Agreed. But consider that just over 50 years ago, we knew that there was some connection that all species had, but we did not understand it. So although we understood, that an oak tree that was infested with pests, would notify the neighboring oak trees to produce a chemical that would discourage the pests, we thought this communication was through the root system. We did not yet understand pheromones. Think about the words "extrasensory perception". What do they mean? They mean that we have another, extra, sense that we perceive things through. That sense is emotion. Emotion is not thought, it is experience. Just like our other senses, we experience emotion, we experience sight, we experience taste, smells, tactile sensations, and sounds. This is the reason that emotion will not store properly in memory, because it is an experience. Most people do not realize this, so if you have questions or knowledge regarding this, please say so. I have been looking for experts to help me understand this aspect of emotion. Feeling is more closely related to awareness, as we become aware of something that we feel. Feeling is also a less potent emotion, as the stronger the feeling, the more likely we are to call it emotion. Awareness and emotion are different experiences that we sense. I think that they are the same thing in different strengths. When you are willing to state things like, "the right magical wavelengths" in a serious discussion, how can you accuse me of coming here with a chip on my shoulder? It has a lot more to do with hormones than women, and I think that I have already stated this a number of times. I did not "divide 'emotion' into a special secret category". Religion did that when it divide the within, souls, and the without, God. Philosophy did when it decided to ignore emotion because that leads to religion. If you go to the SEP and type in the word emotion for a search, unless things have changed drastically in the last year, you will get Stoicism, some eastern religions, or anything else to do with controlling emotion--and a few articles on feminism. If you look to science, you will note that the disciplines that deal with emotion are "soft" sciences, like psychology and animal behaviorism. Recently, neurology joined forces with endocrinology, because it had no choice--so emotion is finally being studied there. I am just exposing this information. Don't shoot the messenger. Do you mean like the imaginary pheromones that oak trees produce? Your conversation is interesting and intelligent. I await your response. G

Hi Cladking; You are correct, the title is a large part of the problem, but this was intentional. When I first started to study at forums, I chose a philosophy forum and subsequently studied the SEP. At that time, I learned that my understanding of consciousness was completely at odds with all accepted philosophy. So I studied more to find out where someone was wrong, me or them. What I discovered is that science is much more compatible with my understanding. The more I looked, the more I found. This surprised me as I had thought that science would prove my understanding wrong, but what I found was that science seemed to support my ideas. So why doesn't anyone else see it? What I finally realized was that it was not science that disclaimed the ideas, it was scientists--people. I'll give you an example. There was a riddle that was very popular in the 70's that goes like this. A man was on his way to work. He had his son in the car, as he was going to drop the boy off at school on the way to work. There was a terrible accident and the man was killed. The boy was seriously injured and flown to the closest hospital for emergency surgery. The surgeon walked into the operating room, took one look at the boy and stated, "I can't operate on him. That's my son." So who is the surgeon? I must have asked 50 people to answer this riddle and no one got it right. People guessed, the step-father, the adoptive father, the natural father, the grandfather, one person even theorized that it was a priest (father). How could so many people be blind to such a simple and obvious answer? If the father was dead, then the surgeon was the mother. Even a ten year old could answer this. The problem was that the idea of a surgeon was so enmeshed with the idea of a male, that people simply could not see what was in front of their faces. A simple truth. People have divided consciousness into two areas; what is within us is consciousness; what is outside of us is God or the supernatural. This division is based on historical belief and no fact. It is a false dichotomy. Sometimes I feel like the explorer, who went into the jungle with his camera. As the natives carry him to the pot of boiling oil, he is screaming, "It is just a camera. It can't steal your souls." But belief is a very powerful thing. So after posting two threads in the psychology and neurology forums with no results, and reviewing the biology forum, I realized that I was not going to get any answers at this site. I know a Physics Professor at a University that can answer my one question that regards physics, so I was already looking into other sites. Before leaving, I decided to test the waters to find out how deep the superstions were, hence the title. Guess I found out. (chuckle chuckle) G

Moontanman; As long as this thread is going to hell in a handbasket, there is no reason for me to not tell the truth. So consider the following paragraph that started this whole mess. If you review the first sentence of this paragraph, you will note the assertion. I assert that an invisible god seems to be very concerned with physical things. This is rather odd, because one would expect a spiritual god to be concerned with spiritual things, and a physical god to be concerned with physical things. That was the point. Then I demonstrated that point by noting different physical things that this god was concerned with. Did you challenge my assertion? No. Did you challence that he was a god of war? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with government? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with laws? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with hygiene? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with food supplies? No. What you challenged was "germs" because this is one thing that you know about and dislike--your personal pet peeve. I am a philosopher, which means that I study truth and think a lot. When considering something, it is important to note what is selected, but it is just as important to note what is not selected, so I knew at the time, that your selection of the "germs" part of the paragraph was personal and nothing to do with my assertion. I also new that it was off point and ancillary to the subject. You were BSing me, and claimed no knowledge of this information, as follows: Of course, that was a lie as is demonstrated by your subsequent statements: The thing that I find interesting here is your use of the word "passages", plurel. Clearly you knew that I would have to search out both Books of Law to find the different passages that are distributed throughout them in order to prove something that you already knew, intended to deny, and I did not even care about as it was not my point. What amazed me the most was that you were so willing to work me for no reason, except maybe to make yourself feel important. I find this disgusting as I am half blind. No, I do not underestimate you, but will admit that I could not see why you were so stubbornly insistent until I read your above paragraph. This is all about strategy. You attempted to manipulate me into a position where everything that I have stated is in doubt. You intended to malign my character, shred my credibility, and show me as a person with no integrity. Your behavior is underhanded, dishonest, and highly manipulative. This is how one promotes ignorance. It is not philosophy. G

. So Moontanman could feel perfectly justified in debating religion in the middle of a discussion about consciousness, but the results would be counterproductive to all concerned. Well, I certainly can not argue with the first statement as I have already noted, I am entirely too passionate and forthright in my opinions. And, of course, I did start this thread comparing the nay sayers to screaming virgins, but I thought that was kind of funny, and I was looking for a way to get past the people who deny before they think. I spend a lot of time apologizing. As for introducing sources, let us be honest here. Consciousness is relevant to everything--to every discipline in science, every philosophy, every religion, every life form, every culture and society, even the universe. So if I can not control the subject matter, then this discussion is a waste of time and should be relegated to the 1,000 years of discussion and debate that preceded it. This statement, I actually resent. Either you have not read this thread and do not know that religion and the supernatural are simply by-products of consciousness, or you have read this thread and I have not yet made it clear. The only other possibility that I can see would be if my initial interpretation of the Rules is correct. In the Rules for this forum, it is pretty clear that both, Philosophy and Religion, are regarded as beliefs. Philosophy is no more a belief than science is, so other people are not the only ones being insulted here. G For your review: Socratic Dialogue not Debate Dialogue: Is collaborative: multiple sides work toward shared understanding. One listens to understand, to make meaning, to find common ground. Enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view. Creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. In dialogue, one submits one’s best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it. Calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs. One searches for strength in all positions. Respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend. Assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to greater understanding. Remains open-ended Debate: Is oppositional: two opposing sides try to prove each other wrong. One listens to find flaws, spot differences, and counter arguments. Defends assumptions as truth. Creates a close-minded attitude: a determination to be right. In debate, one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. Calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. One searches for weaknesses in the other position. Rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or depreciate other participants. Assumes a single right answer that somebody already has. Demands a conclusion

Moontanman; I apologize for taking so long to respond, but everytime that I read your above post, I become so furious that I can not think. So I decided to review this whole matter. I wrote: And you responded: Your request surprised me for a number of reasons; first, there is no assertion there. There is an offer to share an observation and a question. Second, this is not uncommon knowledge. Third, you have presented yourself as a person knowledgable about religion and the Bible, so you should know about this. So why would you request the information? In post # 53, you explained that this information is a "common assumption in religious circles". Finally in post # 60, is your admission of knowledge, as follows: Approximately one-fifth of this thread is devoted to your stubborn insistence that I provide information to you that you already have. Then you finally admit that your problem with the information is that it is "special knowledge", but I never stated anything close to that. So it was a strawman argument that you have been pursuing for half of this thread, because you want to argue about religion. Then you throw in ridiculous nonsense like, Lot's daughters DATE RAPED him. You are off topic, and considering other threads that I have read and your post count, it appears that you are well established in this manipulative behavior. Honest intent and integrity are the most vital things that must be brought to a philosophy forum. You attempted to manipulate me, you were dishonest in your concealment of knowledge, and you twisted an offer to share information into an assertion about "special knowledge". And you did all of this on the basis of your Christian Fundamentalist teachings that corrupted truth and taught you to despise religion. There is no honesty or integrity in this. If I went into a science forum and asserted that my opinion was more important than accurate measures, how long do you think I would last? In a philosophy forum, your opinions are never going to have more value than reason, logic, honest intent, and integrity. You do understand that this thread is about the supernatural and consciousness, not about Moontanman's opinions on religion--don't you? G

Moontanman; Thank you for your honest and sincere response. Please consider my thoughts in this regard, as follows; Well, I was raised in a Catholic family, but nothing was rammed down my throat. My Mother had the belief that children should be exposed to as much knowledge as possible, but should also be encouraged to think their own thoughts, accept their own beliefs, and choose their own understandings. We always went to church on Sundays when I was little, but it was a friendly place that brought me no trauma. When I was eight years old, I had the shocking experience to discover that my school teacher could be wrong. Not only could she be wrong, but when the truth was logically pointed out, she denied it, which made me think that she was somewhat stupid. This was public school and had nothing to do with religion, but it taught me that if I wanted to find truth, I was on my own. I can understand your opinions, but can't agree with them. I first decided to learn what was in the OT of the Bible at 15 years old and started to read it. Some of it was interesting, most of it boring, but early on I came across a passage that explained God's vicious nature and got angry. In this passage, God explained (I am paraphrasing here) that if we did not follow his laws, he would punish us, our children, and our children's children for, I believe it was, seven generations--and that was the punishment for people who loved God. For people who did not love God and follow his laws, the punishment went on for something like 100 generations, or some idiotic number. I was furious and knew that this book did not tell me about any God that I knew or cared about. It was about 20 years later when I reached for the Bible again, looking for understanding of consciousness. I was older, wiser, and looked at the same passage with new eyes. I had already learned that interpretation is one of the most relevant things to consider when studying consciousness because people tend to interpret things through their beliefs and their personal experiences. It had become clear that the Jews of old interpret everything in terms of good and bad and punishment for the bad, so they were a somewhat savage and backward society that was attempting to learn the rules of civilization. Much like a child sees everything as good and bad, with punishment as the difference. So when reviewing that passage, I deleted the "punishment" aspect and just looked at the facts. If I lived in that time and committed murder, what would happen? Well I would be killed, so what would happen to my family? It is likely that they would be ridiculed, ostracized, and maybe even lose their property and become beggers. How would that affect their children? Well the children of ridiculed beggers and grandchildren of a murderer would not do well in society and would carry emotional scars due to the shame. So what about their children? How many generations would pass before my crime was washed from my family? Seven? What we know about psychology today suggests that seven is a reasonable possibility--and that would be if we were trying. So what are we talking about here? Is it a vicious God? Or is it an interpretation by a savage culture of what is actually wisdom? It is wise to remember that my family will bear scars for my crimes. There is a great deal of wisdom in the Bible, but one must look past the ignorant interpretations. It is also important to note that the first six books are mostly a validation of authority and a set of rules or laws to live by. The rest of the OT is a history of the people, that is going to be from their perspective and not necessarily accurate. The NT is mostly about a philosophy until you get to the end and then it is about prophesy. It is important to keep these divisions in mind when considering the Bible. You misunderstand me. I never said that I knew that is was wrong, and I don't know that it is wrong. What I asked is if there is something that I don't already know about it. All knowledge comes from somewhere, as Cladking has noted, and I have no idea what "special knowledge" is about. If you are implying that "special knowledge" is knowledge from God, then I do not agree. The knowledge in the Bible did not come from God. Can I prove this? Logically, yes. If you go back to the Books of Law, you will find many different laws that regard a man's limits in whom, he can lay with. He can not lay with his father's wife, or his son's wife, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or even his slave (unless he is willing to make reparations in the event of her pregnancy). There are lists of women that a man can not lay with, but missing from these lists is the man's daughter. Now the Law does admonish a man to not "make a whore" of his daughter, which seems to mean that he can lay with her, but not pass her around, and he must ensure that someone is willing to take her to wife when he is done with her. To me this does not appear to be an oversight that a God would make, and seems more like an oversight that a man would make. Either that, or incest is best. This belief is evident in the story of Lot. Lot is a man who leads his people into a city that is destroyed "by God". When he escapes, he has his wife and two "virginal" daughters. The wife turns into a pillar of salt, and his two "virginal" daughters get him drunk and seduce him because they love him so much that they want to carry on his line. This is the story he told. His story is obviously true as it is well known that virgins are always trying to seduce old men. This is why virgins are not allowed to work in nursing homes, because the old men would die and not be able to pay the child support. (chuckle chuckle) Here is my take on this. Lot was a leader, so he was a bit of a politician. He led his people to destruction, but escaped, so he needed a good story. So, the cities were bad, he was good, hence his escape. He did everything that he could to save the people, hence he is a good leader. His wife came out with him, hence she is also good. But she was a little naughty by looking back, so she was punished, hence no reflection on him. His daughters were virginal, hence they were good. They were also pregnant, but that was because they were devoted to him, hence they are also good. Do we have any evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah were fulll of evil people? Did his wife turn into salt, or did she dump him and stay in the city? Did he impregnate his daughters, or was it someone else? We will never know the truth of this story, but it is clear that laying with his daughters was accepted. If you consider the Laws that I talked about in the thread, "Free Thought Exchange", and the laws that were not addressed, you will note that the unaddressed issues were all women's issues. The roots of our Common (moral) Laws are in the Bible, but issues not addressed; right to die, abortion, the mentally ill, what to do with a deformed newborn, are all issues that are routinely handled by the women of the family. There is no women's wisdom in the first six Books of the Bible. It does not exist. So, either God is a god of men only, or the Bible was written by men for men. I already have the explanation; "I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I can't imagine not picking up on what the bible says mainly because much of it was driven down my throat like a ram rod." So far, I view the concepts of Heaven and Hell as superstitions. I have yet to get to the bottom of those ideas. G