Gees

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

Agreed. G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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