Gees

Hello Everyone; The words "supernatural" and "superstition" seem to be unacceptable topics in most forums, and I was wondering why, so I thought that I would ask for some clarity. I study consciousness, not the medical definition of the conscious or unconscious rational mind, but rather the philosophical definition of conscious awareness and all of the mental aspects that come under the umbrella of conscious awareness. So I look at what science has discovered, what religion has interpreted, what philosophy thinks, and also the paranormal in my investigations. But if I mention the paranormal, people state that it is "supernatural", "superstition", and spit out denials like a terrified and unwilling virgin bride in a third-rate Dracula horror movie. Why is this? I wanted to know, so I went to Wiki and found that the word 'supernatural' was first used in the early 1,500s. This makes sense if you remember that 2,000 years ago, a bunch of pagans got together with the idea of an invisible God, and declared all things invisible to be of that God. For a time, even our personal thoughts were supposed to be put in our minds by either God or the devil, so for 1,000 years all that was invisible was God's. The Dark Ages. Then philosophers and scientists started to prove that some things were natural laws, so they fought religion with debate and logic, sometimes winning and sometimes losing, until Aquinas finally threw open the doors to science and the Enlightenment. (This is a very simplified version of a tremendous struggle by many great scientists and philosophers.) By the 1,500s all of the intangibles were being divided, some were left in the care of religion, some were proven to belong to science, but what to do with the others? Well, whatever religion did not want and science could not prove became the supernatural. Simple The word "superstition" came a few hundred years later and represents an ignorant belief, so "heaven and hell" are Christian superstitions, "reincarnation" is a superstition from Eastern religions/philosophies, there are Voodoo superstitions, Pagan superstitions, and probably even folklore superstitions. But all superstitions represent the same thing, a belief that is different, and therefore ignorant, that involves the supernatural. For a person like me, who has no religious beliefs, it appears that "God", who is arguably the President of the Paranormal Club, and beliefs that are "authorized" by religions, are allowed--but unauthorized beliefs are not. So it appears that when a person states that the paranormal/supernatural is not accepted because of science, they are not being honest--as it is religion and beliefs that dictate the acceptability of the supernatural/paranormal. This appears to be a false dichotomy. When studying consciousness (God), I threw out the artificial divisions that were given to us by religion. My reasoning in this is that it is impossible to get an answer to a question, if the question is not asked, and artificial divisions prevent questions from being asked. For example: Religion states that each of us has a soul that is within us, and God is everywhere else. This means that we can have hunches, gut feelings, instincts, intuition, and the idea that something "rings true" because these things are all within us--like our soul. But we can not have knowledge that is outside of us without a physical cause, because that is where God rules, so obviously ESP can not be real. But it is. So the question becomes, how is this knowledge acquired? Another example is that souls are deposited in our bodies by God; therefore, reincarnation can not be possible, as souls are supposed to stay where God puts them and not go flitting about. But Dr. Ian Stevenson's work seems to find that this may not be true. So I have been working on more valid divisions of what is, what we can know, and how we know it, using what we now understand about the different aspects of mind as taught by Freud, rather than religious beliefs. It is working. When people state that the supernatural does not exist because science has not proven it, they are actually following the dictates of religion, because the supernatural is just something that has not yet been explained and understood. The Ancients did not have to deal with this nonsense, so they could examine all parts of life and learn. But science did not know what it does today, and Freud had not yet broken down and defined the Ego, SuperEgo, and Id, so the Ancients did not understand how the different aspects of mind work together and independently. We have that advantage, if we have the sense to use it. Is there some problem with my logic here? Something that I am missing? G

EdEarl; I love YouTube. I already got confirmation on my thoughts in 2. and 3., and found some lectures by Antonio Damasio, who is absolutely brilliant. If I find anything really good, I will post it here--as soon as I learn how to. Thank you. Thank you. G.

Hi EdEarl; Thank you for your response. I've seen that second video before, but the first one was interesting. I learned a little about the neocortex and how learning and memory are hierarchical. I found it interesting that the information goes both ways, from the bottom up and from the top down, but there was nothing that related to emotion and memory. Jeff Hawkins noted that there is a plethora of information on the internet regarding consciousness, almost too much, and that it becomes a difficult task to sort through it to find what one wants to know. I agree. One of the skills, that was diminished in my brain, was the ability to sort and organize. I am sure that if a brilliant neurologist looked at the scars that show up on my MRI, they could explain why I can't seem to learn some things, but for now, all that I know is my neurologist told me that the scars were not where she would expect them to be. No surprise there. (chuckle) I had not used the internet prior to my last major attack, so learning the internet is difficult. I have a terrible relationship with Mr. Google and never get what I want. I found some science encyclopedias, but they wanted me to subcribe and I had a problem with terminology. Most of my information comes from Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, but would like another source. It had not occurred to me that YouTube would be a good source. Thank you for that suggestion. I checked this forum before posting and got nine hits regarding emotion and memory, but they were not relevant. Maybe in another forum? I will check out YouTube. Thanks again. G.

Hello Members; My questions are directed to anyone who has a good understanding of neurology, and can explain that understanding in layman's terms, as it relates to emotion and memory. Although I believe myself to be intelligent, MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has done a wonderful job of cutting my vocabulary in half and limiting some of my cognitive skills, which includes an inability to learn new technical terms. So I have no hope of learning what I need to know on my own and am asking for help. My interest is in consciousness, but in deference to neurologists, I should state that I am referring to the philosophical definition of consciousness, which would be better named, awareness. To learn more about conscious awareness, I have been breaking down the different mental aspects and studying them individually, and am currently working on emotion. Most of my information has come from sources that would not be considered credible, so I would like confirmation of what I think I know and a better understanding. The points are numbered for ease in answering, and because I want to know everything, which is impossible. (chuckle) 1. It seems that emotion does some rather unusual things when stored in memory. One source stated that it can actually grow, like a film put in chemicals emotion seems to be able to develop and make the memory more over time. I would like to know if this is true, as it may or may not relate to anthropomorphism. 2. Another source stated that emotion can actually affect memories. An example would be when you think that you are in love with an attractive person, break up, then see them two years later and note that they are not really very attractive. So emotion can actually distort what we think we remember. Any ideas on this? 3. Emotion also seems to be able to select what we remember, as something with an emotional attachment will be a much stronger memory. On the other hand, we can also specifically not remember something because we emotionally don't want to. Thoughts? 4. So we can remember thoughts, like math; we can remember thoughts with emotion; but can we remember emotion without thought? This question led me to make up a little test that I asked people to consider, as follows: I would like you to summon up any strong emotion, love, hate, fear, etc., and hold that emotion within you for one minute on the clock. Did you succeed? Good. Now I would like for you to do it again, but this time do not summon any memories of things that made you originally feel the emotion. Thus far, no one has been able to do it. My conclusion is that there is no memory slot for emotion. We can experience emotion, but we can not remember emotion unless it is attached to some thought. 5. If (4.) is correct, then how would we remember that we had an emotional experience if there were no thoughts attached? How would we know about it? Is this where delusion comes in? In a case where we experienced emotion because of a chemical change, would our minds interpret the emotion and add whatever it decided was appropriate to the emotion and cause delusions so that we could remember the event? Thoughts? Thanks in advance to any and all who can explain or confirm my considerations. G.

I can see your point here, but would argue that the Bible is a history book. So like all history books, it has an agenda to promote it's concepts and society/people. Although it would be foolish to assume that the text is unbiased and untarnished history, it still does have some worth as a historical document. Alexander's library did fall into the sea, you know, so it is not like there is a whole library to learn our history from. G.

iNow; After all of your whining about how people misunderstand you, I am sure that you would not have intentionally misquoted me. Again. But I can not find the post where I stated that religion or the Bible was the source of moral behavior in humans. Could you please point it out? I reviewed the thread that you recommended, but it had absolutely nothing to do with law. Also note that I did not bring up the subject of Commandments (laws) in the Bible, I simply responded to them. G.

Hi Moontanman; In support of Sam, I would like to make some comments here. Sam's belief that our moral law comes from religion, and specifically the Bible, is correct, but it is much more than the Ten Commandments. And please note that there is no Commandment that forbids us to lie, as that is a corruption instigated by the Christian church. The Commandment in question forbids us to "bear false witness" which is not the same thing at all, as bearing false witness is a corruption of another person's truth. We can lie, we just can't lie to accuse another person. After studying law, I had occasion to review the Bible in my studies of consciousness, and was amazed to find the roots of our "common law" in the Books of Law in the Bible. In the US, our common law comes to us from England, except for Louisiana, as Lousiana gets their common law from France. And it should be noted here that I am not referring to laws made in the House of Commons, I am talking about law that is commonly known to be moral and good. Our moral law. To give a little background here, it should be noted that there are many different sources for our laws, but generally speaking there is Constitutional law, Legislated law, and Case law. When this country started, we did not clear the shelves and wipe the pages clean, we used the laws established in prior cases to prosecute and judge current cases. So the common (moral) law that came over with the government from England was already ensconsed in our Case law. So what does this have to do with religion? Well, religion dictates what is moral, so a peoples religious beliefs affect the moral laws. This is where we got witch burning from, and a lot of other nonsense--although I don't remember this specific thing in the Books of Law, I am sure that it can be found somewhere in the Bible. Also consider that in the Feudal system, the Lords of the land were also the judges, so where did they look for guidance in their judgments? Books were rare, so the only source of Law would be the Bible. We can trace US law, to English law, to Common Law, to the Bible. This is how law is built, brick by brick, it grows and changes just like the societies that use the law. But the roots, the foundation, stays the same. While reviewing the Laws in the Bible, I was surprised to find that it clearly noted the difference between manslaughter and murder and also noted that "intent" was the determining factor--just as we do today. Another section stated that witness were required in the matter of murder. Other sections clearly delineated Property law, Criminal law, Family law, and even addressed Probate law. It seems that the roots of all of our moral laws are in the Bible, but are they? I did not find anything on the "right to die", or on abortion, nor do I remember finding laws regarding how we treat our mentally insane, or what to do with an infant born deformed. Aren't these thing relavent to "empathy"? Yet we struggle to find a moral right in these situations because they are not addressed in the Books of Law in the Bible. I know full well that there are elderly people in prison today because a spouse, who was terminally ill, begged them for the right to die, which they granted. We call it mercy killing, and then throw them in jail. Abortion was absolutely illegal until we started worrying about the world population, then it became legal, but as the world population diminishes, we will start to look twice at abortion. The right to die was unheard of, but as the "baby boomers" start to age and become a drain on society, I expect that we will start granting people the right to die. Secular law is practical if nothing else. But what is the moral right? There are cultures that accept that a person has the right to die, but we don't--because it is not in the Laws of the Bible. G. Hi Mondays Assignment: Die; But you will grant that the issues of eugenics and genetic discrimination are moral issues? This is yet another example of a moral issue that is not addressed in the Bible, so it is hotly debated. We don't know if it is right or wrong. I would like to note here that I have never met a person who fully understands the source of the "good and evil" concept, but it is false dichotomy attributable to religion and so it is often used in moral considerations. You have a very interesting nickname. G.

iNow; I looked up your first link and found the University of Washington, Department of Global Health, PAGE NOT FOUND. The second link explained to me that people in Sweden/Denmark do not like to talk about religion, but the "overwhelming majority" have been baptized, many have been confirmed or married in the church, and the national religion is Lutheran. The third link stated: "Until recently, this assertion could not be tested because all societies were deeply religious. Moreover, the first atheistic societies had atheism forced upon them by brutal dictators (Hoxha’s Albania, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia), and thus were hardly models of a healthy society." I think that you proved my point that societies formed with religions, so I am not going to bother with the two links that you added subsequently--besides they are from an Athiest site and not neutral in this discussion. When I retired, it was from working in law, so I am very familiar with lawyer tricks. I have watched lawyers "dance the edge of truth" where they can speak for hours without actually telling a lie, but never state an honest truth. I have seen them practice something that we called "scabpicking" where a lawyer will look for a weakness in an opponent's case and pick at it over and over until it begins to look like a wound, so that the entire jury is so engrossed with the wound that they have forgotten the point of the matter. I have seen lawyers use "misdirection" so that, like a magician or jester, they can hide the truth. But this is not a Court where truth is hidden, it is not a platform for a politician, it is a philosophy forum. Truth should be relavent here, but apparently it's not. As I stated earlier, I don't think that you are a philosopher, so I am going to look for one. G.

Hi iNow; I'm glad you thought of this, as it is much better to put our cards on the table. I have a few different problems with your position, but will try to be concise. 1. You seem to be under the impression that religion can be disposed of. I do not agree. It is my understanding that all cultures and societies that have formed have some kind of belief system, and that when that belief system dissolves, so does the culture and society. I could be wrong. Are there cultures and societies that have formed and survived without a belief system? 2. A number of statements in your posts imply that you think I am making personal attacks on you. I am not. What I am attacking is your methodology in dealing with this issue. You are using formal logic, rationalization, and philosophical debate, which are all useless tools in this type of discussion. 3. My own personal interest is in the study of consciousness, which I have been working on for most of my life. I am not talking about the rational mind or brain, I am talking about all of the aspects of consciousness, which include all life, most sciences, all religions, and the paranormal, so I have spent a good deal of time studying religion. If I could take one thing away from religions, I would take away the concept of "good v evil" as this single concept is responsible for more misery than anything else attributable to religions. It is also a false dichotomy. The opposite of good is not evil, it is bad. Good and bad have balance and in different circumstances can be interchangable, but evil is just that--evil. One never hears the phrase "good v evil" except in relation to religion, because it is not valid as good and evil are not opposites, nor are they connected in any way. Most people do not even understand what the phrase means, or what evil actually is, but they know how to use it; "We are good, and you are evil". Evil is always the other, the other person, the other religion, the other country, the other society--but always the "other". The phrase "good and evil" is used to create hate, division, and war. It builds prejudice within religions. So imagine my surprise when you imply that religions are the source of this evil, while doing the exact same kind of dividing and hate mongering that religions do, with your severe prejudice against religions! It appears as though you are taking the worst aspects of religion and incorporating them into your argument against religion. G.

iNow; It is my thought that you are not a philosopher. Although you may well have studied philosophy, or read philosophy, it takes more than that to think like a philosopher. I base my opinion on two things; first, your response to my post was way to quick (11 minutes); and second, you do not seem to understand the necessity of the "virtues" in philosophy. I understand that this is a Science forum, but we are posting in the Religion section under the heading of Philosophy, so I expect a certain degree of philosophical thought in a person's responses to me. Nonetheless, I will respond to some of your statements. Please forgive me, as I have not yet learned how to break up quotes. I hope this works. iNow stated: It's hard to comment whether or not it's biased because you seem to be misunderstanding my point. G. I am not misunderstanding your point. The good that comes out of religion is from people, the bad is from religion. You made your point very early in this thread when you explained that there would be a "vast" overlapping of religion and superstition in a Venn diagram. You are intelligent, so you know perfectly well that religion is respected and that superstition is synonymous with ignorance. It was an insult--pure and simple. Your thoughts are as clear as a mountain stream. iNow stated: Two things. First, humans have been around for (by conservative estimates) roughly 200,000 years, so even 40k years is relatively recent by that standard. Second, what evidence do you have that religion itself is 40,000 years old, and how are you defining religion? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about these points. Is it possible you're doing a bit of a bait and switch between religion and anthropomorphism? I hope not, as I would like to read about religion existing more than about 10-12,000 years ago if you have anything relevant to share in that regard. G. One should never lie to a philosopher. You are not curious at all because you know that written language did not exist prior to 10-12,000 years ago, and finding any archeological evidence prior to 40,000 years ago would be almost miraculous. I based my statement on three things that I believe to be true, and reason and deduction. The three truths are that "humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings", that they are social animals, and that the "lionman" statue found by archeologists is believed to be almost 40,000 years old. I deduced that a species that was social and spiritual, would have some kind of belief system, and that if the same species carved anthropomorphized statues, then that species would know a God and incorporate some rituals into their society to ingratiate that God. Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that lionmen walked the earth, and we just don't know about it yet--but I doubt it. iNow stated: It is ludicrous to blame science when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent. G. I understand. Only religion can be blamed when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent. iNow stated: . . .not representative of YOUR religion . . G. I apologize for this misunderstanding. I always end up defending religions in these forums, but I am not religious. I see religion as a social and cultural necessity for people in general, and would like to see some changes in it--which was what I thought this thread was about. But I am not religious myself, also not very social. You may have noticed. (chuckle) iNow stated: Perhaps you can stay focused on the content of my posts and refrain from aspersions against me or my maturity. G. I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent to insult you, or whatever your age is. People of all ages like to play pretend, so I did not consider that you would find it insulting. My apologies. iNow stated: This thread was NOT about making religion better, and I'm curious why you would ever suggest that. This thread was about making civilization better G. Well, not being an idiot, I also see where there is a problem within religions, and would like to see it corrected. But not being a fool, I know that religions can not simply be disposed of, so I assumed that this was about teaching, learning, improving, "Free Thought Exchange" with regard to religion. G.

So if I am reading you correctly, when good is done in the name of religion, it actually comes from a deeper "source" in humanity, but when bad is done in the name of religion, it comes from religion. You don't think this is just a little biased? (chuckle chuckle) And what is this "relatively recent phenomenon" of religion? From what I understand, we have examples of anthropomorphism that date back almost 40,000 years, so religion has been here a very long time. Yes, there have been wars fought in the name of religion, and lots of people have died, but you know as well as I do that wars are fought for power--not God. If you want to discuss the bad that is in this world, then you are going to have to stop "cherry picking" your facts. Although religion can be named as a source of discontent leading to war, it could not be very devastating without the advances of science. In less than 1,000 years, science has produced weapons of mass destruction, Nazi concentration camps where horrible experiments were carried out, and pollution encompassing the entire planet--in less than 1,000 years! Religion has always been here, and it will always be here in some form. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. I thought this thread was about how to make religion better, not to play a child's game of pretend. G

EdEarl; Buddhism is interesting, but the teachings are ancillary to my studies, so I won't be delving into that now. In one of the videos that you provided, it was mentioned that there is no theory of consciousness--and it is true--there is no theory. There are theories, lots of theories, but none that answer all of the questions. So for the past forty years or so, I have been looking at life and considering theories; theories from science, religion, philosophy, and the paranormal. What I have found is that almost all of the theories have some truth in them. There is a grain of truth that people try to explain, but while explaining this truth they inevitable incorporate other information to supplement the understanding--which corrupts the truth and the theory. The problem is that conscious awareness is a vast subject which touches on every aspect of life and science and is difficult to comprehend, so if I had five lifetimes, I could not know enough. I need to work with other people; intelligent people; educated people. In order to avoid the pit falls that others have encountered, I do not study consciousness by disciplines, such as science, religion, et al. I study it by aspects, so that I can see how the different aspects relate to consciousness, rather than how they relate to the discipline. Each discipline has taken their piece of knowledge about consciousness, and built a picture of what they think consciousness is, but the picture is incomplete and invalid. So I have essentially taken apart all of the pictures and study the small pieces for a grain of truth, to see which is part of consciousness and which is background to create the theory. When I find some small puzzle piece of truth, then I must validate it so that I know it is true. I think that emotion, or chemicals and hormones in the brain, greatly influence the health and wholeness of mind, and may cause the formation of mind. This is the reason for this thread, to find out if I am right or wrong. If I am wrong, I need to throw this idea out. If I am right, then there are implications to consider. 1. A person in a vegetative state may well be in possession of a mind, as the chemicals are still there, even though they may have no neural function. 2. Near death experiences and ghostlike encounters immediately after death may be real, as the chemical makeup in the brain still exists. (Anyone who believes that this is nonsense needs to talk to some Hospice workers.) 3. Religion may not be so far off in their definition of a "soul", as a soul is a self that holds our thoughts and is essentially emotion. Though this does not confirm other religious beliefs, it is pretty amazing that they figured this out without the help of scientific methodology. 4. Does Autism and Asperger disorders have anything to do with chemical imbalances as they seem to be a problem with regard to the wholeness or health of mind? 5. Are we crazy to let Monsanto and other chemical companies produce whatever they want? Like giving an advanced chemical kit to a five year old? All of these things, and more, might be worth considering if I am right. Does anyone have an answer? G

Hi Scilearner; Thank you for the welcome, and yes, I would probably get more responses in the Philosophy forum, but would I get more answers? I doubt it. I have been to a lot of Philosophy forums and find that I have a tendency to ask questions that are unusual or different, so I really need to talk to someone who either studies or works in Psychology. I don't know a great deal about the eastern philosophies/religions, but believe that the term "enlightenment" may describe a conscious foray into the un/subconscious part of the mind. This is interesting. Someone in another forum indicated that there is an eastern philosophy/religion that has uncovered different levels with regard to what I suspect is the unconscious mind, but he had no real information that I could check up on or learn about. I would like to know what he was talking about so that I could compare these "levels" with what the Psychiatrist/Psychologist, Dr. Blanco, discovered in the unconscious mind. G Hi Pwagen; Thank you for your response. Although interesting, this is a little off of the subject, as I am not really interested in intelligence. When Mr. Hawkins discusses consciousness, he appears to be specifically discussing human intelligence, and conscious thought. These are aspects of consciousness, but not conscious awareness in itself. Besides, everybody and their brother is studying intelligence, so they don't need my nose in there. Rather than looking for biological differences between us and other species, I am looking for commonalities which will bring me to the root of the subject. All species are aware. All species have an instinct for survival. But all species do not show similarities in memory, emotion, thought, self-awareness, and maybe mind, so when and why do these different aspects emerge? And what bodily organs, chemicals, functions are these aspects attributable to? So studying consciousness by aspects, emotion, thought, instinct, memory, mind, etc., I am learning and considering things that are not normally questioned. It never hurts to consider things from a different perspective, and can be very enlightening. At the moment, I am considering that emotion has a great deal of influence on what we call mind. Emotion is regulated by chemicals and hormones. Hormones are used to treat schizophrenia. Hormones are used to treat the elderly, who have problems dropping into REM sleep. A disruption of hormones, caused by starvation, lack of sleep, and other things, can help a Monk to reach enlightenment. All of these things relate to mind, so along with the other items considered in the OP, is emotion, chemical and/or hormones, related to the formation of mind? Maybe. G

Of course, I agree that consciousness is part of the brain and it's processes, as long you don't try to say that it is exclusively in the brain. Conscious thought works through the brain, but conscious awareness is in all life. Anyone who does not agree with that needs to show me where grass has a brain, or they need to redefine what is life. Since all life is aware, the trick is to find out what different life forms are aware of, and when thought, memory, knowledge, instincts, emotions, self-awareness, and mind come into play, as they are all parts and aspects of consciousness. MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has done a great job of scarring up my brain, cutting my vocabulary in half, reducing cognitive skills, trashing my memory, and blurring my vision--so I NEED spell check. I have Firefox also. It is not so much that I take it personally, it is more that I feel that I am limited in regards to time, so I won't spend a great deal of time in a forum where no one shares my interest. But I have other questions, so if this does not pan out, I can make some requests in different fields of science. Conscious awareness is a huge subject. G

EdEarl; Thank you for the response and the welcome. I reviewed the thread that you recommended and watched the videos, and although interesting, they do not really explain mind or emotion. Mostly they deal with neurology and AI, which is more a study of the conscious brain, memory, and intelligence, than it is a study of mind or conscious awareness. Although neurology has been looking for consciousness in the brain for quite some time, I doubt that they will find it; but recently they have joined forces with endocrinology, so I have some hope. The brain is saturated in chemicals, and I believe that the puzzle that is consciousness will be unraveled by understanding the chemical nature of the brain. Although conscious awareness can be studied in a hundred different ways, and the brain in a hundred more, my studies lean more toward the study of mind, which is why I posted this thread in Psychology, rather than in Neurology. I have been working off of the divisions of mind as proposed by Freud and have learned about the levels and logic that Dr. Ignacio Matte Blanco found in the unconscious mind. But it is difficult to find people who study mind, rather than brain. I have some questions, if you have a moment. I noticed that you mentioned the word "spiritual" and wondered why. Is it because I mentioned emotion? And is there a spell check that I can use when writing a post? I can't find one. G

Well, this is certainly not what I expected; more than a week has gone by with no responses. So why are there no responses? There are possibilities: a. No one has seen my original post? No, there have been more than 30 views. b. No one understands my questions? Then why wouldn't they ask for clarification? c. I am a dope and put this in the wrong area? Then why didn't the Moderators say something or move it? d. This subject has been hashed over 1,000 times. Not in this forum, as I checked before posting. e. No one has a clue about this subject and does not want to appear stupid. Well I don't have a clue either, which is why I'm asking. f. I know, maybe my logic is so accurate, my reasoning so pure, my thoughts so concise, that people are blown out of the water, stunned, awed, and mesmerized by the brilliance of my mind! (chuckle chuckle) Yeah, that's likely. Anyone else have an idea? G

Hello Members; This is my first post, so be nice to the newbie. I have no training in science, but have an abiding respect for it, as science is the "answer man", and I need answers that I can't find. My interest is consciousness, but not the scientific definition of conscious, unconscious, and preconscious; more the philosophical definition of consciousness as in awareness. My studies keep bringing me around to emotion, and I have begun to believe that it may be more closely linked to awareness than thought is linked to awareness. But recently, it occurred to me that emotion is also very relevant to mind, Emotion and mind are not well studied and understood, so I hoped that I could find some answers here. Traumatic shock can actually kill a person, destroying the mind, and this can be caused by emotion. Traumatic emotion can cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can manipulate a person's awareness and mind involuntarily. Traumatic emotion can fracture a mind into minds, as in Multiple Personality Disorder. Strong emotion can bond minds in love, stress, trauma, etc., and these can be lifelong bonds. Strong emotion/excitement can bond minds temporarily as in a "riot mentality". It occurs to me that there is nothing, short of damage to the brain, that has as much influence on mind as emotion does. So is it possible that emotion is instrumental in the formation of mind? Is that why labor and delivery are so distressing? So a mind can form? Does this mean that any species that has a brain and strong emotion, probably has a mind as well? Lots of questions. Or maybe I am putting ideas together that do not belong together. Does anyone have any answers that can be relayed in laymen's terms? Or maybe a link where I can learn more, as I am disabled and housebound? Thank you for your consideration. Gees