Gees

Strange; He was also a brilliant man. Are you trying to imply that he was an idiot in other fields and could not recognize nonsense? I can't believe I have to defend him. Or perhaps it is because academic Philosophy has failed miserably. One of our greatest American philosophers was Benjamin Franklin, and that boy never even made through high school. I am not even sure if he got past sixth grade. His teacher did not think much of him -- he educated himself. Teachers did not like Edison either and called him a dreamer. So academic education can help, but it is not the end-all answer to education. Well it may be obvious to you, a non-philosopher, but it is not obvious to me. Why don't we wait and see if he can make any arguments against my points without sidestepping them or ignoring them or trying to turn them to Science. He should know how to make an argument as academic Philosophy teaches a lot about arguing. There is a lot that is misleading and assumed in this thread. You know, as well as I, that the idea that life eats life is only one indicator of life; it is not the full definition of life. Just like the idea that DNA causes life. Viruses consume life and have DNA, but they are not considered life. This is not such a simple subject. A human can survive on completely synthetic food? For how long? Please provide evidence of this. If the Gaia hypothesis is correct or even partly correct, then your argument is not valid. If the theories that state the Universe is alive are correct, then your argument is not valid. This is not such a simple little subject as some of you propose. Gee

iNow; Well, I am happy that you are flattered, but in all honesty I must explain that it was Eise, who brought up your name. I was just responding. Actually you have made seven posts in this thread. The first post was on topic. One post was about a toaster, which is a stretch of the imagination to think that toasters have anything to do with "God". One post was to whine about a down vote you received. Four posts were about me, so I am the one who is flattered. Although I am certain that you are enamored of the "power" of your words, I find that research and evidence have some worth. Being able to read also helps. Gee

Eise; We meet again. So you think that Feynman knew what he was talking about? Then why did he have such contempt for Philosophy? After I realized how brilliant he was,, I wondered about that until I read an article that explained that Feynman took a Philosophy class while at University and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch of nonsense that he had ever heard. Likewise -- we are all anonymous here. It is clear that you know a great deal about Science, but I have not seen evidence that you understand Philosophy. In my thread about truth, right, and wrong, I made a referral to your post in the thread that was a split from Sam Harris's thread. Your post in that thread had a down vote on it, which I did not give you, but I reversed because I do not believe in the down vote system. But to be perfectly honest, you earned that down vote because you side-stepped or did not answer any philosophical question that I asked you. You wanted to talk about Science, which is something that you know. I normally do not try to expose your ignorance of Philosophy because many here seem to think you a philosopher, but you are pushing me. Nonsense. If what you stated above were true, then how did the first philosophers become philosophers? Also consider that universities all over the country are removing Philosophy from their curriculum because they are starting to realize that what they are teaching is not working. Most are teaching a history of Philosophy going over the great philosophers' works and what has already been accomplished, along with a hefty dose of how to argue. Some don't even require a Logic or Critical Thinking class in order to get a degree. I tried a Philosophy class once and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch on nonsense that I had ever heard. The whole class was based on the Monism v Dualism debate, which I had already realized is nonsense, as it is not about consciousness; it is about power. Then you are wrong. In order to have ideological thinking, one has to have an ideal. In the study of consciousness, many believe that it is "God", or the brain, or the planet, or the Universe, or even illusion -- that is ideological thinking. Although I have considered each of these ideas, I am not ready to state that any are the answer because we still do not know WTF consciousness actually is or how it works. I follow whatever evidence that I can find, and I don't care if it is in a place that is popular or accepted, I just follow the evidence. No. If studying consciousness made one a philosopher, then the universities would be successful in their endeavors. It doesn't work that way. If you and iNow want me to be less snooty, then you might want to consider that this thread is called, "what is a god", not "What do we think of Gees". Apparently I am more interesting to discuss than "God", but it is not fair to the OP or the other members, who may want to discuss the topic. Maybe we could start a new topic in the Lounge and the Moderators could split off all the What About Gees posts. But that would be a lot of work for the Moderators just because a few members can not control themselves. Well you can right click your mouse and get a simplified definition of the word, consciousness, which is pretty accurate. If you want more, you can go to the SEP (the free on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and read pages and pages of definition, or you can go with my simplified definition that consciousness is simply communication. I should probably elaborate before someone compares my answer to a radio. How that simple communication takes place and why it takes place and where it takes place and the parameters of consciousness are some of the questions that are so far unanswerable. I am aware of the theories of consciousness that state it is the Universe and of Panpsychism and of the Gaia hypothesis, so an argument can always be made that something is conscious. For this reason I focus the discussion that I am having about consciousness, because to do otherwise is insane and accomplishes nothing. In the post that Bender originally answered, I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was reserving these observations/ideas of consciousness to life forms -- that was the focus. Now, if Bender can not read, what is Bender doing in a forum? If Bender does not know what life forms are, then Bender should go to Biology to learn. If Bender simply does not care about what I stated and just wants to argue about consciousness, then what is Bender doing in this thread about "God", or are we supposed to believe that inanimate things worship a god? So no, I do not understand Bender's nonsense and suspect that he intended to take the subject off topic and to explain his ideas of AI and consciousness. No one can study everything. That is a silly observation. There are dozens of arguments against every view, which is why there is no comprehensive theory of consciousness. As I stated before universities teach wanna be philosophers how to argue, and sometimes teach them how to think. You seem to think that my thoughts were born the day before I joined this forum and I have not discussed them before. (chuckle) If you have a specific argument against one of my views, please do start a thread in the General Philosophy section stating your argument and be prepared to have evidence/logic supporting your argument. Psychology is a branch of the Discipline of Science. In this case the "we" is Religion. And what might that "something" be? Is it a secret? Or are you going to tell me? What I understand is that you routinely use the same words and don't seem to understand the idea in different words; like when you say "thinking about thinking" and I say "study of knowledge", you can not see the similarity. This makes me wonder if you understand the concept or if you are just parroting what you have been taught. This is interesting. Why is life not a closed system? Would an ecosystem be a closed system? What is a closed system? I know almost nothing about Science. Yes. If you read his Wiki page ten years ago, it was very interesting. Five years ago it was less so. Now they call him a crack-pot. Disappointing, but not really surprising as his ideas were not popular with Science and seriously disagreed with Christianity. Not long after he died, his ideas and worth started to lose momentum. They may even have taken down the site at the University because of peer pressure, but the evidence he gathered is still out there somewhere, so I will just have to find it. I know some was published. Everything is a misuse of the word "instinct". (chuckle) I worked a long thread in another Science forum years ago where we got seriously into the word, instinct, and a bigger mess I have never seen except possibly in the word, consciousness. I worked with a neurologist, an animal behaviorist, an archeologist, and a few other professionals and came away with the conclusion that it would take a brain like Einstein's that had been trained in consciousness, psychology, chemistry, animal behavior, and probably more, to straighten out that mess. This is the reason why I always refer to "survival instincts" as that seems to be the only area of "instincts" that has any validity. The rest of it is all a mishmash of nonsense. This is not true. All life is sentient -- that means it feels. Now we can satisfy our emotional needs by pretending it is otherwise and stating that all life "senses" or "perceives" or whatever, but this means that it feels. We can go the other way and say that some bacteria "knows" what it wants to absorb and what it wants to avoid, but that is going a bit too far because how could it possibly know anything without eyes, smell, ears, a brain, etc.? It senses and reacts without any decision as to what it should do, so it feels. This is the way that all survival instincts work, automatically without the necessity to think about it. A complex nervous system and brain are required to know that you are feeling or experiencing emotion. This is what philosophers used to call being aware that you are aware. A flower will turn to the sun, but does it know that this is the sun? Does it know that it needs the sun to survive? No. It just turns to the sun because it feels good and it wants that feeling. You mean like consciousness? Where everything only exists in our ideas? (chuckle) If you are going to push straight materialism, doesn't that mean that I get to go to the illusion theories? No Religion is not Science, on the other hand Science is not Religion. We have been through this before. Did you not understand or do you not believe me? A thousand years ago Religion thought it was the beginning and end of knowledge. Philosophy was acceptable if it supported Religion. Science was irrelevant because it studied things that were of no consequence, or it was dangerous. The result was the Dark Ages. Now Science is beginning to think it is the beginning and end of knowledge. Philosophy is acceptable if it supports Science. Religion is irrelevant because it studies things that are of no consequence, or it is dangerous. The result is the destruction of families, children raising themselves and shooting up schools, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc., or a breakdown in the social structure. To try to resolve this problem, we voted in Trump because everyone needs to feel safe and has a "daddy's lap" complex where we think his strength will make us safe. If you can not understand that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, and that these attributes need to be balanced -- or they will balance themselves -- then how can you call yourself a philosopher? What do you think evidence is? It is support. It is not proof. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is just support that leads a person in a direction that can at some point possibly end in a hypothesis or theory. The problem with most of the theories of consciousness is that people did not gather enough evidence before deciding on their theories. I refuse to do that. Gee PS dimreepr: If you are still reading, you know this post is too long. It is not Eise's fault for writing a long post. It is, of course, my fault.

Agreed. And what is food? Water and other life. Life feeds on life. Gee

Bender; No we are not discussing consciousness. I would like to, but first it seems that I must get past the denials. Why don't you go to the Philosophy forum, type in the title, Monism v Dualism, and write a thread that questions WTF consciousness actually is? If you figure it out, then we can discuss consciousness. Well if you can get a toaster to be conscious and maybe worship a toaster "God" (keeping in context with this thread), then I could probably link Freud to the Higgs boson. Why not? There seems to be no requirement to make sense in this thread. Should we notify Neurology, Psychiatry, and Psychology that the unconscious is a myth? All of the above need an electrical source in order to function. What empowers life? Life does not go around with battery packs, so what empowers it? As far as we know, the empowerment is consciousness. Technically, if you could make AI conscious, it would no longer need a power source. Gee Prometheus; Well,, thank you for being honest. You might want to get to know me a little better before you are honest again. Gee

MigL; Just as Biology studies life forms, Science is the Discipline that studies all matter, forces, and causal reality. But Science does not study spirituality. Religion is the Discipline that studies spirituality. These are facts. So if you are looking for evidence of heaven, hell, or reincarnation, you go to Religion. Psychology can also give information, but in the case of reincarnation, there is also information from Dr. Ian Stevenson, who studied reincarnation for many years. You can look him up in Wiki, but the last time I checked Wiki had one of Dr. Stevenson's admittedly less than convincing examples, but someone deleted his more impressive evidence. If you go to the bottom of the page in Wiki, there should be a link to the University of Virginia, or maybe it is Duke University, where there is more information. Gee Koti; Consciousness is everything you know, everything you feel, all of your memories and past experiences, everyone you love, even your sense of self -- that makes it kind of special. Did you ever see the Matrix? The plug that was put into the back of a person's head could be called consciousness. Or maybe it was the pill -- the red one or the blue one. The endless debates are not really about consciousness. They represent a 1,000 year old struggle regarding Monism v Dualism, which is really a political power struggle regarding "Who's the Boss" -- "God" or man. You have a lot to say about something that you clearly don't understand. This statement has a lot of truth in it, but it is not really about "God". It is about Religion. Gee PS Sorry about the double post. MS (Multiple Sclerosis) is not being nice today and my fingers are not terribly obedient. I will report the post and see if it can be deleted.

Bender; Well, we know that hormones (chemicals) cause emotion and that emotion causes the production of hormones (chemicals). So is emotion part of consciousness? Yes. Emotion is the mover and shaker that is the motivator in life, which would be why we named it e-motion. Emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind, so we don't actually know it, we experience it. You have to study a little psychology in order to understand the unconscious aspect of mind, but if you do, you will find that emotion rules there and emotion has to be interpreted to be known. "God" ideas come from the unconscious aspect of mind. This is a really simple straight forward idea. Since you do not really study consciousness, maybe I can present this in a way you can understand. Think of the chemicals, hormones, as magnets and think of consciousness, emotion, as the force that is between the magnet and a piece of iron. This is priceless. Some of the greatest minds in human history from well before the time of Plato to after the time of Einstein have grappled with the idea of consciousness. But you and Koti find that it is not very interesting or special. Obviously you must be right. Gee Migl; Sure. If it has anything to do with life and consciousness, I have either investigated it or I want to. I think that all Religions have some explanation for life after death, whether it is heaven or hell, or reincarnation. Absolutely. When Biology confirms that an AI toaster is a life form, then I will consider it. I did not come to a Science forum to speculate. I need some kind of evidence or fact. Gee

CharonY; Thank you for the information. This is why I came to a Science forum -- to get facts. Years ago, I read a story about a boy who drowned in a river and was "dead" for at least 15 to 20 minutes before being found and resuscitated. The emergency team worked on him and brought him back, but it was not expected that he would make a full recovery. Many others do not recover, or have brain damage, under the same or similar circumstances even when they were not "out" as long. But this boy did fully recover, which was a puzzle. Some called it a miracle, but most attributed the freezing temperature of the mountain river to the preservation of his body/brain, and others thought that the motion of the river water also contributed. The truth is that some people can die of shock when the body seems to be fully functional and can not be brought back, others are brought back when the body is not fully functional, so the idea that bodily death and conscious death happen together seems to be not quite as cut and dried as thought. There are too many exceptions, which makes me wonder what causes those exceptions. In reviewing Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation, I noted that he found an average of 15 months between incarnations. Although bonding, emotion, was always a player in reincarnation, I have not yet found his research material that might tell me about the disposition of the bodies, and how that may or may not influence the 15 month average. Although I do not doubt that many of the cases he studied were actual reincarnations, I doubt that all people reincarnate with the wholeness of mind/spirit that is indicated in his studies. If all of us reincarnated, and we knew it, then there would be no doubt about reincarnation. I think what I stated was that the cessation of cell division "forecasts" death, but thank you for the additional information. I can't really say that I like the "large snack" idea, but it was funny. Then you would be surprised. There are many theories of consciousness that have the whole world, all matter, and even the entire Universe as being conscious, but that is too much for me to absorb. I try to limit my studies to life forms. Are cells alive? Yes. How do we know? Well, for one thing, they can die. They also work at their continuance. How do we know they work at their continuance? Because they show evidence of survival instincts. How do survival instincts work? All survival instincts work through feeling or emotion. Are feeling and emotion part of consciousness? Yes. All life is conscious to some degree -- consciousness, is what empowers it. Think of it like magnets. The magnet on my refrigerator can not pick up a car. It actually can't do much of anything but stick like tape. But the magnet across town in the salvage yard can pick up a car. So does this mean that my refrigerator magnet is not really a magnet -- just tape? No. It means that the magnet across town (representing humans) is a whole lot more powerful than my magnet on my refrigerator (representing bacteria). Does this explanation help at all? Gee I was not concerned about you down voting me. Do I have a perspective that I would like to share? Yes. Would I like to beat people over the head with this perspective? No. Do I want to be beaten over the head with uninformed denials? No. Gee You think a toaster is a life form? When Bender made his first post about the "toaster", he was responding to my statement where I specifically stated that I was talking about life forms. I laughed because I thought he was making a joke. When he reposted, I knew he wanted me to respond, so I did. You can put all the gadgets you want on a toaster, but that will not make it a life form. I used humor to try to show him that a toaster is not a life form. If he were joking, or just not following the thread, my humor might have worked. But Bender is one of those people who is so enamored with the idea that Religion is wrong, that he will deny Science (Biology) in order to prove that Science is right. It is an impossible and ridiculous position, but the evidence that this is the case is all over Page 4 of this thread. Holier than thou? Religious communities? I don't know who you are talking about, but it sure as hell isn't me. Gee

CharonY; I am aware of the case of Henriette Lacks, not from a medical standpoint, but from a legal one. Although many people have benefitted from Henrietta's cells, she and her family did not. I believe there was a lawsuit, but don't think it was successful, and am not even sure if her medical expenses were paid. What I want to know is how long our cells continue to produce after death without some kind of artificial support. I would expect nothing else from a Science person. The medical definition of 'consciousness' is different from the philosophical definition. Yes. I have heard this argument before. In another forum a member was going on and on about the need for complexity in AI in order to make it conscious. I tired of his explanations and finally asked, "Just how complex does AI have to get before it can equal the consciousness of a blade of grass?" All life has a specific characteristic that causes it to work at it's own continuance -- we call this consciousness. It is unique in that it does not only ignore entropy, it seems to reverse it. Well this is the Philosophy forum, and metaphysics is part of Philosophy. Gee Moontanman; No I shouldn't. I hate it when I find that I have made an assumption, because it can cause mistakes. On the other hand, if I just receive down votes and disagreements, it is evidence that no one is really in the discussion except me. A little positive feedback and support helps. My understanding of consciousness and "God" concepts came to me through a lot of different types of investigations over several decades. If you are truly interested in what I think I have learned, then I will try to explain it. Give me a day or two to organize my thoughts. Yes, dimreepr, it will no doubt be lengthy. Gee

Ten oz; Apparently I don't have three down votes, so I can respond; although, I am rethinking my position on that matter. You asked some difficult questions. I can give you simple answers, but unless you understand how I arrived at my conclusions, you will have no reason to believe my answers. The problem is that explaining it will be lengthy, and that seems to tick people off. So what do you want? Simple answers or elaboration? Gee

CharonY; It is a pleasure to talk to someone, who is well trained and knows what they are talking about. This is what comes from watching too much television; all of those infomercials about "aging skin" led me to believe that the entire body worked that way. So are you saying that different types of cells work differently from others and can be on a different time schedule? I am not requesting a specific breakdown, just a general idea. Is it also true that hormones regulate a lot of the starting and stopping or slowing of cell growth? Following is your response to the above: This is interesting. Are you talking about clinical death where the body is still working and being supported by life support systems? Or are you saying that if we were not embalmed, as in the old days, the cells would continue for some time? Are we talking hours, days, weeks, longer? If we had something like cancer, could the cancer growth continue after we are dead and our bodies stopped producing? Weird thought. Can I assume that you have no argument with the rest of what I wrote in the above two quoted paragraphs and find it generally true? Thank you for your consideration. Gee Koti; If you think that is difficult, you should try to lead a discussion in the Religion forum on the topic "What is a 'God'", relate that topic to consciousness and then end up talking about toasters. You might try to convince someone that toasters have some relationship with consciousness, but I don't see how you can relate toasters to "God" or Religion. Also remember that we were discussing bacteria. For single-cell bacteria, cell reproduction is procreation. Gee

Koti; This is not true. They may be incapable of reproducing another person, but they are very capable of reproducing more cells. We regularly and routinely reproduce the cells in our bodies. We call it growth until we reach our maturity, then we call it maintaining our bodies. When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age, it forecasts death. When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness. Gee Bender; Fine. I am not going to argue Biology with you. Gee Ten oz; Well, that was the third down vote, so I am out of here. I intended to respond to your questions because I think you sincerely want answers, so if you are still interested send me a PM. Gee

Agreed. Now all we have to do is decide what that information is, and whether or not it is valuable to Science. Gee

Bender; So you hold a position similar to Dr. Frankenstein's, that the source of life is electricity. Interesting. Could you show me how to install a sensor, timer, and circuits in my toaster? It occurs to me that if I do it right, I could possibly have little baby toasters scooting around my counter in a few months, and if they grow fast enough, I can give them away as Christmas presents. This would save me a lot of aggravation and shopping. Of course, if they multiply too quickly (like rabbits) I would have to find a way to limit that. Maybe I could just shorten the cords on some of them so they can't reach the electrical outlets. Brilliant. Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. Gee

Ten oz; On the other hand, if people choose to ignore established fact and Science, then how much "clarity" can there be in a discussion? If I wanted fantasy, I would just pick up a good book of fiction -- lots of diversity and perspective there. No. When I mean "atheists", I say, "atheists". Is it that much trouble to ask people to read what I state instead of what they think I might mean? Well, I think that view has some truth in it. A few years back, I figured out that spirituality is actually awareness, feeling, and emotion, or what I called the second division of consciousness as explained in my thread, Consciousness and Evolution. It is my opinion that when people say "soul" and when they say "mind", they are actually talking about the same thing and just using different words. It is a matter of semantics. But when people use the word "soulmates", they are not talking about a meeting of the minds or thought; they are talking about a much deeper connection that includes emotion. The word "soul" is thought of as having more emotional emphasis than the word "mind". Mind, just like soul, is the person's self or self identity, but when we say "mind", we are generally talking about our thoughts, plans, ideas, etc. No one really knows what the parameters of mind are, or what sets those parameters, but I suspect that it has to be the body. We each have one mind/soul and one body, but there can be exceptions. Sometimes physical damage to the brain can cause a division of mind, emotional stresses as in Multiple Personality Disorders can also cause divisions of mind. And lest we forget, many mental disorders like schizophrenia seem to be caused by a break down of the divisions of mind bringing the conscious aspect into direct communication with the unconscious aspect. We treat mental disorders like schizophrenia with chemicals, mostly hormones, to try to correct these problems. So we know that chemicals and emotion are both capable of setting or resetting the parameters of mind. We also know that emotion causes the production of hormones and that hormones cause emotion -- it is circular. This led me to question whether or not emotion was relevant to the formation of mind, but I have not yet gotten an answer to that question. So I think that emotion is relevant to mind. Spirits is the understanding we have of souls that can be outside of the body. Although I have heard of people, who have out-of-body experiences, I am of the opinion that without a body this experience can not continue. So in death, this wholeness of a spirit would not be maintainable. If "God" is an interpretation of emotion, then yes, it could be interpreted this way. Gee How?

Strange; Well, Strange, there are a lot of words that mean conscious. Pick up your thesaurus and you will find many of them, to sense, to perceive, to be aware, etc., then if you go to the SEP, you will find more words to define consciousness like self-awareness, and being aware of being aware, or phenomenal consciousness, etc. Every theory of consciousness comes up with their own definitions, so which ones do you think I should choose out of the pages of information that is available? After a neurologist explained to me that all life is sentient, I tried to use that word, but a lot of people think that sentient means thinking and bacteria and daffodils do not think -- as far as I know. Everyone wants to argue about any term that I use, but all the terms mean consciousness. In a forum where everyone is bitching at me to simplify things, I don't see how I could simplify it more than by stating that I am reserving consciousness to life forms and that consciousness simply means awareness. Go to the Biology forum and ask why viruses are not life forms. Or better yet, ask CharonY why we can grow a cell from another cell, or manipulate the DNA in a cell, or clone a cell, or kill a cell, but we can not make a cell from something inanimate. We can not imbue it with the awareness that it needs to make itself continue -- consciousness. No. What I mean is that they rationalize the idea by calling it imagination or wishful thinking, or they simply believe what they want. But they do not understand it because they do not analyze it. Gee

Dimreepr; Actually, Tar and I disagreed a lot. Some of the issues we resolved, some we didn't. But he never resorted to the click-it button to make an argument -- neither did I. I miss him too. You know why he's gone don't you? The click-it squad drove him out. It's too bad he never learned to be insulting and abusive, because iNow got two positive rep points for calling me a "blowhard" and an "airhead". Gee

Koti; Actually I did. I had considered the Gaia hypothesis, panpsychism, and other theories of consciousness; I also considered going into the idea of "self", Jung's Oneness and Individualization and how that relates to the mind/soul; I also considered trying to explain the unconscious aspect of mind and how that works with emotion, the self, and how emotion, the unconscious and quantum physics all seem to disregard time, and how all of this causes the saying that "'God' has many faces", along with other ideas. But I threw all of that out because I thought it would just cause confusion. I also numbered the points so that they could be disputed individually. But all you really need to know is my summary: So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it. You might want to consider that skip reading or scanning Philosophy will not get you anywhere. Gee iNow; Again, I ask do you read? I stated the following at the start of my post: "The Religion forum is in the Philosophy section, not the Science section, for a reason, so you would need to have some understanding of Philosophy." Then I stated this at the end of my post: "You would have to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and probably some familiarity with a few of the theories of consciousness in order to understand my above statements." What do you think those two statements mean? How long do you think it takes to get a "very good understanding of consciousness"? Years. Well, I don't intend to "belittle" anyone and am willing to work hard to help someone understand a concept. But there are not a lot of abstract thinkers, and they would have to have a passing familiarity with logic. Bullshit. His contempt for Philosophy was well known, which is why I never paid much attention to him. I don't know what he thought about Religion, but saw him in a video years ago where he described the "God" concept as too parochial -- that was the word he used, "parochial". I understood the psychological ramifications of his statement immediately because Religion, "God" concepts, and psychology are closely related, but I didn't understand how brilliant he actually was until I saw the magnet video. He was definitely an abstract thinker with a brilliant mind -- his passing is our loss. I haven't figured out your point yet. If your point was that I am not a nice person, then hell, I knew that. My husband was the nice one. Do you remember that people like to kill off philosophers? (chuckle) Then please introduce me to someone who understands consciousness "well enough". I would love to meet him/her. Are we done with this stupid argument now? Gee

iNow; There is a documentary video floating around the forum where Feynman tries to explain magnets. He states that he can give an easy answer, but it won't give any real understanding. Then he explains that in order to really understand it, you would have to study physics and probably be one of his students. What is the difference in what I said and what he said? There is only one difference; you think he is brilliant and you think I am an idiot. The attitude problem is yours. If you go back and read my post again, but this time pretend that the writer is someone who is knowledgeable and a little brilliant, you will find no difference in what I said and what he said. Do you read? I stated very clearly that the only reason I am in the Religion forum is because this "individual" decided to "follow" me. I avoid the Religion forum because the members posting here seem to want to prove a point, but they don't know what the point is -- they don't understand it. Gee Lasse; Well, if you want to know, I will try to explain. OK. If you understand that when I say "consciousness", I am not talking about the medical definition of that term, i.e., conscious, unconscious, comatose, etc. I am talking about the philosophical definition which simply means awareness. To be conscious of something is to be aware of something -- they are synonyms. This is a good start, but I limit my understanding of consciousness to life forms. I know that there are other theories, but I can not study everything. So, as to life forms, I will just try to describe the most basic changes. 1. Simplest life, like bacteria, is conscious of itself only. It is aware of the need to maintain itself and proves this by ingesting "food" and procreating. It is like an infant and is only aware of need. 2. When life develops senses, eyes or ears, etc., it becomes aware of it's surroundings. At this point it also develops some kind of brain, so that the sensory input has somewhere to dump the information. This life also starts to make choices -- should I try to climb over that rock or go around it? 3. The next step is what most people would call consciousness, when we become aware of knowledge. We no longer have to see the rock that is impossible to climb, because we can remember it and plan a route around it. We can use knowledge to plan, to create math, and to study intangible ideas. So at this level, we can have knowledge, be aware of that knowledge, and be able to manipulate that knowledge. 4. The next step is where we become aware of emotion, and it is the hardest step to explain. All life experiences feeling/emotion from the very simplest life forms on, as is evidenced by survival instincts, which all life has and which are all activated by feeling/emotion. But experiencing feeling/emotion and being aware of feeling/emotion are two different things, just as experiencing the rock mentioned above is different from the memory and awareness of that rock. Or maybe like when you are in surgery, and although your body is cut and experiences pain, you have no memory or awareness of that pain because it is stopped by anesthetics. This is when we become spiritual, when we try to make memories of our feelings and emotions -- to acknowledge them because we are aware of them. But how does one interpret ideas about feeling and emotion in the mind? We can see a tree, then picture a tree in our minds. But can you experience love, and then picture love in your mind? We often use art, poetry, dance, song, and architecture to express feeling and emotion. But expressing it and knowing it are two different things. Emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that we are not conscious of it. But we do experience it and know that it happened, so we attach ideas, memories, pictures, and thoughts to our emotions. This is why emotional memory is so unreliable, because a change in our emotions can actually change our memories. So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it. Gee PS I tried to counter your negative vote on this post, but I don't know if it worked. Whoever put that neg rep on it should take if off. There was nothing wrong with your post.

iNow; Thank you for your nickel's worth of free advice. Well, I am important to me and annoying, especially when irritated. Do you think I have an attitude problem? Do you remember that it took me seven full pages to convince members of this forum that ALL LIFE IS CONSCIOUS? And that was after Science and Philosophy confirmed that all life is conscious. I understand that many people think that Philosophy is about arguing, but it needs to be a valid argument. Most people realize that the "God" concept is related to consciousness, but they don't know what that relationship is -- they don't understand it. Since I have studied this most of my life, I have a pretty fair understanding that I would be willing to share with anyone who wants to know. Better yet, I might learn something from someone who actually understands aspects of Religion and "God" that I don't. So the questions are: Does anyone really want to know or discuss this? And would they believe me if I tried to explain it? Not likely. You are a science guy and you like evidence, so; 1. look at the first page of the Religion forum, read the titles, and tell me how many of the threads are actually about Religion and how many are actually about Religion v Science. 2. Go to Sci-man's profile and read his opinions on Religion then read this thread and tell me if you think this is an honest sincere inquiry. If I have an attitude problem, it was handed to me. Gee

Sci-man; I am wondering why you are posting in the Religion forum asking these questions, because according to your profile information, you don't like Religion. I can answer your questions, but doubt that you will understand the answers. The Religion forum is in the Philosophy section, not the Science section, for a reason, so you would need to have some understanding of Philosophy. Please note that my answers will not make religious people happy, nor will they make scientists happy, as both Religion and Science have theories about "God" and both have some truth in them, but both are inaccurate. Also remember that the first down-vote will stop my explanations. I am only here because you are "following" me, so I suspect that you want information from me. "God" can not be a being. Jesus did not claim to be a "God" -- others claimed it. Buddha did not claim to be "God". An interpretation of consciousness. This is why I always put the word "God" in quotes, because I am referring to whatever the reader thinks "God" is. A "God" can be in the same way that consciousness can be. The same proof that there is of consciousness, which is very little -- except for the evidence of life. Way back "when", there were not many, if any, storybooks for children. Books, or scrolls, were precious and rare; people who could read and write were more rare. So we can know that things that were written down were important or valuable information for the people back "when". "God" is most definitely real, just as consciousness is real. "God" may be real, but He does not exists, as far as I can tell. Now do you understand any of this? (chuckle) You would have to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and probably some familiarity with a few of the theories of consciousness in order to understand my above statements. Gee

Lasse; Please note that "most likely his/her life is already full of lies" is an assumption. There is no reason to believe this is true. That could be deception by giving a half truth. Under some circumstances it could be a white lie, under other circumstances it could be deception. White lies are lies that are designed to not cause conflict, when telling the truth or whole truth would not do any good, but might do unnecessary harm. Like if someone said, "I baked your favorite cake -- chocolate!", and I know that my favorite cake is not chocolate, but I like chocolate well enough. So I say, "I like chocolate." Diplomats and Ambassadors are experts in white lies. You are assuming that there is an alternative. This is not always the case. Gee Tub; Phi for All was concerned about "bickering" and assumed the questions in the thread had been answered. I am happy with what I learned about, for lack of a better word, I will call them "factual truths" as they reflect our reality and experiences; and "emotional truths" as this is where right and wrong usually come in to play. We all know that emotions can corrupt truth, as Science has been fighting that battle forever, but little has been stated about when factual truths can corrupt emotional truths. I thought I could broach that idea with Religion, but Religion makes some people a little crazy, so that was a bad idea. I think that I can show how factual truth can corrupt emotional truth with law. We will see. Well, I didn't have the idea until I read your post. Reading your thoughts was stimulating and opened new areas of thought for me. This is a right/wrong circumstance that is not related to emotion. I don't see this right/wrong issue as being a problem like the "truth, right, and wrong" that caused this thread, as this is simply a matter of perspective and can be resolved with simple communication. The problem I saw was where factual truth corrupts emotional truth, or emotional truth corrupts factual truth. There was a case many years ago, maybe 20 years, that should show the problems that factual truths can cause for emotional truths. This case was headlined in the news for a year or so, and I am sorry to say that I don't remember the names of the people involved. There was a husband and wife with two or three young children; the wife died unexpectedly; then immediately after her death another man tried to lay claim to one of the children. We will call this second man John. John claimed that he had an affair with the wife, she became pregnant and informed him that it was his child. He wanted DNA testing to confirm his paternity, so that he could sue for custody. The husband denied John the right to DNA testing claiming that he loved the child and the child was his, which was true. The child was legally his because it was born within the bounds of marriage. This case was hotly debated in the newspapers for a long time. I had already studied Family Law, so I was familiar with the problems that could be generated by a case like this, and I would not want to be the Judge, who had to decide it. Science has advanced enough that DNA testing is considered factual evidence and accepted in Courts. If the Judge denies John the right to testing, it could be a problem when the Judge comes up for re-election. If the Judge approves testing, a whole new bunch of potential problems arise. If the test comes up negative, it would seem like much ado about nothing, except that the Judgment which allowed testing would set a precedent which could allow for testing in other cases as well. If the test comes up positive, it makes a real mess out of everyone's lives. John, who stole another man's wife's affections, would be rewarded for that theft with the theft of the other man's child. The husband, who just lost his wife, would also lose the belief in his wife's faithfulness and also lose a daughter. The siblings would lose a mother and a sister and faith in their mother's love. The child in question would lose a mother, a father, siblings, and a home. So sometimes truth, even factual truth, is not a good thing. Gee

I'm sorry, I thought that your title stated "scientist", but see that it is "genius". My mistake. I had always assumed that you earned your rep points in Science, but see that I was wrong. It appears that you mostly post in the "opinion" type of forums, which is fine, but in Philosophy "opinion" has a rather specific meaning. When you post an opinion, you need to also include some evidence, reasoning, or logic that caused you to form that opinion. That evidence, reasoning, or logic would be what another member would dispute, if they disagree with your opinion. Yes, challenge my thoughts. But in order to do so, you must specify which thoughts you are challenging. Complaining about my verbosity is not challenging my thoughts. It is complaining about my style of writing. Since this is not an English class, it is not an acceptable challenge -- it is just criticism, and not very constructive criticism. Gee

iNow; I am not sure it is fair to blame this on Philosophy; remember, I did work in law for a very long time. Have you ever tried to read one of those User License Agreements? Written by lawyers. Gee Tub; I very seriously doubt that Dimreepr has a vocabulary problem; we just don't connect in our thinking and our background knowledge is very different. I am the one who has a vocabulary problem and often find myself talking around a word because I can't remember the word that explains it more succinctly. Ten plus years ago, I had a major attack of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which took away more than half of my vocabulary; some rather specific cognitive skills; my vision for a few months, and when it returned I was dyslexic; my strength; and my ability to work. This was six months after my husband died of cancer, so I spent years in a fog. It took years of work, hard work, to learn to read again and restore most of my vocabulary, but I never regained all of my learning ability or cognitive skills. I went from being a person, who could learn whatever I wanted and retain it, to a person who keeps a dictionary, thesaurus, and a note pad at my fingertips. Neurologists tell me that "pathways" were damaged. My thought is that MS got into my brain and dumped all of my carefully filed information all over the damned floor, hid entire file cabinets behind walls, and closed off entire rooms with rubble. So yes, I am a little wordy sometimes. People can learn to deal with it -- I did. If you are looking for information about consciousness -- as it relates to the brain -- then iNow is one of the most, if not the most, informed members in this forum. He is very intelligent and definitely fluent in "Venusian Sanskrit". But he is a science guy through and through, so he does not study an aspect of consciousness that Science does not study. It was information that iNow showed to Tar, who showed it to me, that helped me to understand why innocent children can not acknowledge or confront evil. The information came from a documentary about a Dr. Rebecca Something (I'll look for it) showing the development of mind in small children. It showed the progression of a child's development of the self, then the recognition that there are other selves, then finally the understanding that those other selves can have an internal intent. I had already determined that "evil" is a second person designation, so it requires an ability to recognize that second person's intent, which a young child does not possess. I have considered your idea that truth is the path that we take to reconnect, and I see value in it. Very young children have truth in their innocence and ignorance of worldly ideas, such as in The Emperor's New Clothes. (A child's story about an Emperor who gets swindled into buying "exceptional" cloth that is invisible, has clothes made from this cloth, and walks around naked until a child points out that he is naked.) The innocence that we acquire in our old age is not born of ignorance, but of experience. We have walked many miles in many pairs of shoes, so when we confront something that others might call "evil", we can understand it from a first person perspective because we have Been There, Done That. So whether from a child's ignorance of intent, or from an older person's understanding of intent, both offer us truth and innocence. It is nice to know that chivalry is not dead. Are you nobility or just noble? Don't answer that -- it would be off topic. Gee Dimreepr; You made it very clear in my thread Consciousness and Evolution that you did not like to read my too long posts. It is my thought that you are not Administration or a Moderator, and you do not even claim to be a philosopher, but claim to be a scientist, so I do not see any compulsion or requirement for you to read my threads or posts. If you do not like to read them, then don't read them. Gee

Per my promise to Eise, the following is a copy of a post that I wrote many years ago. I copied it from another forum, and it should be considered as a first draft, as I can already see that I made changes in my ideas since that time. There is no reference to Established truths like Laws of Physics, Laws of Nature, Universals, or even Mathematics, and I had not yet determined that emotion is real, so there is no reference to Emotional truths. Please note that I was not looking to find truths, but looking to categorize and rate as to reliability the truths that I understood. So please consider: Like all philosophers, I have spent a lot of time contemplating "truth", and find it to be illusive. Truth is not an absolute, so THE truth, or absolute truth, or ultimate truth, is illusion or idealism. Truth is a reflection of reality, and it is necessary to understand it in order to acquire knowledge; but it is not static, it is forever changing as reality is forever changing. Some truths seem to be more stable however; so, I broke truth into categories of reliability: Simple Truth, Conceptual Truth, Acceptable Truth, Common Truth, Classic Truth, and Philosopher's Truth. These have become my measures of truth. Simple truth is the opposite of false and lies. This category of truth is very transient and can turn false rather quickly. An example is; I am alive--truth, but it may not be truth in an hour. So this truth is only relative to the "now" of whenever the truth was made or told. Conceptual truth is truth that has been designated and agreed upon, and as such it is a very reliable truth. Examples of this kind of truth are measurements, directions, language, etc. But then true north adjusts itself, gallons are now liters, and inches are centimeters, so this truth can also change. One aspect of Conceptual truth that is convenient, is that whatever breaks an established truth also usually supplies the material needed to recreate a better truth, so it is still very reliable. Acceptable truth is truth that can be verified in at least three different ways, preferably from three different kinds of perspectives and is an objective truth. This truth requires evidence and is commonly used by science, Courts, and people in general to establish a truth. An example; What if I saw a poisonous snake on my couch? It looks like a snake, I am afraid, but it does not make sense to my mind because poisonous snakes do not live in my area. I do not accept this truth that is offered to me, I check. I watch the snake or throw something at it to see if it is a snake or one of my grandson's toys, then follow up that test with the appropriate action after I have discovered an acceptable truth. Most science falls under the category of acceptable truth. This does not mean that acceptable truth can not change, as it can and does, science often revises their own truths (facts) to make more acceptable truths when they discover more information. Acceptable truth is more than just "now"; it is a truth that can be relied upon for the foreseeable future. What I can not accept as Acceptable truth is a "truth" that is established through only one kind of perspective, as this can too easily be falsehood. An example would be a truth based solely on mental deliberations, no matter how logical those deliberations are, they are likely to be rationalization rather than truth. An example of the physical would be something like statistics, no matter how valid, the interpretation can be invalid. An example of spiritual would be a belief in anything that has nothing to support it, as that would look like opinion to me. To be an Acceptable truth, I would need to have some kind of corroborating evidence from another kind of perspective--preferably three perspectives. Example: The police find two people dead at a table, both shot with the same gun, and the gun in the hand of one of them. Many people would accept that one person shot the other, then themself. But I would want a motive for the shooting and a witness that could state that there were not three people originally at that table. Common truth is truth that is common to at least 90% of a category of people. It is a subjective truth and must be treated as such. There are some philosophers and scientists, who believe that there is no such thing as subjective truth--that is not so. Common truth is knowledge or behavior shared by people who share a commonality, and can include; who people are, what people are, where people live, and common experiences of people. It should be considered that people's Common truths are intermingled as two people can be religious and nonreligious, employer and employee, single and married, but both share the same illness giving them a commonality. So why is Common truth worthy of consideration? Because Common truths can give us knowledge and understanding that could only be otherwise acquired by being all things and knowing all things. Since none of us are God, that is an impossibility, so we acquire truth, knowledge, and understanding where we can find it. Example: Most babies will study the image of a face; this is a Common truth. If your baby does not, it may be of no consequence, but it may also be a good idea to check out baby's vision or watch for signs of Autism. There is a danger in viewing Common truth in an objective manner. One can not assume that because a person is a child that they will want to play with another person who is also a child, or that one person who is an employee will identify with another person who is an employee. Common truth is subjective, to view commonality in an objective manner is to walk a path that can lead straight into the ignorance of prejudice. Common truth is also transient and lasts only as long as the commonality, but the knowledge obtained through the commonality is valid and can be viewed objectively. So Common truth can give us information, facts, knowledge, and understanding that can be relied upon as truth for the foreseeable future. Classic truth is just what it sounds like--classic. Whether common or acceptable, these truths have survived as truth for at least a thousand years, and so they are classic truth. Classic truth is no more reliable than Acceptable or Common truth, but it does have the test of time on it's side, so to overturn Classic truth, one needs to have more proof than would be required to overturn an Acceptable or Common truth. The longer a Classic truth is accepted, the more proof is required to overturn it. A specific example of Classic truth would be the idea that the world is flat. It took a long time to overturn that truth. But Classic truth can be relied upon as it is initially an Acceptable or Common truth that has been validated by time. Philosopher's truth is truth that has been proven to be Acceptable, Common, and Classic. If it does not meet the requirements of all three, then it is not Philosopher's truth. My intention is to categorize a truth so reliable and strong that philosophers can use it to challenge other truths, use it to help build new truths, and to base wisdom upon. A specific example of Philosopher's truth would be that humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. In order to overturn a Philosopher's truth, evidence from both, Common truth and Acceptable truth, would have to be brought to bear, because if evidence invalidated only one aspect of truth, then the Philosopher's truth would simply downgrade to Classic truth. I think that Philosopher's truth could be as reliable as any law of nature. Occasionally there is a truth that can not be proven, is not commonly known, and is new, and so it does not fit into the above categories. This can be called a possibility, or a probability, or a theory, or hypothesis, but it can not be called truth. It would be difficult to be a person, who has possession of such a truth, always wondering if they are mad or brilliant, but such is the nature of truth. So, members, how reliable to you think my measures of truth are? Gee