Gees

Phi for All; Do you see the words, may have, that I underlined? They are a really big clue that your above post is speculation. Just thought I would give you that tip, you being a Moderator and all. Of course, we don't call it speculation in Philosophy, we usually call that armchair philosophy, where people sit around and think up clever things that expose their brilliance or wit, without the benefit of things like study and research. On the other hand, bringing unicorns into a thread on "God" concepts is not all that clever, and could be considered frivolous. If I wanted to wreck this thread, I think I would bring up trees. Yes, trees have been here since before people, they exist all over the world, and are here now, so that covers consistency and commonality. We all know that trees make people want to gather under them to have picnics, so that explains the origin of church gatherings. My Grandmother used to say, "Stop the pity party and get down off the cross. We can use the wood." She was referring to the cross that Christ died on, which was wood, so there is a causal relationship. Yep. If I wanted to wreck this thread, that is how I would do it. The question is: Why would you want to wreck this thread? Gee

Ten oz; Hi. Good to talk to you again. By the way, I did write that post to explain why I don't think that spirits/ghosts can continue indefinitely, but have not yet developed the courage to post it. I assume that even discussing it will tick off a lot of people. Star Wars is a fad. If in a thousand years, people are still buying Star Wars toys, except as precious antiques, then we can talk. Why do you always go to the "underlined" bad stuff? Do you not understand that ideas and emotions can also be good, or are you idealistic enough to think that we can actually keep the good and dispose of the bad? Your logic is getting lost. You state that human ideas impact the world, effect countless lives, are "merely" emotions/ideas, and are not tangible. So do they have an effect or not? If they have an effect, then they are real. In the other room, my family is watching Les Miserables, which is an opera about the French Revolution. Watch that movie and then tell me that emotions and ideas are not causal and real. Sexism and racism are deeply rooted in the unconscious aspect of mind and always have been, because that is where we note the differences between "self" and "other", so they are indeed classic, real and true. All bias and prejudice comes either from the unconscious or from personal experience. That does not mean that the conclusions that we draw about the differences are valid or accurate. We are back to that problem that you have with authority figures. We discussed this before, and I noted then that it is a good thing to keep out of your Philosophy because personal biases bias thinking. Gee Eise; Thank you for commenting. In your post, I bolded eight different instances of the word, exist, in the hope that I could get some clarity on your position. You do remember that the OP explained that "God" is real but does not exist? Gee

Rangerx; I know your post was not directed to me, but I enjoyed reading it. Some of Ed Ricketts' ideas are in Wiki, which was also an interesting read. I think that his studies in ecology reflected his Philosophy and caused him to have an advanced understanding of ecology. So thanks for sharing. I also agree with most of your post, but there was one point that I thought you might want more information on, as follows: Note that I underlined "It's when we put a face on it" which I assume is talking about the "God" concept. I am not sure if it is possible to NOT put a face on it. While working on Understanding the "God" Concept, I outlined three different reasons why we personify "God". The first reason is that we think of things as being static, unmoving, unless something or someone moves or activates it. This makes the "God" concept a "who" or a force. This is why we often end up with a "who", that created the Universe. The second reason is because Religion studies consciousness, but specifically studies emotion and calls it "God". Emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind, which is weird, not rational, and difficult to understand. I understand little about it myself, but I know that one of the quirks of the unconscious is that in its thinking, if you could call it that, "the part represents the whole". This works out to, a person's consciousness is representative of "God's" consciousness. Or they are the same thing? Then if you throw in an understanding of the "self" concept, you end up with a cultural "God" wearing the face of you and your culture. Like I said, weird, but that is the way the unconscious works. The third reason is that most people could not understand the "God" concept without a persona. I estimate that only about 15 percent of the population, not including children, would be able to understand the "God" concept as an abstract issue. That leaves about 85 percent, and all children, unable to be taught about life, death, the nature of Nature, and morality. This is not reasonable. Gee

Studiot; Well, I would like to agree with you, but don't think I honestly can. The best I have been able to do so far is to limit the influence of any specific Religion, as it is their interpretations that cause the "creator", "meddler", and "manager" ideas. Some of the managing ideas can be disposed of because they are more about a specific Religion than about "God", but if the theories of consciousness that state that consciousness is the cause of reality are true, or even partially true, then that makes the "God" concept the creator. "God" is an interpretation of consciousness. I am sorry. A lot of company showed up and I cut my response to you short. I did not adequately answer your query. Religion interprets consciousness as "God", and that means ALL consciousness that is not directed, or invented, by the human rational mind. That means all thought, all knowledge, all motion or emotion, all life, or everything that is mental or has a mental aspect. Remember that just a few hundred years ago, "The Devil made me do it." was actually thought to be possible, even probable. We did not understand the unconscious aspect of mind and had no idea of how it influences us and other life -- the unconscious is also where instincts come from. Also consider that Laws of Physics and Laws of Nature would be attributed to "God" because that is knowledge. Consider that Laws of Physics apply everywhere, are everywhere, but exist nowhere just like "God". If you mix, or bundle, all of these ideas together, then "God" would indeed be the creator, meddler, manager, and the source of everything. People generally understand that physical things can be broken down into their components, but they tend to view mental things as whole or maybe magical and unknowable. Until we can learn to break down the mental into components and give explanations for them, there is no hope of ever relieving "God" of His many functions. Years back, I was corresponding with a University Professor, who taught Physics and also held a degree in Philosophy; he explained to me that thought has no power. You can take the greatest thoughts known to man, all the knowledge that anyone could need or want, and write it down in a book, or save it on a CD -- and it would do nothing. Without a reader for the book or a player for the CD, there is nothing but ink, paper, and plastic. Thought has no power to do anything without awareness. It amazes me that people always associate consciousness with thought, but thought has no power. Consciousness is awareness. This is the reason there are so many "Parts" in my understanding, because I have been working to breakdown consciousness into components for some time now. In the different Parts I try to explain how that specific component relates to the "God" idea. But it is not finished. Gee

Studiot; I am going to try this again. It has been a while since we talked, and I enjoy talking to you even when we disagree. Brave or foolish, we will see, but I appreciate the + and will probably need it soon. Well, I would like to agree with you, but don't think I honestly can. The best I have been able to do so far is to limit the influence of any specific Religion, as it is their interpretations that cause the "creator", "meddler", and "manager" ideas. Some of the managing ideas can be disposed of because they are more about a specific Religion than about "God", but if the theories of consciousness that state that consciousness is the cause of reality are true, or even partially true, then that makes the "God" concept the creator. "God" is an interpretation of consciousness. If you take the ideas expressed above about the nature of Nature and consider that Nature manages to cause it's own continuance through motion and change, and then mix that idea with hope, justice, and fairness, you end up with a meddler. If this were easy, someone else would have figured it out, and it would bore me. You are impatient, but it may add to your charm. You were also next in line. Thank you. That sounds like a compliment. I do tire easily, but I also give a lot of thought to the ideas presented by other members, and will often investigate the points they bring up. Or the points that I want to make in my responses, as I don't like to give out bad information. I like to learn. I took a cursory look at the scrabble theory, but could not find the source of power that activates it. What is the power source? Gee

Beecee; Well, I can see your point and there is a lot of truth in it, but consider some things. In the first place, there was always Science as long as there was curiosity. No, it was not the Science that we have today, but it was still Science. People studied their reality, they studied Nature even before cultivating agriculture, they worked experiments to see what would work, but they did this under the authority of Religion, which was the first real Discipline. Eventually Philosophy split off from Religion, then Science split off from Philosophy, so now we have three distinct Disciplines. When all knowledge processed through Religion, questions about the "awe and mystery of the universe" naturally came up, and Religion did its best to answer those questions -- getting some of them dead wrong. This is the crux of the problem between Science and Religion; Science is constantly having to prove that their understanding of reality is much more valid -- and even a half-wit should be able to see it. So why would intelligent religious people insist on their version of reality? THAT is the pertinent question. I study consciousness, which means that I also study "God" ideas, which means that I look into Religions. Science uses experiments to determine facts; Philosophy is a little different as it uses commonalities and repeat patterns to determine truths; both Disciplines understand the importance of consistency in their determinations. So when I looked at Religions, I was looking for commonalities, repeat patterns and consistency in their teachings. What I found commonly and consistently throughout their history is that Religions teach about life, death, Nature, and morality. I think that the explanations various Religions taught about the Universe are an ancillary result of trying to explain life, as life has to begin somewhere. When we examine life, death, Nature, and morality, what we find is the commonality of emotion; they all have a significant impact on emotion or work through e/motion. My conclusions about Religion is that it studies emotion, as that is the core concept through all of the Religions. Is there evidence of this? Sure. Think of the actual work of Religions; soup kitchens, grief counseling, charities, hospitals, orphanages, etc., they talk about charity, hope, love, forgiveness, etc., and they cause bonding, which is what Sunday church is really about. Of course there is also negative emotion. So back to that "pertinent question", emotion does not like change, does not accept change, but will consider it in 100 or 1,000 years. (chuckle) No. It is evidence of Religion. Religion is evidence of "God" ideas. I think it is Part 4 that explains why we give "God" a persona, but I can not explain it here in this post -- too long. Good point. I like Spinoza. His work is the closest that I have found to my own ideas on consciousness, but I always questioned whether or not there is a "Spinoza god", and suspect that most people simply did not understand him. Einstein was a holistic thinker, as is evidenced by his theory of "Relativity"; I am a holistic thinker, and I suspect that Spinoza was also. Holistic thinkers focus on what relates, or relativity, so I am sure that Einstein understood Spinoza better than most. Yes, Nature is real, but it is the nature of Nature that Religion focuses on. Nature is constant motion and change; it takes with one hand and gives with the other like good and bad, yin and yang, God and the Devil. It is this activity of Nature that Religion studies. Examples: Early people often settled by water because food was abundant there; floods and tsunamis wiped them out occasionally. good/bad. Thunderstorms and lightening can cause a fire and burn down a forest, but the lightning also releases, is it Nitrogen?, that feeds and fertilizes the plants. Storms also provide water for new growth, and the dead foliage provides homes for small life forms and fertilizer for new growth. bad/good Men go to war and fight and kill raising their testosterone levels. When the fighting is over, they grab the first person they can find and shove themselves into that person creating new life -- also a result of an abundance of testosterone. This is why rape follows war. death/life We must kill to eat out of necessity, but killing each other is wrong and killing for plain meanness is wrong. death/life There are probably thousands of examples of how Nature takes with one hand while giving with the other. It is rarely fair and never just. This is what Religion studies, the nature of Nature, while trying to make sense of it all. I can agree with a lot of this. Your above statement is most of the reason why I decided that I may post Part 2. Gee Phi for All; Well, if you can show me that unicorns have had a causal effect on young girls worldwide for at least a millennium, then you might have a point. If I used "common definitions of god(s)", then I would be arguing Religion. I am not religious. Are you stating that Archelogy is not a branch of Science? Gee

Moontanman; I must apologize. When I asked for a few days to organize my thoughts so I could explain my understanding of consciousness, I was being an idiot. You probably thought that I forgot about it, but I did not. I have been working on it for months. The subject of consciousness is massive, more than Science knows, more than Philosophy knows, and more than "God" ideas. I had thought to explain my limited 'understanding', but have already written six different "Parts", have two more that I know I have to write, and possibly more. Part 1 explains how the "God" concept is real, yet does not exist. IMO Part 2 explains that most of the theories of consciousness, even materialistic ones, actually support the "God" concept and are unbelievably circular in their thinking. IMO Part 3 explains how the first division, knowledge, thought, and memory, relate to the "God" concept -- what is true, what can not possibly be true, and why. IMO Part 4 explains why we give "God" a persona and why that persona is cultural. IMO Part 5 explains how the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, relate to the "God" concept -- again showing what is true, what can not possibly be true, and why. IMO Part 6 delves into the mind-numbing problem of "self" and how that relates to the "God" concept. I will have to write one or two parts that deal specifically with emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind, and how they relate to the "God" concept. Then I will finish it off by explaining how Religion attempts to answer the questions about life, death, Nature, and morality, that were brought up in Part 1. The good part in all of this is that it is forcing me to organize and clarify my thoughts on 50 years of study. The bad part is that if I manage to get it all written down, condensed and clarified, it would be way too big to post -- 20 to 30 pages -- and we are not talking thesis quality, just a general explanation of why I think the things I do. So I am not prepared to fully explain what little I actually understand about consciousness and "God" ideas. I apologize again for asking you to wait. Part 1 was as ready as I can make it, so I posted it, and considering the responses that I have had so far, I may post Part 2, but I'm not sure it's ready to share. Well, psychology has a lot to say on that subject, and thinks that we relate the omnipotent "God" idea to the omnipotent parents of our infancy. Although I suspect there is a lot of truth in that idea, I do not include it in my studies. I predominantly study consciousness and how the "God" idea relates to consciousness. But you are correct in that we all try to teach our children how to survive in life, so if the culture is violent, or if the parent's personal experiences are that they have been violated, it can lead to violent disciplining. Gee

This post was written in response to queries from Lasse and is part of an explanation that I promised to Moontanman in the thread "What is a God" presented by Sci-man. It is too large to post in that thread and slightly off the topic, so I started a new thread. This post is in no way an attempt to validate the "God" idea, nor is it an attempt to invalidate the "God" idea, it is simply an attempt to understand the "God" idea. Part 1 of I think that most of us have questioned the "God" concept at one time or other; I was raised Christian and started my questioning 50 years ago in my teens. Even people, who were not raised with a religion, are inundated with all kinds of information about "God" concepts from friends, family, social connections, and from the media, so we all have been exposed to information and disinformation on this subject. Religious people will often state something to the effect that "God" obviously exists because it would take a "God" to create existence -- which is a self-validating circular argument. Non-religious people will often state that "God" as explained can not possibly exist for various reasons -- which is not a much better argument, as it uses an admittedly invalid "God" concept to invalidate "God". Neither argument impresses me much. First let me state that I agree that a “God” can not possibly be on everyone’s side when there is a conflict, cannot possibly be responsible for the entire Universe and also have a personal relationship with each and every one of us; cannot possibly be everywhere and nowhere, and can not possibly wear the many faces that represent the various cultures that worship the different "God" concepts. There are so many things that we have been taught about “God” that are impossible, we often come to the conclusion that “God” can not possibly exist. I agree. Neither Buddha nor Jesus claimed to be a "God", and there is no benevolent being hovering above the Universe shining love down upon us. The “God” that we have been taught about can not exist. So “God” is not real, right? This is where the first problem comes in; I have determined that something is real if it is causal, if it can cause an effect -- which makes the “God” concept very real, as historically there has been a tremendous amount of effect. I have read the arguments that state that there is no evidence of any “God”, but this is nonsense. There is evidence all over the world that dates back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, icons, symbols, totems, texts, scrolls, etc., and personal testimony. “God” concepts permeate our history and are part of almost every culture, society, and place where people gather. These concepts are often causal in taking down nations and building nations. That is a lot of evidence. It is so much evidence that archeologists will actively search for any reference to Religion and expect to find it when digging into ancient cultures. It is very rare to find an exception like the Piraha (if the Piraha is a valid exception). Many will say that the above is evidence of Religion, not of a "God", but all Religions study and teach about some "God" or "Gods"; the ideas are certainly related. Which is causal? Do Religions cause the idea of "God/s", or do "God/s" cause Religions to explain the idea? Again, I think we must look to the evidence. Almost all of recorded history makes references to "Gods", archeology actively seeks evidence of "Gods" in prerecorded history, and the Lionman statue is almost 40,000 years old, so we are talking about a long old history of "Gods", which is too consistent to be considered coincidence. It is certainly not a fad. Faddish or cult type Religions either never take a good hold, or they die off in a few generations, so Religions that survive are filling a need, which is what causes them to survive. What is this need? Is it directed by a "God"? Or to explain a "God"? If we look at Religions, we find many different examples of "Gods", but we also find basic commonalities. We find that Religions explain life, death (including the supernatural), the nature of Nature, and morality; this is what they all study and teach about. Because life, death, Nature, and morality are very real, if these ideas are bundled together under the authority and auspices of a "God", then that makes the "God" concept very real. It would be reasonable to say that "God" represents the active aspects of life, death, Nature, and morality. This is where the "God of the Gaps" idea comes in as we attempt to "unbundle" these concepts. From the early "fertility Gods" through the various animal, sun, and human "Gods", and then on to the "invisible God", many ideas have evolved and changed as we evolved and our understanding grew, but the core concepts have never changed. Life, death, Nature, and morality have always existed from early man on, so these core issues caused a need to understand and justify the rightness of it all, causing "magical" ideas, which caused the "God" concepts which caused Religions to form to explain them. Religions did not cause the "God" concepts. It would be more accurate to say that Religions interpreted these concepts. There is an argument that Religions spread their concepts, thereby causing the "God" concepts, and I think this has some truth to it, but only some. We are always happy to borrow a better idea from our neighbor, so a Religion that has a better or more thorough theology, or appears to have a more powerful "God", could replace a less developed Religion. But just as there are igloos and wickiups, tents and palaces, teepees and townhouses, to satisfy the needs of shelter and safety, there would have been many different interpretations by Religions worldwide, to satisfy the needs of understanding life, death, Nature, and morality. So although I agree that Religions can and do spread, there would not have been a central cause where Religion created the "God" concept. There are a lot of things that are real, but do not actually exist, like freedom, or like math, which is very real in Nature, but did not actually exist until we invented numbers and symbols to represent the concepts. Many concepts are real, but do not actually exist; "God" is one of them. Although the idea is more complex than what I have stated above, this is my current understanding of how "God" is real, and yet does not exist. Gee

Straw man? Are you sure? I am wondering if you think that toasters are related to "God", or if you missed the point entirely and do not realize that only his first post was on topic. iNow wields a lot of power in this forum, so if he wants to take a thread off topic, he can and no one will check him. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely -- only integrity can stop this corruption. Gee

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