Gees

Ten oz; First, I would like to thank you for starting this thread; it has proven very interesting and I am learning things. Second, I seem to be typing in the thread instead of the posting area and have no idea why or how to get back. (chuckle) Regarding the above, I agree and disagree with you. Your statement that adrenaline speeds up the thought process is a good one -- most people don't really get that. But when it speeds it up, it turns thinking into emotion, and emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind -- not the conscious. So you can't really say that it is "under the purview of thought" because there is no way we can think about it, or even be consciously aware of anything other than the feeling. Don't you watch the news? Police all over the country are getting in trouble because they "think" they are in danger, that they "think" they see a nonexistent weapon, so they shoot to defend themselves. They are rarely convicted and often not even prosecuted. All they have to do is convince people that they genuinely "thought" they were in danger -- feared they were in danger. Agreed. A learning curve is most definitely involved. Is there some reason that you believe that instincts can't learn? Or maybe that they can not advance? If so, then how does evolution work? Earlier in this thread, there were two posts regarding this issue, one by Mordred and one by String Junky. They were fascinating. I should actually go back and put "up" votes on each of them. One of the things I noted, as I gave a quick review of those ideas, was that "stress" was involved in the changes. Stress is emotion and emotion works through the unconscious -- we do not "think" emotion -- we react to it. Instincts work more through knowledge than through thought. Tub; I think I have to agree with you as thought is generally related to thinking, or an idea that comes to us. The problem with emotion is that it works directly though the unconscious, so it never really comes to us until after the event is over and we try to work out what happened. We are not aware of the processes of the unconscious mind. This is true as far as it goes; training can rework instinctive reactions, but it is important to note that training does not remove instinctive reactions. In order to remove the instincts, you would have to remove the emotions and probably the chemicals that strongly relate to those emotions. An example of retraining instincts might be: You are driving on an icy road and your car starts to slide out of your control. Out-of-control cars are dangerous, so you would instinctively try to stop it -- hit the brakes. Experience and training teaches us that hitting the brakes can be disastrous, so instead you learn to steer into the slide and regain control of the vehicle. Training does not always work. Take the example of soldiers. Since wars first started, there has always been rape after war; this is well documented throughout history. Why is that? There have been a lot of theories, but I think that it is instinctive. Consider that when warriors fight, their adrenaline and testosterone levels rise significantly. When the fighting is over, these levels do not immediately return to normal, so the survivors grab the first person that they can find and shove themselves into that person. Why do I think it works this way? Because instincts do not just preserve the individual life form, they also work to preserve the specie. So the same chemicals that are responsible for the killing are also responsible for a resurgence of life -- to preserve the specie. It is the nature of nature to balance and preserve itself, and I have found a few surprising ways that nature accomplishes this. Back in the day, this phenomenon was accepted, and the solution was "camp followers"; families and women who would follow the armies and take care of the soldiers needs. Now we either hide it, overlook it, or prosecute boys who have been through hell and tell them they are criminals. This is not a very pragmatic solution and smells of reality vs idealism in my mind. Medical science is very aware that people can actually die of shock, so they clearly know that emotional matters are very relevant. I do know a little about legal matters, and self-defense is a valid legal defense. It is also a valid defense in most states as it regards the larger self, the spouse and children. Here I don't agree. Other species have language skills, some of them quite advanced, and a lot of them that we don't yet understand. Then you must also consider body language, which is effective both inter and intra specie. When a man has been pushed past all endurance and is so angry and frustrated that he is beyond rational thought, you might find him making a fist and waving his arms in the air. It is interesting to note that a bear will do the same thing, and so will a horse (with it's front legs), and so will a tarantula, and so will an ant, and so will my cat. This is almost a universal sign of anger and frustration that other species will acknowledge. This means that they understand communication. Tar; Actually, sentience would probably be a better word. But many people think like Dennett and don't understand that all species are sentient, so I explain that it is simple awareness that I am discussing. The problem is that if we take science's explanation of consciousness, the rational mind, and we take science's explanation of evolution, and we take science's explanation of life, we end up with a mess. If we try to trace evolution backward, we soon find that consciousness, the rational mind, peters out rather quickly, so what makes all of the other species seem conscious? It must be an intelligent designer or "God" directing all of these things. At least a dozen theories of consciousness travel down this path. OR We decide that all other species are not really conscious, even though a great body of evidence disputes this, and we are just special, which leads us back to the "God" ideas. Some theories and many religions travel this path. OR We go the solipsism idea, so the only really conscious mind is mine, and everything else is a dream or illusion that I am having. It is a little narcissistic, but there are also theories that follow this path. So I find it much easier, and less confusing, to just accept philosophy's explanation of a simple awareness and that conscious life is evolving physically and mentally. It started with a spark that we do not yet understand and continues to become more complex until it includes the rational mind. Gee

Itoero; Did you post this in response to my post about science teaching us about consciousness in species? If so, I thank you. It is a very informative and interesting bit of information, but then, science is good at interesting information. I don't think that it can answer Ten oz's questions, as it is limited to animals with brains. Consciousness is not limited to animals with brains -- neither is instincts limited to animals with brains. In order to have any definitive value in this thread, it would have to apply to all species. The word consciousness has too damned many definitions as it can be applied to the brain, the mind, psychology and/or medical science, life, species, the nature of nature, the supernatural, "God" ideas, physics, the universe, and all of the current theories on consciousness and religions. Since it can be applied to all of the above, it is easy to see why there is no comprehensive theory of consciousness, as it is a vast and extremely complex subject. There are some good theories of aspects of consciousness, but they do not give a complete picture or understanding, hence the confusion of definitions. There are two distinct definitions of consciousness that work fairly well: The first is the definition from science, medical and psychological, wherein the conscious mind is divided from the unconscious mind. This is what most people think of when they hear the word "consciousness", and this definition is about the "rational mind", where we do our planning and thinking and make our decisions. This is what psychology calls the Ego and what medical science expects us to be, conscious, when we are OK and not knocked out. The second definition is from philosophy and simply means the ability to perceive or sense our surroundings, to be aware of our surroundings (conscious of them). It does not imply any thinking or planning, requires no brain, only requires that it recognize food, water, and other necessities in order to comply with it's survival instincts. I have seen in many threads where people confuse these two definitions of consciousness. It is imperative that these ideas not be confused, or nothing will be accomplished. So if I say crabgrass is conscious, I do not mean that it is plotting to take over your yard, even if it may seem so. I am just saying that it responds to sunlight and water in a way that will cause it's survival. Ten oz; It is entirely possible. What people often fail to consider is how instincts work. I am not talking about genetics or DNA, I am talking about what activates the instincts. Instincts activate through feeling/emotion. I believe ALL instincts activate this way, I am sure that all of the survival instincts activate through feeling or emotion. Feelings and emotions activate through chemicals in our brains and bodies, so it is possible that we are encoded to have this instinct, but it does not activate because of a chemical problem. Remember that many mental problems are treated with chemicals. Hormones are the most successful treatment for schizophrenia at this time. Also consider that people are looking at everything chemical that they can from preservatives in food to insecticides in the environment to try to find the cause. Well, brain is easy; it's that wormy looking thing in your head. Mind is much harder. Consider: Freud broke down the mind into three divisions. One of those divisions was the Id. The Id contains the instinctive "drives" that cause us to preserve the "self", also called survival instincts. So if a daffodil has survival instincts, does it also have an Id? It certainly does not have a brain. Does a daffodil have a "self"? If it does not, then what are those survival instincts trying to preserve? Gee

It no longer lists how many people are on the site or in the threads. Or am I looking in the wrong place? I also miss the comments that were on the right side of the screen. I used to read them. Are they gone too? Gee

Yes it did! It also stated other ideas that conflicted with yours -- that was my point. You chose the idea that supported your belief, "my definition of instinct from high school", which is what we philosophers like to call farm work; specifically, cherry picking. Science likes consistency in it's definitions and conclusions. Philosophy likes truth in it's definitions and conclusions. Cherry picking is neither science, nor is it philosophy. It must be and probably is a lot of things depending on whom you are talking to. Instincts is one of the most ill defined and overly defined concepts that exist, second only to consciousness itself. That is what makes this thread so interesting and difficult. Tar, I have been studying consciousness, and by extension instincts, for most of my life -- there is very little that you can tell me about it that is new. I am not saying that your definition is "outdated", I am saying that it is wrong. According to your post, humans do not have instincts except for "perhaps suckling", which means that according to you, humans do not have survival instincts. Which means that biology needs to reconsider it's definition of life because the definition of what is alive depends very heavily on survival instincts. A rock, by all indications, does not care if it is destroyed -- it is not alive. A virus will exhibit indications of life only when it is within another body, so it is at best quasi-life or parasitic life, but does not qualify as life. All life forms will do anything and everything that they are capable of in order to preserve or continue life -- these are survival instincts. I do not believe I said "hundred", I think I said thousands, but don't know how to go back to my post from here to check. I am absolutely sure that I did not say "scientists have isolated in the last 37 years" so I will expect a retraction from you. Please try to be more accurate in your posts if you expect a response from me. I will go with biology and their definition of survival instincts because I trust their ability to test their ideas and their definition is consistent and much more likely to be true. As far as the definitions in Wiki, I expect that I would give the most credence to Psychology's explanation of "drives" of the Id as defined by Freud because they very closely reflect biology's survival instincts. Gee

Tar; It has been a long time since you were in high school. Your above statements are hogwash; a prime example of how people will word a question in order to get the answer they want -- "species wide complex unlearned behaviors". If you go to Wiki and look up instincts, you will find that there are people who have identified thousands of human instincts, and people who deny that humans have instincts. How do they do this? By redefining the word instincts to suit their ideas. Religion told us many centuries ago that we were created in God's image and had souls (consciousness), other species did not -- they were just there to fill up the world like furniture. But other species did things that made them look like they were conscious, so we came up with the idea of instincts. (They did these things automatically, without thought, and were not really conscious.) Most people also believed that other life forms did not experience emotion. Thanks to science, we now know that this is hogwash. We have instincts, and other species have consciousness and feeling/emotion. Gee

Swansont; If you were another person, I might not bother, but I respect your intelligence, your ability to think, and your understanding of logic, so I am going to try to explain my position. Please consider: If you had read my thread, you would have learned that your above assertion is unsupportable for a variety of reasons. 1. The supernatural is an unknown, so it is not the venue of science and "scientific evidence" is not required in order to study this subject. 2. My thread on the supernatural was opened in the philosophy section, as philosophy studies the unknown. No thread on the supernatural should be opened in science, which includes speculations. 3. You will note that the religion forum is also in the philosophy section -- for the above reason stated in (1). 4. Mind and consciousness have no more "scientific evidence" than the supernatural has -- and may have less evidence -- as the evidence for all three is subjective, but the supernatural has some objective evidence. (Do not confuse this with neurology's study of thought, as that is not mind or consciousness.) 5. Mind and consciousness are acceptable for discussion in science, but the supernatural is not. Why? Considering that all three have the same level of evidence, this division is not supported by evidence. 6. So what supports this division? Long-held belief; tradition. Tradition so old that it existed before science was a glimmer in philosophy's eye. What created this tradition? Religion. Consciousness is or comes from "God"; mind is "soul"; the supernatural is whatever that specific religion rejects. 7. According to Google pseudoscience is: pseu·do·sci·ence ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/ noun a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. Accepting mind and consciousness, while rejecting the supernatural is "cherry picking" plain and simple. If you want to let religion dictate to science what is acceptable and what is pseudoscience, so be it. I will not let religion dictate to philosophy. That would be a lot like discussing the Presidential campaign without mentioning the candidates. Pretty boring stuff. I confused the word, supernatural, with my thread on the supernatural. There was no intent to misdirect your meaning, so I apologize. Maybe. On the other hand, if you ask for help and get your hand slapped, then you ask for help again and get your hand slapped again, you stop asking for help unless you are dimwitted. I see three general reasons for the Report button: To report a problem like a double post or spam; to report another member; or to ask for help, usually to help me manage my own thread. There are enough members here, so I do not need to report problems. I don't generally tell on other members, as I have the ability to dissect and decimate posts, if people give me cause. And I am not going to get help because I am a philosopher, so the moderators either don't see the problem or are unmotivated to help. No. I got them for arguing with the moderator, just like when a ball player argues with the umpire. Well, the specific problem that the moderator addressed started with a statement that I made while comparing the Old Testament "God", who was "spirit", but involved in physical things, with the New Testament "God", who was physical, but involved in spiritual things. The point of that statement was to discredit the idea of the Old Testament "God", as most thinking people will realize that a "spirit" "God" would be involved in spiritual things -- not physical things. OR there was no supernatural Old Testament "God". While enumerating the physical things, I listed hygiene and germ issues that seem to be addressed in the Old Testament. Another member picked up on the "germ" idea and wanted to argue about it. But germs are not supernatural. This would have become a debate on religious dogma, which was off topic. After finding that I could not dissuade the other member from this idea, I finally asked for help. The moderator explained that he had heard the other member's argument before and agreed with it, so I would have to oblige. My thoughts: 1. The moderator did not hear this argument before in a thread on the supernatural, because there were no threads on the supernatural. I checked. 2. The moderator must have heard this argument in the religion forum. 3. If "moderators read threads", then the moderator would know that the thread was about the supernatural not religion or religious dogma. Conclusion: The moderator knowingly abetted the hijacking of my thread. Why? It is my thought that the science v religion topic is so very entangled with the thinking of members of this forum, that they simply concluded that I am not a scientist, so I must be a religious nut. They wanted to see me lose that argument. What they did not know, is that I already did a thread on the Old Testament Laws in another forum, years ago, and have enough information to argue that point until the cows come home. But it would have taken my thread off topic, and I rarely argue religious dogma, and avoid the religion forum. Arguing religion is futile. If I win the debate, then I destroy someone's faith and they lose. If I lose the debate (which is likely as it is hard to change belief), then I lose. It is a lose, lose proposition. Since there are no winners, it is somewhat cruel and mean-spirited to intentionally try to destroy someone's faith. Gee

Ophiolite; Please consider: But we are not talking about a "poorly executed tactic" so the above statement is moot. If you thought there was a "poorly executed tactic", then you would have to do the research, find it, and present it here. Otherwise you are just using innuendo, which would be manipulation and appear to be dishonest. You start with "perhaps", then add on two assumptions to reach a conclusion. This looks more like a rationalization than it does any kind of logic. How about this for a breakdown of your clarity: Perhaps + assumption + assumption = conclusion Not in any logic that I have ever heard of; although, you may develop a good career in fiction. What other complaints? Are you mixing me up with someone else? The only complaint that I have with this forum is the membership's lack of respect for philosophy and inability to understand philosophers. I have put forward the suggestion that a working philosopher on staff could solve this problem. Swansont; Please consider: The following quote is from the Philosophy and Religion section's guidelines: The above forum rules seem to imply that science may not have all of the answers, especially for religious questions. The supernatural is also the root of religion, so that would imply that science may not have answers for the supernatural. So the supernatural, on its own, is not pseudoscience. Are you implying that I was using pseudoscience in the Supernatural thread? How could you possibly know, as you told me that you did not read it? Robbitybob1; Well, you certainly like to pull up my old threads. Are you trying to get me in trouble? (chuckle) Mom always said that "misery loves company", and I think she was right; on the other hand, we do have some things in common. I have not yet decided if you are a philosopher, but you are very curious about a lot of things, and I suspect that you think like a philosopher. All philosophers have something that they are working on, and they tend to examine it from many different angles, so it can be difficult to pinpoint their topic if one does not follow their posting. Since you spend a lot more of your time in the Science section, I am not that familiar with your ideas, as I don't spend much time in the science area. I am not a scientist, so I can not answer questions, and so far, I do not get my questions answered there. I didn't even know you had warning points, as I don't see them when I look at your posts. So you probably don't know that I have warning points; I have two. I got the first one in the Supernatural thread after punching the "report" button and asking for help. That was a huge mistake, as the moderator told me that not only did I have to allow the hijacking of my thread, I had to assist. I remember thinking, "Bullshit. Not after I worked so hard to disassociate my thread from religion." It wasn't even the Religion forum. I got the second one, either in the Supernatural thread, or directly afterward, and also after asking for help. So I learned a few things: 1. NEVER TOUCH THE REPORT BUTTON!! 2. If you are getting angry because someone wants to be an idiot, stop posting and leave the forum for a few days until you can cool off. Sometimes you may have to walk away from your own thread. 3. This is not a democracy. Someone went to a lot of trouble to start and maintain this forum, and that someone did not have me in mind. That someone has their own motivations and objectives, and also has all of the responsibilities for this forum, which means that the someone also has all of the rights. 4. When I worked in law, we had this saying: "The Supreme Court is not last because it is always right; it is always right because it is the last Court where an Appeal can be made." Moderators are kind of like that, as there is no real probability for appeal. So I have developed a personal philosophy regarding my warnings; I wear them like medals earned in war. If my warnings were taken away, there is a good possibility that I would work to regain one or two. (chuckle) Well, I am not sure how good that advice is, as I like my advice above better. But sometimes it helps if there is an example of what constitutes a good post. So consider the following post that was made by a well-respected long-time member of this forum. It had, I believe, three up votes, so I am sure that it is "thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, [and] inherently awesome". That was the entire post. Now there are some forums that might say the above quote is just opinion, and that the opinion is inflaming, so the poster would be reprimanded for flaming. But in this forum it received up votes, so it was celebrated. You may want to emulate this "awesome" posting style, but I should warn you that a lot depends upon who the poster is and who the poster is addressing. This style could backfire on you. (chuckle chuckle) Gee

Migl; Your concerns expressed in the following post are valid, so please consider my response. I don't need a tactic to participate in a discussion, but may need one to start a discussion. If you have read this thread, you know that this all started with my thread on the supernatural. The supernatural is an unknown, so it is the venue of philosophy, but it is not unfamiliar. Although we have no idea of what causes the supernatural, we have examples of it throughout recorded history. Because we are familiar with the idea of the supernatural, a lot of thought has accumulated around this word, but those thoughts did not come from science or even philosophy. The thoughts came from assumptions and opinions generated by disbelief, superstition, mysticism, and religions. So in order to have an intelligent discussion on this subject, it was necessary to devise a strategy that would disassociate me from superstition, mysticism, and religions, before anyone had a chance for a knee-jerk reaction that would turn the discussion into a joke. This was the purpose of the strategies and tactics. No it is not a contest, but there is an element of winning and losing. If you get to discuss a subject that interests you, then you win; if you don't, then you lose. Why would I wish to join a forum that does not allow discussion of topics that interest me? Hence the strategy. You may not like the terms that I used, but the concept is valid. We are social animals and tend to group or pack around ideas, mostly ideas that are associated with emotion or self. If you study consciousness, or even psychology, you should know that the unconscious mind is the source of pack or group behaviour, and the unconscious mind is activated by emotion. So any thread that has an active association with emotion is going to be a problem (especially in a forum that uses a rep system) which includes any and all threads that touch on religion. For example: I started a thread called, Ebola, Dinosaurs, and Deuteronomy, in the philosophy forum. About halfway down the first page someone brought up eating pork, which is the common layman's interpretation of the food limitations in the Old Testament. From that point on it became a debate about religion; I learned nothing, became irritated and got a few down votes, then quit the thread before my reputation was completely shredded. There was so much that I had not yet touched on with my ideas, that I never got to the heart of my concept. I had made the monumental mistake of dismissing the problem of religion and not having a strategy in place to counter the attacks. Since the Old Testament was such a small part of my idea, I had not given it enough credit and simply let my thoughts flow while writing my OP. Foolish mistake. Both, the Supernatural thread and the Ebola thread, were sidetracked to religious debate. For a science forum, there seems to be a lot of members, who are interested in debating religion. I do not need or want anyone to help me "sort out" my thoughts about religion. Strategy is better, as it can be an avoidance. Months later I picked up a National Geographic magazine that had an article on Ebola. It confirmed my suspicion that Scientific American was wrong, and the leading authority on Ebola also had questions that seemed to align well with my ideas. So I learned more from the magazine than I did from the thread. I doubt that anyone in that thread, other than me, even understood what the thread was about. So how can someone "steer [me] in the right direction", if they have no idea of where I'm going? My only real complaint about this forum is that they have no working philosophers in moderation. Gee

Dimreepr; I am going to answer your post today, but expect to take a day or two more before I can address Strange and Ophiolite. Please consider: This gave me a good chuckle. People, who know me, would undoubtedly fall out of their chairs laughing at this idea, but then you don't know me. The word, pious, is most often associated with religious ideas, spirituality, or following some predetermined ideal. I am not religious, am a lousy follower, and am willing to consider any idea that has evidence and logic behind it. If being a stickler for evidence and logic makes me pious, then it could be stated that all of science is pious, as they are some serious sticklers. It is true that a lot of people seemed to be enamored of Freud, and many called themselves, Freudians, but this is mostly related to different theories of psychology or psychoanalysis. I am not a psychologist, never studied it, and don't really care whose ideas of therapy work or don't work, so this is not remotely descriptive of me. Freud's value to me is in his understanding of mind, because I study consciousness. I read about half of Webster's argument and was not impressed. Webster is not the most intelligent of men, my opinion, and I wonder about his motive for doing this work. As to Freud being wrong, I stated in my first post about him, that many of his associations were proven wrong. As far as Freud being a "kind of Messiah", this is a misleading exaggeration. It is true that a lot of people jumped on the Freud bandwagon, but not true that Freud was trying to start a religion -- as there is no evidence of this. Freud unlocked the door to the mind, and a lot of people were impressed, but they had no real understanding of the complexity of mind. It was the work of these "followers" that caused most of the misery and grief, which set psychology back 50 years -- if indeed anyone can say that a science that does not yet exist can be set back. His following was very much like what happened with penicillin. My Grandmother was a nurse back in the 1930's, and told me that when people came to see their doctors it was almost a case of "Here have a shot of the new 'wonder drug'", then it was, "What brought you in to see me?" She said that was an exaggeration, but only a mild exaggeration. Penicillin was seriously overused. I think that it was the 70's when doctors were told to stop giving out antibiotics for every little thing, as it was becoming a problem. Doctors can be as faddish as anyone else, especially when it comes to something new and impressive. As far as saying that psychoanalysis is pseudo-science, it could be argued that all of psychology is pseudo-science. Psychology is the study of mind -- something that we don't actually know what it is; mind is our only real evidence of consciousness -- something that we don't actually know what it is. It is pretty hard to do repeatable testing on something, when we don't actually know what it is. But the information from psychology is too valuable to ignore, so we compromise and call it a soft science. As far as continuing the Judeo-Christian traditions, this was when I decided that Webster was just silly and not very intelligent. Religion studies emotion. That is what spirituality actually is; it is emotion. imo. Since religion has studied spirituality/emotion for tens of thousands of years, it would not be surprising to find that they discovered some things that seem to work. Freud unlocked some of the secrets in the unconscious mind; and the unconscious works through -- emotion. So finding that some of the techniques used by religion also work in psychology with regard to the unconscious, would not be surprising, in fact it would help validate the theories. Buddhism and some of the Eastern religions also have much in common with psychology. I suspect that Webster has some personal religious issues that are reflecting on his work. Be careful what you borrow. Strange's biggest complaint is that Freud is not a scientist, but the last reference regarding Wiki's take on Freud, states in the first sentence that Freud was an "Austrian neurologist". Last time I checked, a neurologist is a scientist. If you carefully review what the "above implies", I think that you will find the large majority of it is related to psychoanalysis. Why is that? Because there are a lot of people trying to experiment with and promote their own ideas on analysis. Is there one analysis technique that works on all people? I seriously doubt it. Just like you can tell one person attempting suicide to go ahead, and they will stop because they were looking for attention, someone to talk to. But you can follow the same routine with another person, and the fool will jump. Analysis is complex, and I suspect that people will be arguing about the right and wrong of different techniques for many years. Freud's greatest contribution was that he unlocked the mind. His famous iceberg analogy, where he explains that the tip of the iceberg that we see is just a small part of mind; the vast majority of it is unknown. (If you are not familiar with the iceberg concept, you can Wiki "unconscious".) Then he divided mind into three sections, the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo. How did he distinguish the different sections? By how they work and what activates them. So this was all abstract thinking on his part, which is probably why he is called a genius. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to take something that can not be seen, measured, touched, or heard, and separate the parts of it just by how they work? Then go on to evaluate how these different parts of this invisible something actually interact? We had been studying the Ego, the rational mind, for hundreds of years, but had no understanding of the unconscious mind. Actually, religion was in charge of the unconscious, and interpretations of angels and demons and "The Devil made me do it." were pretty commonly accepted. The mentally ill were often thought of as cursed people. Everyone knew that we had drives that made no sense to us, or actions that seemed out of character, but no one knew why. Back in Freud's day, instincts were behaviors that other species exhibited because they did not have souls, like we do. What Freud identified as "drives" in the Id, are mostly instincts that are hardwired into our systems in the form of hormones, but Freud could not have known this, as information came after his time. What he did understand was that these instincts or drives were activated by emotion, so they were part of the unconscious. The SuperEgo was also activated by emotion, but had input from the Ego, in the form of memories and learning experiences, it had input from the Id, and it had input from society, so it was the great repository of the mind. This was divided into the preconscious and the unconscious. Then Jung came along and talked about the collective unconscious, explaining that all of a specie is connected through the unconscious aspect of mind. It is my personal understanding that this is where most of the paranormal is activated. Then Blanco came along and divided the unconscious into five different levels or stratums and found that the unconscious has a logic if you remove space and time from it. Blanco divided these levels using math, but I have no idea of how that was accomplished. Instead of using the iceberg analogy, let us posit that the mind is a building. People have been banging on it and trying to get inside for thousands of years. Freud comes along and finds a key that unlocks the door. He steps inside with a few friends and gets a look around, and everyone is fascinated with this impressive discovery. When he comes out, there is a great deal that he has learned, and there are other things that he can deduce because of the information acquired. But when he was inside, he saw a large elevator that went down another five or six floors. The elevator was locked, and his key would not work, so he could only take an educated guess about many of the levels, which is speculation. Every history that I have read on Freud explained that he was frustrated with his inability to test his ideas in a way that would be acceptable to science. Why did he know that his efforts were not enough? Because he was a scientist, and knew what was required; he just couldn't accomplish it. On the other hand, 100 years later, with all of the advances and new equipment that we have to study brain and mind, psychology still can not accomplish it, so it seems a little unreasonable that people expected him to accomplish the impossible 100 years ago. So it is my opinion that people want to get mad because he was not right about and could not prove all of his ideas, while they forget to give him credit for opening the damned door. Gee

Dimreepr; Please consider: Maybe in a layman's interpretation, but not in philosophy. First, one must consider that evidence does not automatically become fact; it must be interpreted. We will posit that you have observed a grungy man grabbing an old woman and putting her into his dirty pick-up truck. This observation is evidence, but what is it evidence of? Is it evidence of rape, theft, murder, or mayhem? Or is it evidence of a grandson, who has been desperately searching for his ailing grandmother, who has alzheimer's? Interpreting evidence to find fact is a large part of what philosophy does. In the above scenario, there is no way to determine which may be true without further evidence, information, or knowledge of the circumstances, so offering an opinion is worthless to philosophy, as it does not reflect truth. So why are philosophers always stating, "In my opinion"? When you read, imo, you should understand that it means "this is the conclusion that I have reached", and it usually follows the argument that sets out the evidence and logic that was used to form that opinion/conclusion. Sometimes the philosopher will use "imo" without explanation, because it was worked out previously. In science, people will say, "I'm just speculating." which seems to be a disclaimer. To my knowledge, there is no such disclaimer in philosophy. No matter the circumstance, when you read, imo, you are reading a conclusion based on evidence, interpretation, and logic, so it is an invitation for you to challenge and examine the evidence, interpretation of that evidence, and the logic that caused that conclusion. It is not an invitation to disagree based on your opinion, imagination, or speculations, as that would simply be arguing for the sake of arguing -- it would not be making an argument. A philosophical argument is much like a scientific experiment. There are rules regarding what can and can not be used in an argument, just like there are rules regarding scientific experimentation and testing. Formal logic sets out many of the rules in a philosophical argument, and evidence is necessary because one can not interpret evidence that does not exist. Well, obviously I did not understand it, so maybe you would like to explain "Freud's greatest contribution". Oh, and try to throw some evidence and/or facts in with your explanation. Why is it that when people disagree with me, they assume it is because I am ignorant of the facts? There were two reasons: One, I questioned the integrity of this forum; two, everybody loves to hate Freud. Piety is a really bad idea for me to attempt. Since I study consciousness, separating myself from any and all religion was imperative in order to be able to honestly evaluate religion's input into the idea of consciousness. Maybe you mean that I am a little arrogant? Yes, that would be true. But a lot of people are arrogant. Imagine the arrogance of a person, who knows nothing about philosophy, going into a philosophy forum, and trying to tell people what philosophy is based on. It would be like me going into the science section, and trying to tell them how to do science -- even I am not that arrogant. Strange; While researching a thread on Freud, I learned that even people who disagreed with Freud admitted that he was a genius -- does not sound like a "quack" to me. I remember an argument with Swansont where I stated that he was not a philosopher, and he explained that his PhD stated otherwise. Maybe you could take this "not make him a scientist" business up with him. See, this is the part where you explain that Freud was indeed an inventor, then you cite evidence of same. Then I get to learn something. Arguments from incredulity are not really arguments -- just more nonsense. Sure. "Strange, on 19 Feb 2016 - 2:52 PM, said: Exactly. There is not a discipline of "experimental philosophy" (well, there is: it is called science)" Gee

Ophiolite; Please consider: No it does not state that he was a scientist, but it does state that he studied at University for years in biology and the medical field, and we know that he worked in the medical field. If you are confused, maybe you could look up physiology. If you are still convinced that he was not a scientist, maybe you could suggest to the owner of this forum that he needs to remove biology and the medical sciences from the Science section, because training and working in these fields does not seem to make one a scientist. So there would be no one to answer questions in these fields. As to the "quality" of my reference, I would state that any valid history on Freud would include his schooling. I noted the name of my source, and you could have Googled it. I would suggest that you "have no knowledge of", because you don't want to have knowledge of. Does your response sound like it was "objective" to you? It is not surprising that a fifteen year old would have trouble discerning the difference between sex and sexuality, as the vast majority of adults still don't understand the difference. Actually, from what I have read, his interpretations of dreams is some of his most valuable and respected work. The above is only opinion with no evidence presented -- so it means nothing. I did a thread on Freud a few years back in another forum, and in my research, I discovered that it was his notions about sexuality that set him back. Some histories will talk about his "grim" discovery, as they don't want to mention it, but the simple truth is that he discovered that a large number of girls were being initiated into sex by people in their own families at a very young age. When he tried to share this knowledge, people were horrified. He soon realized that he could not divulge the information, but then ended up having to, so some people hate him for discovering it, and some people hate him for trying to hide it. It was an impossible situation for him. Then he had the audacity to state that infants were sexual. Again, all of us good Christians were horrified, because as we all know, babies are innocent and sex is sin. OH NO! Many people still believe that infantile sexuality is a myth, but his ideas have been vindicated by advances in surgery. In the last 40 or so years, surgery has advanced to the point where they can fix babies born with dubious sexuality -- it was, Do you want a boy or a girl? We can make it happen. Science probably thought this a great achievement, but it became problematic when the "boy" grew up and stated that he was a girl, or when the "girl" grew up and stated that she was a boy. Surgery learned that it had to wait and see which the child would develop into, because infant sexuality is real -- whether it is obvious or not. Yes. So is honesty. Strange; I didn't know he was an inventor. Delta; Please consider: And your point is??? You addressed this post to me, but the subject matter of my post was not science; it was philosophy. Do you realize that any time I ask for some respect for philosophy, I will get a lecture on what science is? Do you think that I don't know what science is? Do you know what philosophy is -- because that is the subject matter. I am beginning to believe that asking for respect for philosophy in this forum, in some way diminishes or attacks science, so it has to be defended. But that is utter nonsense. Do you realize that you talked about "empirical data" and "evidence" in your first paragraph, then changed it to "test them" in this paragraph. Do you think that empirical data, evidence, and testing are all the same thing? I find that a lot of science people seem to use these different concepts interchangeably, but evidence does not require testing in order to exist. You picked an ethical issue with the Trolley Problem, which is probably one of the more difficult to understand in terms of evidence. But consider, in the real world, a trolley car can not stop on a dime, and it can not swerve off the track, and it can not jump over a victim -- there is evidence of this. People's reaction to the moral issues can be and are observed -- observation is also evidence. Without this evidence that matches up with the real world, the Trolley Problem would not be a "thought experiment", it would be nonsense. Being evidence-based is not a distinguishing characteristic of science. It is a distinguishing characteristic of philosophy. The distinguishing characteristic, that separates science from philosophy, is the scientific method that requires testing, mathematical accuracies, and repeatability. If you remove the idea of evidence from philosophy, then you end up with a forum where people substitute opinion, imagination, and wild imaginings, while citing no references. Or, as I call it, you end up with a FLUFF forum for nitwits. Does this irritate me? Oh yes. Strange; Please consider: Applied philosophy IS science. Agreed. Philosophy applies rigorous analysis and questioning to ALL subjects, and one can not do rigorous analysis unless there is some evidence to analyze. Evidence can be material, it can be math, it can be observation, and it can be experience and testimony. Agreed. If someone used "random ideas I have made up" and called it a theory in the science forum, it would be challenged, or it would be removed to speculations. So if someone used "random ideas I have made up" as an argument in philosophy, it should also be challenged. Like when Dimreepr made the following post, which is pure nonsense, and I challenged it using an acceptable reference regarding Freud's history. It should be noted that even though the above quote is obvious nonsense, and has no evidence, references, citations, or even logic to support it, it was not challenged by anyone other than me. As a matter of fact, I was challenged because I challenged the above nonsensical quote. I am surprised that the nonsense did not get a plus vote, as it often does. This is not unusual in the philosophy section of this forum. Even though the management and moderators seem interested in "quality" posts, their interest does not extend to the philosophy forum where anything goes. I can not remember any moderator ever giving a reprimand for nonsensical or obviously unsupported ideas in the philosophy forum, UNLESS they were relevant to an interest that science takes. So I would like to thank all of the posters, who went out of their way to prove my point. I have no reason to expect integrity in the philosophy section of this forum. Gee

Dimreepr; Please note the following quote regarding Sigmund Freud from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: I thought the integrity of this forum was higher. Strange; But you did say, "Philosophy is not an evidence based discipline though, which is what distinguishes it from science." two posts prior. What does that mean, if it does not mean that "Philosophy is not 'evidence based'?" Gee

Curiousone; I thought that psychology was a branch of science, and science was a branch of philosophy. Am I wrong here? Why would you want all of the branches to be the same? If they were, what would be the point of branches? Neither philosophy nor psychology made copy machines; science did that. So science will have to produce their own copies. (chuckle chuckle) Strange; Philosophy is not "evidence based"? They just make stuff up? This is nonsense. Either a citation or a retraction is required. Psychology is a science mostly because of Freud. People think of Sigmund Freud as a psychologist or psychoanalyst, but he was not trained as one. Why? Because there was no formal training, as psychology was not an accepted science at that time. Freud was a medical doctor, who specialized in brain studies, so that would translate to a neurologist. He was a scientist, who was interested in mind and found like minded people to study and learn with. Although behavioral psychology was having some successes, they were not enough to bring psychology into the acceptance of science. It was Freud's divisions of mind and association of those divisions with different parts of the brain, that finally caused the acceptance of psychology as a valid science. So Freud was a pioneer and some of Freud's associations were proven to be wrong, but enough was right that we still believe that parts of the brain are related to parts of the mind. Psychology is listed in the Science section of this forum because it is a science. Gee

Imatfaal; Please consider my following thoughts: It certainly was not my intent to insult you -- or anyone else. From what I have seen in this forum, it would be fair to say that you are not enamored of psychology. If it were 100 years ago, your opinions might actually be valid, but psychology has made great strides in mapping out the different aspects of mind in the last 100 years. Many people see the "mental" as unknowable, as something that is mysterious and can not be understood, but this is not so. Just as physical things have sources, and rules that govern what can and can not be, so does the mental. Our thoughts come from somewhere, our feelings come from somewhere, so psychology is mapping out the sources and studying the rules that govern the mental. To exclude psychology from a thread that studies mind, would be like excluding physics from a thread on matter, or excluding biology from a thread on life forms -- a foolish position. When I was talking about an unconscious association, I was talking about mapping out the sources of thought -- this is NOT psychoanalysis -- cod or otherwise. Psychoanalysis studies a deeper motivation, the why of our individual reactions or thoughts, the reasons behind the fears, or the experiences that cause us to react the way we do. It is a very individualized study of a specific person, not a general acknowledgment of how thought works within the mind. Now, if I stated that I think that someone has Mommy or Daddy issues that are affecting their thinking -- THAT would be cod-psychoanalysing. Do you see the difference? Psychology studies mind; psychoanalysis is a study or analysis of a specific individual's mind. Gee

Imatfaal; Please consider: I also brought up "God" and the original post mentions "soul", so does that mean this thread is about mysticism? No. It is about mind, which is pretty damned mysterious on its own without adding complications. What is mysticism? It is a mental idea produced by the mind; therefore, it can be relevant to the study of mind. On the other hand, mysticism is also a catch-all word to describe anything that is believed and also mental, mysterious, and unknown. That covers a lot of territory and delves deeply into religion, so as I stated, it would require its own thread to be studied. How does one take the mystery out of mysticism or mind? Or make the unknown, known? By studying and understanding it. I brought up seeking Nirvana because there are some things that are known, and well documented, about it. There are monks, who have actually learned how to control their breathing, their heart rate, and their reaction to pain. These are all things that are involuntary and work through the unconscious aspect of mind. I don't give two hoots about their beliefs, I am interested in the idea that they have learned to control some of the unconscious with the conscious mind. This is interesting and adds to my knowledge of mind. It can be stated that seeking Nirvana is part of mysticism, but it is only a part of mysticism. There is a great deal under the heading of mysticism that has nothing to do with seeking Nirvana -- so the two ideas are not the same, nor are they equal. Consider the following quote from Dr. Blanco's file in Wiki: So in order for someone to see my explanation regarding Nirvana as mysticism, they would be considering the "part" as "representing the whole", or one could say that it was an unconscious association. We know that the unconscious mind is reactive, rather than self directed, and that it reacts to feelings and emotion. So it is my thought that fear of the unknown and fear of mysterious mysticism is what caused that association; hence, my comments about superstition. Gee

Boys and Girls; What is all this nonsense about mysticism? From what I have read, you don't even know what it actually is, so why are you employing ignorance to debate it? This is not the religion forum. I did a thread search on the word, mysticism, because I was curious as to how this thread fell apart so badly. I found that CharonY first brought up mysticism in post # 55, then Strange picked up the ball and ran with it in post # 56. CharonY contributed some interesting on-topic information along with the unfortunate opinions regarding "fluff" and "mysticism". Between them, they got six up votes for the preposterous assumptions. This is not surprising, as I have noted before that the click-it squad is not terribly familiar with higher intelligence. Then Hoola asked why mysticism was even brought into the discussion, espousing a very valid, intelligent, and rational position. (He received no up votes for this questioning.) Now it appears that Hoola is the one supporting mysticism? This is outrageous manipulation. Any rational, logical, person, who doubts what I am stating, can simply go back and read the thread again. The facts are all there. What we call "mysticism" is actually an interpretation by the rational aspect of mind. And what is it interpreting? Well, that would be the fifth and lowest known level, or stratum, of the unconscious aspect of mind. This is the level that deals with delusion, angels and demons, and other mystical ideas. Although it is part of mind, the reality is that it is only a part and not well known or understood, so it would require its own thread if you wish to discuss it. Or one could say that studying mysticism in order to understand mind would be a lot like studying a foot, blind, in order to understand the human body. If we are going to study mind, then we need to study the whole of mind. We can not "cherry pick" the parts we like, or don't like. So let's send the kiddies to bed, and advise the overly superstitious to please make appointments with their priests/preachers. The rest of us would like to discuss mind. Gee Hoola; You are becoming an interesting person in my mind. I have noted that some of your other posts displayed the ideas of a thinking mind, but your following post really impressed me. Most people do not understand the extreme differences in the way the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind actually work. Describing mind as a "meeting of those two" is really very good. For a long time it was thought that there was no logic in the unconscious aspect of mind. It made no sense to anyone. It was Dr. Blanco who unlocked the secrets of the unconscious by realizing that logic is dependent upon time -- there is no logic without time and cause and effect. Rational also requires time as logic and rationalization are both linear thought processes. The unconscious mind is neither logical nor is it rational, because it does not recognize time. It ignores time, which is probably one of the reasons why people relate it to quantum physics. The unconscious "thinks" in terms of relationships, or entanglements, which is another similarity, and it associates things symmetrically -- another similarity. So it is very different and not really very adapted to a causal reality. There is one thing that you got wrong. There is not an "event horizon", as there appear to be five event horizons -- at least. Dr. Blanco designated the levels or stratums of the unconscious by evaluating how much of the rational mind v the unconscious mind was in control of each level. His understanding of the unconscious is accepted by psychology and has not been disputed to my knowledge. You can find some of his ideas in Wiki. It is a relatively short read, and I think you will find it interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco Gee

Immanuel; Please consider: OK. There are lots of theories about a multiverse, but does that mean there is evidence of other Earths? Of "many you's"? No. Not that I have seen. There is some evidence that points to the idea of a multiverse, but it is not conclusive evidence, so we can not assume that there are also Earths and identical me's in these multiverses, that may or may not exist. There is still too much that is unknown, so this is theory or speculation. It is not even theory yet, more a hypothesis. I would call this the paranormal -- metaphysical transfer. But it is not evidence of a parallel world. Because some of the paranormal seems to slip or jump time, many people have come to the conclusion that time is ridged and static like a film from a movie where each negative depicts an activity in life. Then they assume that something allows us to jump around on the film to different places in time and space, hence the parallel world, multiverse ideas, and determinism, or no free will ideas. The biggest problem that I have with this idea is that it is will, or want, that allows us to jump around, so I don't think we understand this yet. (chuckle) Although I can see their reasoning, I also know that many things can be reasoned that are simply not true, and bad reasoning is usually due to a lack of information. There is still too much that is unknown, so this is not anywhere near evidence. It is more speculation or a hypothesis. Quoting religious texts to prove religious text is not evidence. It would be like me saying that I am Napoleon; so therefore, I am Napoleon. This is a circular argument and proves nothing. You would have to provide some other evidence, something from a different type of source before it could be considered actual evidence. My apologies. There are many people who mistake sarcasm and ridicule for wit. Sarcasm is actually barely concealed anger, and ridicule is a form of bullying. There is nothing that I can do about this. If I had known about that thread in religion, I would never have responded to this thread. I generally avoid the Religion forum because I understand more about "God" than most people, which gets me into trouble with the believers and the non-believers. (chuckle) The study of consciousness is also the study of "God" ideas -- the two are inseparable. That comment was not meant for you as much as it was meant for the Moderators. There appear to be a lot of speculations threads in philosophy and a lot of philosophy threads in speculations. It seems that there is a great deal of difficulty determining which is which. The comment was not meant as an insult, as there is nothing insulting about speculating. I'll give you an example that I understand well, as it is on the subject of consciousness: There is a dead man's body laying on the ground and two people standing over it. One person is a scientist, the other is a preacher. The scientist says, "Obviously the man is dead and no longer conscious, as his brain is no longer producing thought." The preacher says, "Obviously the man is dead and no longer conscious, as God has called back his soul." OK. So the man is dead, but what about his consciousness? The scientist believes that consciousness comes from the body/brain, and so he bases his conclusions on this belief. The preacher believes that consciousness comes from God, and so be bases his conclusions on this belief. Both of these conclusions are speculations based on belief. Philosophy has not yet drawn a conclusion and has been debating it for thousands of years, Monism v Dualism. Philosophers want the truth or nothing -- they are kind of fussy about truth. For myself, I suspect that both, the scientist and the preacher, are each about half right. (chuckle) So your thread is speculation. If you get real fussy about what constitutes evidence and what does not, and what it is evidence of, and how that evidence can or can not be interpreted, then you may be working philosophy. If you interpret evidence by your beliefs, you will be speculating. If you are careless with your evidence, interpretations, and theories, you will be producing garbage. Simple. Gee

Immanuel; Please consider my following thoughts: I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not by formal training. Because I trained myself, I tend to analyze things while looking for simple truths that I can trust to be true. And generally, I do not waste my time on the formal debates like free will v determinism, monism v dualism, nature v nurture, or science v religion, as I see them as training tools for argument. Most of these ideas are in reality conclusions based in speculation, idealism, and/or beliefs with little truth involved. You know that a computer requires DOS in order to work. There must be some basic rules and regulations that will allow the information to be computed. In mind, we call these basic rules innate knowledge, which means that this is something that comes with the hardware. We have been studying what constitutes innate knowledge v learned knowledge since the Ancients, and it is generally agreed that "more/less", "equal", and "same/difference" are innate ideas. These innate ideas are relative to all life, that we know of, and can be demonstrated. A small fish, when released, if given a choice of schools, will join the bigger school of fish for protection (more/less), but will try to avoid a large fish of the same dimensions because it is a different specie (same/difference). The idea of "self/other" may not be innate for all species, as all species may not be able to recognize "self", such as plant life, but it is innate for all mammals, and probably more. If you are interested in the idea of "self/other", you can learn more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_cognition "Implicit egotism[edit] Implicit egotism refers to the unconscious tendency of people to prefer things that resemble the self.[6] I" The idea of self/other is at the root of unconscious prejudice. Some evidence of the "many you's" please? Some evidence on the "move from this world to another" please? Some evidence on "Endtime in late 2018" please? This whole paragraph looks sketchy to me. You really should consider renting the Matrix. It would help you to see that your "theories" are more Hollywood than they are science or philosophy. You have not made an argument that supports the idea that there even is an "illusion of free will". Making a statement is not the same as making an argument. So, if "everything seems to happen for a reason", are you arguing that cause and effect does not actually exist? Not a wise position to take in a science forum. Evidence of "Mother/Creator" please? You seem to be mixing the "guilt" "sin" Christian doctrine with the Eastern philosophies that espouse Fatalism. Are you cherry picking your theologies? This is all assumption based on speculation without a shred of evidence. I don't know what you think philosophy is, but it is not what you have written in this thread. Philosophy, just like science, is based on reality. I will grant that philosophy delves into subjects that science will not, like the unknown, or things that can not be tested or are not physical, but philosophy still has rules. In philosophy the premise, or the idea that you start with, is all important. It must be true, or at least as true as can be ascertained. Then we use logic and reason to explore the implications of this idea, in truth, most of the time we are arguing the validity of the premise itself. This thread is based on a conclusion that is assumed, a computer reality, then there is speculation and more assumption to validate the assumption that you started with. It is unbelievably circular in its logic and is not valid philosophy. You have had ample time to come up with some valid philosophy. This thread belongs in speculations or possibly the garbage. Try using the "Preview Post" button. It works well for editing, and leaves you in the posting area. Thank you for introducing me to the idea of supersymmetry and time-slips, which sounds a lot better than "paranormal". Gee

Immanuel; What a delightful and fun thread. I very much enjoyed the links you provided. But really Immanuel, how can you ask which Universe is "Best", like I have a choice, while telling me that there is no free will -- so I don't have a choice? Sign me up! How do you expect that I will travel? I believe they said the same thing in the movie, the Matrix. There was an explanation by the "robot" person that humans would not accept a perfect world, so the robots gave them an imperfect world. I don't usually accept my philosophy from movies, and would like a better, and more believable, explanation. I don't see your logic. The idea of a binary-code-universe does not upset me much, as I have heard lots of theories about a digital universe, but I doubt that the universe is simple. Oh, it might start out simple, like a 1 0 system, but that does not mean that it remains simple. I am a philosopher, who studies consciousness, and find that there are some very compatible ideas when comparing the unconscious aspect of mind, and the little I understand about quantum physics. Neither one of them give two hoots about time, the unconscious "thinks" in terms of relationships, or entanglements, and they both start out with very basic language: 1 0 for computers or quantum physics, and more/less and self/other for mind. They both work with an "equal" in their formulations. So there seems to be more that is similar than different in the way they compute. The term "supersymmetry" was new to me, so I got on YouTube and found a video by Don Lincoln. He is a physicist, who can actually explain things to people like me, who know nothing about physics. If I understood him correctly, supersymmetry is simply error correction codes that can be built into a mathematical theory, which when used correctly, will bring things back to a "whole" -- or symmetry. This is very much like what philosophy has known for a long time, that everything is self-balancing, only now we have a way to explain how it self balances. I suspect that supersymmetry is going to become extremely valuable and open a lot of doors to science. No it does not "mean that we have an intelligent Creator". Because a computer code mimics reality, it does not mean that reality mimics a computer code -- nor does it mean that someone had to create the universe's computer and code. You have things backward and are assuming much. An intelligent creator is as necessary to the universe as Poisidan was necessary to move the tides. In my opinion Gee

Curiousone; There is probably a reason why you posted the above directly after my post, but I don't know what it is. Did you post it as a rebuttal to something that I stated? Or maybe you were looking for an alternate answer to your thoughts? Or maybe I am imagining things and you posted for a reason that has nothing to do with me. If you are looking for a response from me, help me out here. I am a little confused. Gee

Genecks; This thread is frustrating me because it is so difficult to try to explain what I think. Of course, anyone who actually thinks they can get a true understanding of mind has to be a little loose in the brain box, so I guess that describes me. Nonetheless, I have been considering your position and trying to relate my understandings to yours, so please consider the following: Well, I can see where identity is important, but I don't associate mind with brain as much as I associate mind with life forms. This looks like I think that all life possesses thought and a rational aspect of mind, but I am not talking about mind like a human mind, I am talking about knowledge, memory, and awareness that is specific to each specie. All of life has survival instincts, so they have knowledge of what is necessary to survive, memory in order to retain that knowledge, and awareness because they are aware of the need to continue their life or continue through their progeny. In humans, we call this the instinctive mind, and it carries knowledge that is specific to humans, so identity is important. More on this idea further down. To clarify, I should state that I doubt that it is possible to have a rational, thinking, aspect of mind without also having a brain to process thought. If I am understanding you correctly, the rest of your above paragraph is about how what we see works its way through the eye to the brain and ends up in mind. I have no damned idea and suspect that some genius, not me, will figure that out eventually. I would relate the "signal" to awareness, so the signal itself would be consciousness. When I study consciousness, since I can not see it, touch it, measure it, or study it in the usual way, I study how it works. Awareness does not reside in the object that we are aware of, nor does it reside in us, it actually exists between. Feeling and emotion are much the same in that they exist between things and are motion. You could say that thought that is focused, in motion, and directed is consciousness. imo Much like magnets; one could say that you are studying the rock to see why it is a magnet, and I am studying the magnetic force to see how, where, when, and under what circumstance it attracts or repels. Of course, life and consciousness are a little more complex than magnets. So you and I are working the idea of mind from completely different directions, as I study it from the perspective of top down or mind to brain, whereas you study it from bottom up or brain to mind. Consciousness works both ways, top down and bottom up. To understand my ideas better, let us posit that all of reality is psychological and acausal. How could anything be known? We would be floating in a morass of thoughts, knowledge, and all mental aspects with no ability to discern anything -- much like the chaos described by the Ancients. It would be like jumping into a pool of water in search of a water molecule. You would be surrounded by water molecules, but have no ability to discern or find one. Knowing requires awareness and focus, so in order to be aware of something, to know it, one would need to focus on that thing, and one would need to focus from some where. If we need a "where" then we need space, and if we focus on something from somewhere, we are using direction, so it appears to me that knowledge and consciousness require space, direction, and time. Or mind requires a causal reality in order to exist. If consciousness/awareness is the "signal", then it is the actual motion of thought, rather than thought itself, that makes us conscious. Thought can not move by itself; can not motivate itself. Thought without awareness would be like a book without a reader; a book without a reader is just ink and paper. So it looks to me as though awareness, feeling, and emotion are actually consciousness, and that they move, carry, and hold thought. I can understand what you are saying in regard to the computer and monitor, but have no idea how that works. It is more of the bottom up perspective that I do not study. I wish you luck with it. A blade of grass is sentient; computers and monitors are not, although I doubt that a blade of grass "thinks"; whereas, a computer does think or at least processes thought. There are some things that we know about grass; it is alive, and it has at least some survival instincts; it is aware of the need to continue and maintain itself. But does grass know what "itself" is? Does it know that it is separate from the earth, from the water that it needs, or the sunlight? I doubt it. If we posit that grass has some kind of mind, then I suspect that it would be an acausal and unconscious mind. I don't see how it would be able to discern its parameters, to learn the dimensions of itself, or to even distinguish between self and other, but it does know instinctively what it needs, so it has knowledge specific to grass. It is my thought that life has two general divisions, plant life that is immobile and does not navigate physical reality and survives by adapting to its physical environment, and mobile life that does navigate physical reality. So mobile life would eventually evolve senses to help it navigate physical reality. These senses would need to feed into a central processor, a brain, in order to be effective, so this brain would exist for the purpose of understanding a causal physical reality -- the beginnings of the conscious, self-directed, rational aspect of mind. imo If only the psychological exists, then why is it that I have private thoughts that you can not know, and why do you have private thoughts that I don't know? What divides my mind from yours? When people state that reality is just illusion, imagination, or a dream that we are in, my thought is: Then who is the illusionist? The imaginer? The dreamer? One can only go in so many directions to answer those questions. It is either "God" or some version of solipsism or magic. It is my thought that there are rules to consciousness, and that identity is part of consciousness, because consciousness could not exist without matter -- the physical reality of us. Thank you. Maybe. On the other hand, my desk is not actually one solid thing, it is a bunch of atoms all stuck together -- but it works for me. In my opinion. Gee

Genecks; Your thoughts certainly are interesting. I see validity in some of your points, but others I am not so sure about. It may be that our different experiences and studies have given us different perspectives, or it may be that I simply do not fully understand your meaning, as it is clear that my formal education is not the equal of yours. If you would review my following post, maybe you could help me to understand your position better while considering my thoughts. Well, I certainly won't dispute that the physical and psychological are very different, but I don't know how to describe these differences in terms of dimensions or planes. Something that concerns me is that, although we know that the physical can be broken down into categories, most people think of the psychological as just one type of thing. I think this is a mistake. When I study mind, it is in relation to my studies of consciousness, and I look to philosophy, science, religion, and the paranormal for my considerations. Since I know that consciousness is in fact subjectivity, I tend to give as much weight to subjective experience as I do to academic theories. I did not even know what "holonomic" meant and had to look it up. My understanding now is that it incorporates the "mechanical", cause and effect, or what science uses, with "systems thinking", how things relate and influence each other, with "meaning" or the purpose. So mechanical plus relationships plus purpose equals holonomic. Because you are more science oriented, you are working the "bridge" from the physical perspective, as in "brain evolved to open" or evolved for the purpose of reaching this dimension. I am more philosophy oriented and tend to view things from a whole perspective, so I do not see the brain as this bridge. The fact is that all life is sentient, which means that all life is conscious to some degree, so the connection between dimensions is already there in all life. What I can see is that the brain's evolution allowed us to build a bicycle and ride across the bridge for a peek, as long as we're careful, as I suspect that it is a very skinny bridge. Could fall off. (chuckle) The thing that I worry about with regard to holonomic ideas is that it is just too easy to rationalize a purpose. When dealing with an unknown, rationalization does not work very well, and it would be too easy to end up creating something very close to a religion, while trying to explain purpose. You are starting to lose me here. What do you mean by an "acausal dimension"? The closest thing that I can relate this idea to is the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious does not recognize time and "thinks" in terms of relationships. I have heard of Jung's Oneness idea, but do not fully understand it. Is this what you are referring to, or is there something else? As far as the conscious mind relating to the unconscious mind, I would think that chemistry and hormones would be the bicycle that traverses that bridge. OK. I am lost here. Is there any chance that you can give a dumbed down explanation of the "law of entropy" and the "psychological arrow of time"? Question: Is the time-ignoring unconscious aspect of mind the self/court, or is the logical, time-understanding conscious aspect of mind the self/court? If you are in a room, you are aware of space, so I would think that it would be the conscious aspect of mind, and you would also be aware of time. In order for Einstein's theories to be irrelevant, you would have to be the unconscious aspect of mind, but then you would not be aware of anything that relates to time or space, only things as they relate to each other. The first half of the above paragraph sounds very much like what people describe in paranormal studies. Ideas are not continuous, they are segments or clips of thoughts, pictures, or feelings that have no reference to time and/or space. I don't know what "Cube 2" is, and yep, I wonder how it is relevant. (chuckle) I can see that there is a measurement problem and that we can only know what is in the mind by comparing it to the things in our environment that end up in mind. One of the problems that I have in the study of consciousness is that everyone assumes that consciousness is thought. I seriously doubt this. Thought is how we measure consciousness, how we know that others are conscious, but we did not think ourselves aware -- that is not possible. If it were possible, then computers would be conscious and have minds. They would at least be as conscious, sentient, as a blade of grass. What constitutes mind, what it is made up of, what sets its parameter, and how it works, is most of what I study. There is still a great deal to learn, but one of the most important things to remember is that the mind is not one singular thing. There is a very distinct difference in the way the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind actually work, which can not be denied. According to Dr. Blanco, there are, I think, five levels in the unconscious mind, and one of those levels relates to the oogey boogey factor. I agree that we do not want to experience this acausal, psychological realm. When the parameters of mind break down, as in schizophrenia, many people prefer suicide to experiencing an acausal reality, while living in a causal reality. But I can't agree that "these things don't want us to know what the mind is" because that would mean that "these things" have a will, a consciousness, a purpose. I just can't go there. It seems more likely that we don't want to know about "these things". Isn't this what monks do while trying to reach Nirvana? They move their awareness into the mind, and I suspect that this has to be the unconscious mind, in order to reach Nirvana -- which can be translated to mean extinguishment. I have never studied them directly, but it is my understanding that they are trying to avoid the involuntary reincarnating, so that they have more control over their futures. This process requires extreme discipline and also requires that they break the bonds that tie them to their bodies and their lives. The interesting thing about this is that they have to break bonds. We know that bonds are forged by emotion/feelings. We also know that emotion can alter the parameters of mind; such as, in multiple personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder that can move awareness, emotional shock which can kill, family bonds forged in love, or bonds forged through trauma, or even the temporary bonds that we call the riot mentality. Emotion and bonding have a tremendous amount of power over mind and may set the parameters of mind. If breaking bonds will allow a monk to experience acausal reality without dire consequences, like what a schizophrenic experiences, then that adds weight to the idea that bonding and emotion control mind. If you also include studies of the paranormal, which is where people get glimpses of the unconscious, you will find that the paranormal also works through emotion. The unconscious mind works through emotion. Emotion is tied to chemistry in the brain. All of the above examples can be influenced by changing the chemistry in the brain. So it looks to me as though the parameters of mind are set by chemistry in the brain, which influence emotion, and are influenced by emotion, since emotion = chemistry = emotion -- it is circular. Newborns can recognize a face very early on, I think within a month or two of birth. So they have vision and recognition. What is Cube 1 and Cube 2? I think the unconscious aspect of mind could well be acausal. Well, I can't agree that I am God, but I can say that consciousness is interpreted to be "God". All of life is a bunch of cameras. In my opinion Gee

Eldad Eshel; Please consider my following thoughts: It is not likely that people in this forum are going to find the above to be "crucial evidence". First because it has not been peer reviewed and accepted by mainstream science, which takes a very long time and a lot of different testing by different people. Second because it has the word "spirit" in the title and comes from a site that supports paranormal investigations, so it will be summarily dismissed. But I found it very interesting, especially the part about testing Global Consciousness. I think that I have heard about this testing, but that was before I started to focus my studies on emotion. Most, if not all, of the paranormal works through emotion, but I did not see how this was relative to telekinesis. The Global Consciousness test was getting rather mundane results until there was a worldwide emotional reaction to something, then the results took a rather spectacular turn. This implies that strong emotion also affects telekinesis. So I thank you for the link. We know that emotion is tied to the chemistry in our brains and/or bodies. Science accepts this and will acknowledge that chemistry can affect emotion and emotion can affect chemistry, so it is circular. Emotion = chemistry = emotion. What people fail to realize is how very relevant emotion is, and often dismiss it as just a byproduct of the brain. I think this is a huge mistake. We know that emotion affects thought and can create memories that never happened, or delete memories. It also affects mind, and probably sets the parameters of mind, which is why we use chemistry to try to control things like schizophrenia. Emotion also affects the body. All of these are within the body, but emotion also creates bonds between people, is at the source of the paranormal, and is what we call spiritual. So emotion is very busy within and between our lives. I suspect that people, who have psychic abilities, have them because of the chemical make up of their brain, and there is some support and evidence for this idea. The aura reader that I discussed earlier in this thread told me that she has seen auras since she was four years old, which is her earliest memory of them. But as a teen, she got into some drug use and stopped seeing auras. She thought she had lost the ability, but it returned after she grew up and cleaned up. She also never sees auras in her third trimester of pregnancy. These things would affect her chemical/hormonal make up. I had premonitions during a pregnancy, while I was also on an asthma medication that I suspect was a steroid. I never experienced premonitions before or after that time, even though that was not my only pregnancy. Years ago, I read an article that stated that if a person was going to have a premonition, it would most likely be while pregnant. Then they gave some Madonna-like explanation that women were reaching out to their unborn child, which I did not buy. I think that it is chemical. So did my unique chemical make up along with the hormones related to pregnancy along with the medication cause premonitions? Probably. I am not the first person to link chemistry with the paranormal as is evidenced by the extensive testing done in the 70's using things like LSD. The tests failed to achieve anything that would be worthwhile and results were not very controllable. The testers failed to understand the complexities involved in playing with the mind through chemicals. I do not recommend using chemicals to try to enhance the paranormal. The results could be devastating, but using emotion might have some effect. Agreed. Metaphysics is something that is usually studied by philosophy. Although science does touch on metaphysics, they do it from the standpoint of the physical or from math. If you go to Wikipedia and type in metaphysics, you can become more familiar with the way other people use this word. I would probably call your "Metaphysical world" consciousness. That is what I study -- consciousness. Philosophy also studies this and compares ideas about the tree in your mind with the tree that you see, and throws around lots of ideas about which is more real. It can drive a person crazy. (chuckle) This is interesting, and I have not seen it explained in this way before, but this does seem to be the way it works. The few times that I felt that I got information from telepathy/ESP, what I got was just a picture or idea or feeling. Nothing in context, nothing that tells me how it applies or when it applies, just a simple singular idea -- it was definitely not continuous. Or what did Cladking call it? Snippets? I think so, and this is how information from the paranormal works. So people have to try to interpret this little segment or snippet, to try to make some sense of it. I would use the word mind, rather than the word "soul" because saying soul irritates science people -- even though mind and soul are the same thing. The only power in the metaphysical world that I understand would be emotion, which is fluid. Well, I don't think that there is any actual segment or special matter and suspect that it is chemistry and hormones that guide consciousness; although, the brain does work consciousness, so maybe one could call the brain special matter. Let me know what you think about the above. Gee John Cuthber; Please consider: But everyone does have it. We are allowing terminology to make a mockery of us. Do you have a self? Whether it is called mind or soul, it is still the self. Can you put your arm in the air and bring it back down? Then you have just demonstrated mind over matter. Yes, there are nerves, muscles, tendons and the brain, but it started with mind. Have you ever had a hunch, or feeling about something, that worked out? Premonition. Do you have good instincts or intuition? ESP or telepathy. What is telekinesis? Well that would be the ability to animate or move matter. You have just described life. That is what life is, a mental awareness that animates matter until it is dead. Everyone has psychic ability, or at least everyone who is alive has it. We just have it in different degrees and with different awareness of what is happening. Just like some people can lift 200 pounds, but I can't. Or like some people can write beautiful music or make great art. They have no special powers, just an awareness of their strong abilities. We have allowed religions, superstitions, imaginings, and parlor tricks, to convince us that psychic ability is POWER, but that is nonsense. Or maybe too many of the members have been watching too much television with walking cadavers, Xmen, and mutants. (chuckle) In my opinion Gee

Ajb; Please consider: This gave me a chuckle. Do you watch the Walking Dead? My kids and grandkids love that show, but I just can't see why. Maybe you are right. But that is not what I am talking about when I say paranormal, and I don't think that this thread is about vampires, ghouls, werewolves, monsters, saints and demons, or things that go bump in the night. Those things are either physically real, or they are interpretations. Imagination is involved in interpretation, but with the paranormal, it is after the communication and is an interpretation of the communication. Or an entirely different subject. Like the difference between cooking a meal and digesting a meal; all relative to eating, but very different. For the record: When I talk about the paranormal, I am talking about mental communication that has no known source, or no understandable path. I believe Eshel will agree with my understanding. Now I understand what you are talking about. I do not consider "famous people" who make money from the paranormal worth considering for testing. Why? Because motivations cause too many problems. If Ms. Morgan submitted to testing, she would be putting her reputation and source of income on the line. If she failed the test, she would be ruined; and she would fail the test because the testers do not know WTF they are testing for. And the testers would also be motivated to make a name for themselves, so they would work hard to make her fail. She would have to be the bloody stupidest fool on the planet to submit to that. Being psychic does not make a person stupid. Since the paranormal is not very controllable, I suspect that most "famous" people who submit to testing have a very good trick they are trying to use. Or they are pretty stupid. I think that people like Ms. Morgan have some psychic ability, a very strong intuition, and an ability to read people well. This is not unlike a really good CEO's abilities. Just trade the word psychic for hunch and the word intuition for instinct. Years ago, I read an article written by a psychic. She talked about being four or five years old and going to her Grandparent's farm for a family visit. When she arrived, she ran up to the porch where her Grandfather was, her favorite person in the whole world, he snatched her up, hugged her and spun her around. But when she looked into his face, she saw a skull. She screamed, ran away from him, and avoided him for the entire visit. A few months later he died. As an adult, she learned that this is one of the ways that her mind interprets imminent death, but she did not know that as a child. She carried the grief and trauma of that last visit with her Grandfather for many years. She hurt him badly, as she was also one of his favorite people. So it was her hope that she might be able to help someone else, who is experiencing these types of things, and has no one to teach them. So does this mean that she is a walking death detector? No. It only works with some people, mostly people that she has a relationship with, but occasionally perfect strangers. How does one test this? Not in a lab, that is for sure. The only way that I can think of would be to have her write down the names and dates when she sees a skull instead of a face, then see if things match up. It could take years for any kind of valid results. This is why I stated that repeatable lab tests do not work, but there can be evidence found in observation. The only peer-reviewed reference that I know of, off hand, is Dr. Stevenson's work at the University of Virginia. I have been examining this more from the perspective of consciousness, than the paranormal, for the last few years. To me, what can not be properly explained seems to align with aspects of consciousness that are also not properly explained. No magic, ghouls, and goblins. Agreed. But philosophy studies what is real, and I am by nature and habit a philosopher. I worked in law and knew some tricky lawyers. (chuckle) There are lots of ways to fool the mind and lots of ways to corrupt memory, but last time I checked this did not change historical events. If I had a premonition about something, and talked about this to many people, and acted on the belief that this premonition was true, then when it happened, there would be a historical record of the events. This historical record would be observable evidence. That does not mean that I could go into a lab and make predictions on demand. Gee

Eldad Eshel; I have not yet reviewed the last link that you provided, just gave it a cursory scan, and would like to do so before answering you. I also would like to take some time to think about your above post. The words that you chose to use make it difficult for me to fully understand you. It also appears that you have not properly sorted out the divisions of science and philosophy, so you are making assumptions that are not true. I think that I can understand some of what you say, and I know that I can help you understand some things, so give me a day or two to respond. Gee PS If I were you, I would not respond to Strange's post.