The Supernatural and Superstition

[tar]

Gees,

 

Take your time, and take care of yourself, do what is required to continue living, and living well.

 

Anything we are discussing here, and anything we have not yet discussed but would like to, if true, will remain true. So we have time. Anything of substance and value, anything that fits the case, will likely continue to fit, with no need of tending or urging.

 

I have a general theory of thought, that hypothesises that good thoughts, correct thoughts, thoughts that fit, will be rapidly accepted and incorporated in other peoples minds, improved upon, worked into other thoughts, and spread to other minds through action and word. And bad thoughts, unworkable thoughts, thoughts that are faulty or without basis, will simply be discarded, and will not survive.

Sort of the survival of the fittest.

Not that incorrect thoughts, or incomplete thoughts, or half true thoughts are not sometimes spread, but there is an old saying that I think might be actually discriptive of how thought works, "the truth will out."

 

I am thinking that when something evident is noticed by one, and pointed to, and another sees it too, it is readily incorporated into the other's thinking, or model of the world, if you will.

 

As a hypothetical example, the general feeling about UFOs is one of disbelief. They do not really exist. They could, they might, it is possible, but they are not part of our reality. Just figments of the imagination, lights in the sky misinterpreted, drunken hallucinations, and science fiction...but, if we tracked something not taking an eliptical path around the Sun, coming toward us, and this was reported and confirmed and the thing landed on Earth somewhere, with the cell phone and news camera confirmation, and little green men came out...well then we would all instantly know that what we thought was possible, was actually true, and part of our reality. And all thinkers, would then incorporate this knowledge, into their thinking. Theories would be reworked to fit, and new possibilities would be embraced, and new precautions would be envisioned, simultaneously, in more than one mind.

 

Look at the wide acceptance of Cell Phones, and Smart Phones, and iPads, and the Apps, that are released one day, and common place the next. Apps improved upon and used and incorporated into the personal and business lifes of millions, in a matter of days and weeks. Look at how fast a good joke spread, even when only mail and land lines existed. Or a scientific discovery, or advancement in technology, like bronze working.

 

Good ideas will not perish. Quite the opposite is likely their fate. So Gees, we have time, to get it right. And if its right, we don't have to worry about it never coming out.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

We are not the only detectives on the case.

[cladking]

 

I have a general theory of thought, that hypothesises that good thoughts, correct thoughts, thoughts that fit, will be rapidly accepted and incorporated in other peoples minds, improved upon, worked into other thoughts, and spread to other minds through action and word. And bad thoughts, unworkable thoughts, thoughts that are faulty or without basis, will simply be discarded, and will not survive.

Sort of the survival of the fittest.

Not that incorrect thoughts, or incomplete thoughts, or half true thoughts are not sometimes spread, but there is an old saying that I think might be actually discriptive of how thought works, "the truth will out."

 

I am thinking that when something evident is noticed by one, and pointed to, and another sees it too, it is readily incorporated into the other's thinking, or model of the world, if you will.

 

 

Oh, my goodness, no. Just a few years I believed half of what you're saying but I no longer believe it at all. People tend to make up their minds and then never change them which is why almost all scientific advancement is demographic in character. Old ideas literally die out to be replaced with fresh new ideas. I don't think it's always been this way.

 

I would agree that the truth will win in the long run and that scientific progress as it applies to thought is a steady advancement but along the way there are lots of ups and downs. Individuals are responsible for the advancement but it's a sort of group think which determines present "truth" and this "truth" may have little bearing on reality. We live in a world that most resources are wasted and ideas are a dime a dozen but in the real world, the one that has the final accounting and doesn't care about man, natural resources, human resources, and "mental" resources are the only things of true and lasting "value". It's true that "love", "loyalty", etc are of great lasting value but only to people and nature doesn't give a whit about man. It's what we do collectively that is held to a real world accounting and we actually act on beliefs both individually and collectively.

 

All people believe what they choose to believe and act only on those beliefs. Most people have huge difficulty adapting their beliefs to fit new evidence and new facts because people become their beliefs. This is just the way we are and the amount of deviation is much less than you think.

 

 

It is not my thought that "flocking species" are different as much as it is my thought that their development seems to have stopped. It is my belief that flocking, or group-think, behavior is an aspect of the unconscious mind, just as individual thinking is an aspect of the rational conscious mind--or the emergence that science identifies as consciousness. Since the unconscious mind came first, it seems to me that all species have the capacity for "group-think", but some seem to function by group-think behavior more than by individual behavior. These species tend to also not be very bright individually and tend to be very emotional.

 

 

To me the unconscious mind is nothing but memories, knowledge, ability, muscle memory, body, and various learning. The brain is wired and thought fascilitates the ability to access these as needed. The unconscious is just that; unconscious. Dreams don't tell us anything about about ourselves but merely disclose the way the brain is wired by how it processes errant signals that become the dreams. You make an interesting argument about the need and importance of dreams but I'm mostly unswayed.

The unconscious aspect of mind is ruled by emotion. I remember stories told by cowboys that they used to sing to the cattle to prevent stampedes. The thinking was scare a cow, scare them all; calm a cow, calm them all--group think.

 

Because I am not a very social person, myself, I have trouble seeing those "advantages", but will take your word for it. (chuckle) I agree that there is no real leader and that this is more a matter of a flowing group behavior.

 

 

I think the advantage is survival rather than interpersonal relations. In a school of fish each indididual has a better chance against predation than they would have individually. Multiple potential targets don't fool most predators but only the exterior fish can be targets at all. The same applies to nesting birds and most animals which move or exist in colonies or flocks. Some species, of course, also need the actions of multiple individuals to survive.

 

There are a lot of people who will deny ESP and state that any "awareness" comes from body language and other observations. I do not agree. I can see where a running, bawling cow could make the others run, as in the example above, but I fail to see how a calm cow could make the others calm. Of course, these observations come from cowboys, so what could a bunch of wisened old cowboys know? (chuckle chuckle)

 

 

There's a lot going on that isn't in plain sight. I used to tell a person all about themselves just by using clues that they display in speech, apparel, etc. Of course, I needed their cooperation in how they answered the my "predictions" since this was where most of the clues existed. Sometimes it would be uncanny how accurately I could get it. Frankly a lot of it was just guessing, stabs in the dark, and looking for more clues. Operating almost strictly on intuition doesn't hurt. It works best in person.

 

While I agree with most of this, I think that you may not appreciate all of the layers of the unconscious aspect of mind. While thought can influence and "allow" growth in the unconscious, it is just as important to remember that the unconscious came before the conscious, so there is more going on there than you imply.

 

 

We certainly seem to have vastly different estimations of the nature of the unconscious mind. Most of what I think I know about it has only developed in the last fifteen years and especially in the last three years so I'm not married to any of these "beliefs". I'm not really married to very many beliefs at all.

 

I remember reading a quote once that said, "What makes mankind so superior to other life?" My answer was, "Mankind's opinion." (chuckle chuckle)

 

 

Exactly. I'm pretty confident that most species other than dogs think humans are mentally slow. Most species seem to exist or coexist in a sort of unison while people are always the odd man out. At least dogs think we're smart unless they're just humoring us for the free handouts.

 

Stay well.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

I am basically suspicious of psychics. "Reading" people is certainly a skill many have. My theory is that is because other people, are people too. Same structure of brain and senses, same basic needs and reactions to things, etc.. While people vary in experience, intelligence, personality, religion, wealth, purpose and hundreds of other characteristics, we all tend to wipe our noses when they run.

We are tend to be sad when a loved one dies, and happy when somebody notices us, and acknowledges us in a friendly manner, etc.

 

I find it silly to use the obvious, to impress another with your clarvoyance. And one of my favorite jokes is to say in a knowing way, when someone mentions somebody getting married...wait...wait...he/she is marrying his/her fiance, RIGHT?

 

Or when someone announces a pregnancy, I like to say "they know what causes that now."

 

The fact that you use the infomation given in the last answer, to make your next guess or probe, is no different, in terms of ability to READ people, than knowing your wife will be hungry when she gets home at supertime.

 

"So honey, (looking into the crystal ball) I see you are hungry."

 

"Why yes I am." "You are such a seer."

 

I make light, Cladking, because we are talking about people's belief in the supernatural. That something other than the apparent is being accessed, when the apparent will suffice.

 

Not magical unexplained powers are required to read people. Just common human sense.

 

How many movies have we seen where the "pyschic" peaks in the purse when the subjects back is turned, and "gets" these on the mark "vibes".

 

There is a show called "pysched" (sorry I can't spell, that might not be it) where the main character, who is very observant and has a terrific memory for detail, passed himself off as a psychic to the police dept. and helps to solve crimes.

 

I would imagine that many feel they have a "special" gift, of some sort, that is actually not that unique, or when things happen the way they wanted them to, or guessed that they would. I certainly wonder about such things myself when coincidence seems to not be a good enought answer.

 

I was in Japan and they were suffering a drought. I jokingly asked my host to give me a Yen penny and I would speak to the clouds on the way out. I kept my word, and hummed a little indian rain dance tune, under my breath, as I urged the clouds to gather and rain. Later that week I saw on the news that a hurricane had brought tremendous rains to the area. Several years later I was out in Tahoe, and they were experiencing a 7 year drought. The docks on the north end of the lake in a shallow cove, were sitting on the gravel, and you had to walk 50 yds out to reach water. On the ride to the airport, with several of my workmates in attendance, I told the driver the Japan story, and asked him to give me a penny, and I would talk to the clouds as I had done in Japan, on my way out of Reno. I hummed the dance again, and urged the clouds to gather. Later that week, I saw on the news that California was experience terrific rains and mudslide, and the drought was over in the Tahoe area soon after that.

 

The story earned me the nickname "Chief Tom Tom" at work. I am now out of the rain making business, since I don't seem to be able to control the strength of the clouds' response. Plus I wouldn't want to try it a third time, and have it not work. That would mean that I don't have a special power or connection to the clouds.

 

Regards, TAR2

Plus, I would have to give the pennies back.

[cladking]

The yen was a yr 52 with slight wear and damage.

 

I believe that almost all pschics and palm readers and the like are fake and the vast majority of them know they are fakes. But, I do agree with Gees that there are things going on that are not in plain sight and some of these things could underlie beliefs in ESP and the like. This doesn't mean I think that anyone can necessarily communicate telepathically or that there is anything supernatural. Without knowing what's natural it would be foolish to ascribe something to the supernatural.

 

We each think in different ways but none of us knows how to explain the important things that occur. All we can do is predict the gross and immediate so long as most of the variables are known or can be estimated. If we were so smart we'd train the butterfly in China to give us only good weather.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

I think you nailed the century of mint, right on the head.

 

You can tell by the story, that although I know I can't control the weather, I am not 100% sure that I can't. Maybe clouds are just billowing about aimlessly and will do what anybody asks them to do, but nobody asks. All sorts of possibilities come to mind. Maybe people that die, no longer having a body to inhabit, take up residence in trees and frogs and clouds and things, in some sense or way or another that we just do not understand the mechanisms and the manner in which this occurs. Maybe. But if one has a particular theory on how this might be accomplished, one can test it. If the test fails, or is falsified by simple logic, why is it, we still leave a slot open for our imaginations to be correct, in some undiscovered, unnoticed, unbelievable fashion?

 

I know I leave open the possibility that "other" stuff is going on. So I am not saying that it isn't going on. But what kind and sort of "other" stuff are you talking about? If you leave a completely blank check on the matter, where no known rules of behaviour of the universe are followed, or have to be followed, then you are fishing in the realm of the supernatural.

 

The Eastern religions have constructed a complex bevy of personalities and eminations thereof, to "explain" the movements and interactions of the world. They are not required, and not evident, and do not operate on understandable principles that should be the case, if those personalities and eminations were actual. Occums razorwise, they have gotten way too complex with the theory, and explain away inconsistencies and apparent falsifications with the sudden or capricious will being excercised, of one or the other of a minor troublemaking gods or whatever. How do they know the godlet operates in this fashion? Based on what? Who told them such nonsense? Why can they not point to their source of this knowledge, or any proof, or evidence consistent with the world we know, where we could say, "oh, now I see, that makes sense". "that explains it".?

 

Oh the gods just operate in ways we don't understand, and do these capricious things for their own reasons. Really? How can one count on THAT being the solid foundation upon which one may build a "true" understanding of the world? Seems rather inside out to me. And internally contradictive.

 

My simple test is, if it makes no sense, you probably made it up, because the world already makes sense, and fits itself, exactly, with nothing left unaccounted for. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the butterfly flapping its wings in China DOES have a bearing on the weather in Chicago. Everything is connected already, and we need not make up a false way, in which this might occur. Its already true. Its already beyond comprehension in size and duration and complexity.

 

Imagination does not make it any more amazing than is already the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Well I have been reviewing this thread, all nine pages, and am discouraged. At this rate, I will never get to the meat of the matter as no one seems to understand where I am going with this. How could I possibly present the clues that I have noted that tell me that conscious awareness is affected by cold, if everyone thinks that conscious awareness is all in their heads? I will look like a lunatic. It would be very much like a physics professor trying to teach me some theory of physics while I try to comprehend it with my math skills and belief that I already understand the matter. So I think that I need to back up here.

 

In reality, I should probably be pleased that I was able to present some logical proof that other species have awareness, and that it is at least possible that there may be some connections between people that are as yet not understood. So in a forum where most of the members really believe that consciousness is God (religion's take) or consciousness is the brain (science's take), I suppose that I accomplished something. But I am not learning what I need to know.

 

What to do? How to approach this? One of the biggest problems is that I did my studying on my own, so no one knows the background that I assume because of my studies, and I don't know where I need to explain myself in more depth, because I assume that they already understand some things. Too much assumption. It occurs to me that I probably presented the best evidence with regard to connections, but I am not sure if that was because of my personal experiences or because I presented studies from Wiki. I only presented those ideas because I was challenged, but I am not getting challenges on most of my thoughts.

 

Preconceived notions are getting in the way. This became clear when I was challenged about connections. People see ESP as being something magical, but I see it as natural, so I simply considered the different ways that people are connected without an obvious source and looked up ESP, bonding, and attraction. Then I decided that, if the connection was as important as I thought, then there would be affects if this connection was broken, which led to isolation, institutionalization, and marooning. It took about an hour and a half to find all of that information, and I did not post half of it, so it is not like the information is not out there. We are just not seeing it because of preconceived notions. This is what I meant when I stated that science seems to back up my ideas rather regularly. As soon as I look, I find.

 

So I think that I will focus on something that is poorly understood, emotion, and bring in some ideas about language and psychology's take on the unconscious--just to make Cladking crazy. (chuckle)

 

G

 

 

Gees,

I have a general theory of thought, that hypothesises that good thoughts, correct thoughts, thoughts that fit, will be rapidly accepted and incorporated in other peoples minds, improved upon, worked into other thoughts, and spread to other minds through action and word. And bad thoughts, unworkable thoughts, thoughts that are faulty or without basis, will simply be discarded, and will not survive.

 

Your theory does not do a very good job of explaining how the Dark Ages managed to follow the great thinking of the Ancients. Nor does it explain the short life spans, disease, and general poor living conditions of that time, after being exposed to the hygiene issues that are enumerated in the OT.

To me the unconscious mind is nothing but memories, knowledge, ability, muscle memory, body, and various learning. The brain is wired and thought fascilitates the ability to access these as needed. The unconscious is just that; unconscious. Dreams don't tell us anything about about ourselves but merely disclose the way the brain is wired by how it processes errant signals that become the dreams. You make an interesting argument about the need and importance of dreams but I'm mostly unswayed.

 

We certainly seem to have vastly different estimations of the nature of the unconscious mind. Most of what I think I know about it has only developed in the last fifteen years and especially in the last three years so I'm not married to any of these "beliefs". I'm not really married to very many beliefs at all.

 

I suspect that most of our differences in understanding the unconscious comes from perspective. I see the unconscious from the perspective of "mind" as in psychology. Do you see the unconscious from the perspective of neuroscience? This would explain our differences. Did you review the information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article?

I am basically suspicious of psychics.

Not magical unexplained powers are required to read people. Just common human sense.

How many movies have we seen where the "pyschic" peaks in the purse when the subjects back is turned, and "gets" these on the mark "vibes".

The story earned me the nickname "Chief Tom Tom" at work. I am now out of the rain making business, since I don't seem to be able to control the strength of the clouds' response. Plus I wouldn't want to try it a third time, and have it not work. That would mean that I don't have a special power or connection to the clouds.

 

You are still equating the supernatural with magic and power. I know this may look a lot like the "pot calling the kettle black", but I wish you would either expain some kind of logical or reasonable understanding of how this works, or desist.

 

My idea of the supenatural is consciousness that is part of our reality, and that this consciousness is affected by matter. Specifically, this consciousness is activated by chemicals within life forms and can be detected by the emotion and feeling that accompanies the activation. People may not agree with this, but at least I have some explanation of how I think that it works.

 

So please provide some evidence or rational, or maybe you could go to your local video store and pick up a Disney movie--they are all about magic.

You can tell by the story, that although I know I can't control the weather, I am not 100% sure that I can't.

 

Tar;

 

I am sorry that I was so sharp with you. Seeing this post clarifies your thinking. There are so many people, who are willing to treat this issue as a joke, that I find my sense of humor lacking. I apologize for feeling kind of froggy and jumping.

 

The Eastern religions have constructed a complex bevy of personalities and eminations thereof, to "explain" the movements and interactions of the world. They are not required, and not evident, and do not operate on understandable principles that should be the case, if those personalities and eminations were actual. Occums razorwise, they have gotten way too complex with the theory, and explain away inconsistencies and apparent falsifications with the sudden or capricious will being excercised, of one or the other of a minor troublemaking gods or whatever. How do they know the godlet operates in this fashion? Based on what? Who told them such nonsense? Why can they not point to their source of this knowledge, or any proof, or evidence consistent with the world we know, where we could say, "oh, now I see, that makes sense". "that explains it".?

Oh the gods just operate in ways we don't understand, and do these capricious things for their own reasons. Really? How can one count on THAT being the solid foundation upon which one may build a "true" understanding of the world? Seems rather inside out to me. And internally contradictive.

 

Maybe I can help you to understand this. There is a Dr. Robert Brown, Physics Professor at Duke University, who wrote a break-down of the major religions, which I think explains your issues. I will find it and post a link at the end of this response. I think you will enjoy it, as it is a quick easy read, but concise and clear. If I understood him correctly, all of these Hindu gods are not really supposed to be gods, they are just stories--teaching and learning tools.

 

It appears that the thinking was that most people can not absorb the abstract concepts that are part of the Hindu philosophy/religion, so these "gods" are characters in stories to help people relate to the lessons. So it is more a case of pick and choose the story which applies, rather than consistency.

 

This actually makes sense to me. Remember the breakdown of complex, average, and simpler minds that I told you about? Well, I am not the only person who knows about it, as this is old wisdom. All religions and all good leaders know that in order to reach the majority of minds, they need to be able to provide the concepts for the complex minds, the events for the average minds, and the personification for the simpler minds in order to lead. So religions and leaders provide the idea, then they provide parades or rituals, and they provide some kind of persona. This is why the Buddha is not supposed to be a "god", but everyone has a statue, and probably why Atheism does not catch on as well as most would like. How would they teach the children?

 

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node14.html

 

G.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Gees

[cladking]

 

 

My simple test is, if it makes no sense, you probably made it up, because the world already makes sense, and fits itself, exactly, with nothing left unaccounted for. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the butterfly flapping its wings in China DOES have a bearing on the weather in Chicago. Everything is connected already, and we need not make up a false way, in which this might occur. Its already true. Its already beyond comprehension in size and duration and complexity.

 

Imagination does not make it any more amazing than is already the case.

 

 

 

Good post, well said.

 

Regarding the above I believe that what everyone has been missing for the last 4,000 years is that while everything does, indeed, fit together and form a wondrous whole, we are seeing only a tiny part of that whole. We can cut into it and view it from every single imaginable angle and see its regularity, repeatability, and logic but most of it is still unseen and unknown.

 

It's not really safe to make predictions about the unknown. Yes, we hypothesize but this are driven by what's known rather than what's unknown. When we make assumptions about unknowns we are assuming the conclusion; in this case that all of nature is regular, comprehensible, and knowable. We are replacing one belief system with another. We have a perception of our omniscience generated by our technology and rarely are able to see just how shallow our knowledge really is. Our understanding can be no deeper than the result of scientific experiment because of the nature of our metaphysics. We can, at least in theory, amend our metaphysics to include mathmatical constructs but to date there is little justification nor a move in this direction. Until hypothesis generates prediction (technology) it has no utility and once it generates predictions than it should become testable by experiment. Of course this isn't certain.

 

So we're left to study nature whose dimensions aren't even known though we sense we have a handle on her laws despite the fact that none of the important things day to day things are known and even fundamental forces can only be measured. Not needing to spend all day seeking food or wresting it from the earth by the sweat of our brow doesn't mean we know everything or live in the Garden of Eden. Our ignoring of everything which doesn't involve the lab or its products does not cause it to not exist.

 

Back later.

[tar]

Gees,

 

Read your latest link about Hinduism. I already hold the highter order concepts discussed. I had a long talk with God when I was 13, and understood it's predicament, how it was my job to not know everything and thereby be able to witness what would otherwise have no witness nor movement. I had an epiphany on a mountain top in Germany later in life, as I have described about treeness and life grabbing form and structure from a universe tending toward entropy, for this fleeting moment in the expanse of space and time. I already understand the higher order concepts involved.

 

But we are insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe, by space and by time, and by scale. We can conceive of these things, but we can't "get there" and we can't get "then", and we can't be tiny and we can't be huge. We are of and in the thing, at this particular scale, at this particular time, and at this particular place. Certainly its our universe, its the only one we've got, its the only one that matters to us. We can't escape it, and we can't have it all. That however is not as important a consideration as what it is that we will have for dinner, and who we will have it with, and how we can make it possible for others to enjoy the same.

 

I am in your upper third, if understanding these higher order concepts is all it takes. If that puts me in the upper 3% by your calculations, so be it. But I am not keeping any secrets, or looking for any to be revealed to me. I already get it. I am here temporarily, and the universe is here for good.

Since I am in and of it, I can call it mine and associate myself with any or all of it. But since I am doing it as me, I have to take the good with the bad, the love with the hate, the joy with the fear, the birth with the death. You can't be alive without being born, and you cannot live past your death. That is what death means. The end of a life. The universe goes on after that, as it was going on, before your birth. Your species goes on after your death, as it was going on before your birth. There is a continuity and an ownership one can realistically claim, about that which came before and will come after, but the only real concern, is here and now, and the relationship of everything else to it. Being conscious means that the universe can be conscious of itself. Its a forgone conclusion. There is no way to deny it. The "mystery" is only to figure out, how we managed it. To trace the progression from no distinctions, to this.

 

You presuppose consciousness as a substance. I think it is not. I think it is an action, I think it is a thing we do, and I think it is a thing we own, and have earned, that is ours, for the time being.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Life and consciousness is a victory, that we have already won. And we lose everything, when we die. Only those that survive, that remain alive, will care, or be conscious of the world, after that.

 

I am wondering if you think the world would be "better" if all the dullard and the average humans were removed and only those in a high state of consciousness remained? If only the monk on the mountaintop was alive? Would that do it for you? I think not.

 

Say, I want to ask you something, that I think the answer to, has great bearing on the nature of our consciousness. Why to we all have the same now? The same today, the same yesterday, and the same tomorrow? Now there is a connection, worth looking into. Why are we all in the beginning of August, 2013 at the moment? We all have lived through many months and seasons. But it is this day, that we are all, simultaneously aware of, as currently happening. The things that died yesterday are dead and gone, the things that will be born tomorrow will join our now. Every rock and tree, cloud and quark has the same now. (give or take the speed of light)

[cladking]

I suspect that most of our differences in understanding the unconscious comes from perspective. I see the unconscious from the perspective of "mind" as in psychology. Do you see the unconscious from the perspective of neuroscience? This would explain our differences. Did you review the information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article?

 

 

I looked through the thread and even googled it. I don't see or remember to what you refer.

[Gees]

Gees,

 

Read your latest link about Hinduism. I already hold the highter order concepts discussed.

 

So you know that the "gods" in the Hindu religion/philosophy are not really understood to be gods. They are more like characters for examples to learn from. I very much enjoyed Dr. Brown's paper because he gives a one-page synopsis on most of the better known religions. One could spend a lifetime studying religion in order to gain the knowledge that he put together for our review.

 

If you took a few minutes to look at the work, you know that he addresses everything from tribal spiritual religions through Quakerism, and Eastern religions/philosophies, to the Abrahamic religions. So for someone like me, looking for an overview for comparisons, the work is wonderful. He does not go into a great deal of tedious detail, but gives a good overview of the ideals, goals, and general slant of the religions. Although, he is not without his biases. I noticed that he thought that Buddha would be unhappy with the use of his statue as a representative "god", but Dr. Brown did not seem to notice that Jesus would be rolling over in his grave if he could know some of the things that Christians did in his name. Good thing he ascended.

 

But we are insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe, by space and by time, and by scale. We can conceive of these things, but we can't "get there" and we can't get "then", and we can't be tiny and we can't be huge. We are of and in the thing, at this particular scale, at this particular time, and at this particular place. Certainly its our universe, its the only one we've got, its the only one that matters to us. We can't escape it, and we can't have it all. That however is not as important a consideration as what it is that we will have for dinner, and who we will have it with, and how we can make it possible for others to enjoy the same.

 

Well, if enlightenment is all that they say, we can get a peek at the "all", the "there" and the "then" through the unconscious aspect of mind. But you are also correct in that living life is the purpose of life. We are in agreement that the chasing of what we were and will be, can cause us to neglect the life that is. Now. Sometimes Eastern religion/philosophy seems to not note this purpose.

 

I am in your upper third, if understanding these higher order concepts is all it takes. If that puts me in the upper 3% by your calculations, so be it. But I am not keeping any secrets, or looking for any to be revealed to me. I already get it. I am here temporarily, and the universe is here for good.

 

I don't think it is a third. This is based on my observations of elementary schools and teaching methods. Between 70 to 80 percent of children fit into the norm or average category, ten to fifteen percent fall below, and ten to fifteen percent are above. The average child will get a reasonable education even if the teacher is incompetent; the below average have programs to help them learn; and the above average make up too big a pecentage of our drop outs. Education should be more about fitting in and filling a requirement of life, than intelligence, but it's not.

 

My Grandmother used to tell me that our motivations behind our actions would affect our goals. She was right. I think that IQ testing started out as a kind of justification; the Nobles wanted to prove that they were better, and the Common people wanted to prove that they were capable of learning as well as a Noble--so someone invented a test. We still test for the same reason--justification. The average are considered fine, the below average are assisted, and the above average are assumed to be well off, because they already know everything. Don't they? (chuckle chuckle)

 

Of course this thinking is absurd as we all need to learn about ourselves and our abilities and our value to the rest, so that we can find our place in life. If I could choose an intelligence level for my children, I would place them on the high side of average. This would give them the ability to fit into society, but also to think on their own and occasionally lead, so I suspect that this is where most of our professionals and leaders are.

 

As to the 3%, I think that is a MENSA thing. You know MENSA don't you? This is a group of people who test at or above the 3%; MENSA stands for May Everyone Note the Superior Asses, or something like that. Maybe I am wrong?

 

Since I am in and of it, I can call it mine and associate myself with any or all of it. But since I am doing it as me, I have to take the good with the bad, the love with the hate, the joy with the fear, the birth with the death. You can't be alive without being born, and you cannot live past your death. That is what death means. The end of a life. The universe goes on after that, as it was going on, before your birth. Your species goes on after your death, as it was going on before your birth. There is a continuity and an ownership one can realistically claim, about that which came before and will come after, but the only real concern, is here and now, and the relationship of everything else to it.

 

I like and agree with this, but find that although death ends life, I doubt that it ends existence.

 

Being conscious means that the universe can be conscious of itself. Its a forgone conclusion. There is no way to deny it. The "mystery" is only to figure out, how we managed it. To trace the progression from no distinctions, to this.

 

I am lost here and don't see the forgone conclusion. To clarify, you mean the "we" in "how we managed it" to be ourselves in a relationship with the Universe?

 

You presuppose consciousness as a substance. I think it is not. I think it is an action, I think it is a thing we do, and I think it is a thing we own, and have earned, that is ours, for the time being.

 

OK. If this is so, then when the "action" occurs, what moves? Many people are content to say that the movement is caused by the brain, but they are only talking about the first division, knowledge, thought, and thinking, the internal aspect of consciousness. When considering the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, this becomes more complicated because these things "move" without an obvious physical source outside of the body--the external aspect of consciousness. Emotion actually moves between life forms, bonds them, and connects them, so what is moving? This is why I study the supernatural, because it is the ONLY way to observe the movement outside of the body, until science finally figures out what consciousness actually is.

 

Consider this another way; is the wind real? Does it exist? Of course it does as we can all feel it. We can see the effects of it on other matter, so it is real. What about when it stops moving. Does it exist then? Well no, once it stops moving, there is no wind. Many people relate this idea to consciousness, so when it stops moving, they see it as not existing--death.

 

Without air, the wind could not move. What is the "air" of conscious awareness? What moves?

 

I am wondering if you think the world would be "better" if all the dullard and the average humans were removed and only those in a high state of consciousness remained? If only the monk on the mountaintop was alive? Would that do it for you? I think not.

 

It sounds like you think that I am an intellectual snob. I am not. I was always overly intelligent, but won't be apologizing for it, as I must grab onto the few virtures that I have. There is nothing wrong with knowing one's self and appreciating our virtues, but we also have flaws that we know rather intimately. If, in fact, a decent personality were required of life, I would have self aborted decades ago. (chuckle)

 

My husband thought himself to be a rather dumb man, probably because he was dyslexic and did not learn to read until his forties. But I thought him to be warm, wise, and full of the understanding of life that I lacked. I learned a great deal from this "dumb" man and loved him for it.

 

Say, I want to ask you something, that I think the answer to, has great bearing on the nature of our consciousness. Why to we all have the same now? The same today, the same yesterday, and the same tomorrow? Now there is a connection, worth looking into.

 

Because we are also matter--and matter, matters. This is one of the best arguments against solipsism, the dream theories, and even Plato's cave. I think that science probably uses this argument as our bodies, matter, lock us into time and space.

 

So, Tars, after my idiotic ranting about how I am not learning anything, I find that I am wrong--again. While doing a poor job of trying to communicate my ideas on consciousness to others, I have been working on the way morals fits into this Gordian Knot in the back of my mind. Your explanation of entropy helped, and I think that the reason we fear ghosts so much is because we recognize that ghosts are an entropy of life. Life cycles and comes back together, but ghosts bleed off of this cycle and remain separate, apart, rather than returning to the source. More on this later.

 

G

 

I looked through the thread and even googled it. I don't see or remember to what you refer.

 

You can review the discussion in Post # 89, Page 5 of this thread.

 

http://http://en.wikipedia....io_Matte_Blanco

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

So I see two "problems" developing here. One, having to do with intelligence and one having to do with memory.

 

If intelligence, and the ability to "get it" has created much of the misunderstandings and differences that we have, as in people "fooling" or simplifying for, the less intelligent, then while your Gordian knot may be as entangled as mine, it is not the same threads that are entangled in mine as yours. Your identified threads, untangled and clear to you, may be ones that I have also mastered, that I have also had the insights to understand, and then their are undoubtably others when one or the other of us has already gained the thing, and is working on the next problem, with the proceeds.

 

Getting each other "up to speed" is what I think we are doing a very nice job of, in this thread, but it brings up a sticky issue. Since we are not the first humans to have a discussion, and make agreements, this kind of thing, has probably been going on for quite some long amount of time, since the first conversation between humans, and has resulted in EXACTLY the world we currently have. Many of the knots you and I have successively untangled have been sorted out before, and the answers institutionalized. Thus there is a large possibility, that "finding your place" in the world, has at least the two senses of developing or recognizing your relationship to and with the universe and reality, and that of finding your relationship to and with other humans. The answers to one, may be inconsistent with the answers to the other. In real and or percieved ways.

 

(I have to shower for work again, so I have to hurry here)

 

So the first problem is recognizing that the "other" is working in and amoungst the same tapestry, and there is the woven and the being weaved, the teacher and the student, the done and the next thing to do, on more than one level, occuring all the time... got to go... more later.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The "memory" thing has to do with the importance of maintaining and holding on to stuff, and how this may be critical to success and survival, and how sometimes it might be not so good.

 

Really have to go.

[Gees]

Tars;

 

If you only see two problems, then you are not looking hard enough. (chuckle)

 

The Gordian Knot that I am referring to is understanding how all of the religious, anthropomorphised, supernatural, and moralistic interpretations relate to the reality of a physical concept of consciousness. You see, I think that conscious awareness is real and is part of our reality--not something mystical--just something interpreted and misunderstood. But this information will not change religion or morals very much. It will just explain it.

 

Just as a full and complete understanding of your body and your wife's body will help you to understand sickness and health, or identify your needs together or separately, it will not change your internal, experiential, or emotional relationship with your wife. So an understanding of consciousness will have little or no effect upon religions and morality except maybe to help us identify when they go off course.

 

I'm not sure what intelligence and memory have to do with this, as I have never had an interest in studying intelligence. So I think that your concerns are something that other people will deal with, as people are always trying to find something to do with new information. I am just looking for a real explanation of consciousness.

 

 

Today is the Service for my step-great-grandson. Jason made it less than three years, and struggled for most of that time. His struggle is finally over. Prayers are always appreciated by any and all and may help his Mother, Father, and two sisters. After the Service, I have to give blood at the lab, then my procedure is set for tomorrow. It should be an easy thing. So take your time considering these ideas, it will be a few days before you hear from me.

 

G

 

 

[tar]

Gees,

 

I hope your procedure went well.

 

I am still thinking you may be barking up the wrong tree, on this consciousness thing. That fact that the knot is not unraveling with successive insights, might be an indication that your tack is not working out. I understand that everywhere you look, you see science confirming your guesses and direction, but it is not working the same magic, in my worldview. Just saying. Not meaning to imply that you are right and I am wrong, but consciousness as an already existing substance, just pushes the real problem back to be solved by some other emergence, previous to, anything that is currently evident. Its the old, "well if God made us, who made God" question. If consciousness is a noun, a substance, a force, existing already in the universe, before life, before man, before you and me, then how can we call it ours? It would just be borrowed stuff, gifted by something other than us, given to us at our birth, and taken away, or released back onto the general ether, to seep into the next recipient. It doesn't "answer" anything, really, because then we would have to say this stuff exists, but we don't know why or how, or what rules if any, it goes by.

 

Now on the other hand, if its a verb, a process, an action, a state of being, then we can investigate the way we are put together, and understand the stages and growth and emergence of simple things into complex things, understand how we internalize the outside world, and learn about it, on the basis of, the actual complex peices of the universe that we are.

 

In this take, subject and object, literal and figurative, have meaning and there is basis and evidence to conclude that one is in and of, a changing and enormous reality, with a claim to it, responsibilities to it, and connections to it, where one can in reality be the thing, that one is studying and aware of.

 

Under this kind of thinking, I have deluded myself into thinking, or concluded, that my awareness, my consciousness is an appropriate thing for me to have under the circumstances. And I would not be aware and alive if I was not TAR, with this particular brain/body/heart group to reference. While I think its rather inappropriate that we die, considering life is all we have in the first place, I also believe it is proper and true, to associate with reality in general on an intimate, belongs to me and me to it, basis. In this regard, anything that TAR does or thinks, or feels, is really just this particular piece of the universe being TAR for a time, and in the general sense, there is nothing lost and something gained, in the excercise.

 

Doesn't mean though, that I won't be terrified when death is the obvious next thing that will happen to me. I do not wish to loose the only thing I have. I forsee the moment as likely to be quite a panic situation for me. I only hope I can let me go, gracefully and peacefully, with my hand in the hand of a loved one, and a "its all right" look in my eyes. To pass the torch to the next runner.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Gees,

 

I am still thinking you may be barking up the wrong tree, on this consciousness thing.

 

Tars;

 

I just read your last post and must agree that all of your concerns are valid. I have considered them. The study of consciousness is not remotely simple and has attracted some of the greatest minds in our history, and I believe that many have found the answers to their questions, because I see truth in most of the theories, ideologies, and religions. But finding an answer and telling that answer to another person is an entirely different matter--expecially with regard to perspectives.

 

Perspectives in consciousness become confusing very fast. Consider that I am a daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, aunt, niece, grandmother, great-grandmother, wife, and widow; but I am also a friend, enemy, neighbor, co-worker, teacher, student, etc. I am the person who saved another from pain, loss, and heartbreak; but I am also the person who caused another pain, loss, and heartbreak--it just depends on whom you are talking to. If all of the people, who knew/know me got together to describe who and what I am, what do you think they would come up with? What would the employee, fired for his negligence, say to the aunt, who adores me? What would the competitive and resentful sibling say to the student, who thinks that I am brilliant? What of my Grandmother, who sees me as her continuance, or my child, who sees me as the source of life? Then if you throw in an "invisible" factor, what kind of magic would I end up being? And I am only a speck of temporary consciousness.

 

So studying consciousness from personal perspective is fraught with inconsistencies, and that is not even considering delusions and anthropomorphism that come through the unconscious mind.

 

So the personal perspective, although interesting, is not able to give much useful information. The three disciplinary perspectives, science, religion, and philosophy, all have some good information, but are in competition. They are not working toward a common goal. Then there is the supernatural/paranormal that no one wants to see. My thought is that each of these studies are incomplete. Like Cladking stated, we are slicing and dicing consciousness to see little pieces and aspects of it, but until we look at these ideas together, we will not know consciousness.

 

That fact that the knot is not unraveling with successive insights, might be an indication that your tack is not working out. I understand that everywhere you look, you see science confirming your guesses and direction, but it is not working the same magic, in my worldview.

 

But the Knot is unraveling, and this is mostly due to science. For the first time in known human history, we can take the interpretations of religion, the analysis and critical thinking of philosophy, and add the facts as defined by science and put them together for a better understanding.

 

When problem solving, the first and most important step, is to define the problem. When a problem can not be solved, it is usually because someone skipped or undervalued this first step. One must be very clear about what the problem is, so what is it about consciousness that we wish to solve? We already accept that it is real. What we don't understand is whether it is real to us in a personal way, or if it is real in actuality; if it is something that we feel, something we know, or physical. How does it work? We want to put some parameters around this concept. Philosophy studies what we think that we know about consciousness; religion studies how we feel about consciousness (God); and science studies what consciousness actually is physically.

 

I started out looking for an answer to the paranormal questions, but now understand that this is a study of consciousness, so I am not afraid to see the "supernatural"--no one must convince me that it exists. I have no loyalty to any specific religion, so I can compare religions and their ideas and concepts without worrying about corrupting my soul. In philosophy, I have no ingrained teachings that prejudice my ideas. I know nothing about science, so again, my ideas have not been biased by other people's understandings. Luckily, philosophy and science like to share what they know, and I have a computer. I am a holistic thinker, so I see connections very clearly, and this is what is needed now, someone who can see the connections, the way these things relate to each other.

 

I will not solve the problem of consciousness. I will create no grand theory, propose no hypothesis. I have a curious mind and time on my hands, thanks to MS, so I will study the connections between ideas and disciplines, then share what I see. If I can present a more whole concept for others to review, maybe it will help some very bright person to figure this out eventually, so I don't think that I am "barking up the wrong tree"..

 

Not meaning to imply that you are right and I am wrong, but consciousness as an already existing substance, just pushes the real problem back to be solved by some other emergence, previous to, anything that is currently evident. Its the old, "well if God made us, who made God" question.

 

You are talking about consciousness as if it is a simple singular thing. I seriously doubt that. Since you are more of a science guy, think of consciousness like you would think of energy. It has been stated that everything is actually energy, so why do we need batteries? Why can't we just plug something into reality? (chuckle) Because there are different kinds of energy and the energy is sourced and controlled in different ways by different forces and materials. Consciousness is like this.

 

There is the source of conscious awareness that I suspect is the Aether, but this consciousness, or pre-consciousness, is not within time and space--it has no substance, nor does it have perspective and will. But in conscious life, it is clear that there is a marriage of consciousness to some specific matter, so how could it be part of the matter and have no substance? Science has proven over and over that consciousness is directly affected by the matter in life forms, so this consciousness is within time and space. This consciousness also has perspective and will. An understanding of awareness and emotion tells us that this consciousness also has a source, the life form, and can directly affect another life form in real time and space.

 

There is some kind of consciousness that seems to be created by life. A person, who reads auras will explain that a powerful person will have a powerful aura, and that a person, who is sickly or near death, will often have an aura that is almost invisible because it is so weak. This implies that the aura is produced by, and is a by-product of, life. What about people, who can sense a person's consciousness, while holding an inanimate personal object? Some of these people have worked with law enforcement and helped to solve crimes. What is it that they are sensing? Do we leave a kind of fingerprint of consciousness on the objects that we constantly touch? And what the hell are ghosts? None of these things seem to have any will, but all of them seem to relate to the perspective of the person, who caused the consciousness. The subject of conscious awareness is extremely complex--there is nothing simple about it.

 

If one then considers the levels that Dr. Blanco found in the unconscious mind, the levels that the Eastern religions/philosophies found in the unconscious mind, and the work that science is studying in the conscious rational mind/brain, then it is clear that there is a great deal more to consciousness than anyone prior has even considered.

 

If consciousness is a noun, a substance, a force, existing already in the universe, before life, before man, before you and me, then how can we call it ours? It would just be borrowed stuff, gifted by something other than us, given to us at our birth, and taken away, or released back onto the general ether, to seep into the next recipient. It doesn't "answer" anything, really, because then we would have to say this stuff exists, but we don't know why or how, or what rules if any, it goes by.

 

I suspect that we belong to consciousness as much as it belongs to us. We each have an individual perspective of consciousness, but I suspect that we also have a collective perspective of consciousness, and that there is an eternal and universal aspect of consciousness, but I don't think it has perspective, and these are all very real and part of us as we are part of it.

 

What I have been working on is the rules--how it works. So far I believe that all consciousness, whether it has a perspective or not, is a "self-balancing chaos motivated by want". That the "want" is always caused by some form of matter. That it is a perpetul motion machine that affects all universally. That it can never stop moving and changing. That it can not be overpowered or be constant. That everything influences everything either directly or more likely indirectly. That all causes are also effects and all effects are also causes--so it is going to give science coniptions.

 

Now on the other hand, if its a verb, a process, an action, a state of being, then we can investigate the way we are put together, and understand the stages and growth and emergence of simple things into complex things, understand how we internalize the outside world, and learn about it, on the basis of, the actual complex peices of the universe that we are.

In this take, subject and object, literal and figurative, have meaning and there is basis and evidence to conclude that one is in and of, a changing and enormous reality, with a claim to it, responsibilities to it, and connections to it, where one can in reality be the thing, that one is studying and aware of.

It can be studied this way also.

 

Under this kind of thinking, I have deluded myself into thinking, or concluded, that my awareness, my consciousness is an appropriate thing for me to have under the circumstances. And I would not be aware and alive if I was not TAR, with this particular brain/body/heart group to reference. While I think its rather inappropriate that we die, considering life is all we have in the first place, I also believe it is proper and true, to associate with reality in general on an intimate, belongs to me and me to it, basis. In this regard, anything that TAR does or thinks, or feels, is really just this particular piece of the universe being TAR for a time, and in the general sense, there is nothing lost and something gained, in the excercise.

 

Agreed.

 

Doesn't mean though, that I won't be terrified when death is the obvious next thing that will happen to me. I do not wish to loose the only thing I have. I forsee the moment as likely to be quite a panic situation for me. I only hope I can let me go, gracefully and peacefully, with my hand in the hand of a loved one, and a "its all right" look in my eyes. To pass the torch to the next runner.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Life is an adventure--death is simply the doorway to the next adventure. We all want a peek.

 

G

[Gees]

Cladking;

 

Sometimes I am an idiot. You asked for information regarding Dr. Blanco, and I gave it above, but did not realize that in copying and reposting the link, the program would put another "http" in front of the first and make the link invalid. Hopefully you had the good sense to go to post # 89 on page five to get the correct information. My apologies.

 

I did learn something really cool, though. If you go to "search" at the top of this forum page and type in "Blanco", it will pull up every post in this topic that mentions Dr. Blanco. Handy tool.

 

You and I have some serious differences of opinion regarding Freud and his studies of the unconscious mind, and considering some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his work that I have read, I can't really blame you for your opinions. It is true that Freud had some real "Daddy" issues, and these issues would impact his understandings and his work, but it is my opinion that Freud was a genius, who was well ahead of his time. Because he is so misunderstood, I found myself writing a post about infantile sexuality sometime last year. In that post I tried to show how his understanding of that issue was spot on, but not accepted because of religious interpretations and silly unrealistic beliefs. That post also shows how beliefs can cause change, and that it is more a matter of influences than direct cause that makes real changes in life. So please consider the following from that post.

 

Original post on Freud

 

"If I thought that Freud was an interesting man before, I am doubly convinced now. Everyone has an opinion, and either hates him or thinks that he is brilliant--though not always sure why. (chuckle) There seems to be no general concensus about him, as there are articles that deny the value, applaud the value, and deny him as originator, of his work. The only real concensus that I could find is that he is the Father of Psychoanalysis, and he was a genius.

He thought of himself as a scientist, called himself an "adventurer", had serious "Daddy" issues, and wanted to prove that psychology was a science. I believe that many psychologists turned their backs on him and would have liked to deny him, but neurology has now proven some of his ideas, so instead of losing Freud, psychology has the dubious honor of favoring him because his work helped prove that psychology could be considered a science--a clear vindication for Freud.

As far as his ideas are concerned, they are still as shocking and misunderstood as ever. I can not explain my thinking on many of his ideas, so I will pick one--infantile sexuality--and explain why I think that understanding this one idea is important to our happiness, culture, and way of life.

An act of intimate bonding where two people expose their skin to each other and fit their bodies together for the purpose of continuing life and enjoying pleasure and gratification is what? Sex. But I am not talking about sex, I am talking about nursing (breast feeding) a baby. But this can not be right because babies are pure, innocent, and not sexual. Sex is about adults, and perversions, and morality, and maybe being bad? The concept that sexuality is the opposite of innocence and purity is a cultural and religious idea, and goes against everything in nature--everything in our nature. Freud saw this conflict clearly and realized that this conflict would cause guilt, which would manifest itself in many different ways.

When nursing a baby, the baby is an active participant in the act--and I am not talking about suckling. The baby must seduce Mom and does this by stroking her, wriggling it's body against hers, smiling, cooing, licking, and sometimes nipping at her. Doesn't this sound like sex to you? Baby must draw her attention and make her relax, so that the "let down" reflex will be stimulated and milk will flow; if baby can not accomplish this, the milk does not flow. The "nursing couple" enjoys a stimulating and gratifying exchange that begins with desire and causes bonding--just like sex. Psychologists understand that Mom's instincts will turn her attention to the baby, and often tune out Dad, in her desire to protect and promote life. But because we do not consider this a sexual act, we often don't realize the other consequence of it. Mom is stimulated. But baby can't help with this, so Mom is redirected back to Dad. Dad begins to realize that Mom's body is looking good, losing weight fast with nice sized breasts, Mom can't get pregnant again for about six months (while nursing full time) and baby is providing foreplay, so Mom is stimulated and ready for Dad. So he helps out, with a sparkle in his eye, and thinks that baby is not so bad. All parties bond creating family--life balances.

It is a shame that we lost Freud before we understood hormones and environmental ecosystems, as that information would have been very beneficial to his work. He clearly saw the Id as being a center of chaos, but he could not know that this chaos is directed by hormones, and that this chaos is self balancing. Like a forest that is teeming with life that seems bent on surviving and destroying anything that stands in it's way, we find that each life form balances what another destroys, causing a system that can continue for hundreds of thousands of years. Our instincts (Id) are like this and create a balance within and between us--if we do not disturb the balance too much.

But what if we disturb the balance? What if we change things, and decide that babies are not sexual, so this need not be considered? We can avoid all of that time consuming and messy nursing, and replace that with formula and bottles--much more efficient. Freud could probably explain that this is just like deciding that married couples will bond without sex--not likely, or at least not as well. The family bond is emotional and physical, and the aspect of our minds that holds emotion, and instinct, is also the aspect that holds belief--so what does this do to beliefs?

 

Well, the baby's bond with Mom becomes iffy, and must be developed in other ways. (I should note here that bonding always requires strong emotion, but does not require "positive" emotion.) If not developed this new person may spend his/her life in an isolation that does not include a sure bond with Mom/life. And because bottle fed babies are required to do nothing but accept, another aspect of this is that the baby may well grow up believing that pleasure is to be expected, and that active participation in gaining this pleasure is unnecessary. (The Me Generation?) There has been a lot of study in hospital procedures regarding bonding, as this problem has been noted. In the 50's, a woman was often put into a "twilight" sleep and was "cured" of her labors, but now the hospitals have policies that try to limit intervention, promote bonding, and even teach a new Mom how to nurse her baby. There are a lot of people trying to figure out what causes this breakdown in bonding. It would take time and a few generations before the problem became obvious, but that time is now, as this breakdown started in the 40's and 50's in this country.

 

Then there is the instinct that turns Mom to baby and from Dad; there is nothing in nature to counter this turning unless the Mom nurses. Could this cause an isolation to start between Mom and Dad? A breakdown in their own bond? Could it cause Dad to believe that Mom married him just to gain a child? Could it cause Mom to believe that Dad does not really care about the baby because she is instinctively pushing him away, but does not realize it? Could this be the reason for the well known Barbie joke that says that a Barbie doll costs $20, but a divorce Barbie costs $200 because it comes with all of Ken's property? Could this be the concept behind the movie Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage? I think maybe so, and at the very least, it is part of the problem.

There are many facets to a marriage, and I do not mean to say that not nursing a baby will cause a breakdown in a marriage, as that is not so. But one must consider that bonding is emotional, and sexual gratification creates and reinforces an emotional bond, so it is very much a part of family. I can not tell you how many marriages break up within a year of having the first child, and many of them are due to this instinctive mess. Dad believes that he was used because Mom wanted a child; Mom thinks that Dad does not care about the child; and the child grows up in a mess where everyone resents everyone. Then we add on the tons of guilt. When the baby is seen as the dividing factor in marriage, the guilt is tremendous--because everybody knows that babies are innocent.

Struggle is part of life and growth. Without struggle, life ceases to be, but when we add on unnecessary struggles, like cultural dichotomies that are untrue and interrupt the natural balance of our instinctive drives, the game can change. Either the additional struggle promotes an excessive growth of life, much like a cancer that consumes life; or the additional struggle causes life to extinguish itself. My thought is that this one small change separated the connections, that are a natural part of family, from the physical processes of feeding. So over time, family became a more cerebral idea, rather than an emotional bond. A cerebral idea is temporary like thought, or a contract, an emotional bond is life long.

 

We must learn to either accept life on it's own terms and not interfere, or we must understand life so that we can maintain it's balance--like we are learning to do in ecosystems. Freud can help us to know and understand ourselves if we choose the latter.

I have not found anyone else who understood the divisions within the mind like Freud did. I found people who say that Freud's ideas were not original, and that he took information from other sources, and this is true. I know this because Plato was the first that we know of to try to structure the mind--we all stand on the shoulders of the philosophers who came before us. But this does not change the fact that Freud understood the mind like no one else does. It takes an intelligent mind to comprehend the abstract; it takes a very high intelligence to define and conceive an abstract idea; but it takes a genius to conceive, define, and then interpret the interdependence and exchanges within the aspects of this abstract idea. Freud was a genius, who studied the mind--consciousness."

 

Cladking;

 

The point of this post was not to say that a woman must nurse her baby to save her marriage, it was to show that influence, rather than cause, creates the changes in life. In the 40's there was a war on, so the men went to Europe and the women went into the factories. This has happened many times in many countries over history where women took the dominant role at home, but we have not recovered our family structure from that time. The family is continuing to dissolve. People feel isolated.

 

During the war, the government encouraged bottle feeding to get the women to work, and used our new knowledge of germs to push the idea home. Even after the war, women were encouraged to sterilize themselves with alcohol swabs before nursing their babies because it became known that bodies are covered in bacteria. Of course this idea is somewhat ridiculous considering that we managed to fill up the world without the benefit of alcohol swabs, but people bought into the idea that nursing a baby was not clean, so they stopped. I think that the consequence of this idea is that sex and sexuality was reduced to a simple bodily function, like eating or relieving ones self. A singular, isolated, and personal task, nothing to do with connections, emotions, or bonds. This was a mistake, and I doubt that we have seen the end of the trouble.

 

G

[cladking]

Gees;

 

My error. I skimmed the entire thread except page 5 before I even asked. I didn't remember having followed the original link because I hadn't even skimmed very much of it but since your mentioning it was on page 5 it has been entirely skimmed. I do owe this thread several comments and will try to get to them today.

 

Regarding your last post; I have read some Freud when young and found his work fascinating and brilliant. Indeed, until a little later I believed he had actually made a few discoveries that could be universally applied to humans and the way we think. This would be a rather remarkable accomplishment even by my thinking at that time. But since I have come to believe that he is merely describing his own mind and that is one of a 19th century scientist rather than anything that can be applied to anyone else. His world is not a very attractive world at that. It was only later that I came to believe that it was a misunderstanding of Freud's work leading to the disintegration of society and mass murder.

 

Humans are almost infinitely adaptable because of our ability to accept any belief we choose. We can even choose to divide our minds into the ego and id and have dreams that explain ourselves in these terms. Certainly it is we ourselves living in this world of our own superegos so anything we learn from such a process is likely to actually apply to us and our understanding of reality, religion, or thought. It's not my contention that there's anything wrong with seeing reality from such a perspective, merely that the results can't be universally applied. Since all our actions are predicated solely on our beliefs we will actually become a sort of manifestation of those beliefs in time. Individuals are always a product of their time and place because there is always a set of definitions and beliefs associated with a time and place which "all" perspectives share. These beliefs are not necessarily founded in reality and historically have been in a range from insanity to confusion. An entire nation can go mad and tear itself apart trying to root out and murder people it suddenly deems different. For a long time now people have had the notion that humans are somehow different in that they are "intelligent", "conscious", and "distinct" from other life forms. "I think therefore I am" isn't supposed to be applied to a goldfinch. Our hubris doesn't only apply to natural species but to nature itself since most people believe all knowledge is possessed by one individual or another.

 

Yet here we are incapable of even agreeing on such basic concepts as the nature of consciousness or the nature of human consciousness (you and I seem relatively close here but I doubt many are with us). It is simply my opinion that there is virtually no way that our thought and consciousness can't be organized. Indeed, I even believe that a vastly different system was in place before 2000 BC that was similar to other animals. People are brought up and spoon fed the beliefs of their parents and the society at large. "Bonding" at an animal level can certainly be a part of this process and one that is likely to make the individual more attuned with nature and the body and will draw him to others on this basis. While personal opinion may be largely irrelevant it would seem to me anything that removes our concept of ourselves from ivory towers and omniscience is a survival characteristic at the current point in history. Humans have become so divorced from nature that we have become a serious threat; mostly to ourselves but to aspects of nature as well.

 

Freud was a pretty clear thinker and will probably make a very important case study someday but I doubt that day will come before we have a much clearer picture and ability to quantify more aspects of the human brain/ body (mind). For now, in my opinion, he is primarily a window into Freud himself and provides the more asture among us an ability to see (somewhat distorted) images of the way our own minds work. It's not so much I dislike the man as that I consider him dangerous to children and the cause of most of the mass murder of the 20th century. None of this is direct responsibility of course. So long as one is secure in his own beliefs and can keep his own perspective (literally) Freud might make a good source for reading. I doubt there are any ultimate truths in his work though this may be too high a standard.

[cladking]

...suspect that most of our differences in understanding the unconscious comes from perspective. I see the unconscious from the perspective of "mind" as in psychology. Do you see the unconscious from the perspective of neuroscience? This would explain our differences. Did you review the information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article?

 

 

To me "mind" is largely just what the brain/ body does. It acts on beliefs so there is similarity between the concepts of "mind" and "belief". I suspect the more one subdivides the concept of mind the less that exists at all. Certainly in humans the unconscious is a substantial part of the make-up of "mind" but most of this is quantifiable at least in theory. I doubt that the "subconscious" exists at all or that any part can be quantified. It doesn't even exist unless the individual believes it does.

 

To a large extent you're right that a lot of the difference here is largely semantics and most of the rest is perspective. There are obvious connections between people and things that are not quantifiable or even identifiable. To experimental science this is usually equated with non-existence. It's likely that until terms and parameters are better defined these subjects will not be giving up any facts to modern science.

 

My idea of the supenatural is consciousness that is part of our reality, and that this consciousness is affected by matter. Specifically, this consciousness is activated by chemicals within life forms and can be detected by the emotion and feeling that accompanies the activation. People may not agree with this, but at least I have some explanation of how I think that it works.

 

 

There are myriad ways things affect one another. I have a lot of doubt about your view of the ubiquitousness of consciousness. No doubt it's far more widespread, diverse, and extensive than generally believed but it's difficult for me to grant it to a potato or a stone. Certainly the potato needs some level of some ability to do what is needed and stones always "know" to roll downhill but there must be some level below which "consciousness" has no real world meaning.

 

The mind can make connections between seemingly unrelated processes and events so some of the connections we see in nature may be largely projections of ourselves, our minds, into our observations. We are wired to see what we expect and part of this is the propensity to see what we know. If we see connections between two consciousnesses or between an object and another we're far more likely to see confirmation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sounds like you think that I am an intellectual snob. I am not. I was always overly intelligent, but won't be apologizing for it, as I must grab onto the few virtures that I have. There is nothing wrong with knowing one's self and appreciating our virtues, but we also have flaws that we know rather intimately. If, in fact, a decent personality were required of life, I would have self aborted decades ago. (chuckle)

 

 

I think of myself as the first person to be intelligent enough to know he's an idiot. Of course, intelligence has many parameters and were I more capable in more of them I might never have even made the discovery. In recent times I've learned that everyone before 2000 BC used to know they were stupid so my "discovery" is really just a "rediscovery" anyway. (chuckle, indeed)

 

[tar]

Chadking,

 

So what's the tie in to "supernatural"?

 

Is superego the rules we go by, imposed upon us by those consciousnesses "other" than ourselves?

 

In reading your breakdown, of the nursing and all, I did not disagree, nor totally agree. But related to the discussion, it is interesting to me that we look for an answer that would give us an "objective" edge on ourselves. That we feel it important that we trump ourselves, and look for the thing that is behind the thing that is already apparent.

 

I do not think you are on the wrong track or anything, but I sometimes wonder what it is we hope to accomplish, by figuring out the "reasons" behind what we already know to be the case.

 

Science is important in discovering the "reasons" why things operate as they do, and this is fine with rocks and quarks and things, but as you point out with the formula and the fear of breastfeeding because of the "bacteria", we sometimes outsmart ourselves, or bring about unintended consequences, when we figure we are smarter than the already "smart" and fitting human form we have.

 

Certainly consciousness is important to raise, and the more you know about the world, and yourself, the better your choices to do or not do a thing become, but is it a "game" with an ultimate judge, and a final result? Or are we sort of in charge of the outcomes, and are not the outcomes quite "humanly oriented" in the first place? Seems that supernatural, could just be another "shade" or depth to what we already know about the world outside us. Maybe with some "incorrect" assignments made to pretend beings, and such, but getting the actor wrong, doesn't mean the act is not real, nor that there is not a reason behind.

 

Gees,

 

I trust the procedure went as planned, and things are good? (or at least better than worst?)

 

I am still tending to think that consciousness is more a process or happening, or arrangement, or verb, than a substance or body or fluid or noun.

 

Things can happen for the first time, can emerge and die, when they are patterns and arragements.

 

Eternal substances don't have these characteristics.

 

There is something you and I and every other conscious human has, that a rock and tree do not have.

Its ours, and it does not belong to a rock nor a tree, it belongs to a conscious human. I think we can be a little selfish and proud about this victory over "not being conscious".

 

Complex yes. With required components that can be found in things that are not conscious humans. But nothing else compares exactly, or we could call that other thing a conscious human.

 

We can take pride in the accomplishments of anything that is like us, because we ourselves have accomplished something like that.

 

Regards, TAR2

[cladking]

 

So what's the tie in to "supernatural"?

 

 

 

Modern people have lost sight of all the important things. Human life is a race because we must race to understand our past. We must race to avoid being eaten by the sabre-toothed tiger and we must race to assure the world we leave our progeny is the best possible world. Human nature demands that we understand our enviroment which means we must understand nature. It appears we are falling short almost across the board and the best chance "catch up" is to recognize our ignorance and then reevaluate what we actually know. In learning about the natural order we'll always find that it will appear to be supernatural until it is more properly understood. As I said earlier in the thread, we understand such a tiny percentage of nature that it's only hubris to try to assign anything to the supernatural.

[Gees]

Hi Cladking;

 

As usual, I can not address all of the points you made, but have comments on some.

 

Regarding your last post; I have read some Freud when young and found his work fascinating and brilliant. Indeed, until a little later I believed he had actually made a few discoveries that could be universally applied to humans and the way we think. This would be a rather remarkable accomplishment even by my thinking at that time.

 

Freud gave us a universal truth when he explained the process that causes the "Freudian slip". That one explanation made it clear that we have at least two different levels of consciousness in our minds, and that the one that we think we are making decisions with, the rational mind, is not as in charge as we thought.

Humans are almost infinitely adaptable because of our ability to accept any belief we choose.

This is not so. We have to find some way to justifiy the belief, to find some kind of truth in it. Even if that truth is made up of fiction, we must be able to see it, or we can not believe.

Since all our actions are predicated solely on our beliefs we will actually become a sort of manifestation of those beliefs in time. Individuals are always a product of their time and place because there is always a set of definitions and beliefs associated with a time and place which "all" perspectives share.

Generally, I agree with this. Most of what we believe is not based in reality as much as it is based in the familiar. A neurologist explained this to me some time back and stated that we develop a kind of comfort zone around things that are known to us; the sun coming up, coffee being hot, and a Coke being cold. They don't seem to be right if they are different or unfamiliar, like the "supernatural" is different. But this "belief" still follows the rules of emotion, as it is the emotional feelings of comfort and familiarity that allow the belief.

For a long time now people have had the notion that humans are somehow different in that they are "intelligent", "conscious", and "distinct" from other life forms. "I think therefore I am" isn't supposed to be applied to a goldfinch.

Agreed. (chuckle) When Descartes stated, "I think therefore I am", I don't believe that he realized his statement could also be interpreted as "if I don't think, then I am not, or I am less", but it has been interpreted this way. I suspect that a lot of this great love of intelligence, and need to justify and test intelligence, is directly related to this concept. When were IQ tests invented? Not sure.

I am sure that a person's ability to think well seems to give that person more value in the eyes of the world. It is an artificial value, as IQ is just one indicator of ability, there are many more. At least once a year, I run across one of those white supremacists, who start threads that explain their wonderfulness, while using IQ statistics to try to prove the value of the white race. This kind of thinking has caused a lot of damage, but I don't believe that we can blame Descartes any more than we can blame Freud for the misuses of their understandings.

I doubt there are any ultimate truths in his work though this may be too high a standard.

I vehemently disagree here. There is a very important ultimate truth in Freud's work, as he took the mental aspects and removed them from the realm of magic and placed them in the realm of cause and effect. This, in my opinion, was his great gift to the world. Prior to his work, there were only two mental abilities that could be understood and trusted--logic and rationalization--but these abilities do not always find truth; they do not always agree with reason and sense; they can not discern the lies that we tell ourselves; and they do not stop us from believing lies. In short, they have little to do with a reflection of reality.

All other mental aspects were considered unknowable. It was too confusing to sort out emotions, instincts, intuition, imagination, creativity, moods, mental conflicts, and insanity, as there was no road map to understand how these things worked. Even reason and sense, although trusted, are not understood because we have no idea of how we produce reason and sense. Mental aspects were all judged as magical thinking and considered either good or bad by whatever the thinking produced. Freud gave us our first insights into the mental aspects and showed that each of these aspects comes with specific properties, specific abilities, specific sources--they are not magic--they are knowable.

Whenever I read the words "magical thinking", "wishful thinking" or "imagination" as an explanation of some kind of thinking or phenomenon, I know immediately that the author of those words has no understanding of psychology. I don't care how brilliant the person is, or whether or not the person has studied psychology, they still look like crackpots to me, as they don't have any idea of what they are talking about. The mind is not magical, it is not mystical, it is not God, it works by cause and effect the same as physical things do. This was Freud's universal truth and the gift that he gave us.

G

[Gees]

Hi Tar;

 

Seems like a long time since we talked. Yes, the procedure went as planned, and I can say that I feel a lot more like I do, than I did. (chuckle) I still have my foot, the pain is less, and I am off the codine, so things are better. Thank you for asking.

 

Science is important in discovering the "reasons" why things operate as they do, and this is fine with rocks and quarks and things, but as you point out with the formula and the fear of breastfeeding because of the "bacteria", we sometimes outsmart ourselves, or bring about unintended consequences, when we figure we are smarter than the already "smart" and fitting human form we have.

 

Certainly consciousness is important to raise, and the more you know about the world, and yourself, the better your choices to do or not do a thing become, but is it a "game" with an ultimate judge, and a final result? Or are we sort of in charge of the outcomes, and are not the outcomes quite "humanly oriented" in the first place?

 

It is the unintended consequences that I am considering. Science is moving into areas that have never before been manipulated by man, so it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that we will unintentionally affect some things in nature. But it would be irresponsible to just assume that God will take care of everything, so we don't have to think about it.

 

When I first learned that I had MS, I went to websites to learn as much as I could. There was not much information. It is treated by neurology, but is not a neurological disease or disorder. Multiple Sclerosis translates literally to "lots of scars", and those scars are on the nerves or brain matter. MS is actually an immune system disorder, as the immune system seems to decide that the coating on the outside of nerves is dangerous, so it attacks it eventually causing scars that break down the nerve's ability to function. Although there are known areas of the body that MS attacks, it is not limited to these areas and can strike any nerve. Eventually through intermitten attacks or a gradual progression, the victim will be brought to a state where function is not possible and will be resigned to a bed in a nursing home where (s)he will receive morphine shots for a year or two while MS finishes it's work. Not a terribly pleasant demise, which is why I have already purchased, Final Exit, a suicide handbook.

 

We don't know what causes MS, and we don't have a cure--viruses are, of course, suspected. But we do know some things; a woman will not have an attack when pregnant, but will most certainly have an attack six months to a year after delivery, so hormones are indicated. There was a town in France, I believe, that was heavily bombarded with chemicals on D-Day in the war, and the people in that town have a very high percentage of MS, so chemicals are indicated. There is also a geographical indication, which I thought would be around industrialized cities, but it is more a world placement. If you divide the world at the equator, then divide the top half into thirds horizontally, the middle third has a high degree of MS victims--same with the bottom half. This is weird.

 

Twenty years ago, I had barely heard of MS, but now I know at least 10 people, all women, who have MS--and I don't know many people. Auto-immune "disorders" are becoming almost epidemic, as are consciousness "disorders" like Autism, and there must be a reason. There is not enough evidence to say that playing with chemicals and hormones causes these disorders, but there is enough evidence to consider and investigate the possibility. It is also somewhat disconcerting to discover that my investigations into science, and how science relates to my understanding of consciousness, seem to support these "possibilities".

 

Seems that supernatural, could just be another "shade" or depth to what we already know about the world outside us. Maybe with some "incorrect" assignments made to pretend beings, and such, but getting the actor wrong, doesn't mean the act is not real, nor that there is not a reason behind.

 

This statement convinces me that it would be possible to tell you how I first learned about anthropomorphism--when my husband died. It is a long post, so I will put it together after I finish with universal truths and language, which I expect to post later today or tomorrow.

 

I am still tending to think that consciousness is more a process or happening, or arrangement, or verb, than a substance or body or fluid or noun.

 

Can't it be both? You and I are both.

 

Things can happen for the first time, can emerge and die, when they are patterns and arragements.

 

I'm not sure that this is true, except maybe from a perspective. I think that reality is patterns within patterns within patterns and cycles within cycles within cycles. Perpetual motion. I know that science is always looking for the source, the one thing that started everything. But tell me which came first, the inside or the outside? Sometimes I think that things appear together.

 

Eternal substances don't have these characteristics.

 

How could you know this?

Complex yes. With required components that can be found in things that are not conscious humans. But nothing else compares exactly, or we could call that other thing a conscious human.

 

Agreed.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Glad things went as planned, and are a little better, and you are feeling more yourself.

 

I liked your defense of Freud, my Dad (pictured below me in my "avatar") is a Freudian Psychologist, and would agree that Freud has given us much, and is sometimes "misunderstood".

 

My comment about Eternal truths was, I thought, self proving. You can't have temporary things, be eternal.

 

Chicken and eggwise, I would agree with your general thought that they rather come about at the same time. The egg would not be a chicken egg unless it was laid by a chicken. And the chicken that laid it came indeed from an egg, but at some point, inside a prechicken, there was an unfertilized egg, half a prechicken, if you will, that was fertilized by a prerooster, forming the first unborn chicken, inside what at that moment became the first chicken egg. So the first chicken and the first chicken egg, came about precisely at the moment of fertiliztion and this does not cause any kind of contradiction, or force that there must be chicken before egg, or chicken egg before chicken.

 

Likewise, consciousness need not be present already and put into a person. It is rather the consciousness that arises as the person does.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 17, 2013 by tar

[cladking]

 

Chicken and eggwise, I would agree with your general thought that they rather come about at the same time. The egg would not be a chicken egg unless it was laid by a chicken. And the chicken that laid it came indeed from an egg, but at some point, inside a prechicken, there was an unfertilized egg, half a prechicken, if you will, that was fertilized by a prerooster, forming the first unborn chicken, inside what at that moment became the first chicken egg. So the first chicken and the first chicken egg, came about precisely at the moment of fertiliztion and this does not cause any kind of contradiction, or force that there must be chicken before egg, or chicken egg before chicken.

 

Likewise, consciousness need not be present already and put into a person. It is rather the consciousness that arises as the person does.

 

 

Excellent point s but the pragmatist in me says don't count your chickens until they're hatched so #1 doesn't exist until it's a chicken.

[Moontanman]

Gees,

 

Glad things went as planned, and are a little better, and you are feeling more yourself.

 

I liked your defense of Freud, my Dad (pictured below me in my "avatar") is a Freudian Psychologist, and would agree that Freud has given us much, and is sometimes "misunderstood".

 

My comment about Eternal truths was, I thought, self proving. You can't have temporary things, be eternal.

 

Chicken and eggwise, I would agree with your general thought that they rather come about at the same time. The egg would not be a chicken egg unless it was laid by a chicken. And the chicken that laid it came indeed from an egg, but at some point, inside a prechicken, there was an unfertilized egg, half a prechicken, if you will, that was fertilized by a prerooster, forming the first unborn chicken, inside what at that moment became the first chicken egg. So the first chicken and the first chicken egg, came about precisely at the moment of fertiliztion and this does not cause any kind of contradiction, or force that there must be chicken before egg, or chicken egg before chicken.

 

 

 

 

Likewise, consciousness need not be present already and put into a person. It is rather the consciousness that arises as the person does.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

That last bit makes sense, but the chicken and the egg...

 

 

Excellent point s but the pragmatist in me says don't count your chickens until they're hatched so #1 doesn't exist until it's a chicken.

 

Chickens evolved from Jungle fowl, the origins of eggs can be traced back quite a long ways and at no point would it be proper to say the creature laying the chicken egg was anything but a chicken nor would anything hatch out of that egg but a chicken...

[cladking]

I am sure that a person's ability to think well seems to give that person more value in the eyes of the world. It is an artificial value, as IQ is just one indicator of ability, there are many more.

 

 

I believe this is one of those things that seem true to everyone but is absolutely false. Perhaps at one time there was truth in it but in the modern world ideas are a dime a dozen. You can invent cold water fusion and people will just ignore you until you start producing lots of megawatts and this might not happen since there will be various forces working against you. If an idea has military implications then it will probably get a hearing. "Intelligence" (such as it is) has far less value than ideas.

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on Freud. Many people for whom I have great respect think Freud was onto something. I couldn't disagree more. I believe everyone believes what he wants to believe and Freud simply charted his own thinking and beliefs. There is no set way people believe or even think. We are engrained with perspectives reflective of our time and place so even people with different beliefs and different ways to think will have great similarities in perspective. There will be far more similarity between an atheist and a priest than between an ancient fig cutter and Christopher Columbus. Communication is based on shared referents and those from different times and places will lack not only the referents but the perspectives. To my mind Freud simply reflected a culmination of 19th century thought which needs to become obsolete. This doesn't mean all his observations and deductions have no basis in reality, merely that his conclusions are far too broadly applied.