The Supernatural and Superstition

[Gees]

Gees,

 

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

 

You are probably right, but since I contemplated the idea that reality is perpetual motion, I keep wondering if temporary things are really temporary, or if they are eternally and repetitiously temporary. Which would make them not temporary. Ouch. This is giving me a headache. (chuckle)

 

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

 

I suspect this is true and that life actually creates, or causes, another form of consciousness. Even Dr. Stevenson, in his work regarding reincarnation, does not imply that a full complete consciousnesss moves from one body to the next. It is more a few memories that move and then are merged with the new consciousness that is caused by the new body.

 

So, as promised, I have been working on a post about universal truths and language. It is far from perfect, but I will post it here for your consideration.

 

Universal Truths and Language

 

Universal Truths

 

A number of people have expressed the idea, in this thread, that universal truths may not exist. This surprised me as I have always believed that universal truths do exist, and I use them rather extensively in my studies. One can never know the individual mind of any specific person, but there are commonalities in all people, with few exceptions, and these commonalities can give us an insight into the truths that we hold inside.

 

It is my thought that little girls want to grow up to be beautiful like their Mothers and be cherished by their Fathers. Little boys want to be strong like their Fathers and admired by their Mothers. Lovers want to be left alone to pursue their dreams; adults want to build a good life, parents want their children to be safe and happy, grandparents want to enjoy the fruits of their labors, and all people want to be loved and respected for whom and what they are. These are universal truths that exist in all people no matter their race, country, society, or religion.

 

There are other truths that are reflected in our language, and just like body language, many of these truths are universal. Even though the words and the language differ, the concepts behind the words seem to share a commonality, so I have considered some of these ideas in my understandings of consciousness. I suspect that we know a great deal more about consciousness and how it works than the rational mind is aware of, so I have been actively seeking clues to these commonalities in language, sort of like looking for a Freudian slip in our speech.

 

Awareness and Density

 

If I were in an argument with someone, who refused to consider my position, and there was another person there, who was in sympathy with me, I could point to my opponent, knock on my head and roll my eyes, and the person in sympathy would know what I mean--that my opponent is rock headed, thick skulled, wooden headed, thick between the ears, or generally dense. It would not even matter if we had a language barrier, because denseness in the head is commonly understood to be someone who is not very aware. It does not even matter if the person is intelligent or stupid, denseness implies a focus that is simply not aware of anything except it's focus.

 

On the other hand, a person who is too aware and not focused is called an airhead, space cadet, flighty, nothing between the ears, or scatter brained. I find this very interesting, as it looks like density is all about matter and focus, and open space is about awareness. After spending years studying consciousness and connections, I concluded that connections between people can be broken by density (matter). From the rain and fog that makes the air more dense, and that Hollywood uses to promote a feeling of isolation, to the aura reader's explanation that auras can not be seen through water or glass, to the connections that people feel around other people, animals, and nature, to the isolation that is felt in solitary confinement, and through all of the other observations that I included in my water metaphor over the years, it appears as though density affects connections between people. This idea contributed to my considering the Aether as the source of awareness and matter as the source of focus.

 

Now I am beginning to wonder if we have always had an innate understanding of this concept, but did not consider it because we think that conscious awareness is all in our heads or it is God. It is a little irritating to think that I spent years learning something that everyone already knows--even if we don't realize that we know it. If I checked in other languages, I suspect that I would find a comparable concept that density indicates focus and nothingness indicates awareness in people's descriptions of other minds--consciousness. Someone, who is level headed, is balanced--not too aware (flighty--Aether), not too focused (dense--matter).

 

The Divisions of Consciousness, Thought and Emotion

 

So what about my other thought that the first division, knowledge, thought, and thinking, is internal, and the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, is external? Are these concepts also reflected in language? Yes. And these concepts are reflected in body language. Body language has been well studied, and we know that some body communication is cultural, some is social, but a great deal is also universal. Understanding of the internal/external aspects of thought and emotion seem to be universal.

 

A person who is wearing clothes that are tailored, buttoned up, and closed, with hair that is subdued and arms and legs that are held still and in reserve, is considered a thoughful person. Their appearance and demeanor suggests that all activity is internal, and we have an innate understanding that the internal is thought, knowledge, and thinking--and it is private. The first division of consciousness which is internal, private, and not shared.

 

A person who is wearing clothes that flow like loose or unbuttoned shirts and flowing skirts, with hair that is loose and blows in the wind, and arms and legs that are swinging, is considered an emotional and feeling person. Their appearance and demeanor suggests that all activity is external and that they are relating to and very aware of the things surrounding them. We have an innate understanding that the external is awareness, feeling, and emotion, and that it is not private, it is shared. The second division of consciousness, which is external, shared, and not private.

 

Many a young woman has been injured by projecting this "sharing" demeanor, while not understanding that she is actually inviting others to share, when that it not her intent at all. She may well be oblivious to the people around her. Just as a shy reserved person is often considered to be snobbish or aloof, because they are projecting an uninviting private appearance. This person may well be aware of and studying everyone else in the room, but still gives the appearance of being separate, private, and unapproachable. We can not know another person's individual mind, but because we have an innate understanding of consciousness, we interpret emotion as sharing and thought as private.

 

Spoken language also reflects this internal/external aspect and understanding of consciousness. We describe the first division, thoughtful, as a person being still, quiet, reserved, reflective, so when we consider a thoughtful person, we describe internal activity. When we describe an emotional person, we describe joy radiating, fear being palpable, anger rolling off them in waves, love surrounding them, happiness flowing, so what we are describing is external activity--the second division. It is my thought that this is a fairly common way to describe the internal and external aspects of consciousness, and I suspect that it is described this way in all languages. This means that it is an innate understanding.

 

So I think that we know a lot more about consciousness, and how it works, than we realize, because we talk about it all of the time.

 

G

 

I believe this is one of those things that seem true to everyone but is absolutely false.

 

I wasn't actually thinking about ideas when I made that statement. I was considering that many people can sing or make music, some can write poetry or create art, others can build, others can comfort, there are many abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence.

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on Freud.

 

OK.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

I think your studies have gone well, and are in a certain concert with mine. Mine being the study of "the meaning behind language". I feel we have arrived at the same truths, but "universal" is somewhat presumptuous. And "Eternal" does not quite fit the case.

 

I have not read the links to the thinker you and Cladking were refering to, and I have pretty much discounted there being any "reality" to reincarnation. Rather a long time ago, actually, since it doesn't make any sense. I cannot even imagine the rules that it would go by being remotely knowable. If it was real, we would be aware of the rules. And the mechanisms. Being that different people have come up with their own rules, and numbers and layers of consciousness, and progressions through a "greater" reality...like coming back as a rat if you are nasty, and a semi-god if you are nice, I rather think it is made up, and not consistent with reality. And therefore rather like belief in a particular god. A universal truth would be...well...more universal in nature. Anybody that studied it and focused on it and recorded it could easily track consiousnesses from one life to another. If it was true, everybody would know it, and recognize their old friends and enemies and such. Which is not apparent in the overt way that it should be, would it be real.

 

So if reincarnation were real, would there not be rules and laws? Finite amounts of souls floating about at recognizable stages of the trek? How does one then account for population growth? Can many share one soul? Are we all currently diluted souls, the souls of the millions alive 50 generations ago, now spread out amoungst billions? And if such an eternal cycle were being played out, would we not be quite far from the beginning and quite far from the end? With no way to experience the beginning nor the end, the promise of reaching Nirvana next Tuesday, would be quite a lie.

 

I am afraid that buying into such illogical stuff, solves no problems, and reveals no truth. Nothing any more sensible than reality itself. Nothing any more powerful and real than what is already apparent.

 

Maybe, in the inside thought and outside awareness that you have noticed, there is already an understanding of the self and the all. But the one is not the other without concessions. You cannot love all the world, except for those daft Chinese. There is a reality to our motality, and a "focus" that we own, which is NOT universal, by its very nature.

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

Here's a joke. Well it's told as something that actually occurred, but still a joke, which may or may not be pertainent to the thread.

 

 

First day of 1st grade the teacher asked Bobby why he was gathering his stuff and putting on his jacket at lunch time. "my Mom always comes gets me now" was Bobby's reply. "That was last year, now you are in First grade, you stay here with us all day." Bobby's reply "who signed me up for this shit?"

Edited August 18, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

Here's a joke. Well it's told as something that actually occurred, but still a joke, which may or may not be pertainent to the thread.

 

 

First day of 1st grade the teacher asked Bobby why he was gathering his stuff and putting on his jacket at lunch time. "my Mom always comes gets me now" was Bobby's reply. "That was last year, now you are in First grade, you stay here with us all day." Bobby's reply "who signed me up for this shit?"

 

 

Reminded me of this joke from the jokes thread post #1469...

 

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Good one.

 

Reminds me of a happening a few years ago. I had been attempting to debunk a poster whose belief in God had been challenged, but then renewed when he saw a shooting star and had "asked God" to do it again. Another shooting star immediately appeared and that was enough proof for him. I posted about coincidence and correlation not be causation and such and suggested if he really wanted to test the situation he should ask God to do something really odd and specific, tell everybody he had asked for this thing, and then maybe, if it occurred, we could reconsider ourselves.

 

I was thinking about the exchange one day, as I was working out in the driveway, thinking about the person's foolishness, and how to best point it out...when I realized I was shoveling 14 inches of snow off my New Jersey driveway, in October. I looked up at the sky and said aloud "funny guy, funny."

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Gees,

 

I think your studies have gone well, and are in a certain concert with mine. Mine being the study of "the meaning behind language". I feel we have arrived at the same truths, but "universal" is somewhat presumptuous. And "Eternal" does not quite fit the case.

 

Good. I am glad to meet someone who understands that there is truth hidden within our language, and that this truth can be found. One of the things, that I did not put in the prior post, was my considerations of how cold affects conscious awareness. I am relatively certain that it does and have been looking into this for a long time. From the coldness felt when in the presense of ghosts, to preservation of food and life, to the start of life, to hibernation, I think that cold affects conscious awareness by causing an inability for conscious awareness to move or be activated. This creates a separateness or isolation of the conscious awareness that falls below a certain temperature. I have not yet tried to explain my thoughts because no one seems to be able to wrap their brains around the idea that conscious awareness is real and could be affected by something like temperature.

 

But it is interesting to note that this idea is also reflected in language. Per my new understanding of entropy, I can see that life is a gathering of energies, a growing, building, putting together, and language notes this by references to temperature. Consider that a cool reception denotes separateness, a chilling response actually pushes one life form away from another, but a cold-blooded response causes isolation. On the other hand, a warm welcome means acceptance, a hot response draws minds together, and a hot-blooded response is an explosion of activity that causes life forms to merge whether it be in love or war. It has been stated many times that love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and I think this is the reason why--this drawing together. This idea is part of the Gordian Knot of morality that I have been working on.

 

Regarding the idea that the word universal is presumptuous, please consider that I am using the word in a way that would be explained by universals in metaphysics. If you look up "universals (metaphysics)" in Wiki, I think you will find an adequate explanation. I would provide the link, but I make it a policy to not go to the trouble unless I suspect that the person will actually read the link.

 

Regarding "eternal", I am not even sure what that means. It is like the word "infinite" and has no reality that I can comprehend through my perspective. I expect that it exists, but do not understand it.

 

I have not read the links to the thinker you and Cladking were refering to, and I have pretty much discounted there being any "reality" to reincarnation.

 

Rather a long time ago, actually, since it doesn't make any sense. I cannot even imagine the rules that it would go by being remotely knowable. If it was real, we would be aware of the rules. And the mechanisms. Being that different people have come up with their own rules, and numbers and layers of consciousness, and progressions through a "greater" reality...like coming back as a rat if you are nasty, and a semi-god if you are nice, I rather think it is made up, and not consistent with reality. And therefore rather like belief in a particular god. A universal truth would be...well...more universal in nature. Anybody that studied it and focused on it and recorded it could easily track consiousnesses from one life to another. If it was true, everybody would know it, and recognize their old friends and enemies and such. Which is not apparent in the overt way that it should be, would it be real.

 

So if reincarnation were real, would there not be rules and laws? Finite amounts of souls floating about at recognizable stages of the trek? How does one then account for population growth? Can many share one soul? Are we all currently diluted souls, the souls of the millions alive 50 generations ago, now spread out amoungst billions? And if such an eternal cycle were being played out, would we not be quite far from the beginning and quite far from the end? With no way to experience the beginning nor the end, the promise of reaching Nirvana next Tuesday, would be quite a lie.

 

I am afraid that buying into such illogical stuff, solves no problems, and reveals no truth. Nothing any more sensible than reality itself. Nothing any more powerful and real than what is already apparent.

 

Maybe, in the inside thought and outside awareness that you have noticed, there is already an understanding of the self and the all. But the one is not the other without concessions. You cannot love all the world, except for those daft Chinese. There is a reality to our motality, and a "focus" that we own, which is NOT universal, by its very nature.

Well this is very interesting, Tar. Per the above underlined statements, I can conclude that you have not read the links that I provided. (I think this is against the forum rules) But you have clearly made your conclusions based on your admitted lack of information. So I have to assume that the rest of your statement is assertion based in ignorance.

 

This is not surprising or even disappointing, as I have learned to expect this from "science" types. It is also the reason that I prefer to discuss these things with philosophers, but sometimes need knowledge from science, so we must endure. From a philosopher's perspective, it is easy to see the similarities between science people and religious people, as they both like to stay in their comfort zones and not see things that disagree with their beliefs. At least the religious people are honest about it and know that they are limiting their knowledge--they call this faith.

 

For myself, if I think that a truth can be uncovered, or if it can be seen by standing up and looking, then I will stand up. If it rocks the boat, oh well.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well I go mostly by my own opinions. They are the only ones I have a good understanding of. I am affected greatly by the opinions of others, but they have to make sense to me. If I don't see the connection, between my thoughts and feelings, and the thoughts and feelings of others, I look for the connection. When there are "gaps" or "reaches" of "faith" required to join another's thoughts and feelings to my own, I suspect imagination has something to do with the descrepency. Mine or the other's imagination is a possible culprit, I make no initial detemination on which is at fault, I am often wrong, and am proved such by the facts.

 

But reincarnation is something already talked about by others, already considered by me, and has failed the reality check and exhibited its self as wishthinking too many times in my life and considerations, to take it seriously. I read such opinions as merely opinions, and take them figuratively. And accept that there is, at the same time, a reality that "seems" like such things "might be true", on some levels or in some ways...just not the way that is described in an unsubstantiable fashsion.

 

For instance, I know it to be a fact that I did not exist in 1952, but my mother and father did, and I am a unique continuation of the patterns and complex lifeform that they were in 1952. Whatever consciousness they had at the time has some large part to do with the consciousness that I exhibit at the moment, in biological, mental, emotional and societal ways. I shared this world and consciousness of, with both and their relatives for my whole life. My mother has died of cancer and my father is still with us, and I am here as are my wife and two daughters, the last three being "additions" since 1953. That I am "a part of" what came before me, and what will come after me, is an obvious fact, that needs no special magic, or imaginary reasons or overarching unseen principle. Its quite solidly already understood that we all are tied to the cycles and mini cycles and maxi cycles of the planet. This is enough for me. I don't have to manufacture any secret underlying reasons. Its already the case.

 

Reincarnation, on the other hand, seeks to establish another "thread" which has no reason to be. So why would I want to read a thought and opinion, that I already know has to be manufactured, and not based on the reality I already know to be the case? Is not what we already know, mutually to be the case, enough?

 

Regards, TAR2

Gees,

 

Another fact I use to "explain" any "feelings" we have of having lived before our birth, is the fact that a human female is born with a full contingent of eggs. This literally makes half the pattern that is currently me, as old as my Mom...or since she is dead, means half of my pattern has "been around" since my mother's birth, a quarter of my pattern, since the birth of my grandmother, an eighth since the birth of my greatgrandmother...and so forth, back to Lucy who carried a 1/whateverith of me.

 

Enough there, in fact, to explain why the Jewish feel that Jewishness is carried by the female, or that everybody feels a certain connection to everybody else, or why anybody might feel that they have "lived" before their birth.

 

But not enough there to explain why a memory of a particular complex combination of feelings and emotions, had by an individual 600 years ago, would be carried intact and uniquely and exclusively to a presently alive person. There is not a reasonable mechanism to explain such a thing, without raising 1000 more questions than are answered.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 19, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Tar;

 

I can respect the fact that you would trust your own opinion, as I trust mine--intelligent people do this. My problem comes when people will not look at the information offered, will not consider the ideas, but will argue that I don't know what I am talking about. This is what does not make sense to me. I realize that I look at consciousness in an entirely different way, but there are reasons for this that seem sound and logical to me. How could anyone judge my reasoning if they don't look at the information that caused me to think this in the first place?

 

One of the things that drives me crazy in these forums is how science people argue God with religious people. It is a joke. Science people will say that religion states that God is thus and such, and since thus and such is not possible, God does not exist. And they call this logic. It would be like me stating that I have known Tar for some time now and am sure that he is a cross between an orangutan and a goldfish. Then some science guy explains that there are a thousand reasons why it is not possible for Tar to be a cross between an orangutan and a goldfish, therefore Tar does not exist. Weird logic. Then some philosopher notes that it is possible that Tar does exist, and that Gees has simply misinterpreted what Tar is.

 

I am that philosopher. God and the "supernatural" do not exist as interpreted, but they are interpreted all over the world all through known history, so something does exist. I think that the something is conscious awareness and that it is part of our reality, and that it works just like anything else--by cause and effect--but that there are also reasons why it is interpreted rather than known.

 

I have not read the links to the thinker you and Cladking were refering to, and I have pretty much discounted there being any "reality" to reincarnation.

 

Now see, this is confusing to me. The "thinker" that Cladking and I were recently discussing was Dr. Blanco, who is a psychologist and psychiatrist that worked with Anna Freud. As far as I know he does not believe in reincarnation and there is nothing in the Wiki article that connects him to reincarnation.

 

Being that different people have come up with their own rules, and numbers and layers of consciousness, and progressions through a "greater" reality...like coming back as a rat if you are nasty, and a semi-god if you are nice, I rather think it is made up, and not consistent with reality.

 

Here I don't see the connection between the "numbers" and "layers" and "'greater' reality" and "rats" and "semi-gods", nor can I figure out how you could come up with these ideas in relation to any of the links that I provided. Are you making stuff up, or maybe referencing some religious belief?

So if reincarnation were real, would there not be rules and laws? Finite amounts of souls floating about at recognizable stages of the trek? How does one then account for population growth? Can many share one soul? Are we all currently diluted souls, the souls of the millions alive 50 generations ago, now spread out amoungst billions? And if such an eternal cycle were being played out, would we not be quite far from the beginning and quite far from the end? With no way to experience the beginning nor the end, the promise of reaching Nirvana next Tuesday, would be quite a lie.

 

All of these questions might be interesting to consider in relation to reincarnation. Did you read Dr. Ian Stevenson's link on the first page of this thread? Why didn't you bring up these issues then? By the way, Dr. Stevenson never uses the word reincarnation. He simply presents his facts and lets people come to their own conclusions.

 

You cannot love all the world, except for those daft Chinese.

 

I have no idea what this is about and assume it is in relation to some religion. I think you are still mixing religious ideas with conscious awareness ideas.

 

There is a reality to our motality, and a "focus" that we own, which is NOT universal, by its very nature.

 

Agreed. But didn't you state something to the effect that we are all part of this together in an earlier post? And we all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, and an innate understanding of conscious awareness that is universal.

 

G

But not enough there to explain why a memory of a particular complex combination of feelings and emotions, had by an individual 600 years ago, would be carried intact and uniquely and exclusively to a presently alive person. There is not a reasonable mechanism to explain such a thing, without raising 1000 more questions than are answered.

 

I know that you did not get any nonsense like this from Dr. Stevenson's site. Is this a religious idea? Are you actually expecting me to validate a religious interpretation? You have to be kidding. If someone was reincarnated from 600 years ago, I want proof.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

I am sorry to have mixed in my bais against all the stupid links and blind alleys I have been directed too in the past on these threads, with what may have been sensible, pertinent links presented on your part.

 

It is not laziness alone, or ignorance that prevents me from hitting links. I am willing to take the synopsis given as a stipulation, and work from there. Although this obviously leaves me with misunderstandings of what was being refered to, as I have conflated the sources, and misconnected the importance of the various thinkers to your thoughts.

 

Wondering now, whether this type of shuffling and assumption on my part is behind some of the misappropriation of logical reasoning, suspected of others, in general. Something I do, that others do as well. Relative to the consideration of the supernatural, in that one person really doesn't know the full logic and reasoning and feelings that go into the "beliefs" that other people hold.

 

It would not be likely that anybody could fully get anybody else "up to speed", on their own thinking and feelings, and "up to" or "down to" their level of insight and understanding.

 

This leaves plenty of room for the "something" that is there for the both of us, to be "different", or thought to be "different" from one perspective or the other.

 

I don't have a proper answer to this, as that neither of us is capable of actually taking a position that is not our own, to "meet up" at. And this is probably one of the realities that causes people to think that the other is being unreasonable, or is failing to see the obvious facts.

 

Perhaps in this light one could consider the belief in the supernatural as just a continuation of the knowledge of "other minds" existing in the world. And the sometimes true and sometimes false condition that a person "knows" the other mind.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Had to give you a green up for that last post as it was very insightful.

 

I must also apologize. What I am asking people to understand is unreasonable, and I know it. We are talking about almost 50 years of study and considerations that differ from accepted thought. When I first started to discuss my thoughts, I had no idea that they were so different from everyone else's, but I know better now.

 

So when I present a site like Dr. Stevenson's, there is a dual purpose. Yes, I am presenting the site so that people can review it and learn, but I am also looking for a person who has already reviewed it. Someone who is closer to my way of thinking, but so far, I am not finding that person. I can not be the only person in the whole damned world who sees conscious awareness as real and logical, so I suspect that there are others who will simply not expose themselves to the ridicule that comes with different thought.

 

When I state that "conscious awareness is not simple", it is probably the most understated statement ever made, as conscious awareness in some form or another is part of all sciences, all religions, all philosophies, all life, and all reality. Then if one considers that I am a holistic thinker, it becomes clear that I am asking people to see the connections between puzzle pieces of conscious awareness, that they have not yet examined. It is an impossible request.

 

You have been a great deal of help to me because you show me where my thinking is different from others, you ask questions that cause me to explain my understandings, so that they are in written form and clearer to me and others, and you are open minded enough to consider new ideas. My abilities to sort and organize are seriously diminished post MS, so I am never going to write a book. And I tire easily. It is my hope that people will start to consider that there is another way to look at these things, and that some bright person will figure this out eventually.

 

For anyone who wants to look at conscious awareness as I do, there are some rules to consider that may help you, as follows;

 

1. Conscious awareness is not simple. Do not underestimate it. Most theories and religious beliefs find a truth about conscious awareness, then declare that it is THE truth about conscious awareness. It would be like seeing an acorn drop from a tree and declaring that all things that drop acorns are trees, and all things that don't drop acorns are not trees. Wrong. There is more to understand about conscious awareness and will be for hundreds of years.

 

2. Magic is for children. If it looks like magic, you don't have the answer. (chuckle)

 

3. Coincidence is a word that is most often used to cover a lie or hide a truth. When you see a commonality between things, like all societies belief in some sort of God, then there is a reason for this belief. To find the reason, you must trace the most common threads of the beliefs, then discover the roots and causes of those common threads.

 

4. Mental aspects work off of cause and effect just like physical aspects.

 

5. Until science has a better grasp on what conscious awareness actually is, the way that we know and understand it is through personal experience. So if one is studying conscious awareness, and decides that personal experience is not a valid source of information, then what source of information are we using? An idiotic idea. It may well be that all of the crap that is thought is just our imaginations. We need to consider personal experience when studying conscious awareness.

 

6. Conscious awareness is not discovered through our five senses, with the information transferred to the rational mind. It is discovered through our sixth sense, emotion, and is known in the unconscious part of the mind, then the information is interpreted and transferred to the rational mind. So personal experiences that reflect a knowledge of conscious awareness (God) are all interpretations. This is important to remember. Psychology can be of some help here, as long as you do not consider the ramblings of people, who try to explain the experience away. There is only so much that the Momma/Daddy complexes can explain.

 

7. Keep to simple truths. Do not draw conclusions. If Dr. Ian Stevenson's work convinces you that reincarnation can happen, as it has convinced me, that does not mean that it always happens. Drawing conclusions from simple truths is what religions do, and it is a mistake. Because something can happen, does not mean that it does happen, so we can not conclude that reincarnation is how people are born. The next step would be to examine when it happens, how it happens, why it happens, and under what circumstance. Conscious awareness is an extremely complex subject. Do not draw conclusions. Keep to the simple truths.

 

8. If you can not pass Conscious Awareness 101, the knowledge that conscious awareness is not God, is not religious, and is not supernatural, then fold up your studies and look to some other subject.

 

9. Always bear in mind that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, so conscious awareness which is arguably life, is also physical, mental, and spiritual.

 

10. Everything about conscious awareness relates to perspectives. I think this is the key to truly understanding it. Philosophy considers the mental perspectives like Plato's forms and the dream realities. Religion considers the spiritual perspectives and studies how this makes us feel and interrelate with each other. Science considers the physical perspectives like the brain, and ecosystems, and biology, and hormones and pheremones, and temperature, and energies, and electro-magnetic fields. All of these things are part of conscious awareness. Then there are the individual perspective, the oneness that is shared by a species, and an overall idea of what conscious awareness actually is. Lots of perspectives, none of them telling the whole truth.

 

There are probably more rules, but I am tired now.

 

Tar, thank you for all of your help, and your patience with me.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

I have some of your rules, but have figured things a bit differently than you. "Not simple" is an understatement.

 

I am on a few diffent tracks, and have my own Gordian knots.

 

Here are a few of my threads.

 

There is always somebody more capable than another somebody.

 

There is always some people you can trust more than others.

 

There is always somebody more intelligent than another...except for the smartest person in the world, who is probably a basket case, because they have nobody to talk to about the stuff they think about.

 

Its easier to fool people less intelligent than you, and also more important that you don't.

 

Trustability and capability make a leader. Leaders do not always keep the trust of their followers, and people do lie, and take advantage of people's trust, and gullibility.

 

There is always a better singer, a more talented artist, a better project manager, a more courageous fighter, a stronger, sexier, faster, more brilliant person, than oneself.

 

Many billions of beautiful sons and daughters have been born. Its been done before, its been done a lot, and it will be done many more times.

 

There is no ultimate judge of things, any more in position to judge, that a single human.

 

Human judgement is key. To trust your own, and use it to the best of your ability. And to understand that everybody else has it, and has been using it well, since the first word was spoken.

 

All this considered, there must be a great deal of insights already had, and put into practice, that make our societies the way they are. Much to be learned and understood. Much to be protected and maintained, and much to be thankful for, that others have made effort and sacrifice to put into place.

and foster. And as well, there must be some amount of elitism, special clubs and secret societies, and people in power who do not use their positions with the appropriate judgement and consideration of others, that they "should".

 

But the knot is enormous. How does one know who to trust? How does one guage their own capability and concurrent responsibility? Personality? When is it formed? Who is overestimating themselves and who is underestimating themselves? Whom is impressing whom? Whom is hurting whom? Whom is helping whom? Whom is judging whom? When there is no ultimate judge, to settle the case?

 

It can't be only up the individual. And there is not a final resolution to the case. It must be therefore, pretty close to how it appears. And we all already have a pretty good idea of it. Just have not been able to get everybody on the same page...for very good reasons.

 

Regards, TAR2

My favorite story, to illustrate our plight, is "The Blind men and the Elephant"

 

Each partly right, and sure they know what an Elephant is like. But none can see the whole Elephant. None. No one.

[Gees]

Agreed.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

So perhaps we have the answer to the thread. The supernatural is the Elephant. None of us can see it, and disbelieve, for good reason, anybody else that claims they CAN see it (them being blind also, we know they are lying), yet we each have a firm grasp of the tail or our hands against the side, and are each therefore rather sure the elephant is rather like a snake...or a wall.

 

So is consciousness a substance or act? Probably so.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 20, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Tar;

 

You know, for a guy who claims that all perspectives are necessary to see the whole, you sure do limit them when it is convenient to your theories. I am like the bird flying overhead. I can see the lay of the land, and I can see the elephant, but I can not tell if it is an elephant or a large boulder--until it moves. After years of watching this thing move, I know that it is not simply rolling down hill. It has direction and purpose, so it is alive.

 

You will forgive me if I feel the need to question the blind men. Some, who think it is a wall, have noted that this wall seems to breath, some have noted that it seems to have a heartbeat, all have noted that it is warm. The men studying the snake have noted that it should not be examined too long, as holding the snake for a long time can sometimes cause your feet to get wet. Now I wonder why that is?

 

The only people, who are lying, are the ones who want to believe that it is a boulder, because they are aftraid of elephants (the supernatural). (a/k/a wimps)

 

I thought of another rule.

 

11. Do not limit your studies of conscious awareness to humans, as you will end up studying the human ego instead of conscious awareness.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well us listening to the story, can fly above and see the whole elephant, and know the argument the blind men are having is rather silly under the circumstances, but the blind men, are blind, they cannot see the whole elephant with their eyes, they cannot fly above the thing, their senses are not enough, they would, or should, or could only grasp the entire elephant if they would believe each other, and put the information together in their minds eye, logically, and in this way, "see" the elephant. What MUST be the case for each of the takes to be true?

 

Contradictions are not allowed in such an overall picture. Each story must make sense and have a reason that ties in with the others. If human psychology is required to make sense of certain inconsistencies, than that is the part of the picture, the overall, flyover picture. And then, the picture is a little more sensible, and fits together better, and is more likely to be "true".

 

I do not think any scientist thinks the world has no life or movement in it. They know that they themselves are alive and move, and are aware of this life and movement. Its the rule that things must fit together and explain other things in not only more than one way, but in all ways, that brings a scientist ever closer to holding a model in their head, which IS like a bird's eye, god's eye, view.

 

I do not think I limit my views to fit my theories, well maybe a little, but I think it more crucial to make sure that your theories fit the facts. All the facts. It is only in this way, that a blind man can grasp the overall picture. We can't, after all, actually fly above and view the elephant as sighted birds, we have to figure the thing out, given the fact that we are, in the story, the blind men.

 

Regards, TAR2

Saw a video today on the internet, viewed it without sound, as that I was at work (and should have been otherwise engaged). It was entitled "tears of joy" and was of a young deaf woman who through a medical procedure of some sort, was hearing her first sounds, and the moment caught on camera. Brought tears to my eyes, and I am typing this now through blurry eyes.

 

I didn't have to hear a thing, to know what was going on, and feel her joy.

Edited August 21, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Contradictions are not allowed in such an overall picture. Each story must make sense and have a reason that ties in with the others. If human psychology is required to make sense of certain inconsistencies, than that is the part of the picture, the overall, flyover picture. And then, the picture is a little more sensible, and fits together better, and is more likely to be "true".

 

Well, if I have succeeded in nothing else, I believe that I have shown that the reason for most of the contradiction is our simplistic view of the problem. When I started to study this years ago, I had the same simplistic view, but as I learned more my ideas expanded, then expanded again to incorporate new information. A few years ago, I was reading a post about cosmology and realized that my view was of Earth only. Earth does not get to have it's own rules of physics, so I had to expand again. That was when I compared the way the Universe works with the way an ecosystem works and the way that life forms work to come up with the idea that conscious awareness is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want.

 

I do not think any scientist thinks the world has no life or movement in it. They know that they themselves are alive and move, and are aware of this life and movement.

 

OK, but from my perspective it still looks like they believe in magic. Either they believe in God and attribute the mental aspect to God, or they believe in nothing and attribute the mental aspect to a magical development of the physical. The ones who believe in God make some sense to me, because God is an interpretation of conscious awareness. But the ones who believe in "nothing" make no sense at all. The physical does not magically turn into the mental, and I seriously doubt that "nothing" actually exists. How could it? How could "things" be held in a space of "nothing"? Hundreds of years ago we believed that a cup that was empty held nothing, but we know better now--it is full of air. Whether you call it the Aether, the in-between, space, or conscious awareness, it exists.

 

I do not think I limit my views to fit my theories, well maybe a little, but I think it more crucial to make sure that your theories fit the facts. All the facts.

 

And what "facts" would those be? I was asked for a citation with regard to a metaphor that I used to explain a principle--a metaphor, Tar. I was asked for a citation to explain an ancilary topic, and this citation would have supported a strawman argument designed to turn this into a religious debate. I was informed that I must provide citations whenever asked even if they are off point and counter-productive to the discussion. When I introduced the concept of aura readers, was I asked for a citation? No. When I commented on some people's ability to get information about a person by holding a personal object, was I asked for a citation? No. When I explained that emotional memory does not work the same as regular memory, was I asked for a citation? No. When I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson and provided a link to the University of Virginia, did anyone read the work? Not as far as I can tell. So, again, I ask, what "facts" would those be?

 

It was explained to me that subjective personal experience is not evidence of conscious awareness, which is the most laughable of all, since conscious awareness is nothing if it is not subjective personal experience. I like personal experience and often look for it when considering a doctor, lawyer, plumber, lawn maintenance person, babysitter, parental advisor, teacher, etc. But apparently I am wrong, it is opinion based in ignorance, bias, and superstition that is factually valid. Right?

 

It is only in this way, that a blind man can grasp the overall picture. We can't, after all, actually fly above and view the elephant as sighted birds, we have to figure the thing out, given the fact that we are, in the story, the blind men.

 

In the story, yes, but in reality there is blindness and deafness. There are a variety of people with a variety of abilities and perspectives. We are here to share our perspectives, but that is a little difficult to do if people do not read the links. This is like willing oneself to be blind, refusing to see, so that the other perspectives that I need are uninformed perspectives, and so worthless to me.

Saw a video today on the internet, viewed it without sound, as that I was at work (and should have been otherwise engaged). It was entitled "tears of joy" and was of a young deaf woman who through a medical procedure of some sort, was hearing her first sounds, and the moment caught on camera. Brought tears to my eyes, and I am typing this now through blurry eyes.

 

 

My Aunt is deaf and lived with us most of my life, so I am familiar with the problem. She will be 86 next month and is well loved by the family. She lost her hearing as an infant, and although it was a tragedy for her, it had surprising benefits for me. When I started school, my teacher asked my Mother if I had had a speech problem, as it was clear to her that I had received some kind of speech therapy--my diction and enunciation was perfect. Mom explained that this was a result of trying to be understood by my deaf Aunt, as she read lips and would not understand me if I did not clearly enunciate my words. A benefit to me.

 

It was also easier for me to accept people, who are different, whether from handicap or culture. Another benefit. But the gift my Aunt really gave me was the ability to appreciate different perspectives. As a teen, I noted that my Aunt enjoyed slap-stick comedy, because the comedy is visual, but she did not understand most TV shows. So I would turn off the volume and study shows to find the ones that she might be able to follow and enjoy. This study led me to an understanding of the serious dichotomy between what is said and the action. In most of the shows, if someone had not informed me of who the "good guy" was, I would never be able to tell by his actions. This experience showed me that what we know, or are told, seriously impacts what we believe, even if what we see is very different. I learned to observe what is, then compare it to what I am told that it is, as these things rarely truly conform. A great benefit to me.

 

So exactly what am I supposed to do to get people to read the damned links?

 

G

[Moontanman]

Tar;

 

 

Well, if I have succeeded in nothing else, I believe that I have shown that the reason for most of the contradiction is our simplistic view of the problem. When I started to study this years ago, I had the same simplistic view, but as I learned more my ideas expanded, then expanded again to incorporate new information. A few years ago, I was reading a post about cosmology and realized that my view was of Earth only. Earth does not get to have it's own rules of physics, so I had to expand again. That was when I compared the way the Universe works with the way an ecosystem works and the way that life forms work to come up with the idea that conscious awareness is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want.

 

 

OK, but from my perspective it still looks like they believe in magic. Either they believe in God and attribute the mental aspect to God, or they believe in nothing and attribute the mental aspect to a magical development of the physical. The ones who believe in God make some sense to me, because God is an interpretation of conscious awareness. But the ones who believe in "nothing" make no sense at all. The physical does not magically turn into the mental, and I seriously doubt that "nothing" actually exists. How could it? How could "things" be held in a space of "nothing"? Hundreds of years ago we believed that a cup that was empty held nothing, but we know better now--it is full of air. Whether you call it the Aether, the in-between, space, or conscious awareness, it exists.

 

 

And what "facts" would those be? I was asked for a citation with regard to a metaphor that I used to explain a principle--a metaphor, Tar. I was asked for a citation to explain an ancilary topic, and this citation would have supported a strawman argument designed to turn this into a religious debate. I was informed that I must provide citations whenever asked even if they are off point and counter-productive to the discussion. When I introduced the concept of aura readers, was I asked for a citation? No. When I commented on some people's ability to get information about a person by holding a personal object, was I asked for a citation? No. When I explained that emotional memory does not work the same as regular memory, was I asked for a citation? No. When I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson and provided a link to the University of Virginia, did anyone read the work? Not as far as I can tell. So, again, I ask, what "facts" would those be?

 

It was explained to me that subjective personal experience is not evidence of conscious awareness, which is the most laughable of all, since conscious awareness is nothing if it is not subjective personal experience. I like personal experience and often look for it when considering a doctor, lawyer, plumber, lawn maintenance person, babysitter, parental advisor, teacher, etc. But apparently I am wrong, it is opinion based in ignorance, bias, and superstition that is factually valid. Right?

 

 

In the story, yes, but in reality there is blindness and deafness. There are a variety of people with a variety of abilities and perspectives. We are here to share our perspectives, but that is a little difficult to do if people do not read the links. This is like willing oneself to be blind, refusing to see, so that the other perspectives that I need are uninformed perspectives, and so worthless to me.

 

 

My Aunt is deaf and lived with us most of my life, so I am familiar with the problem. She will be 86 next month and is well loved by the family. She lost her hearing as an infant, and although it was a tragedy for her, it had surprising benefits for me. When I started school, my teacher asked my Mother if I had had a speech problem, as it was clear to her that I had received some kind of speech therapy--my diction and enunciation was perfect. Mom explained that this was a result of trying to be understood by my deaf Aunt, as she read lips and would not understand me if I did not clearly enunciate my words. A benefit to me.

 

It was also easier for me to accept people, who are different, whether from handicap or culture. Another benefit. But the gift my Aunt really gave me was the ability to appreciate different perspectives. As a teen, I noted that my Aunt enjoyed slap-stick comedy, because the comedy is visual, but she did not understand most TV shows. So I would turn off the volume and study shows to find the ones that she might be able to follow and enjoy. This study led me to an understanding of the serious dichotomy between what is said and the action. In most of the shows, if someone had not informed me of who the "good guy" was, I would never be able to tell by his actions. This experience showed me that what we know, or are told, seriously impacts what we believe, even if what we see is very different. I learned to observe what is, then compare it to what I am told that it is, as these things rarely truly conform. A great benefit to me.

 

So exactly what am I supposed to do to get people to read the damned links?

 

G

 

 

I've read every link you've given so far, if you cannot show a citation for something as simple as a claim from the Holy Bible how can I trust you to provide anything else? You acted like I HAD INSULTED YOU JUST FOR ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH DESPITE MY FAMILIARITY OF THE SUBJECT AND IN FACT SUGGESTED I LOOK IT UP...

 

You have made many assertions of stuff that either is demonstrably not true or has no evidence what so ever to support it but pseudo science when asked for clarification all we get is hand waving and more horse feathers, I see no reason to continue to ask for citations on something as silly as this:

 

When I introduced the concept of aura readers, was I asked for a citation? No. When I commented on some people's ability to get information about a person by holding a personal object, was I asked for a citation? No. When I explained that emotional memory does not work the same as regular memory, was I asked for a citation? No. When I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson and provided a link to the University of Virginia, did anyone read the work? Not as far as I can tell. So, again, I ask, what "facts" would those be?

 

 

If you had them you would have given them because the claims you make are not consistent with mainstream science, in fact have been debunked over and over and over again, they are nothing but PRATT...

 

Points

Refuted

A

Thousand

Times

 

I see no reason to continuously ask you for evidence when you have made it quite clear evidence means nothing to you and your arguments are based on belief and feelings...

 

You act like this site is your personal blog where you can say anything you want and expect us to either suck it up or dig to refute you, that is not how it works, if I made the assertion that people could gain information from an object about a person just by holding it I would have been assaulted by laughter, you are not being taken seriously because you do make such silly assertions with no back up what so ever...

 

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

 

Stevenson is best known for his studies of children who claim to remember past lives, but he retained a lifelong interest in psychosomatic issues and believed his reincarnation data could prove useful in medicine. He did not think that every disease could be explained by heredity or environment; some diseases require reference to past life experiences. He believed that reincarnation could help him answer the question that had bothered him for decades: Why does a person acquire one particular disease instead of another? This question puzzled him because he rejected explanations for illness that were limited to consideration of genetic predisposition or environmental contagion. Stevenson considered the person and the person's body to exist separately and independently. He believed that not all birthmarks, birth defects, or even some internal diseases could be explained genetically. Some of them, he thought, were produced "via the agency of the previous personality's will" and were the result of traumas carried over from a previous life (Mills and Lynn 2000: 289-290; Stevenson 1997). He even speculated that whether a person reincarnates might depend on the will: "Maybe our beliefs determine our fate: If you believe you will come back, but only as a member of your own faith, that's what happens. If you believe you simply die and don't come back, you don't" (Shroder 1999: 77).

Philosophically, Stevenson was a naive dualist. He believed that bodies and souls have separate evolutions and existences, and he seemed not to be concerned or aware of the philosophical problemsthat ensue from such claims about mind and body.

His dualism became stronger after he experimented with mescaline and LSD.

 

 

 

That is how you do it Gees, you don't make assertions and then expect us to investigate them. Tar is extraordinarily tolerant of being waved away, I am not, if you want me to take you seriously you have to do the same and stop hand waving anyone who disagrees with you. If not for Tar this would be a monologue you are having with yourself...

In fact you tried to demean me by talking about something I had said in another thread, you said it had mad you extremely mad and yet when i tried to clarify it you accused me of trying to derail your thread... who would want to discuss anything under those circumstances?

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

A few pages back, I stated that I would examine this thread and your posts to see if there was a chance that we could discuss this subject civilly. Since I stated it, of course, I did it. What I found was that your first post, as follows;

 

I am sceptical of anything that does not have positive empirical evidence, what someone says happened once but cannot be repeated is not evidence of anything. Personal experience is not evidence of anything but a personal experience. Belief has never caused any discernible effect on reality and is meaningless in any context with no positive evidence to back it up. Your OP is a logical fallacy, you have in fact presupposed that the supernatural has some discernible reality when in fact it does not and has never been shown to be evidently true. In the face of a lack of evidence of the supernatural the default position is that the supernatural does not exist... While this applies to religion as a subset of the supernatural religion is in no way needed to determine the reality of the supernatural or belief in such and cannot do so.

was all assertion and denial. You did not feel the need to present citations regarding these assertions because they are accepted beliefs--in science. But they are not accepted beliefs in reality as is evidenced by the polls that I posted from the paranormal Wiki article and the statistics regarding religion. So to me, this is all opinion. Philosophers study reality; not science. This is the Philosophy forum.

 

Also if you review my OP carefully, you may note that I study consciousness. So although I USE the supernatural to learn about consciousness, and I USE religion to learn about consciousness, this thread is actually about consciousness. Do you have an interest in studying consciousness?

 

In your third post, you made a comment that I found conflicted, as follows:

 

I have considered the supernatural for very nearly 60 years and absolutely no sign if it has ever been brought to my attention other than baseless claims unsupported by anything of substance.

 

Absolutely no one, not even a crazy person, would consider something for 60 years that they believed did not exist. So my thought is that you have spent this time trying to prove that it does not exist, and that other people have opposed you; otherwise, you would not have continued to fight. So again, although science denies the supernatural, it appears that other people embrace it. It is not a done deal.

 

I've read every link you've given so far, if you cannot show a citation for something as simple as a claim from the Holy Bible how can I trust you to provide anything else?

 

Well, this gets a little sticky. The comment in question was ancillary to the point, which was a comparison of physical Gods interested in spiritual things, and spiritual Gods interested in physical things. It was not my intention to prove or disprove anything in the Bible, and I actively avoid religious arguments most of the time, as they are a lose lose situation. If I lose the argument, which is likely because it is difficult to change beliefs, then I lose. If I win the argument, then I have damaged someone's faith and belief, and they lose. So what is won? I don't like to damage people unnecessarily, and conscious awareness is confusing enough on it's own, so I will not allow my threads to be drawn into religious debate. It simply isn't worth it to me. I use religion to learn about consciousness, but try to treat it with respect and not delve into the details.

 

You have made many assertions of stuff that either is demonstrably not true or has no evidence what so ever to support it but pseudo science

 

I am more interested in pseudo-philosophy than pseudo-science, and many of the things that have been demonstrated as not true are being re-evaluated using better techniques. I think that I discussed this early on, but will provide links if asked. I don't know what other people accept. You may believe that people do not accept the supernatural at all, but the statistics state otherwise.

 

If you had them you would have given them because the claims you make are not consistent with mainstream science, in fact have been debunked over and over and over again,

 

To tell you the truth, when I try to leave the posting area to look up links, I always lose what I have been writing. Not sure why. I need to work on this problem. And I am not always sure what I am going to address, so I don't have links prepared, but if you ask, I will look and then post. Like I did for Cladking when he asked about Freud, or for Tar regarding religions; specifically the Hindu gods question.

 

I see no reason to continuously ask you for evidence when you have made it quite clear evidence means nothing to you and your arguments are based on belief and feelings...

 

 

So you are another one of the people, who think that "belief" and "feelings" and "emotions" are invalid forms of evidence. Has it occurred to you that these are the only aspects of consciousness that can be studied from a third-person perspective? I am not willing to jump into the 2,000 year old debate of religion (feeling) vs science (thought) in regard to consciousness. In the first place, anyone with half a brain can figure out that if either side were right, they would have won by now. In the second place, it is simply a power struggle about who rules, God or man.

 

You act like this site is your personal blog where you can say anything you want and expect us to either suck it up or dig to refute you, that is not how it works,

 

Of course not. Just ask me why I think so, and I will look for sites. Then if you want, you can work to refute those sites. Think questions, like in discussion; not attack, like in debate.

 

Thank you for this site. It has much more than just Dr. Stevenson and will be good study material for me. I will grant that it opposes many of my views, but I am not right about everything that I think. This will give me a base for comparing the negative and positive regarding the supernatural and god issues, which can only clarify my concepts of consciousness.

 

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

 

Why didn't you present this site on the first page?

 

Tar is extraordinarily tolerant of being waved away, I am not, if you want me to take you seriously you have to do the same and stop hand waving anyone who disagrees with you. If not for Tar this would be a monologue you are having with yourself...

 

OK, but are you interested in consciousness, or are you just here to continue your valiant struggle against religion and the paranormal/supernatural? Because all that I really care about is consciousness.

 

If not for Tar, I would have done an Elvis and left the building. Monologues don't help a person learn much.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

If what Moontanman posted of Stevenson was the knowledge I missed by not clicking your link, then I can certainly wait to click your other link.

 

It sounds to me like Stevenson is/was following a path I ruled out long ago. The soul and body are not possible, without the other. When one is born, so is the other...literally speaking. When one dies, so does the other...literally speaking.

 

If you want to speak about metaphors and figurative things, they may be illustrative, or carry some truth in them, but the analogy is different from the thing that is being likened. You can manipulate the analogy all day, and it does not change the truth of the thing to which you are refering.

This is why I've made the point about the Sage on the mountaintop reaching Nirvana. It might make a difference in his/her mind, but it doesn't do a darn thing for the rest of us, or the Earth, or the Universe.

 

You can think a thing that doesn't actually work, or fit with reality, in practice. Coming up with a perfect understanding of things, doesn't change the things a wit. Just your awareness or your knowledge of it, which is important, but only to the person having the insight, and perhaps to the people they associate with. And it wouldn't matter if you thought you were queen of the world, unless you actually created the position and sat in the throne, and wore the crown.

 

How many people are there that feel they should be president, or could be president, and do a better job than the actual president? They can think it, but if they really could do the job, they would have it, or be actively pursuing the spot, or at least be Governor, or Mayor, or the head of the school board. Doing the thing is a little rougher than thinking the thing.

 

So who has a better grasp of reality, and an understanding of life and consciousness, the President, or the person who thinks they should be president?

 

Who is a better artist, the critic, or the one that painted the picture?

 

What's the old saying? Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach become (fill in the blank with the appropriate useless self important position).

 

I am a thinker, not a doer. That is probably why we understand each other. But with all your rules, you should add one simple one, that I learned when I was 18 or so. You can think you have it figured out, and reality is composed only of you...but you are 100% wrong. There really does exist, everything else, and everybody else...and this is a good thing, because you are not alone, and never could be, no matter what you imagine is the case.

 

Other people ground me to reality, and prove to me that my thoughts about it are sound, if they show me they agree with my understanding. But the soul separate from the body makes no sense. "We" have no indication that such a thing makes any sense. It doesn't WORK out here in the reality we share...only in ones imagination. Only figuratively does my consciousness exist prior my life, or after it. Sure my pattern is from that of Lucy, and certainly there could be great great grandchildren of mine on the Planet in 100 years, but MY will can only exist after my death if somebody takes my figurative place in some regard.

 

Wishes for immortality abound. I have them, you have them, maybe we will leave a legacy, maybe we won't. We will certainly live in the memories of those we have touched in our lives, while they are alive, and we each will leave children, and works, and the imprint of our lives will still exist when we die. These things are real. There will be life after death. But it won't be TAR himself. Just the ghost, the thought of, the memory of, the pattern of, the imprint of. And TAR himself, will no longer be conscious. Consciousness will still be found, but it will not be me finding it.

 

How could a human "will" exist in this reality without a human to have it? Everything about a human will is related directly to the human involved. Without the human, the will makes no sense.

 

Oh, you are talking about the reality "after" this one? That make no sense. How could you possibly claim to understand "this" reality, when you have to summon a different one to explain it?

 

Sounds supernatural to me. An explanation of this reality, based on an imaginary other one.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

A few pages back, I stated that I would examine this thread and your posts to see if there was a chance that we could discuss this subject civilly. Since I stated it, of course, I did it. What I found was that your first post, as follows;

 

was all assertion and denial. You did not feel the need to present citations regarding these assertions because they are accepted beliefs--in science. But they are not accepted beliefs in reality as is evidenced by the polls that I posted from the paranormal Wiki article and the statistics regarding religion. So to me, this is all opinion. Philosophers study reality; not science. This is the Philosophy forum.

Even in the philosophy forum if you are going to assert something as fact you need evidence...

 

 

Also if you review my OP carefully, you may note that I study consciousness. So although I USE the supernatural to learn about consciousness, and I USE religion to learn about consciousness, this thread is actually about consciousness. Do you have an interest in studying consciousness?

 

Then you should have not said the thread is about the supernatural and superstition...

 

 

In your third post, you made a comment that I found conflicted, as follows:

 

 

Absolutely no one, not even a crazy person, would consider something for 60 years that they believed did not exist. So my thought is that you have spent this time trying to prove that it does not exist, and that other people have opposed you; otherwise, you would not have continued to fight. So again, although science denies the supernatural, it appears that other people embrace it. It is not a done deal.

 

So either I'm crazy or lying? Who embraces the supernatural or not has no bearing on the facts of the matter...

 

 

 

Well, this gets a little sticky. The comment in question was ancillary to the point, which was a comparison of physical Gods interested in spiritual things, and spiritual Gods interested in physical things. It was not my intention to prove or disprove anything in the Bible, and I actively avoid religious arguments most of the time, as they are a lose lose situation. If I lose the argument, which is likely because it is difficult to change beliefs, then I lose. If I win the argument, then I have damaged someone's faith and belief, and they lose. So what is won? I don't like to damage people unnecessarily, and conscious awareness is confusing enough on it's own, so I will not allow my threads to be drawn into religious debate. It simply isn't worth it to me. I use religion to learn about consciousness, but try to treat it with respect and not delve into the details.

 

You made a positive assertion, I asked for conformation, you could not give it... you were talking about something you knew nothing about and trying to bully your way past me...

 

 

 

I am more interested in pseudo-philosophy than pseudo-science, and many of the things that have been demonstrated as not true are being re-evaluated using better techniques. I think that I discussed this early on, but will provide links if asked. I don't know what other people accept. You may believe that people do not accept the supernatural at all, but the statistics state otherwise.

 

The numbers of people who believe something has no bearing on it's veracity...

 

 

 

To tell you the truth, when I try to leave the posting area to look up links, I always lose what I have been writing. Not sure why. I need to work on this problem. And I am not always sure what I am going to address, so I don't have links prepared, but if you ask, I will look and then post. Like I did for Cladking when he asked about Freud, or for Tar regarding religions; specifically the Hindu gods question.

 

I suggest you fix that, not my problem...

 

 

 

So you are another one of the people, who think that "belief" and "feelings" and "emotions" are invalid forms of evidence. Has it occurred to you that these are the only aspects of consciousness that can be studied from a third-person perspective? I am not willing to jump into the 2,000 year old debate of religion (feeling) vs science (thought) in regard to consciousness. In the first place, anyone with half a brain can figure out that if either side were right, they would have won by now. In the second place, it is simply a power struggle about who rules, God or man.

 

More hand waving?

 

 

 

Of course not. Just ask me why I think so, and I will look for sites. Then if you want, you can work to refute those sites. Think questions, like in discussion; not attack, like in debate.

 

I tried that, you refused to cooperate...

 

 

Thank you for this site. It has much more than just Dr. Stevenson and will be good study material for me. I will grant that it opposes many of my views, but I am not right about everything that I think. This will give me a base for comparing the negative and positive regarding the supernatural and god issues, which can only clarify my concepts of consciousness.

 

you're welcome, if only you had been so forth coming...

 

 

 

 

Why didn't you present this site on the first page?

 

I'm not perfect but it wasn't what I asked about...

 

 

OK, but are you interested in consciousness, or are you just here to continue your valiant struggle against religion and the paranormal/supernatural? Because all that I really care about is consciousness.

Then start a thread about it, I have a lot to say along those lines...

 

 

If not for Tar, I would have done an Elvis and left the building. Monologues don't help a person learn much.

 

G

 

I respect Tar, we have debated many times and I never let him have his way with out a a fight... I am sure he wouldn't respect me if i did...

Edited August 22, 2013 by Moontanman

[tar]

Gees,

 

We crossed posted again. That makes three times now. I will have to read your last.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And Moontanman's last as well. Triple cross.

Gees,

 

Did you ever think that maybe its not possible to take a third person position? Not actually.

Unless you are the third person.

 

Regards, TAR

And if you were actually the third person, that would mean there would have to be at least two other consciousnesses, other than your own. This would argue against consciousness being a singular substance.

 

Something else you may not have thought about. Since Moontanman sees no evidence of consciousness floating about as a singular substance, and I see no evidence of consciousness floating about as a singular substance, perhaps you are looking for something that does not exist. That you are conscious is obvious, but you already know about that. Why are you looking for it in places other than where it is already apparent?

Joke: Man one walks up to man two, who is closely searching in the gutter under a street light.

"What are you looking for?"

"The keys to my car"

"Where did you lose them?"

"I dropped them near my car" (pointing to a car parked twenty yards down the street)

"Well, why are you looking for them here?"

"The light is better here."

Edited August 22, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

I think the idea of consciousness being some sort of substance independent of a brain is kinda arrogant unless of course you willing to postulate that all living things from microbes to sperm whales have it... Gees seems to think it is part of reality independent of a human but part of obviously non living things, like the universe as a whole, my neopagan friends would like that I am sure, but as i keep saying I see no evidence of anything but what affects physical reality. It's why lighting bolts are no longer part of the supernatural and the superstition that lightning bolts or volcanoes or oceans are conscious beings is an infinite regression we cannot recover from logically or emotionally...

[Gees]

Tar and Moontanman;

 

I am exhausted, so I am going to bed. It appears that I have the conversation that I have been looking for, so give me some time to find some links. Then I will respond some time tomorrow.

 

G

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

And I think that other things, specially other living things, are far more capable at "fitting" with reality than we normally give them credit for. Quarks and rocks and clouds also fit well with reality...but they don't deserve as much credit for accomplishing the feat, as a living thing...and they probably don't even consider anything, or assign credit, as a conscious human can and does.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

And I think that other things, specially other living things, are far more capable at "fitting" with reality than we normally give them credit for. Quarks and rocks and clouds also fit well with reality...but they don't deserve as much credit for accomplishing the feat, as a living thing...and they probably don't even consider anything, or assign credit, as a conscious human can and does.

 

Regards, TAR2

T think you are adding just a bit of "other" into the equation than perceptible reality can logically support, I think such infinite regress logically leads to a logical singularity just as surely as the expanding universe fits the data leads to a physical singularity...... I'm not sure i understand how you are using the word "fitting" and "fit"