The Supernatural and Superstition

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I am guided, in my use of "fit" by an insight I had a number of years ago, about dreams. My dreams of course, since they are the only ones I have direct access to, but I imagine the kind of thing a dream is, as opposed to the kind of thing the waking world is, is somewhat standard from person to person.

 

I woke up one day with a clear insight about clouds and toasters and had solved a dilema and felt better about things. Then, as I regained the waking world, I realized that clouds indeed do not have zippers, and the rules my dream was going by did not "fit" reality. In my dreams, I could adjust the rules and give things characteristics that would make things work. I do not recall, if I ever figured out what dream language I was talking to myself in, nor what was standing for what, but it made me realize how perfectly the waking world "fit" together. No rule was ever forgotten, nor bent, every action had permanent, irrevokabe consequences. In a dream, you could pants your boss, if you wanted to, and get away with it. No permanent consequences. Not so, with reality. Every action really makes a difference. Every action, or non-action, leaves a permanent mark. The "ripples" are "remembered" by a reality with a steel trap memory. Reality fits together really really well. Fits together exactly, with never a "mistake". Never does reality "change its mind" and operate by a different set of rules. Quite unlike a human imagination, or a dream.

Reality must fit together, and always "work" the same way.

Imagination does not require connecting every single dot, in every single way that reality requires itself to "fit".

 

That's the insight I base my use of the word "fit", on.

 

Interesting to me is that this later made some sense to me in another way, when attempting to grasp the meaning of the evolutionary rule, "the survival of the fittest". It is, in this light, not too surprising that reality would favor an organism that actually fit it. Almost could not be any other way. Not almost. It could not "work" any other way.

 

Regards, TAR2

Gives a certain basis to the term "fall from grace", as well, being that the same "imagination" that defines human consciousness in all the ways we use it and cherish it, also separate us from the "perfection" that the universe would exhibit without our foibles and constructs and dreams, and concurrent "will".

Edited August 22, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

Ok Tar, now I understand where you are coming from and I largely agree but some of this bears thinking about. But your use of the word perfection puzzles me, I'm not sure I understand what perfection of the universe you are speaking of. The universe is far from perfect from many points of view, how is yours relevant?

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I am suggesting that the universe was doing everything as completely and as fittingly as possible, already, without our opinion of it.

 

The stars and Earth and Sun and Moon did not emerge as we emerged, but had already emerged and set the stage upon which we appeared.

 

We discover stuff, and feel rather good about it, but its not like it was untrue, before we found it, its more the other way around, it was true, and then we noticed it.

 

Saw an article title yesterday, about a "new" type of dark matter. As if it didn't exist prior our noticing it. If it is real, I would say it had to have been just as real the day before it was discovered, as the day after. "We" did not bring it about. That is, unless it is a mistake, or a miscalculation, or an erroneous answer to an otherwise unexplainable observation, in which case it might be sort of a human construction, or idea, that might flirt, in kind, with thoughts of a "supernatural" nature. Or like my dream analogy, go by "our" rules, and not by real, everything must cooexist and fit flawlessly with each other, type, "natural", rules.

 

I have a general skepticism about dark matter, for this reason. If dark matter is permeating the universe, we should be able to find it out in the back yard, and it should have been exhibiting itself, locally, all along, and therefore, I would guess we have already noticed its local effects, and call it some other familiar thing, or that its local effects will help answer some local questions. That is, if its real it should fit the local case, as securely as it fits the distant case. It's discovery should answer more questions, than it raises. There should be more "oh that's why..." and more "oh, that explains it" than the current situation seems to be offering. Instead, the contradictions, and the "well that doesn't make sense" and the unbelieveabilty of it, just increase. In normal scientific investigations, just one contradiction serves to falsify a claim or hypothesis. How am I, as a layman, supposed to accept something that not only makes no sense to me, but makes so little sense, and does not fit into the understanding of the world that "we" have worked thousands of years to come to?

 

Its almost as if "dark matter" could occupy the same "spot" in a scientists mind, as God occupies, in the mind of a Theist.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 24, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

Yes, it's close to how I feel, if it exists it should have an effect on reality, so far we have found lots of things that were labeled supernatural to be natural and we didn't know about that turn out to be real external to the perceived but so far saying it is supernatural hasn't contributed anything to our understanding of the universe.

[Gees]

Hi Guys;

 

I am sorry that I have taken so long to get back, but life seems to be moving faster than I am lately. Although I do want to discuss Dr. Stevenson's work, after reviewing this page, I thought that I should address my concepts of consciousness. I don't want to spend a page and a half arguing about whether or not I think a rock is conscious, or the idea that "souls" are floating around looking for bodies. So please consider the following:

 

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...

 

That is exactly what I think, that all life has some sort of recognizable consciousness. Life is consciousness, as all life is "aware" of, or conscious of, the need to survive, which is one of the indicaters that we use to define life. This "awareness" of the need to survive is the survival instinct that all life possesses and demonstrates by eating, reproducing, the fight or flight instinct, or generally doing whatever it is capable of to ensure that it continues. This "awareness" is consciousness, but does not imply that all life thinks--thinking requires a processor, a brain.

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.

 

I know that my ideas of consciousness seem kind of different, but once a person understands how I think of it, it actually does make some sense. I spent many decades studying what consciousness isn't. It isn't God, as God is an interpretation of consciousness. It isn't the brain, because some things that are conscious don't have a brain--like plants. It isn't the dream reality, where the physical is just in our minds, like the Matrix, because there would be no purpose for inventing a physical reality, (People tend to forget that there was a physical reality in the Matrix. It is just that the robots ran it.) and, as science has proven, consciousness works with and is affected by the physical. But neither can I believe that any amount of physical complexity can bestow subjectivity, as this looks like wishful thinking to me. So none of the theories that I have seen seem to be complete explanations.

Regarding what it is, I have always believed that consciousness was real, probably because of my studies of the paranormal. But also suspect that consciousness has degrees and complexities, as I doubt that a flower can think, or that a rock is aware. Tar seemed to understand when I compared consciousness to energy, but I don't really understand energy, so I use water to symbolize and understand consciousness. H2O is everywhere. It is in the air, in a rock, in the earth, in us, but would anyone call a molecule of H2O water? Yes and no. Technically I suppose that it is water, but it does not flow or pool or self-level, in fact it does not act like water at all. This is what I think consciousness is in the Universe, something that exists, but does not have the abilities or properties of actual consciousness as we understand it. So what makes H2O become water? Well, that would be physical effects like temperature to cause condensation, and some kind of matter to condense on, and some kind of matter to hold the water so that it pools. I think that consciousness in the Universe works like this, and it is activated by matter, and activates matter to become aware (alive), then life evolves into something that has a brain and knows consciousness.

I understand that this is just an idea, and that there is no evidence for this idea. But this idea uses logic and reason, considers the things that consciousness can not possibly be, the different aspects of consciousness, how consciousness seems to work, the consideration that consciousness is both physical and mental, and it conforms pretty well with the theories that I have read, so it makes sense to me. This concept is also supported by Panpsychism, although there are differences. There is no reason that I can think of to assume that consciousness is the complex consciousness of humans, except the religious ideas. It seems much more likely that consciousness starts out as a simple something that evolves, just like life evolves, and that physical matter is what enables this evolution. Just as we are physically more evolved that leaves, we are consciously more evolved than leaves So no, I do not think that a rock or the Universe is actually aware of anything or conscious as we understand it. If there is a better explanation, I have not found it.

 

G

 

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

 

No one can have a third-person perspective of another person's thoughts. It is not possible, as that would require mind reading. But all of us can have a third-person perspective of other person's feelings/emotions. We can see the anger emitting from one person, and the reactive fear or anger that is activated in the second person for a third-person perspective.

The only way consciousness can be observed is by observing feeling and emotions. This is why I study the supernatural and religion, because they are all about emotion, so some things can be learned. I will grant that it is not easy to get real information, but at least it is obtainable, eventually, with hard work.

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.

 

There can be a thousand individual drops of water, each separate and distinct, yet they are all the same thing, and at some point, through evaporation and condensation, will join to be one. This is how I view consciousness, as individual separate minds or awarenesses, that are all connected.

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.

 

Believe me, I thought about it. Does consciousness exist? Can you show it to me? There is no evidence of consciousness except that we think we are conscious--we feel it. Then there is bonding and the emotion and feelings coming from another person or animal, so the only thing that we can prove about the location of consciousness, is that it is between us.

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?

 

Consciousness is only apparent in life, but how does it get there? This is not apparent, and I do not believe in God or magic. How does life start?

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well, I think it has to do with folds. The folds in our brains. The spiral wrap of a string of DNA, and the subsequent "focus"...here is the thought.

 

Consider the surface of a still lake, with the mountains behind and the sky and clouds above, reflected in it.

 

Consider a broken holographic plate, with a complete image held by each of the shards.

 

Now, pick a point, a single point in the world and consider the fact that all of the other points have a direct line to that point.

 

You can make a pin whole in a black piece of construction paper, put the paper between the sun and a flat smooth surface, and a full image of the Sun, upside down and backward will appear on the flat surface.

 

An image of the entire Sun, fit through that pin hole.

 

Such is a human eye, as the first images a child sees of the world, are upside down and backward and doubled, but the complete image is projected on the back of the eyes, and unified and corrected and "trued" by the projection of the image unto the "flat smooth" surface of the brain. Of course the brain is not flat and smooth, its folded up quite a bit, it can retain a lattent image and compare it to the current image, and thereby "remember" and notice change and movement.

 

An organism "survives" better, when it is aware of its surroundings, and can identify and move toward food and water and energy sources, and away from preditors and dangers.

 

So, the "will" to survive does not come from the outside, but from the maitanence of the "working" internal patterns, the strategies that have evolved to "fit" with the world,

 

But what "spark" is required to turn a growing crystal, or a snowflake, or a bubble, or a molecule of water, and a molecule of carbon, into a living thing, that defends its pattern, and reproduces it? Perhaps nothing much more than folding up a bunch of points, each with access to the photons coming in from every corner of the universe, into a complex, focused, fitting thing, that evolves into a single celled organism. The rest of evolution is understandable, from there.

 

And the "hard problem" of consciousness is somewhat simpler to untangle if you grant every indivual point initial and complete access to every other point that sends it a photon.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

If this is an example of what I will find in the Skeptic, then I am disappointed as it reads like a gossip magazine. I find that it provides a great deal of innuendo and much is implied, but it is logically inconsistent with the facts. Please consider the following from your quote from Skeptic.

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".

This starts out by stating that the study is about children. Most people assume that children can not be trusted to know or tell the truth, so this implies that the study can not be believed. What the Skeptic fails to mention is that only corroborated testimony is accepted, so the study is not based exclusively on testimony or on children, and in fact incorporates actual evidence. Dr. Stevenson's study is about personal experience, so testimony has to be a part of that study, but why did he use children? Why didn't he use adults? Two reasons that are logically valid; first, the children remembered the past lives and it is always better to get testimony before time and influence can change memory. Second, if he used adults, then skeptics would claim that the adults had time to interfere with the corroborating evidence. So he had to use children.

What about his "lifelong interest in psychosomatic issues", or the "usefulness" of reincarnation concepts in medicine? He was a psychiatrist. So of course he had an interest in psychosomatic issues, and if a person were reincarnated, or believed that they were reincarnated, that would seriously impact treatment, as this is not the same as psychosis.

He did not think that every disease could be explained by heredity or environment; some diseases require reference to past life experiences.

Well, every disease is not explained by heredity or environment, and he had reason to consider that some things are influenced by consciousness. He would not be the first. When a man, who was born with the tips of his fingers missing, claims to have lived a prior life where his fingers were amputated in childhood, then he died and was reborn; and then to find that the man's story accurately depicts an actual life that existed--one has to consider the possibility. Or to learn of a child, who claims to have been shot in a previous life and find that this child has a small birthmark that matches where he claims to have been shot, and that the child has a larger birthmark that would appear to be an exit wound from the bullet. Any intelligent rational person, who has seen this evidence, must consider the possibilities.

Consider the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scOQ7alpMBg

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 statement implies that Dr. Stevenson was obsessed with reincarnation, but I am pretty sure that there were a few other questions floating around in his mind. (chuckle) Although Dr. Stevenson is most noted for his work regarding reincarnation, his work was not limited to this study.

 

This question puzzled him because he rejected explanations for illness that were "limited" to consideration of genetic predisposition or environmental contagion.

This is pure nonsense and implies that Dr. Stevenson rejected science. He did not. In his early work, he rejected any evidence that could not be gathered by scientific methodology, and eventually came to believe that he was missing the larger picture by limiting his evidence. The key word here is "limited", as it is possible that there are other influences that affect these things. When there are three children in the same house with the same hereditary factors and the same environment, why do only two children get sick? Any intelligent person will consider that there may be other influencing factors.

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.

These two statements are logically inconsistent. If in fact, the person and the person's body existed separately and independently, then the question of birthmarks and birth defects would be irrelevant. One can not state that they are independent and also state that the birthmarks are dependent upon the personality. Make up your mind, Skeptic.

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).

This would be the birth marks and birth defects he found that related the deceased personality to the new person. It is an interesting idea that does have some plausibility if one considers emotion rather than will to be the instigator of this phenomenon. Most theories denote "will" to cause much of the religious or paranormal experience, but I think that it could be more accurately explained by emotion.

In the studies that I have read, the "reincarnations" seem to be caused by tramatic death or some kind of bond with people still living--both relate to strong emotion. I don't know if "will" can affect the body, but I know that emotion can. Although it is well argued whether emotion causes physical reactions or whether the physical reactions cause the emotion, consider that hormones can cause emotion, and emotion can also cause the production of hormones--it is cyclic. Also consider that hormones can produce other hormones, then consider that hormones can actually turn off and on different parts of DNA, and there is a plausible physical path to follow. Does this mean that emotion can affect DNA? No. I don't know enough about science to state that, but it seems to be possible, considering my limited knowledge. Maybe worthy of investigation.

Could this be an aspect of evolution? Could lizards that are eaten too easily, prompt an emotional response, that produces hormones, that cause a change in DNA to produce a better color, so that they can camoflage themselves and hide from predators? Maybe.

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).

A lot of peoplle have speculated this. I don't agree with it, but there is nothing wrong with speculation. It is what thinking people do. The following video from the BBC shows the religious side of this question, and religion seems to consider this as being a matter or "will".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDI3M9VB8BU

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 problems that ensue from such claims about mind and body.

Naive? Like Plato?

Or maybe we should consider the thoughts of Carl Jung? As in this link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOeQZZYx34&list=PLvHIIBAPFw9pHKDxMJVi6TVgyie0UAdTv

Then there is a peer review from a philosopher, as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg

Or if you are looking for a newer idea, consider the thoughts of Michael Talbot, who wrote "The Hollographic Universe", which alines with the thinking of two prominent scientists.

Quoted from Wiki .
"After examining the work of physicist David Bohm and neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, each of whom independently arrived at holographic theories or models of the universe, the book argues that a holographic model could possibly explain supersymmetry and also various paranormal and anomalous phenomena and is the basis for mystical experience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holographic_Universe#The_Holographic_Universe

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

Most of the people that I went to high school with experimented with drugs. I was actually uninvited from a party once because they thought I might be a "NARC", because I did not do drugs. Those "druggies" are now the doctors, lawyers, politicians, and leaders of the community. So this does not impress me much.

 

In this video, he is a good deal older and points out some of the things that he had not considered when he first started his investigations. These are things that science would not consider like personalities, food preferences, emotional attachments and bonds to strangers--the subjective self.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0

If even one of these cases is a true example of reincarnation, then it means that reincarnation can happen. So the questions are: How does it happen? When does it happen? Why does it happen? And under what circumstance? Dr. Stevenson is trying to answer these questions.


G

I am sceptical of anything that does not have positive empirical evidence,

 

Well, I believe that I am a neutral monist or something very close to that. Since there is no positive empirical evidence that you have a mind, then I am sure you will not mind if I ignore the scepticism associated with what may be your mind. (chuckle)

what someone says happened once but cannot be repeated is not evidence of anything.

It is either evidence of personal experience or it is evidence that they are liars. Science may not think so, but Courts feel very strongly about this.

Personal experience is not evidence of anything but a personal experience.

Personal experience is the only evidence that we have of consciousness.

Belief has never caused any discernible effect on reality and is meaningless in any context with no positive evidence to back it up.

This is something that people say, but it is pure nonsense. I suspect that the "belief" that is being discussed is religious belief--like moving mountains and walking on water. So I can agree that there is no evidence of that except for religious historical interpretations. But belief is not always religious.

Why do we tell people that they must believe in themselves? What is confidence if not a strong belief in our abilities? Why are we told that the "right attitude" will take us half way there, but the "wrong attitude" will get us nowhere? What is attitude or confidence if not belief? Do you really think that an athlete can get "in the zone" without belief in him/her self? Belief seriously impacts our success, and lack of belief can cause failure, which is why we follow charismatic leaders, and employ coaches and cheer leaders, who instill belief.

If you want positive evidence, then consider motivational speakers. I know a woman who earns a six figure salary and vacations for free in the Cayman Islands. Why? Because she is a motivational speaker, who works for an advertising company. She flys into town, makes her speech, and sales sky-rocket. She makes people believe that they can, so they do. Businesses are not run by kindly altruistic people, who want to give away free vacations. They pay her because the statistics bear out the truth of her worth--this is positive evidence.

So to say that belief has no "discernible effect" is just as big a lie as stating that you can walk on water. Belief is not magic, but it does influence us; and therefore, our reality.

G

[Moontanman]

Belief might inspire you to try harder but ultimately it boils down to what you can and cannot do. Belief will not allow you to do something impossible. No matter how hard you believe you are not going to be able fly unassisted, and certain tasks are impossible.

 

As for the rest, Gees if you want to lend some credibility to your assertions about reincarnation and other supernatural claims you come up against the same wall that every assertion hits.

 

Can you demonstrate your assertion to anyone else? Can you show me that reincarnation exists in anyway that is empirical and testable?

 

Your "evidence" is no better than the evidence some people have for alien abduction, yes some people claim to have marks left by aliens or have implants that cannot be verified or experiences they cannot explain but when the rubber hits the road there is no road and no rubber only the assertions made in total lack of evidence. Once you head down the road of personal experiences that can only be felt by the person who experiences them you are wondering blind in a cave.

I've read the holographic universe, many many years ago, I thought it was somewhat less than definitive not to mention less than well supported. Using it to support other things which are even less well supported is a lot like saying unicorns must be real because fairies ride them...

 

I can't watch the youtube vids from this computer but if you look into this site we have threads about metaphysics and so far no one has been able to show any evidence of anything claimed by metaphysics other than it's total lack of empirical evidence...

Oh and btw, the drugs angle was my attempt to show his research to be subjective not to demean his character

...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Well I was about to plus arrow your last post, until the metaphysical comment. There IS a lot going on in our imaginations, and collective imaginations, and these things have "something" to do with reality.

 

I am not talking about flying because you think you can fly...well maybe I am. After all, I have flown to Japan and back a couple of times, and it didn't have nothing to do with the Wright brothers' imagination.

 

There are many things in this world that are here, that were not here, before somebody had the idea...and made it work.

 

While I constantly get in trouble with iNow and others, for "conflating" stuff on these threads, its not something I do to obfiscate, but something I do to clarify. I SEE the imaginary nature of god. It can not be otherwise. BUT, the "idea" of god is therefore the only thing we have to talk about, since the "real" one, has not shown up on the radar.

 

Gave a woman at work three pears today from our pear trees. She said she was going to offer them to Lord Vishnu tonight at a religious ceremony. I joked with her about whether or not god would be offended for giving back the pears, as if they were no good. She said "you gave them to me, I will offer them to Vishnu...its auspicious". Another woman, from the Phillipines was confused at the first woman's and my conversation about Ansestor whorship being related to Vishnu, since she believed her ancestors "joined" Vishnu and such, and I suggested to the second woman, that "you have to use your imagination", the first woman agreed, and it all was a rather friendly and understanding exchange from all three sides.

 

My "understanding" does not require there actually be a Vishnu to offer the pears to, for you to offer pears to "something". And such is my understanding of God, that I came to some 10 years ago. God is that "something" that we are all commonly aware of, in that general "metaphysical" way. It can be friendship, or hope, or simply association with each other, but its real stuff. Everybody DID have ancestors, who still are "alive" in their memories, and that they are beholding to, for the helpful efforts that established and maintained the societies and civilizations and technologies and rules of behaviour and philosophies and ways of life, that we currently reap the benefits of. The hopes and dreams of our ancestors is the reality of today. We walk on their streets, drink the water from the aquaducts they built, inhabit the buildings, and enjoy the works of art and technology that their imaginations and efforts created.

 

Not a one of us "started from scratch". Not a one of us can live, but for the Sun, and the Earth, and the countless former lives that concentrated the carbon we use in every cell and strand and fibre in our bodies.

 

There is nothing wrong with "feeling" an association to the universe, to the Sun, to the Earth, to life, to rain and wind and soil, to your ancestors, and to the "other" people currently alive. Nothing wrong with it at all. Its the reality of the situation.

 

Yogi Berra once said that 90 percent of baseball is half mental. I think he got it, exactly right.

 

I would rather you not use metaphysical as a curse word.

 

Supernatural sure. Superstitions sure. But metaphysical means something real and shouldn't be lumped into the same basket. That is unless you accept the metaphysical as real, and intend on using it, to explain our beliefs in the supernatural and to explain our superstitions. Then you can lump.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Seriously Tar, you or I can feel all manner of things, asserting them as real is the heart of the matter. As far as i have seen in my life there is no evidence for anything other than the natural world, being able to imagine something or feel something has no basis other than the synergy of reacting chemicals, there is no evidence for anything else, in fact IMHO there is no reason to search some other realm for an explanation of anything, "Nothing unreal exists" I guess our definitions of real differ somewhat... My definition is that anything real has a measurable effect on reality. Does that mean that belief cannot be real? Of course not, your belief is the result of reacting chemicals in your brain, it has no independent supernatural reality of it's own show me some empirical evidence of the metaphysical and we can talk...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

"My definition is that anything real has a measurable effect on reality."

 

I think we have the same definition.

 

And here is where "thought" is sometimes mischaracterised, because sometimes it DOES have an effect on reality, and sometimes it does not.

 

Perhaps illustrated well by a few of "examples".

A sage reaching nirvana on a mountaintop does not cause the entire universe to collaspe into a black hole. The "thought's" effect on reality is minimal.

Thinking you should go at a green light and stop at a red, actually reduces the amount of collisions at intersections. Here thought DOES effect reality.

 

Perhaps you would accept the lack of piled up wrecks at the intersections to be evidence of thought's effect upon reality? The amount of twisted metal and injury at these intersections is certainly measurable. To say nothing about the effect of thought on one car happening to be traveling in one direction or another on one road or another, or the effect on reality that thought had in creating the roads in the first place, and the lights, and the laws, and the cars. Certainly a lot there, that you can measure, and a lot there that you can sense and know to be real. That would NOT exist, but for thought.

 

So thought HAS a measurable effect on reality. It also does not have the "reach" we sometimes think it might, and thinking you are the king of the world, does not make it so...unless you ARE the king of the world. Many sayings and realities illustrate this point. "Big fish in a small pond", "no man is an island". "My eyes were bigger than my stomach", "He is too full of himself", "You promised!" etc., etc.. There is much evidence that thought effects reality, and there is much evidence that it has limited reach.

 

So here is my take. Reality is real. We are in and of it. We are mortal and tiny in respect to its apparent longevity and immensity, but what we "think" about it, is not either completely true or false, but rather somewhere inbetween.

 

You can neither discount a thought to the level of non-existence, nor inflate it, to encompass everything.

 

Metaphysical things exist. For us, and our reality, the one we commonly consider our mutual "frame of reference", the Earth and the Solar system and this Milky Way, there exists, in small but measurable ways, THOUGHTS within it, and about it, that effect it...for real.

 

Gees seems to feel that thought floats around and settles in things, you seem to think that thought has no real effects or demonstrable existence, I am rather sure that although it can be taken either way, the reality of the situation is that our thoughts have had, do have, and will have effect upon reality, and therefore there MUST be something real about them.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 28, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

So your assertion is that thoughts are supernatural?

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Not at all. The opposite maybe. Thoughts are metaphyscial. Nothing is supernatural. But there is a mixture of human thoughts into reality that cause logical conflicts, if one considers that thought is unreal, impossible or magic, or presented to us by some outside force, that is not apparent.

 

My take, which I evidently am having a hard time expressing, is that therefore there MUST be a real, logical, cause and effect, unmagical way that humans and human consciousness emerged, or came to be, or developed WITHIN the contraints and rules by which the universe operates. We exactly could not have arrived here without fitting real well with reality, at every stage of our developement.

 

The universe may have "popped" into existence, and to an idividual, it may seem that they also popped into existence at their birth, and will pop back out at their death, and it seems this way, because its mostly true...but not completely true. The Earth and humankind existed prior the birth of anyone alive today, and will exist, hopefully long after everyone alive today dies. There is good reason to consider oneself part of this continuum. There is nothing "supernatural" required to associate yourself with that which came before ones birth, exists now and will exist after ones death.

 

Here is where I think there is confusion about what people believe, when they believe in God, or an afterlife, or "another" reality, or the reality "after" this one. Or when people "worship" ancestors or "creators" or that about reality that provided us with our personal birth. Room, plenty of room to have quite a number of "different" takes on the matter. People with different beliefs, different personalities, different capabilities, different associations, different purposes and different "wills". But you have your pessimists and your optimists, your victims and your victors, your masters and your slaves, your haves and your have nots, and all in all it is no wonder that one person thinks they get it, but feels another doesn't.

 

So no, I don't think thinking is supernatural. I think its metaphysical and real.

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

Please consider the following:

 

Belief might inspire you to try harder but ultimately it boils down to what you can and cannot do.

 

This is absolutely true and totally misleading. You seem to have a talent for this kind of misleading logic. A more true statement might be, "If you believe you can, it becomes possible, but if you believe you can't, it becomes impossible."

 

Belief will not allow you to do something impossible.

 

Sure it will. Belief allowed us to put a man on the moon, which was impossible. Belief allowed us to burn witches for consorting with the Devil, which is impossible.

 

No matter how hard you believe you are not going to be able fly unassisted, and certain tasks are impossible.

 

Here you go again. You try to equate belief with something impossible, then use that to deny the value of belief. It is nonsense. It is like saying that if a person can not do math like the "Human Computer", then they can not do math at all. Or if a person can not think like Einstein, then they can not have a valid idea. Bullchit. It would help if you could separate belief, magic, and religion in your mind, as they are not the same thing.

 

As for the rest, Gees if you want to lend some credibility to your assertions about reincarnation and other supernatural claims you come up against the same wall that every assertion hits.

Can you demonstrate your assertion to anyone else? Can you show me that reincarnation exists in anyway that is empirical and testable?

Isn't that what Dr. Stevenson did? I was raised a good little Catholic, so reincarnation was a totally foreign concept to me. I did not believe it was possible, and thought it to be a religious concept. Somwhat silly, and mostly wishful thinking. But I was wrong. I had to, again, expand my ideas on conscious awareness because I am an analytical thinker, so I can not allow my personal beliefs to override facts. Facts are facts.

 

If you watched the videos, you would find empirical evidence. You would also find that testing was done to verify claims. But can I convince you? No. You believe that consciousness comes from the brain, even though there is no evidence of this. You believe that the mind is probably in the brain, even though there is no evidence of this. You believe that the mind/soul is within the body, even though there is no evidence of this. Your belief, not facts, makes this all possible.

I can't watch the youtube vids from this computer but if you look into this site we have threads about metaphysics and so far no one has been able to show any evidence of anything claimed by metaphysics other than it's total lack of empirical evidence.

 

You and I must have very different views on what constitutes empirical evidence. The following is Wiki's definition:

 

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[2]

So if I am reading this correctly, then evidence can be acquired by observation and does not require experimentation in order to be valid empirical evidence. It is also noted that memory and testimony can be used as secondary or indirect empirical evidence.

 

So the birth records, death records, medical examiner's reports, autopsy reports, birth marks, deformities, and names and locations of deceased individuals would be empirical evidence. (1)

 

The memory of the "reincarnated" individual would be secondary or indirect evidence, and the testimony of others would be secondary or indirect evidence. (2)

 

So a man, who was born with the tips of his fingers on one hand missing and remembers a past life, would provide memory evidence (2). His medical records that show the deformity at birth would be evidence (1). Finding that a person did indeed live before by the name and in the city claimed by the "reincarnated" individual would be evidence (1). Finding a birth and death record for the past life individual would be evidence (1). Finding medical records that show the past person having lost their finger tips would be evidence (1). All of the (1) evidence would support the (2) memory evidence.

 

A child who would starve herself to the point of being hospitalized for malnutrition because she was not allowed to go and live with her prior family, would only be memory (2) evidence--but it is very compelling evidence.

 

A child who greets and hugs strangers as if they were family, provides some compelling evidence, and when she asks after family members, by name, who are not present, that is very interesting and difficult to dispute.

 

Was there testing? Of course. People are not going to simply accept a child on the child's own say so, especially people with money. In one case, the father of the deceased child told the mother to hide in the house prior to the new child's arrival. The child greeted her prior father, then asked after her mother. She was told to find her mother, and although there were women present, she did not accept that any of the women were her mother. She went into the house and found her mother.

 

When all of this evidence is viewed together, it is difficult for a rational person to dispute. Of course, there can always be lies and fraud, but Dr. Stevenson's work has been too closely scrutinized for any fraud to have not been found. And Dr. Stevenson, himself, has been observed to be a person of high integrity. So my thought is that the evidence must be believed, or alternatively, one must believe that the medical examiners records, death and birth records, autopsy records, and all the rest must be discounted as not valid. The only reason that I can see to discount all of these records would be if there were reason to doubt the people who made the records. If one thought that the belief of the culture could influence the professionals to corrupt the evidence. But this would be a culture bias and a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Exactly what do you think metaphysics is?

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Wondering about what you are going on about, I searched out and read Dr. Stevenson's article on birthmarks.

 

As I was reading it, I found myself constantly returning to the same "explanation", and that was that in all cases the child HAD the birthmark(s) or birth defects and therefore would undoubtably have speculated about why they had these wierd marks or malformations that nobody else had. Imagining how such a thing could be, or what could have caused it. As most of the examples where in areas of the world where reincarnation is a commonly held belief (and evidently home to a fair amount of shotgun incidents) it is not hard to imagine a child wondering about the "story" that could be "behind" the marks. With a little talk amoungst friends and family, these hypothetical stories could be woven, and considered something like "memories"...etc. etc.

 

The good doctor was good enough to mention this objection, (and then downplay it, unconvincingly).

 

Ian Stevenson's article on birth defects and reincarnation:

 

"Because most (but not all) of these cases develop among persons who believe in reincarnation, we should expect that the informants for the cases would interpret them as examples according with their belief; and they usually do. It is necessary, however, for scientists to think of alternative explanations."

 

All in all, I found myself NOT forced into to a corner, where I had to think of alternative explanations. The explanations I had, already covered it.

 

I remember considering reincarnation when I was young, and searching my "memory" for any hints of a former life. Had some "feelings" and such, but nothing that made any sense, and certainly nothing that I had a lot of evidence, or any evidence to believe was the case, or even possible. Later in life, as a young adult as a lifeguard at an apartment building, on a day when no one was at the pool, I remember thinking quite long and hard about the topic of reincarnation, and decided that it was a consideration that did not make ANY sense. It just doesn't fit. No mechanism, known or unknown, would allow it. It wouldn't "explain" anything. You can't have somebody elses memory, and call it yours. You can't have somebody elses soul, because you then would not have your own. The whole idea is fatally flawed. I discounted it, that day, and it remains discounted.

 

You and Dr. Stevenson might present things that you think require some unknown force or mechanism to explain them. Why do you just pose the question, without coming up with a testable theory about the kind of mechanism that must therefore, or may therefore, be in play? Show some "other" examples of the same mechanism at work, and such.

 

If "reincarnation" is the valid and only explanation for the happenings, then how do you propose "reincarnation" works? How is it possible? How does it make sense according to ANYTHING else, we know?

 

Besides, you would have another issue to resolve. Is reincarnation a "possession" of the body of the second part, by the soul of the first part? In which case you would have to explain what happens to the soul of the second part? And come up with some arbitrary rules about cohabitation of a body, and one soul being stronger than the other, and such, which would be pretty hard to sort out, being as its imaginary and not based on reality at all. Then, (and I just thought of this) you would have the problem of where the soul of the first part came from, and whether or not that soul of the first part, was a "pure" starter soul, or whether he/she him/herself was possessed by a previously exsisting soul...etc. etc.

 

Nothing testable suggested, nothing that makes sense, studied. Just questionable things, lumped together, for no good reason.

 

You might as well conclude that clouds will gather, anywhere where TAR asks them to, because it happened the two times I was contracted to make such a request. What other explanation could there possibly be?

 

Regards, TAR2

As for the question of where and how and why life and consciousness "started", I would guess that the answer, the plausable answer lies in more of an evolving presention, than a sudden start. It had to have come from the universe, but it did not exist prior its emergence. To think otherwise, you would then have to explain where the consciouness that was poured into the material, came from, and you are back at the same question. So since reality had to either start at some point, or had to have always been the case, there is no need for consciousness to exist by any other rules than the universe goes by. The rules of the universe should be sufficient to explain the case. They HAVE TO be.

Edited August 31, 2013 by tar

[tar]

P.P.S. Consider the importance of "a story", to a human being. I think it says a lot about "how" and why we think and act the way we do. From several directions, and operating on several levels. There in addition, seems to be a concurrent "need" that the story be true. Enough of a need, to where some pretense or imagination is required inorder to "believe" the story. To make it "fit". In some things, some poetic license is understood and allowed. In others its best to tell the story that fits the facts, All the facts. If the story doesn't make complete sense, I think a human, for good reason, will reject it.

 

Perhaps this is partially the "nature" of consciousness. The ability to tell your own story.

(while living it)

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider the following responses.

 

Gees,

Wondering about what you are going on about, I searched out and read Dr. Stevenson's article on birthmarks.

 

Well, good. Did you also watch the videos?

 

As I was reading it, I found myself constantly returning to the same "explanation", and that was that in all cases the child HAD the birthmark(s) or birth defects and therefore would undoubtably have speculated about why they had these wierd marks or malformations that nobody else had. Imagining how such a thing could be, or what could have caused it.

 

And what "explanation" would you be referring to? Are you trying to say that Dr. Stevenson thought that the children "speculated" about their marks? I highly doubt that, as Dr. Stevenson was a psychiatrist, and would know better. Kids don't work the way you seem to presume, when they are 2, 3, 4, or 5 years old. They simply accept. Children do not start comparing, and therefore speculating, until they reach the age of seven, or close to seven, which is also when they forget about the past life. So this explanation is not valid.

 

And one can not use imagination to conjure up a real person, who lived before.

 

As most of the examples where in areas of the world where reincarnation is a commonly held belief (and evidently home to a fair amount of shotgun incidents) it is not hard to imagine a child wondering about the "story" that could be "behind" the marks. With a little talk amoungst friends and family, these hypothetical stories could be woven, and considered something like "memories"...etc. etc.

 

So you are calling them liars. No matter how nicely you put it, the reality is that you believe that they either intentionally created a fraud, or they simply are so imaginative that they don't know the truth. And what do you base this opinion on? Nothing but your belief. There are no facts to support this belief, only your opinion.

 

Since you stated, "and evidently home to a fair amount of shotgun incidents", it is also clear that your opinion is biased. Here in the US, suicide rates beat homicide rates two to one, so I don't think you have cause to consider us better than them. Since your argument is based on biased opinion, belief, your imagination, and no facts, you will forgive me if I consider it to be the garbage that it is.

The good doctor was good enough to mention this objection, (and then downplay it, unconvincingly).
Ian Stevenson's article on birth defects and reincarnation:
"Because most (but not all) of these cases develop among persons who believe in reincarnation, we should expect that the informants for the cases would interpret them as examples according with their belief; and they usually do. It is necessary, however, for scientists to think of alternative explanations."

 

Yes, alternative explanations based in fact. This does not mean that we get to call people liars.

 

All in all, I found myself NOT forced into to a corner, where I had to think of alternative explanations. The explanations I had, already covered it.

Yes. I have noted for some time now that you tend to use your imagination to do philosophy. We had this discussion about imagination early on when discussing ESP. Remember? I noted that some people imagine that they know what other people are thinking, and that this thinking is actually imagining that what the other people know is their imagination. Instead of running in these circles, it is easier to just deal with facts and leave imagination to Hollywood.

I remember considering reincarnation when I was young, and searching my "memory" for any hints of a former life. Had some "feelings" and such, but nothing that made any sense, and certainly nothing that I had a lot of evidence, or any evidence to believe was the case, or even possible. Later in life, as a young adult as a lifeguard at an apartment building, on a day when no one was at the pool, I remember thinking quite long and hard about the topic of reincarnation, and decided that it was a consideration that did not make ANY sense. It just doesn't fit.

 

How young? You would have to have been under the age of seven, and probably had never heard of the word reincarnation at that time. Before thinking about a topic long and hard, I find that it is best to acquire some facts, so that there is something to think about--otherwise you are imagining.

 

No mechanism, known or unknown, would allow it. It wouldn't "explain" anything. You can't have somebody elses memory, and call it yours. You can't have somebody elses soul, because you then would not have your own. The whole idea is fatally flawed. I discounted it, that day, and it remains discounted.

 

These questions regarding "souls" and explanations are religious questions. I don't really care about your beliefs. This is the Philosophy forum, not the Religion forum.

 

You and Dr. Stevenson might present things that you think require some unknown force or mechanism to explain them. Why do you just pose the question, without coming up with a testable theory about the kind of mechanism that must therefore, or may therefore, be in play? Show some "other" examples of the same mechanism at work, and such.

 

Oh. So you want us to come up with a "testable theory" on consciousness? You must think that Dr. Sevenson and I are geniuses. Thank you for the compliment, but I don't think that I can oblige you yet.

If "reincarnation" is the valid and only explanation for the happenings, then how do you propose "reincarnation" works? How is it possible? How does it make sense according to ANYTHING else, we know?

Actually, there is very little that we really "know" about consciousness. Dr. Stevenson thought that it worked off of "will" like most religions do. I think that it works through emotion.

Besides, you would have another issue to resolve. Is reincarnation a "possession" of the body of the second part, by the soul of the first part? In which case you would have to explain what happens to the soul of the second part? And come up with some arbitrary rules about cohabitation of a body, and one soul being stronger than the other, and such, which would be pretty hard to sort out, being as its imaginary and not based on reality at all. Then, (and I just thought of this) you would have the problem of where the soul of the first part came from, and whether or not that soul of the first part, was a "pure" starter soul, or whether he/she him/herself was possessed by a previously exsisting soul...etc. etc.

 

These are religious questions.

 

G

P.P.S.

 

Perhaps this is partially the "nature" of consciousness. The ability to tell your own story.

(while living it)

 

Maybe so, but it is not philosophy.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

You have outlawed religion, outlawed opinion, and want to stick with the facts.

 

What about the fact that everybody has an opinion, and most people have a religion.

 

And what about the fact that 100% of the people that anybody has ever known live on, or lived on, the Earth.

 

There is a commonality amoungst us, regardless of the particular history and attributes, and the particular emotions and thoughts and will an individual person might have or exhibit. Enough that I can use my imagination to put myself in the shoes of another. So its not a precise science, so its rarely on the mark, doesn't mean I am not in the ball park. I am not claiming rules with no basis in fact, like your statement about people forgetting about their former life, by the time they are 7. What do you base this scientific fact on? It presupposes "a former life", without description of what exactly this means. Could you be talking about some "intouchness" to "nature", and "memory" of the chain of life that flowed through the childs parents and grandparents? This would make some sense to me...but not if you disallow, a person "remembering" or feeling a real connection to their bloodline, after they are 7.

 

Are you saying that people, all people are lying to themselves by the age of 7 and have "forgotten" what truth they used to know?

 

I had a thought similar to this, and related to the "supernatural" about 10 or 15 years ago. What if young children "sense" things, and people like their parents, tell them its only their imagination, enough times, in insistent enough tones, for the child to "learn" to discount a "sense" for a "thought". "Grandma couldn't have been in the rocking chair, knitting in your room, Grandma died and went to heaven two years ago." Who is a child to believe? Her own eyes, or her parents? I am guessing a child would tend to agree with her parents, that she must be imagining Grandma, because she misses her, and wished she was still alive."

 

But what if we DO see ghosts early on, and learn to NOT see them, as we are socialized? Wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it "better" to NOT see ghosts?

 

And if our imaginations are more readily confused with reality when we are young, wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it better to teach a child the difference between imagination and reality, early on, let's say, by the time they are 7?

 

Either way, ghosts are not supposed to be seen. They are either bad news, and best forgotten, Or they are imaginary in nature.

 

So where does that park "reincarnation" in your scientific, philosophical mind? A reality, that its best to forget about, or an imaginary thing, that its best not to consider real?

 

Are you calling me a liar, or a forgetful person, or a person afraid to accept the truth, if I DO NOT believe in reincarnation?

 

Well if so, I call you a name back, and suspect that you must think you have the ability to sense and percieve and know the difference between imagination and reality, similar to the abilities of a 6 year old.

 

Maybe Regards, TAR2 (depending on whether or not we are still on speaking terms)

[Gees]

Tar;

 

You have made some interesting comments here. Please consider my responses.

 

Gees,

 

You have outlawed religion, outlawed opinion, and want to stick with the facts.

What about the fact that everybody has an opinion, and most people have a religion.

And what about the fact that 100% of the people that anybody has ever known live on, or lived on, the Earth.

 

I don't think that I "outlawed" religion or opinion. I just don't find that they provide useful answers in this type of study. The study of consciousness is actually metaphysics. Wiki definition:

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]

What is ultimately there?
What is it like?

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist [4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Metaphysics has been traditionally studied using introspection, and religion, looking into the mind to find answers. But we don't have to limit ourselves to introspection anymore, because science has learned a great deal about life, so we can add "facts" to what we already understand. When I study consciousness, my questions are: What can we know? and, How can we know it?. I try to answer these questions by considering, "How does it work?", so I need facts to answer my questions. And I refuse to limit my studies to "human" consciousness, so if you want me to accept opinion, you are going to have to find out the opinion of some other species for a comparison; otherwise, the human ego is going to get in the way of facts.

There is a commonality amoungst us, regardless of the particular history and attributes, and the particular emotions and thoughts and will an individual person might have or exhibit. Enough that I can use my imagination to put myself in the shoes of another.

Well sure you can, but what happens to their perspective when you do that? You can assume their perspective, you can rationalize their perspective, but you can not imagine their perspective unless you listen to them. So you can either listen wholeheartedly for understanding, or you can assume, rationalize, and imagine whatever you want--marginalizing their perspective and making it more compatible with yours. There is no other option that I can see.

So its not a precise science, so its rarely on the mark, doesn't mean I am not in the ball park. I am not claiming rules with no basis in fact, like your statement about people forgetting about their former life, by the time they are 7. What do you base this scientific fact on? It presupposes "a former life", without description of what exactly this means. Could you be talking about some "intouchness" to "nature", and "memory" of the chain of life that flowed through the childs parents and grandparents? This would make some sense to me...but not if you disallow, a person "remembering" or feeling a real connection to their bloodline, after they are 7.

I am not even considering "bloodlines" as that is a different development of consciousness. What I was referring to is Dr. Stevenon's observations. He noted that almost all of the children lost interest in their "prior" life around age seven, and became fully engaged in their current lives. The change that children go through around age seven is well documented by psychiatry, religion, and even secular law. Consider the following from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Holy_Communion

First Communion in Roman Catholic churches typically takes place at age seven or eight, depending on the country.

Many religions consider age seven as the appropriate time to induct the child into the congregation, as it is considered that by this time, the child is fully cognizant of the realities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages

Four-year-old, Social development
Imaginary playmates or companions are common; holds conversations and shares strong emotions with this invisible friend.

Five-year-old, Social development
Often has an imaginary friend

Six-year-old, Social and emotional
May be increasingly fearful of the unknown like things in the dark, noises, and animals.

 

Secular law considers a child below the age of seven to be too imaginative to know the truth, which makes it difficult to prosecute child abuse and pedophilia cases, unless there is corroborating evidence. So there is a great deal of support for Dr. Stevenson's observations.

A lot of people will look at the above information and conclude that a child below the age of seven is simply too young to be believed. It is all imagination. But I look at it differently because I know that most of the "supernatural" is put off, and explained away, as imagination. So if a child's testimony is that a person lived and died before the child was born, and the child knows the person's name, city where s/he lived, family and their names, and the child knows the person's occupation and the way the person died--and the child is right--then how was this information acquired?

There are only a few possibilities; either it is fraud, or reincarnation, or possibly ESP. Dr. Stevenson's work has been too closely scrutinized by too many people for too many years for me to accept that this is all fraud. Although ESP is a possibility, why is it that the children relate to the prior life in the first person, as ESP does not generally bestow subjectivity. So it appears to me that reincarnation is a viable answer, and it can happen.

Are you saying that people, all people are lying to themselves by the age of 7 and have "forgotten" what truth they used to know?

No. What I am saying is that at age seven, children begin to accept a different reality--this one. I read an article in Wiki, not sure what title it was under, that explained that children are not born with a full compliment of consciousness as we know it. They develop their consciousness during their childhood. This makes sense to me as I have watched children experiment with gravity, space and time, and cause and effect, so I think that the rational part of the mind is still defeloping in childhood. Since most of the "supernatural" that I have studied, works through the unconscious aspect of mind, it is hidden from the rational mind, but still part of us. This would go a long way in explaining unusual abilities, like child prodegies, and some personality traits.

I had a thought similar to this, and related to the "supernatural" about 10 or 15 years ago. What if young children "sense" things, and people like their parents, tell them its only their imagination, enough times, in insistent enough tones, for the child to "learn" to discount a "sense" for a "thought". "Grandma couldn't have been in the rocking chair, knitting in your room, Grandma died and went to heaven two years ago." Who is a child to believe? Her own eyes, or her parents? I am guessing a child would tend to agree with her parents, that she must be imagining Grandma, because she misses her, and wished she was still alive."

This may well be true, expecially if children are working with the unconscious mind as well as the conscious rational mind. Regarding reincarnation, if I saw a birthmark on my child while bathing him, and mentioned it, and my child responded, "That is where I got shot." I am pretty sure that I would respond, "No, darling. Momma would never let anyone shoot you." But a Hindu mother might say, "Oh really. When did that happen?" and the child might say, "When my name was George." This would be put off to imagination in the West, but might be considered in the East.

The only way that we know of to reach the unconscious mind is questioning. Whether it is Socratic questioning, or Freud's psycho-analysis, both require questions to learn about the unconscious. Statements denying the child's perceptions would shut down the avenue of information.

But what if we DO see ghosts early on, and learn to NOT see them, as we are socialized? Wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it "better" to NOT see ghosts?

This reminds me of a story I read many years ago in a magazine. It was written by a psychic, who was pretty famous at the time, though I don't remember her name. She explained that she was sharing the story in the hope that it would help other people to understand children, who also may experience this trauma. She was four or five years old and going on a trip to the country for the weekend with her family to visit her grandparents. Her grandpa was her favorite person in the whole world, so when she got there, she ran up the porch steps and flung herself into his arms. He picked her up, swung her around, then leaned back to get a look at her. When she looked at his face, she saw a skull. She screamed, scrambled down, and refused to look at him or come near him for the rest of the vacation. She broke his heart and never saw him again, as he died soon after.

As an adult, she knew that when she sees a skull instead of a face, that means the person is going to die soon, but she did not know this as a child, and there was no one who understood and could advise her. So do you think the ignorance that caused her grandpa's heart ache and her years of guilt was better than knowledge?

And if our imaginations are more readily confused with reality when we are young, wouldn't this imply that society has, over time, found it better to teach a child the difference between imagination and reality, early on, let's say, by the time they are 7?

People are not that altruistic. (chuckle) Remember that six year olds are learning that dogs sometimes bite, cars can smash you, and your bicycle sometimes throws you down on concrete--life is dangerous. This new information causes the fears and night terrors of a six year old. So what do the parents do? They take full advantage and invent the "Boogey Man" to keep the children where they belong, in the yard, close to home, or in bed, so mom and dad can have some fun.

Either way, ghosts are not supposed to be seen. They are either bad news, and best forgotten, Or they are imaginary in nature.

How do you know they are not supposed to be seen?

So where does that park "reincarnation" in your scientific, philosophical mind? A reality, that its best to forget about, or an imaginary thing, that its best not to consider real?

It parks it in the section entitled "probability". Since I believe that all things work off of cause and effect, but life works from multiple causes, it is my thought that any "reincarnation" that happens would simply be an influence. So the reincarnation information, the DNA of our parents, the environment, and our experiences would all work together to create a new personality. This works with the psychological idea that a child's consciousness grows along with the child.

It also appears that the mind, or some parts of it, can exist as a single unit for some amount of time after death. So I will have to expand my thinking, again.

Are you calling me a liar, or a forgetful person, or a person afraid to accept the truth, if I DO NOT believe in reincarnation?

No. You can believe whatever you want Tar. I think that everyone should be able to have their own beliefs and their own Gods. I just don't want people doing philosophy with their beliefs and Gods.

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

 

Well I think you will find it rather impossible to do any philosophy at all, without thinking about it, and without applying ones own understanding to the case. And without noticing "how you feel" about any conclusions you might draw. Are they "sound" conclusions that others could draw as well, that have a basis in fact, in more than one way, or are they opinions that no one else ever "wondered" about, or that require a "different" reality, than the one apparent, to explain.

 

And while my opinion might not matter to you, it on the other hand might.

 

There are things you say that make sense to me, and I guess there are thing I say that make sense to you. But each of us has a "worldview" that we consider consistent and proper, and where we "differ" is the important area of discussion, because we already agree on everything else.

 

"No. What I am saying is that at age seven, children begin to accept a different reality--this one."

 

This exactly is the point I am trying to elucidate. The "former life" that the child is imagining DOES NOT BELONG to this reality.

This is the central "problem" with supernatural thoughts. Or if you will, the best explanation for thoughts that do not fit with this reality, that is, that if they do not fit with this reality, then they do not belong to this reality, then they MUST be imaginary.

 

Also, in your last post, you began to retreat from your position a little and talk about consciouness "developing" as a child learns more about reality and is less influenced by "false" beliefs about it. This, if true and important, speaks very poorly about the "childish" beliefs that people that believe in Santa Claus after the age of seven, might be exhibiting. Which correspondingly casts a childish pall over beliefs in reincarnation, fairies, angels, imaginary friends, ghosts, boogie men, large slimey monsters in the closet, and so forth. And in the eyes of scientists and rational believers in "this world", such thoughts are akin to the belief in a heavenly father, or eminations from the gods, and such, that are the basis for the "beliefs" of a large portion of the "adult" population of the planet, which makes such scientists and rational believers in "this reality" wonder when the rest of the world is going to "grow up".

 

Related to the reincarnation idea, you also laid out a few of the "possible" ways a child could have such thoughts and feelings, that have bearing on "this reality". I would just like to point out, that the person, who the child feels they remember the life of, was ALSO a member of "this reality", and there is no possible mechanism in "this reality" to get that "information" from one person in this reality, to another person in "this reality" that would require a route through a different one.

 

Also, you started to explain consciousness through the use of the "unconscious" mind. Interesting choice of words.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited September 2, 2013 by tar

[Thorham]

This is the central "problem" with supernatural thoughts. Or if you will, the best explanation for thoughts that do not fit with this reality, that is, that if they do not fit with this reality, then they do not belong to this reality, then they MUST be imaginary.

The real problem is knowing what reality is, and most people's understanding of reality doesn't go farther than what they see and what science tells them. Not knowing that something exists doesn't make it not exist. Otherwise radio waves wouldn't exist, because at some point in time we didn't know they existed.

 

There may be whole realms of which we are blissfully unaware, and the fact that many people don't believe in these things doesn't remove the possibility of them existing.

 

The fact that science offers no evidence of these possible things means absolutely nothing at all.

[tar]

Thorham,

 

While I agree with the direction of your post. I don't think your conclusion is accurate. Science has found many things about reality. Hardly close to "nothing".

 

Imagining you know something that "we" have not run into yet, that IS part of this reality is sort of a guess, or a hope, or an imaginary thing. The God of the gaps, so to speak. Filling in a variable with a "known" that is not known.

 

To illustrate, we already know about magnetism, and would not be suprised to find that there is a magnetic field surrounding various objects and materials. If our senses were such that we could "see" these fields, we might find them rather beautiful and interesting and more readily see why a bird would fly this way or that, and how "random" motion of insects was actually "guided" by these fields in some way toward or around or through...and things that did not make "sense" would make a little more. But these would be "real" things that our unaided senses, are just not "built" to notice. Science has amplified and refined our sight (telescopes and microscopes), our smell (various strategies and sensors to determine the chemical composition of materials near and far) our hearing (microphones and amplifies, and sensors that pick up vibrations above and below ear's ability. Our skin's abillity to sense pressure and heat has also been mimicked and improved in sensitivity and range, by our technology.

And the radio waves you mentioned we didn't know about were "found" as a result of scientific investigation of the "real" world, when equipment that could generate and sense changes in magnetic and electric fields (at frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum far below the frequencies the rods and cones in our eyes are sensitive to) were constructed. It has allowed communication across oceans, and has allowed us to "sense" the microwave background radiation.

 

If you have a theory about what might be "going on" beyond the reach of our senses, test it out, and see if its true. Find the "next" thing that will increase our reach into, and our understanding of what the world around us is doing. And we will call it progress.

 

Considering that you know there is more, but you don't know what it is, so you plan on just making something up, that then you will claim a kind of knowledge about that no one else has any access to, is rather unhelpful.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited September 3, 2013 by tar

[Thorham]

Science has found many things about reality. Hardly close to "nothing".

I meant things that may exist for which science has no evidence. The fact that science doesn't know whether certain things exist or not doesn't mean anything.

 

Imagining you know something that "we" have not run into yet, that IS part of this reality is sort of a guess, or a hope, or an imaginary thing.

While imaging such things is clearly ridiculous, there can still be people who have genuine knowledge about the existence of things for which science has no evidence. How likely or unlikely that is, I don't know.

 

One of the problems with such genuine experiences is who's going to believe it? If someone truthfully told you they've had a telepathic experience (where that really happened), would you believe them? And how would science go about proving it really happened? Where do you even start to try and measure such a thing if it were real?

 

While there are undoubtedly a large number of crackpots who'll come up with all sorts of nonsense, you can't rule out the possibility that some people really did have certain real experiences. And no, I'm not one of them, and I also don't believe in these things, I just think it's possible that supernatural things may exist.

 

Considering that you know there is more, but you don't know what it is, so you plan on just making something up, that then you will claim a kind of knowledge about that no one else has any access to, is rather unhelpful.

All I know is that there may be more going on than what science would lead us to believe. Maybe the physical world is all that's there, maybe not, and I couldn't tell you what the true nature of reality is if my life depended on it.

[cladking]

 

 

While I agree with the direction of your post. I don't think your conclusion is accurate. Science has found many things about reality. Hardly close to "nothing".

 

 

 

 

Actually I think the assessment that we know virtually nothing is highly accurate. The value of science, the very reason that we or our ancestors pursued science at all is for the sake of making predictions. We can very accurately predict the behavior of our machines but we can't predict much of anything else. If we could make even the most basic predictions about nature then the stock and financial markets would run like well oiled machines rather than gambling halls. The weatherman would at least get current conditions right every time.

 

We believe we have great knowledge because our machines have made us comfortable at a very great cost and enormous waste. We believe we know a lot because we see what we know and everything else is invisible to us.

Edited September 3, 2013 by cladking

[Thorham]

While imaging such things is clearly ridiculous

Should be imagining