The Supernatural and Superstition

[tar]

Gees,

 

Consciousness exists outside my body. I am 100% sure of this. It also exists in your body/brain/heart group. So mine is outside yours and yours is outside mine.

 

The central concern is what is the extent of consciousness that exists outside of ones own. The proof of consciousness other than your own, is ubiquitious and clear. You only need to study another human for about 15 seconds to know that something similar to what is going on in your own body/brain/heart group is going on in their's as well.

 

So this consciousness thing is something that is not exclusive to a single "soul". You can do it, but so can 8 billion others, that we know are currently doing it. But this still does not make it a substance that transfers intact from being to being. From my experience, each being is aware of its own position and moment in time, and this "focus" is the cause and explaination for consciousness.

 

It is the thought that one can be other than this very focus that causes one to be, in the first place, that I think is literally false.

 

You have, several times, brought as a fact, that people have studied reincarnation for 1000s of years, and thus we should take this as human knowledge of reality, and accept their baseless speculations, as scientific fact. You fail to separate the figurative from the literal, or give proper value to human imagination and human agreement.

 

There was a time when it was "true" that slaves were less than human. Should we take this time honored tradition, as "the facts of life"? No. We should not. Not if we are operating under the asumption that all men (and women) are created equal. That is, we ALL are conscious, and are all conscious of the same reality. And each of us has full access to reality and is equally responsible for it, and subject to it.

 

Human agreement, based on our mutual recognition of the other's belonging to the same world, is the basis of civilization. We can achieve much more helping each other out, than killing each other off, in general, and acheive a situation where peace and security is more valuable than domination and control.

 

But why, in this light, is the belief in false gods, and silly secrets, and ancient stories about the structure of the universe, something I tend to argue against? Because the world and my existence in it, is already amazing, already wonderful, and already really "something". There is enough real stuff to together experience, without throwing in false imaginary stuff, that nobody but the one that made the story up, has any access to.

 

I would prefer to deal with facts that any conscious person, could become conscious of, just by experiencing the thing.

 

It does not follow, that the birthmarks on a man's chest, means that his consciousness really belongs to a dead guy. It makes no sense. No sense at all.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Gees,

 

Consciousness exists outside my body. I am 100% sure of this. It also exists in your body/brain/heart group. So mine is outside yours and yours is outside mine.

 

Very cute. I did not ask about consciousness outside of your body or my body, I asked about consciousness existing outside of THE body. That means consciousness without a body--just to clarify. So can it exist? Give me your opinions, theories, and/or facts; just make sure you tell me which you are using.

 

The central concern is what is the extent of consciousness that exists outside of ones own. The proof of consciousness other than your own, is ubiquitious and clear. You only need to study another human for about 15 seconds to know that something similar to what is going on in your own body/brain/heart group is going on in their's as well.

 

So this consciousness thing is something that is not exclusive to a single "soul". You can do it, but so can 8 billion others, that we know are currently doing it.

 

You are again limiting consciousness to humans. What about other life, are they conscious too? Do they have a "single 'soul'" also?

 

But this still does not make it a substance that transfers intact from being to being. From my experience, each being is aware of its own position and moment in time, and this "focus" is the cause and explaination for consciousness.

 

So if it can not "transfer" then it can not exist outside of the body. The containers magically connect.

 

I will agree that the "focus" is the cause, but can not agree that it is a full explanation for consciousness.

 

It is the thought that one can be other than this very focus that causes one to be, in the first place, that I think is literally false.

 

So it is your opinion that when we die, and lose that "focus", we cease to exist. I suspect that this is not true.

 

You have, several times, brought as a fact, that people have studied reincarnation for 1000s of years, and thus we should take this as human knowledge of reality, and accept their baseless speculations, as scientific fact. You fail to separate the figurative from the literal, or give proper value to human imagination and human agreement.

 

No. My comments were made as a rebuttal to your comments that Dr. Stevenson did not have very high numbers of reincarnated individuals. Dr. Stevenson only accepted cases that he could prove, where there was some evidence to track. All cases are not provable or even acknowledged. But once he provided evidence, it must be considered that he did not invent reincarnation, he examined it. So prior cases that were considered by religions/philosophies may well be valid if one is giving the "proper value" to human intelligence and is not stuck in some kind of culture bias.

 

But why, in this light, is the belief in false gods, and silly secrets, and ancient stories about the structure of the universe, something I tend to argue against? Because the world and my existence in it, is already amazing, already wonderful, and already really "something". There is enough real stuff to together experience, without throwing in false imaginary stuff, that nobody but the one that made the story up, has any access to.

 

This is too much nonsense to even respond to, but you will note that, again, it is all about Tar.

 

It does not follow, that the birthmarks on a man's chest, means that his consciousness really belongs to a dead guy. It makes no sense. No sense at all.

If a person's consciousness belonged to a "dead" guy, it would make no sense, but there is no "dead" guy.

 

G

 

[Moontanman]

Very cute. I did not ask about consciousness outside of your body or my body, I asked about consciousness existing outside of THE body. That means consciousness without a body--just to clarify. So can it exist? Give me your opinions, theories, and/or facts; just make sure you tell me which you are using.

There is no evidence of consciousness existing out side a physical entity...

 

 

You are again limiting consciousness to humans. What about other life, are they conscious too? Do they have a "single 'soul'" also?

There is no empirical evidence of a "soul"...

 

 

So if it can not "transfer" then it can not exist outside of the body. The containers magically connect.

You first have to provide evidence there is a soul to transfer...

 

I will agree that the "focus" is the cause, but can not agree that it is a full explanation for consciousness.

Consciousness is a manifestation of a brain, nothing mystical about it..

 

 

So it is your opinion that when we die, and lose that "focus", we cease to exist. I suspect that this is not true.

While you are welcome to your suspicions there is no reason to think we exist after we die...

 

 

No. My comments were made as a rebuttal to your comments that Dr. Stevenson did not have very high numbers of reincarnated individuals. Dr. Stevenson only accepted cases that he could prove, where there was some evidence to track. All cases are not provable or even acknowledged. But once he provided evidence, it must be considered that he did not invent reincarnation, he examined it. So prior cases that were considered by religions/philosophies may well be valid if one is giving the "proper value" to human intelligence and is not stuck in some kind of culture bias.

The burden of proof is on "Dr. Stevenson" to show a soul exists none have been given...

 

 

This is too much nonsense to even respond to, but you will note that, again, it is all about Tar.

No it is about evidence or lack there of..

 

If a person's consciousness belonged to a "dead" guy, it would make no sense, but there is no "dead" guy.

 

G

If you reincarnated then there was a guy who had your soul who is now dead..

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

Please consider my responses. I have numbered them for ease of answering.

 

1. There is no evidence of consciousness existing out side a physical entity...

2. There is no empirical evidence of a "soul"...

3. You first have to provide evidence there is a soul to transfer...

4. Consciousness is a manifestation of a brain, nothing mystical about it..

5. While you are welcome to your suspicions there is no reason to think we exist after we die...

6. The burden of proof is on "Dr. Stevenson" to show a soul exists none have been given...

7. No it is about evidence or lack there of..

8. If you reincarnated then there was a guy who had your soul who is now dead..

 

1. I asked for Tar's opinion, not your opinion. Are you answering for him? Do you think that he can not answer for himself, that he does not know his own mind?

 

2. If you believe that there is "no empirical evidence of a 'soul'", then you should tell Tar, as my question was in response to his statement about a "soul".

 

3. Again, tell Tar. I do not believe that Dr. Stevenson considered a "soul" in his studies. If I am wrong please cite Dr. Stevenson's statement regarding evidence of the "soul".

 

4. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness and includes all aspects of consciousness as described in the OP. It is not about the brain. Please try to keep up.

 

5. There is also no reason to presume that we do not exist after we die.

 

6. See # 3 above.

 

7. So you are saying that there is no evidence.

 

8. If I reincarnated, then I have a new body. There is no other "guy".

 

 

Moontanman, you and Tar have made it very clear that there is no evidence to support the phenomenon that is called the supernatural. You have also made it very clear that it is your position that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore your position is not based in evidence, which does not exist (in your opinion), so your position is based in belief. Whether you know it or not, whether you understand it or not, it is clear to me that I am trying to argue this matter against ingrained beliefs. I generally do not argue beliefs because it is like arguing with a drunk. It gets nowhere.

 

So if you can not limit your responses to "fact", reason, and logic, and insist on making assertions and denials that are, according to you, based in belief not evidence, then please take your arguments about belief to the religions forum where those kinds of arguments are welcome..........

 

G

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

Please consider my responses. I have numbered them for ease of answering.

 

 

1. I asked for Tar's opinion, not your opinion. Are you answering for him? Do you think that he can not answer for himself, that he does not know his own mind?

 

2. If you believe that there is "no empirical evidence of a 'soul'", then you should tell Tar, as my question was in response to his statement about a "soul".

 

3. Again, tell Tar. I do not believe that Dr. Stevenson considered a "soul" in his studies. If I am wrong please cite Dr. Stevenson's statement regarding evidence of the "soul".

 

4. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness and includes all aspects of consciousness as described in the OP. It is not about the brain. Please try to keep up.

 

5. There is also no reason to presume that we do not exist after we die.

 

6. See # 3 above.

 

7. So you are saying that there is no evidence.

 

8. If I reincarnated, then I have a new body. There is no other "guy".

 

 

Moontanman, you and Tar have made it very clear that there is no evidence to support the phenomenon that is called the supernatural. You have also made it very clear that it is your position that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore your position is not based in evidence, which does not exist (in your opinion), so your position is based in belief. Whether you know it or not, whether you understand it or not, it is clear to me that I am trying to argue this matter against ingrained beliefs. I generally do not argue beliefs because it is like arguing with a drunk. It gets nowhere.

 

So if you can not limit your responses to "fact", reason, and logic, and insist on making assertions and denials that are, according to you, based in belief not evidence, then please take your arguments about belief to the religions forum where those kinds of arguments are welcome..........

 

G

 

 

 

 

This is an open forum not your personal blog, I am taking the default position, completely reasonable, you have to provide evidence you are correct, i do not have to present evidence you are not.

[Moontanman]

BTW,

 

#1 if you want a personal or private conversation with tars i suggest the PM system...

 

#2 Belief does not enter into it...

 

#3 "DR. Stevenson" is not evidence of anything but his baseless assertions...

 

#4 So you are simply talking horse feathers?

 

#5 You do not have to have a reason to assume the default position, you have to have evidence to support the idea there is something beyond death but worm food...

 

#6 Reincarnation is all about a soul, I suggest you google it...

 

#7 Precisely...

 

#8 If you are reincarnated you are asserting part of you is from the dead guy you got it from...

[tar]

Gees,

 

Our consciousness is not transferred magically between bodies. We have language and symbols and art and technology, and music and eye contact, and touch and the results of one person's conscious manupulation of reality to compare with our own capabilities. We can have an idea, and share the thing, and transfer it thusly to another. To be emulated or dismissed, fostered and improved or discarded as unworkable.

 

If consciousness exists outside one body, it is because it exists in other bodies, not because it exists in the air between, in and of itself. It might exist in a sense, in the patterns of voltages in a wire between, or in the frequency and amplitudes of the electromagnetic signals between, but we know these ways of getting a pattern from one to another, and they are thusly not magical, but actual ways that consciousness is transferred.

 

And I did not propose that animals are not conscious. But would suggest that animals do not have human consciousness, since they are not humans. They are conscious of being dogs, or horses or whatever, and have the capabilities to witness and respond to reality as living organisms, with brains and feelings and senses and hungers and thirths, same as humans, but without the language and technological skills that we, as humans, possess.

 

Unlikey that the language and technological skills of a human, dependent on the complex evolved mechanisms of a human brain, body and associated society, can find themselves transferred intact to the body and brain of a horse, outside the experiences of the particular horse in question, whose breeding has occurred along side and concurrent with humans and our evolution.

 

Similarity and analogs are one thing. "Connections" are already present. Such things are apparent to me, for real, and no magical, "other", impossible connections, are required to explain the situation.

We are already in and of reality. Completely and without question.

 

One might hope or think, or imagine that their consciousness is immortal. And this may be true, in the sense that the "memory" of TAR exists in other conscious beings that have witnessed me, or my works, or my thoughts, and these memories will persist and still be the case, in the minds and awareness of those I have touched, or evidenced in my works, and children and such...but once I die, I won't be posting, anymore...ever.

 

Regards, TAR

[Gees]

Moontanman and Tar;

 

Well, I must admit that you have made some pretty strong arguments. I am occasionally wrong, so this may be one of those times. Consciousness must come from the brain as there is no other possibility.

 

Since consciousness comes from the brain, I can understand why the "supernatural" is not possible. It even makes sense now why people are always saying that "God" is something that people just make up. There really is no "God" as we created him so that we could feel better. Makes perfect sense.

 

It is also clear as to why we always knew that lower life forms do not possess consciousness, as they obviously do not have a human brain, so they could not be conscious. Although many of them appear to be conscious, that is just projecting. We are projecting our consciousness onto other species. Tar would probably say that we are anthropomorphising our consciousness onto other species.

 

This is wonderful. So first there was the human brain which created consciousness, then the brain created God, then God created the world and the lower animals, then God created us, so we could create God. I knew it. We are the beginning and end and the center of everything! It is cyclic! A kind of new twist on solipsism. Where do I join up?

 

Of course, this would mean that the scientists who have found evidence of consciousness in lower species must be wrong, and of course, evolution must be bullshit because everything actually comes from us, but (sshh) don't tell anybody cause this is a science forum. People might get mad if you throw out all of their facts. Scientists are like that.

 

Well, at least I have my sense of humor back. Your theories on consciousness are almost as funny as Moontanman's statement that subjective experience is not evidence of anything in a thread about consciousness--since consciousness IS subjective experience. ROFLMAO.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

"This is wonderful. So first there was the human brain which created consciousness, then the brain created God, then God created the world and the lower animals, then God created us, so we could create God. I knew it. We are the beginning and end and the center of everything! It is cyclic! A kind of new twist on solipsism. Where do I join up?"

 

If you have not noticed, you are already a member. You have already joined.

 

Your post was going along fine, until you said "first there was a human brain". That is incorrect, we had to evolve this thing from less complex brains. The "lower forms" of it, were required predecesors.

You have to be a baby something, with the potential to grow in stages, into an adult, or fully formed something. The components of air and water and energy from the Sun, along with the rotation of the Earth form a hurricane. A very small little baby circulation is required, prior the fully formed hurricane.

 

So your contradictions dipicted in the latter part of your joke, are only contradictions because you did not include lower kinds of brains as precursors to current human brains, as you should have.

 

Regards, TAR2

Besides, it will take no supernatural force to have our human brains evolve even further. We have already extended our individual consciousness into the reality that exists outside the reach of our fingertips, through technology and agreement we have built cities and countries, artwork and monuments and working, "living" systems of all kinds. These are all real things, and evidence of human consciousness.

 

An ant hill, requires ant consciousness to build. We have consciousness that might be similar in nature, to an ant's consciousness, but we have extended our reach into our history, our capabilities in the present, and our ability to predict and guide future events, quite a bit further than an ant's consciousness can reach. I would say that human consciousness still stands as different than ant consciousness. Even if we would destroy ourselves tomorrow, and the only life forms remaining on the planet were ants, it would not bestow those ants with human consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Robittybob1]

 

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location.

 

We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

 

I tried finding bacterium that glows and came up with this instead. I didn't watch it so I can reccommend it, but it's on subject.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

 

There's quite a bit of research along these lines now and a quick google will keep you busy a while.

Very interesting Ted talk.

[Eldad Eshel]

From what I understand the supernatural, like telekinesis and telepathy can break the laws of science and are therefore feared by scientists. Scientists are usually people that studied and worked hard, as required by the academy, to get where they are, and therefore are very tight regarding anything apposing science and their work. They come to be over strict about the whole world and hold tight to their positions. Science is great, of course, it gave us an understanding of most of our universe, and as Gee said it also required quite a fight with the old world to come to be. But at the same time it is also closed minded, or at least it's practitioners are, in a way not far from the old world, also mentioned by Gee. As I was saying science is great, but it is also very dull, it is basically all that is 1 + 1, all that is clear to the eye. I believe, and even have evidence that this world is more than that, is more than 1 + 1. Scientists fear the breaking of the laws of science and cling to them almost desperately, denying science from advancing, which should be the main goal of all scientists. Don't be so scared of the unknown, after all science wants to include everything inside it. So a law will be broken here and there, you can reshape it or make new laws, don't be so clingy. I have heard such words as "the laws of science will never be broken". I think that is a joke.

 

To Gee: Thanks for amusing me with your great sense of humour.

[Strange]

From what I understand the supernatural, like telekinesis and telepathy can break the laws of science and are therefore feared by scientists.

 

Why would that be feared? Scientists are always looking for things that "break" our current theories. New science is where the excitement and the Nobel Prizes are.

 

The rest of your post just shows you know nothing about how science works and isn't really worth commenting on.

[Phi for All]

 

Why would that be feared?

 

It shouldn't, since it's just a very poor, ignorant caricature of scientists some people have. When someone has no evidence to support their ideas, I guess it makes sense to discredit those who do, by any means possible. Unless you have a shred of intellectual honesty, that is.

[swansont]

Science is great, of course, it gave us an understanding of most of our universe, and as Gee said it also required quite a fight with the old world to come to be. But at the same time it is also closed minded, or at least it's practitioners are, in a way not far from the old world, also mentioned by Gee. As I was saying science is great, but it is also very dull, it is basically all that is 1 + 1, all that is clear to the eye. I believe, and even have evidence that this world is more than that, is more than 1 + 1. Scientists fear the breaking of the laws of science and cling to them almost desperately, denying science from advancing, which should be the main goal of all scientists. Don't be so scared of the unknown, after all science wants to include everything inside it. So a law will be broken here and there, you can reshape it or make new laws, don't be so clingy. I have heard such words as "the laws of science will never be broken". I think that is a joke.

Science is basically "put up or shut up". Requiring the evidence of rigorous testing is not closed-minded. It's simply not being credulous.

 

As far as your assessment of science and scientists, you aren't a scientist. So you're just guessing, or adopting a narrative that fits your preconceived notions. Regardless, it's wrong.

[Moontanman]

 

It shouldn't, since it's just a very poor, ignorant caricature of scientists some people have. When someone has no evidence to support their ideas, I guess it makes sense to discredit those who do, by any means possible. Unless you have a shred of intellectual honesty, that is.

 

Do you mean the Big Bang Theory isn't an accurate depiction of scientists?