Gees

AI does not actually lie, but neither does it tell the truth. We tend to associate intelligence with being smart, honest, truthful, etc., but it is not. Measured intelligence is simply a speed test in something's/someone's ability to assimilate information. So AI (artificial intelligence) is all about statistics and has nothing to do with smart, honest, or truthful. Courts, on the other hand, are all about truth, so what happens when you mix these two ideas -- intelligence and truth? Consider that forty or so years ago, the State of Michigan (USA) was all about trying to convince it's people to use seat belts, so there were signs everywhere stating, "Seat Belts Save Lives". It was on commercials on television, on radio, on billboard signs, everywhere -- then it stopped. I was surprised that the campaign stopped until I learned that the Michigan Supreme Court heard a case regarding seat belts and concluded that they did not in truth save lives and sometimes they killed people. In light of this new information, I expected the seat belt law to be retracted -- it was not. We still have to wear seatbelts. What I did not know, but learned later, was that seatbelts do not save lives, but they do save money. As far as injuries go, it progresses from minor injury, to major injury, to death, but as far as expense goes, it progresses from minor injury, to death, to major injury. Apparently a major injury is much more expensive than a death, and seatbelts prevent major injury -- wearing a seatbelt will protect you from major injury, or it will kill you. Much less expensive -- truth. Something to think about. Gee

Last weekend I was home doing nothing in particular when my phone rang, so I answered it, and became immediately furious. I couldn't believe that another a**hole robocaller was actually harassing me on a Sunday. Normally I get up to 25 phone calls a day from those jerks and have a land line which makes blocking calls difficult, so I don't answer unless I know the number. But not on Sundays -- never on Sundays. When I finally got a live person on the phone, I asked him if he had no manners at all -- calling on a Sunday. He denied that it was Sunday. I didn't believe him. After I cooled down, I considered that it may not have been a Sunday where he was, because he could have been anywhere around the world. He did not deny that calling on a Sunday was quite rude. Then I wondered if a right for privacy on Sunday is a global idea -- it is certainly a private and personal idea. Would this be considered "far reaching", because it certainly did not come from science. Gee

dimreepr; What are you talking about? And what do you think that someone is imagining? I didn't know what a "quantum reality" is, so I looked it up, but still don't understand your association. Gee sethoflagos; Equilibrium? Every time I read the word "homeostatic" it refers to the body or some other internal balancing system. Yet you seem to understand that it relates to "external influences". What are you trying to say? It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but you said, "No." Why is that? The only thing "anthropomorphic" is the language and the arrogance of mankind in the assumption that feelings and emotions belong solely to humans, and maybe animals, if they have a brain. You will have to forgive me for using human language, as I don't know any other way to describe these ideas. Instead of thinking of emotion/feeling as what we interpret them to be, i.e., love, hate, envy, joy, etc., consider what emotion and feelings actually are. They are forces that cause a want, much like a magnet they attract (love, joy, happiness) and/or repel (fear, anger, pain). All emotion and feelings either pull things together or push them apart. Then consider that all survival instincts, ALL of them, are activated by emotion/feeling as a result of attraction or repulsion. And all life, ALL of it, has survival instincts (this includes plants). This means that all life has access to the unconscious aspect of mind, so the unconscious is not in your head, it is not in your brain, logically it has to be part of reality. If it were not part of reality, then how would ecosystems exist? I would like to suggest that without what we call the unconscious (feeling/emotion) there would be no evolution. Gee Studiot; Again it looks like you are talking more about science than philosophy. My interpretation is that philosophy tries to discover what is real and true, but science tries to do something with the information--manipulate it. Yes? Gee

When I first read your post, I thought it was about science because of the "feedback and feedforward" terminology, but you asked about philosophy. I am not a trained philosopher, so there is a great deal that I do not know, and not being a science person, I was not sure what you were asking regarding feedback/feedforward. Are you actually asking how philosophy addresses time and how some kinds of time displacement can affect logic and cause and effect? If so, I would say that there are philosophers who seem to think that physical reality is illusion, or not real, and therefore not always bound by the physical rules. Although I don't totally agree with that, I can see why some might think so. My thought is that physical reality is foundational and real, but I also see a layer of motion that physical reality evolves from, so the base foundation is actually motion and is also real. This reminds me of the mind's conscious/unconscious relationship and could explain the problems with logic. I study consciousness and noted that the similarities between the rational mind vs the unconscious aspect of mind -- and the similarities between physical reality vs base motion are very comparable. Both physical reality and the rational mind evolve from forces (motion/emotion). A lot of people seem to think that this means that one or the other is not real, that it is illusion, but I don't think so. I think that both are just as real, and that physical reality and thought are interpretations of motion/emotion. The conscious rational aspect of mind is much like physical reality in that it works with logic, cause and effect, works specifically within, uses digital thought, recognizes time, and is directed by us -- much like houses in physical reality are built by us. Or I could say that we can control it. The unconscious aspect of mind is nothing like that and is ruled by emotion. It is not rational, is not logical, works externally between things, is analogue, often changes and often ignores time; and therefore, ignores cause and effect. It is mostly emotion rather than thought, and is reactive rather than directed. We have little control over the unconscious and often do not even know that it reacted until we see the results -- as it is with instincts. So I can see where cause and effect, or even logic, may not always be relevant in some levels of mind and some levels of reality. When I read the "chicken and egg" thing, I was pretty sure that you were talking about philosophy. Consider that when we delve deeply into the unconscious, we find that the chicken/egg issue resolves itself because they are recognized by the unconscious as being the same -- time becomes irrelevant. The deeper levels of the unconscious categorizes things in sets, so the chicken is the egg and the egg is the chicken (as far as I can understand it). Blanco calls this bi-logic and explains this stating that in the deepest levels, if Mary is Jane's mother, then Jane is Mary's mother -- the relationship (mother) is relevant to this understanding, time is not. Maybe this is why emotion responds to bonding rather than logic, because without time, logic is unworkable. To understand this idea better, you can look up Blanco's work in Wiki. It is a one page read that explains this concept much better than I can. Apparently, Matt Blanco used math to break down the unconscious into five levels, then very successfully applied those levels to the study of consciousness and patients in psychiatry/psychology. I have no idea how he did it as my math skills are almost mediocre, but I can understand the results of his work. Does the motion, that physical reality evolves from, work much like the emotion in the unconscious aspect of mind, that the conscious rational mind evolves from? Which, if so, would make biogenesis a nonissue. If there is no time at that level, then cause and effect is a nonissue. Is this where Plato got the idea of forms? Was he actually talking about sets? I have no idea, but I know that Plato understood the unconscious and I know he was a genius, and way too far above my mental abilities. I should have started studying him 50 years ago, when I might have had some hope of understanding him. You can learn more about Blanco's understandings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco Or a plant that produces flowers and seed at the right time of year to produce offspring. Grass/weed that will flatten itself in order to protect its roots from too much sun/heat, or stretch/warp itself to get more sun? A tree that grows too close to a fast moving river, where the river erodes some of the roots will actually grow extra branches on the land side to keep it's balance and prevent it from falling in the river. I don't see how anyone can call all these things inborn reflexes, but they clearly are survival instincts, and all survival instincts work through feeling/emotion and the unconscious. The unconscious can ignore cause and effect and logic. I am beginning to suspect that the 'motion' that exists in all reality is much like the unconscious in life. Gee

npts2020; +1 Even though your statement is a little too true, thanks for the laugh. There is no such thing as a secular religion. Marxism is an ideology. Are you sure that Christianity was not used as a template? Kind of like what Trump is trying to do? Gee

Good questions, but I am not sure I have answers because I don't actually study religions -- I study emotion. I suppose that most people would study the religions, then after a while would realize that each of these different religions serve the same purposes, then identify those purposes and recognize that emotion is at the heart of religion. I came at the idea backward because I study consciousness. It was decades ago when I realized that when science talks about consciousness, they are talking about the brain; when philosophy talks about consciousness, they are talking about thought and/or will; no one really studies emotion which is a major part, maybe the most important part of consciousness because emotion is self activating. That is why I turned to religion for information, as they do the most in-depth study of emotion. So what are the methodologies? Religions gather or group people regularly (like Sunday meetings). They use music, art, and sometimes dance, to promote feelings/emotions to enhance ideals. They designate moral codes and incorporate histories that hope to cause peace and comfort within a group -- which would be why religion has been referred to as "the glue that holds a society together". They will often provide methods to promote forgiveness or absolution from sin/bad behavior. They interpret "Gods". They instruct people on what to expect after death, but you know all this. The actually methodologies are created by interpretations and compliment the various cultures. None of this works through science as far as I can see, but it all helps to bond people. Of course you know what science can do, you studied philosophy of science. As a philosopher, you also know the value of a valid premise, and know that an invalid premise corrupts all the work that follows. By looking at your above statements/questions, it is clear to me that you have no idea of what religion actually gives us -- its value. Don't feel bad as most people don't recognize what the core of religion actually is. Even religious people, who promote religions see spirit as the main idea, and don't really know why religion is so important. Do you have a valid premise? Do you know what the value of religion actually is? Bonding, Eise! Religions study emotion and promote bonding and balance. Without emotion and bonding, all life would cease, not just human life, but ALL life. I think that is kind of important and worthy of a little study. "Rollover"? Are you talking about reincarnation? I was referring to the information Joigus provided. It is, yes, but it is also about much more than that. One thing that it is about is repairing the damage. Karma is not a Christian concept where we get a one-way ticket to hell if we damage ourselves. Karma is also about repairing the damage, it is about redemption, it is about balance. It is also about more than an individual's soul, as it is also about cultures, societies, species, ecosystems -- the balance in everything. Exactly. I have stated repeatedly in this thread that science does not understand religion, so scientific minds do not understand religions well enough to analyze them. No. Most science people that I know of have either a high average intellect, or a very high above average intellect. But this does not make them all knowing. Science people tend to attribute all things to a physical cause, which flies in the face of what religion teaches. This thinking creates a bias that few science people can get past. No thank you. As I stated earlier, I study emotion, not religion. Karma is an example of how emotion can work. Fine, but there is a point to the "cause and effect" and that point is balance. I suspect that the "masters" know this. Gee My apologies to Eise, Dimreepr, and Joigus for being so late with this response. If you respond to this post, do not expect an immediate answer from me. I am getting slower.

I never stated that Karma was/is a scientific concept. Please try to consider what I state, rather than what you think I mean. What I stated is that science people interpret karma as a kind of cause and effect concept, because that is as close as they can get to understanding it. They see Karma as being either cause and effect, or maybe mysticism/magic. Question: If you can carry karma from previous lives, how do you think "cause and effect" makes that happen? What causes the effect? How does that work? If there is no causation, then how can it be called cause and effect? My apologies. I thought you wanted answers. I didn't realize you just wanted to argue. If you want a link, you need go no further than this thread. If you look at, what I believe is, the first sentence in the original post, it states that the author "respects" religion, but wishes to "debate" the "beliefs". Did you not read the first post, or did you just skim it and miss those words? Gee

I have often read posts in the science forums that state a member "respects" some religion, but wants to "debate" the "beliefs" of said religion. This makes no sense to me. If a person respects the religion, then why would they wish to challenge and possibly damage the religious person's belief? Belief is a major component of religion. It would be like saying I respect your family, even though I know they are all lowlifes. What? Actually, the "germ theory" argument is just one small example and does not really explain the problem. The problem with a science person debating a religious idea is that religion and science study entirely different subjects, so they need to use entirely different methodologies. Science studies changes in the "now" and how this affects the physical, but religion studies the constant and the always of the spiritual. You can not use science to understand and answer questions in religion, any more than you can use religion to answer questions in science. I wouldn't even try. But then, I am not a science person. I like science. I like religion. I respect both and often learn from each of them, but it is my nature to be a philosopher. You know that science studies the physical, and the methodology that science uses supports that study. Most people do not know that religion actually studies emotion; spirit is just one interpretation of emotion. Using science's methodology to study emotion/spirit would be beyond ridiculous and a little foolhardy. People tend to see the superficial aspects of religion as the subject matter of religion, so they think that spirituality is the subject matter -- it is not. The base subject matter is emotion, which means that religion studies the unconscious aspect of mind. This is where the "metaphysical" and "supernatural" ideas come in to play -- as these ideas are interpretations, and often not physical. Consider that emotion does not work the same way as physical studies, so religion's methodology needs to support the study of emotion. I believe that the branch of science that can give the most information about religion would be psychology, as psychology studies the unconscious and emotion. Jung had some interesting ideas about "Gods" and whatnot. I think you are mostly right, but it is not about making "errors", it is about change. Science not only can, but it must, accept change in order to be accurate and to progress. Emotion, however, does not readily accept change and can be destructive if too much change is forced upon it. Remember that emotion causes bonding; a married couple that changes partners each day, or a child that is traded off every day, or a plant that is uprooted and replanted over and over will all be damaged, stunted, or even killed because of the lack of consistency and their bonds forfeit -- caused by too much change. Religion is very slow to change for these reasons. Beliefs must also be slow to change, or belief can be lost. Any knowledge that is not backed by emotion is not believed, so it becomes worthless. I bolded the above sentence, as you made a very good point and that is what I want to address. When people start thinking that "science is all there is" as to knowledge, they start endangering science. This can be a problem because if science is "all there is" to learning, then science is the beginning and end of knowledge. Or something can not actually be known unless it has been tested by science. It can be considered, hypothesized, guessed, speculated, etc., but it can not be known. Eventually this thinking will lead to beliefs in scientific revelations and as noted above, belief does not like to change. I have read posts in this forum where members complained that the "old guard" would not accept new ideas even when there is sufficient evidence to support those ideas. So practically, we can believe in science as a discipline, we can believe that the methodology is valid, but we can not believe that what science has uncovered is all there is, because that would make science an unchanging belief like religion -- which would limit science's ability to advance and endanger science's growth. I would not call the caste system right, but I would call it honest. I live in the US, and we don't have a "caste system". We don't even have the aristocracy and commoners, but we do have social divisions and we do have racism, and elitism, and misogynism, and perpetual immigrants because the paperwork is never ending making them second-class citizens, and we have the homeless and the poor and the disenfranchised -- BUT WE DO NOT LOCK PEOPLE INTO A CASTE SYSTEM. We just recognize that they are there and if people can not lift themselves up, it is because they are lazy/stupid -- or so say the liars. If you want to see the results of religion's adaptions to new knowledge, you are going to have to go back hundreds and thousands of years to see many of the changes. I always thought that George Carlin was a little brilliant, but he was a comedian and there is a difference between philosophy/theocracy and jokes. Gee Karma is NOT a word for cause and effect. Science people always misinterpret karma. Karma is about balance, not cause and effect. Is there a difference? Yes, and it is a huge difference. Balance affects everything. That would be because they are facts like gravity. Karma is about balance. What does not use balance? When I stated that people tend to see the "superficial" aspects of religion, this is what I was talking about. You are taking morality, probably ethics, justice, and cause/effect, and mixing these ideas with religion/emotion/spirituality. You can mix these ideas if you want, but you will never get anywhere in your debate regarding religion because you don't know what you are talking about. Your point has nothing to do with balance. Whether you are talking about Ancient Rome, or the Deep South in the United States a hundred and fifty years ago, killing a runaway slave was perfectly correct and moral. While reading arguments that supported slavery, I found one where a psychiatrist noted that a Negro, who would run away into the forest, rather than stay on the plantation where he had food, shelter, and work, was obviously mentally deranged and should be put down. You should read some of those arguments. They are mind blowing, but make it clear that people can justify anything. We are not talking cause and effect; we are talking about balance. What would you like to see? Gee

A great-grandmother is a mother. Gee

It has long been noted that science is a child of philosophy. Philosophy studies knowledge and science uses a methodology that helps us to acquire that knowledge. But what is the Mother of Science? Well, that would be curiosity. We can not assign credit to any particular discipline or even to any specific culture or time in history. The reality is that you can watch a two year old sitting in his high-chair, while he drops pieces of his food over the edge of his tray, then carefully watches them fall to the floor -- and he will do this again and again and again -- because he is studying gravity. One of his first science experiments. Gee

I don't think so. Your description of a "technique/genetics" procedure seems to be more like creating a breed, rather than tagging or branding any specific animal. If breeding and genetics were associated with ownership, then whoever bred the first dalmatian or poodle would own all of the dalmatians and poodles. Right? Gee

I was looking at an article a few days ago wherein Michael Johnson of the House of Representatives actually stated that he would like to see the separation of church and state dissolved. I know that he displays himself as a very religious person, but I did not take his comments seriously. I just read an article where it stated that Trump would like to create policy that would support a "Religious Liberty Commission", which would essentially limit or dissolve the separation of church and state. This sounds like a very bad idea to me. Has anyone else heard about this? What do you think? Gee

Are you sure you are not projecting? What was it that was so horrible that you needed to learn humility? I only ask because you have mentioned it twice now, and it appears you want to discuss it. I apologize as I did not mean harm; although, I don't see why you should be devalued because of my actions/thoughts. I looked up Zeno. He was a smart guy, but was overly fond of paradoxes and thought experiments. I like thought experiments, but when they lead to paradoxes, I doubt them. I don't like paradoxes as they seem to be an indication of something missing or misunderstood in the thought experiment. I found the following explanation in Google: So these guys were arguing about the foundations of reality. Is it all one thing? Does it change? Is it continuous? What about space and time? Lots of questions and many of them contradicting others. I have thought of these concepts just as many others have. My thoughts are simple. Balance is evident in each and every aspect of reality from our bodies, to ecosystems, and from atoms to solar systems. Balance is real, so what does balance require? Well it requires more than one thing in order to have something to balance with and it requires a wholeness that the balance takes place within. Like a child's teeter totter, it needs two ends that move up and down, but also a connection that it balances from. What can explain all of these concepts? Water. Earlier I stated that I saw motion as the foundation of reality, but what I was talking about was the motion that is obvious in the properties of water. Think of an ocean. It is one thing, but is also constantly in motion and constantly changing. Waves keep it in motion, and the water evaporates, becomes clouds and rain, falls back to earth maybe freezes into snow and ice, maybe sits in place for decades, then melts and returns to the ocean. Water is constant motion within a wholeness and emotion shares those properties. So when I saw Federico's video, and he stated that consciousness (emotion) is outside of us and outside of time, it interested me. So it looks to me as if Zeno and Parmenides were both correct. But I am really tired now and am falling asleep on my desk. Happy St. Patty's day. Gee

Damned me. I thought the video WAS a citation. LMAO First you said that the video made it so that this was a science thread, so you moved it out of the religion/philosophy subforum into speculations. Now you are saying that the video "does not exist", but I must provide a citation for a video in a thread that I did not create. This started out as Sinclair's thread, then you hijacked it and made it your thread, but somehow I am responsible for it. Can these forum rules be 'cherry picked' because some of this does not make any sense. After high school? I studied law. You are wrong, because I have repeatedly given information as to quantum physics -- I have stated very clearly that I know nothing about it. I am not the one bluffing here. You have little respect for philosophy and a serious disgust for religion, and this thread is about consciousness, which is studied by philosophy, and it is about emotion, which is studied by religion. It is not about science and has never been about science. But you have way to much power in this forum, so you win even if you are dead wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with Trump. Gee I was not aware that rust is alive. Can you provide a citation? I know. People do it with computers and robots all of the time. Never said it did. There is DNA and there is awareness. Are you saying that they are the same thing? It looks like you are stating that life is a metaphysical conjecture. So you are convinced that there is no awareness without a nervous system and/or brain. So why do HeLa cells continue to nourish themselves and reproduce without a brain or body? Since you are a biologist, you should be aware of HeLa cells. One does not find what they are not looking for. Our greatest strengths often cause our greatest weaknesses, so since faith is religion's greatest strength, blind faith is it's greatest weakness. Philosophy's greatest strength is learning new ideas, and its greatest weakness is imagining what is not real. Science's greatest strength is testing, so its greatest weakness is confirmation bias. If you do not look past the neural structure, then you will not find an answer past the neural structure. I know damned well how the site works. If you are advocating for science, you can be dismissive, rude, off topic, and quite insincere in your posts and will often receive an up vote for it. But if you are not advocating for science, or accepted science, you will be down voted and eventually banned. I was never very politically correct. If you mix MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cancer, radiation treatment, and the vagaries of life, it can make a person tired. The surgeon did not think that surgery was an option in my case. The oncologist does not want to use chemotherapy because of my MS, so the only option is radiation, which I don't expect will beat the cancer -- maybe it will slow it down. So there does not appear to be anything that anyone in this forum can do that will discourage me from thinking. Gee

The phrase is 'piss and vinegar'. But if what you say is accurate, then I must have been a "great" rider, as I have most definitely crashed. I rode for a few years, made two cross country trips by myself, the first from Michigan to Florida and the second from Michigan to Arizona, and was very very careful while riding. My 'piss and vinegar' did not extend to being careless. Well, I can't teach much as I am still learning. I am not sure that you know "exactly" as much as I do about consciousness, but if you know nothing about quantum physics, then you may know "exactly" as much as I do. Gee

Sinclair; I don't know if you have left permanently, or if you occasionally come back to review what is happening in this thread. On the off chance that you occasionally visit, I wanted to leave you some information about Matte Blanco as he is not well known. Blanco was a psychiatrist, who also studied psychology and worked under Anna Freud. He is credited with unraveling the illogical and irrational thought processes of the unconscious aspect of mind. He likes to call this understanding bi-logic as it is two different ways of using "logic", one that works within time and one that works without consideration of time. We have known for a long time that emotional thinking is NOT rational. We also know that emotional thinking actually changes memory -- adding, changing, and subtracting memories from our knowledge -- which would be why science does not like emotional thinking. It is too unstable; although, if you understand how emotional thinking actually works, you can find ways to make it dependable. My point is that Federico used math to find that some consciousness is outside of time; you used math to find that some aspects of consciousness are outside of time and physical reality; and Blanco used math to learn that some aspects of consciousness are outside of, or ignorant of, time. He used math to break the unconscious into five stratums or levels. I know very little about math, but these are three entirely different studies and way too much coincidence for me to ignore. This is probably why I had no problem accepting the possibilities that Federico considered, but you should know that most of what Federico is discussing is not what most people refer to as consciousness, it is what we refer to as the unconscious -- or more specifically as emotion. You would probably be more successful if you could reach psychiatrists/psychologists with your ideas. Anyway, look up his work and think about it. I am not very good at posting websites, but you can learn more about Blanco at Wiki, and then go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco Thank you for introducing me to Federico. Gee

I can go along with the idea of feelings, but have problems with the idea of "desires" as Google says that desires include wishes, so I am not ready to accept that terminology as to bacteria. Did you view the video at the start of this thread? And what is your area of expertise? I ask because if you did not view the video, then it is unlikely that you will consider any citation that I provide. And if you have no training in quantum fields or consciousness, then you are unlikely to understand anything that might be posted -- even if you take the time to look. I am not new to forums and have many times watched an older established member demand citations of a new member -- that no one reads. It is like a game that the older members play with the newbies for entertainment purposes. I am too old and too tired to entertain you. But my grandson just showed me an article in the National Geographic about Dust Bears (tardigrade) that have been classified as "animals" and live all over the world. My grandson stated that these tardigrade actually have emotions, but I disagreed stating that they would have to have brains in order to have emotion. Apparently they do have brains, are multi-cellular, and have some emotion, which means that they have self-preservation instincts. What a surprise. If you really were interested in this thread, you could ask more intelligent questions. All cellular life is aware to some degree, so it is conscious of its need to survive and has self-preservation instincts -- this is one of the things that qualifies it as life. Do viruses qualify as life? Not really. They are more a quasi-life that can come to life when in a host. Do viruses have self-preservation instincts? These are only noted when viruses are in a host body. What about seeds? Are they alive? Are they aware? They can die if not planted within a certain time, so something that can die is alive. How are they aware of the amount of time that passes? This brings us to the really fun one, endospores. Endospores have been found that are millions of years old, they have been misidentified as fossils, then they come back to life. Following is an excerpt from Wiki: Why don't they die? Apparently bacteria will go through a lot to survive -- looks like self-preservation instincts to me. I used the term "wants" because Federico did, but I usually use the terms attraction/repulsion to explain very simple awareness. Studiot was right when noting that terminology is going to be a problem because of new understandings. Gee

I am never going to get it from you. You seem to be interested in insulting people, but give no real information. Maybe you don't know anything? What is your area of expertise? You seem to know very little about consciousness and have given no information as to quantum physics. Actually, I don't think that you gave any relevant information in the Nothing v Creation thread that this split off from, except to state that Maimonides was in some way relevant to the ending of the Dark Ages. Asking me to accept that a Jewish scholar worked to change and rewrite Christian church doctrine and influence the ending of the Dark Ages is just a little too much of an absurd idea for me to accept it. Maimonides was off topic there and is also off topic here. I don't believe that you are making a sincere effort to communicate with me. Gee

Zapatos; I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid. I can only guess that you are trying too hard to be funny with your above comment. But I am still trying to understand how you attached emotion to bacteria and am wondering if you have a very limited understanding of survival instincts. Many people see instincts such as "fight or flight", or they see hormones relating to sex as highly emotional activities, so if this is where you got that idea then you could simply go to Wiki and look up hormones. You will find that they are much more diverse than most people think and are involved in every cell in every body. But in case I am wrong about your understanding, I will explain that when a person uses the "/" symbol between words, it means 'either or possibly both' of the words that surround the "/" symbol may apply. So when you read "feeling/want/emotion" what it means is that either feeling and/or want and/or possibly emotion are involved. It does not mean that ALL are involved. Now consider that of the three, 'want' is the weakest having only a straight attraction/repulsion ability, much like a magnet, but 'feeling' is more complex as it can involve varieties and strengths of attraction/repulsion. Emotion is the strongest feeling of all as it includes ideology along with the feeling, so I suspect that only species that have a brain, and therefore have access to ideology are advanced enough to be capable of emotion. E coli is bacteria, so I do not believe it has a brain and so would not be capable of emotion. If I am wrong, please provide a citation that states E coli has brains. Gee

OK. So you are happy with the idea that recognition/acknowledgment of "self" is evidence of consciousness. I agree with you, but do you realize that you have just stated that all life is conscious? Well, this is awkward. I am not sure about that. Federico is a well respected scientist and may have a reason for saying that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. Since want/awareness/emotion all source through the unconscious aspect of mind and are also not plottable, and emotion specifically ignores time, they don't seem to be physical. Maybe you could look at the first half hour of his video so you can understand what he means. Then you could explain it to me. An analogy is used to clarify an idea -- promote understanding. Comparing two "silly" ideas does not do that, so I wouldn't call it an analogy. It is more like being dismissive. Since you did not view the video, you are getting your information second hand from me -- an uneducated person as to physics -- which is not really a reliable source to make a judgment on. I don't think that Federico saw quanta as having familiar attributes of conscious beings. I think he saw quanta as being part of life and recognized that a computer, AI, was not going to gain consciousness without quanta. If I understood him correctly. I don't think Federico would agree with you. He said that he spent 30 years working in quantum physics before he realized he was wrong. He needed to flip-flop his ideas. He said that people think of particles as being physical/material, but they are not. This is why they pop in and out of existence, because they are not really matter. He said that we enhance them so that we can see them, but it is more like shadow boxing (my terminology, not his). 'Instincts' is not an umbrella term; it is more like the name of a trash bin that we put ideas into. It has a sister trash bin called 'imagination". Few people have the ability to analyze abstract mental ideas, thought, emotion, awareness, etc., so when they come across unknown or unsourced ideas, they throw them into one of those bins. If it is an automatic reaction, they throw it into the 'instincts' bin; if it is a thought, experience, or knowledge that is unsourced, they throw it into the 'imagination' bin. Having studied consciousness most of my life, I am very aware of this, which is why I specifically stated that I was talking about self-preservation instincts, or you could call them survival instincts. These instincts have been pulled out of the trash bin and linked to various hormones/pheromones that promote the instincts. And yes, they apply to ALL life. If moss is alive, then they apply to moss, as these instincts apply to all live cells. I didn't say they were. That is more of a "God" idea. What I said is that emotion, some feeling, and want do not work in physical reality. The unconscious aspect of mind, that is reactive and ruled by emotion, does not work in physical reality. The unconscious does not think rationally because it ignores time, and therefore can not use logic. This is all clinically validated. "So-called minds"? "in all likelihood"? I suspect that you can't make a better job of explaining it because you, like most of us, don't really understand it. Gee

No. I Googled him just now and found some of his ideas interesting. Although he did not seem to understand that consciousness is divisible, he did a good job of describing the unconscious aspect of mind as "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity." This explanation is also very close to Federico's explanation regarding the foundation of quantum fields as they relate to consciousness. Schopenhauer also saw the conscious aspect as the source of ideas, knowledge, or the ability to represent reality. But there was a great deal about consciousness that he did not appear to know, could not know, in the early 1800's. Science hadn't even started to study consciousness at that time. He also did not seem to be aware of the bonding that forms through some levels of the unconscious, which would leave consciousness very cold. Maybe this is why he was thought to be such a pessimist. I like Spinoza, but don't like it when people use the word "imagine" so loosely. It implies that every idea that exists, but we don't know the source of, is imagined. What is the source of the projection that moved the rock? If it were 'will', then the source would come from the rock. Sorry, I seem to have an extra box. Gee

First, what do you mean when you say "consciousness"? Second, Federico (in the video) mentioned something about parts and the whole being connected, or part of each other, or an explanation of each other much like DNA in a cell is the part but it represents the whole body. Mat Blanco, who was the psychologist, who found the logic in the unconscious aspect of mind also mentioned parts that 'represent?' the whole? So I would like to understand what they were talking about. I have not yet done any research to try to learn more, but I had my radiation treatment, and of course, being an attack on my body, it activated my MS (Multiple Sclerosis), so I have been lax at responding in this thread. Please understand that I have no idea of what "quantum fields" are, and would never limit my study to humans as that is unbelievably arrogant and may be a little religious -- it smacks of, we are conscious because (we are made in "God's" image). Not long after I realized that there are two aspects of consciousness, the digital conscious rational mind (thought) and the analogue unconscious, I realized that the unconscious (awareness/emotion) actually works outside of the body. It works between bodies, things, species. Years ago I was explaining my thoughts to someone and stated that it was much like a magnet, where a force or field (awareness) that is outside of the magnet does the attracting/repulsing. The person told me that I had no idea of what a quantum field is, which was true, so I dropped the subject and never brought it up again. Then I saw Federico's video. Federico also recognizes that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. He called it fields. You are making me smile here. It sounds like you are envisioning little word bubbles like in cartoons. Federico did mention free will and his doubt about a deterministic reality, but I did not interpret it that way. I thought that the variable that he was describing could possibly explain and maybe actuate evolution because it is activated by "want". He sees the foundation of reality as being want/emotion/feeling. I see the foundation as motion. All species, ALL of them, every life form, has self-preservation instincts. We are talking plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, probably even fungi and moss -- all have self-preservation instincts -- and all of those instincts are activated through hormones and by feeling/want/emotion. This is not my opinion -- this is scientific fact. All multi-cellular species have hormones that work within the body and pheromones that work between bodies and between bodies and things. All activated by want/feeling/emotion. I read somewhere a theory that someone had that maybe we were in consciousness, rather that consciousness was in us. I dismissed his ideas, but if he was talking about want/feeling/emotion, an awareness of things that are outside us, he may have been right. If what I learned about and explained above is valid, then all unconscious actions have something to do with quantum fields. Something that starts with a feeling can be activated by chemistry and turn into an action that modifies our behavior even though we do not intend it. It can also influence our thoughts, actions, and societies. Another thing to think about: We know that cattle needs to eat grass in order to survive, but did you know that some grasses need cattle feeding on it to survive? I was researching desertification and some of the attempts to restore grasslands, when I learned that we need cattle to feed on the grass, or it will die. There were a number of explanations, but the one I remember was that the grass had to be eaten down to where the base was exposed to the sun, or it would die out, so the grass produced a bad tasting chemical when it was eaten down so far, which caused the cow to move to something tastier. So you could say that the grass dictates the behavior of the cows, turning them into grazers. (chuckle) What this does tell us is that neither the cow nor the grass could have evolved separately -- they would not have survived. I am beginning to think that this nice orderly evolution from the simple to the complex may not be accurate. Gee I think you understand it just fine. Thank you for the reference to: Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll Gee

What whole? What parts? I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that I am trying to explain what caused reality, (the components) of the Universe, by studying reality, (the emergent) of the Universe? You mean like reality does not explain philosophy. Philosophy explains reality. I am very aware of the unawares -- I tend to call them the unconscious aspect of mind. Do you know that your hippocampus does more than hold your memories? It is kind of important to your emotion and I suspect your instincts. Do you know that the unconscious aspect of mind is reactionary because it is controlled/activated by emotion/feeling/want? I have spent a good bit of time talking to science people, who will explain to me that they know all about hormones, instincts, and how these things regulate life and keep us going. But they don't know all about these things, because they still do not understand the balance, nor do they understand what pushes and allows evolution. I want to learn about these things. I suspect that the video on quantum fields has some clues as to how that works. I haven't found anyone else that seems to have a clue about the self-balancing of ecosystems or the reasons why evolution works the way it does. I am not buying the "God" idea, the Intelligent Designer, magic, coincidence, or luck. The rookie mistake would be in disrespecting those biological processes to the point where we disrupt them. Many of us already know that the Dust Bowl that destroyed the middle of the United States was caused by killing off millions of buffalo and getting rid of the buffalo grass in an attempt to kill off the American Indian. We are finding evidence that we have disrupted many ecosystems and are trying to fix the problems. This is good, but there is more. The balance also works within species. A man goes to war and fights raising his testosterone levels. Directly after the war, he takes the first person that he can find and shoves himself into her, and creates new life. Life is taken and life is given by the same abundance of a hormone. This is not coincidence, this is balance and why rape has always followed war. When a woman has a baby, she turns from her husband. Why? Hormones -- because it is necessary to ensure the next generation. She becomes devoted to the child for the first few months -- she also doesn't get much sleep. So what turns her back to her husband? Nursing. While feeding the baby, her breasts swell, her womb shrinks, she is attractive. She feels loving as she is feeding his baby -- and the bonus is that she can't get pregnant while nursing full time. So sex is a freebee. Replace nursing with a bottle and there is more pain for her while her milk dries up, and her womb is slower to resume it's former shape, sex is scary because no one wants another baby this soon. Mom and Dad are trading off feeding the baby and no one is getting sleep. When Dad walked by Mom, she used to go "mmm", but now she goes, "Eew" because her hormones tell her that only the baby smells good. Dad takes a shower, puts on deodorant, and wonders what is wrong. Everyone is grouchy. Does it always work this way? No. All warriors do not rape, but many do, enough that it is a known phenomenon. Hospitals are trying to get women to bond with their babies and to nurse them because we are already seeing the results of the foolish decision that pushed bottles on nursing mothers in order to get them into factories in WWII. The balance also works within societies and cultures. When a baby is nursed, it actually has to seduce it's mother's body in order to get the milk flowing and does this by smiling, cooing, stroking her, and mouthing her nipple -- baby has to give to get. A bottle-fed baby only needs to yell and cry for what it wants. Think about it. After three generations, if you can't see where this has influenced our culture, you are not paying attention. It is clear to me that life could not have evolved independently. It is all connected. We are all connected. I suspect that all reality is connected. I would like to learn how. Gee

And what, pray tell, do you think that "invisible spirit" actually is? Either you know and you made an honest mistake, or you don't know and you corrupted the thread through ignorance. Which is it? Gee So it was split because of the discussion of different topics and yet you continue to introduce "different topics". Let me get this straight -- this thread is about consciousness, human consciousness, and science. Right? It is not about Nothing v Creation. So if I want to discuss that video, I will have to copy it back to the original thread? Won't you just hi-jack it again? Gee It's a good thing we are in the speculations sub-forum because your above comments are definitely speculations. Gee

I don't see where any of this denies the idea that Aquinas was instrumental in changing church doctrine that eventually opened the doors to science and learning. Augustine was first to create extensive church doctrine around 400-500 AD. He was a prolific writer. His writings shut down learning -- outside of the church. He had no love for Aristotle. He believed and taught that truth and knowledge could only come from "God", which ended up giving the church way too much power. This went on for hundreds of years and we call that time the Dark Ages. Aquinas, et al, introduced new ideas, rewrote and submitted new church doctrine that changed policy and actually threw open the doors to new ideas. Between the time of Augustine and Aquinas all knowledge was acceptable only if it came from the church -- hence the Dark Ages tag. It would be silly to assume that the above paragraph could give an accurate reflection of hundreds of years of history. So many things affect history like the plague, the industrial revolution, wars and natural disasters. I was not giving a history lesson. So what relevance does your post have to the subject of this thread; namely, Nothing v Creation? Gee