The Supernatural and Superstition

[tar]

Cladking,

 

Well, where there is infinity this does point out quite a limitation. Any number you think you have a good concept of can easily be made tiny in comparision by multiplying it by itself or taking it to a power or simply doubling it. All these operations will make you aware that your concept is much closer to nothing, than to infinity.

 

But, given the fact, that we are thusly very well insulated from infinity, its rather silly to suggest there is any value in thinking you have infinity well under control. Rather its rather a sure sign of limitation, so that one can feel rather good, just surpassing a former limitation, and extending ones reach, based on that. Then a doubling of reach is great. Its twice the reach you had before.

 

Are you suggesting that thinking about what is going on in a cave on a planet a hundred thousand ly from Earth, has much bearing on what you are going to have for dinner tonight?

 

I am thinking that what is within our sight, and within the reach of our radio telescopes, is plenty large enough, and plently complicated enough and plenty old enough to provide food for thought if being tiny and brief in comparision is what you are after. I doubt anything we discover is going to make us superior to such immensity. Seems the best we can do is associate with what we see of it. We already know its plenty. Why do you feel the need to add even more hypothetical stuff?

 

Like I said before, if you have a hint, or an idea of what it is you are talking about, and where we should look for it, or how we could test and see if its true, why don't you mention it, and try it out.

 

Besides "supernatural" means beyound nature, so you are not likely to find it IN nature. Its more likely to be found in our dreams and imagination. And if and when we do find "more", we will automatically include it in the natural state of affairs. By all accounts, I would think it more likely to find "truth" in nature, where we look for it, then find "truth" by closing our eyes and making something up.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited September 4, 2013 by tar

[cladking]

I really don't understand your point. On one hand we have everything there is to know and on the other we have everything man knows. There is no balance here from any perspective. We not only don't know about the cave light years away but we don't know how to get there or understand the forces which we'd encounter along the way. We have a tendency to think about what we actually know and to be blind to the virtual infinity of what we don't know.

 

Just because we don't know what gravity is or dark matter or how the two might interact doesn't give us the knowledge that all possibilities of other people's observations are explicable in terms we do know. I'm not suggesting we should all start taking reports of ghosts or flying saucers at face value. I'm merely suggesting that we need to take all evidence into account and not automatically dismiss all low grade evidence. Obviously nothing becomes theory until it is confirmed by experiment and observation. Until then it is an unknown.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

I am neither sure of my point.

 

Only that we have been at this "knowledge of the world" thing, for quite a few millenia, as a language using species, and each of us, has been experiencing the world from the vantage point of our own societies, and concurrent stories, as well as from our own private history of sensation and muses.

 

There is a dual awareness, we each thusly carry, and both warrant respect and both are true. We are personaly subject to the world, and all of it is personally an object, to us. And from the other perpective, from the collective vantage point, from the viewpoint of the object, from the "god's eye" view, we are personally objects in or to this "greater" thing, both as individuals, and as societies of individuals.

 

So everything we know, both as individuals and as a society, MUST be natural, must be true, must fit together, either figuratively, or literally, or both. We can claim ownership of the fact that it MUST fit together, without knowing exactly HOW it is so. We need not, or cannot know what is going on in the cave on the planet 100 ly from here, but can still imagine some "possible" thing or an other, being the case, and thusly "link" ourselves to that cave, with the knowledge that a huge bright explosion, eminating from the cave, would possibly be noticable from Earth in 100 years, thusly binding that cave, to THIS reality.

 

We cannot however claim with certainty, that in 100 years a tiny spot of light will appear from that location in the sky, because I made up the planet, I made up the cave, I made up the explosion, and although it is a natural and possible thing I am imagining, the thought of it, does not make it natural and possible, as if it is actually the case. This is the realm, or nature, of supernatural ideas, in my thinking. This is my "point" perhaps. That there are many "blanks" we fill with imagined certain things, that need not be the actual case. And its better to leave certain things ambiguous or blank, than to fill them in, with the "wrong" idea, that would turn out causing one to have to falsify something actually true.

 

Regards, TAR2

[cladking]

I see now.

 

I should have expected a reasonable point since your other point and logic all seems to fit. I'm looking at this from a different perspective and much of the difference hinges on the meaning of the word "know". I've been using it colloquially but when applied to individuals the meaning changes. We are each a product of our time and place and this determines most of our perspective. When the term "know" is used from any specific perspective its meaning changes because what's real from "god's" perspective may not be from any individual's. In other words all true knowledge is visceral and usually learned through experience. If you don't know it in your bones then it's not true knowledge but something else. Even visceral knowledge though is dependent on things like current conditions.

 

In aggregate man's visceral knowledge is much less extensive in scope but much more accurate.

 

From my personal perspective it doesn't (no longer) annoys me to be ignorant on a very broad range of subjects (all of them) as I try to understand nature and gain knowledge in those things and in those ways I can. Most other people fill in the gaps with something. So long as reason is at the heart there's every chance the individual will succeed. So long as reason underlies the reporting of knowledge and experience I'm willing to listen. Gees cut off a huge bite with this thread but it's still entertaining.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Sorry I'm so late getting back here.

 

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.

 

Well, there are a lot of people who claim to be "thinking" when in reality they have a "thought". Thinking generally requires a little more work than just having a thought, and it is necessary to doubt any understanding that we already have if that understanding is not based in fact and is in conflict with the facts. The same holds true for any feelings that we might have, as what we "feel" is what we believe, so it must be based in fact to be valid. If we allow our beliefs and feelings to corrupt the facts, then we are not really thinking, are we? We are just promoting our beliefs and opinions.

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.

Here you go again, relating "sound" conclusions to popular conclusions. Sound conclusions relate to fact, not opinion, not popularity, not belief. People thought the world was flat for a very long time. Was it because they were stupid? No. Based on the facts as they knew them, it was a sound conclusion and a rational conclusion, because anything else would be absurd. But they did not have all of the FACTS.

 

Consciousness is an unknown, so anyone stating that they have enough facts to form a conclusion is a damned liar. Considering how little we know about it, we can not afford to take actual facts and dismiss them because we don't want to believe them and don't understand how they can work.

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

Everyone has opinions; some are good, some are bad, and most are relevant at some point in time to some situation. I will always consider opinion, but if I can not find a basis in fact for any given opinion, then I will dismiss it with only a slight consideration. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is likely that I will give opinion no more than a 3 consideration unless I can see that it was formulated using facts, experience, or training. The only training that I know of that involves reincarnation is religious, and you have claimed no experience or religious training. You also seem dismissive of the facts, so your opinion is not very valuable to me in this specific instance.

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.

There is nothing "proper" about my world view. The lion is not going to lay down with the lamb, unless the lion's belly is very full, which is only a temporary reprieve for the lamb. Life is not proper, consciousness is not proper, and the only thing consistent about it is our inability to understand it.

"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.

But the Birth and Death Certificates regarding the "former life" do belong to THIS REALITY, so your argument is nonsense. You are using that word "imagining" again. Stop using your imagination in lieu of facts.

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.

So what you are saying here is that "supernatural thoughts" do not fit in this reality, so they are not of this reality, but instead imagination. Since imagination is produced by the mind, which is undefinable by science, I must conclude that the mind does not fit in this reality. So the mind is supernatural? Is this your point, because I don't agree with it. Or is it your point that thoughts that you agree with are real, and thoughts that you do not agree with are supernatural?

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.

I don't know how you can call this retreating. The psychological theory that a child "develops" their consciousness supports my position. Do you remember me stating that conscious is not simple? That it in fact is extemely complex? Do you think that it is complex for all life? Do you think that a tree has an Ego, Id, and SuperEgo? Do you think that a tree has a mind? The idea that a whole "soul/mind" is dropped into a person is a religious idea; the concept that this "soul/mind" is then dropped into subsequent people, reincarnation, is also a religious idea; the concept that this "soul/mind" then goes on to heaven, hell, or nothingness is also a religious idea.

I do not hold with the idea that consciousness is a whole "soul" or "mind" that is dropped into a body because it does not make sense with regard to evolution or other species. I see conscious awareness as a kind of ingredient in life, like water and chemicals are ingredients in life. So like water and chemicals that are simple, in their elemental state, they can become very complex when mixed with other things. I think that conscious awareness in the universe is very simple in it's elemental state, but when activated by, and activating, matter--it can become very complex.

When discussing a new human life, it is clear to me that the part of the mind that is under-developed is the rational aspect of mind. This also makes sense as the rational mind is predominantly what we use to interpret our five senses and to negotiate with the physical world, so it would be kind of useless prior to having a body. My thought is that the rational aspect of mind develops as our bodies develop and that by age seven, it dominates our thinking. So there are two ways to look at this; either we don't think before age seven, or we start out using some other aspect of mind.

Babies are born with instincts, the Id, and with emotions and desires, the SuperEgo, and if Dr. Stevenson is to be believed, and I do believe him, we can also start out with memories. So prior to age seven, it appears that any thinking that we do, and knowledge that we possess, is from the unconscious, or subconscious aspect of mind. This is the reality to which I referred--not "false beliefs".

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".

This is so much nonsensee that I don't even want to address it. Go to Wiki and look up the unconscious or subconscious mind and do some work. It is clear that you did not consider any information from Dr. Blanco's Wiki article. When people start to use ridicule to make their points, it is because they do not have points. I find your argument childish and devoid of facts.

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.

No mechanism that you know of, and just what do you think "this reality" means?

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

Do you want me to start making up words? When a person is unconscious, they are not dead. The body is still aware of, or conscious of, the need to keep functioning. The only thing that is truly unconscious is something that is not alive--like my table. But these are the words that I have been given to try to discuss this issue. Do you have a better idea?

 

G

 

[Gees]

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.

 

Hello Thorham;

 

Welcome to the thread.

 

I reviewed your profile and noted that you have an interest in physics, so knowing what is real would be of interest to you. We are in agreement that there could be a lot more to learn about reality, but I am not a scientist and know very little about science. So I ask a lot of questions, and, of course, have questions for you. If you, or anyone else that is knowledgable, could consider the following and give me your understanding, it would be very helpful.

 

I think that consciousness, or what we call consciousness, exists outside of the body, but can not prove this because we can not really measure or identify it. One of the reasons that I think it exists outside of the body is that it seems to be affected by density and temperature--specifically cold. This leads me to believe that it is something that is real because I do not see how "thought" or a mental aspect could be affected by temperature. But as I stated, I know nothing about science, so my question is: Can cold affect energies or forces, of does it just affect matter?

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Was just reading the Omni interview of Dr. Stevenson.

 

One exchange.

 

Omni: In your new book you speak reprovingly of people easily persuaded by your evidence. Is your position that reincarnation can never really be demonstrated?

 

Stevenson: I don't think I rebuke anybody for being convinced by the evidence. All I say is that maybe they shouldn't believe on the basis of what's in that particular book, because the detailed case reports are in my other books. Essentially I say that the idea of reincarnation permits but doesn't compel belief. All the cases I've investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not offer anything like proof. But as the body of evidence accumulates, it's more likely that more and more people will see its relevance.

 

 

That is the way I see it too. The evidence permits belief, but does not compel it.

 

In the whole world and 40 years of financially backed investigations, with 8 billion lives to choose from, we have what? 3000 cases, mostly in areas of the world where reincarnation is a "belief", where some shreds of evidence and stories can possibly be cobbled together enough to create a little possibility that something un normal might be involved. Allowing belief, but not compelling belief, in a completely ambiguous and undetermined transference of the experiences and memories of one person, into another.

 

Also read a quote about Dr. Stevenson where someone said that either Dr. Stevenson was making a collosal mistake, or he would turn out to be the Galileo of the 20th century.

 

I'll go with the former.

 

Regards, TAR2

And a little note on the "Sweet what's her name" story about the 10 year old who remembers her whole family and house from a former life. At the beginning of the story, she is traveling with her father 100 miles from home and asks the driver to turn into "her" driveway, because they could get a better cup of tea there, than on the road. The story never specifies whether or not they DID turn into the driveway, or if the house and the family was in view.

 

I am reminded of something my Dad (also a Freudian Psychologist) told me. Young children (in that kindergarten, first grade area) are VERY observant. He says you can take a class of such young people on a walk around the block, and question them upon completion about what they remember of the trip, and be rewarded with amazingly accurate and detailed accounts of EVERYTHING. The colors and shapes of shutters and shingles, the markings on a cat, the particular smells coming from particular houses...etc. Things the adults didn't even notice, much less remember.

 

Sweet what's her name, actually SAW the place she "remembers" from a former life.

Also I was taken aback upon learning that Dr. Stevenson required a translator while doing his investigations and interviews in India.

That sort of adds another "shading" to his understandings of the memories of the 5 year olds in question. Nuance is lost.

[Gees]

Gees,

 

Was just reading the Omni interview of Dr. Stevenson.

 

That is the way I see it too. The evidence permits belief, but does not compel it.

 

Agreed. In order for the evidence to compel belief, it would have to prove that it could be predicted or tested by scientific standards. This is not going to happen prior to a valid theory of consciousness, as we don't even know how it works, so there is no way to test or predict it. But there is enough evidence to indicate that something is going on here, which is enough for my purposes.

 

Please remember that it is not my intent to prove reincarnation. It is my intent to understand consciousness. If you consider Dr. Stevenson's work, which is just one very small aspect of what we call the "supernatural", and compare it to the many other aspects of the "supernatural", what you find is that consciousness is not known or understood, and that it is not God or the brain, and that it is not limited to the body.

 

In the whole world and 40 years of financially backed investigations, with 8 billion lives to choose from, we have what? 3000 cases, mostly in areas of the world where reincarnation is a "belief", where some shreds of evidence and stories can possibly be cobbled together enough to create a little possibility that something un normal might be involved.

 

 

First, you do not know that it is "un normal", as that is your belief--not fact. Second, the lack of respect for children prohibits much of this knowledge from becoming known. Third, you seem to have forgotten the thousands of years that this has been studied by some cultures. Fourth, you seem to have forgotten that Dr. Stevenson did not accept cases where he could not establish some proof, which does not mean that the cases did not exist. Last of all, if my thoughts regarding cold and consciousness are at all significant, reincarnation may be more active in countries that are closer to the equator.

 

Also read a quote about Dr. Stevenson where someone said that either Dr. Stevenson was making a collosal mistake, or he would turn out to be the Galileo of the 20th century.

 

I'll go with the former.

I don't agree with either. I see Dr. Stevenson as being a forerunner and mentor of people who will investigate the "supernatural", because of his meticulous standards and procedures. He has shown that this area can be investigated if we follow careful practices and procedures.

 

I am reminded of something my Dad (also a Freudian Psychologist) told me. Young children (in that kindergarten, first grade area) are VERY observant. He says you can take a class of such young people on a walk around the block, and question them upon completion about what they remember of the trip, and be rewarded with amazingly accurate and detailed accounts of EVERYTHING. The colors and shapes of shutters and shingles, the markings on a cat, the particular smells coming from particular houses...etc. Things the adults didn't even notice, much less remember.

 

 

First you say that they are all imagination, now you say that they are observant?

 

I agree that young ones are very observant. They also have a pure kind of logic and are often intelligent, but they interpret their observations through their lack of experience, so we must listen to them carefully. They do not yet know how to lie, so their statements are naive and honest.

 

Around seven years old, children learn how to lie and steal, and they like to bring home measels, mumps, and chicken pox. The diseases come from socializing. The lies and stealing come from their ratonal minds.

 

G

[tar]

Gees.

 

http://video.mit.edu/watch/rebecca-saxe-24942/

 

Rebecca Saxe is also studying consciousness. She is at MIT.

 

If you have 23 minutes, I think you will find this talk interesting and pertinent to this thread.

 

I predict you will not have the same feeling about people learning to lie at age seven.

 

Rather than attempting to argue you over to "my way" of thinking, I think it better to ask you to watch this talk. It was presented to me and others, years ago on this board by iNow, who had a very nice thread going, entitled "Religion Hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain".

 

The talk, and other studies of Rebecca Saxe, and the existence of an area of the brain that developes in us in that 4 to 5 year old range, that allows us to put ourselves in someone elses shoes, is crucial and central to many if not most of the thoughts I have had in the interim on religion, consciousness, and in general, about the "meaning" behind language and 100 other things that "base" my worldview and understanding of myself and others.

 

Let me know what YOU think about Rebecca's talk.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited September 13, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Gees.

 

Rebecca Saxe is also studying consciousness. She is at MIT.

 

If you have 23 minutes, I think you will find this talk interesting and pertinent to this thread.

 

Actually, I don't think Ms. Saxe is studying consciousness. What she is studying is the brain and human behavior, which is a part of consciousness, because we can not have behavior if we are not conscious. How we behave and why we behave that way is only relevant if we are first conscious.

 

I predict you will not have the same feeling about people learning to lie at age seven.

 

Well, we can't get all of our predictions right. If anything, the video supported my findings and ideas. You will note that she tested a three year old, a five year old, a seven year old, then went straight to adults. Why did she not test a nine, ten, or twelve year old? Because it was not necessary. At seven years we have learned to process information in the same way an adult does.

 

When I stated that a seven year old learns to lie, it was not because I think that seven year olds are bad, it was because by age seven we learn to choose and select our thoughts. This ability to choose is a product of the rational, processing, part of the mind. We can take what we observe, take what we think, and put them together to interpret a scenario that makes sense to us. Is it true because it makes sense to us? No. In fact, the seven year old lied. He stated that the "wind" knocked the sandwich down, but that is not true, it is what he imagined happened. What actually happened is that Ms. Saxe moved the sandwich. When we mix our thoughts and beliefs with our observations, we can unknowingly corrupt truth with our imagination. This is because of the rational mind which allows us to choose between what we think and what we observe.

 

The three year old simply observed and stated the facts as they were from a personal perspective. The five year old simply observed and stated the facts as they were from another person's perspective. This shows an advance in social understanding, but is still inherently honest. It is my understanding that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is inherently honest, because it does not know how to lie--it has not learned to choose. Just like in the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes", the young child states the obvious truth, "The Emperor is not wearing clothes." because he can not fool himself with thoughts and imaginings. I find it very interesting that people think that young children are too imaginative, when in fact, I wonder about their ability to imagine at all and suspect it is more interpretation.

 

Rather than attempting to argue you over to "my way" of thinking, I think it better to ask you to watch this talk. It was presented to me and others, years ago on this board by iNow, who had a very nice thread going, entitled "Religion Hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain".

 

Well the video would probably be very good in that kind of thread as it is about intent and morals. It is a mistake to assume that my statement about a seven year old's ability to lie is about morals, as it has nothing to do with morals. I am simply referring to a development of the mind.

 

Many people equate lies with immorality. In my childhood, the Nuns used to say that to lie was a sin and against the Commandments. Bullwhacky. There is no Commandment that states, Thou shalt not lie; what it states is to not bear false witness. So as long as we don't lie to get someone else in trouble, there is no problem. Have you ever seen Jim Carey's film, "Liar, Liar"? Lying is a social necessity. (chuckle)

 

The talk, and other studies of Rebecca Saxe, and the existence of an area of the brain that developes in us in that 4 to 5 year old range, that allows us to put ourselves in someone elses shoes, is crucial and central to many if not most of the thoughts I have had in the interim on religion, consciousness, and in general, about the "meaning" behind language and 100 other things that "base" my worldview and understanding of myself and others.

 

Let me know what YOU think about Rebecca's talk.

 

Well, I found it very interesting. Mostly it dealt with intent and how intent relates to morals. Having retired from working in law, I know that law has some very specific ideas about intent and they follow mostly the physicalist approach, which is not always just. So I think that the work Ms. Saxe is doing is very important, but does not relate to my interest in consciousness.

 

Her explanation of how autistic people understand intent was also very interesting.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well anyway, I'm glad you watched it. The "facts" that she discovered are helpful to her understanding of conscousness, your undersanding of consciousness, and my understanding of consciousness. We each now have to "explain" consciousness, based on, or at least consistent with these facts.

 

So, now that you have a little idea, that I have had to fold these facts into my understanding, muses and opinions, you at least now have to do the same.

 

My contention is, that this ability, to put yourself in the shoes of another, an unseen other, is something that developed between the birth of a person and their adulthood. It is therefore not a requirement that consciousness is floating around, looking for bodies to settle in, but instead a thing that developes in an individual.

 

It has also been noticed, (and there is a word for it, that escapes me at the moment) that the developement of a fetus from a single cell to a newborn babe, and then the growth and development of a newborn babe into a conscious adult, has its analogies and stages reminicent of the development of our species. This allows one to hold the belief that consciousness developed right along with the species, not only from an individual example, but from the example of humans in general.

 

Thusly, the knowledge that there are abilities that emerge as a child developes points to the strong possibily that the same was required as our species did.

 

I have to go to work. I think you can take the thought from here.

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

Recapitulation.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

I am late getting back to you again. Thank you for your patience.

 

Gees,

 

Well anyway, I'm glad you watched it. The "facts" that she discovered are helpful to her understanding of conscousness, your undersanding of consciousness, and my understanding of consciousness. We each now have to "explain" consciousness, based on, or at least consistent with these facts.

 

So, now that you have a little idea, that I have had to fold these facts into my understanding, muses and opinions, you at least now have to do the same.

 

I don't have a problem with this. As I stated before, science seems to be very supportive of my thoughts and understandings. Although Ms. Saxe's work is related to consciousness, it is actually about behavior, but still supports my understanding, and Dr. Stevenson's understanding, that the rational mind appears to dominate around the age of seven.

 

I think that you are considering the "soul" in a very religious context, as though it is one singular thing, so you suppose that is what I am talking about. It is not. In reincarnation, I see some aspects of the prior personality in the new person, but only some aspects, as the new personality eventually becomes itself--by age seven. The idea that a whole "soul" or person takes over a new person's persona is 'possession', not reincarnation. There was one example of possession in the videos that I provided earlier, so I will review it again to see if I can find more information about possession, but for now I would like to stick to discussion about reincarnation.

 

My contention is, that this ability, to put yourself in the shoes of another, an unseen other, is something that developed between the birth of a person and their adulthood. It is therefore not a requirement that consciousness is floating around, looking for bodies to settle in, but instead a thing that developes in an individual.

 

I don't understand you here. The first sentence seems to be about empathy. The second sentence makes some sense, but supposes and assumes that it is one or the other. Consciousness is too complex to make such assumptions without facts to back them up. And I don't see how the two sentences relate to each other.

 

It has also been noticed, (and there is a word for it, that escapes me at the moment) that the developement of a fetus from a single cell to a newborn babe, and then the growth and development of a newborn babe into a conscious adult, has its analogies and stages reminicent of the development of our species. This allows one to hold the belief that consciousness developed right along with the species, not only from an individual example, but from the example of humans in general.

 

Thusly, the knowledge that there are abilities that emerge as a child developes points to the strong possibily that the same was required as our species did.

 

Agreed. Because of technology and the advances in science, we can now track the development of a fetus from it's inception to birth, and it is almost like tracking evolution. Fascinating. Yet with all of this fascinating technology, we still don't know where the mother's consciousness and the fetus's consciousness begin and end.

 

Religion has tried to answer this question, and many religions accept that the new consciousness begins at birth, some think that it begins when the sperm and egg meet, others put the child's consciousness after birth. I read somewhere, it may have been the Bible, that the child is introduced to society at 2 or 3 months. This makes sense if you remember that there are some medical reasons why a child can be born, but not survive more than a month--such as in cases where there is a difference in the positive and negative RH factor. I think it was the Eskimos that thought a child should be introduced to society when it is two years old. This actually makes more sense than any of the prior considerations as a two year old is no longer dependent on it's mother for survival. The child is still dependent, but it can eat, walk, and make it's needs and wants known, so any adult can care for it.

 

Secular law does not have a clue, as is evidenced by the famous "Roe v Wade" Supreme Court case on abortion and the right to life. After considering reams of information and debating for months, the Jurists finally decided to break down a pregnancy into tri-mesters. So in the first three months, the woman's rights dominate; in the last three months, the fetus's rights dominate, as a fetus can be viable if delivered in the last three months; and the middle tri-mester is up for grabs and pretty much open to interpretation by the various states. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that as science advances, the fetus can be made viable at earlier, and earlier, stages until the argument about viability becomes moot.

 

But all of these are physical considerations and do not explain consciousness. Are there any facts? Any indications that can tell us when a fetus develops it's own consciousness? When do I become "me" rather than being a part of my Mother? I think that there are some facts, maybe even enough to put together a good guess as to how this might work. But I am tired now, so I will let you consider the above, and will write more on this later.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well I think Rebecca gives us a real clue. An area of the brain that developes that is involved with the conception of an unseen other...allowing a person to develop a Theory of Mind...that another mind exists, outside of theirs...several years later a "rational" mind is dominant in the child. It might be an important factor in consciousness.

 

I don't see a rational mechanism however to explain this "other mind" transferring, intact with sense memories, from a developed mind of a 40 year old, to an undeveloped mind of a 2 or 3 year old.

 

What you are talking about, seems more to me, to be explainable by our obvious connection to the world that came before we were born. We are aware of this outside world, that evidently existed prior our "arrival" in it, as soon as we first internalize it, through our senses and into our brains, and remember the images and compare them against the next. As we build our analog "model" of the world in the synapses and connections and signals in our brains, it becomes quite inseparable from any "thoughts" we have about it. And anything we think or say about it, already is based solidly on the consistent presence of it, around us. A child does not seek "independence" as an adult might. Satisfaction of hunger and thirst and needs of his or her person, surely, but until 3 or 4 does not consider what some unseen other is thinking. Although there does seem to be evidence of "mirror" neurons that fire in one person, of any age, in "sympathy" with those firing in other. Base sense type firings, like your mouth watering, watching someone else eating something "tasty", or "flinching" when an object is flying toward someone elses face, or wincing as a needle goes into someone else flesh.

 

Connections with the outside world are obvious and plain. We already have these facts. The genes of our parents, the countries of our forefathers, the bread on the table earned by the sweat of our parents...etc. etc. In those years between 2 and 7 we learn to "think" about it, and think in terms of what other "minds" think of it. This ability is a crucial part of consciousness. It is not, in my take, something we are "forgetting", that we knew before, but something we are learning how to do, again, like the generations before us did, but for us, its the "first" time we know these things.

 

How many times has a woman borne a child? Billions. How many times have you? Of the billions, which births are the most important? Which births were "firsts"?

 

That 40 year old's consciousness has no business in the mind of a child. None at all. And no way to get there, but the ways we already know about.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Tars;

Rather than addressing your last post now, I will instead submit the following that I have been working on regarding the fetus, consciousness, and reincarnation. Later today I will try to address the points and concerns in your post.

So let's start at the beginning with the sperm and the egg. Are they alive? The answer to that would be yes. This is the easy part because if something is alive, it can be killed. Removing the egg or sperm from it's natural environment will cause it to die and rot, so it is alive. All life is sentient, which means that it reacts to stimuli and is aware of that stimuli, so the egg and sperm possess some rudimentary form of consciousness just like every other cell in the body.

For those who disagree with my assessment, please consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Do the egg and sperm possess "want"? Again the answer is yes. The egg will break out of the ovary, find the fallopian tube and travel along it to the uterus, where it will imbed itself in the side of the uterus waiting for fertilization. Whether this activity is caused by a physical prompt or whether it is caused by an awareness, it still exhibits a "want" to contnue, as all life does. I have watched films on sperm when they reach the egg, and can tell you that there is a frenzy of activity. So whether there is an awareness and knowledge of the egg, or if there is some chemical attraction to the egg, the sperm are in serious competition to reach and join with the egg. So again, this activity exhibits a "want" to continue, but is it any different from other cells in the body? I don't think so.

The immune system seems to "want" to fight off unwanted bacteria in the body; blood cells seem to "want" to carry nutrients and oxygen to parts of the body that need them; tissue cells seem to "want" to reproduce themselves when it is necessary. All of the cells in our bodies seem to "want" to do their job in promoting the health and welfare of the body, so I can't see where the "want" of the egg and sperm are different or are separate in their consciousness. The end result is a separate consciousness, but it does not appear to exist at this level--there is certainly no evidence of it.

What about after the egg and sperm join? Many people believe that this is when a new consciousness arises. I don't think so. First, there is no evidence of it; second, there is evidence to the contrary.

People know that the joining of the egg and sperm creates a new DNA, which is assumed to indicate the new person, so a new consciousness. It must have been a man who thought up this idea. It would be like someone receiving the architectural designs for their new house and asking, "So I have the designs. Where the hell is the house?" An appropriate response might be, "Well, the materials have been ordered, but they won't show up for months." Having the design does not mean that we have what was designed. Just like the separate sperm and egg, at this point we only have a potential for a new consciousness.

The arguments contrary are very clear and based in fact. Although the brain is not our consciousness, it is clear that the development of our consciousness is dependent upon the brain. Taking us from the awareness of a cell to the awareness of a human requires a brain, and a very advanced brain, so human consciousness for a fetus is not possible at this level. Another point to consider is that the mother's body may still reject the fetus, which often happens in the first few months. This rejection can be caused by a flaw or misforming of the fetus, but it can also be caused by a weakness in the mother. If the mother does not have the strength to carry the fetus, her body will reject it in consideration of the mother's health and needs. Clearly the consciousness and life of the mother takes precedence.

The next stage, where people believe the new consciousness arises, is at birth, and there is some evidence to support this assumption. First there is the obvious physical separation of the mother and infant into two different bodies, so there are two different consciousnesses. The problem with this is that, although the mother acknowledges this separation, the infant does not. The infant will be six to eight months old before acknowledging the fact that it is physically separate from it's mother. Prior to this time, the infant is unaware of any separation--physical or otherwise. This information came to me from the magazine "Psychology Today" which I studied carefully while raising my own children. It explained why a reasonable sweet baby of seven or eight months would suddenly become panicked when mom left the room. This is because the infant has finally examined him/her self from fingers to toes and is just becoming aware that mom is NOT connected. Oh no! She could leave! Hence the panic. So it appears that the first clues that we get regarding self-awareness come six months after we are born. Prior to this point, awareness of the "self" includes the mother and probably most of the immediate environment. And we still don't know that mom has a mind and her own ideas--that comes later.

The second argument that consciousness starts at birth is the "want" that the infant exhibits that initializes the labor and subsequent birth. However, doctors are not in agreement in this matter. There are some doctors that will schedule a C-section birth based on ultrasound readings, but most will not, and prefer to wait until the labor starts naturally, then proceed to other methods of delivery. Many years ago I read an article about hatcheries where it was discovered that breaking the eggs to help the chicks hatch at a preconceived time often caused weak or less healthy chicks, so it was determned that it is best to let the chicks break out of their eggs themselves. I suspect that this is the kind of thinking that most doctors employ, that it is better to let an infant determine when it should be born. So this is a stage of development, but my thought on this is that the starting of labor to cause birth is very similar to the egg initially breaking out of an ovary. This appears to me to be another part of the process rather than an indication of a human consciousness, want, or intent.

So although religion and medical science have many opinions and theories regarding a new person's consciousness, these theories and opinions do not seem to reflect the facts of the matter. Psychology, I think, gives us our best understanding, and psychology states that a new person does not possess all of the aspects of human consciousness until they are seven years of age.

 

So it does not appear as if a whole "soul" or personality is dropped into a vessel as stated by religion, and if a new consciousness grows or developes as it appears to, then what material feeds this growth and what activity prompts this development? I think that psychology and a better understanding of the supernatural can answer these questions.

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Hum...I thought the egg attached to the wall AFTER fertilization...but biology class was a long time ago, and my brain holds information like a sieve holds water...so...anyway if consciousness is a developed thing, its probably also a developing thing, and it would be difficult to say what 100% consciousness would be. My Aunt, a very intelligent woman and a proponent of Hegel and dialectical thinking, would say that one could "raise" their consciousness. And if we look for a schema within which to place ourselves as a species, it would be difficult to say we have as a group, or as any outstanding individual reached a state of 100% consciousness. Though some monk on a hilltop might erroneously claim its been done.

 

So picking 7 as a 100% conscious mark, is somewhat arbitrary and baseless. Let's just say that by seven we have a good start, and most of the equipment that we will have as adults, but probably have some things still to learn, and our consciousness still has quite a big world to "become" conscious of.

 

This still leans in the direction of my take. That consciousness is a state arrived at, more than a substance aquired. And as such it need not be looked for in the bushes or in the clouds, because its an emergent quality and characteric of a human, if its human consciousness we are looking for. So it belongs to, and can be found in a human, and can not exist physically in the spaces between humans, as a substance might be able to exist.

 

As to "want". Does a sock "want to" get dusty behind the drier>? If not, why can socks so often seem to be found fulfilling this desire?

 

Having the ability to concieve of unseen others is part and parcel of being able to develop a theory of mind. But one should probably only assign mind to things that actually have a mind.

 

I think "want" is something that requires knowing the difference between having and not having, and if sperm know the difference then we should feel sorry for the majority of sperm, that never get what they want.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or hold a billion funerals for all the dead skin cells we lose.

 

OH, the cellmanity! (As in the empassioned words of the reporter at the Hindenburg disaster)

Edited September 18, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Gees,

 

Well I think Rebecca gives us a real clue. An area of the brain that developes that is involved with the conception of an unseen other...allowing a person to develop a Theory of Mind...that another mind exists, outside of theirs...several years later a "rational" mind is dominant in the child. It might be an important factor in consciousness.

 

Understanding that others have a mind looks like a natural progression to me. At six to eight months the child learns that mom is separate physically, but it takes a lot longer to discover that there is a mental separation. At two years old, the "terrible twos", a child starts to challenge mom and begins to learn about disagreement. At this age a child will yell, "No. No." to almost everything, then check to see if this disagreement affects the relationship between mom and child. This goes on for a good year and is very frustrating for mom, but a necessary learning experience for the child.

 

It is at this time that children are thought to be too imaginative as they will talk to their teddy bears and everything else, but I am not sure that this is an accurate portrayal of what is going on. It is my thought that the child is experimenting and trying to learn what this "mind" thing is, and who has it. It would take a while for the child to understand the difference between animate and inanimate objects, so I don't think this is imagination. I think it is learning.

 

I don't see a rational mechanism however to explain this "other mind" transferring, intact with sense memories, from a developed mind of a 40 year old, to an undeveloped mind of a 2 or 3 year old.

 

This does not surprise me, as we don't even know what "mind" is. If there is a mechanism that explains this, it would not be rational, it would be emotional. And we are not talking about an "intact" mind as that would be possession--we have been through this before. Try to keep up. Another thing to consider is that 2 or 3 year olds do not develop "birth marks". Birthmarks develop before the birth, which is why we call them birthmarks, so memories from any of the cases that Dr. Stevenson found that involved birthmarks, obviously had to have "transferred" prior to birth.

 

If you go to the Psychology forum and read the OP of my thread, "Formation of Mind?", you will get an idea of why I think that emotion is the key to understanding the development of mind. So far no one has been able to answer my questions in that thread.

 

What you are talking about, seems more to me, to be explainable by our obvious connection to the world that came before we were born.

 

What? I don't understand this at all. A connection prior to birth?

 

Connections with the outside world are obvious and plain. We already have these facts. The genes of our parents, the countries of our forefathers, the bread on the table earned by the sweat of our parents...etc. etc. In those years between 2 and 7 we learn to "think" about it, and think in terms of what other "minds" think of it. This ability is a crucial part of consciousness. It is not, in my take, something we are "forgetting", that we knew before, but something we are learning how to do, again, like the generations before us did, but for us, its the "first" time we know these things.

 

How many times has a woman borne a child? Billions. How many times have you? Of the billions, which births are the most important? Which births were "firsts"?

 

I'm not following you here at all.

 

G

Gees,

 

Hum...I thought the egg attached to the wall AFTER fertilization...but biology class was a long time ago,

 

You may be right. It's been a long time for me too.

 

so...anyway if consciousness is a developed thing, its probably also a developing thing, and it would be difficult to say what 100% consciousness would be.

 

No. 100 % consciousness would be all knowing--aware of everything. It would be what is referred to as God.

 

My Aunt, a very intelligent woman and a proponent of Hegel and dialectical thinking, would say that one could "raise" their consciousness. And if we look for a schema within which to place ourselves as a species, it would be difficult to say we have as a group, or as any outstanding individual reached a state of 100% consciousness. Though some monk on a hilltop might erroneously claim its been done.

 

To "raise" our consciousness, we would simply be focusing on or tuning into the consciousness that we already possess. It would not allow us to possess more awareness than we already have. No God thing going on here.

 

So picking 7 as a 100% conscious mark, is somewhat arbitrary and baseless. Let's just say that by seven we have a good start, and most of the equipment that we will have as adults, but probably have some things still to learn, and our consciousness still has quite a big world to "become" conscious of.

 

Why are you mixing things up? What I said was that at age seven, we have all of the "aspects" of consciousness. We have the logical rational aspect of mind, we have emotion, feelings, moods, thoughts, memories, knowledge, and instincts--all of the aspects. You talk as if learning, thought, and consciousness are the same thing--they are not. Consciousness is not what we are aware of, it is our capacity to be aware.

 

This still leans in the direction of my take. That consciousness is a state arrived at, more than a substance aquired.

 

But how do we arrive at that state? What train to we get on? What is the process?

 

So it belongs to, and can be found in a human, and can not exist physically in the spaces between humans, as a substance might be able to exist.

 

So it is your opinion that the contents of two different containers can connect magically?

 

As to "want". Does a sock "want to" get dusty behind the drier>? If not, why can socks so often seem to be found fulfilling this desire?

 

If your socks are exhibiting life-like behavior, I would suggest that you change them more often as there seems to be too many small life forms imbedded in them.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

No magical connections. Just unconsidered ones, or improperly assigned ones.

Since we have the ability to assign mind to other clumps of matter, other than ourselves, it is not only possible, but probable that we would sometimes if not often, make an incorrect assignment. This neither causes our correct assignments to be incorrect, or our incorrect assignments to be correct.

 

That is why we ask each other to clarify our assignments and see if we are in agreement or not.

 

If I assign mind to my alarm clock, on the basis of its ability to know exactly when to wake me up every morning, you would remind me that it was other people, with minds that designed the thing, built the power grid to power it, and it was me that set the thing, in the first place. We "made it" have a mind, but it was our mind that was transferred to it. It is not a conscious mind, just because we see our own thoughts and desires held within it.

 

So, for you and Dr. Stevenson, you imagine a mind in a 40 year old, with the ability to retain its memories of life, family, home and circumstances of death, in that forty year old, and then imagine that SAME individual mind, which is already described by the body and family and home and circumstances that define it, popping up as the mind of an undeveloped 2 year old, often in the same family, home, circumstances, that has birthmarks reminicent of events that caused the death of the first mind.

 

Let me ask you this. If your great grandmother had a penchant for strawberries and died as the result of a gardening accident, and you had two children, one with freckles 2 inches from the spots where the infected gardening implement had gouged grandma, would you think it more likely that this child was grandma, than the other? What if this child liked strawberries? What if this child didn't like strawberries? What if the other child was a lot like great grandma, but had no freckles on his arm?

 

Regards, TAR2

What if a third child, your first born, had birthmarks EXACTLY where the prongs had entered great grandmas skin, but was born a year and a half before great grandma died? Would you rule out this child being great grandma?

Or would you look to modify your timing theories of soul transference?

I just hit my snooze alarm. The damn clock didn't know I was already up.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider my responses and let me know what you think.

 

Since we have the ability to assign mind to other clumps of matter, other than ourselves, it is not only possible, but probable that we would sometimes if not often, make an incorrect assignment. This neither causes our correct assignments to be incorrect, or our incorrect assignments to be correct.

That is why we ask each other to clarify our assignments and see if we are in agreement or not.

If I assign mind to my alarm clock, on the basis of its ability to know exactly when to wake me up every morning, you would remind me that it was other people, with minds that designed the thing, built the power grid to power it, and it was me that set the thing, in the first place. We "made it" have a mind, but it was our mind that was transferred to it. It is not a conscious mind, just because we see our own thoughts and desires held within it.

 

No, that is not what I would say. What I would say is that humans have minds, many other species have minds, probably all mammals have minds, and there is a good possibility that some birds have minds, but as far as I know socks and alarm clocks do not have minds. Consciousness is a confusing enough subject without assigning "mind" to various inanimate objects, so unless you have a theory of mind that includes inanimate objects, it would be less confusing if you limited your metaphors to things that are more in aline with life and/or consciousness.

So, for you and Dr. Stevenson, you imagine a mind in a 40 year old, with the ability to retain its memories of life, family, home and circumstances of death, in that forty year old, and then imagine that SAME individual mind, which is already described by the body and family and home and circumstances that define it, popping up as the mind of an undeveloped 2 year old, often in the same family, home, circumstances, that has birthmarks reminicent of events that caused the death of the first mind.

Imagine? So again you are imagining what you think that I imagine? Then you go so far as to imagine what Dr. Stevenson imagines? You don't even know Dr. Stevenson. People do not imagine observations, they observe to make observations. Do you understand the difference between imagination and fact? And how do you know the "first mnd" died? As far as I know, we have no information on whether or not a mind dies. Are you using your imagination again? Or is this a religious thing?

Let me ask you this. If your great grandmother had a penchant for strawberries and died as the result of a gardening accident, and you had two children, one with freckles 2 inches from the spots where the infected gardening implement had gouged grandma, would you think it more likely that this child was grandma, than the other? What if this child liked strawberries? What if this child didn't like strawberries? What if the other child was a lot like great grandma, but had no freckles on his arm?

First, I thought there was a difference between freckles and birthmarks, if I am wrong please provide a citation. Second, I would expect some similarities between my children and their ancestors because of DNA and family tendencies. Other than that I would not assign anything to anyone on the basis of liking or not liking strawberries, but might consider an allergy to strawberries if it ran in the family. Now if my youngster stated that her name used to be Bridget, that she was born in Ireland, that she came over to the New World with her little sister, Annie, after the Great Potatoe famine, and married a wealthy farmer by the name of William, then I might listen.

What you are forgetting is that the physical evidence is in support of the statements made by the child, not in lieu of statements made by the child. One can not dismiss the subjective realities when dealing with consciousness. When we do, we make fools of ourselves because consciousness IS subjectivity.

What if a third child, your first born, had birthmarks EXACTLY where the prongs had entered great grandmas skin, but was born a year and a half before great grandma died? Would you rule out this child being great grandma?
Or would you look to modify your timing theories of soul transference?

A third child is my first born? Do you mean another child? Yes, I would rule it out. Although it appears that the awareness that I suspect is the Aether has no relation to time, and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind has no relation to time, I am not sure that this is so after awareness and matter have activated each other. There are some indications that after awareness and matter combine to create life, the consciousness that emerges may indeed be relative to time and space. There is no conclusive proof, but there are indications that for at least some amount of time, there is an emergent something that exists within time and space. Consciousness is not simple; to underestimate it and make assumption would be folly, as there is no reason that I can think of to assume that it takes only one form.

No magical connections. Just unconsidered ones, or improperly assigned ones.

I moved this statement to the bottom, because I agree with it and have a lot to say about it.

We have discussed a great deal about how an egg and sperm grow into a fetus, which is born as an infant, that develops into a child. There is also a great deal known through psychology about the development of the mental aspects of a child after it is born. But what about before it is born? What do we know about that?

When and how does the conscious awareness of a single cell turn into the conscious awareness of a person being born? When does mind form? When does the consciousness of the child separate from the consciousness of the Mother? What causes these changes? These are some of the aspects that I suspect are "unconsidered" or "improperly assigned".

1. When a human is born, their mind/brain is not a blank slate waiting to be written upon. It is already full of knowledge and understandings. One could almost consider it like a dos (disc operating system) already installed and waiting to be used. If anyone disagrees with this, please consider:

Innate ideas from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_idea

2. When a human is born, they already have a personality. If you talk to someone who works in a nursery, they can tell you that some infants are agressive and dominating, some are shy and quiet, some are flirtatious and charming, some are quiet and curious--they already have distinct personalities. Just like a litter of pups or kittens, if you study them a while, you will note different personalities from birth. Where do these personalities come from?

3. Either this knowledge, understanding and personality are in the egg/sperm, or it develops. I don't think that many of us believe that eggs and sperm have personalities, so most of us suspect that these things develop or emerge. So what do they develop from, or what do they emerge from? If I am wrong, and it has been noted or theorized or proven that eggs and/or sperm have knowledge, understanding, and personalities, please let me know.

Most people will assume that these mental aspects come from DNA. Sounds good, but it is not true. DNA is no more than an instruction or mapping of what needs to be grown, it does not supply the building materials. A map of a city does not a city make. So DNA is more of an influence, and not even a very stable influence as it can be perverted or corrupted rather easily by chemistry.

For example, see Thalidimide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

The building materials actually come from Mom, and her circumstance can seriously influence the development of baby. This has been well studied. Mom's intake of food, vitamins (or lack of), her emotions and mental state, and her environment all contribute to and influence the health, development, and well being of baby. Since we know that Mom provides the building blocks of what will be baby, why do we assume that she provides the physical building blocks, but not the mental? And that is what this is, assumption, as there is absolutely no evidence that she provides only the physical body of the infant. Why do we assume this? Is it because we believe that "God" provides the soul? I think so, because there is no other reason that makes any sense.

 

And we know that Mom's mental state and emotional health can influence baby, and baby's development. We also know that an emotional shock or trauma can actually cause a miscarriage, so emotion is definitely an influence. We also know that emotion is linked to chemistry in the body.

So let us throw out the assumptions and consider alternatives. We know that Mom provides the physical building blocks, but she does not deplete her body while accomplishing this because she eats to maintain the nutrients for both mother and child. If she also provides the mental building blocks, how does she not deplete her own mental resources? Well, there would have to be a way to intake mental resources. How could she manage that? With hormones. All pregnant women, as a matter or fact, all reproducing females of all species, are loaded with hormones. If you review Post # 132 on Page 7 of this thread, you will see that there seems to be a drawing or activating effect of consciousness which is produced by hormones.

So if reincarnation can happen, I expect that hormones are part of the mechanism that allows it to happen.

G

 

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well, lets break this into two considerations. One, where your (or my) consciousness came from, and two, where consciousness in general came from.

 

From a personal point of view, I have no memory of being anything in particular before my birth. And have a lot of evidence that suggests things will be much as they were, for me, after my death, as they were before my birth. That is, I will have no memory of TAR, 'cause the body/brain/heart group that was alive as TAR will cease to function. While this seems rather inappropriate, to be alive and conscious, and then neither alive or conscious, and its rather an unfathomable for a living, conscious being to accept, but we have all experienced this thing called death...whether it was Mom or a stranger, or a goldfish or a dog, or simply the dying of a plant at the end of its season.

 

But I didn't pop into existence without people being the case, before me. My parents, my grandparents, the Chinese, the family that lived downstairs, the parents of the kids I went to school with, the people that wrote the literature I read, the people that built the resevoirs and airports, the scientists that discovered the processes and materials and technology that protect me from hunger and disease and the elements and wild animals. And not only did people before me, prepare and structure the buildings and equipment around me, but established and maintained a cultural and legal and moral and philosopical and spiritual environment, condusive to protecting and maintaining human life AGAINST the entropy and disorganization that the universe seems to tend toward. So, there is also something larger and more long lived than an indivual human, to consider, when considering consiousness.

 

130 years ago, there were houses and families, old and young, science and technology, art and religion, countries and churches and universities...and not a single human, alive then, is alive now.

 

In 150 years we will most probably have a completely new batch of humans running the place. Thirty year olds born 120 years from now, 60 year olds born 90 years from now, 90 year olds born 60 years from now, 120 year olds born 30 years from now. Perhaps the 120 year olds will be the children of my children's children. Barring expensive and amazing technological advancement, there will not be anybody around in 150 years, that is alive today. And any 150 year olds around, that are babies now, will be most probably quite reliant on the younger generations, to keep their containers pumping.

 

But the point, is that there was life and consciousness before any individual life and consciousness, and there will be life and consciousness after an individual life and consciousness, but there would not be ANY life and consciousness, without there being individual lifes and individual consciousness, that are born, grow, live and learn, and die.

 

There is still no need for magic. No need to have a life, in total, recycled. The situation is already evident, that it works in quite the way that it obviously works. The way everybody has been doing it, since the first pack, the first herd, the first troop, the first tribe.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Gees,

 

Well, lets break this into two considerations. One, where your (or my) consciousness came from, and two, where consciousness in general came from.

 

I would love to break this down, but after reading your post, I noted that you did not address this issue in this post.

 

From a personal point of view, I have no memory of being anything in particular before my birth. And have a lot of evidence that suggests things will be much as they were, for me, after my death, as they were before my birth.

 

Let us be honest here, Tar. You have no memory of being born. You probably have no memory of your first year of life, and maybe your second. You don't deny your birth because you CAN'T--there are probably pictures. You can not base consciousness or lack of consciousness on your memory. I would like to see your "lot of evidence" because I think that you are full of it, and suspect that you have no evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

But I didn't pop into existence without people being the case, before me. So, there is also something larger and more long lived than an indivual human, to consider, when considering consiousness.

 

But the point, is that there was life and consciousness before any individual life and consciousness, and there will be life and consciousness after an individual life and consciousness, but there would not be ANY life and consciousness, without there being individual lifes and individual consciousness, that are born, grow, live and learn, and die.

 

To sum up; we all came from our Mommys and Daddys. This is not news. This is also not an explanation of consciousness and does not even try to consider evolution.

 

There is still no need for magic. No need to have a life, in total, recycled. The situation is already evident, that it works in quite the way that it obviously works. The way everybody has been doing it, since the first pack, the first herd, the first troop, the first tribe.

 

So we came from the "first pack, the first herd, the first troop, the first tribe". Where did they come from? Your answer to that would be that they evolved. But what did they evolve from? This is the biggest problem with the Theory of Evolution--it theorizes evolution after life starts, so it does not tell us anything about consciousness or how life began.

 

We know that our physical bodies recycle. We call it the Circle of Life. There is no reason that I can think of to assume that our consciousness does, or does not, recycle. Most religions, that have studied consciousness for thousands of years, think that we recycle in some way. Dr. Stevenson has actual evidence that we may well recycle. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Besides your memory?

 

You did not address any of the points in my prior post. I am beginning to think that the screaming virgins may be preferrable to jumping on a barge and floating down the River of Denial.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

The situation, in total, today, the one that I am conscious of now, is not the same situation that existed 30 years ago. The Galaxy has experienced some super novas and maybe some stars have died and some are being formed, and all the stars are 30 years older than they were 30 years ago. The planets are alligned differently, comets are in different positions on their way toward or away from the Sun. The Sun has advanced in its circuit around the center of the Milky Way. Here on Earth, babies of thirty years ago, are playing professional football, running companies, writing books, and having children of their own. People who contacted childhood friends by letter 30 years ago, might text them now, or Skipe. The situation is different now. What one CAN be conscious of now, did not exist to be conscious of 30 years ago. Bin Laden had not had two planes full of humans flown into the twin towers. They stood on lower Manhattan.

 

There was a TAR 30 years ago, this SAME bucket of memories and consciousness that is typing this now, but there is a consistent history that can be traced between the world in general and this particular consciousness, TAR. I never left the world in the last 30 years, I evolved, and grew in insight and capability right along with it. And it never left me, it kept right on moving and growing, giving birth and dying, in all the cycles and patterns that we are conscious of. I am no longer where I was, how I was, and am no longer in the place in the "patterns" that I occupied, and was conscious of, 30 years ago.

 

While I can trace and recall and prove my existence and continutiy and consciousness and position and age and condition of growth and decline, association and knowledge, awareness and insight, memory and experience, that would REALLY be the case that connects the consciousness of TAR 30 years ago, with the consciousness of TAR today. and binds me to reality, the Earth, my friends, family and the human race in total, you and Dr. Stevenson can find no such trail, no mechanisms, no consistently real vehicals, to connect the consciousness of a dead 40 year old woman, to the consciousness of Sweet What's Her Name.

 

We can imagine connections occuring quite outside of reality, but then they would be connections occuring quite outside of reality, now wouldn't they be?

 

Regards, TAR2

They would be connections "Supernatural" in nature. Made up, unreal, speculations, that bear no resemblance to reality and do not fit the case.

We are all already bound securly to the cycles and patterns of the Earth and the Galaxy. We already know this when we look into the eyes of a child, or into the night sky, or smell a flower, or feel the consciousness of a departed life in what remains around us. Its already true, already apparent that we are each connected to the rest, in all the real ways that we are. What is the point of looking for an "unreal" connection?

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Well, now I have a clearer picture on what you are talking about, so maybe I can make a better response.

 

you and Dr. Stevenson can find no such trail, no mechanisms, no consistently real vehicals, to connect the consciousness of a dead 40 year old woman, to the consciousness of Sweet What's Her Name.

 

But Dr. Stevenson did find a "trail". His work has been peer reviewed, so your opinion that this "trail" does not exist, is simply your opinion. And again, you are forgetting the thousands of years of study by religions/philosophies that have also found this trail. If reincarnation happens once, just one time, then it CAN happen, so I would like to know how it happens. Learning how it happens can teach us a great deal about consciousness and the formation of mind.

 

We can imagine connections occuring quite outside of reality, but then they would be connections occuring quite outside of reality, now wouldn't they be?

You can "imagine" anything you like, but as I have stated before, imagination is a poor tool to use when trying to do philosophy. Philosophy is the study of that which is real, but I think that our ideas of reality are very different.

 

If you go through this thread and read all of the posts made by Tar, you will find a consistency. Tar's understanding of consciousness is through the perspective of human consciousness, and specifically of Tar's human consciousness. This is not reality; this is Tar's reality. The problem with this type of thinking is very like the problems that occurred when we thought that we were the center of the Universe and all revolved around us--it was not reality--it was our perspective of reality.

 

Stepping away from one's own perspective is difficult, so when I study consciousness, I try to consider the perspective of other species. Regarding reincarnation, some religions/philosophies believe that we can reincarnate into other species, and this is hooked to moral or immoral behavior. I have some problems with this idea as it implies that some species are more moral than others. There is also the problem of innate ideas and group-think, as all species seem to be in possession of these two innate and natural developments of consciousness. Instincts are specific to a specie, as herding species herd, predatory species hunt, all species seem to follow the directives of pheromones produced by that specie--so there is innate knowledge.

 

If we are going to propose that reincarnation can happen in humans, then we are going to have to have a reason that it is exclusive to humans, or we are going to have to assume this is how consciousness can work in all species. If one considers evolution, then there would have to be a mechanism in place that sorts or develops consciousness into the minds or brains of the specific specie. And this would have to be something that adapts along with evolution.

They would be connections "Supernatural" in nature.

 

How can something be "supernatural" in "nature"?

 

We are all already bound securly to the cycles and patterns of the Earth and the Galaxy. We already know this when we look into the eyes of a child, or into the night sky, or smell a flower, or feel the consciousness of a departed life in what remains around us. Its already true, already apparent that we are each connected to the rest, in all the real ways that we are. What is the point of looking for an "unreal" connection?

 

There is no such thing as an "unreal" connection; either it is a real connection, or it is not a connection.

 

Instead of thinking of connections, consider this idea more like a cycle, or the Circle of Life. If an ugly little cockroach was walking along in the woods and died, then it's body decayed and provided fertilizer for a plant. Then that plant grew a flower that a cute little rabbit decided to eat, and just after the rabbit's dinner, a hawk came and carried it away to a field and ate it, bringing some of the meat home to it's nest for the young ones, Then the rabbit's remaining body decayed and fertilized the grass that was growing there, and a cow ate the grass. Then the cow was killed and processed into hamburger, which I ate. Did I eat a cockroach? From my perspective no; but the little cockroach may think that he is feeding the world. Consciousness is about perspectives, but it is not perspectives.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

"How can something be "supernatural" in "nature"?"

 

Well, this is the point I have been trying to make. Supernatural is an impossible realm to consider along with the natural realm. It is a realm above and beyond the natural. If we are considering science and philosophy we should be considering that which is real and natural, logical and true.

 

If magic or impossible things are required to explain a thing, than the thing is not real. And if such thoughts are entertained, they are probably thoughts of the supernatural or superstitious kind.

 

Yet we have these thoughts. This does not make the object of the thought real or possible, but the thought itself, being had by a real existent being, is a real thought, that can be considered and understood for what it is, and is therefore a real thing, a natual thing, in and of itself.

 

I do not say that Dr. Stevenson has not cataloged thousands of cases of live people that have physical characteristics that are reminiscent of the injuries that caused the death of someone else. But he reports that the young child remembers being this dead person, and this doesn't make any sense, beyond the imagination of a child, brought up in a society that believes in reincarnation.

 

I remember discussing a supposed case of reincarnation where a young child in America remembered the name of a real character in a European town, and described the town and countryside, in some impressively matching detail to the real place. I did not read the book, that described this case, but was talking to someone who had, looking for a "natural" explaination. One of the facts in the book was that this child had a great aunt from the area in Europe, who had on occasion baby sat for the young child. You might look for evidence against there being a natural explanation that would instead fit your impossible, unnatural theory of reincarnation, but I speculate that the great aunt told the young child bed time stories, and she used the names and images of a real place in her memory to tell the tales. This would clinch it for me. Possible and true and would explain the imagination and memories of the child. That would be the end of it. No further speculation would be required. No magic would be needed. No couchroach souls floating around looking for future robber barons and mass murderers to inhabit. No impossible or unatural connections required, when natural and possible ones are already the only ones that can be the case.

 

If and when Dr. Stevenson does unearth a contradiction or a natural explanation for a claim, he dismisses it as a weak case, or a debunked case of reincarnation. Thus every claim of reincarnation is not an actual case of reincarnation. There are some which even Dr. Stevenson would discount.

There is no good reason for him not to find a natural explanation for each and every one, should he doggedly search for such, rather than suggesting there doesn't seem to be any natural explanation other than reincarnation (reincarnation actually not being a natural explanation at all). AND if he were to find the Aunt that told the story to the child in private, the case would be solved. Naturally. Or the newspaper or book or scroll that the child came upon and looked at and thought about, when no one else was around.

 

Consider the situation now, with the internet, where any 3 year old can see images from all over the world, of all sorts of people, events, places, patterns and whatever. Things that nobody else or even they themselves would remember consciously witnessing.

 

If two years later, they would remember being in India and seeing a thin cow in the street, would you suppose they could astral project? Or would this prove to you that they once were alive in India?

 

Besides, if Dr. Stevenson or you would find the actual reasons and way that a consciousness "gets" from one body to another, then it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, it would be the natural way.

 

Regards, TAR2

P.S. I take a little offense at you discounting my human judgement as insufficient for the investigation, as if you could possibly ascend to a state in which you yourself were no longer using insufficent human judgement, but superior judgement of some other kind.

Edited September 28, 2013 by tar

[Gees]

Gees,

 

"How can something be "supernatural" in "nature"?"

 

Well, this is the point I have been trying to make. Supernatural is an impossible realm to consider along with the natural realm. It is a realm above and beyond the natural. If we are considering science and philosophy we should be considering that which is real and natural, logical and true.

 

If magic or impossible things are required to explain a thing, than the thing is not real. And if such thoughts are entertained, they are probably thoughts of the supernatural or superstitious kind.

 

Believe me, I understand your point. The supernatural is "an impossible realm", "above and beyond", "magic", and "not real". That is your point. And what is the supernatural? Well, it is Gods, angels and demons, ESP, fairies, ghosts, reincarnation, and any other consciousness that is outside of the body. How do we know that these things are not real? We know because consciousness is within the body, so if someone thinks that there is a consciousness that is outside of the body, then that person must be imagining, pretending, or being superstitious. Simple. This is your point. It has been your point for 14 pages now.

 

All of your arguments are based on one premise, which is that consciousness is within the body--exclusively. Do you have any facts to support this premise? Because it is my thought that this premise is false and is based in belief, and it probably originated with religious belief. If I am wrong, and there are facts to support the premise that consciousness resides exclusively within the body, please present these facts.

 

I take a little offense at you discounting my human judgement as insufficient for the investigation, as if you could possibly ascend to a state in which you yourself were no longer using insufficent human judgement, but superior judgement of some other kind.

 

I like to use facts. If that is "ascending" then so be it. Until you explain otherwise, I am going to continue to think that the contents of two containers can not connect magically.

 

G