Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Somer verbs do not imply action. Here's a retro public service announcement just for you. Watch and become enlightened.



This PSA is brought to you be the verb, "to be".

You wrote a sentence fragment, not a sentence.

Oh, for Pete's sake. In the first place it's not a sentence fragment, just a weird sentence that doesn't completely express his thought (but grammatically it is NOT a sentence fragment), and in the second place it should obviously be combined with the sentence following: "What I'm saying is Vandal, let alone Kinser, they weren't there, Eric."

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Oh, for Pete's sake. In the first place it's not a sentence fragment, just a weird sentence that doesn't completely express his thought (but grammatically it is NOT a sentence fragment), and in the second place it should obviously be combined with the sentence following: "What I'm saying is Vandal, let alone Kinser, they weren't there, Eric."

Problem solved.

A sentence that fails to express a complete thought is by definition a fragment.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/fragments.htm

The reason I harped on it was that Rag had earlier been all high and mighty about me needing remedial grammar lessons. It was ironic that his very next posting contained improper grammar.

There's nothing more to it than that and I'm fine with letting it drop.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

A sentence that fails to express a complete thought is by definition a fragment.

It did express A complete thought, just not THE complete thought that he intended. The complete thought that it expressed could be more clearly worded as: "Vandal, and even more so Kinser, are who I'm talking about."

There's nothing more to it than that and I'm fine with letting it drop.

There's a good idea.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It did express A complete thought, just not THE complete thought that he intended. The complete thought that it expressed could be more clearly worded as: "Vandal, and even more so Kinser, are who I'm talking about."

Except, his sentence failed to express that thought. There was no subject-verb agreement. It was a sentence fragment. You keep restating the supposed thought but every time you have to modify the original sentence. You have to do that because the original was not a complete sentence.

There's a good idea.

Done.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Except, his sentence failed to express that thought. There was no subject-verb agreement. It was a sentence fragment. You keep restating the supposed thought but every time you have to modify the original sentence. You have to do that because the original was not a complete sentence.

No, that's incorrect. The sentence as he stated it was a complete sentence.

Subject: I

Verb: Am saying

Object: Vandal, let alone Kinser. (The exact meaning here is not two individuals but four words: "Vandal, let alone Kinser." The sentence says in effect, "those four words are what I'm saying.")

My rephrasing makes it clearer, and admittedly the wording he used was clumsy, but it was nonetheless a complete sentence. It reads like it needs more, so that we know what about Vandal let alone Kinser is being said, but grammatically it doesn't need more.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I thought you were going to be busy tonight Eric. Somehow you always seem to make time to argue with me though.

Funny how that is! Of course, I had to go after that last one.

Oh my god. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? If someone is meditating, and they are doing so while their brain activity is being measured by some sort of contraption, then the brain is doing something. In this case it is meditating, because that is what the person meditating is using their brain for.

"Using their brain for." I have no problem with that phrase; that's just what I was saying.

Bullshit. Physics is under the purview of science. It is subject to science and science's processes. Mysticism is not subject to anything. There is no consensus amongst mystics what consciousness even is let alone the reality of it. At most you can get a collection of new agers to all agree "we are all one" or some other vague platitude. That's hardly the same as the theory of gravity.

There's quite an elaborate subject matter that people such as Tibetan Buddhists have gathered from their meditations. There is the consensus called the perennial philosophy too, in all traditions. As Joseph Campbell said, the path to mystic realization is "thoroughly known." It is not vague at all. That doesn't mean that you and Brian are going to buy all the stuff that I say; there's also original ideas from people in these fields that may not be widely shared.

One thing that comes to me, is that in order to do science, and respect the knowledge and benefits it gives, you don't need to be an atheist. You don't have to believe in astrology, or knock, bash or debunk astrology either. You don't have to believe in spooks, or NOT believe in spooks. You don't have to believe in OR knock the "new age." You don't have to attack people who support and accept these things, and you don't have to debunk those subjects, in order to do science.

So why do you do it? It seems to me more like an ego gratification by putting others down, or a resentment against boomers or your parents or something like that. Myself, I have had some resentments against science and the older generation that venerated it. But I realize that it is perfectly valid for what it is; it's a way of looking at what follows from what, according to certain formulas, and how to make the world work for us in certain ways. I don't have to knock science in order to study and practice my woo-woo. I have evidence and experience enough to convince me, and it has value enough to know and study it. I am open to what the evidence says, and to what works. I don't believe what some preacher says or what some salesman promises me. I judge for myself. I don't have to believe in a philosophy that rejects "new age woo-woo." That serves no purpose as far as I can see, for myself or anyone else. I don't have to reject woo-woo in order to study science.

I ... don't assume to have learned anything other than I can reach a state without conscious rational or emotional thought through meditative practices. The expression that there is no spiritual aspect to be enlightened about is an extrapolation from the absence of a spirit.

Fine, I hope you derive some benefit and insight from your meditation. Remember though I don't refer so much to "a spirit" but to the spirit, or just to the being that I am. I may meet a spirit, or I may not; it's irrelevant.

Well any person in their 60s who likes Justin Bieber is instantaneously creepy Eric. His crappy bubble gum pop is packaged for teenage girls. So an older man who likes that stuff either likes it because he has a boy crush on Bieber himself, is mentally unbalanced, or deaf.

Also Smashing Pumpkins is grunge not metal. The musical structure is not even close to metal.

I just found that I was able to appreciate his music, not having the prejudice against music by teenagers. When you're 60 years old, it doesn't matter so much if you appear creepy in others' eyes, just because one honestly enjoys good music by a teenager. I don't like grunge either; usually I find 3T music boring or assaulting to my sensibilities. It just wasn't my era I guess. But there's always exceptions to every rule. Your attitude does not inspire me to give them a listen right now though; sorry. And the point of view you say they express does not inspire me either. Maybe some other time.

I don't particularly hate Justin Bieber, I am indifferent to him. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The strongest feelings I have about him or his "music" is that he's a no talent hack who is grossly over rated. But I can say that about a lot of 4T music. Seriously music has sucked since 1999 with perhaps the exception of Lady Gaga--but she's a rerun of Madonna.

You said someone who likes JB is "creepy" and that he is a "hack." That is not indifference; that is hate. I say the same as you say about post-1999 pop, about 3T music; and I think 4T pop music (that's 2009 onward, not 1999 onward) is only somewhat better, so far. But melody, rhythm and sound/counterpoint arrangements and good singing are coming back, and I like that. That's a good trend, and Bieber is leading it. All these things have been mostly absent from pop for 30 years. But we can discuss it on the appropriate threads if you want.

Can you experience the subjective reality of being a dog? No. Can you experience the subjective reality of being Kinser? No. Your subjective experience is limited to your subjective experience. You cannot observe consciousness because it cannot be observed. What you are doing is confusing consciousness itself with behaviors you associate with consciousness.

I experience the consciousness of others, because my consciousness is not in an isolated box. I am connected to all other beings, and there's no line between us. So I know I am spirit, you are spirit, and all are spirit. Spirit is the universe; there is no box called "me" in which "subjective experience" is locked away from its environment. There is no "creature" called God, and I am not an object like Jupiter.

I said science arose from a philosophical world view.

Right; from philosophy then. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is and remains very valuable. It is better to study that, than to study stuff just to make a living by making a lot of stuff people don't need, or convincing people to buy it. There is no shortage of the kinds of things mechanical engineering produces. There is a tremendous shortage of wisdom.

I didn't expect you to buy my claim. You have already found your truth and dogmatically defend it without regard to whether it is really true or not.

Materialism is not truth just because you claim it produces cars and computers.

Why? Because you say so? Sorry Eric that's not good enough for me. Notice the words I have used for my practice. "Sitting in oblivion". In short being absent of ego, being absent of rationality. Being completely and totally empty. Seems to me you need to study some Taoism. Though I find the Taoist explanations to be superstitious and hokey.

I don't want you for my teacher. It seems you empty yourself, but allow nothing to open up for you. But whatever is good enough for you, is your business, and not mine. I wish you success in finding your way, wherever it leads you.

One changes their brain every time they learn something, ingest a chemical or begin to think about a problem. The person changes their brain and their brain changes them as a reaction. No soul necessary. And any scientist that proposed a soul would be laughed out of the university they work for faster than Sherman went through Georgia.

The person changes their brain, and that person is a soul. It doesn't matter if some dogmatic science believers don't like the term. It is a meaningful enough term anyway.

I know they haven't been peer reviewed. Otherwise you'd linked to actual scientific journals. I think that the presence of the soul being detected by science would be some pretty big news myself. But nope no big news, not even a mention of X professor being laughed at by a review board. So no these are not peer reviewed.

They are also not science either.

I'm still waiting on that prayer double blind study.

The study you propose is meaningless and irrelevant. The studies linked in this thread referred to scientific studies by scientists. That's good enough for anyone except a dogmatic believer. Souls don't need to be detected by science. No science can be conducted except by souls.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, that's incorrect. The sentence as he stated it was a complete sentence.

Subject: I

Verb: Am saying

Object: Vandal, let alone Kinser. (The exact meaning here is not two individuals but four words: "Vandal, let alone Kinser." The sentence says in effect, "those four words are what I'm saying.")

My rephrasing makes it clearer, and admittedly the wording he used was clumsy, but it was nonetheless a complete sentence. It reads like it needs more, so that we know what about Vandal let alone Kinser is being said, but grammatically it doesn't need more.

ok. I see what you are getting at now.

Of, course it now makes the rest of his paragraph nonsensical.

Yep. As writing, it sucks. All I'm saying is that it was grammatically sound. You can say all kinds of stupid things with good grammar. English is funny that way.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You wrote a sentence fragment, not a sentence.

Did you watch the PSA?

Originally Posted by Eric

"Using their brain for." I have no problem with that phrase; that's just what I was saying.

Not quite. The brain is a part of the body, it is inseparable from the consciousness of the person who is using that particular organ. One says their heart is beating, not that they themselves are beating.

One thing that comes to me, is that in order to do science, and respect the knowledge and benefits it gives, you don't need to be an atheist.

Irrelevant.

You don't have to believe in astrology, or knock, bash or debunk astrology either. You don't have to believe in spooks, or NOT believe in spooks. You don't have to believe in OR knock the "new age." You don't have to attack people who support and accept these things, and you don't have to debunk those subjects, in order to do science.

Never said one did either. However, I find it useful to debunk all these things when one passes off mysticism as science. The two are not related.

So why do you do it? It seems to me more like an ego gratification by putting others down, or a resentment against boomers or your parents or something like that. Myself, I have had some resentments against science and the older generation that venerated it.

I know exactly why I do it. I point out bullshit when I see it. That you are a Boomer is just a happy coincidence. Trust me I'd treat your mysticism the same way if you were a Silent or a GI or a Xer or even a Millie.


That said, I do find it telling that you admit that you do have resentments against science and against the generations that venerated it. Namely in this case the GIs.

I don't have to knock science in order to study and practice my woo-woo

True but you do try to shit on science every chance you get. Even when you are not expressly shitting on science you are trying to pass off mysticism as science. When woo-woo doctors do this they should expect those who view science as intrinsically more valuable than any mysticism to counter.

I have evidence and experience enough to convince me, and it has value enough to know and study it.

I can say the same thing but my conclusion is that it has no value in being studied.

I don't believe what some preacher says or what some salesman promises me.

And for the most part mystics come in two forms when they discuss mysticism. They are either preachers or they are salesmen. If what one has to offer is enlightenment why are their price tags in power and money attached to it?

I judge for myself. I don't have to believe in a philosophy that rejects "new age woo-woo." That serves no purpose as far as I can see, for myself or anyone else. I don't have to reject woo-woo in order to study science.

And I judge for myself too. I don't have to believe in a philosophy which has as its ultimate expression the rejection of reality. I have rejected it because it was weighed in the balance and found wanting.


Also I don't need to accept woo-woo to study science either. However, not accepting it make science my first go-to source of knowledge.

Fine, I hope you derive some benefit and insight from your meditation.

Good because I have found insight and benefit from my practice. Major benefits are stress releif (and its cheaper than drugs) and not forgetting things like where I parked my car.

Remember though I don't refer so much to "a spirit" but to the spirit, or just to the being that I am. I may meet a spirit, or I may not; it's irrelevant.

Why not use the word consciousness since that is the word we agree on. Unless of course you are trying to blatantly steal from the New Testament.


There is not now, nor ever will be, any empirical evidence for anything that anyone has called a spirit—including consciousness itself.

I just found that I was able to appreciate his music, not having the prejudice against music by teenagers.

Bieber being a teenager has nothing to do with it really. If he was playing a “neo-grunge”, or hip hop (both of which he doesn't have the look or voice for) I might be able to tolerate his production.

When you're 60 years old, it doesn't matter so much if you appear creepy in others' eyes,

It should. 4Ts are a time for witch hunts.

just because one honestly enjoys good music by a teenager.

What Bieber produces is barely music, much less good music.

I don't like grunge either; usually I find 3T music boring or assaulting to my sensibilities. It just wasn't my era I guess. But there's always exceptions to every rule. Your attitude does not inspire me to give them a listen right now though; sorry. And the point of view you say they express does not inspire me either. Maybe some other time.

I didn't ask you to like it, or to be inspired by it. I asked you to listen to it; which requires neither liking or receiving inspiration.


I find 4T music to be sugary bubblegum pop which just leaves me feeling ill, or commercial hip-hop which is as tasteless as white bread (which incidentally is who it is produced for). I do like some 2T music though. Though while I like John Lennon individually, the Beatles as a group leave me cold.


However, that is just generally I do happen to like Lady Gaga—mostly because she is a rerun of Madonna. And I also have a rather extensive collection of dance music—though not dubstep, that may as well be white noise.

You said someone who likes JB is "creepy" and that he is a "hack." That is not indifference; that is hate.

First you are misrepresenting what I said. I said a 60 year old man liking that garbage is creepy. And it is. Also saying that Bieber is a hack is a statement of facts. His songs are almost universally terrible in music and the lyrics are juvanile.


And example of a critical reception of Bieber by people who do know something about actual music.


http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...6-eenie-meenie


As to that being hate...I think you are ascribing emotional states that are not present.

I say the same as you say about post-1999 pop, about 3T music; and I think 4T pop music (that's 2009 onward, not 1999 onward) is only somewhat better, so far.

This is a matter of taste. And there is no accounting for taste, or lack thereof.

But melody, rhythm and sound/counterpoint arrangements and good singing are coming back, and I like that. That's a good trend, and Bieber is leading it.

Actually I'm not seeing such a trend in music. And even if there were such a trend Bieber certainly isn't leading it. The kid can barely sing.

All these things have been mostly absent from pop for 30 years. But we can discuss it on the appropriate threads if you want.

I'm not going to post in your shrine thread. Other threads, perhaps.

I experience the consciousness of others, because my consciousness is not in an isolated box. I am connected to all other beings, and there's no line between us. So I know I am spirit, you are spirit, and all are spirit. Spirit is the universe; there is no box called "me" in which "subjective experience" is locked away from its environment. There is no "creature" called God, and I am not an object like Jupiter.

If that works for you great. However you are wrong. You cannot experience my subjective reality. If you could perhaps you can tell me why I hold the views that I do. So far you've not been able to do so. This would be a required test for both of us to share subjective experiences outside of posting on this forum.


The rest of that passage is meaningless word salad. I prefer my salads made with lettuce, or perhaps spring greens mix over words.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom

I'm familiar with Greek roots. One has to be familiar with Greek to understand the New Testament. One can love something without actually practicing it—which is what most philosophers do these days.


I think Mel Brooks said it best:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec

It is better to study that, than to study stuff just to make a living by making a lot of stuff people don't need, or convincing people to buy it.

We are going to have to disagree with that. Anyone can be a “bullshit artist” not everyone can design a bridge or a skyscraper. Making things is very important, without those things being made the material conditions for life as we know it are impossible.


I stand by my view that 1 engineer is worth 20 philosphers.

There is a tremendous shortage of wisdom.

Actually no there is and there isn't. Wisdom is nothing more and nothing less than the correct application of knowledge. The US does not produce enough doctors, or engineers, or technical specialists. We do have gobs and gobs of philosophers running around these days. It is a job description that literally has no qualifications. Any person with a blog can be a philosopher just by saying they are.

Materialism is not truth just because you claim it produces cars and computers.

You are confusing the concept of something being true and that truth resulting in an object. Materialism is the basis for knowing truth because it is the truth that we are material and the universe is material and it would exist regardless of whether we could consciously experience it or not.

I don't want you for my teacher.

Good cause I wasn't offering lessons.

The person changes their brain, and that person is a soul. It doesn't matter if some dogmatic science believers don't like the term. It is a meaningful enough term anyway.

If souls exist as phenomena then they can be measured, studied and are subject to science.


If they are not phenomena then Ockham's Razor dictates you are merely substituting the word 'soul' for the word 'consciousness'. Never mind that the term 'soul' is inherently loaded in ways that 'consciousness' is not.

The study you propose is meaningless and irrelevant.

Is it meaningless and irrelevant because this 'soul' you propose is a non-phenomenon, see my above statement about the use of the word.


Or is it meaningless and irrelevant because the outcome will be exactly as I predict? That is to say prayer will have no effect on the health of the person being prayed for.

The studies linked in this thread referred to scientific studies by scientists.

Oh really then where are the studies then?


The first link you posted 4 days ago:


“Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality”
by BARBARA BRADLEY HAGERTY


Provides no scientific study being conducted let alone any scientific data. The person she spoke with may indeed be a scientist but his opinion of spirituality or religion or prayer for that matter is irrelevant without data.


The second link same post: Only stated that LSD, Peyote and other chemicals (some of them human produced neurotransmitters) can produce “spiritual” experiences. This is not new. We have known that persons can take drugs to hallucinate for years. I would imagine that if one could consciously control the release of neurotransmitters that they could also use those to halucinate.


Still no data, no experiments nothing remotely looking like science.


The third link same post: Finally some science.


“That question led me to Michael Persinger's laboratory in Sudbury, Ontario. It's 6:30 on a Saturday evening, and Persinger, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University, has pasted eight electrodes on my scalp. He eases a modified motorcycle helmet with its own sensors onto my head. He calls it the "God helmet."


“The helmet is supposed to stimulate my right temporal lobe with weak magnetic fields, and create the illusion of God in my head. Well, not God exactly, but a sensed presence, a feeling that another being is in the room.”



It seems to me that this experiment proves that a hallucination can be induced through the use of magnetic fields. At most the scientists in that article merely say that “spiritual” explanations for things are “possible”.



That is hardly the proof you claim it to be.



The fourth link same post: No science, no data, just opinions.



The fifth link same post: “"This report provides absolutely no evidence for survival of any sort of consciousness outside the body during near-death experiences or any other such experiences," he says.” This is what an anesthesiologist, a type of Medical Doctor has to say about this woman's “spiritual experience”.



The article continues with some experiments regarding persons who have NEDs. That in an isolation chamber while being monitored they can reach a state similar to deep sleep or deep meditation. Spirituality is not required to meditate. I meditate and I'm not remotely spiritual.



The Huff post link from a few days ago: Its the opinion of the author. When he gets his medical degree I might consider what he has to say on the subject.



The University of Minnesota Link:



“"Surveys indicate that nearly 90% of patients with serious illness will engage in prayer for the alleviation of their suffering or disease" (Jonas, W. 2003). Among all forms of complementary medicine, prayer is the single most widely-practiced healing modality (Glazer, S. 2005). Prayer is the second most common method of pain management (after oral pain medication), and the most common non-drug method of pain management (Puchalski, C. 2004).”



Funny that they make no mention as to whether this 'treatment' (yes I'm using the term loosely) actually works or not. At most I can say that 'it does no harm'.



“Several studies correlate prayer with improved health and well being. "Patient spirituality and religiosity have been shown to be correlated with reduced morbidity and mortality, better physical and mental health, healthier lifestyles, fewer required health services, improved coping skills, enhanced wellbeing, reduced stress and illness prevention" (McCord, G. 2004)”



Correlation does not equal causation.



The following problems are present in the studies and are sufficent to state that those studies conducted are junk science if they are science at all.



“The following issues exist in studying prayer and healing. Some are true of most medical research and some are unique to prayer.

• Small sample size.
• Subject selection.
• Control group uncertainty.
• No common, agreed-upon methodology.
• Quantification of prayer.
• How can we tell whether a higher power is intervening?
• How do we measure God?”

That's good enough for anyone except a dogmatic believer.

Translation: I want to believe it therefore it is science despite not being very good science and anyone who doesn't want to believe it is a dogmatic narrow-minded twit.


Yes I understand that position quite clearly Eric. However the problem is you use the word dogmatic believer to describe my very ingrained skepticism of all things purported to be spiritual. I'm open to spiritual explanations if one is saying that they are phenomena then I want the science.


If on the other hand someone says they are non-phenomena these spiritual explanations are not subject to science. The difference is in approach.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Oh, for Pete's sake. In the first place it's not a sentence fragment, just a weird sentence that doesn't completely express his thought (but grammatically it is NOT a sentence fragment), and in the second place it should obviously be combined with the sentence following: "What I'm saying is Vandal, let alone Kinser, they weren't there, Eric."

Problem solved.

Rags thanks Brian Rush for fixing Rag's syntax errors. Rags will attempt to write posts that do not cause syntax errors in the Vandal 72 programming language.

Kinser, I read along with your responses to Eric and mostly find myself nodding. Just one thing to point out in all that long post:

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Correlation does not equal causation. [With respect to prayer working as a pain treatment.]

Consistent correlation together with a plausible mechanism of causation does equal causation; that is the only evidence we ever have that anything causes anything. For prayer relieving pain, I can offer two plausible mechanisms of causation, both of which I believe to actually be at work here to some degree.

1) Pain is to a degree controllable through mental effort, focus, and attitude; the conscious mind has the ability to reduce the experience of pain. Prayer has, or can have, a profound impact on the mental state of the person praying, and this might result in the reduction of pain.

2) Pain relief and other bodily effects can result in theory from an alteration of the probabilities associated with the indeterminate events in the nervous system and other bodily processes. Prayer, by creating an association between a desired result (improvement of health or relief of pain) and a powerful psychic object (God, or gods, or the cosmos, or whatever) can create improved likelihood of the desired result occurring, and of all "feeder" indeterminate events into the desired result occurring.

The first mechanism is or should be non-controversial, and that is really the only explanation needed if we are only talking about pain relief through prayer; the second is not required for that and I mention it only because nonetheless I believe it to be operative, due to other evidence arising from other forms of prayer.

That along with consistent correlation (for which we may or may not have evidence) should be sufficient to establish causation.

Okay Brian, now these are some worth points. I'll try to address them as succinctly as possible because the boyfriend wants to go to a club like half-an-hour ago.

Originally Posted by Brian

Consistent correlation together with a plausible mechanism of causation does equal causation; that is the only evidence we ever have that anything causes anything.

I would disagree on the verb “does” and substitute “may be” instead.


I'll use an example. Animals flee low laying areas before tsunamis happen. There is a distinct correlation between tsunamis and animals ignoring their rider's commands and heading toward higher ground.


Does the animals ignoring their human riders and fleeing to higher ground cause the tsunami? No. A earthquake or ground slide in the ocean causes the tsunami.


I would say at most a strong correlation would be an inducement to study the correlation to eliminate it as a cause. In the case of tsunamis we can eliminate animals fleeing to higher ground as a cause because the animals in question, no matter how large, could ever cause such a large phenomenon. But an earthquake or landslide in the ocean can and there is just as strong if not stronger correlation.

For prayer relieving pain, I can offer two plausible mechanisms of causation, both of which I believe to actually be at work here to some degree.

1) Pain is to a degree controllable through mental effort, focus, and attitude; the conscious mind has the ability to reduce the experience of pain. Prayer has, or can have, a profound impact on the mental state of the person praying, and this might result in the reduction of pain.

On an individual level sure. When I was about 27 I severely injured my right knee and required surgery. The doctors wanted to put me on darvocet. I won't touch darvocet, my late step-father was addicted to opiates and darvocet contains an opiate.


I used the meditative techniques that I've described, perhaps poorly, to not feel that pain. If pain is the conscious experience of having an injury then not being conscious of being conscious would prevent the experience of pain.


I was able to avoid using the darvocet entirely though I did require aspirin for pain control to be able to unfocus my mind and sit in oblivion.


My mother also for her day to day bodily aches and pains, she's 60 something now, does what she calls “self-hypnosis”. I'm not sure exactly what it is that she does but I suspect what she's doing is she's consciously choosing to not be conscious of those aches and pains.


As hokey as it may sound I remember several of my martial arts instructors telling me “pain is a state of mind”. So yes I would agree that this is a possible theory.

2) Pain relief and other bodily effects can result in theory from an alteration of the probabilities associated with the indeterminate events in the nervous system and other bodily processes. Prayer, by creating an association between a desired result (improvement of health or relief of pain) and a powerful psychic object (God, or gods, or the cosmos, or whatever) can create improved likelihood of the desired result occurring, and of all "feeder" indeterminate events into the desired result occurring.

In other words by focusing on a psychologically significant (or significant psychic, if you prefer) object (a god, the cosmos, etc) the consciousness can choose to turn off the conscious reception of pain signals to the brain.


Again I would say that is a plausible theory, but only on an individual basis.

The first mechanism is or should be non-controversial,

I don't think it really is or should be. As I said many martial arts instructors have told me that pain is a state of mind. It is only logical, in a common sense way, then that if one can control their state of mind then they can control pain through that state of mind.

and that is really the only explanation needed if we are only talking about pain relief through prayer;

In individuals doing the prayer (or meditation) sure.

the second is not required for that and I mention it only because nonetheless I believe it to be operative, due to other evidence arising from other forms of prayer.

I think I know what you mean, but I'm not quite sure. My experiences with meditation while focusing on anything is that I cannot achieve a trance-like state. And my experiences with using meditation to control pain lead me to believe that without reaching that trance-like state the pain cannot be managed.

That along with consistent correlation (for which we may or may not have evidence) should be sufficient to establish causation.

Perhaps, but I would still want to see experiments and data before I call it science. Which is what Eric is doing. At present I am willing to say—based on subjective experience—that it is true. But subjective experience and science do not mix.


Also I want to see double blind studies before anyone proposes prayer as a way to relieve pain in an other person. The reason being is because to say such a thing takes meditation (or prayer) from a personal and for lack of a better term mystical experience and turns it into a medical practice.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not quite. The brain is a part of the body, it is inseparable from the consciousness of the person who is using that particular organ. One says their heart is beating, not that they themselves are beating.

YOu sure like to take up space for your posts by leaving all that blank space and replying to every sentence I write.

Your second sentence I agree with. But for your third, I reply by quoting Plato, who said that you feel the pain in an injured finger with the center of your soul, not in your finger. It is indeed you that is beating your heart.

I find it useful to debunk all these things when one passes off mysticism as science. The two are not related.

You don't have to debunk what others believe in order to do science. It is not useful at all to debunk these things. It serves no purpose. These subjects are what they are, and are not passed off as other things. If they are studied scientifically, then that is science. But the experiences or subjects themselves are not science, and are no less valid for that.

I know exactly why I do it. I point out bullshit when I see it. That you are a Boomer is just a happy coincidence. Trust me I'd treat your mysticism the same way if you were a Silent or a GI or a Xer or even a Millie.

That said, I do find it telling that you admit that you do have resentments against science and against the generations that venerated it. Namely in this case the GIs.

And you don't find it telling that, unlike you, I can put my resentments aside.

You explained nothing about why you knock what others believe at all, other than knocking it again by calling it "bullshit." You don't explain anything, and you cannot explain anything.

When woo-woo doctors do this they should expect those who view science as intrinsically more valuable than any mysticism to counter.

Your intolerance and bigotry against those who think differently than you serves no purpose.

I can say the same thing but my conclusion is that it has no value in being studied.

Your narrow mindedness is your own choice.

And for the most part mystics come in two forms when they discuss mysticism. They are either preachers or they are salesmen. If what one has to offer is enlightenment why are their price tags in power and money attached to it?

You don't buy the stuff and neither do I, unless I actually find it worthwhile.

And I judge for myself too. I don't have to believe in a philosophy which has as its ultimate expression the rejection of reality. I have rejected it because it was weighed in the balance and found wanting.

You are unable to judge since you don't know reality.

Also I don't need to accept woo-woo to study science either. However, not accepting it make science my first go-to source of knowledge.

Science is the thing to go to for what science offers. Others also find value in non-science; for some things other subjects are the go-to source. It depends on the subject.

There is not now, nor ever will be, any empirical evidence for anything that anyone has called a spirit—including consciousness itself.

It is self-evident; it is the basis for any other evidence whatsoever. And there's plenty of empirical evidence of its presence and effect, but you won't see it because it conflicts with your religion. You are a fundamentalist of the worst sort.

Bieber being a teenager has nothing to do with it really. If he was playing a “neo-grunge”, or hip hop (both of which he doesn't have the look or voice for) I might be able to tolerate his production.

You and Rags should go off and listen to it then. To me, those two genres are anathema, just as you find teenage pop.

I didn't ask you to like it, or to be inspired by it. I asked you to listen to it; which requires neither liking or receiving inspiration.....

And example of a critical reception of Bieber by people who do know something about actual music.

All the reviews I saw of his music by actual reviewers was mostly positive. We don't share any cultural interests in common, based on what you have said, so for you to recommend something to me to listen to is an immediate turnoff. I would be repelled by what you recommend, and vice-versa, so forgit it. You know nothing about actual music, anymore than you know what reality is. You are a lost soul, until you demonstrate to me otherwise. There is always hope for lost souls.

If that works for you great. However you are wrong. You cannot experience my subjective reality. If you could perhaps you can tell me why I hold the views that I do. So far you've not been able to do so. This would be a required test for both of us to share subjective experiences outside of posting on this forum.

It is hard to experience you through a computer. Not really. I am not good enough yet to tune into you psychically, in an intimate way. I don't say I couldn't do it.

We are going to have to disagree with that....

Gee, that sounds familiar.

.... and I stand by my statement too. We have too many engineers, and not enough philosophers. That's why too many of your generation is hooked on your kind of philosophy.

You are confusing the concept of something being true and that truth resulting in an object. Materialism is the basis for knowing truth because it is the truth that we are material and the universe is material and it would exist regardless of whether we could consciously experience it or not.

In other words, truth is truth because it's the truth. Logic is one of your many weak points.

As for your misreading of those papers, I'll leave that as evidence that you refuse to accept any findings you disagree with, on any possible excuse. The fact that Brian agrees with you is not surprising. He is as closed-minded as you are.

Myself, I am just grateful that I am open enough to explore those topics. I am grateful for any information I can get on them, and for all I have learned. I am grateful for science too. It is necessary to look without prejudice at facts that can be demonstrated. My worldview encompasses all viewpoints. I recommend such an approach; not to you kinser, but to anyone who is open to a genuinely useful approach that leads to the full wealth of experience and learning which this life has to offer. It is a wonderful miracle to be alive, and I am thankful to the divine presence that I am, and that is the one power that creates and sustains me. It is great to be in a body and walk around, learn lessons, and experience wonderful music like Bieber and Mozart.

And I am grateful I can just turn off the nauseating hip hop and grunge and heavy metal, and not go there along with the loads of other junk in our culture, and hope someday more people will be sensitive to what is truly beautiful. Beauty is indeed all around us; Nature in its language and fashion produces symphonies, poetry in movement and beautiful songs, and doesn't produce grunge and nauseating noise. Many may not be able to hear it, but I sure can, and I love it. I am grateful I can distinguish between the garbage and the flowers. And I truly can; it is one of my gifts.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Did you watch the PSA?

Are you seriously asking a core Xer if he's seen a particular School House Rock episode?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Are you seriously asking a core Xer if he's seen a particular School House Rock episode?

Yeah, it's a sign of how disjointed things are for me:

1. Sesame Street was clearly after my time. My younger sisters watched it.
2. School House Rock was in sync with my time. I watched it.
3. CBS News with Walter Cronkite was my window to the outside world. There's nothing like having 'Nam over for supper.
The other items on the News were the Cuyahoga river fire. Rivers should not burn, but that one did. Well, that was interesting.
We watched the moon landing on wheeled in TeeVees.
4. I think the Banana Splits would be before your time. This is one reason why I call 1969 a "pivot year". This cartoon is obviously 2T.
5. I'd say the Hurculoids were more of a 1T type cartoon.

Correlation by itself is not causation. :

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Correlation by itself is not causation. :

Exactly. It's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In the case of animals fleeing the tsunami, we have consistent correlation but no plausible mechanism of causation, and so cannot reasonably conclude that the animals' behavior causes the tsunami. However, we probably DO have a causal relationship in the other direction, by some mechanism that has not been proposed (at least not in this discussion).

Originally Posted by Eric

YOu sure like to take up space for your posts by leaving all that blank space and replying to every sentence I write.

You also take up a lot of space responding to me, so what if I do?

I reply by quoting Plato, who said that you feel the pain in an injured finger with the center of your soul, not in your finger. It is indeed you that is beating your heart.

I would counter to Plato that consciousness or even a soul is not required to have a beating heart. One does not need the subjective experience of a biological process to have that biological process.

It is not useful at all to debunk these things. It serves no purpose. These subjects are what they are, and are not passed off as other things.

Eric, when you pass things off as science—which you do frequently. Those statements need to be debunked.

If they are studied scientifically, then that is science.

Consciousness itself cannot even be studied by science. At most you may be able to extrapolate a “spiritual” or “mystical” reasoning behind a scientifically explained physical process.

But the experiences or subjects themselves are not science, and are no less valid for that.

Never said that they were “less valid”. I'm agnostic atheist remember? I have my subjective experiences and that informs my views on the matter. My subjective experience is and remains that those who talk about spiritually all the time are full of shit, or after power or money.

And you don't find it telling that, unlike you, I can put my resentments aside.

Actually my anti-mysticism is not based on generational resentments. I won't deny having those resentments, because I do, but it is not based on those resentments. Rather it is based on the fact that spirituality outside of a personal subjective experience of consciousness itself is unknowable.

You explained nothing about why you knock what others believe at all, other than knocking it again by calling it "bullshit." You don't explain anything, and you cannot explain anything.

First, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic.


Second, persons claiming to know things they cannot possibly know are “bullshit artists”. The “art” they create is bullshit.

Your intolerance and bigotry against those who think differently than you serves no purpose.

It is hardly intolerant. If you didn't try and pass off your woo-woo as anything other than actual woo-woo I really wouldn't give two shits about it. However, you claim to possess knowledge of the unknowable which is made even worse when you try and pass it off as science; as the knowable.


If that is intolerance, so be it.

Your narrow mindedness is your own choice.

Yes it is. But I find this a good quote to live by:


“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins.

You don't buy the stuff and neither do I, unless I actually find it worthwhile.

So you do buy woo-woo related stuff then. I know for a fact you sell woo-woo related stuff.


“The book is also available at some major book stores and local metaphysical book stores for $19.95.”


Look familiar? Here's the website:


http://philosopherswheel.com/book.htm


Face it New Age woo-woo is a business. I know this, you know this.

You are unable to judge since you don't know reality.

Material Reality + Subjective Experience = Reality. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.

Science is the thing to go to for what science offers. Others also find value in non-science; for some things other subjects are the go-to source. It depends on the subject.

Wrong. Science is the go to source for the material world, the knowable. The unknowable cannot be known. There is no source for it.


As to consciousness it is the subjective experience of living one's life in the material world. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is self-evident;

I've yet to see a spirit give evidence for itself—even subjectively.

And there's plenty of empirical evidence of its presence and effect, but you won't see it because it conflicts with your religion. You are a fundamentalist of the worst sort.

I would like your statement covered in some sources please. Everyone knows a little sauce makes everything better.

All the reviews I saw of his music by actual reviewers was mostly positive.

Translation: The reviews I saw by the bought and paid for sycophants were mostly positive.


Todd obviously is not a bought and paid for sycophant. Though he does provide humanity a valuable service. He listens to terrible music so I don't have to.

You know nothing about actual music, anymore than you know what reality is.

I don't think you are qualified to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what actual music is. You listen to bubble gum pop after all. Arguably the worst genre of noise possible—excluding maybe dubstep which may as well be white noise.

You are a lost soul, until you demonstrate to me otherwise. There is always hope for lost souls.

Whatever.

It is hard to experience you through a computer. Not really. I am not good enough yet to tune into you psychically, in an intimate way. I don't say I couldn't do it.

My point is that you couldn't even if we were in the same room. My consciousness is MINE. Your consciousness is YOURS. We cannot share consciousnesses anymore than we can share bodies.

That's why too many of your generation is hooked on your kind of philosophy.

I wasn't aware philosophies were like drugs where one could get addicted to them. No many Xers are materialists because we are pragmatic.

In other words, truth is truth because it's the truth. Logic is one of your many weak points.

Well I'd rather be weak in logic than reading comprehension. Most people never even need to use logic but nearly everyone needs to understand what they read these days.


Let me restate what I said in small words and sentences so you can understand it.


The material world is real. Human beings are made of material things. Humans are real. Materialism is the view that the material world is real, and that the material world creates the subjective real of humans.


Substitute “ the subjective real” for “consciousness” and there you go. Seriously I can't dumb it down anymore than that. If you still don't understand then you are either incapable of understanding it or choosing to not understand it because it conflicts with your superstitions.

As for your misreading of those papers, I'll leave that as evidence that you refuse to accept any findings you disagree with, on any possible excuse

I didn't misread them. The data is either in an article or it is not in an article. The articles you presented provided no data. So I couldn't have misread them because there was nothing to misread.

The fact that Brian agrees with you is not surprising. He is as closed-minded as you are.

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Dawkins for a second time.


So it probably isn't surprising that Brian agrees with me. Our disagreements on consciousness seem very small actually. For example he is convinced that consciousness is the universe, whereas I'm convinced it is merely a part of the universe. Also I think we've argued over whether god(s) were a metaphor or a delusion.


And now to translate for others Eric's gasbaggery.

I am grateful for any information I can get on them,

Translation: I am grateful for any information that supports or can twist to support my preconceived positions.

I am grateful for science too.

Translation: I make a habit of posting things that are not science and claim that they are science in the hopes that smarter people won't call me out on it.

It is necessary to look without prejudice at facts that can be demonstrated.

Translation: It is necessary to taint everything including facts with prejudice against materialism and material reality.

My worldview encompasses all viewpoints.

Translation: My worldview is absolute and sacred, all who disagree with me are evil.

I recommend such an approach; not to you kinser, but to anyone who is open to a genuinely useful approach that leads to the full wealth of experience and learning which this life has to offer.

Translation: I recommend that all reject the knowledge available from an an understanding of the material world. There is only a spiritual world and all who even remotely entertain Kinser's notions that the material world is the only world is a child of Satan.

It is a wonderful miracle to be alive, and I am thankful to the divine presence that I am, and that is the one power that creates and sustains me.

Translation: I'm superior to everyone else because I'm spiritual and all those who reject my particular brand of spirituality and especially those who reject spirituality in general are subhuman.

It is great to be in a body and walk around, learn lessons, and experience wonderful music like Bieber and Mozart.

And I am grateful I can just turn off the nauseating hip hop and grunge and heavy metal, and not go there along with the loads of other junk in our culture, and hope someday more people will be sensitive to what is truly beautiful. Beauty is indeed all around us; Nature in its language and fashion produces symphonies, poetry in movement and beautiful songs, and doesn't produce grunge and nauseating noise. Many may not be able to hear it, but I sure can, and I love it. I am grateful I can distinguish between the garbage and the flowers. And I truly can; it is one of my gifts.

Translation: Obligatory fluff to make myself sound more important than I actually am.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You also take up a lot of space responding to me, so what if I do?

Obviously because you insert a lot of empty space between comments, and break them all up into sentences. Get it now?

Hint: most people will not read through such long and spacious posts.

I would counter to Plato that consciousness or even a soul is not required to have a beating heart. One does not need the subjective experience of a biological process to have that biological process.

You would counter incorrectly. Living processes are not mechanical, and so must be conscious. Consciousness is just a kind of energy; it is experienced. It is everywhere; there is nothing supernatural about it. But it can do things that materialists call supernatural.

Eric, when you pass things off as science—which you do frequently. Those statements need to be debunked.

I don't remember doing that. Woo-woo can be investigated scientifically. The science part is the investigation of it. What is investigated is just the subjects of phenomena/experiences themselves. Astrology for example can have some scientific elements but is not really a "science" in the usual sense. Religions can be called "sciences" but they are not really sciences as we understand the term. They can only be sciences if you broaden the definition of science to mean any kind of knowledge. There are other kinds of knowledge besides the science we know today. But that does not mean these other kinds of knowledge are the same as science. That may be your confusion. Being a dogmatist, you claim science is the only knowledge. It is not.

Never said that they were “less valid”. I'm agnostic atheist remember? I have my subjective experiences and that informs my views on the matter. My subjective experience is and remains that those who talk about spiritually all the time are full of shit, or after power or money.

You need to broaden your "experience" beyond resentment against boomers and elders. It does not serve you; it blinds you.

Actually my anti-mysticism is not based on generational resentments. I won't deny having those resentments, because I do, but it is not based on those resentments. Rather it is based on the fact that spirituality outside of a personal subjective experience of consciousness itself is unknowable.

Since that is false, no it must be based on your resentments. That's why you make that false conclusion.

It is hardly intolerant. If you didn't try and pass off your woo-woo as anything other than actual woo-woo I really wouldn't give two shits about it. However, you claim to possess knowledge of the unknowable which is made even worse when you try and pass it off as science; as the knowable.

It is indeed knowable, and science can investigate it, but not provide that kind of knowledge.

So you do buy woo-woo related stuff then. I know for a fact you sell woo-woo related stuff.

Sure, with the appropriate common sense buyer wariness.

Material Reality + Subjective Experience = Reality. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.

Yes, to you everything seems simple. But it's not. There is no material reality.

I would like your statement covered in some sources please. Everyone knows a little sauce makes everything better.

I already have, and I'm sure more will be coming forth.

Translation: The reviews I saw by the bought and paid for sycophants were mostly positive.

Debate over

My point is that you couldn't even if we were in the same room. My consciousness is MINE. Your consciousness is YOURS. We cannot share consciousnesses anymore than we can share bodies.

Show me a line between your body and the rest of the world. You can't. Your consciousness is not yours; it is God's.

I wasn't aware philosophies were like drugs where one could get addicted to them.

Absolutely they are. Exhibit A: YOU.

Let me restate what I said in small words and sentences so you can understand it.

The material world is real. Human beings are made of material things. Humans are real. Materialism is the view that the material world is real, and that the material world creates the subjective real of humans.

Substitute “ the subjective real” for “consciousness” and there you go.

There are no things. A thing is a think. Our language cuts the world into pieces. Only people locked in human-created worlds think there are such things as things. In Nature, everything depends on and flows into everything else, and there are no lines or boundaries, let alone any straight lines as you seem to think.

I know what materialism is. I agree that's what it is. I disagree with it. The reverse is the truth.

Nothing can be known to exist except that it is experienced in a mind of some kind. So consciousness is part of existence; in fact all of it. Consciousness is not limited to the "inside" of individuals, since there are no things. There is no cause for anything; the world is free and exists here and now. These are self-evident truths.

I certainly don't want you as my translator.

Originally Posted by Eric

Hint: most people will not read through such long and spacious posts.

I honestly don't think most people are reading our argument anyway. As to the spaces, that may be due to the fact that I write up my posts first in word processing software, or at least I usually do. So that may account for some extra spacing.

Consciousness is just a kind of energy;

I'm not bothering to quote your previous sentence because well you're wrong. You just are, get over it.


Anyway, if consciousness is an energy then it is a phenomenon and therefore subject to science. So how does one measure consciousness? What are the instruments used in detecting consciousness? What experiments or mathematical equations prove its existence?

it is experienced.

It is SUBJECTIVELY experienced. Subjective experience is not science and cannot mix with science. Subjective experience = oil, objective experiment (science) = water.

It is everywhere; there is nothing supernatural about it.

Strawman. I've never claimed that consciousness was supernatural. I said it was a non-phenomenon.

But it can do things that materialists call supernatural.

Strange, I'm a materialist and came to the conclusion that consciousness is completely natural. If the universe is composed of known phenomena and unknown phenomena and also non-phenomena it is completely and totally natural. There is nothing that is beyond nature in consciousness.


If a materialist calls consciousness supernatural it is because they are using a poor definition of natural or a poor definition of supernatural.

I don't remember doing that

Of course not. It is inconvenient.

Woo-woo can be investigated scientifically.

If the woo-woo is proposed as a phenomena then yes it can, indeed must be investigated scientifically.

What is investigated is just the subjects of phenomena/experiences themselves.

Indeed and that is where there is a problem with using science to study consciousness. Consciousness is not a phenomena. It is beyond the scope of science because when it comes to experience science is limited to objective experience. Specifically experiment and observation. Consciousness is a subjective experience and therefore cannot be observed.

Astrology for example can have some scientific elements but is not really a "science" in the usual sense.

Astrology is complete nonsense. It is as related to astronomy as alchemy is to chemistry.

Religions can be called "sciences" but they are not really sciences as we understand the term.

Religion is not science. Period.

They can only be sciences if you broaden the definition of science to mean any kind of knowledge.

If you broaden the definition of science to include religion then science and religion are both corrupted.

There are other kinds of knowledge besides the science we know today.

Strawman. I never claimed that there were not other forms of knowledge besides science. In fact I specifically named three: Logic/mathematics, Reason, and Subjective Experience (or consciousness).

But that does not mean these other kinds of knowledge are the same as science.

Of course they are not.

That may be your confusion. Being a dogmatist, you claim science is the only knowledge. It is not.

Not only is this a strawman it is also an ad hominem. I take it by not being able to argue my claim you are forced to make up some mental image of the claim and my person and attack that instead.

You need to broaden your "experience" beyond resentment against boomers and elders. It does not serve you; it blinds you.

I don't think you are qualified to tell me what my experience is. Nor from where my hard nosed materialism arises.

Since that is false, no it must be based on your resentments. That's why you make that false conclusion.

Translation: Since I, Eric, must make this about generational resentments I must make a claim that Kinser's views are based solely on generational resentments without actually understanding him, or his position or even what materialism is.

It is indeed knowable, and science can investigate it, but not provide that kind of knowledge.

The presence or non presence of any supernatural being is unknowable.

Sure, with the appropriate common sense buyer wariness.

If you say so. We obviously disagree on the issue so its a moot point. Though I did notice you didn't bother to attack my point about you selling woo-woo stuff. So woo-woo peddling remains a business.

Yes, to you everything seems simple. But it's not. There is no material reality.

Material reality is very real. Both objectively and subjectively. I personally think Philip K. Dick said it best:


“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

I already have, and I'm sure more will be coming forth.

I look forward to smashing them to bits.

Show me a line between your body and the rest of the world. You can't. Your consciousness is not yours; it is God's.

My body is in the world and of the world. Just as the Earth is and of the universe. There is no apparent line because both are parts of the universe. My consciousness however is mine and mine alone. I can share it with no one else, no one can share theirs with me.


As to god, show me evidence of his/her/its existence.

Absolutely they are. Exhibit A: YOU.

Utter nonsense. If anyone is addicted to a philosophy it is you Eric. Anyone who challenges what you view as truth is evil incarnate. I merely happen to be good at playing that role. Xers after all have been the “demon children” for a long time.

There are no things.

Evidence suggests that material things do in fact exist.

A thing is a think

Bullshit. If there is a stone in a field, but there is no human there to see the stone or ponder about the stone the stone is still there. Thinks are made from reflections of things.

In Nature, everything depends on and flows into everything else, and there are no lines or boundaries, let alone any straight lines as you seem to think.

First I made no claim about lines, or boundaries—let alone straight lines. So this line is a strawman.


Second, I couldn't even if I really wanted to. Cycles are present in nature and demonstrable through science. In fact every atom in my body was at one time in a star. Carl Sagan said we are all star stuff—he was right.

I know what materialism is. I agree that's what it is. I disagree with it. The reverse is the truth.

Then if you agree quit attempting, patheticly, to correct my positions on what materialism is. It is obvious that I'm correct on the definition.


As to truth, I disagree. Materialism is the truth.

Nothing can be known to exist except that it is experienced in a mind of some kind.

This is just a reformat of the tree falling in the woods question. We've already been over it. Physical phenomena happen without a mind being around to experience, observe, or whatever the phenomenon in question.

So consciousness is part of existence; in fact all of it.

We disagree, I feel no need to belabor the points further. You either don't get them or refuse to get them. The fact remains that consciousness is an individual non-phenomena. It is merely a part of the universe.

Consciousness is not limited to the "inside" of individuals,

Consciousness is the subjective experience of an individual. As such it must be limited the individual in question.

since there are no things.

I'm pretty sure that all those items which don't go away when you stop believing in their existance will disagree.

There is no cause for anything;

Science and subjective experience indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah, it's a sign of how disjointed things are for me:

1. Sesame Street was clearly after my time. My younger sisters watched it.

Definitely my time.

2. School House Rock was in sync with my time. I watched it.

Was still in use into the early/mid eighties.

3. CBS News with Walter Cronkite was my window to the outside world. There's nothing like having 'Nam over for supper.
The other items on the News were the Cuyahoga river fire. Rivers should not burn, but that one did. Well, that was interesting.
We watched the moon landing on wheeled in TeeVees.

Too early for me. My earliest news memory was the bicentennial coverage.

4. I think the Banana Splits would be before your time. This is one reason why I call 1969 a "pivot year". This cartoon is obviously 2T.

Too early for first run experience, but it was rerun in syndication through out the seventies on many local UHF channels.

5. I'd say the Hurculoids were more of a 1T type cartoon.

Same as the Banana Splits. I caught all the Herculoids episodes as a kid. Of course at that time I didn't understand what syndication was or how shows were rebroadcast for years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You would counter incorrectly. Living processes are not mechanical, and so must be conscious.

This statement is proof that Eric is immune to reason.

I find Eric constantly projecting his own preconceptions and strawmen about "materialism" and treating them as other people's own beliefs to be rather sad.