Betty:I've been away, but plan on putting some time aside for a return. Grant and Marlene: I would heed your perceived warring fares that I express some solipsistic affair with consciousness. I mentioned idealism before, and in this sense the awareness of an intersubjective reactive and participatory world, in other words, a collective consciousness shared between the whole world population, is what I'm addressing. It's not just my feelings, but the feelings of the whole. I never stated otherwise. - 1:50:42 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, BTW, You asked, "Where are all your materialists?" before. Depends on which you mean. Materialism ain't just a trait of atheists, hun. It stems back to Newton's idea that gravity was the will of God to hold the universe and together and guide it. Classical physicists as you may know depend on the assumptions of determinism the same way. Basically, the only difference between religious fundamentalists and atheist materialists is that the first says, a mysterious, undefinable, all-powerful "God works in mysterious ways". The latter says, "Random coincidences are responsible for the concrete laws of nature". Both are part and parcel of clever excuses wrapped up in a deterministic veil. Not one of them describes the structure behind the point-like particle existence they strike for. Materialism, determinism, fundamentalism, theism, all rest on the assumption of enternal immutable laws for their practices to be sustained. - 2:00:11 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, What do you mean by "Which cultures?" please? - 2:01:01 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Thank you for the info on the antibiotics. Amoxicillan is what Derri has been given so I sure hope the 10 day thing does the trick. Of course she is feeling better but it took until today for that to happen. I hope I'll have more time to post now that she's back on somewhat of a schedule. - 2:02:37 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- What cultures, then? I'm sure that question has been more clear than some of your's have been. Read back. - 2:04:25 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Grant - Determinism rules!:BETTY -- I double-dog dare you to clearly define materialism. Extra points for specificity. - 3:04:29 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- Do you and your hand coexist then? Does the chimp exhibit some degree of consciousness as a result of acquiring language or no? Is it acceptable for me to say we think in symbols and words are symbols or no? Are you and your hand linked? - 3:16:27 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/open: I was referring to 'funtions'and 'components' (your words) which have a connectedness/inter-relatedness. The mind, for example, DOES coexist with the brain (and yes is a component and function of). It does exert an influence on the brain. A persons conceptualizations, paradigms and view of reality is a VERY pervasive 'act' that continues to exert incredible influence on consciousness. It is 'acceptable' to say anything you want, free expression, you know. Betty's point regarding one group's need to vehemently defend a belief system reenforces my point about trading dogmas. Never spoke to the chimp. Linked is a vague word, and I grant you that it can have different meanings in different contexts, but that doesn't weaken the argument. If you don't think you and your hand are linked, cut it off and see if your pespective changes. - 4:35:58 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: 'kids don't try this at home' - 4:39:49 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Sorry, ROB, the last one about the linked hand was a futile stab at humor. - 4:42:55 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- Are you referring to some kind of group dogma, or individual dogmas? - 4:49:40 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: feudal stab at humerous bone? - 7:58:54 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Grant: Clearing the air -cough, cough:ROB -- I have some problems with your four numbered concerns about this discussion. Numbers one and two need some clarification. I'm assuming you are using 'dogma' to refer to beliefs presented as absolute truths? If there is some kind of collective dogma, which I don't think there is, it has to be an accidental average of the beliefs of those persons who happen to be active, doesn't it? If so, I'm afraid there is little to be done for it. Are you referring to anything in particular, such as evolution? If you are speaking of individual dogmatic thinking, I can only speak for myself. Most of my beliefs are in flux. There is too much I don't understand to have beliefs set in concrete, in fact I think that there is too much that everyone doesn't understand for anyone to have many beliefs set in concrete. What do I consider absolute truths? I believe the physical universe exists. Nobody has ever seriously challenged this here. I consider reason to be a far more accurate tool for determining truth than emotion, but this can be easily demonstrated at will. I believe that it is folly to believe things without direct evidence. This too can be demonstrated at will.. I believe politicians are scoundrels. That's about it for absolutes. If this is dogmatic then I can live with it. As to #3, "when someone disagrees it is assumed that they must not understand the point. After all, if they understood they would agree, right?", it's pretty easy to tell if someone understands or not. There is an obvious difference between understanding an opposing view and rejecting it and dismissing an opposing view simply because it is contrary to ones own beliefs. The dead giveaway is when a person doing the rejecting or dismissing is not directly speaking to what the statement in question is. In the current example, I said you were not understanding jaywilson. (Note: I have not stated that you do not understand what I am saying) If you go back and look at those posts you can see that you were not speaking directly to what he was saying. #4: " barbs can be given but not returned in kind..." Saying that some one is vague and evasive, or that an argument is muddled is not the same as name calling. Your taking jaywilson's acknowledgement that he was in the wrong and rubbing it in his face was not "returning barbs in kind". It was malicious and ugly. The rest of #4 I see as nonsequitur. - 14:31:21 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Bill...:Hi Guys, it's been awhile since I've posted here….i thought this board had ended shortly after the Spammer stuff, as I tried to call it up and got nothing? I've been very busy trying to get ready for early retirement, the first of the year, and getting my kids out of college. This was the main reason, along with the spamming stuff, that I quit posting. Of course, I'm still very busy till the end of the year, but just wanted to drop in and say HI. Maybe I will have more time to chat after the first of the year. What ever happened to Ron, James, PapaSam, and the gang?? Gotta go to work now…..see ya! - 18:47:23 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Cough cough Yawn yawn...:I can only speak for myself...Oh dear oh dear..... - 18:48:48 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- This board has been spammer free for months and months, maybe even over the year. Grant has that under control. I'm sure you'll find Betty interesting..arff! - 19:11:34 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW EVERYONE!!!!!! What book are we buying????? - 19:12:35 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob;:Grant: you'd probably have to ask Jaywilson if he took it as malicious and ugly and if he did, then I am sorry. As mentioned earlier, I meant no harm. As for Jay acknowledging he was wrong, I didn't get that at all from his posts, as I thought he was defending his view well and was steadfast in it. If someone calls you 'grasshopper', it is a playful way of trying to set the tone and its perfectly appropriate to reply to the one that would set themself up as sage. It was only sacasm traded for sarcasm that you must have missed in his post. The only other things I can find in retrospect are the 'you big dummy' (term of endearment) and not intended as a literal or attack mode, but I'll refrain from that tone if its misinterpreted. The last was a response to the self labelled 'no angel but ocasional pinhead', not sure what he was referring to,but the reply was no more than an attempt (evidently missed ) to link, sorry, tie together, a self label to the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' (associating his ARGUMENT with that kind of question). Jay is obviously bright and can produce a good argument. He doesn't need your sensitivities, I believe, although noble. I think YOU may have a blindspot to his sarcasms, would you have one roll over when opinion is stated as fact? To Jaywilson, I apologize for our discussion about you in this forum. Malicious? - 21:07:14 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: You don't see a contradiction in stating that on the one hand I don't understand what Jay is saying and yet concluding that I overdid it when he 'acknowlegement that he was wrong and rubbing it in his face'? Do you really think its possible to both: not have a clue what another person is saying AND produce the effect you claim of rubbing someone's face in it after they've acknowlegded the credibility of your argument. Those ARE mutually exclusive and, if your honest, you'd have to toss out one of your contradictory assumptions. - 21:18:17 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/open: groupthink is very likely, not unlikely, when people of like interests and attitudes gravitate towards the same theme site. I'm not intent on naming names or alienating anyone. I'm just suggesting that in the spirit of openness and the search for peoples opinions , we guard against a rush to judgement and hear out various views. I'm interested in reading one of Jay's recommendations, if I'm not required to agree with it. As for tone, I prefer it to be issue based not affect based. But we can do it either way. Which book do I need to pick up again? - 21:25:55 on 1 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I had read in the past there was close to a 2% difference in DNA between us and the chimps. Here is a quote I looked up to verify that: "In explaining the potential implications of the latest finding for HIV research, Dr. Hahn noted that chimps are 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans...".............BTW very good point you made "in the spirit of openness and the search for peoples opinions , we guard against a rush to judgement and hear out various views" Very well said! - 1:47:16 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:BOOKS, has anyone read the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long"? I had heard it was really good so have it on order, I can't wait to read it. I remember reading one quote from it years ago that regarded religion as a big scam. I am all for the "Lost in the Cosmos" book, but I don't remember what any of the other choices were! - 1:49:10 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I tend to agree with you, if ole JAYWILSON was taken back by such mickey mouse comments, I'd be surprised. JAYWILSON and I have had disagreements on a few things in the past and it hasn't been a big deal. Actually, if we all agreed here it would be a sorry kind of place. Grant, though, is a nicer kind of person than I am and has commented on my comments at times. I read Grants comments and may even agree that I'm being a bitch but it doesn't mean this leopard can or will change her spots, lol! - 1:49:47 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT does have a point though, one should not disagree with someone else unless we understand what that someone else believes. THAT being said, if that someone else doesn't make himself/herself/it's self (as we've had Carrie here too) clear then we may get the wrong impression on where they are coming from. I've asked JayWilson a few times, what IS a dog's atheism and I still have gotten an answer. Do I assume that Jay is an atheist or do I assume that he isn't. By reading his comments on other issues, I think it's safe to say he is, but do I understand why, Nooooooooo! I think it would be helpful to be clearer on what we are trying to communicate, non? - 1:57:37 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Shit ROB, what does it take to be understood? I don't have any concern for jaywilson's sensibilities. He's a big boy. You were complaing that "barbs can be given but not returned in kind". I said you were not returning barbs in kind. You don't know what I'm talking about? OK, it was ignorance rather than malice. You're off the hook. You post "You don't see a contradiction in stating that on the one hand I don't understand what Jay is saying and yet concluding that I overdid it when he 'acknowlegement that he was wrong and rubbing it in his face'? Do you really think its possible to both: not have a clue what another person is saying AND produce the effect you claim of rubbing someone's face in it after they've acknowlegded the credibility of your argument." Nobody acknowledged the credibility of your argument. Christ, there is no credibility to your argument. List the books you've read on consciousness lately, or are we getting your studied gut reaction? I post a long response to your criticisms of this site and all I get is this righteous indignation over a minor point at the end? You're as unfocused as Betty. - 3:12:26 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Probably shouldn't have posted at all. Been working long days and weekends and I'm tired and fucking cranky. Anybody want a fight? - 4:01:09 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Oh geez, I haven't explained materialism a hundred times yet. Silly me. Here's another crack: there is no reality other than matter in motion. The so-called permanent (unsplittable) atoms are the changless basis of the changing phenomena of the world. In other words, matter is Absolute Being. No other comments necessary as to referring to others' intellectual abilities. Oops. I did it again. - 7:35:17 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Oh yeah, the cultures. It's well known that Asian cultures traditionally as a minute example unite spiritual beliefs in concordance with their physical daily lives. I still get the whole Yin Yang thing mixed up, but this is what it refers to. In this technological age, even these cultures have adopted this imbalance. However, comparably the Western world has lost more control of the physical world with the enlarged materialistic world view. - 7:43:20 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Peter and/or Rob, The antithesis to an explanation of the world without consciousness? I've already explained the leading argument here among classical physicists and the new physics. That there is no solid explanation as to the basic construction of the physical world by itself. It's main proponents within it's own realm are point-like ingredients that float around and bump into each other occasionally to produce local events. In other words, there is no explanation as to the details of its construction, how form and order arrive from elementary particles alone, or where or how gravity fits in unconditionally. Pertaining to the latter, it's not nearly enough to assume that this attraction is simply a trait of the physical properties themselves; this is merely a metaphysical assumption only arrived upon years of seeking meaning and rationalizations in materialist and mechanistic views. After examining the nature of the "specifics" of the physical world itself, the more one can see them as streamless and arbitrary. It fits in with the old saying, "The more you learn, the less you know." You can immerse yourself into a world of numbers, objects, and elementary particles and ultimately determine your life and those around you as important only so long as what they can be reduced to. As you can see with Grant, I refuse to incessantly argue these esoteric, minute materialistic (yeah, I know, redundant [minute and esoteric and materialism], but what they heck) ramblings. (No offense Grant, just being objective here.) If there is something better as an explanation to the nature of our being here in a complete "structure" theory, then all those after-effect physical details simply make good hobbies to keep certain types busy in the meantime. - 7:45:32 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Going through my notes I found this quote, quite synchronistically (heh heh): "Matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habit to the point where the breaking up of those habits is very difficult." C.S. Peirce… which makes a good introduction here. The two most popular of what I call standard "structure" theories to date in the Western world are (1) religious fundamentalism (or even better, religious materialism and it's derivations), OR (2) atheistic materialism- which are both derivations of the Pythagorean and Platonic traditions -that the numbers and forms of nature either resemble a transcendent image of God's will, or are constituted of transcendent fixed mathematical laws, respectively. I've found it very interesting to note that many find it hard to believe that mechanism and materialism are descendants of Christian theology. But in order for our old friend Galileo to construct his mechanistic view, he had to elevate (just as the Judeo-Christian faiths elevated God above Aristotliean animism) numbers, magnitude, position, and motion to the status of absolutes, and therefore conclude that subjective perceptions of these fixed numbers outside a mathematical reference are illusions. All at once human perceptions, subjectivity, were removed from this view of reality. Which could lead one to assume that down the line the actual God theory became less necessary in this kind of science as an explanation beyond mathematics itself. The contradictions of fixed absolute laws within the physical world, however, transcendent or not, are that (1) they all breakdown at the point of the big bang. And if these laws breakdown at the beginning of the physical revolution, there's definitely something wrong with them as transcendant or inherently, absolute fixtures, and (2) evolutionary philosophy is in direct violation of fixed laws and determinism. So, the questions must be asked, Why must we assume transcendent fixed laws for it's construction? And then, How do physical elementary particles alone create form and function? Both are dead-end streets. Materialism and mechanism have no solid foundation themselves, and therefore hold no water. There's still a need to explain the fundamental particle properties and not just their relations in local events, but their functions holisticly. - 7:47:55 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:All this aside, we're left with 4 possible physical world-structure theories: (a) Religious Materialism, (b) Atheistic Materialism, (c)String Theory, and then the one I focus on, (d) Monistic Idealism (or consciousness) - as far as I have studied. I enjoy consciousness because it's a larger, more lively explanation for the foundation of the universe. This postulate reunites humankind as a participatory, but yet still small, reminder of the collective whole. It also incorporates the ability for creative new advances such as biological evolution without contradiction, unlike strict determinism. The consciousness monistic idealism accounts for evolution as a habit developed within nature by nature, as an example. Nature, or rather the universe, is entirely self contained. The rest of which, I've already addressed.-- I've skimmed a book or two on string theory and it seems great for explaining non-local relationships, and therefore holism with real meaning, but it still mostly sounds like an extension of materialism. Regardless, string theory is a great offense to staunch materialism. - 7:49:28 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:On Gravity- Newton was probably the first of the scientific persuasion to grasp holism, but I could be wrong. But it seems that Newton's universal law of gravitation was the very first scientific holistic vision. He produced a dual vision of changelessness - permanent matter in motion governed by permanent non-material laws. GRANT, btw, here is your dualism again on the cosmic scale: Physical reality and transcendant mathematical law: God's creation and the Mind of God, OR matter and transcendent order (or mind), either set in a perpetual paradoxical scrutiny. Anyway, Newton's original idea of gravity was that it was an expression of God's will. Later, I guess for convenience (i.e. Occam's Razor), it was assumed that gravity was just a natural element of matter. This still remains a metaphysical assumption/ forced rationalization over the years devoted materialists roamed this planet, only replacing the God theory with their own kind of convenience: "random coincidences" and a "fluctuation in a vacuum". I see it more likely to credit the universe itself as a transcendant creative entity, and matter as it's inherent secondary, malleable proponent. Matter changes, evolves, decomposes. The inherent nature of order and form we see and feel in the universe does not. - 7:51:45 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Well, thanks for the definition. I really didn't think you were willing to give up your usage of the word as a synonym for 'bogeyman'. I'm going to take a break from the discussion for a bit. I don't really have time for it, and I'm getting too testy and snide. But I'm going to go back over your posts and try to better understand your philosophy. I'm not being snide here, but your thinking is foreign to me and seems full of contradictions and without investigative rigor. Give me some time to try to get my meager brain around it and try to see it as you do. Ya'll be good. - 13:13:37 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:Hi Marlene, I guess you're the Queen (been here longer than anyone) of the board now. Is this "Rob" the same Rob that use to post here that was attending Oxford in England and majoring in Physics? I see Carl, Jwilson, Peter, and Joette are still around, but Ron and others have left. I am not familiar with Betty and Cristy though. I have thought of you guys from time-to-time but am pretty much focused on getting out of this electrical generating plant. We have to start up some older generating units tonight, maybe, and I may be working a double…..yuk! BTW, where is old RTL and Quake? I need to rub it in about the millennium and how all the electric power plants stayed on the line, ha! So Grant has control now….great! I always felt Grant was very judicious. Gotta go eat breakfast. I see what you mean about Betty….i can't seem to focus right now though and am not sure if I'm presently operating consciously, sub-consciously, or simple just simply semi-aware, ha! Good to talk to you again though! - 15:10:36 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Bill...:Marlene, I have a new respect for the north after travelling from Florida up to Alaska this past summer. We visited my niece in Anchorage and the scenery up there was just incredible. One excursion was driving to Valdez and staying in a Bed and Breakfast overnight. The next morning we put the car on a ferry and cruised to Whittier, then on a flat bed train ride, with us in the car, through two mountains on to Portage glacier. From there we drove back to Anchorage. The scenery driving through the mountains, coming into Valdez is almost indescribable. There were the huge glaciers that were squeezed between the mountains and silently fighting for their existence. There were melting ice streams running amongst glacier carved rocks with various sized white arches, made of ice and snow, positioned over these streams. I was so excited while taking pictures and thinking how great they would appear on film. Surrounding this one mountain stream, that we stopped at for pictures, were the specter like clouds that stood witness just feet from the ground in places. Standing just feet away from these clouds, some appeared more quiescent while others had a kind of evanescent quality. The rustling of melted ice water, amongst the streams numerous flat stepping-stones, became the catalyst for the flow of tranquil thoughts. This flowing water made an alluring presentation emanating from beneath melting ice arches….some of which you could step beneath upon the stones. This living nature seems to promote a very compelling sense of attention and identity. I suppose the challenge is to find our own quite places, wherever we may be, and to take the time to let the peaceful thoughts flow and the silent music play from within. Anyway, it made a big impression on me and I have a new respect for the North….i no longer envision you coming out of you igloo, ha! - 16:01:15 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: Your response again makes my point. ' List the books you've read on consciousness...', didn't I tell you you had to have a license to have an opinion here! (or at least a book of the month card). If I told you you were a snob ( while you call me ignorant and making no sense)would that be unfair, even if it appears to be true? YOUR WORDS, 'acknowledgemnet he was wrong and rubbing his face in it', doesn't sound at all like I didn't understand. I told you I wanted to apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings and prefered to discuss issues instead of trade insults. You evidently prefer to the latter. This may shock you, but some actually are capable of independent thought. Some search for truth and others have 'views to protect'. I can't have a discussion with anyone who doesn't acknowledge my right to a point a view (unless I've been indoctrinated by the appropriate reading list?). Don't care to fight either, I've got your number. - 18:28:31 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: If we have only a less than 2% DNA difference from the apes but a 3 1/2 to 7% difference from neanderthal man, then is it safe to assume that we were more likely to evolve from apes than ole' thick brow? - 18:50:42 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: At the risk of offending for my lack of attentiveness to the back and forth arguments...is there a concise way to express your argument for a cosmic consciousness. I feel compelled to offer the disclaimer that I'm not a physicist, but frankly the belief in a unified cosmic consciousness is conjecture and wishful thinking, IMO. - 19:01:59 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:QUEEN MARLENE, LOL we shall all bow to you, oh lady of forum longevity :-)................HOWDY BILL, I'm a relative newbie, a mere serf..................GRANT, maybe you should head over to RTL's site to get out a little aggression *bg*................ROB, that is why I question those numbers 3.5-7% that were reported, it doesn't jive with what I have learned. The Neanderthal should certainly be closer to us than the chimp or ape, our closest *living* relatives. Now he may be further genetically removed than others on our evolutionary path, indicating he was an offshoot rather than direct ancestor, but I don't see him as being THAT divergent (more than the chimps). It would be more telling if you read the actual scientific report (remember where they said it was published?) than the media's interpretation of it. Let me know if you come across it cause I'm curious. - 19:16:00 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: A report on the research is supposed to be in this month's 'Nature'. I have a foggy memory of seeing something somewhere (not exactly precise, I know) that reported man has a capacity for 1900-2100 cc brain, the 'apes' 700 cc or so, and the neanderthal, australopithicus or some such intermediate creature with a 1200-1400 cc cavity capacity. The report also made the point that the insertion point(for the spinal cord)for apes is very high on the back of the skull, the cro magnum types were halfway down and homo sapien man's is closer to the base of the skull ( indicating an upright gait , change in center of gravity,etc.) Your thoughts, is that accurate ? What about the coexistence of neanderthals and homo sapiens living side by side as some have suggested? - 21:48:06 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: I thought your 'going through my notes' post was very well stated. I will use the risky word here... agree. I agree with your perspective that numbers, science,etc., take on a life of their own and can be elevated to a 'god' status too easily. This is to the detriment of the intersection of the experience of the individual and the world. People need security in things, and when religion fails them, they tend to look for a new 'god' that won't let them down. Unfortunately , this 'faith' in the science (of the day) is empty, when science too lets them down, as new or contradictory data comes in. I also wanted to compliment you on how well you've held up to affronts here and have let them roll off. - 22:04:34 on 2 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I haven't much time but I think both you and Betty have a strange view of science which is actually the study of something. Science should always be changing, it's findings should never be set in stone. I also don't agree that "contradictory data" comes in. When using a proper method, most data is added to, refined, not contradicted. If there are contradictions, scientists are the first to acknowledge them. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents for now. - 0:51:12 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: science has been responsible for wonderful innovation, but nothing , including science,is an absolute 'good'. Here are just a few of the concerns with science: 1) the scientific method of research is used by some, misrepresented by some and people are misled into believing that research = fact (granted this is the human element , not true research, but that's my point). 2) the experimental method functions under the myth that it can both control all variables (but one key independant variable) and that it can 3) sift out any other potential influences as only spurious relationships 4)'tests prove' mentality gives people the false impression that all that is necessay to know, is known...potential for abuse and manipulation of the masses. The pharmaceutical industry is full of abused science. Findings (by researchers paid by the drug company's) are under tremendous pressure to have good findings. Negatives, if not too extreme, can be overlooked. The FDA approves drugs without doing ANY research on its own. Science , especially how you define it as a fluid and evolving process is generally good. 'Science' can be greatly abused in practice, however. - 1:21:57 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Agreed! More later. BTW did you watch Wonderland on ABC? I know I mistakenly posted NBC when suggesting it. If so, what did you think? - 2:22:50 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill...:Marlene, In reviewing some of the post here, I read where you said to Rob *** I read Grants comments and may even agree that I'm being a bitch but it doesn't mean this leopard can or will change her spots, lol! *** hahaha! This reminded me of something I read on the Internet once about Cats: 1. Cats do what they want, when they want. 2. They rarely listen to you. 3. They're totally unpredictable. 4. They whine when they are not happy. 5. When you want to play, they want to be left alone. 6. When you want to be alone, they want to play. 7. They expect you to cater to their every whim. 8. They're moody…Of course I could add a few lines here: 9. They're cunning and calculating. 10. They scare easily or worry about their security. 11. They hate cold water. 12. They can't remember the directions on how to get out of that tree they just climbed. 13. They leave their hair everywhere. 14. They drive you nuts! CONCLUSION: Cats are little, tiny women in cheap fur coats, hahahah! Dogs, on the other hand, are somewhat the opposite. I guess their size and muscle has something to do with it. They don't have to beat around the bush about their thoughts….just BUTT right in and make BOTH of them known….does it LOOK good….does it FEEL good…if so, IT MUST BE GOOD….hey let's play! Nothing complicated here! Dogs are very sharing and are never prejudice either….what's YOUR car tire is THEIR car tire….and they never met a crotch they didn't like either! There's nothing on a calculating and cunning level here to complicate things; you see they live for the moment. They never worry about the past or future or what the other animals think of them….and would never cover up their droppings (like a cat)….and may even be proud of them….why else would they drop in all the neighbors yards??? CONCLUSION: Dogs are just four-legged, drooling, over-heated, panting, ready for action, hairy little men with no dirty socks to drop in the living room to be proud of, ha! And if men were not related to dogs, why would both men and dogs be suspicious of the postman??? There's a popular book out once titled, "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus," but MY future book title will be, "Men are from Dogs and Women are from Cats, hahaha!" Sorry, you will have to buy my book to find out all the rest of those little furry tails…pun intended! Ok, I'll leave you alone now. - 13:24:00 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill....:JAYWILSON, Would a "dog's atheism" mean that you are suspicious of the postman??? : ~)! Also in several of your posts, in your comments to Rob, you basically say that **** Consciousness requires language--whether spoken, written, or otherwise symbolic. How can there be thought, or awareness, or consciousness, without language? This language does not 'enhance' consciousness; it _is_ consciousness. Describe Helen Keller's 'awareness' before she met Annie Sullivan. **** Of course the jellyfish is at the lower end of the scale having basically a sack of cell and nervous system. The jellyfish can neither see nor hear but is aware of the stimuli from its environment. Are you saying that this fish would not be aware of its environment, as there is no language? And like Hellen Keller, who could neither see nor hear, how would this fish be different from her? - 13:24:22 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:HI CRISTY, Glad to meet you! Where are you from and what is your occupation, if you don't mind me asking? - 13:24:47 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Yup! I guess I'm royalty! So everyone better take heed that I will banish them to RTL's chat page if they don't behave! Of course people who have been banished from RTL's like me will have special permission to stay, lol! - 15:27:06 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I believe you are speaking of BC when you talk about the Canadian north. There are no mountains or glaciers where I live. I live right on the western most edge of the Canadian Shield just east of Winnipeg about an hour. JayWilson travelled through last summer. I'm sure he'll tell you that Manitoba isn't exactly breath-taking, lol! On the cat post, I'm sure my cat Maggie will take great offence to the direction comment otherwise she figures you've got her pegged, lol! - 15:34:26 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Your point to ROB and BETTY of the simplicity of what science does "and" that it sets nothing in stone are why I'm waiting for something new from BETTY and even ROB. I see that BETTY digs into writer/thinkers of old, what for becomes the question. I found it surprising that BETTY did not already know that early religion was the beginning of science as we today know it. She mentions too the Newton gravity stuff, Newton wrote many many more views "for" the xian religion than he ever did for matters of contemporary science. These kinds of points make up my why, I wait for her to say what it is she seeks here. - 15:49:27 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:Hi CARL, Long time no talk, eh? You stated once **** Also, one's consciousness will include the matters of experience memory and time. **** I am wondering if there really is a clear moment in time when consciousness begins? Obviously we grow from a micro cellular state of existence into a macro human form state where we transform from nothingness into a conscious state of awareness. The actual moment of consciousness seems rather fuzzy to me but I would think that one would have to first state that we would be talking about a macro model of form and not some micro particle or cell type of observation. Going along with your statement and this macro model, I would agree with you and also think that there would be three areas of requirement for consciousness to exist: 1-AWARENESS or input or experience 2-MEMORY to store this input. 3-RATIONALIZATION or thought. Obviously, with this macro model, it would require a BRAIN. The first time experience was pulled from memory, and subsequent rational thought occurred, there would be this sense of MACRO IDENTITY (apart from the timeless micro mind state of existence) and the creation of TIME, as we know it, would have begun. Suddenly one could retrieve from memory a PAST experience and could therefore RATIONALIZE this experience and project one's actions into the FUTURE. A jellyfish is aware of its environment and can experience, but has no brain and therefore it lives in a present state of awareness and is not conscious. A fetus has a brain and nervous system that allows input and experience, but is in a Subconscious state of existence. Memory, it seems to me, would be the first instant (if I had to pick an instant) of consciousness of which THOUGHT, SENSE OF TIME, AND SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE closely following. - 16:42:49 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: since you are gonna be my first close encounter with royalty how do you wish to be addressed? Do you like the sounds of "your hi-ness[or is it you're hi-ness?], The Queen, Queen Marlene, or Queenie?" - 16:43:02 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

YHN Marlene:CARL- YOUR HIGH-NESS Marlene is acceptable. - 16:53:24 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, if I knew the answer to whether H. habilis and H. neanderthal lived side by side or not, I'd be having my own show on Nova! That is a big source of debate among the big names like Leakey and Johanson. I don't know if those numbers you quoted are accurate, but what you have stated makes sense. That is the type of info that has been used to try to classify the skeletons for ages, the new genetic testing is adding new twists and I hope they will complement each other nicely. I agree with MARLENE, that scientists are usually the first to acknowledge contradictory data and try figure it out (if it can be duplicated and supported) rather than try to hide or dismiss that which does not fit the "mold". Some have a basic mistrust of science because of the level of disagreement w/in the fields and because of the seemingly ever changing theories, but it is that adaptablility and willingness to consider new things that makes me trust it MORE than anything that will not accept any disagreements (like religion). - 18:38:57 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:BILL, I'm from Texas, deep in the heart of the bible belt! My "profession" currently would be stay-at-home-mom to 2 boys age 2 and 3 (nearly 4). Previously I was a lab tech for a USDA research center. What about you? You said you were about to retire? I LOVE your description of Alaska, I can't wait to be able to do some travelling around the US. LOL at the cats and dogs....so true!................CONSCIOUSNESS, you say memory could be the first instant (if you had to pick one) using as an example that a jellyfish w/ no brain lives in the present. But what about considering other mammals, which have very good memories? Would they be considered conscious by this definition? What would you (OPEN) consider the key(s) of consciousness that separates us from other higher mammals? I know JAYWILSON would say language, right? Any other opinions on what it IS? - 18:58:42 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:QUOTE OF THE DAY from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" by Robert Heinlein..."The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." - 19:01:26 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:BILL: Yes I put forward those ideas and added that speech and communication is but sound, a disturbance of air. CRISTY poses the question of consciousness in other animals and in view of what sound is and the nature of just the human organism as an example of knowing things via sound, other organisms must be consciousness also. Some human organisms assume that they're significant in some way or for some reason, it would be kinda neat to know how; I'd bet! - 19:16:46 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:CRISTY, That's a tough age to handle; my wife and I decided she should stay home till our two boys were in school…..it still didn't help, ha! Actually they turned out OK in the long run and are currently working as young engineers in Atlanta (Software and Mechanical). Concerning Alaska, I'm still reliving my memories of that trip. My very first outing in Anchorage was to visit Eagle River Park, near my nieces' house. Eagle River is characteristic of much of Alaska where all that remains of the Ice Age, and enormous glaciers hundreds of feet thick, is a small rustling stream nestled between massive hyperbolic -- glacier carved -- mountains. The life in the valley, of beaver dammed streams and colorful wild flowers, seemed so contrasted with the life-less, prodigious, snow-topped monolithic giants that stood guard over and cradle this natural delicacy, which was the product of tens of thousands of years. Yes, it seemed like such a privilege….just to stand in the fresh cool peaceful air at the valleys' bottom…..looking out and up at the vastness of it all…..pondering the mountains that looked so far, but yet felt so near…..and for a few special moments in time….to reflect on my own fragility and the awesome nature responsible for my own life's awaking! Yes, life felt good indeed! If you can make it there someday, I would highly recommend it. - 20:45:06 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:CRISTY/CARL, I don't see where humans are somehow separated from the ongoing evolutionary and organizational changes in nature…..we're not really separate from nature, we are nature and nature is us…..IMO. The only difference is that we have reached a more advanced stage of organization over many millions of years. Somewhere in our past evolutionary process, we have past through all these stages of organization (from the beginning of the universe….note that only particles existed in the Hot Big Bang Model and that cooling by expansion reduced the activity level to allow particle forces (gravity, etc.) to cause organization). We're all from the same STUFF! So with the macro model that I described concerning "consciousness," I would have to say YES, some animals have some consciousness; although like a newborn baby, they pretty much live in the present state awareness. Dogs, for example, have some memory and a limited sense of time. They know when you bring the bath water out that they are about to get bathed, if they have been through this process many times before. They seem to be able to conceptualize this future bath. They even dream and I've seen them bark and their legs twitch while sleeping and are probably remembering a cat they might have been chasing sometime in the past. Again there's 1-Experience, 2-Memory, 3-Thought, and subsequent 4-Symbolic communication (barking). However, I could be wrong and just barking up the wrong tree, ha! - 20:46:14 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/Cristy/open: Greetings to her highness of the great white north. Regarding science (since you asked Carl). All I am saying is that a very loose, lo-o-o-se characterization of science is it is THE knowledge, THE truth,THE authority, (yada, yada, yada). I'm all for scientific rigor, I think experimental design is necessary in the search for any truth. However, 'science' wields tremendous power with the masses and can be used to justify just about anything. As you know, I work in psychiatry (a suedo-science, at best) and the latest research produces a bandwagon approach that's a little scary. I rememeber, for example, sitting in undergrad classes (years ago) and seeing research report after report stating that boys and girls were 'blank slates' without interests and it was strictly the environment/parents that determined if the boy played with a toy gun or dollies. Kinda like saying cats and dogs are the same, if we didn't 'stereotype' them , eh Bill? Of course, you can argue that that wasn't 'science' (and thats my point), that science has an 'air' of correct-ness that doesn't account for human influence/error. Let a cardiologist tell you which dietary habits you should follow to reduce arteriosclerosis and see if the next one agrees. What about the standard five years ago, 25 years ago, they're all different, but each one was 'right' at the time....the slopes slippery off the hard science mountain. That said, it's still better than the alternative .... 'praying for a healing'. - 21:26:11 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: My kids know when they're going to get a bath too! You're not being dog-matic (that'd be cat-astrophic). Its not such a heavy bird-en to bear when you monkey around. (what the hell am I saying). - 21:44:39 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Paul Albertsen: For an imaginative and coherent numerological view of the Bible's inner-structure, see: www.geocities.com/zreunion - 22:14:26 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:BILL: Since you have been away and the helm is handled by a new guy, the new guy now gots delete capability! That is like bad news for the spam types. That seems to have the desirable results of better dialogue. I think the new handler can still execute spammer types, its been such a long time since we had such visitors here, - 22:16:23 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ANY; a numero"logical" view of the inner-structure of the bible? Will that mean the words which convey the assorted biblical accounts were not really the message? Hope PAUL does not mean to argue for the bible-codes, geez! - 22:21:07 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:PAUL- Do you mean the biblecode? or...just plain old-fashioned numerology? BTW, Welcome! - 22:26:31 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Paul:couldn't get the site, am I using the wrong numerology? - 23:25:40 on 3 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- The Pythagorian woo-woo of numerology (if you will) is definitely not a materialist idea. Of course materialists used previous records of the thinkers who happened to also be religious taking into consideration the time period. They arrived at different conclusions than the religious thinkers in the end. Materialists do not claim absolute laws but these laws do work in this universe, maybe they won't in others. The idea that idealism was the predecessor of materialism is unfounded and in fact way off track. The universe was here before both idealists and materialists and will likely be here long after we humans die off. It works just fine without consciousness, always has. - 1:04:58 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: Amen! er...right on. - 1:38:46 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I think maybe you are grouping the physical universe with our very human societal universe. The physical universe can be reduced and in doing so we get a better understanding of it. We may be a tiny part of the universe but the universe has no conscious, it's not aware of us. If we look at a social universe which is non-physical, yes we are important and no we can't be reduced socially. Physically we can be reduced to get a better understanding of how our bodies work, socially we can't because socially we are a whole. - 3:17:26 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Ahhhh! Plants would be from the same stuff too. Older than us, likely been there, done that. They have no consciousness that I've heard off. A tree wouldn't know if you were barking up it or pissing on it. - 3:23:02 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- And for any spammers to visit, it would be much too soon. I'm on a mailing list and it been invaded by a troll. It must be really annoying for people like Grant and the fellow in charge of the mailing list to have to delete these idiots. Really, you'd think these types would have more of a life than the desire to be a pimple on everyone's ass. - 3:30:34 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I suppose that would be the difference between actual science for the sake of science and junk science for the sake of money or fame or comfort. I think I recall a chapter in Sagan's _The Demon Haunted World_ on this subject - 3:34:54 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I loved the quote of the day. Here's another good one "You don't hear about 'alternative', 'holistic' muffler repair or 'alternative' civil engineers building 'holistic' bridges, so why do we accept these ridiculous non-standard approaches instead of solid science in medicine? -- Dr. Dean Edell (6/28/96) - 3:38:05 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, No, I'm afraid a tree can't make those "being pissed on" rationalizations, nor can it feel pain, ha! However, with a different model of observation (micro level), there would be a cellular type awareness (more basic than the jellyfish) of its environment and its clustered organization (it doesn't really know it's a tree) IMO. This micro awareness seems to communicate from cell to cell to allow this cluster formation to bend from shaded areas to sunny areas to receive the life-giving energy that it needs for survival. We do have inherent commonality though which would be "organization" and "survival" that seems to go all the way back to the very beginning of it all. Hey speaking of memory, stereotyping, consciousness, and animals, did you hear about the encounter between the naked man and the elephant? The elephant looked down at the naked man and said, "cute, but can you breath through it?" And the naked man said NO, but I can THINK with IT, hahaha!!!! - 14:49:53 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Bill....:MARLENE, Somehow I can't imagine you pissing on a tree……;-) - 15:43:47 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I read over a brief article of chat room cops! It looks like the future is here. Chat room cops, does that mean that somewhere there is gonna be a reference list of ok and not ok writing? Thought police, wow! who decides what one can think or convey? I thought that the controllers were going to invade how individuals and groups express concerns unique to them with the legislation of "Hate crimes". Amazing it is, to think and imagine that such acts began probably in determining who was gonna sit closest to the fire in a cave. Now 'they' want to exercise control as needed among people across the world. Is that a good thing? - 15:45:21 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, However, being a Queen the potential seems unlimited!!! - 15:47:13 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN00; To expand on the idea that sound is but a disturbance of the air, do the controllers mean to head off what they imagine could be detrimental to their well being? It is "their" well being that is a concern because the human organism will always, IMHO, form a society. The only real destabilising element of society, here I must ponder, is it the sounds the various human organisms utter? For example, religious adherents can't or don't handle the sound of 'atheism' very well. I as an atheist can't put up with the redundency of prayer and yap and chatter of myth and miracles. In view of such dynamics, chat cops do they mean to use the thought,"If knowledge is power, is power necessarily knowledge?" as spin for their presence? O'course the article I mentioned was about fraud on the I-net, but will it really end at that issue? - 16:32:07 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I see your point about science, now that you've explained it more, and it is a valid concern .......... PAUL, almost everything about the bible is imaginative! ............. MARLENE, LOL I was about to take my muffler in for a spiritual healing session. My SIL claims she can do this over the phone (w/ people, not mufflers). Convenient, eh? :-/ I especially laugh when she says she can spiritually guide people to greater family harmony with less anger, seeing as how she barely speaks to most of her family (me included). But this is a step up from that guy she was "following" that was predicting a huge flood about y2k that would submerge most of the US and the lost continent of Atlantis would resurface. The family members she *liked* had to watch his videos and everything. We only got the newsletter :-) According to this guy, many natural disasters he predicted were averted because of the prayers of his followers. Sound familiar? (didn't you post how to be a prophet). OOOOOOPS, sorry to digress into strange family goings-on. - 19:11:04 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: A good working definition of consciousness, for me, is an awareness of 'the self' in the environment. I'm with ya on the point that animals can have responses to environmental influences, but I'd have to say that whether or not you believe that animals have consciousness depends on how narrowly you define 'awareness of the self'. My conception of consciousness is a narrower defintion of awareness of the self,which necessitates a REFLECTION on thoughts and moods, attitudes processed toward the interaction with the environment, etc. Animals don't meet this stricter definition (except Lassie and Flipper). Therefore which do you disagree with, the tighter definition of consciousnes or that animals don't meet that criteria? - 22:20:10 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Carl:The thought police are already out there. They're the 'moral majority', the 'promise keepers', the staunchly conservative religious groups of ___________ (insert religion here), the teacher who said,' don't ask questions, just do what the book says,'. The parent who said 'don't question, just do what you're told.' The supervisor who said, 'that's just the way its done around here'. The people who are heavily invested in defending the 'truth' of the moment. The people who rely on the word of others to determine their own point of view, the people who would hold themselves up to be the source of universal truths because of their academic socialization. 'they must be right , they have ______________ (insert awe-inspiring credentials here.... have a PhD, MD, wrote a book,etc.) The people who are threatened by healthy skepticism and equate it with insurrection. Question anyone's motives who holds staunchly to any belief system that is ABOVE the right of critical review. - 22:39:21 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: Spammers, I thought they were 1944 Londoners. - 22:44:22 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: can your relative with heavenly connections beat the spread on Vegas bets? Why didn't any of these soothsayers predict the '99 Rams, that's what I want to know. You too can be a prophet if you follow these simple rules: 1) make the politicians appear'exacting and precise' by comparison. 2) remember that god always loves a good disaster. 3) use analogies, symbols, metaphors and innuendo, hey it worked for jesus. 4) be sure to include an end of the world prediction that is associated with commonly occurring 'signs'. 'When you see a change in weather, THIS is a sign. 5) Be sure to predict suffering for only those who don't think ...like you. 6) Fear is your friend, the only thing god loves more than fear... is a good disaster. 7) In picking rivals for armagaedon be sure that side is not called 'Packer backers'. 8) Rememeber that hate is your friend , the only thing god likes more than hate is fear... and a good disaster. - 23:03:17 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:Hi ROB, So are you the same ROB, that use to post here a year ago, that attended Oxford?? Concerning consciousness, I don't really have a problem with your definition of consciousness, as I see no definite line-in-the-sand, or specific point, as to when consciousness actually began in humans. This so-called "point of consciousness" probably came about so slowly that it might have taken several hundred, or thousand, years of microevolution. The words "consciousness" or "ego" or "secondary intelligence" or "awareness of self" are gross generalizations, or models if you will, of the micro world, that allow us to communicate on a macro level for the purposes of making some sense of things and thus help us to survive in our environments. To have a self-image one must be able to "think." Thinking of past and future events evolves "time creation" and "retrieval of stored experiences." Also in this fuzzy area would be as JAYWILSON suggest – "communication." So really the word "consciousness" is somewhat subjective, as is self-image, and I would have to say that I disagree with the tighter definition of consciousness. However, the books may disagree with me. I was merely looking at what steps would have to occur before consciousness could exist. - 23:38:11 on 4 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: No, I'm younger and brighter. Regarding your post...ditto.(I bet Rob didn't display such a command of language). Your refreshingly open perspective leaves nothing to disagree with. However, my guess from your posts is that you may give too much credit (for my bias') to the generalizations that can be extrapolated from the 'micro' world. - 0:07:07 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I think you may be thinking of Rob of the Roses. I don't know what happened to him but I think Joette may keep in touch..and maybe Grant. Then if you remember, the other Rob of the time was that horrible druid. When we didn't get off on his gothic he spammed us (and NO Rob, I don't think Rob the Druid was from England, lol). - 0:58:05 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:ROB, Actually, I feel very inadequate trying to rationalize the 'micro' world and that is why I took the looser definition of consciousness in my previous post as opposed to the stricter one of requiring "self-image." We can't SHORT those poor elephants with their excellent memories and, Oh yes, their LONG trunks…..;~). We men are such DOGS! Thanks for your comments, Rob. - 0:58:33 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Since having the little one, my greenhouse has been sorely ignored. I was considering energizing my poor half dead plants with those atoms that are going bump on this discussion. Maybe we can holistically bring them back to life. If only a hundred people would think of a dying plant then all other dying plants after that would flourish. - 1:02:38 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- BTW, I'm going to mail you a little later begging for advice on what to feed my fussy little girl here. Gotta go for now. - 1:05:14 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Rob:Bill: (on feeling trunk-ated), it's easy to have snout envy when we realize how little we know about the microcosms. - 4:25:09 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Maybe it was last week or so when BETTY mentioned the theory- I thought, of Neurophysiologic learning. She didn't follow through as I hoped she would, that would have been a discussion as BILL and ROB now badminton about; you kno'the birdie. Coupla neat ideas the advocates and students o'this theory oft refer to are the electrochemical and the neuralphysical I guess elements or components or maybe jiss stuff, of that particular learning process. Too bad we questioned her "stauchly held bs" which she apparently held "ABOVE the right of critical review"[thanks ROB]. If she was keen to matters of that theory it would have been a good ongoing topic and discussion. well k'sera. - 14:43:48 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:I FOUND MY BOOK! I know you all were on the edges of your seats *g*. It's called "The Ape That Spoke..Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind" by John McCrone. His conclusion seems to support JAYWILSON on consciousness: "...the human mind is only a few degrees different from an animal's and self-consciousness, memory, and higher emotions are all simple language-driven abilities which we pick up as children." He also gives some definitions that might be helpful in our discussion:...CONSCIOUSNESS , The sensation of being aware of the world around us........SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF-AWARENESS, the extra step of being aware of what is taking place inside our own heads. So going by these, most animals would be conscious, but self-conscious would be a human trait. I will have to read more to see if I agree with his conclusion on self-consciousness being language-driven. - 19:55:03 on 5 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..how sad! Maybe those hand-operated generators will go for cheap!:Here's the transcript of Bell's announcement on his April 1, 2000 broadcast: "In order that you all understand the gravity of the announcement I'm about to make, it's going to be necessary for me to repeat some very painful events that have occured to my family over the past several years. On May 16th of the year 1997, my son, Art Bell IV, was kidnapped, transported across state lines and raped by a substitute teacher from his own high school. The assailant was HIV positive. My son was a minor. He was only 16 years old at the time. The teacher involved was tried, convicted and is now serving a life sentence. My son though, as you might imagine, was sent into a psychological tailspin which continues to this very day. We are trying very very hard to help him recover and lead a more normal life. Some positive events have occurred toward that end and your prayers are welcome. Please keep them coming. While the police work and the trial of my son's assailant were underway, difficult as it was for me to continue my daily radio programs, I did so. Because my son was a minor at the time of the crime, the records were sealed, his name was not made public, something our society does to protect its own, its future, its young people. As our family was working through this trauma in private, an event beyond all bounds of decency and humanity occurred. On December 9th of 1997, just a few months after my son's ordeal, my own began. Ted Gunderson, a retired FBI agent, along with David Hinkson and the assistance of others, aired a broadcast which - incredibly, absolutely incredibly - accused me of committing the very same crime my son had suffered, child molestation. The program further stated that I had paid to cover up an indictment in Nye County, Nevada, my home. It further urged listeners to call me "on air" and ask if I had been indicted. Of course, these accusations were entirely false. But, never the less the calls poured into my open line unscreened program, asking if this was true. I had no choice but to block out all these calls and keep my silence for fear of my son's situation becoming public. This broadcast was made on WWCR, world wide shortwave radio, in Nashville, Tennessee. This station has been described by newpapers and civic minded organizations as one of the country's leading broadcasters of hate radio. The individuals, WWCR and its sister-station WNQM, have allowed to broadcast over the airwaves, include a man who wrote a book entitled "The Hitler We Loved And Why" and another man who stated over the airwaves that Jews are the children of Satan and that African-Americans are "mud people". In addition to broadcasting these proponents of hate and violence, this radio station has consciously decided not to spend money on a delay switch, not to conduct a careful background check of the people it places on the air and to allow individuals to say almost anything they want in foreign languages without having staff on duty who can even understand what they are saying. In my opinion, WWCR is one of the most irresponsible stations permitted to broadcast over the airwaves of this country. Now the fallout from that broadcast has been unbelievable. Besides the unrelenting accusatory calls, others repeated this false rumor as though it was fact, resulting in several related lawsuits. Many of you may have heard my defense played out on the airwaves and the Internet. No matter how hard I have tried to set the record straight, my torment and that of my family continues. Recently, a radio host in Toronto, Canada opened his morning show with the words "I am Art Bell and I molest little children". All of this sent me into a psychological tailspin. I felt I had been dealt a blow I might not recover from. Still I continued my nightly broadcasts as best I could. In October of 1998, my son came to a crisis point, a situation so critical that nothing but my full-time attention would help. So, on that fateful day, October 13th of 1998, I resigned on air with no intention of returning. But thanks to the efforts of my network, my best friend Alan Corbeth, Kraig Kitchin (CEO of Premiere Networks) and Randy Micheals [CEO of Clear Channel], I was able to return, but the pressure of having to defend myself against baseless, vile claims that I was a child molester eventually forced me to reduce my on air hours. Why the individuals behind the December 9, 1997 broadcast by WWCR decided to make such a patently false and harmful broadcast remains for the courts to decide. A major moment in this litigation is going to occur April 28th in Nashville, Tennessee. If justice prevails, a trial, perhaps a protracted one, may follow. It would be untrue for me to say this has not affected my air work, it has. It would be unfair to all of you, not to give you my full-time best. I can no longer do that. The reality that after suffering the fate of my son's own molestation, I now stand destined to be tainted for life as a child molester, has proven simply too much to bear. God knows, I have tried. For my son, I pray that somehow his wounds will heal, his mind's troubles fade into something of a normal life. For myself an ordeal looms ahead to clear my good name of accusations I committed a crime, committed against my own son. Nobody ever said life would be fair, only to be lived as the hand is dealt to you. For all the years of joy my work has provided, I want to thank all of you and whatever creative force allowed it. I have decided to retire from the broadcast business at the end of this month, my last show to be April 26, 2000. I will not do any media interviews on this subject. I have already said more than any private person would have said, a private world I now look forward to returning to. Any further questions should be addressed to my attorney Gerard Fox at the law firm of Fox, Siegler & Spillane in Los Angeles at (310) 229-9300." -- Art Bell - 1:38:34 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene: I hear the Vatican is trying out a new communion wafer. It's a bit thinner than the old one, and has half the calories and one-third the fat. It's called "I Can't Believe It's Not Christ! " - 2:33:32 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:There is this continuing misunderstanding as to the nature of consciousness as a collective universal entity, which is understandable. As Grant suggested, it's an entirely different way of looking at things. So I have no problem trying to repiece the puzzle here for some. --- Consciousness is a creative, free-willing guding force used to explain the "structure" behind the nature of the universe, not as the universe's own conceited awareness. Neither atheistic nor religious materialism at all or sufficiently explains a working structure to the universe, other than deciding that it's governed by some separately mysterious and/or supernatural elements, respectively. Monistic idealism once again credits the universe itself as a self-contained working organism solely and creatively responsible, self-maintaining entity. Consciousness is the underlying structure. We humans are evolutionary creatures, a direct product of this creativite entity. As small examples of the universe, we exhibit our own small, but influential, creative powers through communication and manipulation and a direct quality in the understanding of the world around us as individual causal entities. Consciousness is ONLY 'aware' of itself, in other words the 'self', on a human level. I've explained this 'self-reflexive' quality earlier as a small, but THE only self-aware capability of consciousness so far as we know at this time. As I've explained in detail, there is no unconditional basis for the causal elements of human (or self) consciousness to be traced to physical particles alone. Having no other proof for consciousness and no value or influence as a causal entity within a materialistic world-view, it is more likely to assume a different position. Consciousness has no other way of being aware of itself (reflexive) without the human form, precisely tuned as it is to act as an agent of sorts for it. The only way at this time to completely credit consciousness itself as a free-willing, creative entity is to settle that it must therefore be the motivating transcendent aspect of the physical world. Transcendent and superceding the physical laws as a directing agent, only 'self-aware' of itself in humans hands, and most importantly understood as the true reality of the universe. As opposed to atheistic or religious materialism, this monistic idealism (collective consciousness) is the most unconditional explanation. In this sense, idealism as the structure to the universe was here long before materialism. - 4:54:35 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, In response to your post, here is the Cliff Notes version. (Well, kinda!) The cosmic consciousness as a monistic idealism is the underlying structure to the physical world, and in general is the actual universe itself. Materialism, determinism, theism, etc. all deal heavily with explanations of what happens in the physical world, but are still very vague about "Why". Since the universe seems entirely self-contained, it's easy to eliminate the god theory as unnecessary and trivial. In materialism, elementary particles themselves are accused of inherently inspiring the universal gravitational attraction to each other, yet in mysteriously random coincidental ways to produce the fundamental unchanging laws of nature. Yes, random events and fundamental natural laws of nature are convinced to some to be synonomous. Monistic idealism, instead, replaces "random coincidence" with "a fundamentally creative universe". No other explanation is necessary in this model. In other words, creativity is a fundamental property of nature. The universe itself is creatively active. Evolutionary creatures, such as ourselves, can be credited as a result of inspired and direct consciously causal changes, instead of "randomness". The production of galaxies and stars and the like are universal self-contained expressed ideas. I know it may be hard to imagine the stuff in the universe as 'ideas', but I find it even more amazing that people would like to consider 15 billion years of spacetime to be merely a dumb-founded roulette wheel of chance. Too much is going on here, and there's enough observable order to the universe that it deserves a more reasonable label. And thanks for your compliments. I truly appreciate your honest inquiries. - 4:56:06 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Read a little more (if you will) on determinism. I think you mentioned you believed it yourself, but I may be mistaken. As you've addressed, materialism is a latter form of early religious thinkings. But let's be specific here, please. Materialism, the idea that unsplittable elementary particles in ever-changing combinations and movements are the basis of reality, is originally founded on determinism, a latter form of Platonic philosophy - meaning that there are transcendent mathematical and natural (yes! Absolute [unchanging]) laws that within the repeated conditions, the same results between particles will be produced. In other words, the elementary particles always stay the same. It's their movements together that provide for the illusion of change in the macro physical world. General relativity and classic physics are founded on these rigid guidelines. It was only by convenience, in the veil of Occam's Razor, that classical physicists rationalized that these guiding forces were instead (and had to be!) inherent traits of the physical world by itself - which remains merely a metaphysical postulate. Materialists had to assume, by their own contrived guidelines, that if only matter is real and an absolute reality then everything is traced back to matter alone. It's nothing more than a matter of convenience and settlement. I explained the history of materialism to give you a better idea of the rationalization involved to believe such a thing. - 4:57:51 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Also some things still seem unclear to you as I see it in your own posts. You've made a good analysis and the points are clear, but the fundamental concepts are still being avoided. --- "…maybe you are grouping the physical universe with our very human societal universe." ---"The physical universe can be reduced and in doing so we get a better understanding of it". ---There is only one universe here, at least that we exist and participate in. A solid unification of both consciousness and the physical world, not met by the physical world alone, is needed. This is the forced and often ignored duality of materialism. You have made clear that you do not consider yourself a strict materialist, but yet you associate "better understanding" with "reducing" - a clear trait of materialisms' doctrine that only elementary physical particles are real, and that this understanding is obtained through reductionism. If this is the case (and please state otherwise), (1) Where does your non-physical societal stuff logically fit in? (2) Is human societal stuff not real or not part of an importance because it can't be reduced? (3) How do you credit your individual self on the macro level as a valued member of society and also as nothing more than a "sack of cells" (as you would say) on the micro level? (4) Where and how can you claim a valid opinion on your behalf in so far as the random arbitrary combinations of elements that constitute you? (5) In other words, What would make the individual random combinations you call 'you' form a valuable argument at all? (6) Why would elementary particles feel so compassionately drawn to post an opinion? -- This line of questioning, I warn you, is not an offense. It's a direct way of making some important points. So maybe you can see now how only by uniting these two very real aspects of the same universe unconditionally will we be able to get any kind of better understanding. To discredit or diminish the value of either the societal or physical aspects would be a limitation on a grand world-view. Perhaps an understanding of the physical world is a beneficial tool for the daily events of life. However, in order to gain a larger, irreducible, perspective it's important to note the underlying processes or "structure" at work here. In the most literal sense, reducing things to their basic elements is a narrow-minded world view. Hope this furtherly clears things up. - 5:01:25 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Would you please email me at admin@man-made.net regarding archiving considerations and permission and such? Use an anonymous service such as Hotmail or Rocketmail if you wish. - 5:15:28 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just looked at some Hubble space pictures. At another site they contest how special and not special is the human organism. Sometime back I read and got a hold an article it seems was called "The Atheism of the Universe". Now here at this site is BETTY who flings and throws ideas/words of and for a-consciousness as if the ideas/words are. Free-will, determinism and other ditty's as Occams Razor. Of the last as far as I can tell that word has been turned around since the padre who composed it and who I am pretty sure meant and designed the word to be a pro-god tool of thought. I mention that for the simple point that words are not the thing and like the words attached to and describing those "Hubble-images", they mean but to simply appeal to one's senses. Hmm? is feeling really the all and thought, but a trifling issue? - 15:38:52 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..all the time I have for now:BETTY- "Monistic idealism once again credits the universe itself as a self-contained working organism solely and creatively responsible, self-maintaining entity. Consciousness is the underlying structure." Again, how do you "know" this? What evidence have you to offer. You then go on to say "Consciousness has no other way of being aware of itself (reflexive) without the human form," Again you are elevating humanity to having an effect on the universe, again, how do you "know" this. What evidence do you have to offer other than your's and a few others, subjective views? Which is likely the case for your next statement " Having no other proof for consciousness and no value or influence as a causal entity within a materialistic world-view, it is more likely to assume a different position". Again, most reputable scientists suggest that consciousness is a result of our bigger brains and there is evidence of this. IE An earthworm isn't conscious as we are conscious. Consciousness is not an entity but a part of an entity, it's not a thing or a being, it's only part of the thing or being. IE our heart is not an entity, our vision is not an entity etc. And this Betty, " Transcendent and superceding the physical laws as a directing agent, only 'self-aware' of itself in humans hands, and most importantly understood as the true reality of the universe. As opposed to atheistic or religious materialism, this monistic idealism (collective consciousness) is the most unconditional explanation. In this sense, idealism as the structure to the universe was here long before materialism." Again such a fantastic assertion of human signification with absolutely no documentation to support such a "unconditional explanation". Idealism/faith likely was the human explanation for things they couldn't quite understand in the beginning but as we've matured idealism and faith has been replaced with something more concrete, that reality is simply the result of matter interacting with matter, a materialist view a srongly hold. - 15:45:09 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:Last sentence was blotched, "a materialist view, I strongly hold". - 18:30:07 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Looks like you're onto the drift here, the "magic" of words used to work well, when just a few were the spin- masters. The hubble reference and that other discussion I mentioned always gives me reason to pause and reflect on a thing or two. Several weeks ago I suggested that the word and idea of consciousness might be a burden to thinking process. It seems almost as if some people take it in lieu of the word and idea of g-o-d. Like the word idea of g-o-d served the ancient and prehistoric, maybe consciousness is supposed to serve contemporary humans in about the same way? Also, I wonder if the archieves still have the dialogue of TONY the preacher\teacher? Recall how he was arguing for the idea that the all was just the mind of his god? I wonder how much of it parallels BETTY's particular spin for consciousness? - 18:41:19 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- "As you've addressed, materialism is a latter form of early religious thinkings." If my post sounded this way then I'm sorry I wrote it this way. It would be better when responding, to post just what I actually wrote like I have above. Materialism is not a latter form of religious thinking at all( in fact I think this is what you suggested). I said, that although "religious thinkers" may have discovered some basic physical laws and maybe attributed them to silly things like a conscious creator, materialists later attributed them to what they actually are matter interacting with matter. Please Betty, post that part of my post where I stated differently. - 18:49:47 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Likely the same drivel just attributed to something each feel is the explanation for everything there is. Of course we mere materialist thinking people can honestly say that we don't yet know the cause of all there is but we are working on it. It's rather like that old story about the race between the turtle and the hare. - 18:54:53 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- "is originally founded on determinism, a latter form of Platonic philosophy - meaning that there are transcendent mathematical and natural (yes! Absolute [unchanging]) laws that within the repeated conditions, the same results between particles will be produced." Platonists believed that everything is ultimately explained by universal forms and ideas or in other words the ideas of God or as you have suggested The Universe, definitately not materialist, is it? Materialists have no absolute laws they "rever" nor do they elevate mathematics as you've suggested. Mathematics is merely a tool. Math for instance allows for all kinds of things that aren't actually possible that we know of but then again it allows for things that are. Please Betty, I haven't tried to turn your words around, don't attempt to turn mine around. - 19:07:36 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- As to your explanation of materialism, I basically accept the materialist concept although I see you added a few of your own definitions there which I don't agree with. I'm not about to repost that. I think you know which words you've felt free to add. - 19:12:44 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- "A solid unification of both consciousness and the physical world, not met by the physical world alone, is needed" WHY? ....."You have made clear that you do not consider yourself a strict materialist, but yet you associate "better understanding" with "reducing" - a clear trait of materialisms' doctrine that only elementary physical particles are real, and that this understanding is obtained through reductionism. " YES Betty, I think I have said I agree with this but to put a label such as ism or ist seems ridiculous to me but if you want to go ahead and label me a materialist, go ahead. I don't feel the need to label you an idealist so I won't. - 19:19:20 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, that is very sad, is he in court for molestation charges or bringing the station or broadcasters to court for slander? Sounds like he'd have a case since it affected his ability to make a living. - 19:29:11 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:(1) Where does your non-physical societal stuff logically fit in? ...IMO there is nothing non-physical about our thoughts and needs as a society. We are social animals. We need this type of niche so to speak to survive. We've developed consciousness to survive. Consciousness is the result of our big brains used to recognize the world around us and those others around us as to what we need to do to survive as a species. The big brain is a property in a very narrow class of systems. It seems that only we and a few other animals need this trait to survive........(2)Is human societal stuff not real or not part of an importance because it can't be reduced?..I suppose the answer would be, can it be reduced? I think antropologists and other scientists are working on that now. There has been no sure fired answer to that question as of yet but if consciouness is a physical property, then it can be reduced. There is no need to jump to the conclusion that consciouness is a universal property only able to be expressed in words by humans....(3)How do you credit your individual self on the macro level as a valued member of society and also as nothing more than a "sack of cells" (as you would say) on the micro level? Again, am I actually on the macro level? I do many things that are socially acceptable in order to survive and some things that I've done may not be done in order to survive. I'll have a better answer for you when more study has been done on this. Meanwhile I won't jump to the conclusion that I'm on the macro level when evidence so far has shown that I'm just a sack of cells trying to survive.......(4) Where and how can you claim a valid opinion on your behalf in so far as the random arbitrary combinations of elements that constitute you? (5) In other words, What would make the individual random combinations you call 'you' form a valuable argument at all?.... IMO, because my DNA is unique and my enviroment is unique therefor allowing me to form different perspectives on the world around me. ...(6) Why would elementary particles feel so compassionately drawn to post an opinion?...This is such a idiotic compostition but if you prefer to say humans are elementary particles and defer from also saying that these elementary particles have evolved into a big brained organism that has developed the capablility of consciousness then that is your call. Because I'm conscious, I post an opinion. This former opinion of mine that the composition of your question is idiotic is my very real opinion. In fact, I think it's time that someone reminds you that your opinions are only yours. You go on to make fantastic claims and push those claims as some type of religious dogma. When one of us disagrees with these claims and rejects the dogma, you use very childish methods of trying to elevate your "knowledge and expertise" above that of the rest of us. Like one child saying to another child, I got an A in art and you got a B so I'm smarter than you meanwhile the other child may have gotten an A in math and the so-called smart one a D. - 20:03:11 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I think ole ART has seen the green!! If you stood to win absolute millions in a legal suit against this radio station wouldn't you say that they've ruined your proffesional life? Who knows if Art is telling the truth about his personal life but the one thing I do know, he stands to make a fortune off this legal suit. - 20:09:42 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: What other site is having the value of human life debate, if you don't mind my asking. - 20:38:57 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: I hope there's no hard feelings, I look forward to getting your opinion on things and don't mean to be an ass. - 20:40:32 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: would some consider your views .... MONASTIC idealism? I admire your ability to hang in there against overwhelming opposition here. That being said , I agree with Marlene...where's the proof of your view of a cosmic consciousness? - 21:06:04 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Don't take things so seriously here!!! Grant, IMO, is a really nice guy and never holds grudges. Everyone has a different way of communicating, if your way is more..how would we say..up front, like mine..so be it. Grant seems to be more of a patient guy. I think though it's good to actually read everyone's opinions even if you don't agree then post not only that you do and don't agree but why. I'm not saying you don't do that but some here do and they begin to sound like the religionists that have come here. When we ask them what they mean or why they use "god only knows". That's a real answer from one of those real christians. How are we to have a dicussion here if only two or three people are entering the discussion. Just because Betty posts to me doesn't mean you can't comment on her post or vice versa. It's actually quite fun when everyone becomes focused on an issue. - 21:16:19 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I was writing this suggesting a post to Betty and VOILA you were writing a post to her at the same time. Must be the "S" word, lol! - 21:19:06 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: lets try this for that other site where they discuss human worth - 21:24:26 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: That last post cut off when I went to reference back in the earlier entries. What I would add is that I agree with you that randomness is simply no explanation for the complexity of the universe. Explanations I have seen over the years, for the most part, seem to be incomplete, in that they will have a very strong aspect of the theory that is compelling and unfortunately ....also have a weak link, to me. You make a very good case for the view that there is a causality/ purpose/ intent that show deliberation and design. Where your argument breaks down is the belief that we have any clue to where this design originates. I am not sure that 'we live in a self contained universe and therefore the need for a god becomes trivial'. I am not confident that there is EITHER a universal connectedness OR discreet separate micro acts that, by happenstance, form an entire universe of chance interactions. Both seem incomplete. I think there WAS some sort of design that IS a self-perpetuating process currently in place. I'm still an old hippie at heart....god is dead! - 21:35:55 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: I guess you mind. At any rate, I'm certainly up for a challenge. Movies as life philosphy: I like the "Oh God"/ George Burn's philosophy of life's meaning:' is has not one bit more....not one bit less....than YOU think it has' (classic). - 21:55:16 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Isn't that a kid's site? - 22:15:49 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Yes, its that high school kids site. There are several other similar sites now on the net. I pay them all a visit just to give it data - 22:28:33 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: I have yet to see opposition as in maybe negative stuff directed at BETTY for the views she espouses. For my part I await something that tells me she is really on to something else. For example, I have read B.Russell's principles of mathematics, when I got through reading that book I figgered I'd read something else. That is what I mean that I await when I say I'm waiting. Another example concerns the religious xian's creator, as golly it would be nifty to live again after death. But I have yet to see anything that might be that creator thing. And so it is with BETTY's writing of the super-consciousness. Not opposition just where is it, or is it an it? - 22:43:01 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: if you don't think affect is involved in this process, you're in denial. My moods, like yours and others ....vary. I just mean to say that I don't want hard feelings when I think others are as sincere as I. You are upfront and I like that. Your minimization of defense mechanisms...isn't. - 23:26:59 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: Differing views ARE oposition, Carl. Not in the angry sense.... but opposition none-the-less. I'm just saying I admire Betty's ability to articulate a minority view... ever been in a minority? No opposition?? - 23:32:23 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- My "minimization of defense mechanisms...isn't", would you expand on that? - 23:49:46 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Then you also have to admire Adolf Hitler and many other people who dictate their views rather than discuss them? - 23:53:12 on 6 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Cut that minority crap! Almost everyone has been in a minority of some kind but special priviledges and special admiration is not just for minorities. Where minorities are not given equal treatment then that is something to worry about but this isn't Betty's case. Betty chooses to believe what she wants to believe. If she preaches this type of belief and expects others to accept it then she will get dished what she dishes out. If I went over to a New Age site and started talking, as she calls it, materialism, do you not think I would be in the minority, should I be admired for it..I don't think so. I chose to go there. - 0:01:38 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:No worries, Rob. - 2:44:46 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene:"minority crap!". 'Hitler'.....Gee, no affect there. Denial is common a defense mechanism, but I'm simply referring to intellectualization....the tendency to deny the emotional side of people or self because it is uncomfortable in some way. I don't have to agree with Betty to value the interchange. Her view absolutely is a minority view here and its O.K. to recognize that fact without being defensive about all the times any of us weren't treated fairly or decently when we were in a minority (displacement). I'm not accusing anyone of wronging her. Bringing anger onto someone else (projection) for other wrongs is a common occurrence also. I doubt that being a minority is not 'crap' to most of us, ....you wouldn't have reacted this way if it was to you. - 2:48:25 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- The science of psychology is lacking in many areas, one of them a encouragement of self-victimization. The self-victimization is crap, actually being a minority is unique and more interesting than being in the majority even thought it may have it's problems. Minorities rarely consider themselves one, it's the majority that consider them so and encourage the difference to become more apparent. If basic rights are removed from a minority then I'm on the bandwagon to prevent that from happening but otherwise, leave these people alone! Again, I'm part of a number of minorities and I'm not about to whine and I encourage my minority buddies to whine either. It's a matter of pride in being who you are not what other people(majorities) want you to be or expect you to be or feel sorry for your being - 3:06:49 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- BTW, if you're suggesting I'm in denial (yuck, another pop psychology word), you got that wrong. I'm quite capable and readily do express all my emotions. - 3:10:51 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Why wouldn't you admire Hitler, didn't he have a view the rest of the world disagreed with but hung in there anyway? He was a very skilled dictator, not giving an inch in his pledge to have the rest of the world see things as he did. - 3:15:31 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Those New Agers love to degrade materialism, but they are the spoiled rich brats of the financial world. These nouveau millionares and all.How many would take a vow of poverty, only the suckers for these new age religious cults. What a scam, you need money to live. - 3:17:13 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Where HAVE you been? From your comments, hanging around one of those New Age dating chats, lol! All these religious ideas, including the new age ones are created by someone who preys on the gullible for their money. If it isn't money it's some demented type of messiah complex where their followers rever them and are expected to do everything , maybe even die for them or so the followers believe, the ideals they teach. These latter types of follower are the ones I most worry about of course. IMO, they may not be rich but they are bored with what life has to offer. Too much work and no play, what better way to play than live a fantasy. Jimmy Jones, Heaven's Gate, Waco, the outfit from Quebec, and countless others have caused deaths but how about religions that deaden the brain, where reality is only what one's religion believes it to be in spite of the evidence to the contrary. These are just as worrisome. - 4:14:19 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: I still can't allow BETTY the distinction of someone doing something different or that she and I are in opposition. I choose not to chat directly with her because she has yet to present anything that- for me, has merit. If I comment on her presentation its as plucking or doing a tiddlewinks thing. But BETTY as opposition, not yet. Besides, I doubt that she wants to oppose anyone. And again, if she can show me what she's up to, cool! - 14:46:41 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Yesterday while looking around I peeked into a public library book sale. I'll be danged if I didn't spot books by Hume and Locke for sale! One was Locke's "the Social Contract" and the other a collection of essays by Hume. I was of course pleasantly surprised paid the $2.50 they asked for both and left. Outside the shop I grabbed a free book by Lenin on the emancipation of women, to add to things to be read. Later I began to wonder did they-the Berkeley Public library folk, really want to sell those books? If yes, are the public libraries taking a new direction and in a process of phasing in and out some kinds of books? - 16:52:55 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: We all use defense mechanisms and I was just elaborating on a couple of more common kinds. Of course there is alot of pop psychology, psycho-babble out there and you won't hear me championing the field as a whole. Its an art as much as it is a science. Everyone wants an algorythym to follow to make psychology more objective,its not practical when dealing with the subjectivity of humans. Defense mechanisms are NOT gobble-de-gook. We all rationalize, minimize, repress, displace, etc. various things that are too uncomfortable to deal with directly (granted some people more than others, and people open to the give and take debate of the meaning of life are even less inclined to mask thoughts, feelings, behaviors). Intellectualization is one of the most common in any type of debate wherin the person involved doesn't want to acknowledge an emotional investment that they really have, happens all the time. I'm not attributing any of those traits to you or anyone else. When I worked as a counselor, I dealt very heavily with abuse, neglect and trauma and the 'learned helplessness' of victimization. If a child, for example, is physically or sexually abused, especiallly over a long period of time, there is a very real set of coping mechanisms that occur because of the very real sense of powerlessness over their circumstance. A goal of therapy should be, IMO, to shine a big spotlight (in a safe environ) on all those learned helplessness traits (ie borderline personality traits)IN ORDER TO UNLEARN SELF DEFEATING ROLES, THEN LEARN SELF DETERMINATION, SELF CONTROL, MASTERY, TRUST,ASSERTIVENESS, etc. To deny where the person is at in the beginning only makes the individual feel ashamed and use the defense mechanisms (repression, suppression, etc.) MORE. So, the victim role, IS acknowledged at first, not reenforced, to validate and help the individual take control back over their life. Encouragement of victimization is NOT the goal for a good therapist, you're mistaken. - 17:40:14 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl and Rob, Actually Carl said it best. I don't consider any of this an opposition. At this point it's still mostly misunderstanding and lack of conceptualization. I feel I'm being dragged into these minute details, of which I enjoy detailing. But the details, like materialism praises, is the narrow-mindedness I was pointing out. In other words, I used the details within materialism to show their own arbitrary-ness. Stand back and yes, it seems arbitrary to argue for arbitrariness, but I'm only pointing out the problem. The cosmological search here is for a theory which completely describes everything, including the subjectivity we use to form our theories, and the underlying creative structure to the universe that we instill into our own lives - it's all part of the whole picture. To materialists, the structure of the universe is based on random, arbitrary combinations of pinball-like particles. These particles are strangely and mysteriously attracted to each other because of their own inherent nature (still an unproven assumption), a derivation of Platonisms' transcendent order in numbers. Materialism was not a poof-like revelation by any means. It's simply an absorption in the details as the meaning for the details. It stems from the idea of transcendent fixed mathematical laws, with the one contrived assumption listed above. Materialists further argue that their own random, arbitrary collection or "sack of cells" have merit in themselves. It's like a pinball arguing that it's choices are valid, completely ignoring that it was set in motion by a causal act not within itself. The foundation for any materialist is that they are based of random arbitrariness of events outside themselves, just like any other "unique" individual (heh heh). They're own subjectivity in this case is a forced illusion. They talk themselves and their opinions out of value with their own precepts. Matter is dead. It makes no choices. It has no value. To be constitued of matter alone means you have no value, no choices, and that your opinion is subsequently even more worthless. So my argument here is a conceptual one. How do we credit ourselves with valuable choices? On a small example, if we didn't think we have any affect on this world, we wouldn't bother wasting time posting our thoughts to a discussion board. And, How do the laws of physics arrive from random combinations? Like I've explained, matter has no inherent need to attract or act upon other matter. Rob said it best here, "I think there WAS some sort of design that IS a self-perpetuating process currently in place." That's universal consciousness. I've already explained this. Where do we go from here? - 19:12:35 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Just noted your message to your pahdner BETTY, about the 'random' idea. While that idea may seem like a heavy duty point, it strikes me as merely a spin point for those who seek or are advocates of the unnatural. Examples of the folk with penchants for the unnatural are the religious of course, and it seems some who nestle in the QM\QP stuff. The latter point- QM/QP stuff, I figure is something which at this time is very simply not understood. But, of the idea of randomness, it fits the views exemplified and, IMHO, conveniently removes them from being 100% responsible living organisms. A responsible view is that of the "non-random". I have seen this idea used by Burger in his book "Experience and Conceptual Activity" and Dawkin's in his book "The Selfish Gene" and Greenstein's book "The Symbiotic Universe" who use the idea of the non-random as a quality of life, be that what is may be, that just is. A random factor or any such idea can never result in order or life. Just something that came to me. - 19:15:48 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I agree with all you've said although there aren't a whole lot of good therapists out there. Many make money off keeping the patient dependent. There are also a lot of nutty doctors, like Mack for instance. - 19:44:55 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: you're absolutely right , the key is a good therapist. I was amazed (abhorred) at all the reasons people work in the helping professions. Generally speaking, it ain't to understand and help,, as much as it is to label and prescribe 'the standard treatment'. People are seen as diagnosis', not individuals. - 20:22:32 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/ open: How is our spinning top in a perpetual spin (or a death spiral, depending on your perspective) related to consciousness? What if the designing force packed it in long ago and moved to Tahiti? If the forces of nature were set on auto pilot long ago , how would we ever know? And if that's not the case and there is some sort of collective consciousness (as I understand it's use, a force outside our narrow existence that drives it all) then that would equate to a 'guardian angel' ready to intercede and rescue 'those wacky humans' in the nick of time. And if that were the case, then all the devastion in Africa, for example, or other horrible crises would be stopped , wouldn't they? How many people here believe that if global warming sent this planet into a death spin, we'd be saved by a collective consciousness that could/would? If you believe that , where's the proof of any positive intervention in the past? If you don't, then an outside force is nothing more than a giant 'ON' switch .......... - 20:35:25 on 7 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..a balogna sandwich anyone?:BETTY- Nowhere, obviously. When you choose to discuss one of your claims instead of just assert it is so without a iota of evidence of backing a that specific claim then maybe we'll get somewhere. Right now, all you're doing is preaching new age dogma. This is no different than a christian coming here and preaching christian dogma.(hee! hee!) - 0:51:21 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Well in Feburary I Hurt my foot on the ice and couldn't walk. Then I hurt my knee trying to walk with the bad foot. It took about a month before i could walk, let alone sit still, my knee kept on swelling up: very uncomfortable.I'm just catching up to things now. - 2:22:50 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I was reading "How We Believe: the search for god in an age of science." by Michael Shermer.He gives a very good study on why. But some arguments he has left out, such as Hawking and Nonsingularity.Certainly a must for religionists and freethinkers. - 2:33:13 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Ouch!!!!! When I was young (6) my knee got cut. I was a farm kid, and we were chasing pigs into another fenced area. One of the pigs got the barbed wire caught in it's hoof then when it passed me, the barbs cut my knee open, to the bone. In those days we didn't go to a doctor unless we were close to death. My parents slathered up the cut with the ole standby, Watkins salve (used the same thing on the cows BTW) and it eventually healed. I still have a scar from the middle of my knee to almost the back of my knee. Anyway from then on when I stepped the wrong way the bones would slip because my tendons weren't there. It still does once in a while. The pain is so awful, I have fainted from it and the swelling is also bad. I can sympathize!!!! - 2:37:45 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty:Why don't you give up your "materialist" computer and post by telepathy.Could you show me a mathematical formula that supports you assumptions. Betty, you are riding on the back of science with your slick pop interpretive science volcabulary that is so meaningless and void of communication. You sound like word salad. - 2:39:27 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Have you read anything by Vic Stenger? If so and you are interested in more of his stuff, email me. I haven't any of his books yet but I have read most of his papers. He also happens to be on a discussion I am on and he posts some of his interviews etc. I was going to order two of his books but since I've had my little grandbaby living with me, the money is needed for things for her so I'll have to wait. He's writing a new book and I'm looking forward to that one. - 2:43:44 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Word salad, what a good analogy! I've never heard that one. If you've ever read a new age book or other kooky books by just as kooky authors, example Zech Sitchin. They jump all over the place, never focused and make outrageous assumptions and conclusions with very little(usually a fringe theory) or no evidence to support them. Another trick they use is quote someone, then throw a few ideas in of their own and change the whole idea of those they are quoting actually meant. - 2:52:38 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene:Oh Yah, Victor Stenger he's great! Zech Sitchin is Velakovski's(spelling) heir, a kooks kook.Betty wants to reinvent the "soul" for the new age. It's so warm and cozy to believe in such fairy tales.Gee, they might have face reality and be responsible in this life. - 3:24:05 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You mention narrow-mindedness, but really to you it is only that trait in others which causes them to fail to agree with you. Have you considered anything anyone has pointed out to you? You are dismissing everything said to you only by saying things like it's too limiting, does not adequately deal with the spiritual, or is misunderstanding. You talk as if collective consciousness is an absolute fact obvious to any reasonable person. You don't qualify any of your statements as opinion, but state them as absolute truth. You are in no position to criticize others for narrow-mindedness. You say "The cosmological search here is for a theory which completely describes everything...", but any searching being done here is demonstrably not being done by you. Furthermore, a theory which completely descibes everything is pie in the sky. We don't have the requisite information or the capacity to process it, and never will, IMO. It's astonishing to me that rather than look at what is currently known about the brain and what we understand about consciousness based on repeatable experiment and observation, you are quite eager and willing to dismiss the whole world of science as off it's trolley and put your money on a completely unsubstantiated idea of an uncaused universal consciousness, which is so full of inconsistencies and unreasoned assumptions that any thought of examining specifics has you running screaming into the night. Anthropomorphism is so ingrained in your thinking about the world and the universe that you are completely unaware of it. The concept of looking at what exists without overlaying it with subjective human values simply does not exist for you, and as a result you are totally unable to understand what materialism is and what it implies. And yes, I know, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but it does not follow from this that anything goes. It is impossible to talk rationally with you about materialism, determinism, meaning, worth, or pretty much anything mentioned so far, because you refuse to face things as they are. I would like for you to understand what materialism implies. You don't have to accept it. Most people don't. I wish I could convince you that it would be in your best interest to understand it for what it is rather than see it merely as the antithesis to spirituality, but alas, I fear you are too narrow-minded. - 7:49:55 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Bill...:BETTY, I would like to chat with you some but am not sure if I have the time for a verbose discussion this weekend, as my whole family is coming over today to play. And playing is very important, you know! Maybe we can keep it simple and you can answer some of my questions. I scanned some of your post and I think I understand basically what you mean by "Religious and Atheists Materialism." Concerning this "Monistic Idealism" philosophy (ie cosmic consciousness), I think it's confusing to me to use words like "consciousness," in reference to the micro world, as I associate this word with a "brain" and a macro level concept. I have, in the past, thought like you and used this same term but now see this as a confusing concept to apply to the micro world. I could more easily relate to a universal "awareness" concept as it could be applied to the micro world and connectivity between particles as we know the universe is not separated by emptiness, but rather is connected by gravity particles, etc. So, if you will answer some of the following questions it would help me to understand where you are coming from: 1-How do you rate yourself, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = not sure at all and 10 = absolutely sure), as to your belief in "Monistic Idealism?" 2-With this philosophy, do you see 1+1=2 as being subjective? 3-Is "survival and organization" the only universal determinant associated with cosmic consciousness? 4-Do you see any universal paradoxes? And lastly, 5-How high is UP? - 14:13:02 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:And a couple more quick questions, before I leave to pick up my mother: 6-How would define "consciousness?" 7-At what point did consciousness occur in the early universe? - 14:42:27 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You are constantly charging bias in materialism. I'm willing to discuss materialism at length, but as no progress has been made so far, I think we should first take a step back and consider rationality itself, what bias is, what steps are possible to gaurd against it, and maybe what the limits of rationality may be. I'll wait for some feedback from you before charging ahead. Be you friend or be you foe? - 16:03:45 on 8 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:For all you skeptics....it takes a little time to download if you have a slower modem but it's interesting. - 1:44:20 on 9 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Well that's a new twist. - 2:24:47 on 9 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- I want to hear about the book you mentioned. Did it convince you that consciousness is connected to language, or that it isn't? - 17:15:45 on 9 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:GRANT, There's a good article in the May 2000 issue of Discover Magazine titled "Aping Culture." It leaves little doubt with me that Chimpanzees, and some other animals, aren't conscious. Research reveals more all the time about how alike humans and chimps are. This article says *** Chimpanzees speak in dialects, invent odd grooming styles, and drum better than most kids in marching bands, So what's left to separate them from us? *** I think only our arrogance would keep us from thinking otherwise! - 17:38:36 on 9 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BILL -- Doesn't surprise me that chimps can drum better than most kids in marching bands, but this may not be the most relevant criteria. :-) I'd better check out the article before commenting. - 21:53:20 on 9 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL/GRANT- Does Discover have a webpage with the article posted? If not, I haven't bought a Discover for months, it's time I checked one out. - 0:46:37 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, It's on the net under www.discover.com but the "current issue" is still April....may have to wait a bit. I think you and I see I-to-I on this argument, eh? Hope you had a good weekend; we took my mama to the county fair where we watched the "pig" races..haha! Quality time down here in the south; it's better than watching the "bug zapper" at night though! - 1:22:21 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: The thought has occurred with me that BETTY knows already that she does not have a clear grasp of what she seeks. What she seeks is the proper word matter and content for what her mind's eye sees as an utterly and absolutely prevailing everywhere system of consciousness. The truth that she seeks to develop and impart here is akin to the so called Socratic teaching methods. We are supposed to teach ourselves by filling in the various words and ideas which she puts out. So, come on "kids"! geez. Thats just to tease but I am pretty sure that her topic- consciousness, simply exceeds whatever the human organism is wherever it may be found. It may be a topic simlar to jurisdiction, how can we be judge and jury in the matters of ourselves and others? - 15:25:18 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:QUOTE OF THE DAY: "History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."..Robert A. Heinlein "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long".........GRANT, I'm still working on that book but I'll let you know. I'll post a bit from it that might address some of Betty's arguments though........ - 16:02:21 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:"...philosophers in particular have muddied the waters by treating the mind as if it were an object with a separate existence, independent from the flesh and blood of the brain. They have talked about the mind as a phantom spirit tucked away in a corner of the brain...the word *mind* is simply a convenient label for describing the brain at work. The brain can be doing many things at any particular moment, carrying out actions like seeing, thinking, imagining--and even being self-conscious. when we take all these different actions together, we label the resulting mixture "the mind." But, speaking correctly, we never have two separate objects--the brain and the mind--occupying the space within our skulls. We have just the brain and the host of things it can do." I guess that would sum up the "materialistic" view, eh? :-) - 16:12:21 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Interesting!! Keep posting! Also I couldn't agree more with the Quote of the Day! - 16:40:56 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: of your 02:39:27 08Apr'00 post to BETTY, now you know that if she could she would. But, can you just imagine the things that one could fix or do if they weren't so bound by materialism? Instead, not only are we organisms that call theirselves 'human' materially bound we're also burdened by the tyranny of the senses and simple rawnesses of our own in house emotions. Looks like its these very things that're what BETTY must think as the things, our problem preventing us from joining her on the other side. - 19:27:33 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: ok 'nuff snippin'at BETTY, of consciousness some here inscribe that 'language' is key to whatever consciousness may be. But as we look out and perceive whatever, of this perception process I read this,"Language in this statement suppresses all reference to any factors other than the percipient mind and the green leaf and the relation of sense-awareness. etc.etc. Thus language habitually sets before the mind a misleading abstract of the indefinite complexity of the fact od sense awareness." That from A.N.Whitehead. The point I think is one of fairness and as I have mentioned before, perhaps "consciousness" is not a relevant point at which we should concern our thinking? - 19:42:42 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- Problems of limitations of language noted by you and A.N. Whitehead don't relate to a tie between consciousness and language. Nobody is making qualitative claims on behalf of language. Postulates that language is not only the means by which we communicate with others, but may also be the means by which we process thought bring along no value judgments. - 20:20:21 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Indeed? You make it sound as though one or the other doesn't have to be, at all. - 21:11:48 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- Whatever is is, isn't it? :-) - 21:20:58 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT; heheh! very good - 21:44:43 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: I'm not getting any messages from Betty over the airwaves, maybe she's mad at me and refuses to telepath. Some of those senses make me feel really good.I'm not quite ready to give then up. Betty must have a rough existance, because she's only being a escapist by living in her never never land.When I need to dream, I go to sleep and it really works to recalibrate the mind and body. - 21:58:14 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: That would be as in hearing disembodied voices, the airwaves thing. - 22:05:10 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Just read a news report on the Worldnetdailey which says the Sans people o'South Africa bear in them the oldest of fossil links. It reads that they are the oldest still living of early humans on earth. Then it reports that the early xians slaughtered them when these people first met. Those first xian types types doubted that the Sans were human since the xian bible reported or allowed the first non-Sans in S.Africa to think that the first human was from the mideast, or thereabouts. When did the human begin? - 22:46:32 on 10 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..just for you:BETTY- > A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. > > A -5 point starting credit. > > 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. > > 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. > > 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. > > 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful > correction. > > 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a > widely accepted real experiment. > > 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with > defective keyboards). > > 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". > > 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided > (without good evidence). > > 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were > evidence of sanity. > > 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you > have been working on it. > > 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and > asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will > be stolen. > > 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any > flaws in your theory. > > 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my > theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in > terms of equations". > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. > > 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts > phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide > a "mechanism". > > 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim > that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good > evidence). > > 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm > shift". > > 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. > > 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that > classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). > > 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were > fact. > > 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule > accorded to your past theories. > > 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". > > 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the > orthodoxy". > > 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a > theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet > opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in > his freshman physics textbooks.) > > 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his > way towards the ideas you now advocate. > > 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an > extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). > > 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, > stormtroopers, or brownshirts. > > 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a > "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or > suchlike. > > 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day > Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. > > 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, > present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points > for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your > theories will be forced to recant.) > > 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete > testable predictions. > - 1:16:07 on 11 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:AM I OVER SENSITIVE?? Have any of you belonged to "mainstream" type forums or discussion groups? I have been on one for quite a while but the continuing xian dialog that just kind of assumes most people are xian (which they are) and the rest will just overlook it is really getting to me. Is this one of those things you just have to learn to deal with in today's world, or do you just seek out places of like-mindeds? This group is like-minded in that it is a stay at home mom group (which I am) and I have alot of friends there, but the religion thing is driving me nuts. Have any of you let yourself be driven out of a place you liked because of all the passive god-speak? It was suggested (when I posted to them that it was sounding like a bible study) that I was trying to be a censor and didn't want to hear things I didn't agree with. I'm just wondering if I AM hypersensitive or if I should expect people that know atheists are in their midst not to post ongoing discussions about hell and favorite hymns and praying for poor sick aunt Edna and praying for all those that don't hear "His word", etc ad nauseum. Sorry to go on and on, guess I'm feeling sensitive about it *heh heh* - 1:21:47 on 11 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I think just nice xtians mom's stay at home with their kids.. what is a heathen atheist mom like you doing home with your kids and worse yet, you are not even allowing them hear "his word"!!! Hee! Hee! seriously...what can you do other than keep reminding them that you are not interested in religion and asking " how about talking about other things". Real nice xtians don't usually answer that, they just ignore you. Something like they ignore their child's "why" questions. - 1:31:39 on 11 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Last weekend I saw the movie "Stigmata". It ended in a way I thought to be an unusual twist. Not as in twisted in a negative just unexpected, about like Dogma. Dogma's end was a bit tamer. On the forum at another site is piece titled "Evidence of jc found". Of course I had to read it. I read the whole thing, as it makes an effort at plausibility, finally at the end of the article it directs the reader to click on the command to read what the jc gospel was all about. Hmm? I think as I click on it and appearing on the screen in big red letters, it says "April Fools". - 15:39:49 on 11 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- Just wondered if you know about the Atheist Parenting discussion page. - 1:51:29 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- That looks like a neat page but..but..I hope we don't loose Cristy now...): - 2:17:16 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Hopefully there is time for parenting AND us. Speaking of parenting, how's things with the wee one? - 2:28:29 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Much to wiped to go into that now, lol! I'll write tomorrow! - 4:10:47 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, thanks! I actually have been searching around and yesterday found that one. It is amazingly DOG SLOW to load and post, I sure like the format and ease of reading this board has (kudos to you!). MARLENE, hey I've been doing this one and a parenting one for a while now, it's kind of nice to have a NON parenting board, ya know? I don't think you guys want me to bring my poopy diaper talk here *bg*. I'm just wondering if I'm hypersensitive because I am not fitting in too well at a mainstream board, one I've been at for 3.5 years. I think I'm going through a difficult period where my basic conformist "fit in" personality is battling my non-conformist (non)religious beliefs and desire to yell at people, "HEY, I'm atheist, you got a problem with that?!". I've got that conflict IRL all the time, and to some extent on the 'net. I guess sites like this one are ways for us to "fit in", eh? Anyone else having this kind of struggle? I gather most of you are pretty comfortable in your own skin now. - 13:38:28 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:HOW DO YOU DEFINE YOURSELF? If you needed to sum yourself up with a list of words, would "atheist" be near the top? In the past it would have been way down on my list, but maybe I've been thinking more about it and feeling more confrontational about it lately and that brings it closer to the top. Of course "Mom" is still the first thing, wife, atheist. Maybe it's a lack of anything else interesting going on in my life that makes this seem so dominant (those of you with careers probably don't have as much time to sit and dwell on it :-). OK, thanks for tagging along on my little self-therapy session. Do I now deposit 5 cents in the slot?? - 13:42:21 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That is a moderately interesting site you brought to CRISTY's attention. I find I like adversity much more, no holds barred kinda stuff. I mean for cryin'out loud this PC thing is an electronic device why or how can any clear good thinking individual be negatively affected by what they read? Is the individual out there, really that thin skinned or soft of mind that the things which appear on their PC monitor's screen, they can't handle it? I ask these questions because of some of the actions that will be taken in regards to some kinds of topics at that site. One post of what some older types were taught as grade schoolers did catch my eye. She pointed out that her teachers- of back when, did not teach in terms of evolution or creationism. Upon some reflection I don't recall ever hearing those terms in any class at the grade school level. I did hear those ideas mentioned when I got to the high school level. That has to be clearly a special interest of which politicians have recognised in it potential a kind of political utilitarianism. Here in the USA the current presidential candidates are really beating that drum, that is not to disparage the chimpanzees mentioned above. These ol'boys are really carryin'on as if religion was really and truely a early USA ingrained "heart-felt"- if you must, concern. From what I've read it looks like to me, what I make out, the rational writer\thinkers of old did not see religion as a real item. That is another topic. - 15:01:52 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, I have been looking at some other sites like that one and some of them are VERY strict about not saying anything "mean" to any of the others. Some have a special "debate forum" so if you want to say anything "disagreeable" you can take it there. I dunno about a place where you have to be nice and happy ALL the time, I guess if you could balance it out with a place where you're free to call someone a jerk if you feel like it. But I for one have been known to be thin skinned on "support group" forums so I can't point any fingers. - 21:49:43 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- How would I sum myself up..let me see...tangible might be encompassing although part of that would be my atheism. I'm likely feel more strongly about other issues though, like poverty in third world nations, a person's right to choose whether it be abortion or euthanasia or the death penalty etc., education in the scientific method,...tons of other things. I've had to go through a xtian organization to try to help a third world community so sometimes I have to put my views aside. Lormazi wrote to me , god blessing me and the whole bit, part of what those damn missionaries feel they have to force upon these people. I have yet to find the words when I write him back to let him know that it's his communities' and his hard work and caring about each other that makes them successful. - 22:16:13 on 12 Apr 100 GMT

Bill..:CRISTY, I never have liked labels, so I do not choose one. I do relate to my inner spirituality, self-esteem, or peace through meditation, which basically involves minimizing conscious thoughts. I have no need for collectivist organizations or organized religions, etc. I change my views from time to time and I personally don't feel the need to be classified, stigmatized, or pre-judged. What you see is what you get…..hahahaha, snort, burp! :~) Sorry, I can be a DOG at times, cheers! - 1:00:31 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Rob the Sane, but Slow-learning One, For the last time, consciousness is not outside us. It's the universe itself. Matter is secondary, but an essential piece, within this philosophy. The universe or consciousness is not reflexive of itself, therefore it is not interceding and rescuing because it is itself. Consciousness is a metaphor to describe creative acausal as well as causal relationships within the universe itself, in place of the flailing religion of determinism. In other words, when an amazing "miracle" of sorts occurs uncausally of local events, and in place of valueless, silly "randomness" arguments, it's just a simple reminder that within a creative universe there's so much yet we don't understand, if we'll ever grasp it all. Crediting the universe with creativity ensures us humans (the self-reflexive universe) with the valuable, arguable, meaningful opinions we already believe we have. Matter has no meaning in itself. Call me whatever you choose, but if we want to believe that when we get up in the morning and decide how to plan our physical lives, then we won't find it in a reduced physical-based reality of the world. In response to your post about global warming sending us into a death spin, we have the choice to prevent this from happening. We can change the way we react within the physical world. In fact, it was fine until we anthropomorphed this world to suit our materialistic needs. If we choose go into a "death spin", nature will reinvent itself and something else will come along. Dinosaurs didn't seem to work either. - 2:05:16 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Boy, it's sure ironic that materialists don't like to be pinpointed to discreet labels, namely narrow-mindedness (especially with the praise they give to reductionism). Reductionism is narrowing one's perspective. You argue for reductionism, you argue for materialism, you argue for, well you know… Enough on that. Sorry, folks, I just find it amusing that people would try to deceive themselves out of subjectivity as the source for humankind's basic meaning, including their own. Did someone accuse me solely of anthropomorphism? Argue your opinion with any inherent (subjective) value, and you are also cursed with anthropomorphism. We are each our own unescapable absolute truths. "Wherever you go, there you are." Get used to it. *btw Grant, when I post something, it is my opinion. That's why I type my name next to the post. I believe it, I post it. It's true to me. I don't care if you believe it, I just wanted a discussion. * Until someone can explain how the schizophrenic pinballs in here are confused as to how or why random matter/particle combinations care enough to post what they think are meaningful messages, I'm honestly wasting my time looking for discussion. Materialists cannot argue themselves, their opinions, or their random "sacks of cells" into meaning; it's a flat-out contradiction. If I see some kind of "revelation" to this very important point, I'll seek out some more conversation. I'm back to my old job, I'm planning my daughter's wedding now, yadda yadda yadda, and I don't have time to make any new friends. I'm certainly not dumb or irrational and it doesn't need any justification. I didn't plan on coming in here and defending against likewise irrational personal criticisms. So don't take it the wrong way. I've already seen the cries for "Betty, the cowardly flaky one", so I'd suggest people get over it already. It doesn't bother me since it's still a misunderstanding at this time. I certainly don't have any problems with any of you. Schizophrenic pinballs can only hurt themselves. Hee hee. Just poking some ribs. You guys at least are entertaining, if not, I wouldn't waste my time. - 2:07:28 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Thanks for the honest reflections. "Consciousness, simply exceeds whatever the human organism is wherever it may be found..." is the closest bond I've made in here! - 2:15:24 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

does it matter?:Betty..so you're into bondage then? - 4:11:43 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You need to offer more than assertions of belief, IMO. Is there more? - 4:15:38 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Grant: Why must this be spelled out? :BETTY -- I feel like wasting some time. You say "Materialists cannot argue themselves, their opinions, or their random "sacks of cells" into meaning; it's a flat-out contradiction. If I see some kind of "revelation" to this very important point, I'll seek out some more conversation." --- From a materialist perspective "meaning" exists only in the brain/mind. No claims are being made regarding any further meaning. There is no contradiction. You are again projecting your subjective human values on the universe. You cannot see outside your beliefs. They are too limiting, hahaha! - 5:35:13 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- "schizophrenic pinballs" ? The only person on this discussion at this time who seems to be deluding themselves is you. How does that saying go..well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... I'm glad you find us amusing although you really do have a strange sense of humor..which is not surprising since you also have a poor sense of reality. - 14:37:02 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, with some persons at other chat-sites as I take to them BETTY's consciousness issue they ask also, what is it? I have to'fess-up that I have yet to see or read what BETTY wants or means or has said It is. I recall BETTY said something about a reflective thing, but as was opinionated thats only for a possible what it does, but not It. Hereon, for example, "they-say" light is a photon, at one time was it not a mystery and an unknown, now what is consciousness? In and of me I think the word itself is a manmade attempt which at this time merely describes or accounts for the outcome of the electrochemical content of the organism that I am and whatever you are. Can it therefore be thought that consciousness is just a time-link (durational?) of things organic and inorganic? - 16:14:57 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think consciousness can therefore be thought of as the outcome of electrochemical processes in the larger brained mammals and therefore attributed to only organisms with this capacity. Sounds good to me Carl! Notice how Betty likes to take one's words and manipulate them a little. - 18:08:22 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

OPEN01: Whoops! don't mean to mislead any in what BETTY did say of consciousness, it is not reflective it was reflexive - 19:48:23 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

OPEN01: Whoops! don't mean to mislead any in what BETTY did say of consciousness, it is not reflective it was reflexive - 19:48:57 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: again the term the idea when it seemed comprehensible appears in BETTY's 4:54:35 6 Apr 100 post. I wuz lookin'ferrit when the other two entry's registered here. It was significant to me because that could be the idea of concept and choice as I've read of these ideas in ancient Jewish writings and JM Burgers book. I think I used above and by mistake, the wrong name. Both bordered closer to common sense than an evidenced finger pointing conclusion or opinion. - 20:09:58 on 13 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..maybe time to make like the Joads:OKLAHOMA PASSES CREATIONISM BILL Wednesday April 5 9:26 PM ET Okla. House Passes Creationism Bill By TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writer OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Science books used in Oklahoma public schools would be required to acknowledge ``that human life was created by one God of the universe'' under legislation passed Wednesday by the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The House addressed the issue of creationism in an amendment to a bill dealing with the embattled State Textbook Committee, which last year ordered biology books to carry a disclaimer about the teaching of evolution that described it as a ``controversial theory.'' The disclaimers were scrapped after Attorney General Drew Edmondson said the committee has no authority to require them. But House members approved an amendment that says ``the committee shall ensure'' that science textbooks it approves for use in public schools ``include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the universe.''The House went a step further when it passed another amendment that gives the committee ``authority to insert a one-page summary, opinion or disclaimer into any textbook reviewed and authorized for use in the public schools of Oklahoma.''The original intent of the bill was to require that two members of the textbook committee be elementary level teachers and two be secondary level teachers. The bill now goes to a joint House-Senate conference committee for review. Last summer, the Kansas Board of Education sparked a national debate by passing new testing standards that minimized the importance of evolution. - 2:58:24 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, quite a way to win friends and influence people, by telling them if they don't get it they are just to stupid to understand! Not that you aren't catching your share of flak from here too! You have one opinion, obviously not shared here, but no one can say for a fact which is more valid. Hopefully some day you will be enlightened as some of my good fundie xian friends (true friends) have been, that the more you try to beat people w/ your theology and berate them for not believing, the less they will listen to you. The only thing that will accomplish is making more enemies in life. I don't really think that is what you are seeking, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Are you trying to "spread the word" or win converts? And maybe if you explain it enough we will come around? Or just debate the merits of your theology vs. our non-theology? I think less confusion about the goals will help the conversation immensely! Is it important that we see things your way, and if so why? - 3:21:29 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:OPEN -- Chanced upon this atheist site and liked it. If you have some time to kill, have a peek. - 12:56:17 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:OPEN -- On the offchance that anyone is still interested in the language/consciousness connection, there are some goodies here. - 14:01:16 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, to answer your previous question, I think there definately is a link between language and self-consciousness. That book makes a pretty compelling point for how language allowed us to EVOLVE self-awareness. Now to address the problems Rob had with this idea, the fact that language was necessary for self-awareness to evolve does not mean self-awareness would not be present in a person who now did not have language. This person has already evolved self-conciousness and the loss of language ability in them does not mean they lose their other evolved abilities. - 15:13:00 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:MORE ON SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, and I phrase it this way, or self-aware, instead of just conscious because this book (The Ape That Spoke) defines "conscious" as just being aware of what is going on around us, therefore most animals would fit that. Self-conscious or self-aware means we are aware of our own thoughts, and can control our own memories. That was a big point, being able to control one's memories is very important in establishing sense of "self" in the self-conscious kind of way. His point is that language was necessary as a tool for accessing our vast memory banks. Without language, the animals pretty much can just pull up a memory only in reaction to a stimulus (they may only think about water when they are thirsty, or see water, etc). But we can picture, imagine, remember water just by thinking the WORD "water". Then we can bring back times decades ago that had something to do with water, like the time we learned to waterski, or our brother held us under for a long time. So his point (which made alot of sense to me) is that while our brains are fundamentally the same as higher mammals, we have this tool language to access information that is only available to them in reaction to a stimulus. Therefore we can "peruse" our memories, use imagination, and analyze ourselves through our past actions which presumably the other mammals can't. - 15:23:51 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: So the OK types are really gonna legislate for and on behalf of stupidity? That appears as the nature of a people who obviously mean to resist acceptance of or an understanding of the notion of progress. In the greater society that is the USA at least what the OKies do has been offset by what the S.Carolinians do, they're about to shelve their confederate flag. As I ponder the flag as a symbol, what it portrays how is it not a representation of an intellectual state of a particular people who at another time were confused at what is property and did not clearly understand the meaning of freedom? If this POV stands then to shelve the flag is very simply a good deed. In time, this being a relevant matter, better thinking processes will prevail. But for now, some of the old ways will glow- briefly, and naturally cease. Several weeks ago I mentioned the issue of thought control and was rebuffed with some everyday examples of that very ongoing occurrance. Well the remedy for this seems- at this time, like a simple matter of being informed or of having substantive information. While the OK and Kansas folk seek to "assert" kinds of information for an insubstantiated godthing, I wonder if its just a glow of and for the old and will simply and naturally cease? What could lead to that end? How about the human's natural curiosity and eventual rejection of legislative attempts to control human thought, such as do the laws now called hate crimes? These are an affront to the expression of any percieving, perceptive, percipient human person. - 15:25:47 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:Grant, I checked out those sites and some might say something similar to this, they were written at a level that would have taken alot of digging for me to understand them so I used the explanation from this book, which is more on the level of lay man :-) - 15:25:52 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, thanks for mentioning about the S. Carolina flag being shelved, I had been interested in that story and am glad to hear how it turned out. I wonder if they would have ever done it without the boycott? From a lady living there I heard that the boycott was having some impact on tourism. MARLENE, sounds like another case that will be before the Supreme Court in a few years. I'm waiting with interest to hear the outcome of the Santa Fe Texas case on school prayer at sporting events. GEORGE W. is supporting the "student led" prayer of course, for any following American politics. - 15:30:35 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: The book's title is, "The Ape That Spoke"? I found your description of the book very inviting. I will be on the look out for it. MARLENE, would you recommend buying the "Celestine Prophecy"? Did you read it, seems you have said something that permits me to think you have. - 16:56:55 on 14 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, the whole title is "The Ape That Spoke, Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind" by John McCrone. It bogs down in some places when he gets really into how the brain works, or into human evolution but for the most part I find it very readable. It was published in 1990. I'm about halfway through and will update y'all on anything else interesting.............OH BETTY, I was trying to describe your theory to my hubby and he commented "it sounds like 'the Force'" (ya know, Star Wars?). The force be with you! :-) - 3:12:31 on 15 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- NO!!! It's a total waste of money IMO. I should have read some reviews before I bought it. I gave it away to someone (can't even remember who???). I suggest picking it up at the library and saving your bucks. It's not a book I think you'd want to keep. - 3:22:52 on 15 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:YOU'VE GOTTA TRY THIS ...see the forum as it would be in the bible. you can add the "http://www.askjesus.org/ask.cgi?" to the front of any complete website address and turn it into a bible website. Like this one would be: http://www.askjesus.org/ask.cgi?http://www.man-made.net/cgi-bin/relig.cgi - 3:23:58 on 15 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- I am, of course, a layman too, and can't get far without reference works and specialized dictionaries. I've only been fussing about with consciousness for a few months, and now have far more questions than when I began, and far fewer answers than I thought I had. It's a very complex area of study. I'm not sure why I feel so compelled to better understand it. It seems impossible to get the big picture at all without delving into linguistics, cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, etc. There is also much contention between the experts, and as a result there are many points of view to be examined. If all that is not enough, even the experts have difficulty explaining consciousness, and there is much disagreement about precisely what it is. It's going to take some time to become comfortable with all this. My working definition of "consciousness" (self-consciousness) in this context is much like yours - 6:38:07 on 15 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- If you wish to have your leaders (or whatever they're called) such as your "YOU'VE GOTTA TRY THIS" in your last post appear in bold type, you can type them in the "name" box with your name. Just in case you were wondering... BTW, that Jesusifier thing is funny! - 6:49:06 on 15 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..must be feeling poetic tonight..:Time is but the stream I go a-fishin in. I drink at it, but while I drink I see the sandy bottom and detect how shallow it is. It's thin cur rent slides away, but eternity remains.--Henry David Thoreau - 2:06:49 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Bill...:HI MARLENE, I've been working a lot of overtime and am finally off for a day, yea! I liked your poem…..so I made up a quickie that goes along with our past discussions hear. I hope this is fit enough for a Queen! *** "Consciousness" like "time" is the "language" our mind does play. We drink the rain…We hear its music with the leaves, for we must keep our song alive. Sustaining the music is the key, but this rain belies its deadly charge! One must ask, how could this be? Is my song really real or just a "memory" in "eternity?" - 14:40:24 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, "Can it therefore be thought that consciousness is just a time-link (durational?) of things organic and inorganic?" Perfect. - 17:43:27 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant and Marlene, Later on we sometimes remember something we should have said or that we could have stated something differently, or maybe more polite. In this sense, I'm appealing to the mode of conceptual argument and what this entails, which seems to be the main misunderstanding here. I was trying to show how the theory of materialism, just like mathematics (a theoretical calculation with relevance only to where it was abstracted), or whatever you would place into a "new age" category, or any other human invention, as abstractions. In other words, they're tools to help understand it, but the tools aren't the meaning themselves. Just like I explained before we can point to the way bodies of mass are attracted to each other and call that gravity, but gravity isn't written on some universal star somewhere to identify it for all sentient beings somewhere in the universe to understand it; it's just a human-contrived conceptual term, or model. Currently, gravity is merely an assumed trait of matter, and this assumption is based on a certain interpretation as well - a cyclical structure, as you can see. In Joseph Campbell's words, he describes the way we try to put language to the experiences we share as our 'mythologies', which is an important point here. The term mythology haphazardly tends to be associated with myth and fiction and folklore. "Mythology is what we call other people's religions," says it best. We all have different ways of interpreting the universe and what it means to us; those are our mythologies. So when we seek to understand each other in this room, it would be better to understand that we each are dealing with our own individual interpretations, and are not seeking absolute guidelines for everyone and everything, and to find ways of incorporating this intersubjectivity into a purposeful structure. This is also what I meant by stating, we are our own absolute truths. When we realize that essentially nothing is written in stone and that the world we live in and the universe we 'interpret' (the key here) is only valuable in so far as our collective models stand the test to each other, we cannot rule out interpretation, and therefore consciousness, as the interpretation itself. And indeed we have yet to find a way to unconditionally understand each other regardless of individual personal preference. So when I remind you that materialism is an adopted philosophy and you take it personally, I am not criticizing you, rather the interpretative mythology or abstraction you use. This is similar to choosing a hammer over a screwdriver in certain circumstances. In the absence of absolute rights and wrongs, we're left with interpretations and rationalizations. I explained before that quantum physics, for example, requires it's own interpretations. When considering my arguments or not, the inherent issue is not the mythologies, tools, abstractions or otherwise I use, but to understand how and why and for what purpose I use these. ----------- Here, it's atheistic or religious materialism, which presents an arbitrary, structureless foundation for the universe VERSUS monistic idealism, a unification of spiritualism (subjective and often intersubjective meanings) and the physical world, which admits a basic malleable structure for the events of the universe itself where each event is an opportunity for a creative change. Atheistic materialists I can imagine are pretty frustrated with the world in this way: over 90% of the population seeks a more balanced spiritual life in their daily physical lives, and there's not a lot of understanding from either side. I've found monistic idealism to seal the gaps, denied or ignored by materialism's own duality catch22. - 17:44:34 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Here's a refresher. Besides (1) materialism's unweighed assumptions for a physically originated consciousness, (2) it's conflict of first causal entities within determinism, (3) the paradoxical "I'm a randomly conditioned sack of cells with meaningful opinions" argument, (4) non-locality being an important discovery of quantum physics, therefore ruling out materialism's precept of locality, (5) the fallacy of strong objectivity, and (6) [yes, more than just one argument, Grant. It's funny how we can accuse others of focusing on only their own subjective interpretations, huh? When all the while it's simply a misunderstanding of the concepts...] it's limitations on spirituality… I thought I'd illustrate an example of the crimes of materialism. - 17:46:33 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:This is also a concept argument. I think it's more recognizable by calling it the "Rambo" syndrome, accordingly. It's been debated hundreds of times, yet not too often on the level of national conception: After Vietnam the soldiers that walked out alive were examined on one principle alone to determine them on being returning productive members of society: whether or not they had any 'physical' ailments, once again creating a forced duality between mind and matter. They gave these victims purple hearts or something. Much later, the term "shell shock" was derived from the more prominent psychological ailments that were neglected previously. It's pretty safe to say that the majority of our nation's homeless were neglected a complete holistic (mind and matter) help in returning to being productive members of society. This would have been understandable for the already assumed economical (yep, materialistic) losses. Here, the argument however is not aimed at stating that a few thousand people roam our streets and burden the rest of us to any degree, BUT that it was our judgements, based on traditional concepts, that failed. Relying purely on a physical basis for determining a soldier's returning productivity floundered a nation-wide test. Too much of one thing is not a good thing. ------ Just to be clear, since people in here tend to over-generalize, including myself, this is not an argument against any relevance to the physical world, or that I personally deny the importance materialism has brought to the world, but that it's time for a more complete understanding of how to balance mind and matter in one complete theory, and in fact realize that it was never otherwise. It was certain traditions that we overtly accepted as more important than others that created the imbalance. - 17:47:24 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty: Not too long ago the Pope declared that hell is not a physical place anyone goes to after this life, but that it is a literal separation from God here and now. I thought this was amazing. The term and concept of 'God' has become over materialized over the years to where it's lost it's original conceptual meaning. In fact, it's been objectified just like anything else nowadays. I don't like to use the word for it's traditional connotations, but within the Pope's declaration he made a remarkable step to return to the intended original transcending concept of an underlying structure to the physical world. Am I siding with the Pope in his traditions? Nope. Am I stating that I understand what he's getting at? Yes. He's trying to eliminate the perception of religion as having to be crude materialistic, fundamentalist, objectified dogmas. Eliminating heaven and hell as after-physical life destinations that never were anyway is the key. God is the underlying structure to our lives to his faith, an underlying, entire creative universe within monistic idealism. The actual concept of God here, however, is not an important part of the issue. The Pope is encouraging a more balanced spiritual/physical world lifestyle, and that, in turn, leads to our true (unbiased) selves, or "God" within us, equally as participant members of this universe and collective population of this planet - void of the need to praise the abstracted models instead; these are the temptations of money, idolization (or objectifying), and an excessive pride and importance in these materialistic achievements. ---- I suspect some of you will still generalize and miss these concepts completely. I bet some will find it easier to post "Betty and The Pope" one-liners than take the time to understand this. I'm thinking of a few people already..... - 17:48:31 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, Actually George Lucas (Star Wars) was very aware of his 'Force' in relation to many earlier mythologies, and his explanation of 'The Force' is the same idea of many religions ideas of the self within a physical world - Buddhism, especially. He was largely influenced by the work of Joseph Campbell, which is why he purposely invented his own mythology to explain the 'balance of the force'. Great reference! That's the thing about art, it reminds us that a picture says a thousand words. People all over the world are saying the same thing. Here's how I say it, there's a natural need to balance spirituality and physicality. - 18:02:11 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Sinner-Maddest. net..:..will be a riot for 2 or so days. - 18:03:47 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Sinner-Maddest. net..:..SHALL will be a riot for 2 or so days. - 18:05:13 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Looking back I found, "...From a materialist perspective "meaning" exists only in the brain/mind. No claims are being made regarding ANY FURTHER MEANING. There is no contradiction." The further meaning is right here, that you intend to argue what exists in your mind/brain. When I stated that individual materialists cannot argue their opinions of random "sacks of cells" into meaning, it's not the meaning in question here. It's the argument for randomness AND valuable, meaningful opinions that's the contradiction. "Random sacks of cells with meaningful opinions". Here's that conceptual argument problem again. I doubt that you misunderstand the terms, but that you missed the concept. I'd appreciate it if you GRANT me some duely noted frustration. - 18:45:04 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I'll certainly grant you your frustration. Lord knows there's enough here to go around. Never have I had such difficulties communicating with someone. If you are honest I think you will grant that I have made an effort. - 19:11:57 on 16 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Over the weekend I clicked into a TLC program titled-"The Search for the Lost Tribe". I didn't watch it entirely but from what I saw, I can report that it was about the biblical jews. [The people in control, the controllers, will not let up on promoting that mythological say-so probably until the herd can handle something else.} During the times I spied on the program they didn't make any references to other sources for the things being presented. The host just referred to the OT/NT passages as tho'these sources are infalliable references. Any here see that entire program? I've read several western views of human migrations as well as a couple of non-western views and, from what I took as unbiased accounts, the one point that either view seem to agree on; the oldest forms of a social human was in the far-East. Far-East being China and India. The message of that tv-program seemed to be that the lost tribe o'Jews went to areas in Afghanistan, India and China. They were able to present some images of people that were doing Jewish like things in jewish like words and so on. And of course the program's bias was that the jewish god was involved throughout the whole affair. Except for the godthing aspect, it was a somewhat interesting presentation for its people persepective. The keener interest, IMHO, has to be the "assertive insertive effort" a godthing adherent has to make with anykind of comunnicative effort. - 15:22:20 on 17 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: The foremost problem I have with whatever BETTY may seek to communicate here, what is her fixing of the notion of "random"? In order for what appears to be her POV on consciousness, that it is conceptual, then it must follow that only the non-random can "become" meaningful. If it is random it happens once, which would be the individual human creature that is you or me but in the larger view we as the lifeform a human organism we are of a non-random concept. I guess it is on this very point, "concept", as that of which someone last week pointed out is an anthropomorphism of her view. - 16:12:22 on 17 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Way long ago, I mentioned that when I'd take any part of any religious line and leave out the word g-o-d the line the passage would still make sense. Several days back I mentioned I'd purchased several books that were published many years ago. The writings in the books were composed well before the books wre published. Whats my point, the writers are well read and learned so their writings bear well reasoned thoughts. They refer to matters of significant human interest and, it appears to me, the writers then make the extra effort to include references to a g-o-d. Leave out the word g-o-d and its relevant conjunction and the passage still makes sense. I must ask for what or more importantly for who do they include a god reference? Maybe then, and only then can a why become apparent or comprehensible. My guess, the writers did it for the sake of the herd. If true, when some religious or theist adherent says that aheism is nothing, then that must needs be because theism too, is a nothing. Somebody must have simply "inserted" the g-o-d word where and when needed in order for some few to "assert" certain privledges, and nothing more. - 18:55:28 on 17 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene ...(Archie Bunker )Geeezzzz!:BETTY- You Woo-Woo, on your concept agrument above. Psychological illness IS a physical illness. The problem WAS that it wasn't considered a ailment serious enough to disable someone. It's your idea that workings of the mind is separate from the rest of the body, not we mere materialists'. Why do you have a problem with radomness? Does everything in your life HAVE to have order to make sense to you? - 0:57:32 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: You're wishing that it was so. Get grounded in reality.If most people want to halucinate so be it, I already lived through the 60's and the mind altering era. Thank goodness that I'm an atheist and wasn't interested enough in deity and the supernatural to take drugs.Also, I'm not really interested in producing the same brain halucinations by various deprevations of the body. Materialistic; sure take off your cloths and be naked, who needs food and shelter.All your Guru's are rich and wealthy; aren't they:Anti-materialism my arse. To use the word again your writtings are "word salad", not based in reality. - 2:15:58 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- This is not the first program on TLC that has a lack of credible references. I was shocked when I first bought the channel and I think it is also interesting that the Discovery Channel isn't much better. Maybe viewers are money and money is what keeps these channels on the air, they don't want to piss the viewers. - 2:16:11 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..don't do as I do..do as I say:DOUG- You have a good point..I wonder just how anti-materialistic Betty actually is. She does have a computer, likely owns a home, when actually sick likely takes medicine which can be reduced to it's materialistic components and doesn't rely upon holistic hocus pocus. How many other materialistic habits have you got Betty? - 2:24:47 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Speaking of the 60's..maybe what Betty thinks is new and refreshing. You are right, the 60's was full of this stuff especially after the Beatles got into their Eastern thing. Like you, I have never believed in the supernatural although I love the stories and movies associated with it. It's kind of fun to get lost in a fantasy once in awhile. I too never was inspired to use drugs including alcohol. During my life I've given alcohol a few tries but I don't like that "fuzzy' feeling. I have had demerol for an operation. With that, I told the nurse that maybe she better shut the windows because it was so windy in my room that the door was swinging back and forth, that's about the extent of my hallucinations, lol! BUT..but.. when I was 13, two other friends and I were camping out by a local quarry. About 11:30 we saw a huge orange ball of light come down from the sky and land in the pasture opposite the one we were in. Then that ball of light rose rapidly and accelerated at a great speed upward and to the south-east. We all got freaked and went home to tell my parents. They didn't believe us and thought we just got scared camping out. Then my one friends mom thought we should report it to the RCMP..big mistake!! He asked us what we were drinking and we told him tangerine kool-aid..he didn't believe us either, not about the light or the tangerine kool-aid. Later, after much reading, I finally came to the conclusion it was likely ball lightening but I liked my initial idea that it was aliens better really. Aliens are much more exciting than dumb ole materialistic ball lightning - 3:29:20 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- I'm with you regarding the "random" stuff. Where did this "random" in "random sack of cells" come from, anyway? And somebody needs a Random House dictionary. - 13:14:38 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: When a young fella some of us would go the river dam that was step like in its construction. We especially got a kick out the Eel spawning season for we'd watch these creatures as they wiggled up the dam using their bottom side mouths as suckers. They were very slippery, kind like BETTY's views on consciousness. Does she want to say its a natural thing? Or, does she actually eventually mean to say that its the super-natural nature of the human thing? If it is in the latter possible account, does she mean to explain the human penchant for an attitude of superiorness and self importance, at sometime to come? Geez! a sudden thought, is this how cults begin? - 15:32:54 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy "random sack of cells extrodinaire":Hey, any fellow Trekkors out there? (TNG, not the overacting Kirk ones :-). There was one episode where these silicon-based life forms referred to the (human) crew as "ugly sacks of mostly water". The "sack of cells" thing reminded me of that...no relevance, just rambling *g* - 18:07:06 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:So do any of you have atheist "advertizing" items like the Darwin fish on your cars, Tshirts, whatever? I had a Darwin fish on my truck back in college but once we moved here and had to start becoming "respectable" citizens, we took it off. I once saw a Tshirt w/ the Darwin fish on the front, and "don't start the evolution without me" on the back. I'd LOVE one of those, but where would I wear it w/o being seen as "in your face" around here? *sigh* sometimes I want to get out of this town :-( - 18:12:56 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY[the chicken]; I have some, a Darin fish is attached to my front room picture mirror a sticker on my auto bumper and a picture of a laffin santa with the words "I am not real" above the laffin portrait. I hang it on the mirror above the fireplace at xmas-time. You are not really a chicken. - 18:55:12 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- When you are feeling this trapped, it's almost time to take a stand, what could really happen? People may not agree but I'm sure they will still respect you for the other great traits you possess. - 21:57:42 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy....."bok bok" LOL:You're right about me needing to take more of a stand. I kind of wussed out at my playgroup yesterday when one of the moms started trying to get me to come to her bible study. Instead of what I wanted to say, I just said that when I go, I attend the UU. She asked what that was and when I said Unitarian Universalists she let it go. I don't know if she knew what it was or not, but still I passed up an opportunity to just say what I (dis)believed. Bok, bok But once I told my other playgroup I was atheist, that is when some started acting weird and one slipped that "The Answers" preaching tape in my purse and started wanting to have conversations about the holy ghost speaking to her (which we never did get together BTW). Someone come down here and enlighten these people for me pleeeeeeeease!! I'm too chicken! - 22:54:25 on 18 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I don't think it's just the people down there. The jesus virus must have come up here on a strong south wind (I think you live directly below me). I doubt you'll ever change their minds either. A belief in something that isn't (as long as it's god or a "higher power") is considered normal in this society. Believe that there are aliens (which is a much more real possibility than god) and one is considered ill. Maybe humanity on the whole is just ill... - 1:37:49 on 19 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Wow!, And they didn't even check out the site. Does ball lightning do that kind of stuff? I always thought it blew up houses and things; maybe I'm mistaking it with cold lightning.It sounds intriguing.Yes I think Betty is trying to relive the 60's with all this "new age" thinking. - 2:17:30 on 19 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: I'm ill-informed of who you are there, o'course, but is it very likely you once 'thought' yourself to have known, not just believed, that a godthing was a real deal. That very idea is quite likely what the fundamentalist clutch tightly to themselves. They tell themselves that they know a godthing is. Reality though is another matter,e.g., if I say I see an evergreen tree here you can accept and believe it true. For you- statistically, the probability of the statement is high and makes it "true-like" because of what you and others there have seen of evergreen trees. For the religionist who of them have seen a god, the hypothetical object of their thought and say-so? I put it that way so you can see them and nothingness of the position wherein they opt to place themselves. The religionist is comforted from the overwhelming All by religion for it offers them the plaintive utterance of g-o-d which for them, becomes representative of the unknowable All. What is the meaning of the sound of g-o-d? Well, if it is supposed to be representative of the unknowable, then it is merely a meaningless sound. {are you afraid of the unknowable dark?} - 15:13:48 on 19 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL AND MARLENE, I don't really want to enlighten them on the absurdity of the religion, just enlighten them that not everyone thinks like them and that "what church do you go to?" being the first thing you say to new people demonstrates that you assume everyone CONFORMS. I'm really glad I found this site and appreciate how y'all have helped and supported me! It's nice to have a place to be "me". Thanks! - 17:51:39 on 19 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I think it's a nice place too. I guess that's why I've hung around so long. Sort of like the corner coffee shop..BTW just as ridiculous are people who ask "what's your sign?" like everyone buys into astrology. - 18:09:50 on 19 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Any of this stuff sound familiar? - 2:58:43 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: now that is a laughable find. I scanned over some of the writings and the thought began to form, well heck! When and where have I seen a presentation of or for this kind of attitude? Hint; the name begins and ends with the second to first and last letters of the alphabet of the USA english speaking world. Not that that individual is odious or even noxious to anyones amusement of things, but that individual has been trying to connect some dots, differently. For some bit of time I thought too, that individual was gonna bring forward eventually the ancient thread in a tapestry acount for that consciousness 'discussion-thread'. snicker! The only real concern any ought to have and hold of such attitudes, is the groupy thing that follows. Groups as such things go, do they not as a group polarise then develop their "own thing"? Hmmm, a fetter. - 14:57:19 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..all kinds of groupies:CARL- You didn't think Betty came up with this stuff all on her own, did you? LOL! - 17:59:41 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Those atmospheric movements from the south side of Canada, must be awfully infectious! I just read that some young HS fella stabbed a few of his school-peers. And of course the USA papers just gotta toss in the Columbine angle, for readership purposes I figger. - 19:26:06 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, No doubt you've made an effort. I don't have to give you that. In the kindest way possible yours and others' participation is what I'm after. Heck, it's a discussion board. I simply wanted to help clear out the ugliness that results from miscommunication. Misunderstanding I often find is an invisible wall. When we can find our way around it, things will be much greener on both sides because it was invisible to begin with. We're all on the same team here. [That's a bit flowery, but I think you get the meaning.] - 21:58:41 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:To the Doug and Marlene Tag Team, "Just to be clear, since people in here tend to over-generalize, including myself, this is not an argument against any relevance to the physical world, or that I personally deny the importance materialism has brought to the world, but that it's time for a more complete understanding of how to balance mind and matter in one complete theory, and in fact realize that it was never otherwise." --- Calling me anti-materialistic is one o'those over-generalizations I sought to stab ahead of time. Let's be clear. Materialism is a theory, interpretation, and/or precept to understand the physical world, it's not a substantiation of it. When I state that there is an imbalance proposed by materialism on the value of material things it is not a denial of the physical world or one's need for food and shelter. Understanding this is part of the conceptual argument I present. -- Marlene, Physical ailments are only assumed to be physical traits with the presumption of materialism. You simply restated the argument with the traditional bias that indeed these ailments were not enough to disable people COMPARED to physical wounds. You missed the point entirely. Another stab at your idea of the minds' activities: Consciousness is only assumed to be a trait of brain matter (according to materialism), it has never been unconditionally supported. It's the same thing in all your arguments, you use materialism and you're gonna get materialistic theories, accurate or not. You mentioned before that you understood when I posted that quantum physics requires it's own interpretations. If you're honest enough to try, here's how you can put it into practice. - 22:23:09 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Continuing from Carl's "On randomness and conceptions" (my title) --- Once again, it's important to realize the difference between a literal and conceptual argument. Holding something in your hand and praising the object, instead of the meaning, whether it be a journal of the latest empirical findings, or a holy book and cross, is what I find imbalanced. In definition, the praise here is an after-effect, superficial source of meaning. Like the religionists will say that Bible itself is important, BUT because of it's supposed inspirator who guides one's path through life --- classical physics demands that the latest theory, the words used to describe it, it's place in other findings is where the meaning is found. These religious and secular philosophies stem of materialism's locality principle - the meaning essentially coming from the apparent relationships between individual objects. This is the whole of the context. There was a line in a song somewhere, "She still believes in miracles, while others cry in vain." Miracles, being derived of local interpretation. --- In understanding a complete universal conceptual philosophy, locality is of little importance. Calling the human organism a sack of cells derived of random (here, a local, materialized coincidental design) combinations can be replaced with an entire concept: that the universe is a creative entity. In practice, the formation of the human species over millions of years is a 'miracle' of a creative, self-contained entity all the way to the ground level. Randomness is an excuse, rather a temporal language within classical physics, to describe local events, but not the whole process at work. If the whole of the universe is creative, then the meaning is not the expression, but the process. And 'randomness' is a forced expression of the process. Processes by logical nature cannot be random. - 23:04:17 on 20 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY But a Grasshopper Larva- Your comment " Marlene, Physical ailments are only assumed to be physical traits with the presumption of materialism. You simply restated the argument with the traditional bias that indeed these ailments were not enough to disable people COMPARED to physical wounds. You missed the point entirely." I SAID!!!!!! These ailments were not considered enough, it is now known they are. These ARE physical ailments. One can back this up with the evidence that medication can control and even cure these ailments. I didn't miss the point you were trying your best to make, I just don't agree with it or accept it. - 1:42:14 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Quantum mechanics can have many interpretations, some accepted by most physicists, some fringe interpretations accepted by a few physicists. Since qm not conscious, it can't do this itself. Again, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it nor accept it. - 4:09:56 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- BTW, qm IS random. Whether you think our universe is illogical because of randomness, matters not. - 4:17:44 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Hmmm? It appears that BETTY does not grasp the view of the non-random. Or, her view of the idea of the random, whatever that may be, suits her opinion bestest. - 14:21:14 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: still tryin'to figger out what BETTY's up to, other than purty ritin'. Now and then she seems to fix herself to dynamics of change as it is an event. Then, as if to make the event the thing one should strive to understand, she kicks out the very object which one recognises o'the event. That would then become inhuman, or become the xian's claim that is for a supernatural explanation. "Locality principle" sure sounds impressive, but is it as meaningful as a miracle? So, what is a miracle? Looks someone's starting to spin in one place. - 15:07:37 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: also, been ponderin'what you know who means with draggin'in the idea of, relationships between objects? A relationship between objects won't this mean that the object is most likely a something that in time in an event it has not changed? Would that then imply it is, the object the most stable thing within the duration of some time period? If one is to have a relationship with an object, I've read, it will involve an awareness by one of the object, which is distinguishable in that it can be again. That recognition eventually, as that idea of recognition is applied to all known to one, and basically is sense awareness of that object, in that it is an is again. That must mean that the only kind of relationship anyone can have with anything is a relationship of recognition, no? - 18:09:03 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Since when is the use of medication proof that mental ailments are physical? Sure, medication helps but this is not a substantiation. This is yet another form of the assumption based on the precept of materialism I pointed out. Consciousness has never been unconditionally explained as a derivation of physical matter. The Rambo syndrome was a conceptual explanation of how materialism forces a duality between mind and matter. You may disagree, but as long as you misunderstand the concepts here you're arguing in circles. The traditional notion of materialism failed in the return from Vietnam and in the following years. "We fixed all their broken arms and legs, send them home. Why are they're still problems many years later? We forgot to cure their physical heads, too. Oh, now we see the problem. Well we don't know much about that stuff. Give them these pills. That will solve everything, materialism says so." -- I'm sure you'll have to get some last word in on this as well, but the concept I stated here is that the tradition of materialism failed on a nation-wide scale. It failed because of the assumptions required to believe it, not because people simply forgot about a problem until many years later. Argue anything else but the concept and you're still missing the point. - 18:43:11 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene and Carl, When I explain something I always begin with the philosophy of it. Because I don't know each of your levels of investigation I purposely take a lot of things for granted, so here I will cordially better put the phrasing of randomness: Randomness and coincidence, (the miracles of the secular world) are explanations of local signals within materialism. Materialism's locality principle states that all interactions between material objects are mediated via local signals. This stems from the view that all objects exist essentially independent and separate from one another. The paradox found within QP based on the previous adopted interpretation is that if waves spread over vast distances and instantly collapse when we take measurements, then the influence of our measurement is not traveling locally. Locality and independence are logically ruled out. One has to consider a more collaborative theory. --- In understanding a complete universal conceptual philosophy then, nothing is random and coincidence on the larger scale; it's all part of the same process. The universe works to maintain structure and order, even down to our level. The process of the formation of the human species over millions of years didn't just jump into existence. The process was there beforehand. So the expressions of this process, in this case- us humans - isn't random or coincidence of locality, but part of a larger structure to creatively maintain order and function. The events in our lives work in the same way. When we remove all the obstacles and follow our hearts, our true structure for creative new steps, whether they be right to others or not is what makes us feel self-actualized (in Maslow's words). The very saying, "follow your heart" makes no sense in material linguistics for the very fact that language is the same expression of the process, and in heightening the value of these local signals using language over simply understanding the value of the process deadens the inherent, collective sharing of it. - 19:20:38 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Maybe the artistic movement of Pointilism will help some with the concept of process over expression on a universal scale: Looking at the carefully ingenius multi-colored painted dots on a canvas as the meaning for the painting I hope would agreeably be meaningless. Observing the layers of dots helps one to understand the ornate process that delivers the painting expression. One can therefore appreciate this painting on an inclusive and exclusive level, or relative micro and macro level. In the same way, looking at the elementary particles that make up the world and declaring them the meaning behind it all, such is materialism, sets up a meaningless interpretation from the start. Understanding the particles as the building blocks for this world is what leads one to begin to understand the process beneath. Neither the particles nor the expression are the real meaning, but those are easily recognizable first and foremost as our link in understanding. It's easy to get lost in a world of seemingly 'random' expressions. As I've explained, passionately arguing the opinion that one is a "randomly combined sack of cells" is self-deceiving. One cannot derive meaning from the expression of your cells itself, but in combination it provides at least a more holistic view. - 19:38:14 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, You mentioned at some earlier time that you believe in determinism. I would like your opinion(s) on how this fits in with randomness in QM, please. Maybe I can understand you a little better. - 19:39:45 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN03: With every act, as an inscription,'for' detachment, it looks more and more like BETTY is just some high-flying religious type. Next thing she'll be saying is that naked juicy hot sex is not good, sheesh! - 19:42:49 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Some mentioned 'group things' and 'new age cults' towards the consciousness philosophies. I checked out the site you posted, Grant. Thanks for the time spent, at least, I guess. I don't care much for organized groups myself. But it makes me wonder a bit. What we're really talking about is a possible, however unlikely, paradigm shift. "Ha ha," said the atheist materialist. I bet the nomadic types said the same thing when the whole world shifted to materialism and civilization. The point is, things change. For example, there's no set rule that said materialism is the correct way to go, but people believed in it, and there be it. It swept over like a plague, it didn't need pamphlets or TV commercials. If we all didn't feel the same way it would have never happened. Of course too, if you don't like it you can get out. Truth remains, when a whole bunch people are ready for something it doesn't matter what it is; the whole world can change and then look back and say, "Wow, look how far we came. That's history for ya." I'm not counting any chicks, but I'll be one of the first to welcome the next paradigm shift when it comes. - 19:54:53 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, "detachment" from what? Your way of thinking? It couldn't be otherwise. "High-flying religious type"? Yep, I don't ground myself to anyone or anything. "Religious"? If you take it in the form of passionately absorbed in something, yes. Normally when I don't understand someone else I leave it that, and respect the difference. Why do some have to make comments that reflect their own misunderstanding? - 20:01:40 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:I take it back. I can see the evidence of how materialism can destroy unbridled passion for anything other than repetition. - 20:04:33 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: Thats it, the only kind of people that I am familiar who can go on and on about "their preferences", are the religious like. Does it mean they are, or you, any nearer to any truth? Not that I can tell. They do seek of others a "detachment" from whatever the others may hold dear. Why? Well, that appears, usually to insert the synthesised views, as you do here, of or for "the" new and better way. Here, at this chat that seems to be what you play at doing, but don't really mean to do. You say its just discussion. I for one just see you attempting to do your very own version of the catholic encyclopaedia. - 21:12:25 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Why don't you just go fly a kite with your "isms" and start discussing what you think and give evidence to backup your reasons "why" and start accepting what we post is what we think and pay some attention to evidence we post. Again, you seem to have a desperate need to put things in categories and have them all labeled. BTW I've posted a few of your ideas on a mailing list which has a few well known physicists as members and their response is "ick!!". Also some things are deterministic, some aren't. How this has anything to do with the labels you insist on putting on posters here, I have no idea. - 22:46:15 on 21 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: your antimaterialist view of the world doesn't face up to the facts of quantum physics.Good luck trying to teach this nonsense to school children and other ignorant persons. - 2:17:35 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: you haven't one shred of evidence that the "soul"; yes that's all you're trying to recreate here: exists. All you have reguratated is a word salad of physics volcabulary about the "soul" being real. Yours is a wish; but I wish a lot things too, but that won't make them real. - 2:21:31 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Are you close to Josh? I see that you claim not to be part of a group but the content and character of both your posts and Josh's are basically identical, like peas in a pod, or members of a cult....almost the same person. - 3:14:27 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - just last night I had that exact same thought. I remember when Josh was here, a person named Betty showed up and posted only once or twice, and we thought it was Josh posting under a different name. I guess the only person who would know that for sure would be Grant with his all-seeing computer spy capabilities. - 15:53:11 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Grant the some-seeing:MARLENE -- JOETTE -- I can't see everything- only that the IP numbers don't match. Personally I think Josh was more grounded in reality. - 20:44:28 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I don't know about that....both seem to have a very active imagination as well as an over inflated ego..they could be twins. - 23:57:41 on 22 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:While we are on "isms", how about the isms of capitalism and communism and the heartache and hardship it's caused for a little boy. I know this may piss off some of you 'Merakins but what business or right does a govenment have keeping a child away from it's father when it has just lost it's mother? At least things are patched up to a point now but after how long? - 3:09:35 on 23 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:HEY ALL! Anyone else celebrating the bizarre story of torturing a man to death to save all his "siblings" from sin by hiding eggs full of marshmellow chicks? You bet we are! Gotta love commercialism...otherwise it would certainly seem outlandish to celebrate the coming to life of your murdered hero by eating a zillion pounds of chocolate :-) BTW this weeks cover of US News was a story of "why was Jesus really killed". So does anyone believe there was actually a historic figure who has been built up into this "Jesus"? I think some of the bible has to be based in historical fact, obviously the trick is deciphering the fact from the fiction. - 2:33:59 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- There is no record that Jesus was a real person although in those times there were many people who supposedly could perform miralces and wanted to change the jewish religion. Much the same, I think, as all other denominations have swayed away from the catholic religion. There very well could have been a guy who set himself up to be killed as a martyr, he wouldn't be the first or last to do so in the name of god. BTW, I do like the idea of the easter bunny though, nothing gruesome about him and besides, like you say, he leaves chocolate without asking anyone to worship him or does he make any promises he can't keep. - 3:34:16 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The cuban kid, there are several POV but the most poignant thing I heard about was when the father said he'd been in the states for two weeks, and that he said, "I want my son". If true, for me, that is the end of that matter. What I found oddly interesting, repub.wanted the view and processes of law to go forward and liberals seemed to see the extraction and ensuing father son reunion as an ok deal. I thot repub.wanted less gov't intrusion and liberal demo.found comfort in a many armed gov't? In terms of law, is not a state law but a product of natural law? And in the USA "they-say" or some say or imply that family values are the root source of law? If true, then when that father said he wanted his offspring, what power is there to prevent that from being so? Certainly not capitalism nor communism. - 15:10:58 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE; On another matter, WJC had, has yet a genuine chance to make up some points lost for lying if he'd come forward with some leader like account for the extraction. I could even toss in J.Reno for conduct most becoming of the head of the dept.o'Justice. I wonder, did WJC allow that act because of his spouse who wrote the book "It takes a village", a title that sounds like a pitch for socilaism? I can make out how that cuban community there, might see hold themselves in the personae of the village. They there were not to tolerant of views against what they wanted any o'you see that they unplugged the CNN tv tent? That must be the criminal element that crossed the channel from cuba. - 15:32:48 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: I'm back. My computer 'crashed' a couple weeks ago and (three parts later) it has been resurrected. It's a miracle! - 17:51:06 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: and on easter too! Its a sign from above, or is it beyond? - 18:00:45 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: Regarding 'shell-shock'. The term was used with world war II vets, not viet nam(my grandpa fought across Europe in a tank and may have had it). As one who has worked in mental health in the military and VA systems... the term of choice is post traumatic stress syndrome (ptsd). I agree psychiatry has moved toward a strictly medical model (brain minus the mind) approach to mental health care. It is EXTREMELY frustrating to those like my self that have seen tremendous improvements in patients mental health through the lost art of THERAPY. Some research shows people with depression do better with meds AND therapy and at least as well with therapy alone versus meds. - 18:01:56 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: Finishing the thought.... I think the separation of therapy from health care is more about MONEY, than awareness of the connection between mind and body. Therapy is infinately (well, not infinatley) more expensive than drugs, more subjective and takes significantly more investment in time and energy, from both parties. Military mental health (I know, an oxymoron) was insensitive to the individual and their struggles and minimized the mental consequences of batttle (supporting your earlier point). I was asked to speak to the macho search and rescue military groups one year on mental health and suicidality- and there was a reaction ranging from general disinterest to nervous laughter in the audience. The following year (after a major sea fire and numerous lives lost) you could've heard a pin drop.... on the very same topic. The military only focused on utility, 'what is the serviceman's ability to contribute to the mission?'. Vets DON'T contribute to the mission, hence less effort to help them... how sad. It's laughable that the VA just approved (in about 1990 or so) MUSTARD GAS exposure as an ailment to be treated. Of course all the (dead) world war ONE! vets will appreciate the help. - 18:18:27 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open/Cristy: My wife talked me into taking the kids to a palm sunday service in which they talked about the passover. My daughter asked me what the passover was, to which I replied, "honey, christians believe the god of the captive jews instructed them to put lamb's blood around the door arches to protect them when he sent out a spirit of death to kill all the firstborn baby egyptian boys, remember the Disney movie?" to which she replied , "Daddy, why do they want to believe god is mean?" - 18:26:35 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: Did anyone see the pictures of the cuban boy lately???The pictures of him being taken from the Miami home showed him with a high cropped/side wall haircut. The pictures of him LATER that day, showing him happy in his fathers arms WITH HAIR TOUCHING HIS EARS !!! NO sidewalls. Boy, his hair grew fast in eight hours! Don't you just love AMERICAN propaganda! - 18:33:06 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Hair now hair there hair we go again so what the issue is as good as over, or should be. Or will the USA somehow, strike a deal for the consummation release and get cuba to allow a few swank hotels and vacation spots to be set aside for some USA citisens? - 18:56:20 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: On trusting 'science' implicitly. Some cable channel had a show on the origins of life. I understand it was pretty good , but didn't catch much of it. I did see that various researchers mentioned the '2,000,000 years (or so) that the planet had left of existence'. They cited another researcher's work on the subject. He spoke later on the program and I was interested in hearing how he arrived at the earth's life expectency (maybe it would be a calculation on time until the sun burnt out, time it took to exhaust some unrenewable resource,etc). What I got for my anticipation was disapppointing. He stated that"we have a 95% probabilty that we are living in the middle 95% of the life span of earth and thus, the earth will be in existence for another 90,000 to 2,000,000 years. It's that kind of circular logic that minimizes the 'science' in scientific research. You can't simply take a POINT in time and ASSUME it is THE midpoint from which to move out 2 standard deviations on a bell curve and THEN recite the 2 standard deviation laws of probabilty/statistics to draw conclusions! Others cited his conclusions and he used faulty logic! To decide that we are at some midpoint from which to draw conclusions on probability is assumptive and arbitrary. Wouldn't you agree? - 21:28:12 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of the cuban kid issue, supporters of the non-parent people say that because this- the USA, land o'many freedoms and cuba ain't the non-parents ought to have final custody. Afterall, so much more is available to the kid here in the USA, hmmm? So, if I decide that I can provide some poor kid from another country a better life I can simply take that kid? Or, what if I see a house I like a lot, can I move in it and take it over because I can take better care of it? I think you can see the tasty prospects those supporters of the non-parent types in the cuban kid issue can start-up. Then too, in business we could start up a real drive for syndicalism. wow! things could be changed. Janet did the right thing. - 21:34:48 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Carl/open: I know its dropping off the media radar screen and I don't have a vested interest in either outcome. The 'so what' is that this kid has been used as a political pawn on BOTH sides. The pictures were doctored, fake, phoney,a sham,a fraud. The masses have been duped , tricked, hoodwinked, bamboozled, shafted, misled (too over the top?)..you get the idea. I find deceit from our own government unnerving, do you think its the first time they've done such a thing? Or has disinformation become irrelevant? - 21:38:35 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: You mean, you mean I could be extending WJC, et.al., a brownie button, in haste? They didn't do it again, did they? - 22:33:05 on 24 Apr 100 GMT

Joette:ROB - always with the conspiracy theories! What would be the reason that your government would want to dupe the public in this matter? The only crime committed here is that the government took far too long to act. They allowed the Miami relatives thumb their noses at the rule of law longer than they should have, and when they didn't get their own way, they suddenly became keen on reinstating bargains that they had refused initially. This is the biggest non-event of the 20th century and I will be glad to see it come to an end. - 0:44:56 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Joette: I couldn't agree with you more regarding the sensationalization of individual lives, which have made celebrities of Lewinsky and the like. I don't follow the Gonzales boy case, but I did happen to see the pictures of the boy and the hair cut is longer yet supposedly only hours apart, draw your conclusions as to why.... I have heard numerous people argue in favor of the miami family (my wife's hispanic and her family are very wrapped up in the case). Their argument is that life in a communist country is no life at all, the father is unloving and distant, etc. To which I responded that they don't KNOW that the father is distant and unloving, but have drawn that conclusion based on (yes again) MEDIA reports. Both sides are trying to win the poll of public opinion in this case (and any other case americans get emotionally involved in, whether or not its of any consequence in their personal lives). The government and the media both recognize that the masses are gullible, suggestible to twists on stories and therefore take opportunity to SPIN stories when it suits their interests. I don't mean to burst any naivete' bubbles. Representations are not always truths.... - 2:08:20 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: Yet we allow children to go with parents in this country that deny them medicine and education because of religious beliefs. I for one would rather my child be raised a communist than a religious moron.I'd pick Cuba over Afganistan or Christain science or JW's.At least he has medicine and education; unlike the two strikes against him with the "abusive religious groups" that I mentioned before. - 2:20:30 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I have to agree that the country should not be making family decisions especially based on one's political beliefs. I've heard numerous arguments for and against the child staying in America. One of the most ridiculous is that the mother lost her life trying to give her son a better life. The reality was that the mother was following her boyfriend to America in an unsafe little boat and risked her son's life. This "it takes a village" stuff is getting fairly tired. I think children are already raised by a village. No longer are they stuck out on a farm in the middle of nowhere being influenced by their parents only. For the last 50 years most all children have had the influence of big schools, television, radio, community events etc. Along with that ole saying "it takes a village to raise a child" it also then stands to reason "it takes a village to help the child ruin their lives". I'm more of the persuasion that "too many cooks spoil the broth". But...I'm starting to get a bit of a different perspective on this "nuture" thing anyway. I'm reading a book right now _The Nuture Assumption_ by Judith Rich Harris. It turns out that what made sense to me for a long time has finally gotten some attention. I really recommend this book for any parent and maybe even those who aren't parents. - 2:58:52 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

PETER:Enough already. Shoot the kid - 14:49:05 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: It was most impressed when I scanned HRC's book by how much of it seemed to resemble the points of Marx and Engels. They track and lay out some very interesting points that by the way I seemed to see in the book "Anglo Saxon Superiority". If you get a chance and you have not yet read such, grab a copy of their- M&E, accounts of the Family, Property and State. I found the pieces keenly relevant to what still goes on. In response to the cuban kid fiasco, I thot it handy to read Gierke again, that feller strikes me as of the domaine wherein the views and mind of Marx and Engels were for their written accounts, as he- Gierke, seems to struggle to present an account for the relations of people. JOETTE may hit the nail on the head when she mentioned 'conspiracy'; a CIA undercover was on the flimsy boat with the cuban kids mother who, the undercover fella made sure she drowned, and the rest became history. - 14:55:52 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:LOL MARLENE, I'm gonna have to use your line about the Easter Bunny someday!..........ROB, out of the mouth of babes...a very wise question from your young'un!............CARL, that line of thinking is very scary, especially to me as an atheist. Many xians would consider me unfit as a parent for not "saving" my children, and would probably consider me worse than a communist. So if we are going to go w/ the "best" place for a child to be raised, what chance do we have if this nation gets taken over by xians? - 20:04:25 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: thats the point. If the body politic allows the legislators to step in and determine such issues as the cuban kid matter, those play thots I posted well, who can say what is next? - 20:09:14 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Open: WWSD, lets ask ourselves what would solomon do, oh wait, the boy would be cut in half. I meant, what would abraham do, oops ....hear voices instructing him to sacrifice the boy. Better stick with the new testament, exorcism anyone? - 23:30:28 on 25 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Good point..to a point. I think ole Abe would have slaughtered the kid without a blink of the eye but Sol, was a wise guy..most mothers would never dream of hurting their children and I think his comment to those two women may have brought them to their senses. - 1:08:52 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Or, too what the mythical jc do? Would a 'baptism' be in order? Would a prayer do the trick and if yes, what prayer, and to whom or what does one pray? Does one pray for the nuclear family, the natural and orginal state, or does one ask for the wisest choice of the fictional state, or do we patiently await the rule of the majority? Or does one just love all and forgive and forget? Of these points and the host that must comprise whatever else, the father offspring appears the simplest and clearest solution, and leave the rest out of it. - 14:26:23 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:Well, I am on a rampage lately of "coming out" and telling friends I am an atheist. I had a talk w/ dh last week about how trapped I felt, partly because I was afraid of his holy-roller bosses finding out. He said not to worry, if I wanted to tell people go ahead, some people at work knew and he thought the office had progressed enough that there would be no ramifications. So I responded to one of his coworkers that always forwards religious material to me "thanks but no thanks on the religion" and she was real nice about it. So I told a couple more friends. One didn't email back for a while but was friendly in person, and one did the usual "but what basis do people have to act morally if there is no afterlife" kind of arguments. But her dh and his family are agnostic so she didn't get too worked up either. It feels good to just be straight w/ people instead of stewing inside all the time! - 18:39:47 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Toldja'ya'll wuzn't no chicken - 18:51:00 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: You jiss may not be an employed atheist, thass'all - 18:52:32 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Can anyone here or passing through give a full report on G.Bush jr. got to the forefront of USA politics? Is it really and truely just because of his father and the historical connections that come with dad? What has jr. done that we now have to consider him as a choice for president? Without such an account, jr. easily is one of the weakest, almost Muskie weak, prez candidates. - 20:24:24 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, besides "Dubya's" family and connections, he's been riding the wave of conservatism. When he won governor in Texas the first time, he ran against a fairly liberal Dem WOMAN *gasp*. I still can't believe a woman Democrat was ever even elected here (I thought she was waaaaaaay COOL) but the guy that ran against her was about as much a good 'ol boy IDOIT as you have ever seen. So much so that even the good ol' boys distanced themselves from him. ANYHOO, w/ the conservative Rep movement going Dubya got to be governor in a pretty highly visible state, but in a position of very weak power (Texas gov. has very little power). I don't think he's done much of note besides ride along the party agenda, and make sure lots of people got executed (that'll make him popular w/ you I bet :-). I think w/o the name he'd be just another face in the crowd. WHAT A SHAME that a really good candidate (McCain) got beat out by the smirking propaganda machine! - 21:08:50 on 26 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I'm sure everyone who really likes you for you will continue to do so. Be prepared though to have some people think you've went off the deep end. I really fail to grasp this but many believers think those who don't believe are a little wacko. BTW, it feels good to be honest no matter what the topic IMO. - 1:04:06 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Grant: This can't be right:According to this article, "...47 per cent of Americans -- and a quarter of college graduates -- believe humans did not evolve, but were created by God a few thousand years ago. Nearly a third believe creationism should be taught in science lessons." Maybe something in the water supply? - 12:52:19 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: In the analysis of the godthing as that hypothesis relates to the social human animal, I can makeout how for the whole of all humans a report with the numbers favorable of that hypothesis easily and is supposed to subsume human concern and interest. The idea is simply, quite simply that of establishing a common idea, a median point of reference for human relations. Is it true, of course not! It is just an idea that conveys nothing but nonetheless it is held by or necessarily held before the majority of humans who generally do nothing but live until they finally die. Us atheist type humans, or least I do, reject that safe idea because I'd rather think and say to me and check with others how is this life thing. The simplicity of the god hypothesis seems to allow one to disregard so much that is alive. Its all good, nothing is less or more, maybe It is just not known or understood yet. The god hypothesis allows its adherents to go on, dispite the unknown to the human experience or that not yet understood by the human mind. Do they care, methinks not. - 15:08:06 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:I guess Josh was someone who was here before me. I'll take it that he shared some similar views and the only way for some people to comprehend this for some people is to use some kind of label, such as 'twins'. The kettle is a'calling. Marlene, you speak of labels and how you dislike their use thereof. I'll remind you that the precept of materialism in the hearts of early scientists is how the world got labeled. Everything and all needed a label to be classified into individual, organized tabs. That's how materialism works. I played your game up until YOU decided YOU didn't like it. "Also some things are deterministic, some aren't." Since when do you get to turn off determinism as you see fit?? Your last words said it best, "How this has anything to do with the labels you insist on putting on posters here, I have no idea." You can't reconcile your own arguments without demonstrating the exact paradoxes I described. - 15:15:42 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, "BTW I've posted a few of your ideas on a mailing list which has a few well known physicists as members and their response is "ick!!". --- With materialism as an accepted precept of classical physics, no duh! I've already explained the world's absorption with materialism. I have no doubt that you use these silly, cowardly statements to try to hide your understandable ignorance of these topics. Until you can discuss these points yourself and make an honest effort, you're stubborness will be the main obstacle, and not anything that I discuss. I'm not closing any doors. - 15:26:48 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, "They do seek of others a "detachment" from whatever the others may hold dear. Why? Well, that appears, usually to insert the synthesised views, as you do here, of or for "the" new and better way". --- I'm sorry, hun, but things change all the time. Entropy is the natural world order, otherwise things won't survive. As I've discussed to extremes, materialism is an adopted philosophy. It worked to get us past the Dark Ages and beyond, but it remains incomplete as a universal theory. The idea of someone holding something dear is how we get traditions and cultures. These traditions require us to do things that we often don't realize why we do them anymore. This is my point. The extra step here is to realize the imperfections of current traditions and to accept that as a conscious detachment from tradition and things held dear for they are merely habits. Nature works on habits. It finds new habits and evolves. When I explained monistic idealism before I asked that people consider a more holistic view of process. Things that people hold dear are not part of a universal process, but the process allows us to experience these things. Absorbing ourselves indefinitely in the traditions and objects and forms is the precept of materialism, understanding the process itself and using this to reduce the limitations, but obviously not totally discard, of materialism is monistic idealism. That's the difference. - 15:39:05 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable to not have to discuss the flaws of materialism either. Heck, classical physicists have been doing it for years. It's not a wish to seek something different. It was our choice to adopt materialism as a world culture to begin with. Materialism is one category, theistic or not. Both rely upon structureless particle theories. Maybe that's why they can't or won't discuss the foundations for their theories?? When you realize your basic argument is based on traditions alone, things seem a lot less worth fighting for, I guess?? haha. - 15:50:21 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, "Reality"? Based on what? Materialism? Come on, fess up. The universe didn't come with an instruction manual pointing to materialism. I don't hold human traditions that high. Is it possible that there is a better philosophy, and would it require physical evidence for you to believe it? That would be materialism again. Why does more than 90% of the world seek a more spiritual life (yes, even most classical scientists, as I'm sure you know) even amidst materialistic traditions? Because they're crazy? I mean, come on. I think what draws me to this room is that it's interesting to see how this small minority of atheistic materialists think they have superior intellectual capabilities tooth and nail against what they simply do not understand. Yeah, that's easy for me to say, but because I spent the last few months detailing the reasons. And it's not simply because I don't like what you have to offer, but because traditions like these are the cause of major worldly problems, as I've discussed. - 16:05:46 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Edit: "and argue" tooth and nail... - 16:07:58 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:A note on reality: Yeah, there is a reality outside of individual subjectivity; it's called intersubjectivity. The whole physical universe appears to have preferences for certain chemistry's and matter combinations. However, the particles themselves do not know why they do what they do, but they are part of the whole picture. Our human self-reflexive perceptions to understand this is not a testimony to a physical-based universe, and one not necessarily made of absolutes, but of certain preferences. In absence of a God, the answer is that the universe itself makes these preferences. Matter itself cannot make these preferences and yet our very own lives are evolving constantly. As Doug put it, it's the transcending 'soul' constituted of the unpreferential physical elements that is our guide through life: the ability for creative preferences. 'Soul' is not the word I would use for it's misunderstood interpretations. But I appreciate Doug's reference here, because it's another reminder that people all over the world are talking about and sharing the same things. [-consciousness- 'scire': to know, 'con': with]. 90% of the world shares the same kinds of feelings. ----- Note: "word salad" is another good materialistic label for the collective whole, but not quite understood as such. - 16:29:37 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: If history is an indicator of the human animal's behavior and conduct, materialism has never been the human's problem. The problem, as far as it looks like to me, was in the mythical values and consequent action taken by the humans who wanted something mythical and or spiritual-like to dominate human animal's relations. Your anti-materialism views seem hell bent on drawing another gossamer like veil over the historical results of such human-mind sets. You do like it seems did the catholics who took law and religion spinning away from natural law and views that might have led to a better understanding of the thing superficially known and called nature, you spin off for something of your own concoction. What have you supposed it is that you mean to convey or relate to others here? Are you seeking to implant some other feel-good hocus-pocus? So far you haven't said anything new or different that I couldn't make out as something someone else has sought to say or attempted to structure. I still see that all you seek to do is layout a proposal that requires an emptied mind wherein you can play, as you please. - 16:56:24 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: Or too, the topic that you appear to advance here, while you deny a religious-spirituality, what you contend for is like the religious thing in that your topic- consciousness, is also invisible. Maybe it is an abstract meant to convey of other abstractions? What is it you mean to put forward for that 'idea'? Is it like a kind of buddhism, these dudes regularly call for ones empty mind for whatever it is they say is an experience. Some really far-out kinds of theology that I've read tell readers their supernatural-thing was a consciousness{?} that was prior to any creation, are you one of these so-sayers? These kinds of human animals have said some really out-of-mind things. They were so simply out-of-mind that one could call them idiots. But, is being an idiot for some period of time a bad thing? That they say of things known to only themselves, does that mean they tell falsehoods? Or, on the other hand who knows if what they say is a truth? Is it in this realm of 'word-play' that you rest? - 19:39:09 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: traditions? Yes, the time proven methods of science. This materialism is a classification spun out of whole cloth by the new age crowd.I don't know what you are talking about when you say that about physicists; they will discuss their work with the public.You're trying to build a straw man so the faithfull will continue following the new age dogma. - 22:03:40 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- What a short term memory you have! You agreed with Josh and even defended his claims. You both were here at the same time. Why is it all or nothing with you????? IMO, some things are deterministic and some aren't. A note on reality.. The fact that your ideas are ICK! doesn't make anyone who thinks this cowardly or silly, in fact, anyone who calls you on your ICK is being quite up front with you. Put some evidence to your ICK and maybe I'll consider what you're posting as having some substance. I've posted arguments to your claims and all I've gotten back from you is more claims of the same ICK and no evidence to back them. In fact you use the cowardly approach by personally making yourself a victim when I oppose your ideas. Do you think anyone here cares that big bad Marlene doesn't agree with you? You don't need to close the door, you've never opened it. - 22:47:33 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene...just a reminder Betty:Betty:Jumping right in, Josh I admire your bravery or whatever your motivation(s) are. It's ironic how on one hand people will argue against divine intervention and a "master plan", but then they will argue that random coincidences and "selfish" genes are the explanations for arriving at this stage of evolutionary growth, as if random mutations alone have allowed us to survive for so many millions of years. How could it be anything besides consciousness and the potential we've realized from consciousness? You're right, we can see its results. I don't think it was a coincidence that our ancestors crawled out of the ocean and adapted to the land environment,- they tried to do it, they're situations called for changes, they made changes, and then it was possible. Not all adaptations survived but the creatures that were persistent did. It's never the other way around. I also agree that the term New Age has been misused in here, but I don't think pointing out the flaws in the group dynamics here is a way of sharing ideas. I can understand your possible frustration with people like these, but attacking their pride in joining in together in a room like this would only make them recoil in defense. They're people with feelings, just like you and I. - 19:32:55 on 4 Oct 99 GMT - 23:38:31 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/Cristy/open: hey, it gets scarier than that. 85% of americans consider themselves christians. One survey reported that HALF of all americans...believe in angels! I don't know of anyone else at work that is openly non-christian (other than myself, maybe they know better than to be honest) out of hundreds of people. We get jesus mailers, jesus videotapes and 5 channels promoting jesus. We see jesus bumperstickers (my boss is a carpenter?) and the introductory question is 'what church do y'all attend'. (I found that 'church of satan' was not considered funny by most). I have a nauseating zealot brother-in-law who's sworn misssion in life is to question my wife about our kids church attendance. My in-laws, who combine catholicism with carribean superstition (nice combo) trekked to Conyers, Ga. for their easter pilgrimage because the virgin mary revealed herself there. ' What sage wisdom of the ages had she bestowed in the past', I asked. As the clouds parted and rose petals fell from heaven (bad acid?) she offered the novel 'repent because end times are near ' speech. (They also told my wife to sweep my underwear out the front door one time and it would drive me away). I believe that is in Levitticus somewhere isn't it? - 23:52:04 on 27 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/Marlene: From what does one deduce either view? We know we exist, but where's the evidence for further conclusions? The universe is the sum of its evolving parts? There's more to the design of us (I know the word design is akin to blasphemy) than can be written off that simply. That there is a universal cosmic consciousness that drives this mess? Where is there any suggestion of that either? The physical world is ordered I'll agree. But the nonphysical world of mind, consciousness/'spirit', etc. shows absolutely no link with a bigger cosmos than to an unseen god. A cosmic consciousness responsible for 'it all' would have to be superior, on some level, to the failings of man. Nature,to the contrary, is quite cruel and merciless. Either a cosmic consciousness as you use it means what the term implies to most,a higher collective spiritual consciousness of some sort (no evidence of that) or it is merely a euphemism for cell dynamics, gravity and spinning top. The second option puts you on the other side of the same materialist 'coin'. - 0:13:48 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I agree with you for the most part but only we humans (as far as we know) see order and design to the universe. If you had a choice to redesign it, wouldn't you make some improvements? If you could do evolution all over again, wouldn't you make some changes? My point is, that if we mere humans can see the flaws then the universe is not likely intelligently designed. - 0:47:01 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- How silly, how could you leave the house with no underwear, LOL! Carribean superstitions..that's interesting! This is something we don't hear much of up here in the GWN. What do these superstitions involve? - 1:47:41 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I can accept that! For some strange reason much of humanity can't accept evolution, they seem to need to be more. - 1:59:36 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, lol at them wanting to sweep your underwear out! Sounds like they are a few sandwiches short of a picnic! hahaha - 2:41:21 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You're no different than any other religionist reasoning backward from a conclusion, unable to see the trap. I know, you're going to say this is what I'm doing with materialism. You can't grasp the difference. Save yourself the keystrokes. - 3:50:58 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: exactly! you stated my point...clearer. - 14:41:32 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: Wellll, certain people have the power to give others 'the evil eye' and thus cast spells on them (watch out for those scowls, they're lethal), setting an infant on a palm tree will stop its growth (important info in the GWN). I've walked into their home and seen twelve or so candles burning (anyone missing any lambs?). Strangely the baptist zealot brother-in-law is more bizarre. Miracles happen regularly in his experience. - 14:48:56 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Short term memory? I don't spend half my day checking in on this room. I'm sure you know everyone's name and who posts here. Don't expect the same of everyone else, especially when that was something like a year ago for me. So chill. I post to a lot of different rooms on various topics. That's petty stuff. Stick to the concepts by themselves, please. --- Determinism is a precept that states that all events have sufficient causes. There's no halfzies here, it's all or nothing. Don't get crazy here, I didn't invent determinism, but if you say you believe it I wanted to know how you can rationalize that some things are coincidentally spontaneous. Either everything has sufficient cause or not. How does coincidence and randomness fit in with determinism? - 16:38:13 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, You missed the other "ICK" concept there. Unless you can argue the concepts YOURSELF without resorting to saying what others have supposedly posted, YOU are making cowardly attempts. Sheesh. - 16:42:12 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, The reasoning didn't start with consciousness, hun. You have interpreted the argument that way and refuse to accept or recognize that I stated that the argument originally began many years ago when the flaws of materialism came up and the need for a more complete theory arose. Consciousness is one possible, more complete vision. I don't care if you agree or not, but please don't project your misunderstandings as the flaws of my arguments. This is a repeated process in here. ----- How can a sack of randomly combined elementary particles conditioned by it's environment have valuable arguments? Start here. - 16:51:09 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, "Betty: traditions? Yes, the time proven methods of science. This materialism is a classification spun out of whole cloth by the new age crowd.I don't know what you are talking about when you say that about physicists." --- Doug, hun, this is what happens when you come into the middle of a conversation. Quickly, materialism and science are two separate terms. Science is the idealism to gather all the information and empirical data and experiences of the world to help understand it better. Materialism (from material realism) is a precept, a conjured interpretation, that states that only shifting elementary physical particles are real; they compromise all of reality. When you say you don't understand something I appreciate it, but give me a dose of respect and go back and read the previous posts that led up to the point where you want to challenge an argument. Materialism, stemmed from determinism, and the ideal of classical physics, is the tradition in question. Science as an idealism is otherwise unbiased. I've noticed other people in here seem to have the same difficulty in separating material realism from science. This is an adopted tradition in that respect. - 17:00:00 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Why is it so hard to understand that material realism may be imperfect and worthy of reconsideration for removal for universal scientific interpretation? To further this, I've stated only a hundred times that it's not simply that I don't like materialism, but that it's recent traditional imbalance is ignored as a conscious rationalization; people shifted, the universe didn't. Here it is again: There needs to be a more balanced holistic balance of science and spirituality. If you wonder why "The Tao of Physics" and such books have come about it's because of the paradoxes displayed within QP with materialism as an interpretation. Non-scientists as well understand this same imbalance and in fact realize that the separation of science in spirituality is superficially conjured because of such adopted premises as materialism. Go to any bookstore and check out the physics section. Classical physics, determination, and material realism worked great for awhile, but the new physics is the next shift. It's not a mind-melt at work here, hun. We learn more and realize our previous interpretations are not as good as we once thought. Like you've mentioned the Buddhists, many early religious traditions understood this need for a balance of adventures in both the physical and spiritual worlds. "They were so simply out-of-mind that one could call them idiots..." Who's calling them idiots? Materialists? Do you understand the difference between material realism and what science is? If you did you might be a bit more idealistic in understanding. --- Also, You are right in stating that I have denied religious intonations, but because of their materialistic focuses. If you understood the difference between spirituality and religion this would also help the discussion....It's a bit obnoxious and small-minded to call more than 90% of the rest of the world idiots. I'd rather try to understand others than to call them idiots, but hey, call that hocus pocus. - 17:23:54 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:As to the Marlene and Rob discussion--- I noticed also that both of you missed the concept Rob was on track off, because of a wrong presuppostion. Consciousness as a universal principle is NOT intelligent; this word ONLY applies to the human form, as far aw we know. Consciousness, as a euphemism, a creative maintaining order, does not recognize or direct it's actions in any design other than keeping order. I pointed out that there is a difference between consciousness and self-conscious, in that the latter in human form is the only reflexive capability so far as we know in the universe. Sure, nature is cruel. Life feeds off of other life. But if you understand the transcending process of maintaining order and balance of the physical world, nature shouldn't be otherwise. The word intelligence is what throws an unnecessary wrench in. - 17:39:20 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Did you post that "new agers" made up the word materialism? --- Let me see if I can dish out some medicine, "Another one of those misinformed materialists again. They believe everything their materialist friends and leaders tell them. They never bother to investigate themselves. Just like a herd of sheep they are. Uh huh." --- lol. Just having fun, Doug. Go back and read about Descartes, Newton, Galileo, etc. - 17:49:34 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Of this site, it being as it is- a means of and for an electronic structuralism, is there a difference between the things others attribute to a 'JOSH' and that of 'BETTY'? In the most recent post to me, I seemed to hear one only. The responses, JOSH's back when and BETTY's now, seem marked by very similiar moments of suritys and franticnesses. Recall or simply go back and review those old JOSH posts and note wether or not the syntax strikes or enlivens your sense of recognition. Did not someone suggest, back when, that there is something abnormal about this ongoing contention for a consciousness? - 19:27:31 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Notice Betty can't read dates either. At the bottom of that post of her's I reposted it read, October/99...that was a year ago??? Methinks Betty REALLY knows not what she spews. - 19:46:31 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: something is awry here. - 20:01:26 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..:BETTY- You really top all woo-woo queens! It's your opinion that everything is either deterministic or it isn't. Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what your opinion is. I'm not about to tell you what to think, don't tell me what I think. If I think some things are deterministic and some aren't, who are you to tell me to think differently. Ever since you've started posting here which was about SIX months ago, (of course that is if you haven't posted under some other stupid pseudo identity previous to that time), you've been preaching your nonsensical new age dogma expecting the inconceivable, for the sensible to accept it. Contrary to your above post, I posted good arguments against your ICK but you've offered no proper argument in favor of such fantastic ideas. I can suggest why too, there isn't any. All your ideas are whimsical fantasies. Don't even try to be insulting and patronizing toward me because you are wasting your time. I personally think you are a absolute nutcase, not because of your ideas but because of the vivacity you seem to exhibit as you try to convince others to accept them. - 20:04:14 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..appropriate for today:Quote of the Day : " A metaphysician is a man who goes into a dark cellar at midnight without a light looking for a black cat that isn't there. -- attributed to Charles Bowen - 23:24:21 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- So you don't look like a coward, why don't you come on over to the mailing list I'm on and teach(yuck!) all those silly "classical" physicians everything you know about physics. I just bet you'll come out smelling like a rose after preaching to these guys. Just let me know if you have the intestinal fortitude and I'll leave you the address. In fact, I'll even announce your debut! - 23:59:47 on 28 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You ask Carl why it's so hard to understand that material realism may be imperfect and worthy of reconsideration for removal for universal scientific interpretation. This is laughable. One would think you could understand that there is value in investigating the material universe. Science actually is the study of the physical, you know. Look it up. For the study of the spiritual we already have more groups (religions and such) than you can shake a stick at. They don't have a very good track record, however, in the area of accuracy. You wish to modify science to be another of these groups, leaving nobody to investigate the material world? What a recidivist notion. Back to the dark ages, eh? Your approach to "material realism" is phony rhetorical maneuvering. It's not rational to demand that materialists, or physicalists (to avoid your confusion with materialism in a sociological sense as a preoccupation with the pursuit of material goods) prove to you that more than the physical does not exist, and I think you know this and are dodging it. All that is needed is evidence that something else (anything at all) exists, and evidence that you, a physical being have some reliable method for detecting it. Otherwise, hun, there's nothing to distinguish your beliefs from thousands of other people's conflicting and unverifiable beliefs, of which they are as confident as you. The conclusion you argue backward from is that more than the physical exists. It's evident from everything you say. It's the reason you ask such things as "How can a sack of randomly combined elementary particles conditioned by it's environment have valuable arguments?". Value is a human concept. It doesn't exist outside the mind somewhere near the Orion Nebula or someplace. It has no bearing on the question. Arguments have precisely the value we assign them, no more, no less. The question is meaningless unless you presuppose that value exists independantly from us. Why don't you already understand this? Maybe you need to go back and read about Descartes, Newton, Galileo, etc., heavy on the etc. Oh, and do us all a favor and stay away from _The Tao of Physics_ and such books for a while. You could use a little more background in the mind/body problem, duality, philosophy of science, etc. - 5:34:45 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: If 'cosmic consciousness' is qualitatively defined as 'a creative maintaining order' (without intellect, intent, or a self awareness/self-reflexive quality), how is that different than a well oiled machine? That definition DOES allow for a cruel unyielding nature because the laws apply to all-- regardless of desperation, equity or need for supernatural intervention. The conception of a well-oiled machine DOES NOT give one a sense of spiritual connectedness. With what? Something without intellect, unaware of its self or collective self, incapable of using judgement or selecting different paths based on new information (other than maintaining homeostasis), unable to discriminate by need, unable to impart wisdom , act for a reason. That said, it may well be, but how would we know? Where's the proof of such? There is no explanation for IT's origins. Didn't it have a first cause? No reason for the universe at all? Matter without design versus matter by design from an unthinking nondescript source is still matter that---- doesn't matter, cosmically speaking of course..... - 12:36:11 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Your posts here serve as a useful example of why scientific rigor and peer review are so vital. We humans are always sure we are right, whatever our beliefs happen to be at the moment. The brain appears to be wired that way. Recognition of this fact is at the very core of scientific methodology and philosophy. The problem with society is not materialism/physicalism as you charge, but the lack of healthy skepticism and doubt. The greatest thing anyone, YOU can do to free the mind is not to cut the tethers to the material world, but to seriously and honestly doubt everything, especially most cherished and basic beliefs, and recognize the limits of what we can truly know. When we reach premature conclusions, such as that the xtian god made everything and is now a cosmic maintenance man, or that a collective consciousness is the explanation for inner emotional longings for meaning and such, we have ceased to explore and ceased to learn. And yes, I am susceptible to such influences and errors too. The difference is that people like me are aware of such problems and are on guard, while people like you are not. - 12:50:36 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Good morning, Rob. - 12:51:11 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/open: re: basement: The problem is one person tested their senses and determined nothing was there, another felt a cold draft and 'knew' it must have been the cat passing by,another postulated that there must have been a cat or else 'how did the basement get there?' and one was sure they saw cats eyes and was willing to kill all others for not respecting the cat! - 13:04:24 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: Hey, Grant. Whats up? - 13:08:35 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: Amen, errr, right on, to healthy skepticism and scientific scrutiny that can stand the light of day. - 13:12:08 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:Gotta work today. :-( - 13:20:55 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- LOL!!! - 16:59:40 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I like your grand-standing. I'm sure you got all the leads in your highschool plays, always taking the parts that stood for 'truth and justice', always holding your chin up high, but take a break in here and chill out. You only seem to want to respond when it comes to a last, death-threatening speech of sorts so I'll take that into consideration from now on. ---- Likewise, I humbly apologize for the following misunderstanding, "You ask Carl why it's so hard to understand that material realism may be imperfect and worthy of reconsideration for removal for universal scientific interpretation. This is laughable. One would think you could understand that there is value in investigating the material universe." --- It should have read, "reconsideration for removal 'as the' universal scientific interpretation, meaning removing it as a tradition. That was an understandable mistake on my part. And if you still bother to research it, science is an investigation, an original idealism. It was only in recent times that deterministic and materialistic traditions fandangled their way and convoluted the original meaning. Science began as the idealism. Accuracy, track records, etc. are all based on deterministic (yes, human contrived) precepts of the universe. An understanding of QP reveals things such as non-locality, non-objectivism, probability, and tendencies as the major constituents of the universe. Your ideals, those transferred to you from classical physics, are just as fantastical as any religious story. The value of them, as you refuse to bend over and recognize, is up to the people that support them. Also, to turn down your volume a little more, I wish to reununciate your misunderstanding of value. This is the concept: "Value is a human concept. It doesn't exist outside the mind somewhere near the Orion Nebula or someplace. It has no bearing on the question...." Unless! You are trying to argue your opinion against another's, which is exactly what's taking place. The value between humans. Conveniently arguing that you are a randomly conditioned sack of cells, materialists devalue their own emotions, and therefore any meaning to their argument. This is logic. If you intend to stand tall and fight for 'truth and justice', use a better foundation than your claims of random, coincidental likelihoods that nature conditioned an argument together for you at all. It's not that the value is independent as you conjure up somehow as my argument, but that you intend to argue your case with value AND randomness. You as a single entity cannot have the best of both worlds, hun. Pick one or the other. And, If your choices and opinions especially in here are valid, how do you declare them so in a random, coincidental nature of things? Hint: randomness cancels value. - 17:00:18 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, "All that is needed is evidence that something else (anything at all) exists, and evidence that you, a physical being have some reliable method for detecting it. Otherwise, hun, there's nothing to distinguish your beliefs from thousands of other people's conflicting and unverifiable beliefs, of which they are as confident as you." ---- Once again, unless you intend to continually half-assedly argue that the other 90% of the world does not collectively and individually experience and detect a strong sense of spirituality, subjectivity, communal fortitude, and value in being more than just random combinations than your silly 'physical' detectors will allow, YOU'LL have to also prove that material realism exists independently of our subjective and intersubjective perceptions somewhere out of this planet - You, being the one arguing your randomly conditioned opinion with some perceived kind of value. Causal relationships, mind you, those precepted by determinism, those that given the same circumstances will always yield the same results are contrary to everything known in the physical world. Take a look at evolution! It's however unlikely to assume that everything will continue 100% as planned. This is the tradition of determinism soaked into materialism because on small scales nature does indeed take on noticeable local and temporal habits. Your ideals of repeatability, track records, and physical proof are the burning bushes, revelations, and miracles of religious materialism. If you need physical proof of what you feel is appropriate, I'll start handing out lollipops when you post things in here. Better yet, a star, so you can wear it all day so that you can superficially 'prove' to others what you have accomplished. Get off your high horse. So now you'll say, Betty's arguing for inconsistency, unreliability, flight of the wind arguments. Exactly. Remember that humans were the ones who contrived all those solid terms and concrete concepts in the first place to make the world seem and 'look' (physical proof) more manageable. These are the cardboard cut-outs. The universe comes with no pre-packaged instruction guides. So what am I arguing? Don't hold onto things as safe and sure, accept change, accept the doses here and there of probability, accept relativity. Yeah, you can stand tall holding your stick-in-the-mid materialist signs. You think the universe cares? That's laughable. - 17:28:59 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, "It's your opinion that everything is either deterministic or it isn't." Wow. You can reinvent things as you go along? Once again, look up determinism. You can't pick and choose, hun. Try posting that on the physics page. BTW, if you intend to take everything literally, including phrases like "something like a year ago", you'll be disappointed when someone explains the word 'maybe' to you.-- I'm sorry if you posted a response and I missed it. But in the most serious and honest way possible I would like to ask again more specifically, How are some things deterministic and others are not? If the laws of classical physics hold true, then where does randomness and spontaneous coincidence fit in? --- If you cannot answer this with at least an honest attempt it's best to assume that somebody told it to you and you believed it without truly understanding it. I'm not making such claims yet, because if there is a good answer I am willing to seek it. - 17:42:51 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:And yes, I would like the address to the physics site. I didn't hire you as my Public Relations so no doubt you misrepresented me. I can do the job just fine, thanks. - 17:46:23 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, Consciousness as a creative maintaing order is highly different from a universal machine. Creatively awaiting challenges of new events and new opportunities is not the same as mechanistically following universal natural laws. These so-called laws are testable and hyothesized as absolute, paradoxically in a random, manipulative quantum world. The rest of your argument follows from this poorly derived argument as such, "The conception of a well-oiled machine DOES NOT give one a sense of spiritual connectedness...." I don't intend to argue against your misunderstandings. - 17:52:51 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, "Back to the dark ages, eh?" Damn, you're so dense. I certainly did not recall a few hundred years of progress. I stated that materialism has gotten us past the Dark Ages and beyond. Now it's time for something more complete. And just to be clear once again, "Leaving no one to investigate the material world" is another false perception of my arguments. The material world has been exhaustively examined and continues to be. That's great. But what I stated was that for a more healthy outlook, the world requires a homeostasis (great word, Rob!). This entails following the habits of physical nature to garnish all that we can AND include subjectivity, conflict, spirituality, and emotion into a complete universal view. The latter are the things that drive us to understand the physical world at all (and still are not unconditionally proven to originate from it). To discredit the passion we have to understand and balance our lives is self-defeating. As an idealist in the true nature of the world, nothing is more weighted than anything else, except the idealism itself. Everything and anything goes. Skepticism and doubt are not universal by any means, but serve as useful individual decision-making tools. It's a falsehood to believe that what you reject (because this thing exists first before your objections) is any less valuable to someone else within idealism. This is what I mean by relativity. In idealism, if it can be seen, thought of, felt, smelled, painted, created, or even discarded, it is real. Physical structure is only one of many elements of the universe. And this is what makes idealism a more complete theory. When you recognized that value is a human concept, you have to also realize that casting doubt and putting things (even what others express that you don't understand) into an "ignored" or "not real" categories, is your own limitation on reality. I don't care if anyone in here is idealist or not, but I sure like to point out the walls people make for themselves. These walls based on superficial pride for tradition are the cause of the major worldly problems. I can see walls being put up in here (Marlene, don't take this one literally either, please). People see obstacles and fences that aren't really there. Call me preachy, but I point out what I don't like and where it can be positively changed. - 18:22:13 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: You"re speaking in new age word salad again. You people like to gather multiple sylyable words from "real" science and give it a new cryptical meaning.That's what I said, now back to proving your new age beliefs. You haven't presented us with one shred of hard evidence. What gives, does the emperess have no cloths? In other words Betty, shit or get off the pot. - 20:10:34 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..:BETTY- I suppose I can invent things as well as you seem to do. To set the record straight, I'm not a physicist, nor do I pretend to be and I do rely on authority for anything having to to do with this subject. I would wager that you too are not a physicist. That wager would be based on the fact that what you have presented so far on the subject of physics is ICK/word salad/just plain bullshit. I couldn't begin to misrepresent you, your ideas are way to ridiculous for me to invent, actually it's your own words that the physicists on the list said "ICK" too. But back to setting the record straight, so far most things in this universe are deterministic. It hasn't been proven that qm is but it may be. Qm has many theories to explain it but none of those theories has been proven to be the one that actually does although theories such as the one you hold so dear is so far out on the fringe, it may as well be non-exsistent. When physicists come up with this answer then I'll be a full-fledged materialist/deterministic. Now to join the mailing list all you have to do is To join SKEPTIC, send "subscribe skeptic Your Name" to "listproc@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu". We'll see you there! - 20:12:39 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug---I wonder if these new age types WERE the types to just sit on their potties for hours? I know of children who have done this. My aunt's daughter use to do this and she's fairly clueless. - 20:18:20 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene..what a bunch of balogna!:BTW everyone, just because 90% of the population of the western world may choose to watch Another World does this mean 90% of people indulge in a soap-opera lifestyle? Although 90% of the population buys into "spirituality" basically none of them actually live the lifestyle they claim is spiritually proper. Really how many people follow in jc's footsteps, how many idealists like Betty throw out their computers and sell their homes and live their dream world. Dreaming and imagining is one thing, doing is another. I think the H word applies to 99% of that 90%. - 20:30:50 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: The rub is in your use of the word 'creatively' as 'awaiting challenges of new events and new opportunities' which appears to imply decisions, judgements and a purposeful action upon the environment. - 20:42:01 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: oops, I got cut off mid thought. As I was saying, the problem to me is that your definitions of key words/ concepts are apparently changing and thus slippery. How can you consider a universal consciousness as BOTH "creatively awaiting challenges of new events and new opportunities" (which implies thought, jugdement, deliberation and change in actions based upon change in circumstances) and also state that it is not intelligent because that term is reserved for those self-reflexive humans. Reserved by whom? How is it able to change actions upon the universe and NOT be aware of itself! How can it even be called consciousness if it doesn't include awareness? How can it be aware enough to alter actions upon the entire universe and not know it has such influence,if it is not aware of itself?!? Your Apr. 28 post states that "consciousness...is NOT intelligent...a creative maintaining order does not recognise or direct it's actions in any design other than keeping order." Again, how can this mystical consciousness be both a nonintelligent, order-maintainer which does not direct its actions in any design other than keeping order (your earlier version) AND "creatively awaiting challenges of new events and new opportunites." One version of 'creative' IS mechanistic as in pumping out new Fords is 'creative'. The latest version of 'creative' is SATURATED in intelligence :creatively (as used there implies problen solving NOT pumping out widgets), 'awaiting challenges of new event ' (anticipation, deliberation, intent, plan of action; yet no intelligence? not aware of itself???), 'opportunities'(things lacking a self/self concept DON'T have,or recognise, opportunties). If you wouldn't change concepts/terms ....there wouldn't be misunderstandings. - 21:19:12 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Thanks for the address, Marlene. That aside, I'd take the time to explain religious materialism again and it's subsequent flaws, and re-explain the difference between religious materialism and spirituality, which would explain why people do not absolutely follow in anyone's 'footsteps', but it won't sink in for the same reason as the following. I'd also try to re-establish the points made of a balance between materialism and spirituality, and not some perceived neglect of the physical world as you half-assedly assume, but you'd read and interpret pieces of the argument and not the concepts anyway. I'd also explain that starting off trying to perceive QM at some point is even likely to conform to determinism is a materialist perspective first and foremost, which makes you simply a full-fledged member at your own convenience, depending on who you are testifying to. Also, you don't have to be a physicist to understand the concepts in question. The flaws in your counter-arguments are that they consist of generalizations and misinformation and tattle-tales. I have to wonder why you want nothing to do with the consciousness debate and consider of it no value only so much as you can be the middle delivery person of messages, a sort of "Nah nah, my friends say you're weird" coward argument. I'd have more pride than to try to degrade someone through cowardliness. I'd realize that people would see through it all. I think you can do better but you simply don't want to admit that you don't understand and you want to get into the discussion somehow. - 22:45:44 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Like I said, take a seat. Don't expect to come into the middle of a conversation and declare that you're substantially aware of the other's argument. The proof is in your corner to show that you (1) Have gone back and reviewed all posts, (2) Understand the concepts, (3) Have cleared any misconceptions. You won't get any further with me. Marlene, at least, has struggled to make an effort. - 22:52:32 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Wasn't even a struggle. Actually I wasn't tattling on you at all, I was asking the people on the list "what in hell does this woman mean?", in other words, I was asking their "professional opinion which BTW I value much more than say your unprofessional one. They really don't waste their time on such foolishness there and that's why their response was that your ideas were nothing but ICK. No further discussion except that your ideas likely come from such rubbish as the _Tao of Physics_. Why would I bother to "nah nah" you there when I can personally do it here so that being said and since you've been so utterly childish here, I'll come down to your level, Nah! Nah! Betty! BTW, I should expect you on the list by this time next week I imagine...yuck! - 23:07:32 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Only on that list will we see who is the coward and idiot and who is not. There you will have to give evidence for your claims or else people won't be nearly as endearing as I have been with you.. I can only assume you won't show. Grow up Betty or whomever you may be! - 23:12:16 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, Consider the difference between voluntary and involuntary biologic activities as a beginning to this paragraph. I appreciate at least your honest efforts here, but they always seem to end with a presupposition that I have not made. You follow it and end in your own self-made paradoxes of my arguments.--- The universe as a sort of organic, maintaining order is responsible for all its parts. When one thing changes, it invariably affects many other things along the way. Finding the homeostasis is a natural balancing act. It takes no voluntary, intelligent (self-reflexive) activity. If balance cannot be maintained, entropy occurs, but things never exist naturally imbalanced; everything's existence depends on co-dependency. The other problem you seem to have is to continually relate these universal metaphors to humans. Creativity on a universal scale is simply the opposite of deterministic absolute guidelines. Events happen in unplanned, unexpected, constantly new and different ways based on previous habits. For the same reason you never see two exactly the same snowflakes, the universe works on a creative order. Like I stated, if you use human characteristics to try to understand an entire universe, you'll find all sorts of anthropic paradoxes. --- I can tell you are approaching this with honest effort, so I don't want you to think I am belittling you in anyway. It's alot more than I can say for some others in here so thanks. Let's continue with any further questions or disagreements and maybe set a good example. - 23:12:59 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene...thinks she's the WOMAN here..when actually I AM:Doug- Again Betty seems to think she can tell people when to post, how to post, what to post and even if it's okay to post. Wouldn't she make an excellent cult leader? - 23:16:22 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Ha Ha. That was a good one. Okay, Marlene. You didn't understand that post to Doug either. Let it all out anyway. Come on, get it out. Since you have cast judgements, I have no problem announcing that you're obviously projecting some superiority complex that was never resolved. I didn't mean to violate your sacred church in here. You obviously need this room as a sort of cathartic journal of sorts. When our comfort zones are violated we often lose our sense of safety. Use your energy more creatively than lashing out, however. It's simply a waste of energy. Instead of projecting, take the time to go for a walk, read a book, or say Hi to a neighbor. You'll find it works better than trying to make someone else feel as bad as you feel right now. Just between you and me, you can be "The Woman" here. I'll gracefully let you stand in the spotlight if that helps you at all. Us women have to stick together in this patriarchal world anyway. I know we all have days like this. If you don't want to talk about physics anymore, I won't press you. You go, girl! Keep your chin up. Don't take this room so seriously. We only go around once. (C: - 23:51:04 on 29 Apr 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: I can handle all your pseudoscience and fantasies. There is no substance to back up your claims of a "soul". Too bad you didn't get to first base.Keep on swinging but next time you'll have to use a bat, not an imaginary bat. - 0:07:21 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Isn't it just the other way around, you can't use this room as your soapbox any longer? I've about had it with your attitude. I would have been less endearing months ago but I thought I'd give you a chance to wise up. Obviously it was wasted time. If you had any sense of humor yourself you would have seen that the "woman" thing was meant much differently. You've burned up here Betty, just like any other religionist that comes preaching. Anyone that knows me here, and obviously you do not, knows that I'm not at all angry, in fact quite amused. People such as yourself show themselves off very well when actually confronted. I'm actually quite pleased that your sermons here had no effect whatsoever on a scientifically "conscious" group of individuals. No I don't want to talk pseudoscience anymore Betty, it gets tired. But I am looking forward to your conversations with some real scientists on that list. I hope everyone else will join to see how well you fare. - 0:28:39 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Misunderstanding this, misunderstanding that... what is this, a defense mechanism? I'm afraid there is far less misunderstanding here than you presume. You don't even recognize the implications of your own arguments. It appears to be you who is misunderstanding your arguments. How do you like that? It's time to move beyond determinism and materialism you say? You desire a "homeostasis" that entails following the habits of physical nature to garnish all that we can but include subjectivity, conflict, spirituality, and emotion into a complete universal view? We already have this under every bush. It's called religion. It's what science struggled to break free of, and you want to return to it. Yeah, yeah, your religion is different. Blah, blah, blah... You, snookums, are a religious zealot. A new-age fundamentalist. Every religionist feels that determinism and materialism are too limiting. Ever wonder why materialists are so distasteful to religionists? Materialists refuse to play the game. They refuse to play pretend. It's acceptable to be stupid and ignorant, say rediculous things, and play fast and loose with facts. It's often even acceptable to cheat. What's not acceptable is to be a spoilsport. Nobody likes the one who breaks the spell by pointing out that that's not a horse, it's just an old broom, or that's not a gun it's just a stick. No need to explain relativism to me. I know all about it. It's the last refuge of those without a leg to stand on. Odd, though, don't you think, that relativists such as yourself feel that all beliefs are valid with the one exception of materialism? I guess it's probably the spoilsport thing again. "Accuracy, track records, etc. are all based on deterministic (yes, human contrived) precepts of the universe."? No surprise here. - 7:28:39 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: I appreciate the goodwill and the feeling is mutual. Likewise I can tell you are approaching this with an honest effort and I don't want you to feel belittled by me, either. I can ignore that 'an honest effort' and the term 'belittled' have a teacher-student quality and I'll trust you are not inferring that relationship here. - 13:28:44 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: I agree that the universe adapts to the changing data to attempt to maintain order, homestasis or better efficiency. I use earthbound examples because frankly those are much clearer to most than the less known and mirky terms of 'universe', 'cosmic', etc. Most who are honest have a much poorer frame of reference for what really occurrs in other galaxies, for example, but we can all relate to the evidence of evolution here on earth. Your view appears to be (pardon the offensive language)' a well-oiled machine with an override program to adjust for flaws', in an attempt to acquire better efficiency. My guess is that you won't accept this characterization either and that it may seem too confining for the generalities you prefer. If the universe is not 'a well-oiled machine with a corrective program override capacity' to you, please explain how it isn't, exactly. If it is, how are we any closer to understanding it? Its origins? - 13:52:00 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Do you know the difference between 'religion' and 'spirituality'? Please don't confuse the two. Science sought to break free from the dogmatic religions. Arguing for a balance of the physical world and subjectivity, etc. is entirely different than what you presume. It's not a religion to consciously balance inter and subjectivity with the known physical world - that's like saying I have a religiously balanced diet. Like I've explained, your misunderstandings can't argue your own "randomly, YET SOMEHOW? conditioned" subjectivity out of the picture either. Relativism is what we deal with everyday; if not everyone would agree. I'm sure I don't have to mention that many times on many occasions that even the strictest materialist scientists do not agree on the best answer. I don't know what you can possibly believe if you've already mentioned that it is unlikely to find any absolutes. And everytime you try to disclude subjectivity from the argument, your argument carries less and less weight. You're holding cardboard cut-outs for what you call "real", all the while forgetting that everyone else's opinions count too - including your "randomly, valuable conditioned one" and the ones you don't like. Don't get so discouraged that more than 90% of the world does not religiously follow atheistic materialism exclusively. Holding onto cherished ideals - that there will be a time to finally claim Deterministic victory - is about as narrow-minded as it gets. Especially since determinism was always nothing more than an ideal itself. If you can't handle relativism as the way things are you'll find yourself out in the middle of an island somewhere, hun. Denying it helps neither. - 16:28:01 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene:OH BETTY, honey, sweetie, baby, can't wait to see how well accepted your bull is on that Skeptic list! - 16:50:08 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, Here's an earthly metaphor for you. Think of a mixture inside of a blender. Forget the blender for a sec - don't get caught up anymore with the machine idea, just the mixture by itself. It's equally whole with every food particle mixed in but intact with its own characteristics. The blending function refers to the constant need for creative change of the universe. Blend - blend - blend - for billions of years. Some things fade away and some become parts of other things but new, unexpected combinations is it's main outpouring. Here, consciousness is the constant blending process behind it all, but this function is not mechanical nor deterministic. Creativity fits NO such molds. In this way it corresponds to organic life, however, the new patterns of physical matter depend on the creative combinations of previous. Think of universal creativity as the opposite of void, with mechanism somewhere inbetween. A creative entity always has something going on, but because it 'seems to be' entirely self-contained it has nowhere to discard or poof things out of existence other then to let them slowly fade away out of the way for the new forms with better circumstances. This doesn't imply preference, however. In any constantly changing circumstantial entity, everything is related to one another through the principle of non-locality, and the circumstances leading to the rise of a new form is bound to force an opposite reaction elsewhere otherwise balance cannot be maintained and the entity itself will suffer some sort of collapse. Again, this is a conceptual argument. Understanding this metaphor helps us humans realize that our subjectivity is not found in any of the mixtures; it's entirely different. No other physicality (as far as we know) shows the same traits. Comparing our small, but valuable amongst each other, creative powers to operate and discover all that we can in the physical realm clearly establishes a non-contradictory explanation for an entire entity (the universe) based on change and order. When materialists conjured up an invisible wall called mind versus matter, they create the paradox that devalues their argument. People all over the world see the problem with materialism as a theory. The universe's origins? Why even bother making guesses? The point is, determinism has only been an adopted theory for a few hundred years. If determinists can simply conclude with no direct evidence that everything fits their mold without a verified conclusion, it's entirely more valuable to re-evaluate and establish a more complete theory that eliminates the pre-suppositions which lead to the paradoxes, and which meets the needs of all that is known. We can argue all day about possible origin theories, but unless this 'something' is entirely self-contained to begin with, you're leading to some higher power being idea, which is arbitrary at this point. - 17:18:16 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Atheistic materialism AND Religious materialism are both based on opposite mysteriously random particle theories, that somehow lead to order and form - minus one small God story in the first case. They key word, however, is materialism which creates the duality at all. Just in case the atheist materialists in here forget, they have even less of a foundation to stand on. The universe of mysterious, random shifting atoms, according to the theory of materialism, has no structure to it, and therefore no need or basis for order and form. Is order and form an illusion of human consciousness or can someone justifiably explain how something without structure and foundation produces order. If someone has the ability to honestly debate this, I'm game. - 17:36:29 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: I agree and thats my point re: origins. Some people have no idea of origins and the courage to say that, others have theories and have the healthy curiosity to search for truths, others look for simplistic answers (god created it all, etc.) and reject any information that rocks their cozy mindset. Therefore taking the origin question off the table, the primary issues (of many) appear to be: 1) random vs. order,2) order vs. creative change,3)'spirit'controlled vs a non-self-reflexive catalyst vs random , etc. 4) process (HOW any version of universe maintenance is accomplished) 5) WHY (for the bravest only, conjecture on if there are any reasons for events). Is this a relatively accurate, albeit simplified, list of discussion points to help frame my frame of reference? - 18:39:24 on 30 Apr 100 GMT