Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 6) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 15:58 (4854 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-> > 
> > I'm still not fully convinced... the year this happened I had a mouth FULL of metal. (Braces, headgear... the whole scary lot!) The only thing that keeps me skeptical is that I never had this happen more than once. 
> 
> My radio event involving the tee shirt soaked in tea was a one time thing,but it happened. My wife is recurrent, less as she grows older with me. Your event is like the one I experienced and my wife has. 
> -Again, a more comprehensive positive post will debut later today. Then (don't worry dhw!) I will return to the tangled mess I seem to have made regarding Natural Selection. Whether or not I can cleanly cleave those threads is beyond me, the damage may be too great here!-> > Agreed. Your book has at least done a better job of pulling my attention into these areas that I typically have ignored due to their necessarily subjective nature.
> 
> That is all I intended. I think something is in that realm, but more than that, who knows? -Again, a later post will discuss this. But I agree. And I applaud scientists brave enough to tackle these areas, though one of the scientists (name escapes me immediately) is a scientologist... so again thinking shaped by religion instead of inquiry up. Which is where I think YOU are. -> > > 
> > > My view of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon from a brain, the most complex item in the universe, and is related to the UI indirectly or directly.
> > 
> > Disembodied consciousness necessitates that there are two fundamental substances in the universe, mind and matter. I'm not discounting you here, but presenting you with the most direct challenge to your thought that you should consider in order to refine it. In what way can your thinking answer the challenges posed to Cartesian Dualism? I don't think it would be a fruitless exercise for either of us. 
> 
> Here you are very much acting like my editor, and I appreciate it. My current concept is the UI is a part of everything, Spinoza-like: the information in plants and animals that aids their living state. Our individual minds are part of the UI but without a full connection. We have free will, the UI doesn't control us, but we tend to have all those religions that assume a greater power.
> The theologic philosophers refer to the UI as a necessary being. I'll give it more thought. And thank you.-I never really thought of myself as an editor, but your words here make sense. People have always had me check over their work for quality (and holes) and I think my training as a programmer has made me pretty sharp at identifying where holes exist in anyone's thinking... I just appreciate that you don't take my criticisms personally lol. Most people don't, but sometimes...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"