Explain to me the why and the what...of 'spirit' and I'd be suprised...people throw the word spirit around as if it were ever something more than a wish and a now defunct concept of human consciousness.

i disliked using the term. because it is so imprecise

subtle body, extra dimensional self, astral body, that of you which is incorporeal which intersects the physical at the location of your body.

Kath

What's wrong with the word spirit? It seems to be a very proper term for that life force, that elemental spark, that makes up the essence of all beings.

Now if we were to discuss the Self (or Atman as the ancient Hindus called it) then I suppose the astral body, the Soul, or the Mind, might be a better term.

As far as my own beliefs in reincarnation, no concrete proof, however a careful observation of the world at large shows that cycles occur all the time - the Buddhist cycle of birth, growth, decline and death happens everywhere, and then starts again. It makes the most sense to me, sinca a linear approach to life (i.e. the Western view of birth ,death and afterlife) seems to be in conflict with everything we know about the universe.

Matter ... energy ... is not created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another. Why not the Life energies then?

The problem is Pier that again you speak in generalisations and non-specifics..

Life force? What is that?...elemental spark? Huh?.....None of these things are any more than the words you use to make them appear real...I wanted a defenition...I want you to point at what you call 'spirit' and say what and why...

I'm pretty fed up with people saying..stuff like "Everything has lifeforce and it is alive and then when it dies the lifeforce must go somewhere"....What? The complex interactions of suger, carbon and protien structures that make up life are not mysterious...nore is there eventual destruction. The mind is made of cells...cells die....explain where spirit comes in?

You're not making this easy, Vore...all I can say is, inbetween all the cells that make us up, the soul is what makes us us...the essence, so to speak. I usually tell my kids that their soul holds their personality, whileas their body contains the rest. It's their soul that determines who they are, how they think, etc. And when they die, their body will fall apart and turn into earth, while their soul will take all their memories, all their skills and knowledge, and move on. The body is just a shell, that will be discardeed when it's no longer needed.

Do you then say "So you can just scoop that useless brain out of your head and throw it away kids!"....No? Didn't think so....

It wouldn't be very wise to do so. I told them the brain tells their body what to do. I'm not too strong in anatomy, but I get the electrical impulses thing, and so do they now...I think. But, the thing is: the body will not function without the soul...hence, death. But the soul can function fine without the body.

I thought i addressed 'spirit' rather suscinctly Vore, you only responded to others' comments on spirit.

Kath

There is increasing scientific evidence that consciousness exists outside of the mind. I apologise for the generality of this statement but I'm not a walking library lol (well, not on this subject anyway) If I don't forget, Vore, I'll look up some stuff if you're interested.

PROOF!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!


This is my point Clear....people have been stating things like this since the dawn of mankind....It's gone from saying unjustifiable and illogical things whilst scratching ourselves in caves to saying the same things whilst scratching ourselves in brick houses...

Why do you think we need a brain? It is the seat of human consciousness....It IS the soul....you can pinpoint with an electrical field those exact parts of the brain that make you sad or happy.....those places that remind you of your youth...even those places that make you feel in touch with God....because we evolved to think in such ways and it is all BULL!

Before I get moderated I'm quitting coming into this thread because it is full of wishfull genarilisations.....Nobody has explained anything they have said...



Really? What makes you think this? When you recieve massive head trauma...that which was you is lost but if you are still alive then your personality (your soul) is changed.....So explain to me how if a soul is permanent and unchangable how a person can change...and be unrecognisable to friends and family as that same person....and when they die...that new person is lost? Or perhaps there are now two seperate souls? Bullshit!

The brain is a mass of billions of neuronal connections...the complexity of which is unfathomable but quite capable of reproducing the human cognitive capacity in full with room to spare for seperate personalities in many cases.

When the brain dies you are dead....your ideas may live on in those you interacted with as part of group consciousness but your concept of 'self' is gone....DO not assume that just because words like 'soul' and 'lifeforce' are interchangable means that they actualy exist as anything more than words. Placating and comforting words but still empty and self destructive.

If everyone was so keen on immortality they'd pack in all these stupid thoughts of doing things in other lives and do it all now while they have the chance. Learn a new language...discover your limits NOW because the future is certain...anyone and everyone does see the future and all this bullshit is part of that denial of what we see...because we see a dead end.....it is not a dead end to die...it is part of life...without the death of those before you..you could not exist. Accept it and you can then accept being alive and get on with living rather than just existing.

All of which are words for acts of imaginative thought...which happens in the brain...which is part of the body....interdimensional my ass!

Black holes may well be interdimensional but the forces involved would rip a person to part...I'd like to see anyone whistle a tune whilst being 'interdimensional'

Ok...Step back and breathe calmly...you won't get moderated, but you might want to relax a bit before you keep posting.

What kind of proof do you want? Do you want me to rip out a soul and show it to you so you can dissect it? Not everything can be proven scientifically yet, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are still so many things we don't know, and can't prove. Blind faith in science is not better than blind faith in religion.



And you know this with certainty...how, excactly? Scientists could explain excactly why the earth was flat too. They've had to backtrack and reevaluate the ultimate, absolute truths so many times, I don't buy everything they throw out right away. But that is me, my personal opinion. You are entitled to your faith, as I am to mine. Tell me though, can you pinpoint the exact part of the brain that holds memories of experiences you personally have never had, places you've never seen? There are countless accounts of children remembering past lives neither they, not their family or surroundings has any way of knowing about. They can recount names, places, experiences, family members. Which part of the brain controls that?



Neither have you, Vore...you've generalized just as much as the rest of us. Sometimes you might have to settle for the fact that we can't explain in mere words. Or you will have to accept the explanation you are given. Without the insults, please.



Who said it is lost? Stored away, perhaps, dormant. In extreme cases, (coma/catatonic), yes, the soul may be lost. Seriously, in these states, how well does the body function? The fact that your soul is incorporeal, doesn't mean it's indestructible...and it is closely connected with your body and brain. Head traumas might easily damage this connection, making it difficult for your soul (your Self) to get through. Thus creating the personality changes. All just theories, just like yours.



Again, this would be the current scientific viewpoint. Science has poopooed on its own leg before. While they may be right, they may also easily be wrong, and we'll be served a new theory in 10-20 years time.



Again, your opinions, your beliefs. You, just like me, have no other proof for this than what you yourself decide to listen to. We all do that, pick and choose between the available information, and choose that which suits our own beliefs best, elegantly ignoring all counter information. Explain to me excactly how these words are self-destructive..?

I find this article ineteresting, at least:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991693

yes vore please calm down, this is a peacefull place to talk on these matters and explore the variations in beliefs around the world on the matter. "not a warning, just advice"
Science and mysticism have a ways to go, neither is all knowing or for that matter right on even with what they do know, each year we find new methods to keep someone alive longer or bring them back from further in the brink of death. re-defineing what conditions we consider death.

as for the how the brain works exactly, we know how it relays information, we know where specific things are stored "because we can poke these things with a sharp object and see what happens." however after we die the body retains the electrical charge it had before for a time which eventually dicipates. however as we have seen in our technology information can be stores in energy and it is possible "as far as quantum physics is concerned" for these particles after leaveing the body of an organic form to re-integrate into a new form or fuse back together in the sorrounding area possibling re-taining information "rather than simply saying we don't have the ability to accuratly test this like many people trying to make out-rageous claims do, I will say we will someday have the ability to observe this phenomonon

"after all if a single photon fired into a containment with two exits can go through both exits at the same time despite only being one photon" than who knows what other as yet unknown things sub-atomic particles and energy are capable of.

physics are what WE call what we know to be true "but than again the bumble bee broke the laws of aerodynamics which were redefined after we found out how it obtains lift. an animal with a brain the size of a pin head can devise complex stratigies despite what we know about brain to body ratios. and we have yet to even accuratly figure out how all the forces work together.

we are still learning what is real and how it all works, just because we have some basics down doesn't mean we know all and nothing new and different is possible.
if their was no more to learn than why are their still Neural sciences and why do these people in all these fields keep working on figureing these things out.

Hello Vore. I look at the brain currently as being the main seat of human conciousness in this physical world. The brain is the basic hardware, the root of the signal distribution and processing network, etc here. So I much agree. But is it, the root, the essence, itself (and only itself) of human conciousness or merely the visible implementation used here? This is where we seem to disagree.

Are you familiar with the fields of cognitive psychology and how they relate to artificial intelligence? If not, you might want to look into it and see some of the problems that are being ran into by researchers when trying to recreate human reason and creative ability (etc) in artificial systems. It is very interesting in my opinion. Out of curiousity, when do you think they will have full sucess (expert systems not valid - intelligence must be broad and able to learn as such) if ever? What do you think they are missing - what should they do?

Also, in regards to ripping out the brains because they are worthless, you probably know it is said that the ancients egyptians essentially did this in mummification. It seems they didn't see much worth in the brain in that it needed to be preserved. Instead it seemed the focus was more on the heart among other things. I just had to bring it up because I immediately thought of it after reading your words in the other reply. Not sure why. Were you thinking of this at all?

let me ask you this... why do you psychologically 'need' for spirits not to exist?

if you've never experienced anything disproving a strict secular rationalist atheist viewpoint, then i feel sorry for you not having any frame of refference for questioning science when it acts as a dogma rather than as an incarnation of curiosity which is its purpose.

Kath

Neurology is not a theory Clear it is a fact...surgeons operate on what you call a soul every minute of every day and they are aware as you aren't of how the brain functions to create a human mind.

Scientists didn't ever say the world was flat so your only yet example is in fact not true...scientists such as Galileo (the first of their kind) made discoveries through 'Observation'....all science is, is the intelligent study of the cold hard facts through unobjective repeatable observation.

The soul was used to explain how mankind thought long before we'd ever had any idea that inside our heads was something important. The tongue was originaly thought to be the heart and the body was thought to run on four humours...Science did not exist at this stage in our development.

Modern science tells us where the heart is and how it functions so that we have no need for 'magical' explenations to fill gaping holes in our knowledge...we know that the humours do not govern our bodies. We know now through science exactly what the brain does...I could take you through very very specific specifics if you like Clear because I did neurology as part of my psychology...the neo-cortex, the frontal lobes etc etc ...there is nothing that is not accounted for....the soul is no longer an explenation but a concept behind which there is nothing but fixed dogmatic beliefs and a whole load of bullshit left behind by generations of people very much wanting to believe in something that offered them comfort.

This is not simply a case of me having my beliefs and you having yours because I don't have to believe...I 'know'...I can place my hands upon the truth and tell you what it is and how it works...you are forced to use the word belief because you have nothing but conjecture and opinion to back you up. Blind faith has nothing to do with science....

Science is about opening your eyes and actualy seeing what is there and not what you wish was there when you had your eyes closed...There is room for many things to be discovered by science because there is room for many things in this universe...but the Soul is not one of them...Just like the religious views of the Earth being flat and the sun orbiting the Earth it has been discredited and explained.


Science does not have to backtrack because it is the very icon of changability...scientists change their theories based on every new observation...Religion and 'belief' cannot be said to be so open minded.

Human intelligence came into being as part of an evolutionairy process. The brain is specificaly adapted to handle the things we come into contact with as humans. Basing a computer program around the human mind is a flawed project. A human within a machine would grow up to be a retard anyway because they will not go through the developmental stages that a child is evolutionairily prepared to.

Human beings are not perfect...we like to think of our minds as being whole and in perfect balance when the truth is even the sanest person is actualy a fractured mess of memory and paradigm that aren't truely unified by anything....The gestalt effect of which is a functioning human mind but as you will notice there are often errors in our own intellects leading to psychiatric ilness, deppression, neurotic conditions and the list goes ever on.

We compensate for spaces through a form of mental interpolation...people with brain damage will often say they don't notice any difference despite the fact that they now can't recognise their own family or tie their laces etc The reason they think they are alright when they aren't would by religious people be explained as their soul surviving where their brain didn't but the truth is that the brain always does cover up errors....The human eye has a blind spot in each retina...do you notice it? No....because the brain covers it up. Experiments have shown that huge amounts of things can be changed without being noticed...hypnotism takes advantage of the brains willingness to cover up for it's own mistakes..it can be tricked into ignoring very obvious things so as to 'not notice' an audience etc.

To make a computer that can think like a human you have to make it as pretentuos as a human...it would have to think of itself as a composite 'I' rather than as a collection of memory cuircuits and procedural programming.

The reason we like to think of a soul as more real than the brain is because we like to think of ourselves as a very easily understood and pure form of 'self'...the brain is too complex and unbeautiful to most people to attribute the amazingness of their personality to.....As if humans were really that amazing. They really aren't.

Why is it impossible for man to set up an environment fostering the developmental stages? Also what exactly do you think the brain consists of beyond processing and memory capabilities which interact with the rest of the body? If the brain is matter and state that is able to be fully quantified and understood without unseen influence should this not be attainable? If not, why? Why would this be beyond future human capability to you? I still do not understand. Is it impossible for man to create mechanisms capable of evolution?



I don't think all humans think their minds are in perfect balance. I would be surprised if there were three that would claim it here. Okay, maybe not. Anyway.. :)





Spaces... completion. rationalization. Yes, understood. Nothing in dispute with me save for the claim that religous people would explain it this way. I do not see that as applying to everyone. You probably see that the brain gathers its input largely from the physical senses (or more accurately the biological components/organs linked to the brain, etc). Your example utilizes this- The brain interprets/processes the sensory input recieved from the optical organs. The brain has its own mechanisms for doing this which is still present independent of the other biological components physically neccessary to gather sensory input [reception of nerve signals] (at least in part, agreed?). Now a fun question. Which sense(s) are required for conciousness then? Sight? Smell? Touch? Hearing? Taste? What if all are eliminated. Can conciousness and reason remain? If not, why? If yes, then conciousness would logically then be independent of these senses at least in part, right? If that is the case then are discussion of consciousness should not be focused primarily on the physical five senses then I would think. There is at the very least then a question of memory it would appear. Here is a funny link that addresses some of the computer-brain issues: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/badmodel.htm There opinions are interesting to me.




An inner essence almost? Like pride, eh? Interesting. Hmmm.



I cannot even begin to seriously consider the possibility of the brain being the sole source of consciousness any longer unless telepathy and/or time travel are incorporated within it's functions/abilities of human nature. My reasoning I consider quite logical. It is not a matter of religion to me for this. Of course, I could be a broken mind, and so might you for that matter. And as you said, how would we know? "The you are deluded thing...." I certainly see myself currently subject to human error. Now I ask you, what do you think of these things being in existence among human minds and experience?

But I choose to more buy into the thought of a universal conciousness or - more specifically the idea vaguely of "souls". I have my reasons for this. The problem I have with idea of traditional archetypes is that this seems to mainly addressess knowledge of the past, not the specific knowledge of the future. If I were to begin to accept this idea, the archetypes or collective unconsiousness would have to be given its own actual conciousness with the ability to directly influence those connected with it (raises hand). But essentially then, to me, this would be like the idea of "God" and it is back to the drawing board again, no?

Anyway, you are quite intelligent, it has been a pleasure so far to converse with you on the subject.

i guess if i'm to be fair, i should admit that if i hadn't seen and experienced and participated in metaphysical goings on first hand... i'd be a rabid skeptic also.

Ironicly, i respect skepticism a bit more than belief without proof. because the skeptic and i are more alike in mentality, only difference being our experiences.

Kath

Can they explain the Aura? The electrical field around us, that will still surround bodyparts that are no longer there... If you amputate your arm, your aura will still surround that area of you as if it was still there. Maybe that is your soul, who's to say? Like Rhuen said, "we are still learning what is real and how it all works, just because we have some basics down doesn't mean we know all and nothing new and different is possible."



There were scientists long before Galilleo, who did excactly that...they made conclusions based on observations, formed theories, and eventually discarded them. Being wrong didn't make them less scientific. Just like we do today, they used the means they had at hand to try and make sense of their surroundings. There are still so many things we don't understand, and most likely so many things we think we understand. For the record...I sure hope you don't mean the wise men of ancient cultures, like for instance Egypt, weren't scientists...they had medical and astronomical knowledge that still baffles us to this day.



You are contradicting your own definition of science. Intelligent study of cold hard facts made through objective observation. Surely you can't mean intelligence is a new discovery?



And still you couldn't tell me where knowledge of past lives is stored...did you overlook that question, perhaps?



Blind faith has everything to do with science. Science is built on theories, that you later look for evidence to support. Now you can choose to trust that all you want, it doesn't make it infallible. It's your belief that science holds all the answers, despite its previous history.



Again, how can you be so dead sure of this? You say yourself science has had to retract earlier statements, as new evidence showed up that they were wrong, what makes you think this can't happen again? You are stating your personal theories as if they were facts. Did you read Nightvisions article, btw? To boldly quote, where none has quoted before:





Oh, they are, at least outside the set, organised religions. Spiritual faith is in constant change. Just like science.

Passingover: I actually read about an artificial intelligence...it learns at the same rate as a human child, can be taught new things and will use these things to learn more on its own...it is, in every way, a digital child...with a mind of its own.

I shall keep this post short for simplicities sake and simply say.

To make a perfect copy of human intelligence one needs to create a perfect copy of the human process. This already exists..It is called the Human brain.

..You may as well use a human brain as part of a computer network...something you are already doing as you read this writing on your screen. Perhaps better and faster connections between human brain and computer can be created to utilise our own intelligence but an Artilect (Artificial Intellect) based upon the human mind or a copy of a fully mature adult mind would be the same as locking a human brain in a box with inputs it is not evolved to handle.

An Artilect that is allowed to evolve on it's own would most likely be so unlike the human mind that we would find interaction with it very difficult..even if it developed to be 'sane'. We only have ourselves as a model for intelligence...one of my reservations with the idea of aliens is our presumption that if we met we'd have any common ground by which to communicate having evolved entirely seperately.

Yet again you say you have your reasons for your beliefs but you are unwilling to share. Yet again I find I'm the only one being frank and honest and all I get in return are half formed idioms that are simply the same viral thoughts practicaly everyone picks up as they grow up to allow them to be comfortable in their own headspace without the Spectre of Death hanging over them.

Kirlian photography 'creates' an aura...it doesn't show what is already there...it creates a current through conductive materials (such as living tisseu) and photographs the static field...I have a librairy on stuff like this. I've seen the photos of a cut leaf and it is easily explainable as an after image on the electrostatic plates used to take the picture (my father was a photographer I might also mention)

The knowledge of the Babelonians and Egyptians (It was the Babylonians and Greeks who had great knowledge of the stars) is no mystery...They had scribes who made careful observations using scientific methodology but scientific methodology does not a scientist make. They still based their theories around non-scientific belief systems and did not record their results etc etc



What? How exactly am I contradicting myself? Intelligence is very much a new discovery actualy Clear if by that you refer to the process of intelligence and the mechanisms by which it works.



Ok Clear...you win....nobody could possibly *ghasp* make up past lives with imagination! Funny how past lives are always of well known cultures and facts that anyone could find out or make up....I studies History Clear...I could make up a past life in seconds and even speak quite a few of the languages at you. Past lives are a comfort zone...just like God...they are there to fill in the gaping spaces before and after our existance without which there is just holes....And as I have said....The human mind automaticaly fills in holes.

Out of body experiences whilst someone has gone into shock or their heart has stopped are due to very low oxygen...stimuli are still sensed until brain death occurs...brain death could not have happened because otherwise we wouldn't have stories of out of body experiences because the witness would already Be Dead!

It's really logic and knowledge Clear...neither of which are being used by you in your arguements...As I am recieving no informed arguement I am giving up....It reminds me very much of a science Vs Beliefs battle I had with Water....Science cannot battle against beliefs exactly because it doesn't stick out it's lip and say 'This is the solid truth' It says 'Look here and see for yourself' If you aren't willing to look and see what is there because you are comfortable with your own beliefs then there is nothing (short of lobotomy) that I can do to change that.

It's much easier for you to battle your view because you can simply say 'this is what I think' ad infinitum because all that beliefs are is belief...Science is not my belief...It is my tool by which I see things as they are without the limits of my minute human faculties.....Science is just a word for communicating findings made by people strictly adhering to high standards of study who are willing to share and investigate each others findings so that everyone can benefit.

Religion and belief will never be anything more than a social control system and a way by which we can all live in blissfull ignorance of all those things we'd rather not look at. No doubt for some it is good...but if like all the organised religions of the past you start trying to supress people's rights to look and know for themselves then you are no better than the arrogant self proclaimed religous authorities who ruin this world with dogma and denial.

"split"
I moved all of this out of the reincarnation thread as it doesn't discuss the cultural versions and myths and was likely scareing off any one who would like to have shared versions of the reincarnation beliefs. rather than destroying these posts I have very gracoiusly moved them to a new thread designed to discuss the science behind sorcerer and argue science vs sorcery.
:devilbook:

I disagree. The brain is the biological component that is utilized in physical reality - where consciousness sits in the physical reality. It contains only part of the "human process" (but this really depends on what you intend by this term).



Why specifically? Presumably the human mind which would be replicated was fully capable of processing the five senses at the time of replication. If the interaction between the brain and these sensory inputs is also understood why would it be impossible to provide an interface which is functionally the same to the brain? Even so, again, if you lose your hearing... you do not suddenly lose your ability to reason. Nor so with sight, smell, taste, or touch. Or presumably all of these at once. Yes the mind seems to be specially adapted and suited for processing these inputs. In fact, without them it has been shown that the mind will likely deteriote at least in some ways. (see sensory depravation) However, lacking the physical sensory inputs the "brain" is able to create it's own which can seem just as real, and really to the "brain" it is just as real in most cases.


This probably will not interest you. But here a while ago I became very curious about the sense of touch within dreams. I made what now I feel is a mistaken assumption. Anyway, Soon thereafter (About a week ago) I had a dream where I saw nothing but blackness, the only feeling was someone holding my hand. My mind began to race with questions and realizations. Things like "this is impossible I am dreaming, how could I feel this?" "who is holding my hand?" "where am I?" "I am sleeping" "Where am I?" "How did I get here?" "I am on the floor?" ... and then I awoke back to our little shared reality again. The common sensory inputs were there again... and this sense went away. The sense was like a panic as I was trying to figure out what was happening. Anyway, this probably is of no use to you really. But have you ever felt complete (true) nothingness of sense or only one sense? If so, you would maybe understand something of this.



If we met, we surely have some common ground. Think about it.

The question would be more of reasoning and desire. Why would this creature intentionally bother to meet us or attempt to communicate? If it didn't want to truly do so, of course it would probably be quite difficult or even impossible for us to communicate. Much like the idea of talking to someone who does not wish to listen or does not wish to converse. Simply, they really don't care.



I am? Actually I am trying pretty hard here. Where did I tell you that I would not share my beliefs with you, and if that is not what I am doing, what do you think I am doing? I tend to say too much rather than too little when asked a question and I usually try to be too complete in most peoples' opinions. If I missed a question of yours that you have directly asked me in the past, please feel free to repeat it or point it out and I will try to correct it. But I am human so I like it when the same courtesy is extended to me with good intent as well. Also in some cases it seems pretty dangerous and wrong to go into great specifics. Some things it really is not my right to share with you alone. And, to be frank, I am not so sure I trust your intent now enough to get very personal with you. But I am more than willing to get as detailed as I feel right in doing with you, if you will ask.



Will you then please answer all my questions that I directly asked in the past directly line by line (so I can see clearly what you are answering) either here or mail it to me at my email address since you are frank (sincere) and honest? I feel you have seemingly ignored many of them. I had sufficent reason to ask them in that I was trying to understand how you think about such things and so understand your views and even learn from your responces. You went along a little bit at first but then you basically stopped with this paragraph. Actually I am sad to say it probably really does not matter now. I think it is a question of desire really.

Take care, thanks again for your past words, particularly before this last post. I learned a few things.

(missed this before)

Cool. Yes, it is a very broad field. I studied it at the university and have been interested in it since I was about 14. But lately I haven't followed it much, too busy I suppose. I was surprised recently (guess I am out of touch now) when I called a company where their automated attendant was able to correctly identify 95% of my choices/responces (voice recognition) - usually these things have had a higher failure rate with me. But was restored again to current reality when I found that there was no way to teach it to understand the other 5%. Like say things like "T" as in "Tom" or "Tennis", etc to get it to be able understand what I mean by "T". It only understood "Yes" or "No" to recognize an error, but was given no way to seemingly learn from it dynamically.

AI is fascinating to me at it's fringe aspects but pretty boring though in how most people wish to use or limit it. (corporate world) And to be honest it scares me to think what would happen if it was successful and how it would be used by people. Maybe that is why I kind of largely abandoned it, I don't know.

What did you read where they described it like that? Did they have a successful implementation as you (as they described it to you) described it? You have me curious now. That would be quite a leap.

*looking through old posts*

I'm excited about the prospect of AI...but we are still a very long way off...and even further away from AI that we could be real friends with.

I will add in responce to your idea that aliens would have something in common if their motives to communicate and trade were similair.

These are dangerous assumptions...The settlers in America made dangerous assumptions about the aboriginal population and remember what happened. And that was with our own species.

Communication must start with a common ground...You can only guess at the senses and motivations of an alien race...forget your alliances of planets...there is no reason why alien lifeforms of high intelligence wouldn't think us either instant threat or food...or simply too dumb to bother with.

The AI experiment you and Clear speak of is a big step by the way but is about as clever as a carrot on mescaline...it can mimick and learn but this gives it more in common with parrots.

I'm curious to know what part of the brain you think our personal preferences come from. The ones we seemingly have no basis for liking or disliking. Any number of examples could be used for this and not all of them can be explained away by past experiences.

For an example, I'll go with "I don't like carrots"...what is it that creates this dislike? Aside from the obvious responses of "my mom made carrots every day when I was growing up and I cannot stand to ever eat another" or "I once choked on a carrot and almost died"...if someone just doesn't like carrots, has no past event\s to base that preference on, and couldn't really tell you why, where does that come from?

That is false logic...you base that premise on the idea that humans must remember every single association made over their entire existance. Even for someone with a good memory this is impossible and that's why 'reinforcement' takes over where memory cannot.

I don't like dogs...As far as I know I've never had reason to dislike them except: They were involved in a nightmare I had, I've heard of people being attacked by them, they smell and annoy me etc etc...now I don't even need to remember all these things to recall the simple fact of my dislike for them...that's the purpose of opinion and bias...it simplifies past experience into a self programmed responce.

Phobias work along the same lines...often the thing that triggered them is too far back to remember (or has been blocked by the subconscious) all the brain needs to remember is the responce..and not what first triggered it...this is an evolutionairy survival strategy...even small animals have a negative responce to poisonous berries and things that are associated with past discomfort and possible death.

When you say "no basis" you can sometimes be correct...the brain is not perfect..the associations it stores can be confused. There are people afraid of baked beans, buttons and pigeons etc because they have formed a correlation between those things and something negative such as one day of childhood illness or a film (the Birds)...or linked it to something completely unrelated (buttons and Fish eyes)...all these examples are based on actual cases.

The brain is a very complex thing..it is often seen by 'spiritual' people as a limiting factor on their 'cosmicness' or something like that...but the truth is that the brain contains one hundred Billion neurons and many more glial cells than even that....bare in mind that neurons can create connections to all other neurons directly arround them....the amount of connections made is many times 100,000, 000,000 and each connection may well be part of hundreds of associations and uses....so one hundred billion cells make up one hundred times more connections...in turn go towards one hundred times more uses and all the while changing and adapting (I'll let you do the math).

The brain is hardly a limited organ.

You make a good point...in fact, I wonder why I didn't come to it in my own ponderings. Especially that the brain "simplifies events"...which in turn would cause such side effects as unexplainable personal preferences. It makes sense, but what proof is there that this is actually how it happens? Did you read this theory somewhere, or is that your educated guess?



I didn't mention phobias because I completely agree with your stance. I suppose the only way we could ever know for certain would be through experimentation.

Example: If you were to raise a pair of twins in separate but identical, controlled, and isolated environments (given that most claim our personalities, personal preferences, and a number of other individualizing characteristics often come from our upbringing\surrounding environment) as adults, would they be mostly identical in nature, or have enough striking differences to suggest that we are more than the sum of our atoms..more than the result of our upbringing....and most importantly, that we each possess a uniqueness that could be labeled as "the soul"? Of course the study would be completely immoral by most's standards...so it would never happen.



You'll get no arguments here, in fact, I agree with most of what you've stated in this thread. I'm still not exactly sure where you're trying to go with all of it...given your publicly known image of being a "guru" (for lack of a better term). I'm just curious to know how you tie all this scientific logic in with what you know to be factual magic. Or is all of this your way of trying to tell us that magic and science are two sides of the same coin....if not one and the same?

sumerians passed there knowledge to the the babelonians(akadians) and egyptians and greeks.
learn there language and within it you will find many missing keys. learn history and understand how people write and tell stories and you will find hidden truths. learn to listen and you will find much wisdom.

vore you are full of egotism yet lacking in true knowledge.
before you speek, maybe you should know more of what you speek of.
you are so ready to condem yet you lack the true knowledge of what you argue about.
we do not answer fully that is true. but why answer some one with our knowledge and wisdom, when the one we would give this pearl to would but throw it away scoffing at its value. I for one will not give knowledge freely to one who will not listen. only a fool waste there breath upon voice that has no ears.

you have been rude and degrating to one of our monitors, clear witch is a dear friend of mine I have had the honor and pleasure of knowing her on this sight for years. Give her and the others The respect you would want others to give you. do not talk down to them as if they are children. for though many books you have read, and much knowledge gained. it is a useless tool with out wisdom to wield it.

You are extremely perceptive....you've picked up something few have even noticed when I've said it openly. Yes I believe that much we call Arcane...will one day be in the grasp of scientific understanding....already this is the case for fire, electricity, plasma, biology etc etc...and these are just the tip of an infinite iceburg in comparison with the tiny mortal mind. Arcane simply means 'hidden' and only remains hidden until it is brought into the light of understanding.

Night Eagle...I have in no way been insulting...I have at times been overly passionate about my opinions but that is all they are...those who believe their opinions to be truely the one 'Truth' aren't worthy of any respect at all for they certainly never give any.

I state my views on the human mind from actual qualifications in psychology, history and the sciences, a deep lifetime interest and study into sociology, biology and neurology. I don't tend to bring up the subject of qualifications because I consider the whole gamut of education as being open to interpretation...and to idly boast of passing set exam questions in order to appear of greater importance than another is far greater an egocentrism than I have displayed so far.

Clearwitch I have admired for all my time on here and on ***** for years before...but I draw no lines between how I debate with friends, elders, moderators or newbies because none of these things are important to the validity of their viewpoints.

I suggest NE that you leave the hypocracy to those you claim to be so egocentric as to consider others 'not worthy of their pearls of wisdom' (this is what you said am I right?)....I have admitted being ego driven in the past but have never pretended otherwise...to hear you speak as if you were the judge, jury and prosecution is to hear the very representative of self importance. I am entitled to my opinions and to state them as I wish...I never make the mistake of presuming my words are any more important than any others without irony being implicit in my tone.

Only those who are uncertain in the validity and structure of their own arguement need fear the dismantling analysis of open discourse....If you suggest that Clear has reason to fear close questioning and scrutiny of her ideas then you are insulting her far more than anyone.

.....deep.....

It's easier to pick up on things when you share the same basic idea.

Science has come a long way since the days when doctors would leach patients for illnesses...but it's also hindered itself along the way. The total disregard for anything viewed to be "supernatural" has stifled the scientific community. Seems they've forgotten supernatural is the basic nature of science.

Quite so...The societies and investigative groups that are researching at this moment things that are considered 'paranormal' are operating outside the normal scientific community. But then who cares as long as the work is being done?

This is true...though I have to wonder how much longer it will take them since they don't have quite the funding they would if the scientific community were to approve it as valid research. But all in all, as you said, something is better than complete ignorance.

Wait till antigravity technology comes along...I give it twenty years tops...mark my words...

Just a little something I thought I'd throw out: I ran across a theory that the brain isn't a the organ of consciousness but merely a receptor for our consciousness. In other words, what makes people self-aware doesn't reside in the brain or nervous system; instead, the brain and nervous system are just antennae for consciousness.

If this is true (and feel free to pick at the hypothesis) what does this mean for sorcery?

I'm curious to know where you ran across that theory, Lili.

I hardly see how that makes any sense....Although it would explain why my brain often crashes during mobile phone conversations or in places of bad reception (like classrooms).

No...the theory is daft...neurons are not ariels...they don't have the properties of such and even if they did it wouldn't explain the fact that we already know what the brain does and how much of it works...it's like saying that a computer isn't really a computer it's just a magic box that picks up transmissions from Moon babies...There is no reason to make up new theories for things that already have perfectly functioning and wholly understood theories already laid out...

I'm quite happy to say that paperclips hold paper together because metal naturaly loves the soft feeling of paper and doesn't want to let go...it's a fun theory...but the more obvious and blatant observations that can be made, though less fun, are in fact where the truth lies.

(A small amendment to this: Though I'm saying that neurons don't en masse have the properties of an ariel...that is not to say that transmitting and recieving aren't possible functions of some less understood part of the brain...these things are currently being investigated)

better late than never... ;)



What exactly does this mean? Are you speaking in regards to the turing test or just being vague?



We have common ground so to speak in that we share the same universe and that we have met. Even if their motives were not simular immediately it does not preclude them from becoming so at a later time. And actually I would be more inclined to think that the adaptation of motives would more likely be needed on our end, not theirs... Our motives in general as a species, do they not speak for themselves?



Yes this is the system we are under still but it is "better" masked. Preditor and prey. Kill or be killed. Take or be taken. Not working together but actually against each other. Still the same thing largely though, is it not? Competition for resources, differing motives and drives...

It is a mistake to assume that everyone is capable of anything but existing under this current system at the present time and in the current state, yes. Perhaps that is our problem largely.




What I was getting at was that a shared existence and meeting is common ground in and of itself. This was what I was asking you to think about.

High intelligence. With the first two qualities of fear and predetary behaviour it seems to contradict that which you speak of. Are these things becoming of high intelligence or merely as we think of it here? The too dumb to bother with, I can't argue with you there. But then it would be presumed that any communication at all would be avoided at all costs wherever possible. Then what is the purpose of making the communication or failing to avoid it from the standpoint of the higher intelligence?

Also you are sort of using fear here which creates all sorts of problems for interacting and coexisting with other lifeforms including our own. Fear it might be said is somewhat irrational often. Already, presumably before you have met that which you question, you are already here speculating that they will eat us. Not very conductive for getting along, is it? ;) Seriously, even more so for anything that would understand historically how humans tend to act when they are in fear of something...





Actually mimicking is a basic method for learning. Perhaps the earliest of them all.
Among children it is very much used where things are learned very rapidly from it. The ability to learn I think you underestimate - which is quite curious to me.

If you decry the lack of the ability to percieve the rest of the world, you should not. These things [physical mechanisms] are actually somewhat easy to us [mostly] in theory to create artificially. (vison, hearing, touch) The real challenge is in creating the spark of true intelligence that is needed to interpret and make sense of them, and perhaps integrating it together. All [generalization] that is needed here really is the true ability to learn. The parrot example would be a limit at least partially of capacity. Why is this the upper limit of human creation? I do not understand, what is your scientific basis for this limit actually existing? Explain please in detail. Particularly given that you do not seem to acknowledge anything (e.g. "the soul") outside of the brain itself as being a factor in creating this intelligence.

This is a point I was trying to make with you. If you do not acknowledge anything which would make this impossible -- something which cannot be quantified, and thus, theoretically replicated given an advancement of technology -- how can this possibly be something that can not be achieved with science alone? Surely then you have more faith in AI's possibilities and potential than you let on?

This has partially been done. I am assuming that you mean idential twins as opposed to fraternal twins. The most famous study in the US is known as the "Minnesota Twin Study". They studied both identical (same egg) and fraternal (seperate eggs, same time) twins both raised together and apart ("lost twins"). The study concluded that identical twins raised apart (seperated generally before three months of age, reunited over 30 years later) showed more things in common personality wise than fraternal twins who were raised together. But the study also showed that the estimate of the heritability ratio (degree to which genetic influences contribute to personality characteristics) was approximately 40 - 50% for most personality traits ("the big five" - openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion) among the twins. This study was replicated in Germany and Poland (look up Riemann, Angleitner, Sttrelau) as well with near the same results.

Of course this isn't the exact study you mentioned which to my knowledge has not been carried out and would be extremely difficult in my opinion. Light bulbs failing, accidents, subtly differences (moods of others, intonation of voice, etc) in interactions with other humans that will vary inevitably from one another would all bring the subtle differences which would possibly spoil the results and create significant differences in experiences and environment no matter how hard they were attempted to be controlled.

Among many of the more "occult persuasion" (poor words, sorry) it is widely believed that sharing the same egg may mean basically sharing the same soul or at least somewhat overlapping, if not very much linked. For instance, when I was perhaps 10 or 11 I recall a friend of my fathers warning/telling him basically that "sometimes when one twin has died it is not uncommon for the dead twin to come and visit the one which is still alive" - I was about two feet away from him when he said this and I recall it well even today. Anyway, that man was a psychiatrist in profession.... So even among those in the field of psychology there exist people who do not see any correlation of this sort being mutually exclusive with the idea of a soul at all. To them, it actually strengthens the liklihood. And this is a person with a doctorate in psychology and a professional practice (then). You might be surprised to see how many are in the field that secretly or openly agree to such ideas as the soul.

By the way, the same studies also suggested that having an upbringing that is generally the same (environment, etc) did not tend to influence these personality factors as much as previously thought. But that was partially attributed to subtle ifference existing among siblings that are raised in the same household. In implementation it is almost certain that any environment we create is going to have subtle differences. Based on this data even the small differences would be enough to destroy such an experiments integrity even if it were ethical.

Ok as I've been told off for being long winded and arguementative when I've posted proper in depth posts...here are my 'beliefs' (notice that as they are my beliefs they become sacred and incontrovertable).

Aliens would not be like us...stop assuming from extrapolating from the only intelligence we are aware of (us and the genetic tree of life on this planet to which we are very much related) that we would share anything at all with any other being outside of our solar system.

Our biology may not be theirs..if they come from a gas giant they may be plasma balls with electrical activity and thought processes far different than us. We are more related to Yaks, Beetles and fish than we are to whatever alien life we meet....this is a given. We evolved our intelligence to fill an ecological niche...we are not more intelligent than other creatures...only different...for a hamster has no need to do complex math. If the creatures we meet have no need for communication or for telling the difference between organic and inorganic matter there would be no reason to think they'd stop and say 'Hi'.

AI has reached a ceiling....it will push past this ceiling with time...mimickry is the first stage...but the next stage is some time off...the stage of creative extrapolation of meanings from mimickry. Such as pleasure, heirarchy of needs, structures of what is 'appropriate'...

The illusion of intelligence is not at issue...to create something that can pretend to be human is not hard...but to create something that can pretend 'to itself' that it is human (having a sence of cogito ergo sum) is further off.

I believe there are no such things as souls.

By all means, things which are in depth do not generally bother me at all. Obviously. :) Though I notice now we are talking about beliefs seemingly when I thought we were starting to more focus on scientific aspects as they appear to invalidate certain beliefs.






Again, by nature we share existence of some sort. Can this be disputed since by nature we are speaking of beings which exist in some way? If so, please explain your reasoning. Futher, if we met with them in some form, please explain your reasoning regarding us not having a shared "universe" (all dimensionally inclusive) ? Further yet, if there exist any true laws of nature or order which are constant and hold throughout the universe, please explain how this would not be shared to some degree with another species which exists within the universe? If these laws do not exist universally, how do you think science fits in with this admission?






It is not a given at all. It cannot be without evidence or else it is just another belief, no? You focus on the biological aspects but miss the mental and spiritual. If a "ball" of light has consciousness and the ability to reason, do we really have more in common with a Beetle than such a creature? If so, I question the means by which the determination was made.



Such creatures already exist, but I suppose it all depends on your definition of "creatures". Actually there is a good reason, a shared universe. This alone is enough rationally to say that such creatures will in some way come in contact with us. If however it is looked at within certain learned limits, it does not hold at all because of the artificial limits that have been applied.

Stop and say "Hi". About the only thing I can give you is if you are only speaking of communication and intelligence as in what we are actually able to consciously realize as a species at the time of the contact. But this is a applied limitation. There is no reason why this has to be the case forever if perceptions or ability to communicate changes in either species.



This does not really answer my question. I am more interested in if you beleive that artifical intelligence can succeed in duplicating human consciousness. Since the brain itself is the sum total of all human consciousness ("the brain is the soul") is it valid to say then that replication of the brain either on a functional/logical or physical level will accomplish this? It seems you say yes.... ?




But you seem to have said that creating a map of the brain on a physical or logical level wiould be like imprisoning it in a box. So I then brought up that with adequate understanding sensory perception could easily be added, invalidating this. Also, this was the whole core of the issue. That the senses do not truly define the nature of conciousness. "Nothingness of sense" "True nothingness" is possible. The senses are only an extension.

Now, if everything resides in the brain and can create this consciousness... Then it would seem logical to say that anything which mirrors the portion of the brain which provides this functionality is also "consciousness" or intelligence?

Now with your discussion of alien lifeforms and your chastisement of me for "interpolating based on terristial existence", is it really accurate to say that the brain is the only place where consciousness can exist? Now we have discussed recreating human consciousness based on matter already in length. So it is given that consciousness can be "created" with light, among other things, no? After all, if something can be duplicated logically all that is needed is a means to acheive a binary state among a network (of anything). Light certainly can be seen as binary in state, as with every single particle and component of matter in the known universe. So consider now the spectrum of that which is theoretically able to duplicate consciousnessness. What is needed? Billions and billions of on and off states. So now, I ask you, can a rock hold consciousness? Is it theoretically capable given the number of divisions within it - does it have enough complexity to hold such things, as well as memory? How many divisions of binary states exist within a rock with the current known dimensions alone. For comparison it has been said that the human body has approx. 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms alone. I know you know that atomic structure can be reduced further per atom into many more divisions. So how much further do you think it really goes that has not yet been found? What is the amount of divisions within such a relativly small space... Have you quantified it and cataloged it to say ?


And this is the world of matter. Now we get to the idea of different other dimensional existence. (I have seen you acknowledge different dimensions, no?) When other dimensions are taken into account, what is the sum total of possible divisions ?

And now it can be said: how does the soul travel? A possibility. How does light travel, how does electricity flow? There is a utilization of the interconnection between individual units, changes in structure. Interaction between units create movement. Anything which is interconnected can theoretically transmit information. This would include if there were interdimensional connections.

So perhaps it is much In the same way that light travels through the air from a light source to your eye, no? Miraculous what can lie within the smallest of spaces and what can take place between the interaction of the smallest of units, is it not? Mind boggling, no?

Fair disclosure here: actually I don't beleive that the brain is the means for creating consciousness at all. Only that it recieves (the seat) the "soul" and interacts externally elsewhere - as I have said.





That's cool, it is fine with me. Take care.

You say you like science right?

Well it is not scientific to say from only one given example that in all other cases the same thing will occur.

There are universal constants....That is not to say we won't first encounter something we would define as 'alive' from another dimension in which these constants do not exist.

You have completely missed my point every time...it's a hard one to get your head round but please try.

We (that is the human race and all life on Earth in this conjecture)...are at preseant THE ONLY existing life in the known universe....we cannot generalise OUR life functions onto the possible life functions of other lifeforms we have not met.

The only reason we believe that life would be like us is because WE are the only example of life...were we to encounter another example very different from us we might not even recognise it as being alive because our defenition of life is formed around only an understanding of how WE work....If you wish to extend the defenition of life to include the sun, blackholes and types of radiation then you start to appreciate why we as human beings cannot justify other things as being alive soley because they are not US.

See?

To say that we 'share a universe' means absolutely nothing at all....the universe is not uniform....the uniformity of universal physics is 'known' to be an illusion of distance...we occupy a uniform area of space...but only within a tiny tiny tiny area of a possibly infinite universe with things in it we couldn't even entertain as concepts.

A copy of the human mind would be a copy of that individual brain (all brains are different)

A copy of the human brain and the developmental processes that create it will create a unique mind..but without senses it will not develop as we do...without sight it will develop as blind children do etc..

The human mind is no mere collection of binary states and even if it were...you have already stated yourself the complexity of it's construction....There is a great possibility that the mind can function like a quantum computer...but unlike rocks and a warm cup of tea in which many billions of Qbits of information are exchanged every themptosecond the brain is not simply random...it is a structured processing device.

Your ideas on the continued processes of the mind outside the body relate very much to chaos theory but though this is a nice idea...if human beings spent all their time computing the chaos effects of every nerve responce they wouldn't have mind power left to breath let alone walk.

It is easy to say that everything is linked...and in doing so must confess that everything may well be conscious and if this is the case then we are all part of a huge entity we could name...oh...lets say God....but then we take our guess work back to the early campfires of caveman bullshit and may as well give up on science altogether...and I'm not ready for that.

Science is about things that are Measurable...you cannot measure the future...nore the far off unknowns of space...so don't think me unscientific for dissmissing your philosophies and conjecture...it is not arrogance it is science.

I think maybe I should do it a little differently first since the other way does not appear to work well.

[quote]
There are universal constants....
[/quote]

So, what do you think these are ?

[quote]
There are universal constants....That is not to say we won't first encounter something we would define as 'alive' from another dimension in which these constants do not exist.
[/quote]

Here: If it is encountered, by nature it is linked to the current universe, a part of it. (How else would it be able to be encountered in the universe if it were not in some way a part of it ?) If the constants are universal, these constants should also apply there if they are truly constants. Constants that are unversal should actually be universal, not just a limited perception.

Maybe it is possibly a problem in that we both seem to use the term "universal" differently. I include other dimensional existence which in any way connects to our dimensions as being inclusive to the universe. Do you only speak of the three spatial dimensions?

[quote]
We (that is the human race and all life on Earth in this conjecture)...are at preseant THE ONLY existing life in the known universe....we cannot generalise OUR life functions onto the possible life functions of other lifeforms we have not met.
[/quote]

There is no quantifyable value here in this at all in and of itself other than it being an expression of yours. It has created a limit which may or may not actually be in existence. Like how you say computer replica of a brain is only a copy of the individual brain which it was modeled for, so too are such "conjectures" only a product of the mind which made them.

In no way do I generalise our life functions on other possible lifeforms. I am not talkign about breathing, walking around, eating, moving my hands, etc. I knew better than that when I was twelve years old. What is being spoke of is the existence of a common existence and universe which is connected (by nature if it is that these are beings with which we can interact with). Providing for interaction and at least some "common ground". The whole expression itself about common ground. Think about what the words mean commonly, it is easy..... where you stand, where you are. Easy.

Also you have used "presently" and the known universe. This is very limited.

[quote]
The only reason we believe that life would be like us is because WE are the only example of life...
[/quote]

Depends on what you consider life.

[quote]
were we to encounter another example very different from us we might not even recognise it as being alive because our defenition of life is formed around only an understanding of how WE work....
[/quote]

Agreed. This is a product of limited thinking. A creative mind can overcome this obstruction.

[quote]
If you wish to extend the defenition of life to include the sun, blackholes and types of radiation then you start to appreciate why we as human beings cannot justify other things as being alive soley because they are not US.
[/quote]

Limited thinking and understanding.

[quote]
To say that we 'share a universe' means absolutely nothing at all....the universe is not uniform....the uniformity of universal physics is 'known' to be an illusion of distance...we occupy a uniform area of space...but only within a tiny tiny tiny area of a possibly infinite universe with things in it we couldn't even entertain as concepts.
[/quote]

Again, it litterally means that we have "common ground". We "stand" in the same place so to speak. Space is but a few dimensions. But even with only these dimensions everything existing within it is interconnected and interrelated. Why is a lack of uniformity sufficent to say that sharing a universe means nothing at all. Seems silly. No argument that there are differences, but still an interconnection overrides I believe.

[quote]
A copy of the human mind would be a copy of that individual brain (all brains are different)

A copy of the human brain and the developmental processes that create it will create a unique mind..but without senses it will not develop as we do...without sight it will develop as blind children do etc..
[/quote]

Tell me something that I don't know already. Was this ever in dispute provided that you are speaking on a physical level? Many times it has been said that the senses are easy to duplicate. But we have acknowledged already anyway that the senses are not really that which we are speaking of. It is a distraction.

[quote]
The human mind is no mere collection of binary states and even if it were...you have already stated yourself the complexity of it's construction....There is a great possibility that the mind can function like a quantum computer...but unlike rocks and a warm cup of tea in which many billions of Qbits of information are exchanged every themptosecond the brain is not simply random...it is a structured processing device.
[/quote]

Rocks and tea neither are truly random, if you also say that the brain is not random. They are all matter and subject to any and all influencing properties upon them, including that which creates them. If the brain itself ("there is no soul") is the sum total of the human mind and all things existing can be expressed mathematically, on what basis can this not potentially be expressed by binary means? Is it it not then matematical and quantifyable?

[quote]
Your ideas on the continued processes of the mind outside the body relate very much to chaos theory but though this is a nice idea...if human beings spent all their time computing the chaos effects of every nerve responce they wouldn't have mind power left to breath let alone walk.
[/quote]

They do not need to. It is done for them seemingly, inherent in nature.

[quote]
It is easy to say that everything is linked...and in doing so must confess that everything may well be conscious and if this is the case then we are all part of a huge entity we could name...oh...lets say God....but then we take our guess work back to the early campfires of caveman bullshit and may as well give up on science altogether...and I'm not ready for that.
[/quote]

So is science then just like anyone else with a belief? Where the belief is held on to until the last.

[quote]
Science is about things that are Measurable...you cannot measure the future...nore the far off unknowns of space...so don't think