Do you know?

Originally posted by joelek
[b]So why bother praying for someone to be saved if it's all their own responsibility? Is RBHILL wasting his time praying for me?

I pray for the unsaved because I want to see them saved. God doesn't NEED my prayers for the lost, but he still desires them. He desires me to speak to him regarding the desires of my heart, and to want the things he wan ...[text shortened]... here you're coming from here. I definitely think people are responsible for what they believe.[/b]

I don’t believe that God gives us things that we don’t deserve. We are all God’s children, so we all deserve our rightful inheritance.

When a persons parents die, they are entitled to the families wealth. In the same way we are all entitled to God’s wealth. God is the ultimate father of all. It’s really just a matter of accepting it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm not sure that you can unequivocally state that the conciousness drives our brain. If that were the case then why have a brain, you wouldn't need it - you already (by your definition) have a conciousness.

My own thoughts is that conciousness is what we term in biology an 'emergent property'. It's an outcome which is a result of many lower leve ...[text shortened]... re temperature etc etc etc.. That's an exceedingly simple example. The brain is more complex.[/b]

I'm not sure that you can unequivocally state that the conciousness drives our brain. If that were the case then why have a brain, you wouldn't need it - you already (by your definition) have a conciousness.

Yes, our souls do not need our brains to exist.

My own thoughts is that conciousness is what we term in biology an 'emergent property'. It's an outcome which is a result of many lower level actions and reactions, and is related to each of them, but in a complex, intractible manner.

As a scientist you believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed right? Then believe that our consciousness just changes form when we die.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I have no time tonight for an extended post, but I want to address this point:

Because an organism can find what it needs to survive does not entail that it
has consciousness. And, similarly, just because something doesn't want to die
or reacts when under attack, doesn't mean it has consciousness.

All living things -- your cells for example -- s ...[text shortened]... is irrelevant;
we're not talking about thought, we are talking about consciousness.

Nemesio

just because something doesn't want to die or reacts when under attack, doesn't mean it has consciousness.

I disagree. How can something that is not alive want anything? How can something that is alive not have a soul?

Consciousness entails self- and other- awareness. It is located in a specific part of the brain. Without this part of the brain, you have no consciousness. A fish does not have this part of the brain (because, on the evolutionary ladder, it isn't 'high' enough, loosely
speaking). A spider lacks it entirely.

The best neurosurgeons will say that they know maybe 1% of what there is to know about the brain and consciousness, so perhaps you’re assuming too much.

It has been show time and time again that when one area of the brain is damaged, the other areas change in ways that compensate. This is part of the reason why people born with half a brain appear normal.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Isn;t conciousness just another adaptation? I'd say yes. There are a number of evolutionary biologists (who know more than me, a mere plant biochemist) who'd agree with this synopsis.

I have never claimed to know everything. I take great pride in realising just how little about the world I actually know. Would that we were all in the same posit s simply an adaptation, then it cannot count as proof that animals are less evolved than humans.[/b]

I have never claimed to know everything. I take great pride in realising just how little about the world I actually know.

This contradicts what you said earlier.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.

In order to make a statement like this, it is necessary for you to believe that you know everything there is to know about the human body.

I'm glad that you feel we should live in harmony with the planet though. Nice.

Yes, even if I were a strong atheist, I would still believe this. This world sustains us, so if we kill it we kill ourselves. It doesn’t take a lot of degrees to make this connection.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I'm not sure that you can unequivocally state that the conciousness drives our brain. If that were the case then why have a brain, you wouldn't need it - you already (by your definition) have a conciousness.

Yes, our souls do not need our brains to exist.

My own thoughts is that conciousness is what we term in biology an 'emerge ...[text shortened]... created nor destroyed right? Then believe that our consciousness just changes form when we die.

Conciousness is not an energy form. It is, as I already stated, an emergent property of a system.
Anyway, your body decomposes when you die, releasing heat. Even if you did could 'conciousness' as a unique energy form it may simply dissipate after we die. No-one knows.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I have never claimed to know everything. I take great pride in realising just how little about the world I actually know.

This contradicts what you said earlier.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.

In o ...[text shortened]... s, so if we kill it we kill ourselves. It doesn’t take a lot of degrees to make this connection.[/b]

One can know only a little, but know it very well. I am happy to know that I have alot to learn. The things I do know, however, are built upon evidence, not faith.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Conciousness is not an energy form. It is, as I already stated, an emergent property of a system.
Anyway, your body decomposes when you die, releasing heat. Even if you did could 'conciousness' as a unique energy form it may simply dissipate after we die. No-one knows.

Quantum physics has shown that objects change on the molecular level just by looking at them. Angry thoughts can be destructive, positive thoughts can produce positive effects. Would this not prove that consciousness is energy?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
One can know only a little, but know it very well. I am happy to know that I have alot to learn. The things I do know, however, are built upon evidence, not faith.

This is the main problem. Science can produce evidence for all to see. Spiritual practice usually produces evidence that only the one doing it can see.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Quantum physics has shown that objects change on the molecular level just by looking at them. Angry thoughts can be destructive, positive thoughts can produce positive effects. Would this not prove that consciousness is energy?

I would be very, very sceptical of such results. The question of course requires asked, perhaps these objects changed as a reaction to the measuring procedure, not the looking. I'll really require your reference on that one.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I disagree. How can something that is not alive want anything? How can something that is alive not have a soul?

The issue is the act of wanting. An ameoba doesn't 'want' food any more than a
magnet wants to attact iron. There is no awareness of want.

If you want to argue that everything that is alive has a soul of some sort, then
you are composed of billions of souls -- each cell in your body is alive. I find such
a supposition to be cumbersome if not silly.

As for consciousness, as I've said, it resides in a specific part of the brain. If you
don't have that part you don't have consciousness. Fish do not have that
part and therefore do not have consciousness. To that end, they do not show any
signs of consciousness, such as self-awareness. Spiders, jellyfish, and plants all
interact with the world, not out of want, but purely out of instinct. A plant cannot
but grow toward light. It cannot 'want' to do otherwise because it cannot 'want.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The issue is the act of wanting. An ameoba doesn't 'want' food any more than a
magnet wants to attact iron. There is no awareness of want.

If you want to argue that everything that is alive has a soul of some sort, then
you are composed of billions of souls -- each cell in your body is alive. I find such
a supposition to be cumbersome if not silly. ...[text shortened]... ut grow toward light. It cannot 'want' to do otherwise because it cannot 'want.'

Nemesio[/b]

If you want to argue that everything that is alive has a soul of some sort, then
you are composed of billions of souls -- each cell in your body is alive. I find such
a supposition to be cumbersome if not silly.

Quite honestly I’m not sure what the difference between a soul, spirit, or consciousness is. We may be getting hung up on the terminology again. Everything that is alive has a “life force” of some kind. Maybe this term is more appropriate.

Obviously a cell does not have the same sort of life force that we do. Does a cell want something? I don’t know, maybe not. I wouldn’t expect a cell to order out for pizza, but a cell is alive nonetheless.

As for consciousness, as I've said, it resides in a specific part of the brain. If you
don't have [b]that part you don't have consciousness.[/b]

Where do you get your information? What specific area of the brain? What is it called?

The frontal lobe is associated with personality, but to my understanding that is as close to an “area of consciousness” as can be identified. There are many areas of the brain, and they all affect consciousness in different ways. The limbic system for example is connected to our emotions, but it is not directly connected to the frontal lobe.

It’s important to keep in mind that we know almost nothing about the brain. What we do know comes by and large from indirect study. We study somebody’s disability based on their injury.

Based on what we do know it is incorrect to say that because a certain area of the brain is missing the person or creature cannot perform a certain function. The brain changes and compensates as I have already mentioned. If we know almost nothing about the functions of a human brain, we know even less about the functions of a fish's brain.

Fish do not have that part and therefore do not have consciousness. To that end, they do not show any signs of consciousness, such as self-awareness. Spiders, jellyfish, and plants all interact with the world, not out of want, but purely out of instinct.

When a fish swims away from a predator is it not self-aware? If you touch a spider and it runs away or bites you is it not self-aware? What exactly is your definition of self-awareness?

A plant cannot but grow toward light. It cannot 'want' to do otherwise because it cannot 'want.'

Plants are harder to define. Just out of curiosity, how do you know they do not want to grow towards the sun light? Have you asked them? The trees I mentioned that showed the chemical signs of fear before they were about to be chopped down, where they not self-aware to some degree?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I would be very, very sceptical of such results. The question of course requires asked, perhaps these objects changed as a reaction to the measuring procedure, not the looking. I'll really require your reference on that one.

I don’t blame you. I have the material but it will take some time to look through it. I’ll get back over the weekend. Too busy right now.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I don’t blame you. I have the material but it will take some time to look through it. I’ll get back over the weekend. Too busy right now.

I'd appreciate that, cheers mate.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I would be very, very sceptical of such results. The question of course requires asked, perhaps these objects changed as a reaction to the measuring procedure, not the looking. I'll really require your reference on that one.

Ok scottishinnz, thanks for bearing with me. I know I’ve promised you some references in regards to consciousness being able to alter the world around us. Here is one site.

http://www.mercola.com/2002/may/8/prayer.htm

Here is a very credible source. Glen Rein has a PH.D., and his work in quantum mechanics is accepted by many credible scientists.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:VyCwRnaDyHAJ:www.item-bioenergy.com/infocenter/ConsciousIntentiononDNA.pdf+Leonard+Laskow+observer+effect&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

There are many credible, highly trained professionals who recognize that our conscious has a direct, scientifically measurable effect on the objects around us. This is pretty strong evidence that our consciousness is in fact a form of energy. Again, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Leonard Laskow, MD is a Stanford-trained physician who has studied and practiced the healing power of love for more than 25 years.

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/sci.physics.relativity/msg15965.html

Here in an additional source.

http://www.fmbr.org/abstracts/absolute.htm

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Consciousness is not an energy form. It is, as I already stated, an emergent property of a system.

All this evidence seems to contradict your position.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Ok scottishinnz, thanks for bearing with me. I know I’ve promised you some references in regards to consciousness being able to alter the world around us. Here is one site.

http://www.mercola.com/2002/may/8/prayer.htm

Here is a very credible source. Glen Rein has a PH.D., and his work in quantum mechanics is accepted by many credible scienti ...[text shortened]... , an emergent property of a system.[/i]

All this evidence seems to contradict your position.

Okay, my initial thoughts (without reading the articles - I'll do that during my coffee break at work later, and respond in a more complete manner) are these.

I do not believe that 'conciousness' alters the world around us, however what I believe you are talking about is that at quantum scales, the act of observing can alter then physical universe. This is because of the nature of observing - observation at this scale requires measurement, and measurement, no matter how unobtrusive, still changes things (the whole you can't know the absolute position of someting and it's velocity at the same time). I don't understnad it properly, but a) that doesn't make it wrong, and b) noone else does either so I can cut myself some slack!

On the whole 'love healing' thing. I'm unsure of your interpretation of that. I don't believe it is 'love' that is curing the individual, it may very well the the knowledge of being loved or the act of loving another, but both of these trigger biochemical changes in the brain, such as increased serotonin levels etc, which increase a persons mental well being and may be implicated in increased regenerative capacity (how many old people don't get better from common diseases because 'they don't have anything (or anyone) to get better for'?)

Anyhoo, a more imformed position later in the day!