Originally posted by melatonin
and I would expect such life forms to have biological mechanisms underlying emotion.

Same as on earth. The conciousness expresses through a biological vehicle.

You really think an ant and worm have a similar understanding of their place in the environment as we do? For example, do they have the ability for self/other distinction and self awareness? Does bacteria have the same ability, if not why not?

I think an ant and a worm have a certain degree of awareness ,yes.
Not to anywhere close to a degree comparable to human .
Self/other distinction, yes.
Bacteria, not sure.

The reason I ask is because most cats and dogs don't seem to possess self-awareness. Hence the reason they show aggression to their mirror image. However, higher primates do recognise their reflection as themselves. For instance, chimps will try to remove painted marks on their noses when seeing it in a mirror. But lower primates do not.

Just because a cat or dog may not recognize or appear to recognize their own physical forms reflected in a mirror does not mean they are not self-aware.
They know there is a difference between themselves and another animal or human and it is in evidence when one observes them.
They are merely fooled by that simple illusion where as a chimp or a human is generally more capable (due to a higher degree of intelligence) of realizing it is a reflection.

So when we give schizophrenics clozapine it blocks the connection with the evil spirit and allows connection to a good spirit? Maybe the drug just dampens down the overactive neurotransmitters associated with psychotic symptoms...

It may block the unwanted spirit(s) from expressing through the physical vehicle and interfering with(being detected/perceived by the brain of) the primary occupant of the body.
The drug in that case may reduce the awareness of the person to a level where the brain no longer is aware of non physical communication ('the voices' for example) with adjacent dimensions.
The 'voices in the head' could be real. Subjective evidence of heightened awareness but uncontrolled and misunderstood by, detrimental to the persons well being.
A doorway is open or maybe just ajar in the patient where it is usually closed in others. The drug closes that door/chemically blocks access.

Do these disembodied consciousnesses exist fully formed, or do they start undeveloped?
It just seems that children's understanding of the independence of mental states of self and others (known as theory of mind) develops as their brain develops.

It's the brain that is undeveloped.
The conciousness can only 'express' within the limitations of the brain.

Primates have a fairly large frontal lobe, we have the largest of all animals. Dogs and cats have a pretty underdeveloped frontal lobe, worms don't have one at all. The state of an animal's cognition and learning abilities are related to brain size. Even IQ is related to brain development in humans.

I largely agree. The conciousness can only 'express' within the capabilities of the vehicle it occupies.

When the frontal lobe is damaged (such as in the phineas gage case) personality and social cognition suffer.

Obviously, see above.





[edit on 30-3-2006 by point]

So, there is a single type of fully developed consciousness (of course many of them, some good, some bad) that pervades all biological organisms, from worms to humans, but they are limited by the neural capabilities of that organism (But what about the bacteria, they are a life form, don't they need a "driver", or is genetics and physiology sufficient for them but not for us?). As the brain develops it allows the spirits to have more capabilities through these biological shells.

Chemicals have the ability to block certain spirits/consciousness but not others. When we reduce the activity of neurotransmitters (such as dopamine) in schizophrenics we are blocking bad spirits, when we take drugs such as amphetamine, which increase dopamine activity, we block good spirits. Therefore, depending on the level of activity of dopamine (and I guess serotonin et al), certain spirits have the ability to pervade an organism. The same applies to psychopaths who have dysfunctional brain mechnisms but children who also have limited frontal capacity must also be affected by bad spirits (i.e. in this case the good spirits are restricted? Does this apply to a worm, as he has no frontal capabilities?)

I think I prefer the scientific view that neurotransmitters (and of course electrical activity of the brain or the application my electrode) are used in reward/punishment, perceptual process mechanisms et al, rather than invoke spirits we have no evidence for (heeeeere's Occam, lol), but each to their own...

This sort of thinking is still exists in uneducated, superstitious 3rd world countries, where little children and the mentally ill are accused of harbouring bad spirits and are shunned from society (even by their own mothers). So in the salem witch trials where 20 or so people were killed, even the theory that they suffered ergotism means they still were possessed by bad spirits and the accusers, who probably suffered some sort of mass hysteria, were correct. Niiiice....

Is exorcism a good treatment for schizophrenia, it could save those silly scientists looking for improved treatments? We could just train more clergy rather than spend millions looking for other forms of treatment...

[edit on 30-3-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
So, there is a single type of fully developed consciousness (of course many of them, some good, some bad) that pervades all biological organisms, from worms to humans, but they are limited by the neural capabilities of that organism (But what about the bacteria, they are a life form, don't they need a "driver", or is genetics and physiology sufficient for them but not for us?).

No not single type. Their 'expression in the physical' is limited.
Bacteria would also have some form of conciousness.

Chemicals have the ability to block certain spirits/consciousness but not others. When we reduce the activity of neurotransmitters (such as dopamine) in schizophrenics we are blocking bad spirits, when we take drugs such as amphetamine, which increase dopamine activity, we block good spirits. Therefore, depending on the level of activity of dopamine (and I guess serotonin et al), certain spirits have the ability to pervade an organism. The same applies to psychopaths who have dysfunctional brain mechnisms but children who also have limited frontal capacity must also be affected by bad spirits (i.e. in this case the good spirits are restricted?

No, I don't think the chemical agents have the ability to block bad spirits and allow good ones. That's too simplistic. They alter the body/brain chemistry and thus alter the expression and perception of the brain and body.
The drugs/chemicals all have differing effects according to their particular properties just like different types of foods that are consumed.
Whatever is inhaled ,injected, consumed absorbed by the body (including radiation) has an effect on the body and brain function. These agents alter the body and brains expression of the conciousness driving the shell.

I think I prefer the scientific view that neurotransmitters (and of course electrical activity of the brain or the application my electrode) are used in reward/punishment, perceptual process mechanisms et al, rather than invoke spirits we have no evidence for (heeeeere's Occam, lol), but each to their own...

That has been fairly obvious from the outset.
'Each to their own' one of my favorite sayings.

This sort of thinking is still exists in uneducated, superstitious 3rd world countries, where little children and the mentally ill are accused of harbouring bad spirits and are shunned from society (even by their own mothers). So in the salem witch trials where 20 or so people were killed, even the theory that they suffered ergotism means they still were possessed by bad spirits and the accusers, who probably suffered some sort of mass hysteria, were correct. Niiiice....

Science has a different way of explaining certain phenomena. It generally focusses on the physical aspect of the phenomena alone. If it can't see it/measure it then it does'nt exist. Effects can be mistaken for the root causes in many cases.
Of course these are simply my opinions. as you say,"Each to their own".

So, let's get rid of jail's and train more preist's. We can't blame the action's of violent crime's on people with brain disorder's, it's gotta be caused by that dohicky mechanism thingy your talking about that's letting the bad spirits in to take over. All those thousand's of poor people in jails for crimes commited by eviiiil spirits. Let em free!

Originally posted by point
Of course these are simply my opinions. as you say,"Each to their own".

Well, it would be a pretty boring world if everyone held the same beliefs.

cheers

I,m not saying everyone that commits a crime has done it because of possession by bad invading spirits.
The primary occupant of the body, the original spirit/conciousness may lean toward those sorts of activities naturally due to his/her spiritual/psychological/emotional make-up.

So only in some cases is this true, but if it's a violent murderous crime then it's gotta be the person itself? Wtf? Pick and choose which case equals demonic possession?

Without accepting at least the possibility that 'We are not our bodies' just like a person driving a car is not the car, what I have said in the last few posts will not be understood.

Why accept the possibility that this is only applicable in some cases and not in all?

The physical bodies are merely vehicles of expression for the conciousness that resides temporarily within. (severely flawed vehicles at that.)
This temporary tenure begins more or less around the time of birth of the body and is terminated apon physical death of the body.

If you accept the possibility, yes. If you look at the evidence, no.

This topic is more suited to another thread:

I'll take a look at it.

Originally posted by Prot0n
So only in some cases is this true

Yes

but if it's a violent murderous crime then it's gotta be the person itself?

I didn't say that. If anything chances are it's the other way round, but not necessarily.

Why accept the possibility that this is only applicable in some cases and not in all?

Why not? Not Occam's razor again.
It's a complicated universe. If it was simple we'd probably have all the answers.

I'll open up another can of worms.
What if the original conciousness in some bodies (not all) are infact demonic in the first place?

Yes yes, the mighty razor!

It's a complicated universe. If it was simple we'd probably have all the answers.

Is it really? And who says we'd have all the answer's? We're a stupid species really.

What if the original conciousness in some bodies (not all) are infact demonic in the first place?

Lol, so is that the reason infants cry so damn much? The demon's trying to irritate us?

Originally posted by Prot0n
Is it really? And who says we'd have all the answer's? We're a stupid species really.

Being a stupid species, as you say, we would find what could be thought of as a fairly simple universe to a more intelligent species, complicated.

Lol, so is that the reason infants cry so damn much? The demon's trying to irritate us?

I think you've cracked this case wide open! Lol

[edit on 2-4-2006 by point]

Being a stupid species, as you say, we would find what could be thought of as a fairly simple universe to a more intelligent species, complicated.

What's really complex? The forces or the interactions? You look at a watch and say designed complexity. And you'd be right! The forces don't easily allow for a fully complicated mechanism such as a watch to form in nature. Bio-Chemistry is a different story though. And it's not like all these complex organism's just popped up out of nothing one day and started naming each other. Thing's may appear complex, but they really aren't that complex.

It could be perfect. Life on earth could be the most serene, beautiful, and happiest thing ever. More than your brain could even think up.

Why isnt it? Because we are... we.

We control everything. I believe in god. I beleive in heaven and hell.

I also beleive that we were given the awesome power of free will.

I wouldnt mind living the rest of my life nekkid with a supermodel in an endless oasis. The most beautiful place on earth x1000. Never a worry to be had. No problems, no crime, no fear, no money, nothing. Just the best paradise of the universe.
But now that im here, right now, it couldnt happen. Why? Because if i got there, i would be waiting for someone to rescue my ass so I could eat some damn Mc Donalds and check my damn MySpace.


Hahaha

Please explain your belief that we control everything, yet you believe in God. Aren't those contradictory statements?

Just because he believes in God, doesn't mean he believes God controls everything. There are many interpretations of what one believes God represents.

Originally posted by Prot0n
What's really complex? The forces or the interactions? You look at a watch and say designed complexity. And you'd be right! The forces don't easily allow for a fully complicated mechanism such as a watch to form in nature. Bio-Chemistry is a different story though. And it's not like all these complex organism's just popped up out of nothing one day and started naming each other. Thing's may appear complex, but they really aren't that complex.

You think a watch is complex.
What about a human or animal body and brain?
Why is bio-chemistry a different story. Even if you believe in the theory of evolution the end produkt is still fairly complex.
Humans can design a watch but can they design something as complex as a human body?

A watch is designed as a watch right? I'm sure we both agree that a watch doesn't appear in nature on it's own accord. The law's of nature just don't allow for atoms to come together in gear shape's and springs and then assemble together to form a watch or a house or a car with a full tank of gas already on with the key's in waiting for us to drive it out of the forest. You gotta be pretty gullible to think something like that.

Bio-Chemistry is alot more different. You can't even compare the two! I don't get why people even bother trying too. The end product may appear to be complex, but that complexity is born through natural law's that allow for it. Atom's make molecule's, molecule's make protiens, protiens make DNA etc etc etc, you get the idea (I hope?). Unless of course you want to argue that chemistry is wrong.

Originally posted by Prot0n
A watch is designed as a watch right? I'm sure we both agree that a watch doesn't appear in nature on it's own accord. The law's of nature just don't allow for atoms to come together in gear shape's and springs and then assemble together to form a watch or a house or a car with a full tank of gas already on with the key's in waiting for us to drive it out of the forest. You gotta be pretty gullible to think something like that.

We are 100% agreed upon a watch being designed as a watch. (so far so good,.......but.....)
Who thought up the laws of nature if not something greater/beyond nature? Do you suppose laws create themselves?
Nothing appears in nature of it's own accord. Everything including nature itself is designed. Cars and watches are designed by lesser intelligent designers called humans who are themselves designed by far superior intelligence(s).

I don't get why people even bother trying too. The end product may appear to be complex, but that complexity is born through natural law's that allow for it. Atom's make molecule's, molecule's make protiens, protiens make DNA etc etc etc, you get the idea (I hope?).

I can see you don't get it.
It appears that you view 'nature' as something that miraculously came into existence without a designer/creator. (intelligent or otherwise)
Basically, you believe apparently everything in existence (other than things created by humans) originated without rhyme or reason from absolute nothing. Doesn't that contradict one of the fundamental laws of physics.
You know, the one about energy neither being able to be created nor destroyed, only changing form.It may be a popular theory but is it at all logical?
I know exactly what you are saying but it appears that what I am saying is being misinterpreted by your good self.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by point]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by point]

We are 100% agreed upon a watch being designed as a watch. (so far so good,.......but.....)
Who thought up the laws of nature if not something greater/beyond nature? Do you suppose laws create themselves?

But what? Do you really think that just because we don't currently have full instant knowledge of the mechanisms behind the universe's birth that this means instant supernatural creator? Why do the 'laws' have to have been created by a designer? Just sounds lazy to me.

Nothing appears in nature of it's own accord. Everything including nature itself is designed. Cars and watches are designed by lesser intelligent designers called humans who are themselves designed by far superior intelligence(s).

Virtual particle's in the quantum fluctuations of space pop in and out of existence all the time. Some even get the chance to stick around, but most of them return back into the fabric of space-time. The only thing that may appear to have come from nothing is the universe itself. Life within it, even our's is quiet possible without a supernatural diety. Unless again you want to argue that everything we know about chemistry and atomic theory is absolutely wrong?

I can see you don't get it.
It appears that you view 'nature' as something that miraculously came into existence without a designer/creator. (intelligent or otherwise)

I wouldn't say "miraculously", but yes ... I don't pawn off what I don't know to a higher even more unexplainable power.

Basically, you believe apparently everything in existence (other than things created by humans) originated without rhyme or reason from absolute nothing. Doesn't that contradict one of the fundamental laws of physics.

I never said from absolutley nothing. I've got a few post's floating around arguing against that silly notion of absolute nothing. Not a single person on this planet has ever seen or experimented with absolute nothing. Absolute nothingness is nothing more then a concept. But think of it this way... You may say or think (just an example) that God always existed right? It could very well be possible, if not more likely that the same properties prior to our universe existed as well, the quantum nature of reality. I can't say for sure that this is a fact as not a single person alive today or in the future will ever get a chance to peer beyond the observable universe or the space beyond it's event horizon. It can't contradict the law's of physics as they are in our universe, we don't know what the laws of physics were before it. The laws of physics were even different at the very begining of our universe also.

You know, the one about energy neither being able to be created nor destroyed, only changing form.
It may be a popular theory but is it at all logical?

Why doesn't it seem logical to you?

I know exactly what you are saying but it appears that what I am saying is being misinterpreted by your good self.

IDK, maybe I am misinterpreting what your saying. I like to think I've atleast semi understood you so far, even if none of it make's much sense at all.

Originally posted by Prot0n
But what? Do you really think that just because we don't currently have full instant knowledge of the mechanisms behind the universe's birth that this means instant supernatural creator? Why do the 'laws' have to have been created by a designer? Just sounds lazy to me.

If the universe was born then does that mean it has/had a mother?
It sounds rediculous to me that a law or anything else for that matter could pop into existence from non existence without at very least some sort of catalyst and energy source.

The only thing that may appear to have come from nothing is the universe itself. Life within it, even our's is quiet possible without a supernatural diety.

Just a little thing like the whole universe itself came from nothing. That's a pretty big loose end!(or would you consider it a minor detail to be brushed aside).

I wouldn't say "miraculously"

Lucky you didn't. I might have accused you of believing in miracles!

IDK, maybe I am misinterpreting what your saying. I like to think I've atleast semi understood you so far, even if none of it make's much sense at all.

So you'd like to think you've semi understood me, yet none of the part you like to think you semi understood makes much sense at all to you.
Well that makes sense,............ I think ?

Btw, I like the way you appear to have quoted me out of context regarding the 'energy neither is created nor destroyed' sentence.

If the universe was born then does that mean it has/had a mother?

Who says the universe was "born"? It wasn't like a human conception of birth.

It sounds rediculous to me that a law or anything else for that matter could pop into existence from non existence without at very least some sort of catalyst and energy source.

Your right, it does sound ridiculous. Then again, this is how god came to be is it not? And if not, if he always just existed.. Then why is it hard to accept that perhaps there was something natural that always existed, such as the properties of quantum fluctuation's that allow for particles to pop in and out of existence in our universe.

Just a little thing like the whole universe itself came from nothing. That's a pretty big loose end!(or would you consider it a minor detail to be brushed aside).

What's this nothing that you keep mentioning? I'm unaware of an absolute nothingness. Never heard of it nor seen it. We don't know what existed prior to the universe.

So you'd like to think you've semi understood me, yet none of the part you like to think you semi understood makes much sense at all to you.
Well that makes sense,............ I think ?

No, it make's semi sense!

Btw, I like the way you appear to have quoted me out of context regarding the 'energy neither is created nor destroyed' sentence.

Did I?

It may be a popular theory but is it at all logical?

I was under the impression that you thought the idea wasn't logical. Which I assumed was the reason you said what you said. Which mean's my question wasn't out of context at all. If anything, be abit more clear next time so I know your opinion on thing's.