[Starboy]

Quote by: Jeffl ...and the reader has the timidity to sit silent while SB calls me an idiot for not answering questions. No offense but, HELLO??? I,m DYING here.

Jeffl, you started out dead. This is where our exchange began.

Quote by: jeffl Well??? As i see it, there's no reason that a scientist can't look at the scriptural record. And looking, there's no reason a scientist can't be awestruck by the realities, REALITIES, that they see.

Quote by: Starboy Are you talking about the "realities" that they see in the bible?

Quote by: jeffl Not so much the Bible; but yes, the Bible aswell. All due respect to the thread, the Holy Quran also. The Hindu perspective is another beacon; the Vedas no doubt, but for me the wonderful Mahabharat.

Quote by: Starboy So what realities are in the bible?

Quote by: Jeffl It's enough to talk about an objective perspective of spirit; then i can avoid speaking metaphorically.

Still no answer to a challenge to a claim.

Quote by: Jeffl I think you confuse science with scientist. I am free to embrace what of science i think worthy of embracing.I agree. That's why i stopped going to sundayschool when i was five. That's why i felt like i made a new discovery when the scriptural record started falling together for me.

Quote by: Starboy What is this "new" discovery that you found in the scriptural record?

Quote by: Jeffl I didn't say i found it in the scriptural record. I said i felt like i found it when it started falling together for me; not just the scriptural record, but the scientific record aswell. The physical nature of consciousness, as i've outlined in the consciousness thread; the nature of icon in ritual; of icon in the brain; it all kind of fell together.

Quote by: Starboy You can demonstrate that it fell together? Or you just "feel" that it fell together?

Quote by: Jeffl Well; there's the 'brain function' thing, which can't now be demonstrated (though there was a nice simulation called NEURON that i can't find anymore), and the clarity of which will be obscured significantly by the imposition of glial cell function through the evolution of emotion; so that's probably out. There's the individualistic theology that would be a natural end result of the dissolution of an ancient consciousness; mithraism was an obvious candidate. Not much that you might accept, i suppose. There is someone who seems to think of Cain and Abel along similar lines as i do; in 'Ishmael,' by Daniel Quinn, i think, the author talks about a community of herders and a community of farmers. He identifies what i might call the body of the brothers; and he neuters them.

Quote by: Starboy Jeffl, how does this disparate collection of observations "fall" together? Are you just illustrating how your particular mind has a tendency to juxtapose items that really have nothing to do with one another? And that you lack a filter to see that they are not connected.

Then at this point you made a switch to another topic we were discussion having to do with your claim that the discription of humans as hunter/gathers was missing the concept of ritutual. (A very silly and stupid claim.) After this was pointed out you then connect what is missing to something you claim to have said in the conciousness thread.

Quote by: jeffl Aside from the computability issue, that SB refuses to discuss; there is also the phenomenon of experience itself, something that presents to all of us. Now, i need someone to post and say, 'yes there is the question of computability,' or, 'yes there is this experiential aspect of Being that can't be left out of a description of reality.' Or, conversely, say where i haven't answered SB's, or anyone else's, questions. I mean, COME ON! Not only do i mention the computability thing (which noone else has commented on, making me think that noone else here has read RP's stuff on consciousness), i mention the possibility that the logic of vortex interaction might provide a more available explaination that quantum computing; Jeffl, All of this very nicely illustraites just how scatter brained you are.

Then Penrose comes up and then your observations about computablilty. (Which incidentally is not so much about humans but about Penrose's claim that AI will never work because intelligence as he sees it, is not computable.)

Starboy