Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

[jeffl]

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

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.

i would not embrace what sometimes passes for science in the US, and out here in alberta aswell.

There is a very silent majority of faithful who do try to understand the Bible as it presents; but they are only just now allowing themselves to consider evolution. I suppose one reason for silence, in some cases, is their feeling of ignorance. On the other side, i'd imagine that most scientists are like yourself; or else still trying to rationalize their traditional religious dogma with what of science they are trying to learn; i mean, there seems a likely evolution from dogma to atheist to artist. In seeing the trap one sees that some paintings last while others fade, and that the notion of 'artist' in this context is full of hubris. Case in point, there's the question of who should paint and who should mix the colors; and who's the brush, the canvas, the easel? But, before any of that, there's the question of dialectic. Those willing to persue the spiritual must commit, inorder to develope a reliable mode of talking about spirituality.

Sorry, hehe; abit of a tanget.

[Starboy]

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.

So what realities are in the bible?

i would not embrace what sometimes passes for science in the US, and out here in alberta aswell.

So what? You are not supposed to embrace it. You do not have to believe in it in order for it to work. If faith is required then it ain't science. That is the point of science. It is all open for reconsideration. To be a scientist requires that one be skeptical. If not of one's own ideas at least one must be skeptical of the ideas of others. How can there be new discoveries if one accepts every pronouncement that has been made? You confuse science with religion.

There is a very silent majority of faithful who do try to understand the Bible as it presents; but they are only just now allowing themselves to consider evolution. I suppose one reason for silence, in some cases, is their feeling of ignorance.

How can one tell if one understands the bible?

On the other side, i'd imagine that most scientists are like yourself; or else still trying to rationalize their traditional religious dogma with what of science they are trying to learn; i mean, there seems a likely evolution from dogma to atheist to artist. In seeing the trap one sees that some paintings last while others fade, and that the notion of 'artist' in this context is full of hubris. Case in point, there's the question of who should paint and who should mix the colors; and who's the brush, the canvas, the easel? But, before any of that, there's the question of dialectic. Those willing to persue the spiritual must commit, inorder to develope a reliable mode of talking about spirituality.

What in the world are you trying to say? Do not speak metaphorically. You do not appear to be very good at it.

Sorry, hehe; abit of a tanget.

Not too much of a tangent. The OP was essentially about a scientist that thought that science has somehow validated the Koran.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Not too much of a tangent. The OP was essentially about a scientist that thought that science has somehow validated the Koran. Starboy

I understand that. I meant that you probably wouldn't follow, you wouldn't leave your little circle. Hence:

What in the world are you trying to say? Do not speak metaphorically. You do not appear to be very good at it.

So what realities are in the bible?.

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

You confuse science with religion.

I don't think so. I think you confuse science with scientist. I am free to embrace what of science i think worthy of embracing.

How can there be new discoveries if one accepts every pronouncement that has been made?

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. Then i found that most people saw something, but passified themselves by neutering it. They see the cycle of life and death; but they don't see the persistence of Life, Truth, through the cycle. They don't deal with consciousness or meaning.

To be a scientist requires that one be skeptical. If not of one's own ideas at least one must be skeptical of the ideas of others.

That in italics is interesting. Scientists have been wrong before; and many don't have much to say on the important questions. There's a reason, and it's because there is no morality inherent in science except in what present in the scientific record about the human animal. I think the notion of us as hunter/gatherers is a misconception; and it's leading to an erronious social structure.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl I understand that. I meant that you probably wouldn't follow, you wouldn't leave your little circle. Hence:It's enough to talk about an objective perspective of spirit; then i can avoid speaking metaphorically.I don't think so.

Do not say that I can't leave my "little circle" when you are obviously bound to your own.

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.

What is this "new" discovery that you found in the scriptural record?

Then i found that most people saw something, but passified themselves by neutering it. They see the cycle of life and death; but they don't see the persistence of Life, Truth, through the cycle. They don't deal with consciousness or meaning.

And what makes you think that you are not as pacified or neutered than they are? If not more so? Why are you the only one that sees "persistence of Life, Truth, through the cycle"?

That in italics is interesting. Scientists have been wrong before; and many don't have much to say on the important questions. There's a reason, and it's because there is no morality inherent in science except in what present in the scientific record about the human animal.

What makes you think that there is no morality inherent in science?

I think the notion of us as hunter/gatherers is a misconception; and it's leading to an erronious social structure.

Fine then, what are we?

Starboy

[SlySpy]

Quote by: jeffl Scientists have been wrong before; and many don't have much to say on the important questions. There's a reason, and it's because there is no morality inherent in science except in what present in the scientific record about the human animal.

The reason scientists have been wrong before is not because science is inherently amoral, but because science is an ongoing process of discovering and validating new information with the acceptance that at any point in time we don't have an absolute knowledge of any working process.
Science aims to describe how the world works, not how the world should work.

Quote by: jeffl I think the notion of us as hunter/gatherers is a misconception; and it's leading to an erronious social structure.

Nowhere is it said that human beings are solely hunter/gatheres, but that hunting and gathering was the method of our survival, which I think you'd agree with.
Science does not deal with what we should do, this is typically a personal undertaking or one of socialization or religious indoctrination.

[jeffl]

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

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.

And what makes you think that you are not as pacified or neutered than they are? If not more so?

Because they service sociopathic corporation. And i must say that, sadly, i also cannot raise my head; though i do not prosletize their dogma. I changed my heart, not my garment.

Why are you the only one that sees "persistence of Life, Truth, through the cycle"?

I don't think i am. I think that, in some sense, everyone of grounded faith sees it. More significantly, there is the meditative flash (the flash of hokhamah? catharsis?) that requires grounded discussion.

What makes you think that there is no morality inherent in science?

Again, i didn't say that. What i meant was that what morality that does come from science comes from what may very well be an erronious perspective.

Fine then, what are we? Starboy

I think our supersticious tendancies are only one indication of our ritualistic past. Our inability to make our own vitamin C is, for me, indicative of a consistent source of substantial amounts of fruit in our evolutive past. In evolutionary genetics, a population grows up in a niche; and some studies indicate that a reasonable assumption would be our occupying a niche that filled our needs for something on the order of 300,000 years. Such a population, if sufficiently fecund, could serve as a source for a homo sapien sapien diaspora that would produce the appearance a hunter/gatherer past at first glance. For me, our ritualistic past is a reasonable ground for a real conscious perspective that is not individually human.

[jeffl]

Quote by: SlySpy The reason scientists have been wrong before is not because science is inherently amoral, but because science is an ongoing process of discovering and validating new information with the acceptance that at any point in time we don't have an absolute knowledge of any working process. Science aims to describe how the world works, not how the world should work.

I agree 100%.

Nowhere is it said that human beings are solely hunter/gatheres, but that hunting and gathering was the method of our survival, which I think you'd agree with. Science does not deal with what we should do, this is typically a personal undertaking or one of socialization or religious indoctrination.

Absolutely, and there's no reason that someone in a philosophy/religion forum can't reference science in a discussion.

[Starboy]

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.

You can demonstrate that it fell together? Or you just "feel" that it fell together?

Because they service sociopathic corporation. And i must say that, sadly, i also cannot raise my head; though i do not prosletize their dogma. I changed my heart, not my garment.

Why are organizations that employ and serve millions and in some cases billions of people sociopathic?

I don't think i am. I think that, in some sense, everyone of grounded faith sees it. More significantly, there is the meditative flash (the flash of hokhamah? catharsis?) that requires grounded discussion.

It has been my experience that people of "grounded faith" are far more likely to be deluded. That "faith" is nothing more than an institutionalized double standard.

Again, i didn't say that. What i meant was that what morality that does come from science comes from what may very well be an erronious perspective.

Perhaps, but it is not clear to me that you even know the most significant value held and practiced by science let alone any other so-called moral of science.

I think our supersticious tendancies are only one indication of our ritualistic past. Our inability to make our own vitamin C is, for me, indicative of a consistent source of substantial amounts of fruit in our evolutive past. In evolutionary genetics, a population grows up in a niche; and some studies indicate that a reasonable assumption would be our occupying a niche that filled our needs for something on the order of 300,000 years. Such a population, if sufficiently fecund, could serve as a source for a homo sapien sapien diaspora that would produce the appearance a hunter/gatherer past at first glance. For me, our ritualistic past is a reasonable ground for a real conscious perspective that is not individually human.

Jeffl, I have noticed that you make statements that you clearly haven't thought through. Perhaps you have "felt" you way through them but you have not thought your way through them. There is nothing precluding humans from being hunter gatherers and, as you seem to be saying, ritualistic.

Perhaps this is a too much to conclude but you appear to have a very proscribed idea as to what ritual is.

Starboy

[jeffl]

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

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.

Why are organizations that employ and serve millions and in some cases billions of people sociopathic?

I suppose you can look and see for yourself; but there's also a nice objective treatment by Joel Bakan, in 'The Corporation.' It seems corporations are at once defined in law as person and required by law to put the interests of their shareholders before social concerns; hence, sociopathic.

It has been my experience that people of "grounded faith" are far more likely to be deluded.

I would agree with this, and point out that faith in the scientific method is good, grounded faith.

That "faith" is nothing more than an institutionalized double standard.

I strongly disagree. 'Faith,' for me, lies very close to 'hopeful.' In a real life forum with, amongst others, psychologists; it became clear that 'hopeful' is a natural human condition. Would you disagree with this assesment? My point would be that, though it may be an institutionalized double standard, it is more than that.

Perhaps, but it is not clear to me that you even know the most significant value held and practiced by science let alone any other so-called moral of science.

So you admit your error and then attack me personally. :(

Jeffl, I have noticed that you make statements that you clearly haven't thought through. Perhaps you have "felt" you way through them but you have not thought your way through them.

And i've noticed that you say things that might make people think less of me, rather than directly addressing the facts of the matter. Is the periodic table 'thought,' or 'felt.' Did the elements discovered to fill the holes affirm the reality of the periodic table as a viable concept?

There is nothing precluding humans from being hunter gatherers and, as you seem to be saying, ritualistic.

And there's nothing to preclude them originating from alien DNA. Shall we move on?

Perhaps this is a too much to conclude but you appear to have a very proscribed idea as to what ritual is.

I suppose i do. I would hazard a guess that you're simply not prepared to come to any sort of conclusion other than that which can be born out by scientific experiment.
Consider: in order for a signal to carry information it must be unpredictable. What that means is that, to science, information is noise; science misses an important aspect of Being, perhaps thee most important aspect, and that is meaning.

[Starboy]

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.

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.

I suppose you can look and see for yourself; but there's also a nice objective treatment by Joel Bakan, in 'The Corporation.' It seems corporations are at once defined in law as person and required by law to put the interests of their shareholders before social concerns; hence, sociopathic.

So? I can point you to books that show how corporations have been a great boon to mankind. But hey, if you don't like corporations no one is making you work for them.

I would agree with this, and point out that faith in the scientific method is good, grounded faith. I strongly disagree. 'Faith,' for me, lies very close to 'hopeful.' In a real life forum with, amongst others, psychologists; it became clear that 'hopeful' is a natural human condition. Would you disagree with this assesment? My point would be that, though it may be an institutionalized double standard, it is more than that.

Your use of the word "faith" is not a common use. Is it your intent to confuse and obfuscate your posts? Why not just use the word "hopeful"? Most people who advocate "faith" mean much more than hopeful, but for some reason you have it backwards. You see faith as meaning "hopeful" and then want it to mean more than that.

So you admit your error and then attack me personally. :(

Sorry if you see it as an attack. But sometimes people’s brains do not work so well. Yours appears to be one of them.

And i've noticed that you say things that might make people think less of me, rather than directly addressing the facts of the matter. Is the periodic table 'thought,' or 'felt.' Did the elements discovered to fill the holes affirm the reality of the periodic table as a viable concept?

You are free to defend your ideas as best as you can. If you can't do that very well then people will draw their own conclusions. If you see by your own posts that you are not doing very well then do not blame me for your poor performance.

And there's nothing to preclude them originating from alien DNA. Shall we move on?

Hey I asked a question. It was your observation that hunter/gatherer is an inadequate way of looking at ourselves and that for some reason you think this because according to you it overlooks ritual. If you can't clarify your ideas in a way that makes sense then I can see why you would want to move on.

I suppose i do. I would hazard a guess that you're simply not prepared to come to any sort of conclusion other than that which can be born out by scientific experiment. Consider: in order for a signal to carry information it must be unpredictable. What that means is that, to science, information is noise; science misses an important aspect of Being, perhaps thee most important aspect, and that is meaning.

If there is any noise here it is coming from you. You want to claim that something is missing yet you are unable to say what that is. Why would anyone take you seriously? You appear to me to be a low grade huckster. You allude to insights and understandings that you are unable to actually demonstrate.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy Hey I asked a question.

So what?! Why would i be compelled to answer your questions? The point is that there are truths of evolution aside from those that present in biological evolution, and that, like the periodic table, the implications are real and profound. I've accepted long ago that there's no point talking to you. My Lord says, 'for those with ears to hear, let them hear.' You are a good sounding board, you help me articulate my ideas. That you resort to insults only demonstrates your empty quiver.

Your use of the word "faith" is not a common use. Is it your intent to confuse and obfuscate your posts? Why not just use the word "hopeful"? Most people who advocate "faith" mean much more than hopeful, but for some reason you have it backwards.

Nonsense. Once again you blaitantly misrepresent my words. Ofcourse 'faith' means much more than 'hopeful.' And in the same thought you have the gall to imply my non-existant intention to confuse. You dance around a dialectic that doesn't exist; avoid reasonable invitation to discuss it; and offer nothing of substance! Clearly, the hypocracy lies in you posting in a philosophy/religion forum when you don't believe in either.

You want to claim that something is missing yet you are unable to say what that is.

i think i've articulated in the consciousness thread what that is. You made no objection there; indeed you demonstrated your ignorance when it comes to the question of computability as described by Penrose. Again, put up or shut up.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl So what?! Why would i be compelled to answer your questions? The point is that there are truths of evolution aside from those that present in biological evolution, and that, like the periodic table, the implications are real and profound. I've accepted long ago that there's no point talking to you. My Lord says, 'for those with ears to hear, let them hear.' You are a good sounding board, you help me articulate my ideas. That you resort to insults only demonstrates your empty quiver.

Make up your mind. If you will answer the question then do so. If you will not then don't. All this whining just supports my claim that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Nonsense. Once again you blaitantly misrepresent my words. Ofcourse 'faith' means much more than 'hopeful.' And in the same thought you have the gall to imply my non-existant intention to confuse. You dance around a dialectic that doesn't exist; avoid reasonable invitation to discuss it; and offer nothing of substance! Clearly, the hypocracy lies in you posting in a philosophy/religion forum when you don't believe in either.

Hey, I asked what you meant by faith and you came back with hopeful. But I have noticed that you are fond of using words that you have no idea as to what they mean, like dialectic. You speak in gibberish, juxtaposing words and concepts that have little to do with each other and rely on the ignorance of your reader to just nod in confusion.

i think i've articulated in the consciousness thread what that is. You made no objection there; indeed you demonstrated your ignorance when it comes to the question of computability as described by Penrose. Again, put up or shut up.

I am not the one making a claim that there is something missing and that I know what it is. You are the one making that claim. But so far you are unable to articulate what is missing and yet you want me to scour a thread of yours filled with your juxtaposed gibberish to find this thing that is missing that you have not told me what it is? Jeffl, keep this up and you will be firmly in the idiot category. And that is not an insult but an assessment. You see Jeffl, as much as you may not like it there are idiots in the world and you look to be one of them.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy Make up your mind. If you will answer the question then do so. If you will not then don't.

The answer lies, for you, in the writings of roger penrose. Really, you should look at the 'computability' thing; the fecundity of the fractal structure, perhaps. Penrose describes it much better than i ever could. And again; while he provides a mechanism for monadic experience, i'm not sure it relates as directly as he might assume to monadic consciousness; as i've describe it in the consciousness thread. So we've been over this; you are blind to it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl The answer lies, for you, in the writings of roger penrose. Really, you should look at the 'computability' thing; the fecundity of the fractal structure, perhaps. Penrose describes it much better than i ever could. And again; while he provides a mechanism for monadic experience, i'm not sure it relates as directly as he might assume to monadic consciousness; as i've describe it in the consciousness thread. So we've been over this; you are blind to it.

I have read some of Penrose. Are his books sacred texts to you?

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy I have read some of Penrose. Are his books sacred texts to you? Starboy

Ofcourse not. As i've said on numerous occasions, including the post you just replied to. And once again you demonstrate your diversionary nature by not talking about what he said. You are transparent. you will end this before progress is made.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl Ofcourse not. As i've said on numerous occasions, including the post you just replied to. And once again you demonstrate your diversionary nature by not talking about what he said. You are transparent. you will end this before progress is made.

I am not here to talk about what anybody said but what you have said. My only claims in this thread are that you are an idiot. Penrose is not posting on this forum. You are. So far you have tried to pull several deceptive and diversionary tactics. I have asked you direct questions and you lack the ability or honesty to give direct answers. Progress cannot be made because you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about and lack the honesty to admit it.

Starboy

[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; 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.

[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

[jeffl]

Excellent; yes, it actually does come to the issue of consciousness. The question is bigger that just realities in the bible; but i can answer. I'm suggesting that there was a real, active collective consciousness from whos perspective the various grounded spiritual perspectives might be said to be 'true.'

The question becomes, how might this consciousness present to us after the fact? I would point to the fact that neurons communicate by 'smell;' which is to say, a chemical signal diffuses through a solvent to trigger a physical response at receptors: and consider this with the fact that a common notion in grounded mythology is the idea of 'odors pleasing to the lord.' To frame the question properly, one should also ask one's self how else information might be transmitted in prehistoric structures; the reading of the flights of birds might have a grounded place in a functional dynamic, prehistoric trade routes, etc.. It's also worth asking where the real power lies, and how might this present to the individual humans present in that functional niche at the time.

With all of this in mind, i can answer your particular question, SB, by pointing to Cain and Able as described by Daniel Quinn in Ishamael. I say they're real because spirit is real; they have as much reasonable ground as anyone in this forum. And i've answered all of your questions.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl The question becomes, how might this consciousness present to us after the fact? I would point to the fact that neurons communicate by 'smell;' which is to say, a chemical signal diffuses through a solvent to trigger a physical response at receptors: and consider this with the fact that a common notion in grounded mythology is the idea of 'odors pleasing to the lord.'

This is profoundly stupid.

To frame the question properly, one should also ask one's self how else information might be transmitted in prehistoric structures; the reading of the flights of birds might have a grounded place in a functional dynamic, prehistoric trade routes, etc.. It's also worth asking where the real power lies, and how might this present to the individual humans present in that functional niche at the time.

Just more gibberish.

With all of this in mind, i can answer your particular question, SB, by pointing to Cain and Able as described by Daniel Quinn in Ishamael. I say they're real because spirit is real; they have as much reasonable ground as anyone in this forum. And i've answered all of your questions.

Jeffl, Ishamael is a work of fiction. It is obvious that you have a very loose grip on reality and that Bugs Bunny cartoons are probably as spiri