Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. 
> > 
> > Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.
> 
> Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!-I agree with Heraclitus about the only thing in the universe that is "true" and I give him a hand for birthing process philosophy. Go Heraclitus!


> > Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!
> 
> I tell you what, so little exists of his work... I don't know if I still have it, but there's a book that grabbed every known fragment of his. It's not an easy read by ANY imagination, but if I can find it I'd be willing to send it to you!-Thank you. Yes!

MATT asks how you handle experiences like love, creativity and aesthetic appreciation epistemologically. "That's my target here, and everyone seems to ignore it every time I ask it. Is it so obvious that you think I'm just dense?"
> 
> Ouf! Absolutely not, and I honestly thought we'd been discussing precisely this problem. Not having "a tool to study experience" doesn't preclude discussion, and our whole correspondence on consciousness, free will, identity etc. has revolved around what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know. It may be that I've completely misunderstood what you mean by handling experiences "epistemologically". My understanding of this is basically: how do we know whether something is true? Not even an epistemologist can give you the answer, but I would split "truths" up into objective, subjective and intersubjective, and I thought that by taking the latter (love, creativity etc. which we both consider real) I'd be on safe ground. I'm now a bit uncertain, though, because it may be that what follows is so obvious that you'll think I think you're dense. So forgive me if I'm the one who is dense!
> -No no no... not at all! But "intersubjective" is a completely new word for my vocabulary. I will have to explore that dimension. (Maybe I already know it under another word." -> I "know" that something in me sends out messages which determine the interaction between parts of my brain, sends electrical impulses all round my body to control my actions, thoughts etc., and engenders the inexplicable phenomena I've mentioned. Nobody knows what this something is. Material or non-material? How do I find out the truth? Well, you did suggest one method: try to build a human brain. If you succeed, and if it manifests ALL the attributes we associate with humans, you will know as far as can be known that the sum is greater than the individual parts, and the mysterious something is entirely material. If you don't succeed, it won't prove anything, because you can go on trying to build the brain, but the non-material explanation will remain possible. 
> 
> So what do you do in the meantime? I myself move to subjective and intersubjective evidence for such a form of consciousness. I can't "know", but as with most other areas of life beyond the limits of objective scientific knowledge, I can make judgements or suspend judgement (e.g. about juju, NDEs, consciousness, love etc.) and still keep considering all the options and theories. That's what we're both doing. For instance, you agree with B-M's concept of God as energy (which also fits in precisely with BBella's, David's, and mine too, though I'd never have thought of it when I was ten years old!) If God exists, it's difficult to imagine him in any other form. I think we agree that the known universe consists of energy and mass/matter, and so B_M offers us a hypothesis: "All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion." Whatever questions remain unanswered by materialism (which may eventually answer them all ... though I remain sceptical) can only be "handled" in the here and now by just such hypotheses, which we accept, reject, or suspend judgement on. And that, as I see it, is as far as any of us can go "epistemologically" until something like your robot, or God himself, comes along to prove to our satisfaction which hypothesis is true. 
> 
> My apologies again if all this is too obvious, or if I've misunderstood you.-No, not at all; I think in terms of systems, and for all of my supposed knowledge about philosophy, "intersubjective" may provide the avenue I need to allow me more foothold to reason.


> > > > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.
> > > > 
> > > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!
> > > 
> > > I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?
> > 
> > Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. 
> > 
> > Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.
> 
> Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!-I tell you what, so little exists of his work... I don't know if I still have it, but there's a book that grabbed every known fragment of his. It's not an easy read by ANY imagination, but if I can find it I'd be willing to send it to you!

I've been kind of wondering over the last few days if technology isn't the missing piece to this separation puzzle. At the beginning of a cycle, we are closer to God, more in tune mentally if you will. Then, as we progress technologically, we lose touch with that aspect of ourselves as we being to rely more and more on external objects. I'm not anti-technology, but at the same time, I can see some fairly distinct disadvantages. Written languages/literacy has shortened our ability to retain while increasing our ability to acquire. Graphical interfaces reduce our ability to imagine, while increasing our access to detailed imagery. Calculators reduce our ability to perform complex equations unassisted, while making the same equations more accessible and faster. Heavy machinery reduces our physical capacity/health while making tasks faster and achievable by less people. Medicine provides quick fixes while actively working against the processes that would keep us healthy to begin with. (i.e. antibiotics and long term affects on viruses and our immune system). More and more we have come to rely on things external to ourselves.-I've often heard arguments like this, in varying forms. -"We've lost touch with nature." 
"We've lost touch with God." -Shifting gears slightly, being in computers I am at the center of some of what you're talking about. Graphical Interfaces prevent you from having to interact with computers like this:-http://www.winagents.com/screenshots/rhino-terminal/rhino-terminal1.gif-Letting machines do computations reduces error and allows us to spend more time on what machines ARE NOT good at doing, like interpreting the results. The moon landing would have been impossible without IBM. At the same time, without knowing how those results got calculated, you won't know how to interpret them--trust me. These guys get weeded out very quickly. -In terms of medicine--antibiotics are absolutely necessary, just not all the time. Having worked in Pharmacy I'm less likely to use drugs. -But I counter the idea that "more and more" we rely on things external to ourselves. Nietzsche wrote that man is powerless to change nature. All we can do is change how we experience it. -Previously, if we hurt badly, we would still go to the medicine man, and instead of a pill, we'd either get a root of some kind, or other various shamanistic cures. We're still relying on something external to ourselves. Even if we turn to God--God is still external. (If God were internal, we would be God.) -The only thing internal is ourselves, and it is in this light I can agree with you. We rely far too much on other people, and on other things. My view on this is skewed--I am an only child. Self-sufficiency was hoisted on me at an early age. Though this will be a loaded statement; the only thing you can rely on absolutely in your life is yourself. -Now, I'm married, integrate with teams with excellent feedback. So I'm not advocating we all be hermits; but at least with all the friends that I know, people give up on things too easily; they turn in on themselves with "I can't." Especially when it comes to medicine. America has become a "savior society," where we'll do whatever we want and then expect doctors to "come save me" when things invariably turn south. -Back when our societies were young and man communed with God daily; we had to fight for everything! Maybe God is disgusted that we've been becoming less and less self-reliant over time, less willing to take risks? -"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?" --Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


> > > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.
> > > 
> > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!
> > 
> > I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?
> 
> Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. 
> 
> Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.-Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!


> > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.
> > 
> > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!
> 
> I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?-Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. -Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.


> > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.
> 
> What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!-I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?


> > Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes.
> 
> I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.-What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!


> Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes.-I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.


> > Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. 
> > 
> > This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed.
> 
> What if God can create more energy than was present in the beginning? You assume that the intial energy was all there is. How did we get something from nothing in the first place, thank you, Leibnitz? Remember I'm the guy who is most comfortable with God in and out of the universe.-Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes.


> Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. 
> 
> This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed.-What if God can create more energy than was present in the beginning? You assume that the intial energy was all there is. How did we get something from nothing in the first place, thank you, Leibnitz? Remember I'm the guy who is most comfortable with God in and out of the universe.


> > To me, there 'has' to be an interface if we're going to cite God as prime cause for physical matter; otherwise we have have an impossibility. 
> > 
> > God as energy could simply be an assertion that energy in the universe itself followed a path of development. God's creating will was however limited.
> 
> Why an impossibility? If God existed as energy and from His own energy created the universe as part of Himself, He would be within and withhout the universe in one continuum. And why limited? He went in His creation, as far as He wished.-Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. -This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed.


> It Jives. Though I also have a theory that people who had a very religious upbringing are more likely to not abandon their religion. Yeah, people might abandon it for awhile, but whole-life apostates are rare.-I did not have a very religious upbringing. Very Reform Reform Judaism. Had to have a bar Mitzvah as the first male grandchild on both sides. Quit Sunday School at that point. Have never enjoyed going to services. the Litergy is boring. Have had a better time at Father Bryan's Catholic services. (He is my cousin by marriage.)His two hour ordination was fun to see.-I no longer practice Judaism in any form, except I still consider myself Jewish and accept only a Jewish theology. And I went from Agnosticism to my form of belief.


> To me, there 'has' to be an interface if we're going to cite God as prime cause for physical matter; otherwise we have have an impossibility. 
> 
> God as energy could simply be an assertion that energy in the universe itself followed a path of development. God's creating will was however limited.-Why an impossibility? If God existed as energy and from His own energy created the universe as part of Himself, He would be within and withhout the universe in one continuum. And why limited? He went in His creation, as far as He wished.

I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> This thought had also occurred to me a long time ago, and to be honest, has been the one thing that has kept me from ever completely giving up on the existence of a God. I think at the end of the day it comes down to belief and understanding.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> To take the last first, understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable and ultimately indestructible. Mankind has learned to change the state of matter and energy by using outside forces. I think we are meant to learn to alter the state of energy and matter using our minds. (Holds his breath and waits for the straight jacket...)&#13;&#10;> -*looks around*-<whispers> &quot;They mostly come out at night. Mostly...&quot;-> Our brains already manipulate energy to create our personal realities, how much of a stretch is it to think that same ability can not extend to our communal reality? I know things such as this are covered in Buddhism, though I do not know to what extent. But even in Christianity, the message is there. &quot;If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains.&quot; And Peter was able to walk on water until he lost faith. None of this would be possible with out energy i.e. God&apos;s help.&#13;&#10;> -Maybe in Tibetan Buddhism, but in the Zen I practiced for some years, the &quot;communal reality&quot; they reference is simply these facts:-1. There is only the here and now&#13;&#10;2. If there is only &quot;here and now&quot; then there is only one reality.&#13;&#10;3. The self is a psychological illusion that prevents us from living in the here and now. Therefore, the self prevents us from living in the only reality.-Though this is a little inaccurate to express in language, but it wouldn&apos;t be far off to say that Buddhism at heart asserts that since we all share the same reality and that the self is an illusion (going back to your previous comment of &quot;brain as filter&quot;) that there is no *actual* difference between you and I. -I say its inaccurate in words because the goal of meditation is to put you in contact with &quot;the here in now,&quot; or as David joked previously, &quot;I am conscious, but we are consciousness.&quot; -> &#13;&#10;> Just one of those late night ideas that has been growing over the last several years.-It Jives. Though I also have a theory that people who had a very religious upbringing are more likely to not abandon their religion. Yeah, people might abandon it for awhile, but whole-life apostates are rare.