My Beliefs- GDR

I don’t know. It’s my belief. However, I also don’t know anyone else who believes it either, and I don’t see anybody making any kind of argument that it does exist. Actually I agree that suggesting materially undetectable morality gremlins would be in the same category as an argument for Tom. I could just as easily called Tom the Chief Morality Gremlin. I don’t care what you call him/it/her as far as this particular discussion is concerned. This is about a generic theistic intelligent agency that is responsible for life. But that just isn’t true. We are creatures capable of differentiating between good and evil. We are capable of a wide range of emotions. We can see the impact of all of these things in the brain. Yes, I believe that there is more go on that what we can see in a brain scan but let’s assume I’m wrong. We are still left having to believe that all of this came from, (for the 4323rd time), either mindless particles through a mindless evolutionary process without any intelligent input, or whether life as we know it has evolved the way it has as a result of an intelligent agency.You can point to all of the natural processes that you like but there is no evidence that leads to the firm conclusion that the natural processes are not the result of an intelligent agency. Agreed. And what evidenced conclusion is that? When I first mentioned the something instead of nothing point I only referred to it in a general sense. Actually it was you that convinced me some time ago that arguing from that POV didn’t hold up, and that there was a better way of looking at it. I wasn’t just referring to evolution. We had a planet without life and now we have sentient life on it. Science is trying to find out what combination of chemicals would have to come together to form life. An atheist had to assume that somehow these chemicals came together without any intelligent cause to form cellular life and then evolve to life as we know it today. Sorry. I misinterpreted your point and so my response made no sense. Somehow we’ve crossed wires here because I completely agree with that and that was the point I thought I was making. Scientifically speaking, how do we know whether or not the judgement was moral or immoral? IMHO that is beautifully laid out and beautifully wrong. It is an interesting theory but it just doesn’t add up. Why are some societies far more prepared to sacrifice sacrificially than other societies still? Why are some individuals far more prepared to sacrifice sacrificially than other individuals still? If our moral basis relies on the fact that we have all evolved from small haunter gatherer societies that relied on the sacrifice of its members and now extrapolated to the world, then why is the level of sacrifice in the world so uneven now?Let’s quickly look at number 4. How about a 20 year old guy without kids sacrifices his life to save the life of someone who is beyond the age where he/she is going to reproduce? The 20 year old will never reproduce and the older one was going to any more anyway.What you offer is a rationale for altruism and morality that just doesn’t add up. Those small hunter gather groups were constantly at war with other such groups. The proclivity that we would expect from our ancestral environment would be to benefit ourselves and our societies at the expense of other societies — just the opposite of what you are suggesting.

I’ll re-quote Wright:

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice -- all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the 'good of the species' and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clearer than ever (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.

---

Wright says that the bad news is that they didn’t evolve for the ‘good of the species’ and aren’t reliably employed to that end. If we take a simply materialist approach to morality, as Wright does, then it seems to me that we should expect a more even approach that what we observe. If we are talking about Tom who has given us free will then it seems to me that the unevenness is more what we would expect.However, that isn’t a strong argument one way or the other. Just for the heck of it I just re-read The chapter Afterward - By the Way, What is God in Wright’s The Evolution of God’. Although he doesn’t agree with my position he outlines it pretty well in presenting both points of view.Interestingly enough, seeing as how Wright calls himself a materialistic agnostic, I found that book extremely helpful in many ways. It actually strengthened my belief and it certainly helped to flesh out just what it is that I do believe.

Of course the selfless act can have an undesirable outcome. You might jump in to save someone drowning with both of you drowning. So what? That’s hardly the point.It isn’t that the universal standard is necessarily vague - it is just that we as humans aren’t able to be sure whether any specific act is moral or not. Somebody gives $100 to a food bank. Is he doing it because he genuinely wants to help or maybe he is doing it in order to impress someone?It boils down to that we are to love others as we love ourselves, which appears to us as doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.

I didn’t claim that the article said anything about consciousness being metaphysical. The point was simply that it isn’t as simple and straightforward as some posters here would have us believe. We should be learning all we can in whatever way we can. Actually what I do believe is that in many ways the study of QM will tell us more about consciousness than studying the physical brain ever will. In the study of QM we can see the effect of consciousness on how we perceive our reality. However I’m the first to admit that any knowledge I have in that area is limited to what I can read at the popular lever. No question that there is a great deal I don't understand. That is the least debatable comment so far. Thanks for the links. Your post is one reason I enjoy this forum. There seems to be no end to what one can learn here.I don't actually hold to any particular view on consciousness, except that there is more involved that what at least appears to us as physical.The question I asked about where the screen is meant to indicate that there is no screen. I can look at things on my desk and reach out and touch what I see. But where is it that I actually see it? Essentially we are photon detectors and the brain sorts out the protons giving us information on our surroundings and then presents that to us. But, the information is in our head and yet we see that information in front of us.I don't have an answer or even a theory about what that all means but it is just to point out that there is more going on than what is obvious in a brain scan. That's only one item on a long list.

You and others have essentially told me how obvious it is that my views are wrong. I was simply pointing out that it isn’t obvious at all which I’m not saying makes me right. It isn’t meant as a rebuttal. I didn’t post that to show that you are wrong but to show that it isn’t obvious that you are right.I don’t know which argument you are referring to. I’ve done my best to respond to what you have put up. I answered this in other posts. Just because someone is able to pull information out of the brain and gain some kind of picture really interesting but it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know. Instead of vision let’s use hearing. When I hear a sound I hear it in effect outside my head. The fluctuations of air in my ears gets translated into sound which I perceive to be outside my head in that I can not only differentiate the sound waves but sense which direction the sound is coming from. Visual images also are perceived outside my head even though it is a brain function inside my head that is interpreting the information received from the eyes. I’m not putting God into that. Science may very well be able to come up with explanations. It is simply that I keep being told that everything is just connections in the brain and that answers the question about thoughts, emotions etc. The world we perceive extends well beyond our body. We are able to look at something and to know precisely where it is so we can pick it up. We get information from outside the brain all the time and we require information to be able to bring about any particular thought we might have. I do not see why it is so tough then to consider that Tom could be one of the inputs that influences our thought patterns. There are things in the world of science that look to be metaphysical such as particle duality etc but as we learn more it becomes part of our natural world. If our universe is part of a much greater reality then presumably science can continue to learn more about that greater reality and less and less will be considered metaphysical. None of that matters though. No matter how much we discover there remains the open question of the origin of what is natural Are we here because of an intelligent agent or mindless particles. There is no evidence that answers that question. All we can do is come up with a subjective opinion or belief. I just find it very persuasive that intelligence is far more likely to bring about intelligence than are mindless particles. I’d sure like to jump ahead a few hundred years to see where all that goes. The point though is this. If vision was not part of our existence and we only had 4 senses we would perceive a very different world than what we do, and we would not have any concept of what vision might be. I just wonder what other senses there might be, for which we have no frame reference, that if we had would cause us to perceive the world very differently than we do. At a basic popular science level I’m told that our observing or measuring a particle causes it to become what it is we perceive, and even then goes back in time to create the history that brings that result. Somehow that information has to get from the brain to the particle for that to happen which is part of the world of QM which involves physicists. I choose what I’ll have for dinner and I choose whether or not to cheat on my taxes. (Just in case the CRA monitors this site, I don’t ) Well, was what I said wrong? I’ve addressed that several times. I volunteer with dementia cases and I see all sorts of cases where people don’t recognize their spouse. So what? Brain injury or illness skews our thought processes. Yes we can use technology to retrieve an image from the brain, but that doesn’t tell us how we perceive an image as outside our body. Where is the screen?I’m not saying that this proves anything but it is just to point out that because we can monitor brain activity, and apparently we can even pull images from the brain, does not prove anything about whether or not there is more going on than we directly perceive.

In my brain. I do find it interesting though that the thoughts in our brain are perceived outside of the brain. The other question of course is are we only subject to input to the brain from what we normally perceive or are there other influences that we don't directly perceive?

I’m running into a problem. I’m numerous posts behind in my replies and I don’t have the time to catch up. Also many of the discussions overlap. I’d like to try and post a generic response that covers the most of the things we are discussing.Rahvin has just spent a great deal of time putting together a post and so if he would like to continue it I think it would be interesting. I would just ask him to read this post through and make any changes to his post that he would like or he can let it stand as is. I’ll wait to hear back.Straggler asks if I see everything as evidence of Tom. In a way I do. I can’t begin to muster up enough confidence in the idea that we are the result of absolutely mindless origins, and I understand that you guys can’t begin to muster up enough confidence to believe in an intelligence being responsible for our existence, let alone one that is somehow influencing us. We start from those diametrically opposed positions and we all come to the discussions with our own biases. However I gave my rationale for my beliefs in the OP.In regards to the discussion of how we perceive the world this is how I see it. Yes, when we visualize something we can view the activity it causes in the brain with a brain scan, and apparently now they are even able to partially return the image. If they can do that now, then presumably they will eventually be able to accurately retrieve the image. However, when we look at something we don’t see the image in our brain. We see it outside the brain and in the case of starts millions of light years away. When we hear a sound we don’t hear it in our brain but outside of our body again. When we stub our toe we feel it in the toe, not the brain. In other words even though our brain interprets, computes or whatever term you want to use, the information in our brain, we perceive the information outside of our brain. I know you guys will disagree, but what it tells me is that information does exist outside of the brain.Yes, the brain is a necessary part of the process. It interprets all of the information presented to it. In some ways it is even able to store information and recall it later. However, we might have a memory of what someone looks like and we can recall it later, but we can’t reproduce the actual visual picture of someone unless they are in view.I agree that mental illness or drugs can completely skew our perceptions. They not only skew our perceptions of the world but they skew our reasoning as well. The photons of light that enter our eye reflecting a view of a tree in the distance can be skewed if we have glaucoma or some other problem with our vision. In the same way if there is a problem with the brain then again the image can be skewed. However, no matter what we still don’t see the tree in our brain, or in our eyes for that matter. We still see the distorted view out in front of us, even though there is no screen equivalent.From my reading of popular science I understand that information passes between entangled particles at infinite speed over great distances. The fact that we observe something causes a perceived result in what it is we are viewing indicating that information must pass between our consciousness and what we observe or measure.
In other words I am saying that information doesn’t just exist in brains but is essentially non-locational. I am also not saying that science will never be able to understand all of this. Maybe they will find a quantum informational field or something - who knows?The point of all this is that information exists outside of the brain and our consciousness perceives the world outside our brain. Also if information can be passed between particles then I see no reason to discount the idea that IF Tom exists that there is any reason to think that Tom wouldn’t be able to touch our consciousness through the brain with thoughts of morality.In the end we come at this from points of view that are polar opposites. We agree on the idea that natural processes play a huge role in our lives but we disagree on whether life exists due to an intelligent agent or to mindless processes.

If you want woo just look at anything anything on QM.The reason is a simple search for truth. We’ve just come to different conclusions. How do you know Tom can do whatever he wants? For whatever reason we have evolved physically and it certainly appears to me that we are evolving morally as well for reasons I’ve already outlined.As far as free will is concerned we certainly have enough influences in this world that pull us towards selfishness. I don’t see that if Tom plants a spark of knowledge in us that it just might be a good thing if we were unselfish, he has done away with free will. I have said numerous times that I see science as something of a natural scripture and that we can learn about Tom or God if you want from it. Yes I look at science to help form my beliefs. Just why is that wrong? You also say I am inventing parascience. Just where have I done that? I have simply looked at the science we do know and then speculated on how that might make sense of a theistic deity or Tom.

That isn’t the point I was making at all. I was simply acknowledging that nobody in this discussion doesn’t come without their preconceived biases based on the positions we have already formed. In that statement I am making no claims as to the validity of my position. Those aren’t the two positions though. In the case of Tom we have scientifically evidenced conclusions but our differences are over the root cause of those scientific conclusions. The other difference concerns whether or not there is more to our existence than we can perceive scientifically or at least something that is fundamental to our natures that science has yet to determine. Science doesn’t rule Tom in or out.

Thanks Granny. I’m caught up again. The only posters other than myself on this thread have been non-theists so I didn’t see a great point in discussing Christianity with people that disbelieve in the existence of any god in any shape or form. In light of that I put together a post focused on the existence of a generic god and then trying to determine to the best of our ability the nature of this god, who I named Tom so as not to be confused with any specific religion.Yes, I believe in a generic theistic god but I also believe more than that. I believe that Jesus was/is the incarnate Word of God, that He was crucified and then bodily resurrected. In a way I don’t disagree. Jesus was very rooted in His Jewishness, but at the same time He was saying that it isn’t just about the Jews but about everyone, and that it isn’t just about Israel but about the world. The difference obviously centres on Jesus. Was He or was He not resurrected.Even in light of that you make a very fair comment. There is a wide diversity of views between people who call themselves Christian. Faith calls me a heretic. I saw in a recent post that jar seems to agree with Spong, so I assume, (obviously he can correct me if I’m wrong in this), but he would consider me conservative. Yes, we are all influenced culturally and socially and we are all trying our best to come to an accurate image of the nature of God.People have suggested that I envision Tom or God if you like in the manner that suits me. To a degree that’s true but I would add that through my study of the Christian faith my views have changed considerably in order to conform to the message of Jesus. Two easy examples are that I used to believe in a very limited use of capital punishment but in coming to a better understanding of the Gospels I am now opposed in all cases. I initially supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan thinking that we were helping them, but I am now opposed philosophically to those wars, not because I have the benefit of hind-sight but that regardless of outcome I believe it was the wrong thing to do in the first place. (I’m probably opening up another can of worms here but the thread is about my beliefs so in fairness I guess I should be open about it.) First off to be clear Robert Wright isn’t a theist. He calls himself a materialist agnostic. I of course see it in a different light. I contend that our understanding of God is becoming increasingly focused. In this thread I had a discussion with Stile. Stile was ok with being called an atheist with the recognition that the term is a bit vague. Still, we had very similar views about how we are to care for others etc. In other words we both have very similar world views but we differed on how we came to acquire those world views. In one very real sense, whether we recognize and version of Tom, we worship him by the world view that we hold. We live our lives to a set of ideals. The point is that our image of Tom is becoming more focused even among those who don’t recognize him as existing but recognize the essential goodness of his character in their hearts and minds. I think I answered that earlier in this post. Maybe there is some truth in that but I‘d say that it is more that I have been formed by my faith. I do know that I‘ve changed in many ways, in terms of actions and beliefs since becoming a Christian. I don’t accept that as a fair comment. I said up front that I have two fundamental beliefs. The first is as a theist that God is good and that God is just. The second is as a Christian I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus in which God vindicates the message that Jesus had for the world. I don’t read the Bible as inerrant, and certainly not as a science text. No it’s not. If science can somehow chemically produce new life that still does not answer the question of whether or not it happened the first time as a result of an intelligent agent or not. All it would tell us that this time it did take an intelligent agency. ...and that is a classic science of the gaps statement. Yes, I’m sure there is, the problem is I don’t know which part, or parts, of what I believe applies. On one level I get it but on another I don’t. My response where I said that I just don’t understand was in response to a question concerning children born with horrible debilitating diseases.In a philosophical sense, if we don’t have the potential to know sorrow we can’t know joy. It is the same with good and evil. If we can’t choose evil then goodness just simply the way things are and we would have no understanding of it. I don’t know that these are universal truths but they seem to be a truth of our existence in the world that we know. Also, as long as we live in a world where life ends in physical death, and where the love of others is a reality, sorrow is unavoidableYou ask for a hypothetical explanation for innocents being born into agony. The best I can do is this. We are not the result of instant creation. We have evolved over millions of years in a process that isn’t perfect. We have evolved both physically and spiritually in a process involving billions of variables. It is an incredibly wonderful process but it isn’t perfect. However, my Christian beliefs inform me that in the end these flaws will be made right somehow in the next life. It somehow seems that this life with its sufferings is a necessary prerequisite for that.I do know that we are called to alleviate suffering in whatever way we can but in no way do I view that as a justification for the suffering of innocents. I trust that it is necessary and that in the end they will have new life free of those horrible diseases.If I am wrong about God’s existence then those who have short lives marked by continual suffering will never receive the fullness of life and that would be far more of a tragedy. How do you know that? If our intelligence and love are from God then ultimately He is completely responsible. There is no doubt but that as a Christian this is the issue that gives me the most difficulty. In the end, all I can say about it, is that for whatever reason it is an unavoidable evil. Actually, I don’t recall signing a contract. Life is what it is and in this life all of us suffer in one way or another, to one degree or another. As a Christian I can look at the suffering of Jesus and I can look at His coming through death and out the other side in a resurrected body that is the prototype for all of creation. I believe that God suffers with us and we continue to evolve trough a world that is marred by tragedy so that ultimately we too will go through death and come out into new life where there is complete love and justice.I’ve talked about this case before as it happened in my area years ago and still comes up in the news. It is the tragic story of Michale Dunahee, a young boy presumable abducted within a few yards of the parents and never seen again.The atheistic view then has to be that justice wasn’t and probably never will be served. Michael Dunahee is probably dead and the abductor will probably never be identified and brought to justice. End of story. In the Christian version there will be justice. Michael lives on and his abductor will face justice in whatever form that takes, which would take into account things like childhood abuse etc.Now, I suspect that you would categorize that as wishful thinking and maybe you’re right. However, the fact that we know deep down that there should be some justice is in some way an indication that ultimately there will be. At some level all of us know that we should be honest, generous and fair. I also suggest deep down that we know that there is a purpose for being like that, but ultimately if this world ends in whatever way it is going to end and there is nothing afterwards but oblivion, then there is no purpose and no meaning to any of it and the suffering and pain of the world only leads to blackness. I think that somehow we know intuitively that this world isn’t like that even though we can hardly even partially understand what that means. Maybe you’re right and that is wishful thinking and that there is no hope, but my whole being tells me that you’re wrong. That however is JMHO.

You’re position is no different than examining a car, researching the car and finding that it was manufactured by a robotic assembly line, and then assigning all responsibility for the car to the assembly line itself and proclaiming that to be the final solution.We can agree that the brain evolved by means of natural selection. I’ll even accept that language and morality evolved as well, although in the case of morality I believe that Tom is a factor in that process, while agreeing that there is no scientific evidence for that position. However there is no scientific evidence that precludes it either.What evolutionary or other process did evolution evolve from. I have no problem with that. Science has investigated our evolutionary history and come to certain conclusions which I’m not questioning. Individual scientists in general agree about the process that has brought us to this point but science itself cannot tell us the origin of the process itself. Again, the question of whether life evolved from intelligent or mindless origins is a question that, at least at this point, science can’t answer and really has nothing to say about it.As far as Tom influencing our brains morally again we can’t know scientifically. Yes our socialization and need for community can demonstrate a need for co-operation but that is not the same as morality, although it can and probably does impact our moral thinking. However, again that does not rule out the possibility of our being impacted by the still small voice of Tom imperceptivly making us aware of the morality of our decisions. This won’t carry any weight with anyone but myself, but I have my own personal experience as evidence. Aside from that though, I still maintain that individual altruism, where someone gives up time or wealth for someone where there is no personal relationship and from an entirely different gene pool, is evidence of there being more than just natural selection involved. I have read the naturalist rationale for that but personally I find it very unconvincing.I would also add that all, (or at least the vast majority), of us are touched when we read accounts of people committing heroic acts of love. For example, if we read a story of someone jumping into a river thereby risking his/her life to save a drowning puppy we get a sense of comfort and warmth that is very hard to describe. (I think that even you’ll agree that the puppy is not from our gene pool. ) Why would someone do that in the first place and why would it affect us the way it does.Is there scientific evidence for my position? No. Science does not rule out the IPU. Science can demonstrate that natural causes resulted in bountiful crop harvests but it can’t demonstrate natural causes for the natural causes.

What is the evidence that natural processes evolved from some other mindless natural process as opposed to natural processes being the result of an intelligent first cause?

I don’t see it as a default position. It is simply the conclusion I have come to. Also, I have become a little uncomfortable with the term supernatural. I’m more of the mind that everything in the long run is natural but that there is still a great deal left to be discovered.For example if you had told someone 100 years ago about a myriad of things that we know scientifically today, he/she would have thought that you were talking would be considered supernatural. If there is another dimension/universe out there that is interlocked with our own through which a higher intelligence interacts with us in one way or another, then actually that is only supernatural until science is able to discover it and then it’s natural. I’ll accept that we have natural processes evolving from other natural processes, (although I’m not at all sure what you have in mind), but the question is what was the natural process that kicked off evolution from base elements to sentient life in the first place.Ok I believe that we are the result of an intelligent agent. I use the term mindless as it seems to work as well as any. What term would you like me to use? Isn’t evolution resulting from a chance combination of base elements mindless? There is no scientific evidence. Again, we are either the result of an intelligent agency with intention, or we are the result of a ________(you can fill in the blank as you don’t like mindless) agency that is purposeless.There is no scientific evidence for either position so we have to form our conclusions based on other considerations.

That's what I meant by it being woo. Not that it's wrong but it is not at all what we would expect. My point in bringing that up was simply to point out that information does not only exist within the brain. It is not meant as a proof anything, however when we consider that information can pass between particles without any connection between the two that is discernible to us, then it does in broad terms show that information could conceivably pass to the particles of our brains without a apparent connection. Frankly I don't believe that is a fair assessment. Yes, I'm prepared to have my views change with new information. I don't believe that and holy book including the Bible is to be read as the last word on Tom or God. (Tom being a generic intelligent agency and God being the God of the Bible.) I certainly believe that we can learn from a great many sources and as a Christian I see the Bible as being hugely important, but it isn't a science text.I agree that our opinions aren't equally valid. I contend that the idea that we evolved from raw base elements by chance is far more far fetched that that we evolved from raw elements as a result of an intelligent agency.I will go back to your earlier post and give you a response.Cheers

We would agree that is the work of the brain. I don’t see memory as being controlled by any nonphysical element. I think that somehow memory becomes part of our consciousness but the brain is still a necessary part of the equation to be able to retrieve information. Our brain is part of our physical body and just like any other part of our physical body it can become impaired. The brain controls our body, emotions, thoughts etc. The brain receives inputs and then reacts to those inputs and if the brain is impaired the reactions are not going to be the same as when the brain is not impaired. The same reply that I had for emotions. You continue to use the word control. I do not see non-physical elements controlling our thoughts, emotions, memories etc. What I do believe is that somehow we have instilled in us the still small voice of God that provides input to our thoughts, along with all of the other natural inputs, but in no way controls them. It is the same answer again. The brain controls our language and communication. With questions like this all I can do is branch into the speculative. I don’t know what the afterlife is like. I do believe that ultimately there will be a re-creation of all that is and that we will exist in resurrected bodies. I don’t know what happens between death and then or I’m not even sure if on a personal basis there is a time between now and then. It is my sense that in order to function we do need some kind of physicality. I don’t know if we slip into unconsciousness until this act of re-creation or if we have some other bodily form in another dimension/universe or whatever. As I said, this is all just speculation on my part. I figure all of that will take care of itself when the time comes.So yes, I do believe that our personality etc lives on past this life but I’m inclined to think that it won’t be a disembodied existence. I agree and have no trouble acknowledging all of that but it is all about the output from the brain. The brain receives input from our ears, eyes, nose etc, it gathers intelligence from numerous sources and then all of that data is processed and controls our conclusions and our actions. I am only suggesting that in addition to everything else there is also the influence of the still small voice of God as well, jumbled up with everything else. I really enjoyed Jill BolteTaylor. I found her talk really interesting and watched the whole thing twice. Thank you so much. Actually her talk is more philosophical than anything else and she certainly ties in her philosophy of what happened to her with her stroke with her neuro-science.She stated that we are the life force power of the universe, which I find interesting as this coincides with the view that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of our universe. She explains that the right hemisphere is what gives us our sense of connectedness with each other and all that is. She even went so far as to say that when the left side ceased to function her physicality still existed but there essentially ceased to be no boundaries to it, and that everything was in the now without thought of past or future. She says that the left side provided her with sense of the individual self and as the side that deals with all of the various inputs, memories etc that allow us to make decisions on our future based on past experiences.I gather from the talk that essentially she is Buddhist. When her left side ceased to function she was largely unaware of her physicality but in a state that she calls nirvana. She talked about it being in a place of peace, where the whole world was beautiful and filled with beautiful, peaceful, loving compassionate people. As she thought she was dying she called her death the moment of transition.Also in herinterview with Oprah she goes into a little more detail and she essentially describes watching herself on her exercise machine having something of an out of body experience. Her views on Tom seem to be a cross between Buddhism and pantheism.Here is a web site is very critical of what she has to say. A CritiqueUndoubtedly the brain eventually controls our thoughts and actions. After listening to Taylor’s account I might suggest that the still small voice is an input into the right hemisphere whereas all of our sensory inputs are sorted out in the left side prior to being presented to the right side for modification. That is just something that occurs to me from listening to what she had to say. This has all been very educational. Thank you so much.The brain is certainly a fascinating organ. I have no argument with any of the science, not that I have the background to disagree with the science. However, as we can see from that other link there isn't complete agreement amongst scientists about Taylor's views.I’d like to try another way of looking at it. I go back to what Jill Bolte Taylor said about consciousness. She talked a lot in the early part of the talk of consciousness being energy, and that we are energy beings. She talked about information coming to the brain as energy.
Aside from the fascinating talks on the brain and the differences between the right and left hemispheres I did take a couple of notes. As opposed to calling us physical beings she referred to us as energy beings and said that information comes to us in the form of energy. She talked about the interconnectedness of the energy of our right hemispheres with each other so that we are all one human familyThe following is from reading books on popular science so cut me a little slack but here is how I understand things. Everything is made up of particles. Some theories suggest that a particle is dimensionless while string theory suggests that particles are uni-dimensional strings. For us to perceive something as being physical requires it to take up space by having 3 dimensions. In the end then, no matter how powerful a microscope we would be unable to view a particle. So, what is actually physical? We certainly perceive things including the brain as physical but if we break it down into its smallest components is it still physical? My understanding is that everything that we perceive as being physical is really made up of bits or fields of energy.We know how to measure energy, we know how to use energy, we can create energy, we see the effects of energy etc but we can’t directly perceive energy.Here is a definition of energy from this site. About.com Physics

quote:

---

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form.

---

The definition then is that energy is capacity to do work. We define it that way as we don’t really know what energy is. We measure gravity but what is gravity? I have no doubt that science will learn more and maybe with the Higg’s they will find a gravitational field. None of that is directly perceptible to us. Is it physical or not?So, Jill Bolte Taylor tells us that consciousness is energy, and the definition tells us that the total energy of a system such as us is constant. If our consciousness is a system of energy then it seems a reasonable hypothesis that our consciousness remains constant even if in another form.Science theorizes about branes, parallel universes and other dimensions. I understand that they aren’t looking for anything metaphysical but if they are correct is there anything to say that we couldn’t just slip into another universe/dimension after our time here. Who knows? Tangle would say that it is all woo. I think that you have followed it all through logically and I even agree with most of your conclusions. I think we agree that we do have a conscience or a sense of morality. Even if that sense of morality evolved naturally it does not answer the question of whether or not it evolved due to some intelligent agency (Tom), or if it just happened mindlessly. Personally of course I believe in Tom but in addition I believe that Tom continues to interact with us with imperceptible inputs into our minds and imaginations, but that part of my belief isn’t necessary to the idea that our consciousness does not die with our bodies.I believe that you will be united with your grand-mother and I can’t prove that it isn’t just wishful thinking. In the end we will believe what we believe. Thanks so much for your thoughtful informative post.Cheers
Greg