I read the post by Piscivore when you were talking about fish liver. How about lobster liver (known in Maine as tomale or tomalley).

I don't know, neither one sounds too appealing to me. Now I've had tamales before, but that's not the same thing.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That is certainly true, and as I said in the other post, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying you just completely disregarded anything that might possibly contradict what you already thought you knew.

Um, because that's the cultural norm in this country. You are free to change it if you so desire. How does that relate, Considering what you said before: "I have a life of my own, and it doesn't involve accepting things just because it's become the norm by which things are accepted."

But I can define these concepts.

Eating is the process by which food is taken into the body, broken down into nutrients, and utilised by the body as fuel and cellular raw material.

"Driving" is the manipulation of controls to initiate and guide the momentum of a wheeled vehicle.

"Having Sex" is the stimulation of the genitals involving two or more individuals for pleasure or procreation. (some people extend this definition to inculde masturbation).

I do not see where any of these activites occur "in the mind". If the mind is "wholly transcendent of the mechanical realm" (wholly transcendant means "compleately separate from"), how does it interact with the body for it to percieve these sensations?

Well, I know you've been told on JREF that the scientific method is our best tool. It is certainly more reliable than divine revelation.

No one "inherently" knows 1+1=2 (inherently means "part of one's essential nature") it has to be taught- ask a group of pre-schoolers about it some time.

To my knowledge, 1911.
There are some rules to help keep you from fooling yourself, and to allow others re-create and verify your work, but yeah, that's the core of itDid someone claim otherwise?There is no entity or organisation "Science" to have "exclusive rights" over the process. It's not patented, trademarked, copyrighted, or subject to a priesthood. You can do science. My kid can (and does!) do science. But if you do something that doesn't follow the process, or leaves parts of it out, or adds things to make the experiments come out the way you want, other people aren't going to call what you do "science".People can and do make their own observations. However could anyone stop them (not that it hasn't been tried before)? But people are fallible- they can be mistaken, can be tricked, can fool themselves, and can even hallucinate. The process of science is intended to counter those human failings to get as close to objective truth as possible. The reason it is important to have "science back it up" is so that other people who might want to test someone's conclusions can do so and know they were using the same methods.Well, as the link above might illustrate, isolating such a thing (if it exists at all) is kind of hard to do. That does not mean that at some point in the future scientists will not succeed- it was bloody difficult to isolate electromagnetism until Maxwell came along, and a lot of those "plausible but wrong" ideas were tossed around and debated for a long time first. What doesn't help is a lot of people rushing around claiming to "know" all about it, when their sources of knowledge are suspect, and when the promoters of them well-intentioned but in serious error at best, and at worst outright fraudulent.I never said you should. I was just trying to illustrate that science is open to change, indeed strives for it[/quote]

Yes, but I'm not sure what you intend to mean by it. And you misspelled "bizarre".

Did you?

I say right on, good on ya, and I'm happy for you. I still don't see why you think they are dicrete spirits, but I'm really glad you worked through that bad patch.

That argument is ludicrous- while there most certaily is an upper limit on our capacity for knowledge, we have know way of knowing where that limit is. And at worst, if one reaches that limit, it most certainly wouldn't be fatal. We (as a species) have produced some amazingly well-educated people, and no one has died of it yet.
Using biblical terms, isn't this hiding your light under a basket? Isn't this like the servant who buried his sheckles in the ground?
And whether Jung valued personal experience over the written word (and I'm quite prepared to grant you he did- that does not alter the fact that he himself was quite well-read.

If books have no value, why did you read Johnson's? (or did you? I become less certain by the hour.) If books have no value in learning, why are you writing one?

Well, it's my world too, and if there is a vast "spiritual" undiscovered country out there, I'd like to visit. Trouble is, all the stories are a bit like those of El Dorado or the Dutchman's Goldmine. Lots of people claim to have been there, but somehow no one can take anyone else- or even draw a reliable map.

Lots of other religous leaders have been killed in the line of duty- Krishna, Joseph Smith, Aimee Semple MacPherson, Jim Jones, David Koresh- ad nauseum. That does not make them right.

Because life is too damn quirky for me to sit down and determine (exactly) what it is that I need to know.

And if I did tell you the answer? How would you know that it's true? And if you didn't, then to whom would I be speaking? In other words I shouldn't have to tell you anything other than what you already know, if you're ready that is. So if you want to know the truth, then it's ultimately up to you to establish it for yourself.

What's lame about it is that you require proof, as if you didn't think I could furnish it (for some reason?) or, it was something I could do automatically. The thing is, I don't know what I know just because I read about it in a book the other day. You're speaking of thirty years cumulative experience here, very little of which involved my going around asking people to tell me what the answer was. But then again, there was Roy Masters.

I think most women tend equate sex with love, and don't understand the significance of a one-night stand until after they've been dumped a few times.

Criteria huh? Well it isn't a matter of saying I will do this and this and this, and then all of sudden I become enlightened, because it doesn't work that way. So I really can't tell you what to do in that respect, because we each have to discover what works for us in life.

Well let's just say it has more to do with being familiar with something than anything else.

But then again you have to ask why so many people hang out at the JREF Boards if they didn't share a similar view? I'm guessing it's because they like to feel like they're at home.

Well I wouldn't say it couldn't stand to be rewritten, however I don't seem to have the time or inclination to do so.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well people certainly make it sound like this is what I'm doing when they insist that I back up what I say with the scientific evidence. In fact I will disregard just about every claim they make in this respect, because Science hasn't proven anything. So yes, it certainly sounds like I could be delusional, and yet who's to say?

However there's a lineage there to what I understand, and I just didn't come about knowing what I know arbitrarily. So that's what I mean by that. Which, kind of brings up my notion of the Bastard Universe, in that our being here didn't just happen arbitrarily as Science seems to claim.

How so, with a big empty hole inside your head? That's not possible.

How can any of this be accomplished without a mind though? And how would you know that you were actually doing it?

Except that when the mind goes, so does everything else. While the mind is also the repository for human experience.

In what way, and to whom? No, it all depends on what you're looking for. Which becomes a problem when people start saying, "Well, we can't verify it by Science, so we need not concern ourselves with it," either that or, it "doesn't exist."

Except that when you ask people how they know, they're not going to say, "Because my teacher told me so," are they? While it seems to me that I caught on very quickly once someone explained to me what the symbols mean. So it's not a matter of accepting the symbols but, the principle behind the symbols.

I'm surprised any testing was done at all. The weight of the soul? What a joke! The least they could do was try something in the area of sentience. Hey, did you read the part about the God Module?

Do you think they would be able to verify my work? I somehow don't think so. I'm not saying it can't be done, but they would probably have to begin with a very big net.


To be continued ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

An Herbivore is a plant eater.
Cows, sheep, rabbits, etcetera.
Carnivore a meat eater,
Big cats, wolves, T Rex and so on.

Piscivore?

In my humble opinion and considering the "pisci" part, the name seems to be refering to some type of animal that only eats fish. Since there are so many animals that fall into that category I guess we can take our pick.

Science? I'm not sure I'm asking people to call it as such, besides, it's not like I have a whole research facility at my disposal, right? And there ain't nobody paying me to do this I can assure you.

I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is kind of strange how one method of teaching (Science) has completely supplanted another (Religion). So is that to suggest there was no fulfillment to be found in relgion in the first place, or no? The way I see it is that Science tends to reside on the one side of the brain (rational side) and religion tends to reside on the other (intiutive side) and, that together, they should ultimately augment each other.

Yep, this is why we have places like JREF Forums and, why people tend to take the "all or nothing" approach. It's just one of those things you don't know unless you know.

I never said that Science is without merits, because it's not. However, I prefer mysticism because it's much closer to who I am personally and, feels much more like you're experiencing sex. Why? Because it entails getting closer to your feminine side or, in the case with women, their masculine side.

Did you read this part? ... Care to further the debate over Science vs Religion?

Thanks for correcting my spelling by the way, have already corrected it at the JREF Forums.

Yes, but just like any other dream, when you get to the good part, it's just about the time that you wake up.

As I said with the one experience, it was the worst day of my life and is not the sort of thing I would wish on anyone. I also feel very fortunate that I wasn't institutionalized (at that point).

However, I don't think I'm doing myself any great favor by cramming things into my brain.

It also tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, in which case I would suggest it becomes more of a balancing act, where you should only approach those who are ready to hear what you have to say.

I never said he wasn't.

I never said books didn't have any value. In fact I have at least 100 reference books, very few of which I crack open though. I've also read Johnson's book, albeit I don't remember too much about it. It's been awhile.

It sounds like you're on the right track anyway. I don't think it's ever a good idea to rush into something you're unfamiliar with.

The problem with many of these religious types is that they don't know how to separate the good from the bad (in themselves) and wind up projecting their evils on to everyone else.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, I believe Piscivore said it was Latin for "fish eater." Of course we have the Omnivores too right, who eat just a little bit of everything?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?