Both seeing and hearing involve picking up information from the outside. Seeing picks up light. Hearing picks up sound. You interpret both of them.

You can't have it both ways, Iacchy. That's why this whole "inside/outside" discussion is so circular. You might want to try another tack. This one has you twisting in the wind.
Not if you don't know the meaning of "rhetorical". No, Iacchy, you simply can't redefine words to make them mean what you were thinking. If you use a word, you have to stick with the meaning of that word. Alternatively, you can correct yourself. I don't see you doing that very often. You'd apparently rather rewrite the dictionary than admit error.
You can observe a lot if you are good at thinking. It is even possible to learn a foreign language by observing the sounds people make and how their actions relate to them. Difficult, no doubt, but how do you think we decipher unknown languages?

But that is completely beside the point that I was making that it is nearly impossible to observe without thinking. Your misdirection does not address that point.
Observing is perceiving and thinking. If I asked you what you observed today, you would have to think about it, would you not?
Well, then you're not very observant.
Would you consider it possible, then, that another event might reverse your thinking and make you an atheist again?
Yes, but your interpretation of it may not be what he meant. How do you interpret that statement? And what do you think of "Espioza's God"?
Sorry, the evidence is against you. Just scroll up a bit and you'll see where you tried to label Einstein as "spiritual" in some ways.
And virtually nobody at my work or anwhere else in the "real world" outside my close circle of friends and family knows I am an atheist. All this says is that most people are unlikely to talk about religion and/or spirituality with people they don't know well. That's why I like forums. You are free to express yourself.
Yep. Sounds like it is non-profit to me. Negative profit, even. Careful Iacchy. It is possible to go broke even in non-profit endeavors.

But if you want me to send you some money because I'm using your boards, I'll will do so.

We are the sum total of our inclinations.

A little understanding goes a long way.

If you are good at observing it can give you a lot to think about.

The fact of the matter is, what we observe does not require that we attach a word to it in order for it to exist.

I would have to try and recall it. But, I don't have to recall anything if I'm right in the middle of it, which involves more than just thinking about it.

It could be that I have a limited attention span? But then again I see lots of other things other folks don't, so ...

Not unless I got hit over the head with a shovel or something.

I've seen this argument go back and forth on other forums, and this was the one thing that seemed to stand out in my mind. And, based upon what I've heard of Espinoza, also in accord with Einstein saying, "God does not throw dice," his argument was based more upon the notion of Intelligent Design which, is pretty much how I tend to approach it.

No, I just merely brought it up, you're the one who seems to want to make an issue out of it, as if to say I was trying to prove something by saying Einstein was spiritual, which I wasn't.

I don't worship anybody, or anything, except possibly the Eternal Feminine.

Not so long as I'm not working, which I'm not currently, and that could pose a problem.

If ever it looks like it might be worthwhile to do so I might. But until then, no. Thanks anyway.

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

So tell us more about this non-profit organization you were talking about or are you just going to keep us dangling.

I don't know? I don't see anything going anywhere right now, do you? I don't see any point in trying to promote it if people aren't interested. But then again maybe I have to readjust my sites and look at it a bit differently. I don't know, have you got any ideas? I guess it all starts with other people wanting to get involved with it. I certainly can't do it all on my own.

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

Wow, that's so heavy!

Don't you think we are a little more than that?
So just think of what a LOT of understanding would do. Understanding the definitions of the words we use would be a good start.
Gosh! Another incredibly heavy statement. You really are full of aphorisms today, aren't you.
Neither need it be visible or tangible. There are many ways of observing, but they all involve some sort of detection and interpretation of external phenomena.
Indeed, it can involve more than just thinking about it, but it must include thinking about it, or you are not really observing. But this trail is leading nowhere. Consciousness involves some degree of thinking, but I think we're just going to wind up in another battle of defintions if we try to resolve this.
LOL. Hallucinations you mean? Or by "see" do you now mean "understand" or "think about". See what I mean about those tricky defintions?
Is that what happened to change you the first time? Is it like the kind of amnesia they have in the movies where a knock on the head removes your memory, then another knock restores it?

Actually, we both have it wrong. It's "Spinoza", not "Espinoza". And in his philosophy, God is indistinguishable from nature, pretty much the essence of pantheism. Here's a link to a brief review of him and his philosophy. You'd like it, Iacchy. I promise.

So it is not surprising that Einstein would say that if he were to believe in a God (which pretty much says he doesn't) it would be the same as nature, i.e. indistinguishable from pure materialism. It is totally incompatible with intelligent design.

Frankly, I don't see what pantheists gain by adding God to the mix. Their perception of reality would be exactly the same if they omitted Him.

You mean Elizabeth Taylor?
Well, the offer stands. I'm sorry you're out of work. Hope something turns up for you soon.

Regarding Iacchus' reference to the Eternal Feminine, it isn't Elizabeth Taylor, it's Hedy Lamarr (at least so it seems from his homepage).

Oh, mama!

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

At least I can understand his attraction to Hedy Lamarr. His Penthouse "bimbos" are another matter. Yes, I did get one glimpse of them and they're not even pretty.

Oh stop it! She was kind of lanky and skinny, but she wasn't that bad looking.

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

Yes, I did check out the Stroop Effect and, I would tend to agree that what we see/perceive is closely related to what we think in words ... but, I would suggest this is primarily because we work with the language so much that it eventually becomes etched on our brains.

Actually I was being more of a smart-ass. She was misconstruing the questions I ask on a personal level (and don't generally direct towards anyone else) with those that I ask on this forum, which are more rhetorical. And yes, it seemed like she was doing it deliberately.

Man, I've been in more places inside my head (unattached to my physical body that is) than you can possibly imagine.

Or, perhaps I could get so good at walking in and out of this door that I can begin to serve visitations on other folks. But that's another story and we really don't want to go there. The Native Americans referred to these as skin-walkers (very similar to the practice of Voo-Doo), and these are the types of people you really want to avoid ...

And yet for some reason, you seem to expect me to come up with all the "standard answers."

I can understand why they would do this, but I still don't like being treated like I'm from the planet mars whenever I walk through the front door. Albeit lately it seems, within the last few years or so, it hasn't become that big of an issue with me.

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

Everything that we think, say and do is affected by our intentions.

There's no sense in trying to understand too much. I makes you too anxious.

Words are a vehicle for expression. An expression which must go beyond the words in order for it to mean anything.

Either, or ...

Actually something like that happened to my uncle, who used to be a real bastard, until one day when he got smacked in the head with a beam on a construction site. And now he's one of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet.

That's probably why I couldn't find much about it when I did a search? ...

You know, this really seems to be a much more important issue with you than it is with me.

Perhaps because there's something inherent about nature that requires we stand in awe of it? I know I used feel this way about it lots of times. Of course that was before I found the Eternal Feminine within.

Maybe you've mistaken me with Michael Jackson here? Of course she must have done a movie on that, right?

I'd have to get better organized first. Whereas I'd much rather be working on my own forum and web pages and writing my book than working for somebody else.

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

Well...not etched, but the synaptic pathways are considerably stronger and more easily activated, but you have the right idea...so I hope you can see now, what I was saying before. You are a verbal person now, with your brain "pre-etched" by this point to automatically think in words, at least as the default position. There is, as you see, evidence supporting the idea of thinking in words...oh, and the sun came up this morning.I'd say it looked like a failure to communicate (to quote Cool Hand Luke)...perhaps your evasion of answering our direct questions has made us more likely to attempt to answer your evasive questions, to try to serve as examples.Your head is unattached to your body? That is impressive. But on a more serious note...don't you find it a bit amusing that you can assert that I cannot possibly imagine the places you have been in your head? You are simultaneously saying I cannot understand your thinking, and that you do understand mine! (at least enough to know I can't understand yours). Which is it? If your thoughts are so vast, why could not mine be equally as vast? If I am incapable of such variety, what makes you so certain your variety is so large?Hmmm...the thread you link to seems to die out before you establish that such a door even exists. It still looks like a vivid dream to me, and nothing more than that.

BTW, I have indeed talked to Native Americans about sweat-lodge visions and the like...thus far, the most interested and adamant one has decided to compartmentalize his beliefs...he can study the neurological bases for such phenomena as a grad student (non-trad; he is older than I am), and still experience them as religious phenomena himself. Actually, no. If I wanted you to parrot answers I already know, I would not bother to ask you the questions. You claim a unique view, and I ask questions about that view. When I ask about specific "standard" things, it is because your view should either be consistent with the data, or explain why the data are in error. It should not simply ignore the data and pretend they do not exist, or that they do not apply. What we know, say, about perceptual systems, does apply to your claims of synchronicity. It would be folly to pretend it does not.

The Chinese tend to think more with pictures don't they ... as evidenced by their pictograph style of writing? Whereas when they speak, it has more to do with "the inflection," than the words themselves.

Yet the thing about that is I did not lose consciousness at any point during the experience.

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

A good question--I don't know whether they think more with pictures, but you are correct that the pictograph writing is processed in a different brain area than phonetic alphabets. Japanese, who have two alphabets (one pictographic, one phonetic), process in both areas. And Chinese are not alone in having tone-dependent language--Greek is as well, despite having a phonetic alphabet.

These are all fascinating topics within cognitive psychology and linguistics; there are decades' worth of research on the relations between language and thought. One thing is certain, though--it is more complex than it appears introspectively...another thing, actually--there is no shortage of theories competing for the best explanation of the data.

Also...whether the Chinese think in pictures or not was, although interesting, completely irrelevant to whether or not you could...which was the point I was making. Again, I am not asserting that you cannot; merely that it is far from a slam-dunk that you can.At the risk of you thinking I am trying to be rude (I assure you I am not)...I have had dreams like that too, although very long ago. I'd have sworn on a stack of bibles that I was wide awake the whole time.