full..raw reply..here
sadly..much re-editing
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/posting.php

selected/quotes.[from/link]

to..speak..of something..
implies..it..*is being*..or..could be...the/quality..of being

<<emphasize..the degree..by which..cognitive processing..
happens..outside..the scope..of cognitive awareness,..and show..
that things..we are..unaware of..can..nonetheless..influence..other cognitive/processes..as well as behavior>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_knowledge

<<>.the..procedural/knowledge..one uses
to solve problems..differs from the..declarative knowledge..
one possesses..about problem solving..because this knowledge..is formed..by doing/act/deed/work..means/way

<<<...procedural/knowledge..is the knowledge..*exercised..
in..the accomplishment..of a task,..and thus includes knowledge..which, unlike declarative knowledge..cannot be easily articulated..by the individual,..since it is..typically non-conscious..(or tacit)

<<..One advantage..of procedural/knowledge..is that it can involve..more senses,..such as hands-on experience,..practice at solving problems,..understanding..of the limitations..of a specific solution,.etc...>>

<<..*Thus procedural/knowledge..
can frequently eclipse..*theory...>>

doing..works..is the easy/way..[show me]
while talk..becomes too..subjective..to sub/clauses

<<..Empirical evidence..suggests..that unconscious/phenomena..include repressed feelings,..automatic skills,..subliminal perceptions,..thoughts,..habits, and automatic reactions,..and possibly also complexes,..hidden phobias and desires...

<<..In psychoanalytic theory,..unconscious processes
are understood to be expressed..in dreams..in a symbolical form,..as well as in..slips of the tongue..and jokes..>>.

<<..Thus the..nconscious mind..can be seen..as the source*.of dreams..and automatic/thoughts..(those..that appear..without any apparent cause)>>

like those..god does/naturaly

<<In.a sense..,>>..<<the unconscious..refers..to..the mental processes*..of..which individuals..make*..themselves..*unaware >>..

<<..Erich Fromm..contends that,.."The term..'the unconscious'..is actually a mystification..(one might..use it..for reasons..of convenience,)...[expediency]

<There..is no such thing..as the..*unconscious;..
there are only experiences..*process..of which we..*are aware,..>>

<<..and others..of which..we are not*.aware,..
that is,..that..of which we are..unconscious...say..If..I hate a man/creed/thing/quality..or form....

BUT..*because I am afraid of him,..and if I am aware..only of my hate ..but not of my fear,..[or other lesser..imputational..shades..of hades...[not as seen..though pink shades]

<<we..may say..that..*my hate..is conscious..
and that..my fear..is unconscious>>...thus i..miss seeing..the true/good.of god..[in all men]

regardless..fear attracts..one type..of energy/being
hate..attracts..yet other/types..of energy uses/forms

[conscious..means..the aware knowing.
.that all emoting attracts..its dualities]

<<..posit..the existence of something..that is like a "thought"
in every way..except for the fact..that no one can ever be aware of it..*(can never, indeed,.."think" it)..is an incoherent concept..

,<<.the repository..of forgotten memories
(that may still be..accessible to consciousness..at some later time),
and the locus..of implicit knowledge ..(the things..that we have learned..so well*..that we do them..without thinking).

It has been argued..that consciousness
is..in-fluenced..by other parts of the mind...

These..include..unconsciousness..as a*..personal habit,..being unaware,..and intuition.

while talk..becomes too..subjective..to sub/clauses

anyhow from
http://www.spiritwritings.com/lifeafterdeathhyslop.pdf

<<..The trouble..with most..is..that,
in estimating..the evidence,..they take..with them
certain..preconceived ideas..[continued]

.

Dear George,

.

[ >>This statement presumes the existence of the supernatural.<<
Yes, it does, provided we can agree on what existence means, in particular that it is not restricted to reality that science has access to (abbreviated to “natural” in quotation marks). ]

.

I see no “à priori” reason to justify the idea that science has limited access to anything. The “reality that science has access to” is, “à priori”, all reality, without restriction.

Therefore, unless you are able to justify it, I consider that the restriction you propose is “void ab initio” (to be treated as void from the outset).

The definition I propose for existence is “reality”. I propose that we consider that what exists is real and is independent of our awareness of it.

.

“I do not understand what you mean by proof (or evidence) … ”

Proof or evidence are elements which establish the truth of something.

.

“Can you suggest something, which would not imply that what it would prove the existence of would necessarily be something science can investigate, hence not "supernatural" or even God?”

As indicated previously, the “reality that science has access to” is, “à priori”, all reality, without restriction. For science to “investigate” the so-called “supernatural” or even “God”, they would have to be real. On the sole condition that they do exist (are real), I see no “à priori” reason why science could not have access to them.

.

“ … but only a scientist with a naturalist/materialist world view MUST presume that this is all, i.e. that "natural causes" explain everything about consciousness.”

Once again, I see no “à priori” justification for limiting the view “that natural causes explain everything about consciousness” to “only a scientist with a naturalist/materialist world view”. I see no reason why a scientist should not include the “immaterial” in his naturalist world view without necessarily believing in the so-called supernatural and God.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

Ideas and sentiments exist. They are integral elements of various life forms. I see no “à priori” reason why science should not “investigate” them simply because they are immaterial elements.

.

“I was assuming … that consciousness was a phenomenon that was not reducible to physical reality.”

Like “ideas”, I suspect that it is a combination of “physical reality” and immaterial elements. Like ideas and sentiments, I see no “à priori” reason why science should not “investigate” consciousness too.

.

“ … it is the consciousness that is seeking an explanation of itself …”

Mankind has already “found an explanation” for a good deal of himself. I see no “à priori” reason why he should not continue to find out more and more about himself until, like the baron Münchhausen, he finally manages to pull himself from the swamp of ignorance and superstition by his own hair.

.

“So also a neuroscientist (or quantum physicist or whoever) who will find a “scientific explanation” of consciousness will probably not convince EVERYBODY - I mean all scientists - to accept it as evidence of the reducibility of consciousness to its physical carrier, and hence abandon their belief in God.”

People will continue to believe in God as long as they feel the need to do so, irrespective of whether he exists or not. His existence (reality) is not a prerequisite to belief.

The best example I can offer for that, George, is you, my friend, whom I respect, both as a pleasant, intelligent and knowledgeable person and as an eminent mathematician.

.

Dear oug,

Thank you for reading the article. Why the dietary laws arose is an interesting question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris tells about Marvin Harris who had some answers to that question. I question why people still believe in the stone age inventions of god, devil, heaven, hell, dietary laws etc. Although I started to doubt god as a small child one reason I kept religious belief so long is that not to keep it would be a betrayal of my ancestors who believed.

< Should be really nice and colourful in the autumn - perhaps even all the year round.>

Dear Banjo,

One thing I miss in Australia is the change of seasons – a blaze of colour followed by a ground covered with the sere and withered leaf. The denuded trees stand stark and graceful against the gray wintry sky. Then spring comes with the bright green young leaves along with buds and blossoms. In Australia the leaves die and drop off the gums with no blaze of colour to announce their passing. The ground is covered with dead leaves all year round. Perpetual, depressing autumn.

Yesterday a gardener came in and cleared an overgrown area next to the house of the tangle of vegetation that covered it. Now we have a cleared area, and I felt that a mini-Hiroshima has been created. I don’t want more lawn. What to do with the cleared area will be a subject of discussion between Marie and me for the next two weeks.

david..<<..betrayal..of/ancestors..>>

its..of key*importance..[..as believers..cannot
generally..associate..with..non-believers..for long]

believing/dis-believing..THE
same..essentials/essence..is important

#..Imperative mood.#.Idea
#..Inquiry..#..Instructional capital

posted..wrong/link..earlier
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15045#15045
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15046#15046

[continued]..of what..a spirit is..
and so..adjudge the evidence..accordingly,>>..

a..closed mind..
can/not..come up..with an..open finding

<<..The..scientific/man,..however,..assumes nothing..
about a spirit..except that it is..a stream..of consciousness..existing..apart from the
physical body. ..

<<>.Unconscious/thoughts..are not directly..accessible..to ordinary introspection,>>

<<..The personal/unconscious..is a reservoir*..of material..
that..was once..conscious..but has been..forgotten..or suppressed,.>>

<<.The collective/unconscious,..is the deepest..level
of..the psyche,..containing..the accumulation..of inherited psychic/structures..and archetypal experiences.*.>>

the..supreme/mind...
which reveals..the cliche'

<<Archetypes/are not..memories..
but images..with universal/meanings..that are apparent..in the culture's use..of symbols]..[that inform visual/auditory/sensual /spirit/material..conceptual meaning]

<<.Freud/viewed..the unconscious..as..a repository..for socially unacceptable/ideas,..unknown/wishes..or..secret/desires,..traumatic/memories,..and painful/emotions..put out/of..mind..by the mechanism of..psychological/repression...>>

<<However,..the contents..did not..*necessarily..
have to/be..solely negative...In the..psychoanalytic/view..the unconscious..is a force..that can..only be recognized..by its effects—as/it expresses..itself..into..the symptom]

<<..It may be wrong..but the..method of
wrong/thinking..is the same.as right/thinking,..
and it..*will only be a..question of..bias/evidence..to distinguish..the one..from the other...>>

[ps..the main/reproof..of..no after-life=darkness/deafness]..
because..we must hush-up..the mind talk..enough ..*to..WANT to hear..* anything..

but re/the silence..reported/near-death
[many..near death..*arnt dead..long enough*..
[or..not seeking it..or expecting..anything..and got it..nuthin*]

unlike/these

lawrence of Arabia's*.. experiences..after/death
http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.pdf

or how..the titanic/dead..survived..their death/trauma
http://melodybard.com/BlueIsland.pdf

a lot..hangs on what..we mean..by dead?
http://www.scientifictheology.com/Life.pdf

<<..it follows..that death..is brain/death...
One cannot..be alive..without..brain/function..,and..one cannot die...[physically/materially]..without..physically/detected..brain/death.

This undercuts..the claim..that people..who have had.;.the experiences..described by Moody..were experiencing..“life after life”...None*..of them..were brain/dead.>>..

what the/bible says
http://www.ucg.org/files/booklets/what-happens-after-death.pdf

next..is a..great summation..
of the in finiteness..of after life experienced
http://new-birth.net/booklet/GettingOut.PDF

<<..Credible does..not..to me necessarily..mean..entirely accurate.
Spirits..just like/humans..have opinions,..and do not..all agree amongst themselves..>>

<<>.They..live..on..as/if..in that dream..in which..one attempts accustomed/actions..only to find..oneself bewilderingly..baffled in every futile/attempt.

<<..They are..filled with..surprise
that relatives..and friends ignore them,
and that..their usual..petty aims..fail completely.

Yet..no one*..attempts to disillusion them.
First of all,..it is not permitted..to do that..as the sudden/shock..of such..information..volunteered to an ignorant spirit..could have..disastrous results.

Furthermore...most spirits
would not listen..to such talk
they would stoutly..and angrily..deny that..there was anything..unusual the matter..with them.

Therefore..at first..there is..no questioning and
everyone must there,..as here, dispel..his own illusions..and slowly formulate his own..ideas.>>

For..the mind suffers..*no change..in death.

Everywhere..in my journeys..I found these..new citizens
of Spirit Land..thronging the streets of cities,..passing in..and out of houses,..traveling on trains.and voyaging..on steamers.

In fact,wherever mortals..habitate/
habituate..there are..>>..*the dead*

more reading
http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

Re John Paul II’s "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."

I question both parts of the statement. Some religious believers reject science where scientific findings conflict with a literal acceptance of scripture. Religion and superstition are not clearly different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

Superstition is a pejorative term for belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any natural process linking the two events, such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.

The pope made an unjustified dichotomy between superstition and religion. Superstition may also be a word that religious believers apply to religious beliefs other than the one they hold.

Error is a necessary part of science. Two types of scientific error are conceptual errors and data errors. There are mechanisms to correct those errors, but they are inherent in science.

Religion has no mechanism to reject error. There can be revelations, changes in liturgy or new doctrine, but open admission of error is usually avoided.

Error correction has become a subdiscipline in computer science. When I worked on the design of early computers the only instruction for correction of error was that we were supposed to allocate about 10% of circuitry for that purpose.

The meaning of idolatry varies from religion to religion. To a pure monotheist who believes that divinity rests solely in God, worshiping Jesus as divine is idolatry.

Perhaps you can give me an example of what the pope meant by a false absolute.

How much of your religion is a recognition of the comfort and meaning it gave to your antecedents. Like me is your religion in part a means of keeping faith with your ancestors?

< its..of key*importance..[..as believers..cannot
generally..associate..with..non-believers..for long]>

Dear oug,

It’s very important to me that believers and non-believers associate. In fact I thought that is what we are doing in our current exchange. One reason I object to government funding of religious schools is that it segregates children of varying religious backgrounds. I would eliminate all government funding of religious schools.