I find that kind of theological noncognitivism really hard to discuss. — Pfhorrest

It's hard to criticise because it's arational, when noncognitively derived frameworks impinge; as premises, framings, inferences; on cognitively constructed ones, that's idiotic; an incapability imposed upon reason. Rationalisation rather than rationality. Luckily for us, as @Wayfarer pointed out:

And there are religious scientists - George Lemaître, as I'm sure you know, published the first paper on what came to be called 'big bang theory'. When it was published a lot of people thought it sounded too much like 'creation ex nihilo' - so much so that 'By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[40] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[41] (Wikipedia). — Wayfarer

thinking styles are modular; they can operate independently of each other depending upon the topic and its framing. It seems to me Lemaitre's wisdom was the secular insight to separate religious belief from rational thought.

That seems to be what my mom believes, and she'll try to talk "philosophy" with me and tell me how to her, God means believing in beauty and a kind of inner light permeating the world and uplifting people, doing good and trying to create good and beauty for other people, and she'll ask me don't I believe in that, and... I don't know how to respond, because it's not a propositionally coherent question. I agree completely with the goals of creating good and beauty, and uplifting people, and generally being positive and optimistic, but I don't know how to translate agreement with that goal into an answer to a question about what exists. It's really frustrating.

Yes, lots of baggage. The claim "The Christian God exists" should be treated with the same epistemic standards as "Rocks exist" or "Joy exists", but its interpretation for those who believe often refers to the ineluctable mysticism that fogs their thinking; it permeates as affect and sentiment. Which, of course, are not ever to be discarded, but to be recognised for what they are. It is then no surprise that when looked at soberly, or when extracted from a community that enforces/socialises religious belief, people come to doubt it. Living in absence of or in contradiction to religion is a much more convincing 'argument' against it for those who have to live like that.

(Edit: and before you buggers start going on about hinge propositions, while they do not have reasons to be adopted, they do have tractably analyseable causes, which we can bring to light - argument, therapy, learning).

Mysticism, far from open mindedness, is a circumscription of thought.

The claim "The Christian God exists" should be treated with the same epistemic standards as "Rocks exist" or "Joy exists", but its interpretation for those who believe refers to the ineluctable mysticism that fogs their thinking. — fdrake

I protest. There is a reasoned argument that [the philosophical absolute] is not ‘something that exists’. Certainly not an object, and probably not ‘a being’ at all. I don’t expect that to be understood, but it is an understanding with a long pedigree for which I can present a more detailed argument if there at least a hint of interest about it.

I protest. — Wayfarer

Yes, but you have not reasoned.

I don’t expect that to be understood, but it is an understanding with a long pedigree — Wayfarer

There aren't domain experts on that which cannot be understood.

It seems to me Lemaitre's wisdom was the secular insight to separate religious belief from rational thought. — fdrake

That's the reason I quoted this example.

There aren't domain experts on that which cannot be understood. — fdrake

The double negative there has me completely stumped, but I bet that if I asked you for an example of what 'mysticism' is, or a paraphrase of its meaning, you would be unable to oblige.

The double negative there has me completely stumped, but I bet that if I asked you for an example of what 'mysticism' is, or a paraphrase of its meaning, you would be unable to oblige. — Wayfarer

You can't become an expert; cognizable, articulable understanding; on that which cannot be understood; the mystical; affective, non-articulable understanding. You can become an expert on what people say about it, or what they believe, and how they practice their beliefs.

don’t expect that to be understood, but it is an understanding with a long pedigree — Wayfarer

You never define it! And for obvious reasons. You have a gesture of religious pluralism and commonality, which resonates with revelation and satori, you phrase this in terms of your considerable knowledge of comparative religion. You also usually go to Buddhism at some point nearby, with occasional references to mindfulness being incorporated into clinical practice, health benefits of it etc. If not that then quantum mechanics and the observer effect. If not that then neo-Platonism and the concept of transcendence. The point you argue for is always argued for in terms of its consistency with other points; never a demonstration of truth, only a demonstration of consistency. And that will not do.

It's one big cluster you're very devoted to, you've studied a lot, and when challenged on a single part of it you use the rest of it to argue for the challenged part. It's slippery. But apparently it's a taboo to believe in this stuff, so I guess that's ok.

You can't become an expert (on mysticism); cognizable, articulable understanding; on that which cannot be understood; the mystical; affective, non-articulable understanding. — fdrake

You can, although it's certainly not something I claim to be. But it is a domain of discourse, with recognized luminaries, and wide historical scope. I could provide some references and further argument, but I know what the response would be.

But apparently it's a taboo to believe in this stuff, so I guess that's ok. — fdrake

One of the books that got me interested in the subject was Alan Watts The Book: On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are. He said, and I agree, there is a real taboo in this matter - I elicit it, and so encounter it, on a regular basis.

'Liberal secularism is itself a violent regulator of ‘private’ belief. You can believe whatever you like, provided you do not believe that your personal beliefs are actually objectively true, or matter in any public way.' ~ Paul Tyson, Defragmenting Modernity.

The point you argue for is always argued for in terms of its consistency with other points; never a demonstration of truth, only a demonstration of consistency. And that will not do. — fdrake

Very perceptive, and also accurate. Why? Because the kind of truth that it's a demonstration of, is not objective by definition, but existential. It's concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, which is always going to escape third-person, objective description - one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back (which again, elicited remarkable hostility.)

Ah, newstime. Got to catch up on Brexit.

You can, although it's certainly not something I claim to be. But it is a domain of discourse, with recognized luminaries, and wide historical scope. I could provide some references and further argument, but I know what the response would be. — Wayfarer

L. Ron Hubbard is a recognized luminary of Scientology, a profound expert on the practice of dianetics, and articulated a fully self consistent cosmology. It is a widely practiced religion, with texts and practices, steeped in ritual. But I doubt you care about that, because it's not what you believe.

Because the kind of truth that it's a demonstration of, is not objective by definition, but existential. It's concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, — Wayfarer

I understand, the reason you argue in this way is because you know you can't demonstrate any of your points. But that's not a deficit of your thinking style, or the thinking style which is consistent with your beliefs, that's a deficiency in truth and understanding.

It's concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, which is always going to escape third-person, objective description - one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back (which again, elicited remarkable hostility.) — Wayfarer

So, charitably, you argue in a way in which you do not seek to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs to others. You use the trappings of rational argument and evidence, historical precedent, interpretation of science, insofar as it is consistent with your "first person understanding" to invite people to see the world as you do.

This isn't philosophy, this is a soft sell.

It's one big cluster you're very devoted to, you've studied a lot, and when challenged on a single part of it you use the rest of it to argue for the challenged part. — fdrake

... it is a domain of discourse, with recognized luminaries, and wide historical scope. I could provide some references... — Wayfarer

... One of the books that got me interested in the subject... — Wayfarer

'... [insert long entirely subjective quote] .' ~ Paul Tyson, Defragmenting Modernity... . — Wayfarer

... one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back... — Wayfarer

Absolutely priceless @fdrake, you couldn't have elicited a more satirical response if you'd scripted it deliberately.

I doubt you care about that, because it's not what you believe. — fdrake

Secular culture by its very constitution provides no criterion for differentiating Scientology from Catholicism, but I think it's a crock, and Hubbard was a fraud.

you argue in a way in which you do not seek to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs to others. — fdrake

My beliefs are generally compatible with Christian Platonism, which I often argue for. But you have to be willing to accept the premisses, and no better thread than this to demonstrate the implications of that, eh?

As it is, I argue that the kind of materialist theory of mind that Dennett and others argue for, adopts the rhetorical and technical vocabulary of philosophy, to argue that wisdom proper, sapience, is an illusory byproducts of the Darwinian algorithm - in other words, it inverts philosophy, or turns it against itself.

the reason you argue in this way is because you know you can't demonstrate any of your points. — fdrake

Again - this is a thread about (a)theism, right? So the implications of my philosophy are, let's say, spiritual if not religious. So if you're interacting with atheism, then what would it take to 'demonstrate' it? You know the scholastic 'proofs of God' were never intended as rhetorical or apologetic tools to convert the unbeliever; they were exercises of edification for the faithful.

What is ‘the nature of reality’ if you don’t accept the mainstream scientific-secular account? It may not be ‘theism’ per se, but if my experience, if it’s *not* materialism, then it’s going to sound awfully like it. — Wayfarer

As it is, I argue that the kind of materialist theory of mind that Dennett and others argue for, adopts the rhetorical and technical vocabulary of philosophy, to argue that wisdom proper, sapience, is an illusory byproducts of the Darwinian algorithm. — Wayfarer

No you don't though. This is a pet peeve of mine and its happened twice in this thread now (I restrained myself the first time). You don't 'argue that...' you just 'say that...'. It annoys me when people try to engross a personal arbitrary opinion by prefacing it with "I'd argue that...". If you have an actual argument, just present it, there's no need to drum up an audience first.

I did give an argument earlier in this thread, which I think was ignored, as often, but here it is again. It is quoted from Ed Feser, a neo-thomist, not because I follow neothomism, but because it presents the core of the argument against materialism very succintly:

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes.

This argument goes back to Aristotle, and I think it's sound. I furthermore believe that the basic premise of modern materialism is that 'mind is what brain does', and that if this is not the case, then the whole structure falls.

Secular culture provides no criterion for differentiating Scientology from Catholicism, but I think it's a crock, and he was a fraud. — Wayfarer

Actually yeah it does. Catholicism is an old religion with a storied history, it's worldwide, commonly accepted, has had professional theologians for years, believes in Jesus etc. Scientology is a recently invented cult authored by a terrible science fiction writer structured like a pyramid scheme. You can secularly distinguish them very easily, using stuff that does not commit you to the truth of any account.

My beliefs are generally compatible with Christian Platonism, which I often argue for. But you have to be willing to accept the premisses, and no better thread than this to demonstrate the implications of that, eh? — Wayfarer

Exactly! Someone has to buy in partially for a soft sell to work. Also note: as expected, you are saying that your beliefs are consistent with something without arguing for their truth. You give me suggestions that, if I accept, validate your beliefs, but they do not demonstrate them.

This is exactly the structure I spoke about.

As it is, I argue that the kind of materialist theory of mind that Dennett and others argue for, adopts the rhetorical and technical vocabulary of philosophy, to argue that wisdom proper, sapience, is an illusory byproducts of the Darwinian algorithm. — Wayfarer

What's your alternative? I suppose you can't say, because that's "third person".

Again - this is a thread about (a)theism, right? So the implications of my philosophy are, let's say, spiritual if not religious. So if you're interacting with atheism, then what would it take to 'demonstrate' it? You know the scholastic 'proofs of God' were never intended as rhetorical or apologetic tools to convert the unbeliever; they were exercises of edification for the faithful. — Wayfarer

Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you if I think it's false. Sound good?

What's your alternative? I suppose you can't say, because that's "third person". — fdrake

I can guess what you believe, but I don't think you'd ever publicly assent to any of it.

(1) Reality is a collective idea, everything in it is an idea.
(2) Reality is continuously created by acts of understanding.
(3) Acts of reason are just a subset of acts of understanding.
(3a) Over emphasising reason blinkers us to the true nature of reality.
(4) Evolution is false.
(4a) Evolution is false because thoughts being derived from or generated by or being causally involved with material substrates goes against (2) and (3).
(4b) Secular understanding of evolution is a particularly pernicious and persuasive ideology that stops us from understanding the true nature of reality as referenced in (2) and (3).
(5) Mystical understanding "resonates" with the true nature of the reality, grasping it in its act of continual creation.

Actually yeah it does. Catholicism is an ancient religion with a storied history, it's worldwide, commonly accepted, has had professional theologians for years, believes in Jesus etc. Scientology is a recently invented cult by a terrible science fiction writer structured like a pyramid scheme. You can secularly distinguish them very easily, using stuff that does not commit you to the truth of any account — fdrake

Excellent, thanks. But all the same, if it comes to 'freedom of religion' many jurisdictions are unable to differentiate them. Here in Australia, they're tax exempt, and if you suggested taxing them, you can bet the radio shock jocks would all say 'then tax the Church too'.

What's the alternative? I suppose you can't say, because that's "third person". — fdrake

You mean, 'what are the alternatives to neo-darwinian materialism?' How much time do you have? So - the three historical schools of philosophy that I most admire, are Christian Platonism, Advaita Vedanta, and Mahāyāna Buddhism. So my personal philosophy is syncretic in some ways. I'm very drawn to Buddhism and have been practicing Buddhist meditation for many decades, but my Christian culture has inculcated me with some archetypes that I just can't shake.

Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you if I think it's false. — fdrake

Well, I don't know! I'm agnostic in the sense that I acknowledge that what I sense through intuition is also over my cognitive horizon, so to speak. So I'm a seeker, I'm not claiming to have arrived at any grand understanding.

But one thing I will say is this: that we live in a 'meaning-world' in the sense meant by Husserl, and that physics is a product of that meaning-world, rather than vice versa. I question the notion that mind is a product of evolutionary biology. And I question it, because we evolve to the point of being meaning-seeking and meaning-creating, and thereby transcend the biological. At that point we're no longer comprehensible in strictly Darwinian terms.

Whereas the secular~scientific mainstream view is that we must be that, because if you remove the religious mythology, that's what remains.

Hey, I wrote this before your post above this one appears, but I think it's pretty close, although I think some of it is too 'new age' for my liking. Like, I don't deny *any* of the facts of evolution or cosmology or any of the other sciences - to me, the question is about meaning and interpretation. Whereas in the secular view, meaning *can only be* subjective and personal.

Like, I don't deny *any* of the facts of evolution or cosmology or any of the other sciences - to me, the question is about meaning and interpretation. — Wayfarer

But you do think they're over emphasised in our understanding of the true nature of reality? I do not.

(1) A human mind requires its associated human body to exist for that mind to exist (Y/N)?
(2) Humans were preceded historically by the universe without us (Y/N)?
(3) Human minds are ape minds. (Y/N)?
(4) Ape minds evolved along with ape bodies. (Y/N)?

Whereas in the secular view, meaning *can only be* subjective and personal. — Wayfarer

It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. Introducing a distinction between 'third person' and 'first person' knowledge, only to collapse it all down into 'first person'; which is nevertheless the only way the truth of things in general can be revealed.

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning.

Subjective opinion. If we accept this is true, we've already accepted that 'meaning' is not physical in any way, which is the crux of the matter.

By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity.

Re-affirmation.

Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc.

Subjective opinion. Again, if we accept this, we've simply eliminated, without argument, the eliminative position already.

In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot be identified with any physical processes in the brain.

Subjective opinion. Obviously eliminative materialists think they can be identified with physical processes in the brain. No further explanation is given of why this author thinks they can't beyond the fact that it doesn't match with the previously stated subjective opinion.

Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes.

"If you believe A then B follows". But the debate is about A, not about whether B follows from it.

This is the issue that @fdrake has already highlighted above. You have to buy into the main crucial beliefs, only then do the utterly trivial conclusions follow from them. The debate - atheism/theism, idealism/physicalism...is about the very premises you present as axiomatic to your 'arguments'. So you're not arguing in favour of one position, you're presuming one position and arguing that trivial truisms follow once you've accepted it.

Like, I don't deny *any* of the facts of evolution or cosmology or any of the other sciences - to me, the question is about meaning and interpretation.
— Wayfarer

But you do think they're over emphasised in our understanding of the true nature of reality? I do not. — fdrake

Modern thought is not over-emphasizing reason. It's over-emphasizing sensate values, what can be weighed, measured, felt and touched. That's what 'empiricism' means, after all - we have to sensorily experience it for it to be real (where 'sensorily experience' includes instruments.)

Platonist philosophy, by contrast, used reason to point at that which is beyond reason - I doubt the modern philosophical lexicon even has a category for that nowadays (because transcendent, which modern mind automatically closes down - danger, does not compute.)

So the modern approach is fundamentally instrumental - it is concerned, not with what is true, but with what works, what produces results. (I have the idea that this was behind the New Left criticism of the 'instrumentalisation of reason', was it not? Also see Sorokin on Sensate Culture.) Not knocking 'what works' - we need plenty of it, tons of it, even to survive. And I have no doubt about the material efficacy of modern science, we see it every day.

(2) Humans were preceded historically by the universe without us (Y/N)? — fdrake

Temporally, yes. But humans are the universe coming to understand itself. 'Scientists', said Bohr, 'are just an atom's way of looking at itself'.

(3) Human minds are ape minds. (Y/N)? — fdrake

No. We are 'sapiens', and it means something, although many people don't seem to realise it.

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning.

Subjective opinion. — Isaac

Not a subjective opinion. A matter of fact. And all the rest of what you write is as much 're-affirmation' of what you think, as you're attributing to me.

if we accept this, we've simply eliminated, without argument, the eliminative position already. — Isaac

To indulge you - 'arguments' are not found anywhere in neurological data or brain science. Arguments are intentional in nature. You will never find, in brain science, anything which accounts for the insight of 'A=A'. On the contrary, you must first be able to grasp that "A=A" before you can even study, let alone devise, brain science, or any other science. Most modern thinking operates on the lazy assumption that science has/can/will understood the causal pathway between neurological data and logic, but it hasn't/can't/won't. You say

But the debate is about A, not about whether B follows from it. — Isaac

That's already a debate about causal relationships between brain and mind. 'A' is not something self-existent, it's a premise that you need to establish by reasoned argument, and that is an operation of thought, you will never find it on a slide.

The debate - atheism/theism, idealism/physicalism...is about the very premises you present as axiomatic to your 'arguments'. — Isaac

Right. And from every interaction with you, I come away thinking you don't see them, which is why I generally don't bother. So don't mistake my lack of arguing for indolence, I'm actually a busy person.

This kind of approach suffuces philosophical discussion here "it seems obvious to me, therefore it's a fact of reality"

It seems obvious to you that brain processes are devoid of some 'real' property called 'meaning' - therefore it must be a fact that they are.

It seems obvious to you that being Sapiens 'means something' therefore it must be a fact and others simply haven't realised it.

It seems obvious to you that we must 'grasp' the law of identity before study, therefore it must be a fact.

It's seems morality is categorical, number is real, consciousness is real... And so they must all be facts.

How do you know that what seems to you to be the case has any bearing at all on what actually is the case?

This kind of approach suffuces philosophical discussion here — Isaac

You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the argument, which you plainly don't. Yes, it's presented in a peremptory form - as I said, I'm busy - but it's a sound argument, which you show no sign of having comprehended, let alone answered.

Ahh. Back to this again. Another common theme here "you don't understand".

Basically half the threads here could be summarised as "I feel like X is the case therefore it is the case, if you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand the argument"

Very perceptive, and also accurate. Why? Because the kind of truth that it's a demonstration of, is not objective by definition, but existential. It's (mystical truth - me) concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, which is always going to escape third-person, objective description - one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back (which again, elicited remarkable hostility.) — Wayfarer

Modern thought is not over-emphasizing reason. It's over-emphasizing sensate values, what can be weighed, measured, felt and touched. That's what 'empiricism' means, after all - we have to sensorily experience it for it to be real (where 'sensorily experience' includes instruments.) — Wayfarer

Are you sure you're not over emphasising the role of sensate values by basing your worldview off of experiences of revelation? You seem fundamentally contradictory on this point.

On the one hand, you consider science as reductive to the notion of first person experience; nevertheless you believe that (mystical) first person experiences (of revelation) are a better revealer of truth.

:up: :up:

"If you believe A then B follows". But the debate is about A, not about whether B follows from it.

This is the issue that @fdrake has already highlighted above. You have to buy into the main crucial beliefs, only then do the utterly trivial conclusions follow from them. The debate - atheism/theism, idealism/physicalism...is about the very premises you present as axiomatic to your 'arguments'. So you're not arguing in favour of one position, you're presuming one position and arguing that trivial truisms follow once you've accepted it. — Isaac

This kind of approach suffuces philosophical discussion here "it seems obvious to me, therefore it's a fact of reality" — Isaac

How do you know that what seems to you to be the case has any bearing at all on what actually is the case? — Isaac

Basically half the threads here could be summarised as "I feel like X is the case therefore it is the case, if you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand the argument" — Isaac

:clap:

@Wayfarer -

I'm still waiting (since 10/12) for you to explain - demonstrate, and not merely assert - in what way, or sense, "philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious". :chin:

None of which are questions atheists do not ask, many of which are questions religions claim to answer.



Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

Otherwise, in a failed attempt to speculate your situation, I'm left with the following quote from cognitive Science: 'What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you'.

Be well.

Your Interesting thought about drug induced mental phenomena, made me think of this study:

"IFAS researchers had dosed a total of 22 other men for the creativity study, including a theoretical mathematician, an electronics engineer, a furniture designer, and a commercial artist. By including only those whose jobs involved the hard sciences (the lack of a single female participant says much about mid-century career options for women), they sought to examine the effects of LSD on both visionary and analytical thinking. Such a group offered an additional bonus: Anything they produced during the study would be subsequently scrutinized by departmental chairs, zoning boards, review panels, corporate clients, and the like, thus providing a real-world, unbiased yardstick for their results."

"In surveys administered shortly after their LSD-enhanced creativity sessions, the study volunteers, some of the best and brightest in their fields, sounded like tripped-out neopagans at a backwoods gathering. Their minds, they said, had blossomed and contracted with the universe. They’d beheld irregular but clean geometrical patterns glistening into infinity, felt a rightness before solutions manifested, and even shapeshifted into relevant formulas, concepts, and raw materials."

"But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties. Fadiman and his colleagues published these jaw-dropping results and closed shop."

"At a congressional subcommittee hearing that year, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy grilled FDA regulators about their ban on LSD studies: “Why, if they were worthwhile six months ago, why aren’t they worthwhile now?” For him, the ban was personal, too: His wife, Ethel, had received LSD-augmented therapy in Vancouver. “Perhaps to some extent we have lost sight of the fact that it”—Sen. Kennedy was referring specifically to LSD here—“can be very, very helpful in our society if used properly.”

Janus, notwithstanding the legitimate health concerns and/or side effects from foregoing study, my question is:

1. Consider the natural drugs the body produces: dopamine endorphins and serotonin.
2. Consider the aforementioned LSD drug induced experiment… .

Could there me more to the conscious mind than just things like eating, drinking, procreating, sleeping et al.?

Conversely, Is there a mystery at the end of the universe? If not, why not?

Interesting...seems contradictory. — 3017amen

How so?

Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

You've just re-posted. I was asking what it was about my statement which seemed contradictory to you.