Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on "thought".

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

Them’s fightin’ words, Buddy. I’ll be a gentleman and give you the opportunity to make what I would consider an honorable move and take back the statement. If not, I’ll be ready with both barrels.

In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)

* I have tried to be as objective as a believer could possibly be in the discourse here on the board. I think I would not be overreaching if I stated that I have been more objective (ironically) in general than some non-believers in particular. It does little good to have these types of discussions with totally closed minds on either side (this is not to say that either side would even think he could convince the other of much) - a total waste of time, and it has been done to death elsewhere. The “debate” thus far has been civil and interesting. Do you really want to change the integrity of the forum with insulting comments like the above? If so, then let’s "have at it", Brother.

** I use the word ignorant in its literal context. (Obviously, I think it ignorant in its figurative use also, but since that is a subjective point of view , totally irrelevant.)

[David Sklansky]

"In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)"

If you are saying that even if Mary was not a virgin it didn't mean she cheated on her husband, (because she wasn't yet married or because Joseph was the father,) I stand corrected. If it did mean she cheated on him I will remind you that the Ten Commandments were already out there. If you are saying that she either cheated on her husband or she was a virgin, my statment stands.

Meanwhile I was actually paying you a compliment earlier. By pointing out that your intellectual stance on God makes a lot more sense than believing in silly religions.

[theweatherman]

What empirical evidence exists to support the theory that we think?? our sense prove nothing and deliver no evidence towards the cause. As far as I can tell I am sure that I think based soley on rational, self evident truths.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What empirical evidence exists to support the theory that we think?? our sense prove nothing and deliver no evidence towards the cause. As far as I can tell I am sure that I think based soley on rational, self evident truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I "think" (lol) I just used the term "emperical evidence" wrong.

What you said then.

[Piers]

I am not an expert on neurobiology, however I believe what thoughts are is moderately well understood. They can be considered as patterns within the neuro-network that exists inside the mind.

If you are thinking of the sensation associated with thinking, which one might loosely consider as ones consciousness. I believe that’s an extension of the more mundane sensory network that has triggered some sort of feedback loop to create something quite amazing. Nature is full of such surprises -> Cue picture of snowflake.

To elaborate, sensations are very important in the running of a life from. Further there seems to be some form of central interface for handling sensory impute. It seems quite natural for thought to use the same interface.

So in the same way that we might feel pain to alert us to some external event, we might feel a similar feeling to alert us to a thought that requires further attention. Or a pleasant sensation might encourage us to repeat the experience; in a similar way thought process in a certain direction could be encouraged.

So a link between senses and thought is to be expected. We might think therefore as thought as an extra sense, however unlike the other senses, we have direct control on what is experienced. I think the potential for some form of feedback loop is clear. The exact details might be difficult to work out, but still perfectly attainable IMHO.

[Dan Mezick]

Take a close look at the books of Antonio Damasio.

Also, examine the emerging science of Consciousness Studies

You may find the short essay: The Brain and Field Theory of particular interest.