Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Martin TK]

[quote="humblesmurph]

First, I haven't met ALL clinical psychologists, what does that have to do with anything?  The three I have dealt with seemed to adhere to a more respectful protocol.  The three I've dealt with wouldn't (i believe) think it appropriate to dress up insults as clinical observations.  It was reasonable for Edward to challenge your claim (of being a clinical psychologist) given the unprofessional manner in which you proffered your professional opinion.

I will not be bullied.  Your response has the tone of "how dare you? I have a PHd!!!"  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I take it. You are attacking me because I took exception to your use of the phrase "as a clinical psychologist".  I stand by my claim.  It was wrong.  You didn't simply say he lacked evidence.  You insinuated that Edward was delusional and full of shit. You presented this as a professional opinion. You claim you admitted as much on another post.  

Unfortunately, redundancies happen on boards such as these.  I missed your apology (if you did in fact apologize to Edward).  I missed you being warned by a mod (if there was a warning on this thread).  It doesn't make my opinion any less valid.   Everything you post is just your opinion as well.  Almost every post in this thread is about pointing out Edward's "failings".  I've tried to be constructive in this thread.  I've tried to direct Edward towards a more fruitful discourse without insulting the man.  

Why couldn't you just say. "Hey dude, that's old.  I've already admitted that I was wrong" and leave it at that?  Why attack me?[/quote]

Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

[Martin TK]

First I want to thank humblesmurph for his (or her) brave defense of me and of himself. It is impressive to see someone stand up against a group. It kind of restores ones hope and faith in humanity. Google for it. Just search "training paramecium" and take your pick.

In other words, paramecium have memory, too. They still have no central nervous system, mind you, but they apparently have volition, memory, and some measure of IQ. I was convined by seeing what appears to be willful movement. So, I never looked any further. And, I've never conducted those experiments myself. But apparently there's no need to.

Now, I know what you're thinking (and it has nothing to do with ESP on my part). You're thinking there must be something about the cell that produces consciousness. Because if consciousness is external to the organism (as precognition all but proves), then we aren't just dirt clods.  :crazy:

But have no fear. All this does is confirm that we really are just dirt clods...until we die. Then the dirt clod dissolves and all that's left is the consciousness we had before we were born...hell, before the universe was born. But I'm getting all giddy now.  

I'm just wondering if when we die we think to ourselves, "That was interesting...hmmm, let's do that shit again!" and then we wake up in someone else, or create someone else we can wake up in.

I can't help it. I speculate at times.

Oh, and PS to the psychologists out there who think I'm suffering from delusions of grandure. Yeah, from your perspective, I probably am. But my papers, my theory, my book, my speeches, whatever may come aren't going to get done if I take your advice. Oh, wait a minute. You're an atheist psychologist...maybe you don't want me to get those things done. Or am I just being paranoid now?

Look, just keep your hands off my mental illness. I'm still using it.

Yeah, well, as some of you are trying to challenge my credentials, I'll tell you what.. when you want to stop by my house in the UP of Michigan, I'll share my diplomas and my STATE LICENSE from both SC and Michigan, until then, take it or leave it.... The comment was ONE comment, based on MY opinion of the post.  Attacking me and my credentials are NOT presenting your point.  AS I said before, you really haven't presented anything at all, so keep trying.... and I retract my apology, since you don't seem to be able to be gracious enough to accept it.  Ta ta, and THIS is my final comment on the subject.... Good luck.

[pinkocommie]

...PMs maybe?  

[Martin TK]

...PMs maybe?   :yay:

[pinkocommie]

Hahaha, I didn't even notice that it looks like PMS...Ooops!  Now I've gone and made an ass out of myself.  Again.  Dammit!  

[Thumpalumpacus]

To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

[humblesmurph]

Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

I tried to be respectful.  I hoped you would do the same.  There was nothing "snarky" about my post.  I understand that you probably worked very hard to get where you are.  I never suggested that you weren't who/what you said you were.  I took exception to something you posted and I told you why.  If you'd like to hold a debate to discuss why it may or may not be appropriate for a clinical psychologist to make the comments you made to Edward, I'm all for it.

[Martin TK]

Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

I tried to be respectful.  I hoped you would do the same.  There was nothing "snarky" about my post.  I understand that you probably worked very hard to get where you are.  I never suggested that you weren't who/what you said you were.  I took exception to something you posted and I told you why.  If you'd like to hold a debate to discuss why it may or may not be appropriate for a clinical psychologist to make the comments you made to Edward, I'm all for it.

No thanks, I tend to like to keep my debates less personal, more religious.  I assure you, I don't need someone attempting to give me an ethics lesson on what is or is not appropriate as a clinician.  Thanks again, ta ta....

[Martin TK]

To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

[Recusant]

Be that as it may, I have recently found out (and I feel like a fool for being so late), but psychologists and microbiologists and psychologists who happen to like microbiology have been training paramecium since at least 1957. I have two scientific papers sitting on my desk right now. I'm not going to take the time to reference them because it's actually a common experiment and there are results all over :blink:

So now I can't help wondering if you would care to extend your hypothesis to the point of saying that at least some plants also have extra-corporeal consciousness?  I think that it would be a logical step, but might invite even more ridicule than your present three rationales.  Pantheist, monist or panentheist would say that of course plants possess a spark of the all-pervading non-physical consciousness.  And this article might be considered by them to be proof of that vision of the cosmos.  Whether they could ever marshal enough evidence to convince skeptics, is another question entirely.  I'll keep looking for a free version of a paper on training paramecium while you ponder plant consciousness.

[Edward the Theist]

So now I can't help wondering if you would care to extend your hypothesis to the point of saying that at least some plants also have extra-corporeal consciousness?  I think that it would be a logical step, but might invite even more ridicule than your present three rationales.  Pantheist, monist or panentheist would say that of course plants possess a spark of the all-pervading non-physical consciousness.  And this article might be considered by them to be proof of that vision of the cosmos.  Whether they could ever marshal enough evidence to convince skeptics, is another question entirely.  I'll keep looking for a free version of a paper on training paramecium while you ponder plant consciousness.

Yeah, I ran into the same problem with the subscription thing, but that was probably for "Food or Training in Paramecium, Science, 27 Dec 1957" But that's not the best paper I've come across. I'm reading one now, and I'm not sure I should mention it, because I haven't read the conclusions yet, but it's a pdf. of

DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA (P. caudatum)
Harvard L. Armus, Amber R. Montgomery, and Jenny L. Jellison
University of Toledo
The Psychological Record, 2006, 56, 489-498

I don't have the web site but cut and paste into a google DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA and it comes right up.

As far as learning in plants. I am curious about that because I believe that the monistic substance of the universe involves consciousness, but I'm not sure how at this point. Perhaps it is the same way dreams are made but on a higher order. In a dream, everything is made out of consciousness. Water is water, the ground is the ground. Air is air, etc., but it's all consciousness. But to speculate at this point is to get ahead of myself.

[Edward the Theist]

To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

You know what? I think you probably are a clincical psychologist. I just don't think you have any credibility anymore. You don't want to be lectured on ethics? Then don't violate them, dude.

[notself]

Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

[Edward the Theist]

Could you explain (B) a little more?  I'm seeing  god=universe and universe=god.  They seem like the exact same thing.

True. If one uses mathematical terminology, I did use the word "is" and that typically means "equals." My mistake.

I should have used set terminology instead and said that the universe is a proper subset of god and god is a proper superset of the universe.

So, God is not "just" the universe, but everything the constitutes the universe is of the substance of God.

Of course, I want to reiterate that I have two definitions for the word God. The first is (g), a mathematical symbol, and that is the superset I mentioned above, the monistic whole, consciousness intersecting eternity. The second is "God" which is a psychological construct we make in order to channel, or commune, or realize (g). The capitalized God is our Lord and Savior. This is the one we pray to, and the one who talks to us. This is who we fight and die for, live for, and in whom we derive things like purpose and mission. He is indeed greater than we are, because the whole of our personality is a proper subset of our God. And God is individual to each and everyone of us. Everyone, regardless of religion or atheistic stance has a God.

Thanks for asking.

[Edward the Theist]

I must say though...your theory did have me thinking about the true function of consciousness. I will continue to ponder :hmm: