text:
- Nehemia Moscovitz
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed.
The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
The debate between those who hail spiritual existence as the source of the universe, hence promoting religious fervor for the faithful masses, and those who strip reality of the magic of faith, and submit to the dry, factual, scientific physical nature of reality, is generations old. This debate affects the majority of aspects of modern civilization, as its fallouts impact the path of our civilization's progress. Yet as evidence is gathered and compiled to prove AND EDUCATE about reality, it becomes evident that FAITH is secondary to KNOWLEDGE, and that SCIENCE precedes RELIGION, and that HOPE can and should be a matter of real prospect based on calculated input. Faith and ceremony as means for comforting and consoling, of easing the pain of troubled souls, and for organizing an orchestrated pattern of tradition, of imagining a supreme parent figure who bears the real responsibility in a divine form etc... All these are constructs of the human mind. The mind, however, is a contruct of chemical and physical building blocks. Can anyone prove otherwise, without resorting to faith?
Feb 5 2012: Yes Adriaan, I would and so does everyone else. If she says she loves me and then does many things that contradict that statement, although I am not asking for proof, it is proof that she does not in fact love me.
And No ""sudden explosion of light "" this would not be evidence of her love. Loyalty, honesty, understanding, these are evidence of love and this evidence is discovered over time and shared experiences together.
Nope. I have absolutely no idea what love is, as it takes many forms. I do know that when I see something I "love", I have a warm, tingly sensation inside my body. I believe (not know) that this sensation comes from the same place that interprets all my sensations. The neurological system.
""if this is all so physical and material, how come science can tell us THAT we think but not WHAT we think? (and please do not say 'Well, give them time'
Even a lie-detector is not based on our thoughts but how our body reacts to them.""
Science does not tell me THAT we think. I am thinking, that's what tells me that we think. Why would I be interested in science telling me what I think? I already know what I think. and That's right, a lie detector does not detect the lie, it detects your heart rate (and other stuff above my knowledge level), which is a physical response to the question being asked.
In the long run, my disbelief in religion or supernatural is based on the fact that the origins of our religious beliefs are very dubious and filled with many culturally based superstitions.
Feb 1 2012: WE CAN NEVER DENY THE EXISTANCE OF THE SPIRITUAL ELEMENT IN THE WORLD, MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PHYSICAL IS JUST BUT A RESULT OF THE SPIRITUAL
- +1
Feb 1 2012: Hi Thula,
Can you prove that? can you show us that spiritual element that we can't deny?
JBFeb 6 2012: HEY, DAMN IT, KEEP YOUR TONE DOWN.
Since evidence is necessary in order to draw a conclusion about anything, then I can neither accept nor deny a spiritual element. I am saying I can not know. You seem to be saying that somehow, you do know.
Md Santo
Jan 24 2012: ANALYSING THE UNIVERSE CONTINUUM THROUGH THREE HUMAN PREFERENCES
- +1
Yes, I'd like to tell you, God is exist.
There are key words describing human life preferences as living reality : the Physical Universe, the Inner Universe and the Divine Universe respectively
Look at URL http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR page 1 and page 3, all generated from the human life preferences just mentioned : the Physical Universe (obtained through "Thruth or Scientific-based") – Inner Universe (obtained through "Knowledge-based") – Divine Universe (obtained through "Belief or Faith-based") respectively
Through our KV measurement ( URL http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR page 1 ), it means to assessing hypothetically the intensity of Nature Knowledge consciousness element factor within Knowledge continuum in the Universe all at once complementing Energy and Matter of the Universe. Knowledge Value (KV) measurement is an act to do what so called as "Renormalization", (cited from Stephen Hawking, 2010), a mathematical technique designed to make sense of infinities in quantum theories.
It is noted there is an important evidence that "The function of Knowledge is to linking up Science (Physical Universe) with Religion (Divine Universe)"
If Divine Universe is the domain of spiritual activities, therefore I'm in agreement with Stephen Covey's ...."We are not human beings on a spiritual journey. We are spiritual beings on a human journey."
daniel hehir
Jan 15 2012: Nehemia,
- +1
I guess I am just as much amazed at the idea that you can possibly assume that your own thoughts are merely some sort of a chemical reaction in your brain, as you must be by my ignorance in assuming that my own thoughts could possibly have anything to do with something of a spiritual nature. We both my indeed look at each others perspectives on life and simply shake our heads thinking.. What a dimbo that guy is.
But to take the starting point in the phenomenon of "thinking itself" In the midst of the full complexity of our being with its diverse feelings, emotions, thoughts, ideas, imaginations etc etc.... yes everything we perceive around us and then put together in some form of "construct" in our own mind ...some more or less logical than others depending on how much it is based upon scientific principles. What we can agree on is the scientific principles that lead us to our logical conclusions. Even the most fanatical religious person bases his arguments on some form for logic, although not always consequent...and the method that science approaches the world with is well and good. However, by imposing the self limited restrictions on observations within the physical world keep science from probing deeper under the surface of what lies behind the material world.
Here is where I would like to propose a new perspective for you to consider. I know this won't go down easy. But just consider for a moment that your thinking is not some or another "emerging property" from some chemicals in your brain but rather the "spiritual activity" within your innermost being. To try to "prove" this idea becomes very interesting. The nature of thinking. Science itself rest its empire entirely on this activity of thinking. A considerably immaterial, uncertain, unsure tool that we hold to be the highest of our inner resources to find truth. Is it no more absurd to consider this activity as something "spiritual" then it is to say that it arises out of matter itself...
Jan 16 2012: If you receive a blow to the head, does your spiritual being disappear? No the chemical and biological processes stop functioning. If you are born blind, why does your spiritual being not see? Either your spiritual being is not connected to this "reality" without a properly functioning avatar or a spiritual being is just a construct of what we desire.
Pearly gates. Gold brick laid streets. Sounds like "Man" to me.Jan 15 2012: Wow I read this and thought, 'How male is that.' And then I smiled because all the respondents were male too:)
Reality itself is a metaphysical concept.
Epistemology is how we know and give meaning to the metaphysical.
Esthetics allows us to operationalize parts of the abstract.
Ethics allow us to determine rightness or wrongness.
In short. Reality bites so we need the rest.
Let me illustrate:
Particle physics thinks that we are made up of mostly empty space and waves of energy called strings. At this point, this is theoretical physics because we don't have the technology to prove it. (But understand that not too long ago, atoms were considered theoretical physics). Somehow, a bunch of strings fashioned themselves into a being called me.
Now if all I am is an elaborately fashioned bunch of molecules, why should it matter if people are starving? Who cares if a person is Marxist or racist or a murderer?
So some bomb falls in some foreign country. A bunch of people die. I can tell my neighbor, "Look! That release of energy has rearranged all those energy strings and molecules into different atoms and molecules!"
Be careful what you wish for. Reality devoid of epistemology, ethics, and esthetics, and all the varieties thereof, is not worth it.
Jan 15 2012: Linda, are you using the word "metaphysical" to mean of, or having the nature of, metaphysics (which is the branch of philosophy dealing with first principles and the nature of being and reality [ontology])? If yes, please explain how Epistemology, Esthetics, and Ethics are essential to understanding the nature of reality. It seems like you are saying I need to know math in order to spell correctly.
Jan 15 2012: Yes Mr. Long. You even used the words nature of reality as a definition for metaphysics.
Reality simply is. Mr. Moskovitz calls it 'dry, factual, scientific'
What reality means, is it beautiful, and is it good are innately human assignments to reality (epistemology, esthetics, ethics).
That is why my friend, when bad things happen we struggle to find meaning within the tragedy. No other creature on the planet does this. Religion and faith are only one vehicle to assist us on this journey. There are others. We are human and that's what humans do.
Jan 15 2012: I think reality can be understood ontologically without understanding Epistemology, Esthetics or Ethics. Experimental knowledge of the whole does not require complete understanding each contributing factor. I understand an open flame causes pain and injury if touched by a bare hand. I do not understand the necessary ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide necessary to support combustion. Thank you Ms.Taylor.Jan 16 2012: I actually agree with you Mr. Long. Mr. Moscovitz posited the premise and asked us to discuss wether or not the mind is a construct of chemistry and physics or is it something more. Those are just examples of something more.
In my business we view people as a whole. Understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
That major premise can be exemplified in may ways. Faith, philosophy, understanding, cosmology. Whatever. My job in caring for the whole is to be able to do it within the framework of the person under my care, not to impose my framework upon them.
Understand the implications of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It means that when you remove the parts, there is more. As Mr. Moscovitz continues his journey to the bottom, he may come to understand that. Or not. It's OK either way. It's his framework after all. And if he should come under my care, that is the framework I will work from. (Please understand Mr. Moscovitz, I would address this last part to you directly except that I cannot figure out how to do that within the construct of this discussion thread. It stops at three replies or something. My apologies if it appears I am talking about this without addressing you directly.)
Jan 16 2012: Thank you Linda for sharing some insight into your specialty which I now understand is dealing with people. I lack the discernment needed to effectively comprehand even the elements of human behaviour so I tend to avoid dealing with people. Please tell me I can continue without having to learn about Ethics and such. :--]Jan 16 2012: Mr. Long, It seems like you have it together. If you avoid dealing with people you have no need for ethics. Ethics to me is simply a language we use to describe our morals. If you have no need to describe your morals to anyone, there is no reason to study it. I am with you completely. If you don't need to know it, it is simply useless information.
I think perhaps Mr. Long, we are not all that different. The discernment of human behavior I have was acquired after much study and thought. It was not innate to me either. I just wanted that understanding and am in the process of conquering it.Jan 15 2012: Wow indeed, dear Linda, your femaleship! How amazing is it indeed that we males are so "male"... Honestly, your accute distinction is irrelevant in the highest possible order. Yet, your labeling did get me bolder, or "maler" if you will, and I will say that it would have been only fair to start this idea with a straight forward claim, one that is not trying to sound sophisticated, one that is purely expressive, in the most epistemologically fashion, one that was originally derived from watching the amazing Drew Berry's video and the beautiful animations of the unforseeable biology: THIS PROVES, AGAIN, THAT THERE IS NO GOD. I failed earler to connect this thread of thought to what I have observed, and felt, and theorized, and gave meaning to upon watching this video: no religious person will ever attempt to SHOW the unseeable aspects of the existence of god. Not only it is not there to begin with, but religions, more specifically, the monotheistic ones, in fact mostly forbid inquiry of the unknown. So in the spirit of your labeling me as a male for thinking in a certain way, I will do similarly, and bluntly label any attempt to make me a believer as "how ignorant is that?". Yet, I can only imagine how this debate would turn sour with hurt and blame, just as a result of choice of words... Additionally, as far as assigning meaning, and beauty, and heart and all of the other wonderful features that distinguish sentience from the instinctual, indeed we humans are very special and smart and all... Still at the bottom line, at the very basis, we are what you , Linda, failed to mention when you recalled the string theory, MATTER. Maybe this very basic matter is the evidence of god, but I seriously doubt that.
Jan 15 2012: It was not the thought that exuded masculinity, it was the delivery:). I truly meant no disrespect but simply found joy in the difference.
You set the parameters of the discussion. You asked us to discuss how the human mind could be more than molecules and processes without resorting to faith. I presented some facts to illustrate some possibilities.
So while most life functions under the processes of the illustrations, we are more than that.
It is somewhat disconcerting that you are so quick to dismiss the very real experience of so much of the population as the stuff of imagination? That is what happens when you resort to reductionist techniques to establish truth. It is not my job you prove to you there is a God. That my friend, is yours.
Jan 15 2012: Trust me, dear Linda, I rarely rejected compliments, and I will not start now. If you so spotted my delivery to exude masculinity, I guess my instincts are in good operational order... For that matter so are yours. Right?
As far as the proof of the existence of god - I like your comment at the end there - indeed it is my job within the confounds of my own being, and I have proven to me that god is but a fable. The more important proof, for me, is that being free of the constraints of this fable, is an important catalyst for improving what remains of my time down here on earth, and the lives of my descendants. You are a sensitive and sensible, Linda, that much is clear. It should be clear to you then, that I am NOT dismissing anything, let alone other people's experiences. I have got enough brain power left to marvel at our ability to theorize like we do, to raise above mere bodily functions, to see soulfulness and even divinity in our existence, and to hold dear and sacred the very concept of freedom in all its forms and expressions, including the freedom to worship an oppressor. It seems like you have been so quick to judge me as dismissive, because you were eager to establish that spirituality is so paramount to you. Hey, I agree. But I was talking about THE VERY VERY BOTTOM LINE. Whatever happens above that line is - so I contend - to OUR credit. Not god.
Be well, flourish, love and live. May you continue to find joy all around.
Jack Lass
Jan 15 2012: All true, but scarcely relevant to the reality of the growing anti-scientific culture of the beginning of this century. Look about you to those media that color the thinking and beliefs of the majority of your fellows. If you believe that the truth (and it is truth) of scientific knowledge can obviate the need for mystical belief in the hearts and minds of the greater public you are very much mistaken. Our modern societies of nation states are all based on belief...despite the fact that it is rational science that provides the foundation for our very existence. There is very obviously a desire (need) deeply rooted in our psyches that allows the disconnect between rational understanding and mystical belief. Once, I, too, hoped that as our knowledge of the nature and function of the universe became clearer and founded on observation and experimentation that the need for religion would disappear. Now I see that it is inherent in our selves.
- +1
The Soviet Union tried through rigid education in atheism to eliminate their people's need and desire for religion in exchange for a Marxist materialism and a (sometimes pseudo) scientific culture. Church attendance in Russia is huge, and spiritual healers are rampant.
The best result that can be hoped for is to proceed with science without halt or constraint and accept the fact that the consolations of faith are outside the purview of rational thinking.
Jan 15 2012: You sound well-informed Jack. Thanks for your thoughts.It is without animosity or contetiousness that I ask you this question: Will you show me proof in Logic that it is rational to accept Evolution and the Big Bang theories as truth. Second, will you do the same showing it is irrational to accept the theory that God created and maintains the Universe? Remember to stay on topic which does not allow resorting to Faith as an explanation.
Jack Lass
Jan 15 2012: Frankly Edward your asking sounds more like demanding to me. You are, I believe, intending this to be one of the endless and fruitless debates on the primacy of rationalism or religion.
- +2
First off, I am not a logician, nor do I think that Logic has anything to do with either worldview. I am, if you will, an empiricist first and foremost. I have seen evolution in action and I must believe what I have seen. I have neither seen nor heard of what you call god. It is certainly a construct of human desire, and it served very well to "explain" the universe for a very long part of human history. Science, on the other hand, is relatively a new construct yet as it has grown and advanced it has been able to explain much of how the universe works.
The difference in the two world views is this: Religion can brook no disagreement. It's pronouncements must (despite your caution) be taken on faith. Science, on the other hand requires a progression of human intellect from theory, to hypothesis, to observation to experimentation (or in some cases observation), to duplication of experiment or observation to publication. And the main difference between the two is this: Science can only explain on an "as far as we know now" basis. Despite the accusations of it's opponents, science cannot and does not demand adherence to a dogmatic belief. As a friend of mine says: "If you can't disprove it it ain't science."
It is this requirement of falsifiability that if find appealing. While I am no logician as I said, there is one tenet of logical debate I remember from my very, very, long ago college days. The weakest argument is the argument from authority. That, precisely, is the demand of religion. And, again, despite the arguments of its critics, science does not require belief and the primacy of any scientific authority can only rest on empirical proof and is always subject to change as new facts come along.
Jan 15 2012: A question has a way of sounding demanding, sorry about that. I know I have no right to demand anthing of you. I was grabbing a fleeting opportunity to learn about a perspective other than mine from someone more interested in sharing their understanding than in destroying mine. Once again, I misjudged. My apology for wasting your time.
edward long
Jan 14 2012: Convince a man against his will and he remains unconvinced still. So, if the test of proof is causing a change in what is believed, then no, I can't prove otherwise to you. Just as you cannot prove beliefs opposed to yours are false. However, I still reccommend you read Michael J. Behe's book DARWIN'S BLACK BOX. There is more to all this than "a construct of physical and chemical building blocks." Thanks for sharing your opinion Mr. Moscovitz.
- +1
Jan 14 2012: 'However, I still reccommend you read Michael J. Behe's book DARWIN'S BLACK BOX.'
Michael Behe along with every single theist who claims Biology supports theism has been refuted 500 times over, along with every argument (logical, philosophical or otherwise) from the theistic side.
Take this from a life-long atheist who has spent the majority of his life in literally dozens of debates with christians and muslims and spends years scrolling the internet (especially youtube) for theistic arguments to refute.. Not a single one I have ever encountered has stood the test of scrutiny and actual evidence and I have a long list of other atheists, scientists and professors who also do the same who will back me up on this.
Sorry to go into that rant, but trying to pass off 'Michael Behe' (the epitomy of easily refuted christian nonsense and not even close to the best of that senseless crowd, might I add) as any kind of legitimate response to actual evolution is insane, let alone trying to Bastardize the subject with unsubstantiated pseudo-intellectual metaphysical nonsense thats written by someone (Behe) with a clear lack of understanding of the facts he so widely argues against / attaches his notions onto.
Especially when the likes of Dr Ken Miller (A christian BUT with actual credentials) had outright and easily ground the likes of him (and his cronies such as Kent Hovind) into dust years ago with ease.
Theres a reason why Intelligent design has never even come remotely close to winning a court case against Evolution to be taught in schools nor has a single I.D paper ever passed peer review in all its years of claiming scientific validity; Ask yourself why that is.
Nothing against you Mr Edward Long, not at all, but you might want to take your scientific knowledge from accredited and peer reviewed work, as opposed to those who have neither but act as if they do.
Mainly because such people have a tendency to not have them for very good reasons; Usually because its nonsense
Jan 14 2012: Sorry for the confusion Xavier. I did not recommended the book to you but to Nehemia. Perhaps he will respond to your diatribe against my opinion, but I trust you will forgive me for not doing so. Again, sorry to waste your time.
Jan 14 2012: I'm fully aware of who the book was recommended to and therefore my point still stands.
The works of Michael Behe and those of a similar nature cannot or willnot present any area of their books for intellectual scrutiny, such as peer review. There is a simple reason for this.
As someone who studied Molecular Biology for several years formally and has known several of the writers of the likes of Talkorigins (a site devoted to debunking the likes of Behe's arguments) that not one such argument can stand against actual scrutiny within the field, hence why these individuals are simply laughed at by anyone who knows the subject and are limited to presenting their ideas (passed off as fact) to the public who are either unaware of how invalid the books actually are or have a pre-existing bias that anything is better than a reality which conflicts with their beliefs.
I have no issue with your beliefs or opinions, merely the fact that you made a recommendation of a book that is verifiably nonsense and therefore you were called on it.Jan 14 2012: Thanks mr Long. You are right, of course about CONVICTION. However, an important aspect of this debate is the fact that EVIDENCE is growing to support atheism and not the way around. In fact, theism is stagnant in faith, opposing ANY openness to discovery, diversity or change. While Theism sanctifies the past and promises a CERTAIN future as a consequence based on romantic view of morality - Science, despite of being seemingly subjected to the rules of physics and of universal nature, never closed itself to the possibility of discovering mistakes, paradoxes, and even conflict, embracing surprises, nurturing further inquiry and learning, welcoming change and diversity, always attempting to resolve and deduce, and always allowing for progress. I am not a scientist myself, but as a thinking being I realize that science and theism DO NOT MASH, and that atheism enhances understanding of reality. Consequently, I realize that theism does the opposite: it piles barriers to understanding reality, and provides powerful manipulative means to control. Theism and religion are social phenomenon which, when used diplomatically, provide power to those who know how to use it, like any well organized propaganda. Theism is not only inconsiderate of reality, it FIGHTS REALITY, it hinders the well being of humanity and nature itself.
HOWEVER, I, for one, will fight to protect the right of anyone to choose faith, religion, and to experience freedom, or submission. I will NEVER engage in missionary agenda, or consider attaching absolute values, or qualify a comparison between points of views. Do not mistake this with the right, or duty, to state opinions in an open debate. I choose atheism, and ultimately, I find this choice comforting and "good" for me. Consequently, I find attempts to prove me wrong in favor of religion irritating, insulting, and saddening.
Jan 14 2012: Your question was, "can anyone prove otherwise without resorting to faith." I try do do that and now you say the very thing you solicit in your question is "irritating, insulting and saddening" to you. Are you confused?
Jan 15 2012: Thanks again mr Long. I may have been wrong to not emphasize enough that I speak for myself. I respectfully wish to make this clear: my observations, opinions and anything I say are products of the unique configuration which is me. I am (trying my best to remain) aware of (what I perceive to be ) the fact that my perception may not reflect the reality which exists in your perception... That may be an entire separate opera worthy of another debate. That maybe the reason for ( the appearance) confusion. I have had a previous encounter with MJ Behe's attempt to illuminate the darkness of the Black Box, which I found EXTREMELY manipulative and missionary, specifically because it wears a mantle of logical and deductive appearance. This book is hardly a proof of anything, other than (what I perceive as) the fact that like every other missionary pitch the arguments are basically Teutonic endless circles which leave me feeling that i should feel inconsequential and worthy of blame. I respectfully state here, therefore, that your attempt to answer my question is A. Welcome with respect and gratitude - I do not consider this exchange to be an opening for you to convert me, as you clearly stated above when you mentioned convictions... B. successful - as you did say that you cannot prove that the human mind is anything more than a construct of chemical and physical building blocks. Regardless of your reasoning for stressing that there is more to all this than merely science, the fact remains that what you, so I think, believe to be the validity of the Intelligent Design, is based exclusively on faith. And in that respect your responses prove my point, at least for me. I thank you again, respect your opinions, enjoy your expressions, and still think that you are not aligned with reality.Jan 15 2012: In short, you are welcome to BELIEVE as you wish, what you KNOW is supported by evidence.Jan 15 2012: Please know, mr Long, that I am very grateful for the contribution you made to this little debate here. Your brave pickup of the challenge, spawned, as you see, a stir that others are engaged in. Mind you, despite the fact that I and others too, strongly disagree with your position, and oppose what you try to represent, you are duly and proudly expressing yourself as YOU WISH, democratically, if you will. That is because here, in THIS CHURCH, no one will forbid you from having and exercising YOUR FAITH. I wonder, and please take this as gracefully as you took other assertions here, if this openness exists in YOUR CHRCH (or synagogue, or mosque) ... Most likely, I dare to believe, that this is not the case, as in your Sunday sermon today (or prayer), the pastor (Or Rabbi or Imam...) and leader of the faithful flock of your congregation will repeat yet again from the pulpit, in so many words, that arguing with god is forbidden, futile, sinful, and...punishable. Please, mr Long, I do not wish to hurt you, or your faith. I do wish, very much, to protect myself from being hurt by your faith. I hereby admitted to how powerful your faith is. Not your god, not you, and not me... Faith should not be (mis)used to submit. Am I making sense? Thanks again!
Jan 15 2012: Sorry Nehemiah, you lost me at "church". I am not associated with, nor do I attend any church. Such has been my situation since 1988. Your response is thoughful and peaceable, thank you. It is however a bit of a straw man. Your original question disallows resorting to faith. I have not resorted to faith. I merely suggested a book which also does not resort to faith. If you disagree that there could possibly be an explanation other than the one you embrace regarding to the yet-to-be examined phenomena of our universe just say so, but please resist the urge to malign and ridicule such opinions and beliefs. If we can return to topic I welcome additional dialogue.Thank you Nehemiah. God be with you.Feb 1 2012: Hi Nehemia.
Let's forget the spiritual altogether. As you link to Mr. Berry's animations, you obviously find them as wonderful as I do. These are physical systems, nothing spiritual about them. Science is rooted in the reality we can test, & see around us. I have spent a large part of my life designing engineering solutions to problems. what we see in these animations are engineering solutions par excellence. They are astounding by our standards. They did not get there by the blind forces of nature. It is amazing that they survive the rigours of decay we are all susceptible to; this is only down to all the built in safety, & self maintenance, well beyond anything we could manufacture today.
So we fish around for an answer to where all this came from. There is nothing out there building & programming this sort of stuff today. There is no experiment we can do that would give us a clue. We are reduced to pulling things to bits & moving the bits around like children with a Lego set. Even if one day we crack it & produce life from a stone, what will we have proved ? "It takes intelligence to produce life." Spirituality (whatever that is) optional.
:-)Jan 29 2012: Daniel
Your comment is exactly why I need science s explanation. You move freely through words and because they make sense to you, you think your words are truth and fact. We all speak from the position of (I am right), even though I know that some of the things I believe are incorrect. At least admit that you may be incorrect about your beliefs.
""The plant has something different than the stone. It is alive. It grows.""
Dirt, essentially the building block of stones, has more microbial life in a shovel scoop than there are people on this planet. The stone, to me, is just like our own skeletal system. It provides a structure on which the more fleshy systems operate. Are you suggesting the skeletal system may not be alive? I hope not.
""Mankind is different than the stone, the plant and the animal. We have the material element. We have the life element. We have feelings as well. What we have over and above these first three things is self-consciousness and thinking.""
You have to get in back of the line of people trying to tell me what animal has "consciousness" or not. Really well trained scientists, in all fields, and the religions have been discussing "consciousness" for a very long time, and a conclusion is not drawn.
I think it is safe to say that humans have an ability to recognize patterns. If you are thinking of an elephant with polka dots, you are merely placing a pattern over an already existing form. It's called absurdity and it doesn't make that elephant or the idea real. We need this type of ability in order to survive in a constantly changing environment. (Evolution) Although I as well think that our ability to think and create is astonishing, I do not "guild the lily" by adding some unobservable outside force and then use empty arguments as proof.
(" it doesn't make that elephant or the idea real.") The electrical contacts, the chemical exchanges, even thought itself is very real and can be used in some way, but not the polka dotted elephant.
Jan 30 2012: Stephen,
Observation and thinking are the simple tool to gain knowledge. I am all for the scientific method. .. never said otherwise.
Agree on the fact that dirt is full of bacteria. A stone however is still not alive. The mineral element is lifeless. Bacteria of course is alive but they are not the mineral either. They are also sharing the living, reproducing, growing forces that make them different than the mineral. As plant, as animal, as mankind also is. Bones are also "alive" of course. But they do heal far more slowly than skin for example. Nerves are also slower to heal which might suggest that nerves are less "alive" than blood or muscle tissue. Its a question of degrees. As a child heals faster than an old person. There is a strong "living activity" going on.
If anyone tries to tell you that consciousness does not exist, then ask them how thinking exists. You cannot deny your own thinking activity. That would be a fatal contradiction. We think... and our consciousness is the stage where we think. It is also the stage where our feelings arise. Feelings that we can analyze with our.... once again... thinking !! ... although you may not be very "conscious" of it.
As for the patterns of already existing forms. Of course we build our thoughts upon existing patterns... all the time. But there must also be new ideas that come into being.. otherwise there would be no development in the world, things would be extremely simple. Observations taken up in our thinking activity makes new inventions, new theories to work out, new areas of exploration.Of course, the fact that I can put two or more already existing concepts together doesn't make the idea "real" I never claimed that either. But through the nature of our thinking we are ...taking part... in a creative process in the world.Jan 25 2012: When you ask the question, IS THERE GOD? I ask you, what do you mean by GOD.
There is a distiction and a seperation of two things, that are part of a whole, made by most when looking for an answer to a very big question.The physical and the spiritual.
Some have taken it further and called them religion and science. Science studies the physical and does it very well.. Religion is supposed to study spirtualism but so far as I am concerned, is doing a poor job of it. I think religion is, or has been made into by mans greed,a farce and fundementally evil. How can someone try to sell me their GOD , (who is BTW not for sale), in order to better his own cause for whatever reason?
The combination of spiritual and physical is LIFE. Life is not one without the other. The harmonious entwinement of the physical matter that our bodies are made of and the spark of light within us that is spirit, is the most dramatic and wonderful thing in the universe. Kinda like a car that without gasoline, will not drive or a machine without electricity will not function, our bodies would not be without the addition and complete intermingling of a spiritual force.
How could a book be so useful and powerful a thing that it is, if it were just pages of paper, without a written language written on those pages?
There is no way that the thoughts and feelings I experience in this life of mine, are the product of a piece of meat with blood rushing through it, alone.
My artwork and other things I create are testament to my being. What you see or feel when you behold that work is testament to our spirit. Without the universe we would not exist. Without us to behold it, the tapestry of celestial wonder we see when we gaze heavenward, would not exist. Embrace it. Feel it. There is always more to everything than meets the eye. If something is real, it is because you are witnessing it as being so.
It is great to be alive.Jan 24 2012: Thanks to all of you who participate in this exploration. Your ideas and expressions are apparent evidence that we all possess something that is greater than the sum of our physical existence. Sentience, in my opinion, is charachterized primarily by its inate "ability" to constantly surpass its own pereceived limits, to invent impossibilities, to formulate hope, to expect surprises, to dare beyond reason, to re-configure experiences into motivation, to interpret our instincts, to intrapolate and extrapolate, to progress CREATIVELY... (mind you, there are many more attributes to sentience, again: in my humble opinion, which are far less "gloriously positive" and may be labeled as "negative" such as the innate drive to possess power and control, to judge, to experience or inflict shame and guilt... to name a few.) However, this, for me, is far from becoming any proof that either 1. My sentient being (MIND) will continue to exist once my BRAIN dies. 2. That there is god, (and for that matter, that those who believe so religiously, know something that is truer and more valid...)
In fact, I am more convinced now that it would be a lot more beneficial, to say the least, to adopt the idea that if humanity is destined, wired, channelled to preceive divinity, why not than assume and apply that god is the sum of our sentience, therefore making each of us EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Indeed, a novel concept, which many may suggest is already built into existing religions. However, we, the individual entities of this sentient hive, are still plagued with ungodly imperfections. We are driven to pursue dominance, to warfare, greedy to possess that which we cannot: EXCEED our MATTER, our physical being, defy the enthropy of our bodies, live after death... or in short: become perfect gods, conquer a perfect Olympus, and have fun forever.
Not gonna happen. Nah!
We should accept our transient existence, and make the best of it. For the sake or our descendants!
Jan 24 2012: Yes I think I can :
- 0
-your reason is : the mind is a physical building blocks and how the faith and the ceremony is a construction of mind , you conclude : the root of this all is the physical not the spiritual.
First : -I don't think your reason is correct because how the mind construct 'ideas' , you should get a logical relation between the physical and the spiritual , it meaning to answer to this question : how from physical appears the spiritual ?
Second:- the faith (if you talk about the process of believing) is not the construction of mind in the sense of being the invention of it , it's more likely to be a feature of the mind like is the reason .
- if by faith you mean a message , a sum of ideas you have to answer at my first on one hand ; on the other I can simply ask you : how do you know that the physical (therefore your mind) exist outside of the content of an idea ? because you think the physical therefore it is an idea .Jan 22 2012: Mr. Md Santos,
this is intriguing, to say the least. I am going to study what you wrote, but I wanted to let you know that I am grateful for your contribution to my experience. You will hear from me soon enough.
Md Santo
Jan 22 2012: THE NATURE KNOWLEDGE MOST LIKELY IS THE CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS
- 0
Derived from our Human System Biology-based Knowledge Management (HSBKM) model framework, consciousness in broad meaning is the attribute of Knowledge which is priorly given broad meaning also. Knowledge itself as confirmed with its semantic, is the product of "knowing tools".
.....Human Knowledge consist of 3 knowing tools. The first is Human Senses (Peripheral Nerves System incl. Autonomic Nerve System) as Primary Human Knowing Tools producing "Knowledge with Lower Consciousness" (KLC) representing human sense-taste-feeling-feel-flavor-sensation (= human senses). The second is Human Brain (Central Nerves System) as Secondary Human Knowing Tools producing "Knowledge with Medium Consciousness" (KMC) representing human reason-mind-intellect-intelligence-way-idea (= human mind). The third is Human Genomic DNA (DNA Consciousness) as Tertiary Human Knowing Tools producing "Knowledge with Higher Consciousness" (KHC) representing human will – desire – wish (= human conscience)...
Further, human Knowledge is the integral part of broad Nature Knowledge. Knowledge, either Human or Nature Knowledge by nature is dynamic entity continuum characterized as having consciousness element factor (CEF) structure.... http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR
We developed Knowledge Value (KV) measurement as KM metrics applied to Nature Knowledge continuum which is representing the Nature Consciousness as an absolute value scaling ratio ranging from 10 -38 (Planck number) applied to Knowon, our new proposed 5th fundamental force and consecutively KV = 5.0 applied to human Knowledge with Higher Consciousness (KHC) or accumulated to KV = 9.0 as human maximum possible score en route to infinity or goes beyond human KV. Therefore, KV is mean to assessing hypothetically the intensity of Nature Knowledge consciousness element factor within Knowledge continuum in the Universe.... http://t.co/7qHeHdJe
Jan 24 2012: Dear Md Santos, what you suggest here, and in your apparently relatively vast resarch as is evident in the links you provided is intriguing indeed. I must admit that currently, I do not feel that I am adequately equipped to grasp all the intricacies of your arguments and your presentation, yet I will try harder. I would like to applaud the fact that FAITH does not seem to be a factor in the theory you laid out. That is so refreshing.
So... tell me bluntly: IS THERE GOD?Jan 22 2012: Hullo Stephen
Consciousness is not in the brain, rather, I think the brain is in consciousness.
An example: a fish is in water, never aware that it is in a wet environment as we see it. We can be aware of being aware, and we call that conscious awareness, but we are under the impression that consciousness is in the brain because we think of consciousness as mental.
Jan 25 2012: This is actually an absurd argument.
'': a fish is in water, never aware that it is in a wet environment as we see it.''
You are actually telling me what a fish perceives and then basing your understanding on that fact. Your evidence is lacking reality.Feb 1 2012: Hi Patrick:
Break the brain and "consciousness" goes away, now break "consciousness".
FYI there are experiments with apes showing that they self conscious.Jan 20 2012: The bottom line is in consciousness, in non dimensional reality, not in the body, psychology, or science. We live in consciousness, consciousness is not in the brain. We are each a unit of awareness, called to awaken to Spiritual Reality/Existential Reality
Jan 22 2012: Why then after a blow to the head do you loose consciousness? (still alive, no consciousness)
Consciousness cannot see, otherwise blindness would not be an issue. My body s sensory system has to be fully engaged in order for my consciousness to even participate. I believe consciousness is just the brain.Jan 20 2012: Hey Stephen, about the last comment, I just get worked up easily about my crazy ideas. Anyway, you asked what the creativity is like, and personally, I really appreciate the compositional kind of thinking. I spend a lot of time really depressed before creating anyything cause my ideas just arent in harmony. Once things start clicking, start moving, the inspiration comes; you know, I have my certain style and shapes, palette I stick to, and the images are what I appreciate from the past. The shapes and general style as well; I recognize it as just this language I have created over time, and I put it into practice when I paint, and that's sort of how I think about painting as a mechanism in my head: it's writing my own personal language through color and representing the ideas the language needs to encounter; and its the same for all artists in my opinion. I've always been interested in foreign languages, so when I create, or need to take a class I'm not used to like math, I just think about it as speaking a foreign language. I guess my reflection on that, makes me think I might not fully understand it as I speak it, just as people don't really understand what they are truly saying, wherever there is or isnt intention in the syntax. The actual painting process is very physical though; I use pretty big canvases and jump around to banging music when I paint, painting half the time, but exposing the whole place to the energy; and that stirring of energy that happens in front of the canvas when I dance around or whatever while I paint, is a big part of it.
Jan 20 2012: Interesting
""I have my certain style and shapes, palette I stick to, and the images are what I appreciate from the past. The shapes and general style as well; I recognize it as just this language I have created over time,""
So I'm picking up some Eric Clapton songs and I'm just beginning to be aware of the fact that he uses the same chords or chord shapes in a majority of his songs, just as Carlos Santana dances around the same mode in different keys( I hope thats right. When they play, they are regurgitating sounds that they have appreciated from their past. When I play, it comes out as something I like to hear and it sounds a lot like them.
Guitar and I suppose all forms of creativity is a language complete with accents and punctuation. That's why we recognize these artists when we hear them before we are sure it is them.
I'm just babbling at this point but to me this observation has meaning on a larger scale about how the brain works and thus how we work.
Thank you for sharing. It's as if I were talking to the man behind the curtain, when I talk to someone about the mechanics of their creativity.Jan 17 2012: Nehemia, I would like to point you to my response to Stephen a little further down the comment line. I just wonder how you would explain the example I presented with the parachute jumper. If what your saying is true, that the physical matter is the "bottom line" as you say, what then is the difference between the different jumpers in the example. Is it not the actual consciousness within the mind of the jumper that determines the adrenaline flow ...or ... is the nervous fear and excitement in the adrenaline itself....?
Now just what consciousness has to do with "spirit" we can come back to. But your thinking... on the stage of your consciousness is something that science has been struggling with for years and is still miles and miles away from an answer to this question. What is consciousness? What is thinking? Could these have anything to do with what we call "Spiritual"Jan 17 2012: This video caught my interest because of a project last semester where I was contemplating on my paintings with thoughts of biological structures, and how they fit so geometrically: it is this geometric harmony that artists want their paintings to assume.
It is understood that 'typically perceived' artists want their work to have value, and so they HOPE at first, and finally CALCULATE their path towards the success. (What's the first step of a problem? GUESS→FAITH.) I think the most important way for this to happen is for all disciplines in the education system to have more open pathways between one another. One pathway that I noticed was what I stated before; that paintings, in particular, want to have some natural harmony which not only involves the shapes of color, but which extend outside the painting into our minds. I don't necessarily have faith that any work I create will inspire, but I keep it in mind. What I do firmly believe in, which is all generated through physical processes of the mind, is that my intuitive reflective process of painting will one day reflect something in the microscope. I constantly fantasize that one day a scientist will look into a microscope and not be reminded of a painting, but look into the microscope because a painting minded him to. Maybe one day it won't be ridiculous to consider abstract paintings as intuitively created diagrams of process that already exist, instead of disregarded as aesthetic nonsense.
'Visual art', where faith and intuition are bound by a fine line. As a proponent, I should reject the idea of a cycle where faith is omitted before any other product of the mind. If the mind is of physical matter, then it's products should be as well. But it is really the physical matter that is of the mind The next step in my contemplation, although characters running short, is to consider reforming our language to dismantle the negative context of having faith rather than debunking an ancient, atmospheric emotion
Jan 17 2012: Could it be said that the ability to paint is the ability to recognize visual patterns of information like a musician recognizes tonal patterns? What is your observation as a painter? As a musician, I'm not sure what is going on while I am finger picking but its cool to hear what is produced.
This makes Art seem mechanistic but what this mind/body mechanism can do is nothing short of amazing.
Jan 19 2012: The way art and perception happens is the same across all forms of perception and senses. Let me say that my comment is more directed to what faith is, and what faith is in art. It is not about what my experience is as a painter, it is that painting for me is the creation of the new. It is my translation of my consciousness into the world, and god, or the non local consciousness, is most importantly what will be invited into my situation.
Again to the OP, faith is eternal, because it is a product of the mind, it is a product of the consciousness which goes beyond physical barriers. There IS existence beyond physicality, and not all science is based in material, as you have been taught; it is just simply not true. When there is only a recognition of physical material, there are infinite paradoxes that will occur, and you can doubt me, but there is a realm of the mind, the universal consciousness, the mind that is not of the brain but of the universe, which encapsulates all physical matter. You only recognize the physical mater because your mind lets you, because consciousness provides that opportunity, that chance, that possibility.
Jan 19 2012: Hi Henry
Yes well I was originally asking you about your observations as a painter but then you went on to tell me about how I perceive creativity. O.K.
You make way to many claims about what IS to be correct about anything. The people at the leading edge of science or religion are having a difficult time with this question but you have the answer. MIT is looking for you dude.Jan 16 2012: By the way Stephen, To say that a thought can arise out of matter is also a construct. Have you or anyone else ever seen a thought coming out of anything material? ... could be pretty hard to "prove" that one...
Jan 17 2012: Yes I'm not the guy but there is evidence to suggest that your nervousness and sweating are due to chemicals trying to prepare you for mating when you are around the opposite sex, during adolescence. Notice that after your peak reproductive period, males no longer have the same drive nor (limb here) are we being bombarded with those same chemicals.
We tend to look back at those awkward moments and label them as love. I think and we all prefer the fantasy over this scientific approach. (unless your mind is blown by the current scientific ideas like mine).
Jan 17 2012: Hello again Stephen,
Sure there are a lot of chemical, hormones etc. etc within us. The chemicals are all "triggered" by a thought or an emotion or feeling. We can't say that I am excited when falling in a parachute "because" of the adrenaline that flows through my system. The adrenaline arises from the fact that my entire sense apparatus is saying to me...Hey man, this is crazy!! What the h*** am I doing here!! I'm falling at 200 kph.. am I nuts or something!?? The chemicals are in a sense the "carriers" of the emotion. The chemicals allow the manifestation of the emotion to take place and arise on the stage of your consciousness. Your thinking is saying... Hey, get me down from here! ... and at the same time saying ... man, what a rush! A person who does not experience the excitement of the jump will truly not have much adrenaline in his blood either. A well trained jumper or a blind person or blindfolded person or perhaps a baby. But the "conscious" experience of the jump is the initiator or the chemicals. The consciousness of the fear and excitement must come before the chemicals and not afterwards... and what is adrenalin then without a nervous system and the blood to incorporate it. The emotion of the excitement or fear is just as "real" as the substance is it not...??
Jan 17 2012: Hi Daniel
I do enjoy a spirited journey into metaphysical questions but when science makes claims about anything, they support those claims with something they would call evidence.
""Sure there are a lot of chemical, hormones etc. etc within us. The chemicals are all "triggered" by a thought or an emotion or feeling""
This claim is very debatable between leading scientists in the field. I don't think anyone of them has a conclusion about where thoughts come from.
It is not often that Neanderthal man parachuted, but he did fall and when he fell, awareness of his predicament overcame him in the form of adrenalin. This adrenaline gave the Neanderthal an extra chance at survival.
When in the fight or flight mode, we become hyper sensitive to what is happening around us. Also a benefit to help us survive.
If you are camping and are attacked by a bear, this fight or flight response puts you into action before you have a complete understanding of what is going on.
If you have to wait for your logical mind to come up with the correct course of action in a time like this, you are bear food.
These hormones and chemicals (that are operating before our logical minds) are what has kept us alive for the 4.49999 billion years before man ever farted.
yes both the fear and the chemicals are real, we just don't know what to make of that information yet.
Reading your comment to Nehemia, It seems like the question "If a tree falls in the woods and none was there to hear it......"Jan 29 2012: As I look back on your question, I see the obvious was overlooked. We are made of nothing more than material so yes I see ideas coming from material all the time.
daniel hehir
Jan 29 2012: Stephen,
- +1
The stone is material.
The plant has something different than the stone. It is alive. It grows.
The animal is different than the plant and the stone. The animal has feelings and desires. It breathes. It has consciousness.
Mankind is different than the stone, the plant and the animal. We have the material element. We have the life element. We have feelings as well. What we have over and above these first three things is self-consciousness and thinking.
One has to differentiate more specifically all the phenomena in the world. Visible and invisible.
An idea cannot arise out of a stone. That which is alive... as the plant is... still does not have the ability to think and come up with new ideas. Animals, to some degree, have a primitive form for thinking but is on a very low more instinctive level compared with the human being.
One might argue that the idea has arisen from the material world and "up" but I see it as the idea working from the "above" down. The world of ideas is not dependent upon the material for it's existence. Think closely about this. Ideas are free from the world of the sense. You, in your own mind can create new ideas that absolutely no one has ever, ever seen before. Things that have nothing to do with what we call "reality" around us. Have you ever seen a pink polka doted elephant? ...no... but you can imagine one... and people are coming up with totally new ideas all the time. By interacting your concepts of pink / polka doted / elephant... you "create" a new concept that has no physical representation in the material world... So your thinking is free... amazingly....incredibly .... astonishingly .. FREE
Comment deleted
Feb 1 2012: Thanks for the thumbs up Adriaan,
Here is an interesting link for you. By the way, there has started an interesting discussion on NDE's just now. Check it out.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.htmlFeb 4 2012: Adriaan
God? Spirits? I do not claim to know. The only one telling me about God is man and I absolutely do not trust a word that a man can say about a place he has never ever been.
"Swedenborg had an argument one time with a man in the world of spirits."
Really? Just because you want it to be true, does not make it so.Jan 16 2012: Hi Stephen,
I can present two simple ways of looking at it. These may be simple but they get an idea across.
Assume you have a TV set that's not working. There can be something wrong with the tubes in the TV... but there can be something wrong with the TV antenna too. The signal itself is of course not coming from either the antenna or the TV tubes, condensers, etc. etc. within the apparatus. But the signal is "out there" all the time ... What Nehemia is telling me is that the signal is of course coming from the tubes and condensers within the TV itself. .... Where else could they come from....?? For me to come here and say that there is actually an invisible signal coming through the air that is picked up by his antenna is in his mind preposterous... We are not too technically advanced and still somewhat primitive and therefore have no way of "proving it" one way or the other.... so our discussion leads to argument .. then violence perhaps.. somebody bleeds and all that messy stuff. He has made up his mind and I can not give any evidence as to proof of these so called invisible radio signals..
Someday maybe we will be out walking in the nearby hills and discover a sender... who knows...
example 2. As you came up with the blind person.
Suppose you were born colorblind. You can only see shades of grey and black and white. We meet and I say to you "What lovely red roses there." You respond by saying "Red" .. "I see no red roses." They are grey just like the rest of things." Your physical body has no way of letting you in on my experience of the color red. Later on that month you go to the doctor and he operates on your eyes so you too can see the color red. Your first reaction is of course disagreement. Your experience is limited by your physical body's malfunction. It doesn't have to mean that your spiritual aspects of your being are not in place, it simply means that they cannot get through to share the experience of the perception red.
Jan 17 2012: Hi Daniel
No I totally agree that either the signal is coming from within or without(?is that right) from outside. That is, after all the question.
We could totally be brains in a vat controlled by a mad scientist or an all knowing, all loving being or
It seems that with the infinite amount of possibilities that could be the truth, making a specific claim about reality is pure speculation. Science IS, knowledge obtained by empirical study(which most probably will be found to be insufficient in the near future) so it's pretty much in the same boat as all other ideas. I prefer the scientific method (signal coming from inside) rather than from some outside force though.
If we believe in some greater being that controls or manipulates our destiny, it removes our core responsibilities to one another. With the greater being idea, we just have to hunker down and wait it out to reach the other side. (where the grass is always greener) where God will save us
Colorblindness, I would impose a guess, only effects the shades of the colors but not the aesthetic beauty or the symbolism of the rose.
""It doesn't have to mean that your spiritual aspects of your being are not in place,""
No it does not but along with the spiritual aspects revelations comes a lot of superstition and it seems to be difficult to tell them apart from what is considered to be "truth".
The truth is haha, if we had a book that actually contained "truths", we would not agree that they were. So in the end we really would not know.
I'm not even sure it's a worthy question because of that belief yet I am drawn here still. That may be an interesting observation.Jan 16 2012: The mind is a construct of human language. In our language there isn't such a word.
To translate we have to look to the context to see whether we have to resort to either spirit, ghost or common sense.
Most people in the world have to re-adjust their way of thinking if they learn the English language.
Mental work is memory based on lived experiences and isn't unique to our species but to all living organisms.
It's obvious that brains aren't necessary to do the job as most species lack most of it and live a happy life.
The whole body is an acting/reacting unity within the environment that sustains it, with to humanity the main difference that by discriminating events and impressions and by labeling and archiving it in our construct of our world we have created time and order. By this feat we can anticipate events and delay and evaluate our reactions on any actuality.
By this we have become independent of nature and replaced it by culture, and then created civilization to join power and knowledge.
Faith and hope were and are important features to trust our fellow man by our common contribution to the group of humanity where truth and peace can make the human community flourish as a living space to express our love. Unfortunately however with time also fear came into play as love diminished. To control fear without love or trust you need to look for control and then for power to secure this position.
Our soul being our natural design and our mind being our instigator of fear are conflicting, creating an unhealthy climate for both the body and our world. It is language that divides us and it's language that can unite by restoring love.
Jan 17 2012: Mr. Kellner, I really like what this post brings to the conversation and I am challenged to understand how language contributes to our understanding of the abstract. I know when I am using one language over another for an extended period of time, I have to switch how i think. This is a bigger task that just switching language. There is a little bit of lag time where both will overlap and I will struggle to find the right word in the appropriate language. But I never looked at how do i understand the abstract in detail. I fully intent to be more observant of this. Thank you.Jan 18 2012: The mind is a construct of human language. In our language there isn't such a word.
Which word are you talking about here? Please forgive my ignorance. What language do you speak from the Netherlands? (I could have looked it up, but I decided to learn this information from you and be upfront about my ignorance)
I grew up in Florida, near Miami, and in High School a friend explained how he knew he had mastered the English language when he started dreaming in that language.
And do you have a word for the Soul or spirit or fire within?
These are straight questions. No judgements
Jan 19 2012: Mind is a word in English that comprises a lot of things and has no equivalent in our language.
To translate "mind" into Dutch it can mean all sorts of things like: brains, head, thoughts, mentality, spirit, ghost, common sense, etc. which in turn are each somewhat shifted to the English counterpart.
So in English the idea exists that the mind is something real but it's a word like tool, it can mean anything.
Spirit, soul and inner fire are words with reference to multiple ideas that are not always used in the same manner. Spirit we do translate standard as ghost though we sometimes use spiritus for alcoholic substances, soul is the same here but in German language it is often used as "goal". Inner fire would become passion or enthusiasm.Jan 16 2012: It is my thought that we have created a provinciat deity to rail for or against. This is a difficulty we seem to have with our ego.Jan 15 2012: you just don't get it do you.
What the bleep.
Divine design.
Enjoy your Ted points.


text:
Buzz Bellmont: The Critic's Critic
Unplugged critiques of the arts, life, love and the pursuit of truth
Posts filtered on Tag
TUTS' La Cage aux Folles is Extraordinarily Touching Revival
The current touring Broadway revival of Jerry Herman's La Cage aux Folles that Theatre Under the Stars is hosting is the best ever production of La Cage. In 1983, when the original La Cage aux Folles opened on Broadway, we had just entered one of the darkest and deadliest times of our lives. AIDS suddenly […] [Read More]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Painted Reflectors (REF)
Product Benefits
- Keep a clean look with our painted reflectors.
- Easy to install with perfect fitment
- High quality OEM like finish
Now Starting At Only:
$ 65
- GreatCustomer Service
- FreeShipping Eligible
- BasicInstallation
Satisfaction Guaranteed!
Step 1 of 2:
This product is only available for select BMW models. Please choose your model from the list below. If your model is not listed, please accept our apologies, but this item is not available for your vehicle.
Painted Reflectors
Keep a clean look with our painted reflectors. Banish the amber and get a uniform front end.
Features and Benefits Of This Product
Dramatically change the look of your car's front end with our BMW painted reflectors. Don't let the ugly amber reflectors ruin the look of your BMW, get the European no reflector look with these painted reflectors. Painted reflectors are one of the first mods enthusiasts add to their cars. It is easy and subtle but really adds a uniform and sporty look. These reflectors are a no brainer, they make any BMW look better.
Our reflectors are the exact same size and shape of your original reflectors, but come in painted, clear, and smoked variations to better suit your individual taste. The perfect size means installation is a breeze, no fiddling with fitment.
Our reflectors are painted by a CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL REFINISHER, so that you get the best finish possible. Don't worry, the painted versions easily pass the eye test and look stock from close up.
No more orange. No more red. Just a more harmonious and cleaner look.
Installation Notes
You will be required to pull out your original reflectors in order to install our painted versions, and NO bumper removal is required. No glue of any kind is required to install these reflectors, all models either simply snap into place (held in by springs) or simply adhere into place with included preapplied industrial strength adhesive tape (just like the originals). Both models fit into the same holes as your original reflectors and full instructions are available online and on the box.
No permanent modifications are required to your vehicle in order to properly install this product, and your original reflectors can be reused to replace the painted versions at any time.
Installation Difficulty: BASIC - Simple Tools, No Special Knowledge Required
Warranty + Satisfaction Guarantee
Order with confidence! If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may return it for exchange or refund. This product carries a 1 year manufacturers warranty. See our terms of sale for full details.
This Product Fits
E46 - BMW 3 Series Coupe, Sedan, Convertible and M3 - 1999-2006, E90/E91 - BMW 3 Series Sedan and M3 - 2006-2012, E92/E93 - BMW 3 Series Coupe and M3 - 2007-2013, , F06 - BMW 6 Series GranCoupe GC - 2013 and up, F10 - BMW 5 Series Sedan and M5- 2010 and up, F30/F31/F34/F80 - BMW 3 Series Sedan and M3 - 2012 and up, F13/F12 - BMW 6 Series Coupe / Convertible and M6 - 2011 and up,
Notes / Warnings
Please check your local laws for ensure legality when using this product on public roads and highways. In areas where this product is not legal for road use it is sold strictly for off-road, track or show use only.
These Body Colored Reflectors no longer act as a reflector once painted. No orange or red will be visible when installed. By replacing your reflectors with our body-colored version you are removing all reflective qualities from the area that this product is being installed.
Please check your local laws for ensure legality when using this product on public roads and highways. In areas where this product is not legal for road use it is sold strictly for off-road, track or show use only.
Miguel from North Las Vegas, Nevada says:
love it
Brian from Kansas City, Missouri says:
Great accessories,makes our BMW always looking new again.
Spencer from Birmingham, Alabama says:
AMAZING! Superb quality and perfect fit. I thought it was going to be the opposite, poor quality and not a right fit. Stealth Auto eliminated all my doubt and made me a happy customer. Thank You
Installation Difficulty
BASIC - Simple Tools, No Special Knowledge Required


text:
Arcata Ottoman
Item#: 202110
custom made, allow 8-10 weeks, ships Premier Home Delivery, custom items may not be returned
Product Actions
We offer many finishes and hundreds of beautiful fabrics to help you express your personal style.
The Details
Arcata Ottoman
Dimensions: 33" w x 16" h x 23" d
Item#: 202110
The Arcata ottoman is glamorous, tailored, and modern. Sometimes more is more, so we scaled it generously, and designed it on clean-lined feet and rails.
Composition and Construction
Engineered Hardwood frame construction allows for greater durability and strength. Mortise and tenon joints have replaced traditional dowel construction used in frame construction. The mortise (hole or slot) is cut into one member and the tenon or tongue from the adjoining piece fits tightly so that, when glued, these joints act as if the wood has grown together. This method of interlocking joinery provides greater stability with fewer joints. Frames are constructed of 7-ply engineered hardwood panels for increased strength and durability. Frames are glued and stapled.
Heavy gauge wire provides comfortable seating, equal weight distribution and durable seating performance. Tempered wire provides memory so that springs maintain their shape. Strong attachment keeps the springs in place and a protective coating prevents seating noises.
The semi attached seat is constructed of a polyurethane foam and polyester fiber for a clean, tailored appearance and firm seating.
Additional Options for this Upholstery product available in our Design Centers
Cushion Fill
From full support to featherblend and everything in between - we offer a diverse selection of cushion fill options to ensure you always have the best seat in the house.
Nail Head
Modern. Luxe. Forever chic. Nail head trim instantly adds panache to a variety of frame options. A graphic way to truly "frame" a frame.
A variety of wood finishes are available to complement any fabric or leather application you choose.


text:
|Women's Track & Field » News » Schedule » Roster » Coaches » Performance List
Johnson named A-Sun AOTW after setting new school mark in the 200
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
MACON, Ga. (Feb. 27, 2008) - Junior sprinter Judy Johnson (Knoxville) prepped for her first-ever Atlantic Sun Indoor Track and Field Championship meet by setting a school record in the 200-meter dash at the Virginia Tech Challenge. On Wednesday, the conference office announced that she had won her first female Athlete of the Week award, the final award of the season.
Johnson, a junior psychology major from
The Atlantic Sun Conference is a 12-member league committed to Building Winners for Life, with a focus on academic and athletic integrity and a balance between the two for the student-athlete, and maintaining a high level of sportsmanship. Headquartered in
For more information on Buccaneer track and field, visit www.ETSUBucs.com.
Women's Track & Field Archives
2007-08 Women's Track & Field


text:
Connect with Us
Podcasts & RSS Feeds
|All Content
|View all podcasts & RSS feeds
Now Playing
Now Playing
Most Active Stories
- Controversy Over Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge Continues
- Deep Water Shipwreck Discovered Off North Carolina Coast
- The Front Bottoms, 'Laugh Till I Cry'
- Clinton Won't Go As Far As Rivals On Minimum Wage Or Rule Out Oil Pipelines
- Updated Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook Predicts Below Normal Season
The Two-Way
1:35 pm
Tue January 22, 2013
White House 'Welcomes' House Vote On Extending Debt Limit
President Obama "welcomes" the plan by House Republicans to vote Wednesday on a three-month extension of the nation's borrowing limit, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters today, and "would not stand in the way of the bill becoming law." (The Hill)
NPR's Scott Horsley tells us that Carney also said that "House Republicans made a decision to back away from a kind of brinksmanship that was very concerning to the markets, very concerning to business, very concerning to the American people." The White House views that as a sign of progress, Carney said.
As we wrote Friday, "in a move that could head off another bruising battle over increasing the nation's debt ceiling," the GOP leadership is looking to give the Treasury the OK to borrow for another three months — in the hope that will be more than enough time for the Senate to pass a budget that includes cuts in spending. The federal government is expected to hit its borrowing limit in mid-February.
If either chamber of Congress doesn't pass such a budget by April 15, "pay for members of the chamber that doesn't act will be withheld and placed in an escrow account," Bloomberg News adds.


text:
Denon Speaker System SC-N7
Compact speakers, but not compact sound.
Lots of power in a small space.
The perfect match to the RCD-N7 Wi-Fi Streaming Network AM/FM/CD Player, the SC-N7 Speaker System is both stylish and compact, and features a distinctive, grille-less design that combines great aesthetics along with the highest audio clarity possible.
Dimensions: 9.29"L x 5.71"W x 9.17"H
Weight: 5.07 lbs.
Denon Speaker System SC-N7
Denon Speaker System SC-N7
Our innovative products will provide you and your family with years of enjoyment. And with the Brookstone Protection Plus service and replacement plans, you'll have the added peace of mind knowing that if the unexpected does happen, we will simply repair or replace your covered product. Our enhanced coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty, saving you time and money.
You May Also Like
Shopping Cart


text:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!
May God Bless you & have A Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you and your family!!!
if dems only could interpret the facts look at this websitehttp://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htmnotice 2 dates July 4th 2008 and Jan 16th 2009and note George W announced we would allow more drilling on July 14th. We never got one drop of oil from those contracts. Just the fear from the middle east lowered our price to be more costly to drill our own...like a drug addict and dealer relationship. Yet the price went down ......speculators had no role if they did they lost their shirts. but with our current president who says no to our own...they have us right where they want us.
Happy New Year and a prosperous 2012 to you and your family! Thanks GasBuddy for being here each day! Keep going like a Dayton PRO GasBuddy in 2012!
A BIG CONGRATS on reaching 1.25M and your nice new red motorcycle! More than 90% of the new GBs won't even make it to 1M, but you have done great! Keep going another million or more! Many of the GBs ahead of you have already retired so there is lots of room at the top! Don't give up now, like so many of the GBs that reached 1M and 2M, then retired! Keep going like a Dayton PRO GasBuddy! Have a nice week! Happy New Year 2012 to you and your family! Thanks buddy!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. From my family to yours.
Wishing all my Gas Buddies a great Thanksgiving and Holiday Season. With putting the toys away for the winter and turning 66 this year it is a good time to check in with my gas buddies. Hoping this finds you and yours happy and well. Prosperous would be nice also. Have a great winter.
Thanks for shedding some light on 1988MR2guys posting, you opened my eyes to the way things really are, you sound like a Very Smart Man!! Thanks Again.
Thanks for posting; please take the time to "PumpUp" articles that you feel are worthwhile.
Congrads on posting for 100+ days. Wanna be Gas Buddies?


text:
Interpretive Handbook
8937 :
Cell-Bound Platelet Autoantibody, Solid Phase, Blood
Clinical Information Discusses physiology, pathophysiology, and general clinical aspects, as they relate to a laboratory test
Platelet antibodies may be allo- or autoantibodies and may be directed to a wide range of antigenic "targets" on platelet cytoplasmic membranes. Alloantibodies are involved in clinical conditions such as platelet refractoriness, neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia, and posttransfusion purpura. In contrast, platelet autoantibodies are involved in idiopathic (autoimmune) thrombocytopenic purpura, the thrombocytopenia associated with systemic lupus erythematosus, and with the thrombocytopenia associated with sepsis (usually bacterial, occasionally fungal). Sometimes platelet autoantibodies can be detected in the patient's serum, but extensive data demonstrate that direct detection of immunologically bound immunoglobulin (usually IgG) is considerably more sensitive for autoantibody detection. The method consists of an elution step followed by solid-phase enzyme-linked immunoassay, which not only concentrates the cell-bound antibodies, but identifies the target glycoproteins against which they are directed. In most studies of autoimmune thrombocytopenia, the majority (approximately 80%) of detected autoantibodies were directed to the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and, more rarely, to other glycoproteins such as Ib/IX (approximately 11%) or Ia/IIa.
Useful For Suggests clinical disorders or settings where the test may be helpful
Diagnosis of idiopathic (autoimmune) thrombocytopenia purpura
Diagnosis of immune thrombocytopenia associated with systemic lupus erythematosus or other disorders associated with autoimmune phenomena
Interpretation Provides information to assist in interpretation of the test results
A positive test, particularly to GP IIB/IIIa or Ib/IX, in the presence of thrombocytopenia (not explained by other findings) is consistent with idiopathic (autoimmune) thrombocytopenic purpura.
Similarly, a positive test in a thrombocytopenic patient with systemic lupus erythematosus is consistent with an autoimmune cause.
Patients who are septic may also have a positive test with reactivity against most glycoproteins.
Presence of reactivity to some glycoproteins has no clearly established clinical significance.
Cautions Discusses conditions that may cause diagnostic confusion, including improper specimen collection and handling, inappropriate test selection, and interfering substances
Results of this test should be interpreted in light of the clinical circumstances.
Reference Values Describes reference intervals and additional information for interpretation of test results. May include intervals based on age and sex when appropriate. Intervals are Mayo-derived, unless otherwise designated. If an interpretive report is provided, the reference value field will state this.
An interpretive report will be provided.
Clinical References Provides recommendations for further in-depth reading of a clinical nature
1. McMillan R, Tani P, Millard F, et al: Platelet-associated and plasma anti-glycoprotein autoantibodies in chronic ITP. Blood 1987;70:1040-1045
2. Moore SB, Wick MR, Richardson LM: Immune thrombocytopenias: tests for platelet antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc 1984;59:860-863
3. Kiefel V, Santoso S, Weisheit M, Mueller-Eckhardt C: Monoclonal antibody-specific immobilization of platelet antigens (MAIPA): a new tool for the identification of platelet-reactive antibodies. Blood 1987;70:1722-1726
3. Moore SB, DeGoey SR: Serum platelet antibody testing: evaluation of solid-phase enzyme immunoassay and comparison with indirect immunofluorescence. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;109:190-195


text:
I don't want to high jack another discussion about a 350 P.
I'm currently running a Cobra Matic push pull set up that works pretty good but we are getting into more aluminum box Gravel Trains.
There are other aluminum items that are thinner that we don't even consider the mig for, so we tig weld them.
Anything thinner than 3/16" of an inch is definitely Tig material.
However, The video's said the 350-P can go as thin as 18 GA. which is thinner than almost anything I ever weld ( Even with tig )
Spatter is another big concern, My current unit leaves alot of spatter which is okay on the inside of a gravel Train box but not okay on a lot of other things.
Would I be correct to say that in pulse mode there is very little spatter.
Its a lot of money so I hate to sell mine and buy the same thing that I already have.
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thinking about buying a 350P-Aluminum
the pulse mig done correctly leaves really no spatter. can achieve the stacked dime appearance. i wanted a 350p but went the other route and bought seperate stuff. i bought an xmt 350. a push pull feeder and alumapro gun. with an optima pulse controller. i had some time and found it all used for a fraction of the cost of the whole unit. works great. and the power source is good for many processes.as far as thin material ive done like 1/16 th material with pretty good results.just my 2 cents.
03-12-2014, 05:22 PM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- Western Pa.
- Posts
- 335
Thinking about buying a 350P-Aluminum
I bought the 350P couple years ago. Couldn't be happier with the Michine. Definitely no regrets it's definitely made me money.
I don't do much Alm. work but since got it have been doing a lot more. Just running spool gun so can't comment on push pull. Also haven't run Alm. pulse much, it welds great in pulse but had problem with crater at end on weld & never fine tuned it so just weld in mig. Should get it figured out but that's for another day. > A local trailer builder switched to 350P & pulse Alm. Said he hung up his Tig and welds every thing with pulse. Saved him tons of time.
I will comment on Steel; I switched to dual metal or metal core wire and Pulse with the 350P. Wow what a difference, extremely fast and efficient. Saved me hours in a day, (kinda like a big 40 stick and trailblazer suitcase). :-)
Great penetration, no splatter, up to 4-5 passes without even wire brushing although I do. I rebuild & build under ground Reamers so weld a lot of 1/2" to 1-1/2" thick metal all with .045 and the sweet part is just turn it down and weld 1/8" with .045 wire, no splatter great looking weld. I haven't had .035 wire in it in 2-years. Best of all these welds hold up in real world abuse.
The shaft on these Reamers are 4130 alloy and I use metal core alloy wire to match, haven't had failure in 2-years. Knock on wood.
There's three big welding Co. Near me that switched over to pulse. One of them ships products all over the world & a lot of high end high pressure stuff to Germany. Miller had a write up in AWS mag with them switching over to pulse. Of course there running bigger Equ and RMD etc. but for a one man shop the 350P has been super & the pulse is awesome. It replaced a 252 which couldn't keep up with the welding I was doing but I haven't been able to out weld the 350.
Just my opinion Greg
GN Forge, Your kind of wrecking my plans now, I also need to get another machine for welding hard wire- dual shield,
In the shop I run a S-22 P12 off my XMT 304 using .045 dual shield flux core wire for the heavier stuff.
I also have a Miller Matic Vintage which is like the old MM200 that are great machines I run .035 Hard wire in that one.
Some times we need a 3rd shop machine so I was thinking of also buying a new 252.
Now you have me contemplating a 350 P for steel.
I have to say that I get very little spatter running the .045 dual shield wire which is Lincoln Outershield 71 Elite.
I really like my MM350P....
but then again... I guess you already knew that...
do still keep my MM200 around too......great machine in it's own right....
The more you know, The better you know, How little you know
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten
Buy the best tools you can afford.. Learn to use them to the best of your ability.. and take care of them...
My Blue Stuff:
Dynasty 350DX Tigrunner
Dynasty 200DX
Millermatic 350P w/25ft Alumapro & 30A
Millermatic 200
TONS of Non-Blue Equip, plus CNC Mill, Lathes & a Plasmacam w/ PowerMax-1000
03-13-2014, 10:41 AM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- Western Pa.
- Posts
- 335
Thinking about buying a 350P-Aluminum
Sorry. But let add. :-)
That is what I started running on the 350P for 1st. 6 months dual shield flux core (was just not sure about pulse then). Liked the wire and ran super on 350 but just not wire for pulse. The only down fall was small amount slag & flux some of my work is hard to get into and can't keep correct gun angle etc. kinda like 7018 if hard to get area & fight slag into puddle and consider time removing slag especially hard to get into areas. So switched to dual metal big difference no slag, runs at any gun angle, can also adjust sharp arc. I can hv a 1/8 gap on thick metal like open root. Set arc tight and stay inside 1/8 opening driving my root pass very deep. Can also set wide & lay 1" bead that looks robot welded it. Makes me look better than I am.
Believe it or not but I think it welds dirty & rusty metal better than dual shield, better for me.
Ran all morning at 225 amps. 27 to 30 volts. It fluctuates but that was ave. gun got so hot couldn't hold end but welder didn't even sweet.
Then switched wire to hard surface, switched back to mig and ran another hour or so. Just purred like kitten.
I don't like to do it but if in hurry I've many times keep a bucket of water beside me to dip the gun in, gun just to hot to hold. But I've never out run this welder. So far anyway.
Can't say that about the 252, ran it into the ground many times.
Also on wire the metal core wire I use is a lot stronger than the dual shield I used. Not cheap but seams to go a lot farther.
Just some thought from the field.
03-13-2014, 01:19 PM #7Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,225
I don't have 350P experience, but I do have Lincoln PM350 experience on alu. I "think" they are comparable pulse on pulse machines.
The PM350 (or 300) with the push/pull gun will make excellent welds on 1/2" alu one minute and with a few twist's of the knob at the base of the gun, run a slick bead on 10 ga on end. That is, a weld bead on the 1/8" upright edge of a piece of 10 ga alu.
Slicker than snot on a brass doorknob.
That's the standard hands on demo Lincoln uses in trade shows, etc.
A friend of mine has one, if I did (or get) significant amounts of alu work I'd buy one in a heartbeat. They are a case of tech really being bad to the bone. They don't remove welder skill but let any sound alu tig welder put out MUCH more work per hour.
Those things just amaze me on alu. They are high, high production machines and leave a very clean end product.
You should demo one for sure if you do alu work in the shop. I'm sure the Miller is just as slick as the Lincoln, but have no time on the Miller, yet.
JTSome days you eat the bear. And some days the bear eats you.
Thanks for the input JT.
I'd love to try some Lincoln equipment but all of my equipment is Miller and hooking up things like my Miller spool gun to the 252 Mig that I'm looking at keeps me from buying Lincoln ( Even though the biggest welding supplier who has the best show room around is the Lincoln Dealer )
When I buy Miller stuff I have to go to Allstate Industrial Welding supply down near Detroit about 1 hr. away. ( They have the second best show room around )
I was actually going to buy a 115V-230 Tig machine from my Lincoln welding supplier but when I touched the tungsten to the test pc. the test Pc. lifted with tungsten, So without hesitation I bought the miller max star 150 STL and am happy I did.
In fact I used it today at what used to be a Ford Plant and they were amazed I was able to Tig weld the stainless part from a 115 Volt outlet.
I like my 350-P ok
I really like the way it runs on steel with hard wire. It'll crank way down and weld super thin rusty crap exhaust pipe or run huge awesome beads on thick steel.
I don't use it much for aluminum tho. I don't have the push pull on it, just the 30-A spoolgun and I really prefer the appearance of my tig welds. Only time we fire it up on aluminum is on real long welds. Push pull would make a world of difference I know, but I really just bought it for a steel welder and I already had the spoolgun.
Miller Dynasty 700...OH YEA BABY!!
Miller Dynasty 280 with AC independent expansion card
Miller Dynasty 200 DX "Blue Lightning"
Miller Bobcat 225 NT (what I began my present Biz with!)
Miller 30-A Spoolgun
Miller WC-115-A
Miller Spectrum 300
Miller 225 Thunderbolt (my first machine bought new 1980)
Miller Digital Elite Titanium 9400


text:
Ready to take on a 5K race? You're in the right place. We're here to help you get signed up and prepped for your 5K race whether you're a seasoned runner or this is your first 5K. After you've signed up, run on over to our 5K training guide. You can do this.
5K Races Near
- When
- Where
- Relevance
- Date
- Distance
- Most Popular
Couch-to-5K App
Couch-to-5K Running Plan
9 weeks | 345,933 Participants
The Couch-to-5K app has empowered thousands to cross their first finish lines. Find out how this award-winning app can transform your life.


text:
Duke Football BIO
18 Brandon Connette
2012: Played in 12 games ... missed the North Carolina game due to injury ... completed five-of-13 (.432) pass attempts for 38 yards and three TDs ... rushed 41 times for 91 yards and eight TDs ... caught 11 passes for 85 yards and one TD ... scoring tosses came against FIU, Clemson and Cincinnati, and all three went to TE David Reeves ... led Duke in rushing TDs while ranking second on the team in total points with 54 ... in the ACC, ranked first in rushing attempts-to-TD ratio (5.13:1; minimum 8 TD) and tied for eighth in total rushing TDs ... scored multiple TDs on the ground against both Wake Forest (2) and Miami (2) ... other rushing TDs came versus FIU, Stanford, Memphis and Cincinnati ... became the first Duke player to rush, catch and throw for a TD in a season since 2001 when both D. Bryant and Ben Erdeljac accomplished the feat ... in the Belk Bowl against Cincinnati, caught a season-high four passes while rushing and throwing for TDs ... became the first player in Duke history to rush and throw for a TD in a bowl game ... matched the third-highest single-season total in school history for rushing TDs by a QB ... became the fifth player in school history to post two seasons with 8+ rushing TDs, joining Ace Parker (1935-36), Tom Davis (1942-44), Bob Pascal (1954-55) and Jay Calabrese (1965-66) ... credited with two tackles on special teams ... on the field for 217 total snaps.
2011: Played in two games before suffering season-ending shoulder injury against No. 6 Stanford ... received a medical hardship waiver ... completed one-of-two (.500) pass attempts for 35 yards while rushing eight times for minus-14 yards and one TD ... lone ground TD covered six yards against Richmond ... lone pass completion went for 35 yards to Conner Vernon versus Stanford ... on the field for 15 total snaps.
2010: Played in all 12 games with one starting assignment ... started against Miami ... on the year, completed 10-of-22 (.455) passes for 125 yards with two INTs ... rushed 78 times for 321 yards and eight TDs ... finished second on the team in rushing yardage ... set Duke single-season record for rushing TDs by a freshman, bettering the previous standard of six set by Chris Douglas in 2000 ... the rushing TD total ranks third on the school's chart for ground scores by a QB, trailing only Mike Dunn (12 in 1976) and Elmore Hackney (9 in 1937) ... on Duke's single-season lists for rookies, totals rank second in total points (50) and ninth in yards per rushing attempt (4.12) ... established school single-game record for total points by a freshman with 14 against Virginia ... in the win over the Cavaliers, posted season-high totals for passing yards (40) and rushing yards (78) while scoring two TDs along with one two-point conversion ... first career rushing attempt went for 48 yards versus Elon ... rushed for 20+ yards in eight games ... aided in Duke's enhanced rushing attack that showed marked improvement in yards per game (+46.5), yards per attempt (+1.2), runs of 20 or more yards (+8) and total rushing TDs (+13) ... on the field for 145 total plays.
PRIOR TO DUKE: Lettered four seasons at Santiago High School under coaches Steve Mitchell (2006-07-08) and Jeff Steinberg (2009) ... listed as the 62nd-best quarterback in the nation by ESPN.com ... All-Far West Region choice by SuperPrep ... helped team to three straight state playoff berths ... as a senior, completed 145-of-249 (.582) passes for 1,961 yards with 18 TDs and 11 INTs while rushing for 462 yards and 12 TDs ... in a 44-24 win over Corona on November 6, 2009, accounted for 388 (277 pass & 111 rush) yards and six total TDs (2 pass & 4 rush) ... threw four TD passes against both King (October 16, 2009) and Norco (October 23, 2009) in consecutive weeks ... in junior season, completed 104-of-208 (.500) passes for 1,406 yards with 14 TDs and 11 INTs while rushing for 881 yards and 10 TDs ... rushed for career-high 238 yards and three TDs in a 28-13 win over Roosevelt on October 17, 2008.
PERSONAL: Son of Allen and Nancy Connette ... brother, Simon, is a member of the football program at San Jose State ... born July 21, 1991 ... majoring in economics while pursuing a certificate in arts of the moving image.
Category: Career-high, Opponent, Year
Pass completions: 4 vs. Miami, 2010
Pass attempts: 6 vs. Miami, 2010
Passing yards: 40 vs. Virginia, 2010
Passing TDs: 1, three times; last vs. Cincinnati, 2012
Rush attempts: 12 vs. Virginia, 2010
Rushing yards: 78 vs. Virginia, 2010
Rushing TDs: 2, three times; last vs. Miami, 2012
Pass receptions: 4 vs. Cincinnati, 2012
Pass receiving yards: 39 vs. Memphis, 2012
Longest pass completion: 40 yards to Cooper Helfet vs. Virginia, 2010
Longest rush: 48 yards vs. Elon, 2010
Longest pass reception: 22 yards from Sean Renfree vs. Memphis, 2012
Brandon Photos:
Brandon Videos:
Duke Athletics Teams
Athletic Department
Get InvolvedIron Dukes
Junior Iron Dukes
Legacy Fund
Varsity Club
Young Iron Dukes