"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[Zzyzx]

.

Please show this to be true with something other than conjecture and unverifiable testimony.

Notice first that my post quoted was in response to issues raised by Clownboat.

Notice also that the first word in my statement is "perhaps" which indicates that no claim is being made – with "probably" and "seem to" (twice) included as further indication.

Otherwise, this is just a blanketed, unsupported statement with no value.

I trust that readers will decide for themselves if what is said is applicable or valuable.

Oh? Then why didn't you include them?

Kindly reread post #47

I already answered your OP. Did you miss it? See post 45.

What have you been doing SINCE post #45? Derailing the thread away from the OP?

Imo, asking questions is not debate and those who ask many questions generally are not informed on the topic and shouldn't be debating it in the first place.

Opinion noted. In my opinion those who most resent being asked questions are those who do not have credible answers.

Do you agree with this?

I do not pretend to decide who should and should not debate.

If one is going to debate the resurrection or the credibility of the Gospels shouldn't they be well read in the topic?

If one person in a debate is well read on the topic and the other is not, it should be easy for the former to prevail – unless they are incapable or unless their position is weak or indefensible.

It should be a push-over for a well-read Theist to prevail over an "uninformed" Non-Theist – and show that the resurrection occurred as described and that the gospel writers were credible in what they wrote.

Readers should find such a debate interesting and informative.

Is presenting a bibliography a prerequisite for debate? Try actually debating either of those two topics and learn. Of course I will require that debate be confined to the topics and contain NO personal comments.


Repeating –

In an effort to return the thread to the OP, are H. sapiens sapiens animals according to biological / scientific / taxonomic classification?

Are H. sapiens sapiens NOT animals according to Christian literature and dogma?

Is there a conflict?

Can Arian rationally claim to be NOT an animal?

[Inigo Montoya]

As animals are commonly classified taxonomically (biology), we are animals. Case closed.

Riding the coat tails of WinePusher and Z's spat, I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on the alleged resurrection. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

Holler if interested, WP

[Danmark]

One thing is abundantly clear from a scientific perspective. Homo sapiens are not only in the animal kingdom, they are apes.
From the religious perspective, there are no rules. Each religion makes its own. Their rules are bound by neither logic nor reality. To the scientist religious beliefs are in the realm of fantasy and magic. There are no agreed rules.

Not sure what you mean by 'agreed rules' but ok. Earlier in this thread you raised the topic of the mind and made a claim that isn't true. Would you like to back up your claim?

An example of "agreed rules" would be the scientific method and the rules for objective observation, recording, logic and conclusions. Religions make up their own rules, rules that other religions may disagree with; rules that may be completely discordant with the rules scientists agree with or other rules for objective observation or evaluation.

Regarding your accusation:

Please clearly state the claim I made that you say "is not true." Please cite the post #. I contend that when you say something "is not true," you are actually just saying you don't agree with it while giving no basis for your lack of agreement. Whether you understand what was written is a second issue.

[WinePusher]

An example of "agreed rules" would be the scientific method and the rules for objective observation, recording, logic and conclusions. Religions make up their own rules, rules that other religions may disagree with; rules that may be completely discordant with the rules scientists agree with or other rules for objective observation or evaluation.

Religions don't claim to be science in the first place. Yes, many religions do make claims about the nature of the world that directly come into conflict with science, but the religious people who make these claims don't pretend to have derived this knowledge from experimentation in accordance with the scientific method. Revelation from God either through the scriptures or personal experience is usually posited as the basis for these claims. This is essentially what Stephen Jay Gould observed with his notion of 'non overlapping magisteria.' Religion and science represent different domains of inquiry.

Regarding your accusation:

Please clearly state the claim I made that you say "is not true." Please cite the post #. I contend that when you say something "is not true," you are actually just saying you don't agree with it while giving no basis for your lack of agreement. Whether you understand what was written is a second issue.

This is your claim: "Arian, this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue." Actually, you wrote much more than this in post 38:

Arian, this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. Take a perfectly health animal; remove its brain. Not only will it cease to have thoughts, the lower parts of its brain that send impulses to the heart and breathing apparatus will also stop.

If one supposes that a human has an immaterial soul, then removing it's brain should have no effect. We know that in both humans and in other animals, if we can disable the higher, thinking part of the brain while keeping its involuntary functions intact, by removing or otherwise disabling very specific parts of the brain, a physical body part.

So, the idea that the body is separate from out thoughts is demonstrably untrue? Please read the article I linked, because your claim is clearly untrue. The research on this topic is not yet settled, meaning no one knows the true nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain. For you to say that it can't is an overstatement at best. The little amount of data we do have concerning this issue are near death experiences, where the brain is as closest that it can possibly be to death. If your claim where even remotely true, conscious mental activity should be practically non existent during the dying brain stage. Yet, in dying brains there are actually signs of heighted consciousness. There are many more articles on this, explaining how consciousness is actually intensified once the brain begins to shut down.

So, even though the evidence thus far indicates that consciousness can exist beyond the physical brain, I'm not going to make any declarative statements since the question is still open and the research is still on going.

[Danmark]

[1]Religions don't claim to be science in the first place. Yes, many religions do make claims about the nature of the world that directly come into conflict with science, but the religious people who make these claims don't pretend to have derived this knowledge from experimentation in accordance with the scientific method.
....
[2]So, the idea that the body is separate from out thoughts is demonstrably untrue? Please read the article I linked, because your claim is clearly untrue. The research on this topic is not yet settled, meaning no one knows the true nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain..

[1] That is the very point, religion is not science, yet whenever possible religionists try to use science to support their unscientific beliefs. The biggest offender is the YEC claimants along with all who deny evolutionary biology. Courts have ruled that creationists have just plain lied; are dishonest in their claims that creationism is science. So I stand by my claim that they simply make up their own rules.

[2] I'm not aware of the article you mention. Please cite the URL.
Again you are in error. Over and over it has been demonstrated that thought has a physical basis in the brain. In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact, one can experiment directly, personally. Simply drink alcohol. Certain physical substances ingested have a direct effect on thoughts. That's why they are called "psychoactive." I have conducted this noble experiment many times and shall continue my research.

We know that trauma to specific areas of the brain, causes specific and predictable results in thought patterns; changes to the mind itself. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up depending on what someone is thinking. This is beyond reasonable dispute.

You are mistaking knowledge of the EXACT and detailed nature of consciousness with not having ANY idea about how the brain produces thought. This is the same faulty argument used claim evolution hasn't been proved. Creationists claim that since EVERY fossil of every species that has ever lived has not been found, evolution has not been proved. This kind of reasoning does not deserve the name 'reason.' It is absurd and demonstrates those who advocate such arguments do not understand science at all.

Certainly you can go out into the religious and superstitious realm of fantasy and ghosts and claim as you have, that despite the total and complete annihilation of the brain some kind of "spirit" remains; that one can 'think' without a brain; however, you have failed to so demonstrate.

[Blastcat]

God was on vacation that day? During the whole Satan conspiracy.. the all knowing, all powerful.. all everything god.. did what, exactly during all of this conniving.. Sleeping?.. watching back to back netflix?

What did you expect, God right behind Lucifer: "Whattya doin' Lucifer, .. who are you talking to? ... lol.

Now that would be your imaginary Deities, not the Father I know and love.

I know you want to ridicule my position, but please, don't straw-man me. It doesn't help your case.

I was challenging an all knowing god and an all powerful god allowing evil to happen.

A few questions come to mind you might be interested to answer:

1. Who created Satan?
2. Who created Evil?]
3. Can God read Satan's mind?
4. Can God foretell what Satan is going to do?
5. Does God allow Satan to do evil?
6. Can god stop Satan?
7. WHY NOT?
8. Why punish someone for using free will?
9. Can God not teach Satan how to be perfectly good, instead of just punish Satan AFTER Satan does evil?

Helping? .. helping and abating?.. Being FOOLED by Satan and his minions?

I just don't get it? Everybody claims to be a "Former Christian, .. Read the entire Bible, .. seeks evidence, .. hope there is a god, .." yet look what comes out of their thoughts; "Being fooled by Satan, .. God helping and abating"?? Well no wonder you guys hate God, you don't know Jack who our Creator God is?

What does this have to do with God not knowing that Satan was going to rebel.. and not preventing Satan from doing evil, and not stopping Satan from doing evil, and simply punishing Satan, but not convincing Satan using God's COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING.. and using His Godly ability to DO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.?

You went from SATAN and GOD to..... false Christians?... what do false Christians that have to do with anything we were talking about?

Lost the train of thought?

But as to what you DID say about me....

I hate god.. is that so?

1.YOU ARE WRONG.
2.How about you don't tell me what I feel, think and say?

I WAS ASKING YOU ... if god was fooled by Satan.. notice the question marks.

I WAS ASKING YOU... if god allows evil to happen by anyone, including Satan..NOT TELLING YOU.. ASKING YOU.

Notice the difference between a STATEMENT and a QUESTION.

If you could, I would like you to comment on my statements, and ANSWER my questions. But stop pretending that you know what I think and feel.. and making things up that I didn't write..

Thank you.

I'm sure practically everyone heard about Alex Jones by now, right?
Why he don't get his head blown off, and why the military police pass him up? ...He spreads exactly what They want him to spread, which is fear, confusion, superficial information that's been out there for a while, and that's it.

IF Jones dies.. it's proof of the conspiracy.
IF Jones does not die.. it's proof of the conspiracy.

Naw, .. it's more than that. Besides, they could kill him either way, Hitler killed of many of his closest friends and Diviners who even helped him move up in ranks.

It's MORE than that?
Please elaborate. I have NO idea what this MORE thing is.

You seem to be saying that Jones being alive is NOT proof of a conspiracy, one way or the other.. so your point about why they don't blow his head off is... that it doesn't prove a conspiracy one way or the other.

We agree.

So what is your point about Jones, again?
That he is alive?

Gosh.. everything is proof of the conspiracy, isn't it?

Well when you live in a State for 35 years, and the very reason you moved there; the sunny dark blue skies, and then suddenly in a few years all these planes crisscross all over the place spraying like hell till you can't see even the closest mountains,

So, you've noticed the smog, have you? And smog can't come from anything else than the planes? How about cars? I've heard that there are few cars in California... It is Ca. Right?...

So, in 35 years.. you have seen an increase in pollution.
I don't dispute pollution exists and is a huge problem.
But you would have to prove that it's only the planes making pollution. I think there might be other causes.

Are planes part of the problem? YES.. of course.
Are planes the ONLY part? Of course not.
And then.. really. You have evidence that they are spraying us with poisons?
You see the contrails.. and that's your evidence.

Contrails exist, so the government is secretly adding poisons to the atmosphere?
You might want to find some evidence for that.
A lot of people have nutty ideas... We don't have to just believe whatever these people say.

But if you can't trust anyone, I can understand why you feel paranoid. That's pretty much what paranoid means.

You distrust people with authority. I get it. And it scares you.. what are they doing?
What a worry.

However, in the real world...
I did a little research and found that residential wood consumption ( for California ) is the biggest source of air pollution.

The contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO2 emissions has been estimated at around 2%

Now, 2% is a significant amount, and is not good.. but is not the MOST significant cause.

So, it seems that your plane emission theory needs some more research..
maybe it's NOT just the planes.

And contrails are condensation.. what exhaust comes out of jets is HOT... and the air up there is COLD.. it's making WATER ... there's water up there .. and it condenses when hot meets cold. YES there are pollutants in the exhaust.. but you aren't looking at a SPRAY of pollutants.. you are looking at clouds.. water droplets condensing on the pollution particles.

That's what you see... clouds.
Not smoke or pure spray that they carry up there like some pesticide plane... or mind control drugs... carcinogens to keep the big pharm in business.. whatever.

You can look contrails up.. it's chemistry and physics.. and fun to learn.

It's a bit weird to me that you don't know the science...
or what.. deny the science too?

and it stays all day without raining making the sun set as bright as a flash from a camera, then you see all the info leaking out, even an idiot like me can put two and two together.

Correlation is not causation.

Why, .. what excuse did they tell you to tell people? Just make fun and belittle everything they say. Play along, make light of the conversation and act like you never seen ANY of what they say. And even if your going blind from the spray, and throwing up blood, you are not to admit that it's the gas we put in the air.

I don't think pollution is a good thing.. do you KNOW anyone who thinks pollution is a good thing?

These spirits can mimic the "Fruits of Gods Holy Spirit" that supposed to be in us,

IF people are nice, they are mimics.. proof of the conspiracy.
IF people are NOT nice, they are proof of the conspiracy.

Aww.. I could just see you as one of those officers who let Dahmer take that last boy he drilled holes in his head back to his apartment, even though he was signaling for help, and others saying that this boy was asking them for help, only he seemed drugged and out of it, and terribly afraid!
Naw, .. Dahmer was so nice, there ain't no way he would be hurting his little boyfriend.

Is that so?

You can see me as someone who HELPS the likes of Dahmer kill some boy?
How about you don't attack me personally?

How about you follow the rules of this forum and NOT simply use an ad hominem as if you were making a POINT?

You missed what I was saying completely.

I was saying that being nice does not prove that there IS or IS NOT a conspiracy.

NICENESS is completely irrelevant to your position that there is a conspiracy.

In order for you to prove that there is a conspiracy, you will have to do MORE that show us people doing bad things OR good things.

YOU SAID that some people are just MIMICS and do nice things.. but are thoroughly evil.

So.. how can you tell if they are evil or not?

Not by their ACTIONS.. because they MIMIC good actions.
And if you can tell that they are NOT TRULY GOOD PEOPLE.. they they aren't good MIMICS at all.

Fake is fake.

But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

You say that if someone you don't agree with does GOOD.. he is just a mimic.. and is truly evil.

And then

You say that if someone you DO agree with does good.. then he is REALLY doing good..and is NOT a mimic.

But how can you tell a real good mimic from someone who is just doing good?

You use WHAT method for that.. apparently, Satan knows YOUR mind better than you know yourself. So, I think that if Satan wanted to FOOL you.. it would be easy.

So how do you tell you aren't being FOOLED by Satan right this minute?

I can't tell at all that you aren't a mimic, by the way.

EVERYTHING is part of the conspiracy.
So, therefore, it's proof of a conspiracy.

therefore.. its all a conspiracy.

Lol, .. I see they rushed you through the 'Agenda 21' denial-training. Just tell them; "Conspiracy, conspiracy, everything is a conspiracy! Go home and watch non-stop Netflix, let us your loving government handle the conspiracies, we have eyes everywhere!"

I have not been rushed through your sarcastic little training camp.

MY POINT is that if everything can be a conspiracy, then it's going to be QUITE hard to find out the ACTUAL conspiracies that the police are trying so hard to root out.

Because, there are actual conspiracies. And we DO need to spend lots of resources rooting them out..and NOT chase after any weird claim anyone makes based on bad reasoning and no science whatsoever.

ad hominems don't prove a global conspiracy.

Yep, .. who would of known that such menial substance as red dye could kill strong and healthy daddy? Especially that his favorite cake was always red, like red velvet, or red Cool-aid, or, .. oh you got the message I hope?

The message is.. what.. that people make mistakes and that medical science is at work for us?

I'll watch out for that.

Your right, people do make mistakes, even nurses and doctors and soldiers and generals and even Presidents. I mean how could anyone blame those poor Nazi soldiers for 'accidently' putting Zyklon B into the showers instead of turning the water on? So 6 million people died, so what? They cleaned up the mess! it's not like it was some conspiracy to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth or anything, .. right?

Yes, we know about the secret conspiracy to kill the Jews. We know about propaganda. It's important to find these things. Yes.. you are right to be concerned.. but if you believe everything you read ...

And you think that your governments are like the Nazis... It's a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, .. once you open yourself up to demonic possession, eventually they'll run your body the way they want, and you will become less and less in control of yourself. The ONLY power is calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just remember it's not that Deity sun-god who rules from the supernatural realm, but Jesus the Son of God.

And you think you would be immune to demonic possession. I can't tell if you aren't possessed. You seem to be.

You act paranoid and suspicious... you see conspiracies everywhere.. sounds pretty possessed to me. Possessed by fear and hate.

Yes, so just be careful, especially you already have all the signs of denial, so better wake up my friend, I can help.

I deny that what you say is in any way convincing. Your "help" in this regard hasn't worked so far.

Hey, no problem my friend, I know how I sound to you, only I wish you could see/hear how you sound to me?

Oh, you've made that very plain.. You compare me to pedophile, mass murderers, and Nazis.. you call me a fooled by Satan, a zombie, indoctrinated, that I hate God, and so on. So you have your wish.

I know all too well what you think of me. You've written it in a public forum for all to see.

But the demonic-leaders know that only a few hundred thousand could be convinced to be killed that way (evolve to the next level), so they have planned a total annihilation, purge style where they are preparing to cut off all food and water and have the people go at each other, all the while bombarding them with HAARP signals that have made everything from birds to fish to whales commit suicide, including bees, .. and humans you are next! Look at the Marshal Applewhite cult, look at how sure the students of Doe the self proclaimed Sci-Fi-Jesus were in their exit-videos? People please, this is exactly what's happening to you, whether you are attending church, or your local pub, or sports bar, you are being prepped to be raptured out of here through suicide. And for you my age or older, it will be your own children that will make sure you make that 'Evolutionary-jump', armed to the teeth with weapons no human can escape from.

Good luck with that.

but like I said, pray, .. give yourself to the One who can help and watch these demons run!

The ONE you pray to might be the wrong ONE.. the very deceitfully wrong one.. who knows you even better than you know yourself.

Why do you think everyone is denying my Undeniable Scientific evidence of our Creator?

Because it's not undeniably scientific.

People generally don't believe other people's delusions.

[Blastcat]

.

A case can certainly be made for mankind being the most deceitful beast/creatures in the visible universe:

Actually, that only makes the case that Bible writers had such a low opinion of mankind. Many Bible believers seem to adopt similar attitudes.

Is it factual, realistic, accurate, verifiable?

Whether the scripture is acknowledged or not anyone can observe the evils of man externally. As to your sight, I would consider it a one sided view of scripture.

And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.

Think of it as Perfection bound with imperfection in the flesh if that makes it easier to understand.

Well, something cannot be PERFECT and IMPERFECT at the same time. That's a contradiction.

It's really one or the other. If something is LESS than perfect, it is simply not perfect.

So, no, your explanation doesn't make anything easier to understand. Not logically. Contradictions are not permitted in logic. Maybe you use another technique than logic to make your point. That would pretty much make it certain that I could not understand you.

[squint]

And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.

Never said otherwise. Scripture is based largely on the internal observations of what man consists of, good and evil, and the interactions of same.

Think of it as Perfection bound with imperfection in the flesh if that makes it easier to understand.

Well, something cannot be PERFECT and IMPERFECT at the same time. That's a contradiction.

Of course it is. It's an interesting contemplation. Adam for example is presented as Gods son. So are all mankind. Scripture observes our present state is our respective spiritual forray to "evil Disneyland" here on earth. Part of the present equipment provided is the evil internal covering, that we've all been provided for the temporal journey. It presents that covering is a temporal creation of God that is not us as Gods children, but a stronger internal adversary that we are largely unaware of. This elemental spirit is designed to resist everything related to God, to good, to be automatically lawless internally. It can do no other things but resist via the invocation of negative internal thought control.

Try it sometime. If a law says "do not kill" the internal thought of doing so will often arrive on cue. Same with any other law. The "internal temptation" to do the opposite is quite a natural internal effect. Even children exhibit this effect. If mommy sez don't touch the stove children will often be moved think and do the exact opposite.

It's really one or the other. If something is LESS than perfect, it is simply not perfect.

Perfect has no tangible descriptions/boundaries. The Mystery of our Perfect nature resides within everyone. Some more, some less.

So, no, your explanation doesn't make anything easier to understand. Not logically.

Make of it what you will. Scripture is an internal accounting of our present stew of being Gods children enveloped in an animal state with a side dose of internal evil to make things interesting.

Contradictions are not permitted in logic.

All forms of logic are the produce of the fact sets inserted. No one has perfect fact sets, therefore all logic is limited. In theo-logic all things move to the Mystery quotients. I consider it superior logic, but it remains in the Mystery.

There is a principle laid out in scripture of "simultaneous truths." A simple example would be that God leans favorably to the good and resists the evil in everyone simultaneously, regardless of anything that transpires externally.

In other words God both loves/uplifts and hates/resists everyone simultaneously. Anyone who has entered the Mystery of God in a heightened experience will experience the hatred side of the equations as a shocking reality. For many as an example, they wind up hating their neighbors and thinking in their minds/hearts that God is going to burn them alive forever and this is a result of Gods resistance being heaped upon them because "we" were actually all directed to do the exact opposite.

This is the evil nature being brought to the foreground in such. And the sad part is it goes unrecognized in the holders. La la la land.

God has diametrically opposed workings in this present world. They are termed "good and evil." And these are internal states for everyone.

Maybe you use another technique than logic to make your point. That would pretty much make it certain that I could not understand you.

Scripture doesn't deny that mankind [all] are beasts to certain extents. It presents our bestial nature as an integrated unavoidable internal elemental/part of our human construct and that we have all been placed "under" or subject to that elemental temporal wicked nature.

[OpenYourEyes]

[1]Religions don't claim to be science in the first place. Yes, many religions do make claims about the nature of the world that directly come into conflict with science, but the religious people who make these claims don't pretend to have derived this knowledge from experimentation in accordance with the scientific method.
....
[2]So, the idea that the body is separate from out thoughts is demonstrably untrue? Please read the article I linked, because your claim is clearly untrue. The research on this topic is not yet settled, meaning no one knows the true nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain..

[1] That is the very point, religion is not science, yet whenever possible religionists try to use science to support their unscientific beliefs. The biggest offender is the YEC claimants along with all who deny evolutionary biology. Courts have ruled that creationists have just plain lied; are dishonest in their claims that creationism is science. So I stand by my claim that they simply make up their own rules.

[2] I'm not aware of the article you mention. Please cite the URL.
Again you are in error. Over and over it has been demonstrated that thought has a physical basis in the brain. In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact, one can experiment directly, personally. Simply drink alcohol. Certain physical substances ingested have a direct effect on thoughts. That's why they are called "psychoactive." I have conducted this noble experiment many times and shall continue my research.

We know that trauma to specific areas of the brain, causes specific and predictable results in thought patterns; changes to the mind itself. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up depending on what someone is thinking. This is beyond reasonable dispute.

You are mistaking knowledge of the EXACT and detailed nature of consciousness with not having ANY idea about how the brain produces thought. This is the same faulty argument used claim evolution hasn't been proved. Creationists claim that since EVERY fossil of every species that has ever lived has not been found, evolution has not been proved. This kind of reasoning does not deserve the name 'reason.' It is absurd and demonstrates those who advocate such arguments do not understand science at all.

Certainly you can go out into the religious and superstitious realm of fantasy and ghosts and claim as you have, that despite the total and complete annihilation of the brain some kind of "spirit" remains; that one can 'think' without a brain; however, you have failed to so demonstrate.

Consciousness and thought are not necessarily the same since you can have one without the other. Meditation for instance involves emptying your mind of all thoughts. Some people are not even aware of all of their thoughts since thoughts can occur automatically/spontaneously/habitually, that is without conscious control or awareness. BUT they do have the ability to be aware of their thoughts if they knew how or wanted to try. So you have addresed thoughts but you have not addressed consciousness, per se.

You can get drunk, take or be given mind altering drugs, brain damage, etc but you are still aware. Sometimes you might even be aware that you are in a mind-altered state, like when you know youre hallucinating or dreaming, etc. Well for those who go beyond a point of brain damage that they cant communicate or theyre dead, its doesnt mean that they arent aware but rather they cant use their body to communicate. Take anesthesia awareness as an example where patients are conscious but unable to communicate. Now of couse we cant communicate after we die because we have no measurable way to do so, not necessarily because we ceased to exist.

Last, thoughts are not reducible to matter in every respect. If i have a mental image of a beatiful woman in my mind, what is her mass? What space does she occupy? If neither aoply and all matter has mass and occupies space, how could the woman be material?

http://www.beckinstitute.org/history-of-cbt/ (Dr. Aaron T. Beck, pioneer on CBT, view on automatic thoughts).

http://www.aana.com/forpatients/Pages/A ... Sheet.aspx. (Anesthesia awareness).

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 99 by OpenYourEyes]

When you say 'what is her mass' do you mean "What mass would she have, were she real?" or "What mass does my brain's representation of her occupy?". The latter would require substantial development in computing and neuropsychology.

I'm unaware when I sleep; if I was brain dead, I'd be unaware of everything.