not whether the brain is physical--that is known. What's being debated is whether thought is material or non-material, and, what a thought really is. One has to go to more then one site and get the input of others. So far there's no consensus on what thought is or isn't. Thought  may be a dirivative of the brain but not the brain itself. In a past post I pointed out that it may be a pattern of electrons that produces images and mental forms. In the biblical sense the writers hold that a person is the mental not the physical. But, they may be wrong,and there iwas no way for them to know that to be true. On their part it may be an assumption. Today it is still being hashed over as to what the mental is. Some theorize this and some that. At this point in time it seems to be what one preferes or believes. In essencethe writers would mean the there are only 2 things the universe contains, the spiritual (person) and the material. If thought is a matter of electron positioning or makeup, then the universe contains only material.

mad dog darkage superstition to me. I wonder at times why they believe that when re-constituted they come back as a fish or earth worm etc. Why not come back as one's self.  

That is not a debate. Thought is material, period.

And as a result you are wrong.

Psychology types and scientists are NOT debating this ANYWHERE. Only crackpot theists and philosophers debate things that have been discarded as ridiculous.

As we don't argue or debate. But what you say hasn't been proven.That's why we are neutral on this subject. IE- energy is not material. The brain "may" have a way of using energy to form the person. How can anyone know. All matter is (as I understand it) formed from energy. The brain may have the ability to use energy in a manner we don't understand as yet. There are psycho types that would agree with you and others wouldn't.

 

Einstein disagrees. Or haven't you heard? E=MC2

 

It's an old theist tactic to try and equate immateriality with energy....  come up with your own dodge, my friend. 

*time saving post*

Does not mean that matter and energy are the same thing. Energy is what matter has but it is not matter itself.

I am a physicist, and according to my high school physics  teacher (and principal) who pasted away resently--I was the "only" physics student he ever had. You 2 have to start over I think. Everything you need to know is on the web.

I am not a theist, but the floks here insist that I am so I let them have it their way. They are the one's that are "god" (in charge) here and they rule the roost, as it is refere3d to. The Old Seers do not believe there is such a thing as a deity or super human entity running the universe. God is nothing more then a term meaning force. if you study (as we did) the common usage of the term 'God" you'll find that it equals "force"and, also E=Mc2. Universal construction rules in the universe and nothing else. We are only a part of and one of the forces that rule. In the worlds case- people are the problem---and if people insist on ruleing (applying force playing God) over each other then as you can see the world suffers the problems it has, and has had from the time some one started this charade. There are times you must recognize "God" (who in this case, the forces that rule)(the ones running the site here) and surcumb to the powers that be. Old Seers find it is better to be at peace with others then argue trivials to no end or result.

If Vastet wishes to have his own world and disregard the input of others when the evidence is all over the web---then so be it. I'm entitled to my world so why can't he have his.  So be it.

umming Up

This article is long, but I hope it is illuminating and informative for those of you who want details.  Let me give you a summary of the lessons it contains:

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.  
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all.  It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

You're wrong Vastet. This stuff is alloverthe web. There are floks out there that deal with these subjects on a far greater scale then we. I have to go with them.

 

You go to the web, pick a page,but don't say whether the info on the page is bullshit (as you call it), but like the Jehovahs Witnesses science is only worth while if it fits thier ideas , and every thing that doesn't fit their mind or beliefs is bullshit. Everyone you disagree with is an idiot. Amazing. As I said--you have your own world. One needs to look and study many things of a subject to be understanding. So you just go with what you prefere. That seems quite idiotic to me. There are people with great know how on the web and there are those that aren't. It's obvious that you pick what fits what you claim. You need to look more me thinks. Study study study. Look at all of them and the proper understanding will become apparent over time. OR, everyone is wrong.