Sean1105

Here is an interesting article. http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brainThis is also a reasonable article.http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Thinking_about_Telepathy_Think_2003.pdf Research really must be done on your own too though lol. Those articles should be a good start to finding more. I'm quite unaware of research specifically called, "Nonlocality theory research" it's more of an implication from the results of the experiments which was a "theory" is all about. Anyway, hope that helps! Here is an interesting article. http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brainThis is also a reasonable article.http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Thinking_about_Telepathy_Think_2003.pdf Research really must be done on your own too though lol. Those articles should be a good start to finding more. I'm quite unaware of research specifically called, "Nonlocality theory research" it's more of an implication from the results of the experiments which was a "theory" is all about. Anyway, hope that helps!

Fair enough. Let me elaborate on what I'm talking about when I say "responsible". We experience the world through our senses. We are aware of our surroundings and can interact with the material world. Now, there are levels of awareness that we experience. We can be very aware of a tinkle on our face but totally oblivious to our decision making process. Most of that is under the radar and even unconscious at times. When I say, "We are responsible for our bodies" I'm saying we're accountable. Accountable: 1. (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible. This doesn't imply control at all. And I'll go back to the parenting analogy. We have kids and we're responsible for them but we dont control them. We can influence, suade or even coerce but we will never have complete control over a human being (outside science and technological breakthroughs etc). Not in the practical, day to day world. So what I'm saying, is that we're responsible for our actions (accoutable) but may not be in control of all those actions. Let's talk about PTSD. There are reported cases where an ex soldier hears a cap gun go off and immediately attacks whoever fired the toy. Was he responsible for his actions? Of course. Was he in control? Absolutely not. He reacted out of reflex. But if he murdered someone out of reflex he wouldn't go unpunished for what he did. He's still responsible for his body even outside of being in control of it. There are ways of obtaining control over our bodies in varying degrees but it's a matter of one puts in the effort to accomplish that. Well then what about people who dont know they have a latent ability to control themselves in more ways than they thought? Should they be held accountable even if they don't know another option exists? Yes because again, it's their body. A lot of consciousness research has pointed to "nonlocal" consciousness ideas. That consciousness and the brain are actually separate things. The brain works more like an antenna. That idea resembles mine. We may not have complete control but that does not free someone from responsibility any more than it does a parent who neglects their child throwing a tantrum in the store.

Hi there!! We are responsible for our feelings in the sense that we take ownership of them. I myself am having a feeling therefore I myself own it. I have the ability to influence what influences me which puts me in responsibility mode for them. So indeed, decisions are made by our minds but that doesn't mean we stop being responsible for them. We are not in control of them (again the absolute control idea) but control is different than responsible. If someone jumps from around a corner to attack me and I strike that person reflexively, I am responsible for my actions since I'm experiencing the world through my body. I am responsible for what my body does. But I think, if we are prepared to agree, that I was not in "control" of my actions since it was a reflexive mechanism which kicked in. So, with this distinction in mind, I draw the conclusion that indeed we are responsible for our behavior but we are not in control of it. Well how can we be responsible for something we can't control? Many parents can't contorl their kids, yet they don't forfeit responsibility for them. In the same sense, we can be responsible for something which is outside our realm of control. Does that make more sense? Thanks for your reply!

There is an interesting notion here. Are we talking about the love of wisdom or Psychology? I myself would be very wary of using Philosophy in relationships. Philosophy seeks truth, wisdom and ways of life. What you describe is more like therapy, counseling or relationship dynamics. For example, I wouldn't recommend a Nihilist to relate to anyone other than himself. Quite a destructive being. But practically relating to people. . . in a philosophic way. . . Let me think a bit. Ok. If we are to talk about the quality of how we relate "not the relationship" to others, we must first talk about responsibility. I am responsible for my actions because I experience the world from my body. I can't say I control my body since "control" presumes absolute control since the word is not qualified. We all know we don't have absolute control over our bodies and recent research tells us our unconscious processes make decisions before our consciousness is aware a decision is even to be made! So control is out. So I'm responsible for my actions since I'm experiencing the world in my body (closed nervous system with potentially nonlocal consciousness). So, I'm responsible for me and the other is responsible for themselves. I can't say I'm resposible for myself and then give someone else the responsibility of being in charge of how I feel. I am responsible for how I feel and the other person should have no part in making sure they are "making" me happy or whatever the case may be. And they are in charge of how they feel so I am relieved of the responsiblity for the maintenance of their feelings. The relating bit comes in when the other is aware of the condition of how we feel. Out of concern, love, hate, obnoxiousness, generocity, compassion (superiority sometimes) they may attempt to influence the level of comfort we are experiencing (pillow, cup of tea, foot massage etc) in order to let the other person have space and time to sort themselves out. Speaking to each other about their feelings is a great way of learning about the other. Conversations can be made regarding any questions, confusions or clarifications needed. But it is not anyone's responsibility to be in charge of anyone else's feelings. Even if we use the word influence. "Well when you called me a 'twat', that made me feel bad". Great! They may work out some ideas around better communications practices but it would be of the highest prioritiy of that person to vanquish their emotional response to that particular word. Otherwise, you live in a world destined to provoke you at any instance. So there's a personal hygenic property to responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and feelings. Do you wish to give the world responsibility over your feelings? You can't but they can still provoke you. That's why it's imperative to be as hygenic as possible in terms of triggers and semantic responses. This elictis liberation and freedom of expression in my opinion.