hyena said:
oh my god (aptly so). you're not the only one who dabbled in the neurosciences, you know. i happen to have been involved in a neuroeconomics project this summer - you know, fMRI scanning aimed at understanding economic decisions -
That's great
It sounds interesting. And no one said I was the only one.
hyena said:
and if i have learnt something it is the following: brain scanning is going to tell you where and how things happen but never why
Yes, that's right.
And some of us take that as a "yes, we don't know why. We may or may not know in the future"
And some of us ..jump to (grand) conclusions from there.
hyena said:
this bit of knowledge came directly from some of the most accredited PI's at the NIH and given that most of them spent 20+ years working on the subject i would tend to believe them. lesion studies, scans, you name it... these allow you to map which part of the brain does what and in which way, then you can look at historical data when there is any so as to reconstruct which parts of the brain evolved in which way through time and conjecture the reasons behind that evolution.
Yes, that all sounds great, and they definitely sound like very credible and knowledgable individuals.
hyena said:
but even if we knew exactly how, say, the limbic systems work (which we don't), we'd never end up knowing the reason why humans have a limbic system
Why? Cause and effect why? That's simple, if a trait exists then that means organisms with that trait obviously haven't gone extinct. In very general terms, it's been advantageous through the evolution of the group of organisms that possess it; and it's risen gradually from a more primitive system of such neural networks through natural selection. In the past there must have been pressures that allowed that trait, and all else that that trait was directly related to genetically, to steadily increase the relative percentage of its holders in the population. Of course, who's to know
exactly how a group of traits related to feeling emotions was at some point under the scrutiny of natural selection, but one can easily imagine it being advantageous to survival in many ways..
Any other definition of
Why? seems to me irrelevant,
unless somebody was already inclined to analyze the whole thing under religious and spiritual thought, and asks the question in a transcendental type of way ..in which case, you can't turn around and use it to say anything conclusive of religion or the supernatural. Circular reasoning.
hyena said:
you can say that the prefrontal cortex got bigger with time, you can say that the circuits connected to the concept of value and money are relatively new and therefore unstable, you can say a whole lot of things but neuroscience certainly does not give any answers, either here or there, on the question of why, say, we feel emotions that primates don't, beyond the fact that part A and part B of the brain are more developed in humans than primates. i fail to see how this leads to meaning-of-life extrapolations.
Yes! me too
I fail to see how any of this leads to meaning-of-life extrapolations. Studying the brain of an organism can obviously only tell us about what
is. Personally that's what's important. What
is. Anything that strays away from reality, or reaches far and wide for an easy answer as to why it
is, just seems silly to me. If there's no evidence for something, I think it's rational to at least
hold off on believing it.
So, hyena, I don't think what you've said is "neither here nor there". How do you like them apples
hyena said:
@rahv: yes yes. is that 'efficient cause' vs 'motive' in english? or is there another expression?
If your "
why?" in the previous post was of this latter "motive" kind, then I would simply say that it would already imply the existence of a sentient being that has a
motive and gave something a specific
purpose for a specific reason. If you've already assumed this, it would take away validity of any conclusions pointing towards such a
motion of
purpose. Circular reasoning.
hyena said:
of course what i wanted to say was "we know that circuit A in our brain produces reaction B" (and we know that in an approximate fashion, at that), including "we know that looking at religious imagery A produces positive emotion B", but that doesn't mean anything with respect to whether god exists or not. there is actually a nice study of comfort responses to religious imagery conducted by means of fMRI by someone at Oxford, but now the name escapes me. i'll look into it and update whoever is interested.
I'm sure it's all true. The preassumption, though, is that
religious imagery is the direct cause of the positive emotion. I'm sure that there aren't any grounds to make such an assumption. In fact, I would bet that had the ancient Greeks been shown paintings of the Elysian fields and beautiful, gentle Persephone.. I'm sure their brains would also indicate networks of positive emotions firing. It's all psychological, based on what people have known their whole lives to be deemed as "positive". Try that experiment with someone raised in the jungle with no knowledge of any religious imagery from mainstream culture, and see if you get the same results.
QRV said:
Yo
QRV said:
Actually, it's the other way around: I've been reading a lot of psychology disguised as philosophy. And no, I don't think of the unconscious as a "separate entity", but simply as the "unconscious", the unknown or hidden aspects of our personality. It doesn't quite work apart from cognitive processes: everything in our mind is closely related, and its natural dynamics aims for integration. Some parts can, however, split from our conscious mind because of neurotic complexes. I just emphasised the difference to distinguish it from our thinking traits, but in reality everything works as a whole, or at least tries to.
I'm particularly a Jungian on this. I believe there's this "collective unconscious" formed by archetypes which pretty much makes up the human race's mind configuration. Archetypes are collective and impersonal at their center, but they are shaped by our individual traits and particular external circumstances, and so they appear to us mixed like that. They are autonomous from our conscious mind, that is, we have no control over them. We can't tell an archetype to act or behave in certain way, but what we can do is listen to the archetype and understand its meaning in the different situations and moments it presents to us, be it in dreams, through creative acts, through whatever inspiration or revelation we may have. The archetype must be integrated with our conscious thinking in order to make conscious what previously was unconscious, so to expand our perspectives. Now, these archetypes are quite mysterious at their very essence, they are extremely dynamic and changing, because they are psychic energy, libido. Every psychologist who works with the unconscious, even if he doesn't agree with the collective unconscious, would tell you that we have only excavated the tip of the iceberg that is the unconscious. And speaking of neurology, remember we only use a small percentage of our brain capacity? That goes with the idea that only a small part of the unconscious is revealed to us through our lifetimes.
And I totally differ from what you say on Freud. There's a lot of empirical evidence of the existence of the unconscious, even if, as you said, there's no proven "material" cause for it. Hell, there are still a lot of psychoanalists around (even Freudian ones), with couch and all, there's still a lot of research being done in hundreds of psychoanalitical institutions of all sorts, even if the current trends are the so-called cognitive-behavioral and empirically-validated forms of therapy. The unconscious is made valid through psychotherapeutic practice. So you know, psychoanalysis is far more -I should stress it out- FAR more than what Freud said, as thousands of revisions throughout almost a century have concluded, even if a lot of Freud's ideas are still rather valid. It is a very common mistake to trash on the figure of Freud to disqualify psychoanalysis, and it is very easy to ignore all posterior investigations. You talk of the theories of the unconscious as if they were things of the past, and that only shows prejudice and a tremendous lack of information. I haven't been misled on these aspects of psychology. On the contrary, I'm positively sure that at this point I've read more on the subject that you'll ever do in your entire life.
What you say is fine, it's the thoughts that many people including you may share, on something that is not very well understood yet. In my personal opinion, a lot of what you say here is speculation fetching a little far. And the only other thing I'll add is that you give psychoanalysts more credibility than I do.
A lot of what psychoanalysis is, is based on speculation because, like I said, we don't know enough of our complex psychology. They know what they've learned, either from Freud back in the day, or more modern
theories on the workings of human psychology. And just to point it out, psychoanalysis has been under the spotlight of embarrassment a few times, including the hysteria of psychoanalysts digging up "lost memories" from the unconscious ..memories of child abuse. It happened left and right, once the trend was set off, to the point where it got out of hand and hundreds of families were hurt and ruined. It turned out the psychoanalysts were
implanting these "lost memories" over time throughout their sessions. And to understand just how easily it is for humans to create false memories, especially by the powerful manipulation of someone you trust with your psychoanalysis, just pick up any basic textbook on cognitive psychology. There are a great deal of studies that show how easy it is.
QRV said:
Another thing: I don't assign a "supernatural quality" to the unconscious. Empirically, scientifically, there's no supernatural quality to it. All studies have been mostly phenomenological, and this phenomenology describes the unconscious as a driving force behind religious thinking. Jung used to say that the unconscious is religious or mythical at its core, and from that point on we can only speculate. The are more complicated aspects of his theory (like synchronicity, for example, or certain aspects of dream interpretation) that barely suggest the existence of a consciousness apart from our biological brain-spinal system, but there's no way to prove that, same as there's no way to prove the opposite. All we have are a few indications.
Yeah, exactly ..all speculation. And, again, my stance lies in not rushing conclusions and answers where none are to be had, especially when some of them seem so unlikely (to me).
QRV said:
But, certainly, nothing tells us that the unconscious cannot be a medium through which we may communicate with the spiritual. At all times and in every corner of the world, dreams and visions have been the natural ways through which humans are said to contact the divine. Why not? Ancient philosophers and mystics have always described man as a confluence of two spirits or forms of energy: the eternal or divine, and the mortal or material. Could it be that the unconscious is the bridge that binds together these two natures?
Yes, what you say is something that could be an explanation, and one I couldn't prove wrong. And, once again, you and I differ in what we deem a likely explanation to something we still don't know much about.
Having learned
ad nauseam about thermodynamics (energy, and the physics of the real world) in college, you can see how I would easily find certain things, like what you've said above, a tad more than unlikely.
QRV said:
To see this point more clearly (I mean the unconscious, not the divine thing), I suggest you try an exercise to contact the unconscious. It's called "active imagination". Put yourself in a comfortable position, go sit on your favorite sofa, lie in bed a bit or something, whatever you prefer. Try to clear your mind and focus on an image from your fantasies. Just let it come to you. Once it is there, try speaking to it in your mind. You might want to ask questions like "who are you?", "is there anything you want to tell me?", but it's up to you, you formulate them. Just do it with an open mind, try to get rid of prejudices or else it won't work. It's a really nice exercise, and quite frankly, in a way it's very similar to what artists do when they create. Give it a try, you don't lose anything and it might help you more than you think to understand some aspects of yourself.
I could very well do that. In fact, I've talked to myself plenty of times
I can choose to talk to as many selves of me as I will to have, during a session of inner conversation. This doesn't show
me, or prove to
me anything, other than the fact that it kicks ass to own a brain
To get back to neurology for a bit, there is a set of parts in the brain that seem to be most active in the task of separating what's real (what comes from external input) and what's imagined (as in a normal, everyday thought process or fantasy). If you think about it, patients with certain disorders like schizophrenia don't have much wrong with them, other than the fact that they fail to keep a separation of the two in their consciousness. Maybe it's just a small part of the brain that's crucial in this system that performs this "simple" task. You can also feel this confusion yourself.. immediately after awakening, this fails sometimes. Perhaps you've had it happened that you suddenly jolt awake and the very last thing you remember is say, a shriek or a funny scream, and for a few seconds you think about whether or not it was the very last part of your dream, or if you really did do it and made an ass of yourself in front of some people, and sometimes it's extremely difficult to decide. Also, if you stay awake for a very long time. It has been documented that at some point people start saying crazy things because they misinterpret what's around them.. they mix up the external input with what's in their imaginations and come up with a bizarre twist of what may be really happening around them. Someone being picked up and put into an ambulance may claim that he was being abducted by aliens and put into their ship. People stranded in the dessert on the brink of dying very easily misinterpret things. The external input provides a visual illusion after some light refraction on a layer of hot air just above the ground (illusion of water) and their imagination provides waterfalls and palm trees. At a very critical state (tiredness, or a damage/disorder), the brain fails to separate the two, putting the complete picture in the person's consciousness.
My point is, the brain seems to have enough complexity and unimaginable number of systems that work together to bring us this experience while alive. And through studies of when certain parts or systems
fail, much has been learned. So when confronted with supernatural-looking phenomena that people claim, I think that there probably is a rational explanation for it. I don't feel the need to start attributing unexplained things to grand causes, realms, and entities.
ian.de said:
I agree that the human mind is extremely mysterious but I'm gonna have to put my money on nature and biology.
And you are wise, because nature only wants $29.99 per year, and biology automatically deducts what it needs (for future research, etc) from your bank account!
[size=-2]That's cheaper than many Gods out there (And some want your life)[/size]
QRV said:
Sloe gin with almond flavoring will do for me
Sloe gin with almond flavoring.. aww, I'm not sure I have that in the bar.. Did you want an orange slice, some sugar on the rim, and a yellow umbrella with that too??
*gives everyone whiskey*
hyena said:
ok, so let's reverse the question.
can those who don't believe in god tell me what advantages they derive from their spiritual choice? please be honest. i am exceedingly interested.
I don't know... I certainly have a set of answers to that, but I have a feeling it would quickly be interpreted and dismissed as arrogance
..just like when I drop mention of some things, which I choose to do in the end because I
don't want to come across as someone who's simply pulling information out of the ass.
QRV said:
Edit: Ok, maybe I should elaborate more. "maybe they're just disgusted and dismayed by religion's effect on society and its undermining of rational discourse." Come on, Lina, don't be such a fool. Irrationality, hatred, persecution, intolerance, etc., are not solely the realm of religion. In a world free of religions we would still find ways to differentiate ourselves from others and try to justify destroying them for their differences. This is a self-evident truth. Don't objectify things that are inherent to human nature and put them all together in a social part played by religion. This is a one-sided and, yes, very dogmatic view that clouds the positive traits that religious tradition has brought to us: ethical guidance, artistic development, rites that channel our energies through functional means, internalization, so to name a few. So, who's really being irrational here?
If you have a personal problem with religion, just say it and stop demonizing it either because G.W. Bush uses God in his discourses to manipulate the idiot masses, or because of the Crusades or the Inquisition or whatever. Wars and mass manipulation will always be there, and it's not the "fault" of religious thinking, but in some cases merely the fault of dumb and brainless pseudo-religious thinking, which is simply one of the many products of human stupidity.
This is like calling Lina a fool because she chooses not to buy a packet of Qrvmedsopxyl pills for a sore throat. Sure (and you admit yourself) it causes liver damage, dizziness, diarrhea, heart murmur, high blood pressure, insomnia, and mild headaches ..but it soothes a sore throat! and relieves your sinuses!
As a more serious reply, your tone seems to be of pushing religion because it IS a good thing, and that people shouldn't let a list of horrible things caused by religion keep them from embracing it. Why
must we embrace it?
Why are u so aggressive?!! and pushy!! and why can't u just let us be?!!!
No, seriously, why
must we embrace it, even if it has some good things associated with it, among a list of negatives?
Mmm?
EDIT:
Siren said:
Noone should be embarrassed of what they believe. Everyone should be free to believe what they want and should not be judged by others on accounts of it.
Hmm.. you're right. And to think I felt bad and wanted to apologize for writing such a long post.
D'you hear that,
Sheckles14? It seems I don't owe you, or anyone else here an apology after all
