2
   

Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:53 pm
You have to admit. Dawkins is a handsome handsome man.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:04 pm
Much better looking that Darwin - that is for SURE!

TTF
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:53 pm
To me, the concept of a god makes no sense in this day and time. Go back the billions of years we know about and trace evolution to the present, it serves no purpose for there to be a god orchestrating its direction, particularly considering the dead ends and extinctions that occur all along the way. Why would a god direct there be Neanderthals, for instance, simply to see them die off. We traverse the whole of earthly history and suddenly in the final eyeblink of time the concept of a god springs to the emergant self awareness of early humans. It is all too obviously a human invention to understand the world they found themselves in and their role in it. Fine for then. I personally reject the notion, seeing there is no demonstrable substance, no reason to invent a god anymore.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:07 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
To me, the concept of a god makes no sense in this day and time. Go back the billions of years we know about and trace evolution to the present, it serves no purpose for there to be a god orchestrating its direction, particularly considering the dead ends and extinctions that occur all along the way. Why would a god direct there be Neanderthals, for instance, simply to see them die off. We traverse the whole of earthly history and suddenly in the final eyeblink of time the concept of a god springs to the emergant self awareness of early humans. It is all too obviously a human invention to understand the world they found themselves in and their role in it. Fine for then. I personally reject the notion, seeing there is no demonstrable substance, no reason to invent a god anymore.


I agree Edgar. Well stated. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:12 pm
edgarblythe,

Thanks for the succinct description I have invisioned - along with Lola's.

Listening and waiting for more.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:25 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
To me, the concept of a god makes no sense in this day and time. Go back the billions of years we know about and trace evolution to the present, it serves no purpose for there to be a god orchestrating its direction, particularly considering the dead ends and extinctions that occur all along the way. Why would a god direct there be Neanderthals, for instance, simply to see them die off. We traverse the whole of earthly history and suddenly in the final eyeblink of time the concept of a god springs to the emergant self awareness of early humans. It is all too obviously a human invention to understand the world they found themselves in and their role in it. Fine for then. I personally reject the notion, seeing there is no demonstrable substance, no reason to invent a god anymore.


Perhaps there is no need to invent a God, but how about the need to invent a hereafter where the indestructible "soul" will reside forever? I think your explanation/rejection is far too simplistic. How do you explain the psychological need which is evident in so many humans the world over, to believe in someone/something greater than themselves?
0 Replies
 
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:31 pm
rayban,

Apparently, we human animals are but a step ahead of the rest of the herd.

(Please note that the different animals gatherings are named differently - by the human animal.))
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:48 am
Knowing in advance we are going to die goads us to invent a process to stave off the inevitable. You are born and then you die.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:11 am
It's being so cheerful that keeps me going!
0 Replies
 
shepaints
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 06:07 am
Arthur Shopenhauer looks wild!
0 Replies
 
shepaints
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:14 am
Was he related in any way to Albert Einstein?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:16 am
{quote}You really have to face facts, Spendi. There are at least 7 and a half billion who do not want to live like me.{quote}

Disingenuous or what?

There might,stretching it a lot,be 1/2 billion who do not want to live like a NYC hedonist but I feel quite confident that there are 7 and 1/2 billion who would jump at it.

There is no need to apologise for the "technical" language because I fully understand it.The olden day priests used Latin in an identical way.

The main point,which you used this little verbal confection to avoid,is that the billions,should we better say,HAVE to be prevented from living like Americans (you were a mere symbol) in order that the air remains breathable,oil stays below $1000 a cupful,sea levels remain below the 19th floor and all nukes don't go off in one big bang.As your Gov't is taking care of this for you I can't see why you knock it so much.Any of you.
I read somewhere once that the average American.and there are a large number,pollutes the environment in one day more than 1000 Indians do in a year.

It could be a possibiity that these billions would not want to live like you providing you didn't goad them with your status confirming images and tales about how much fun and joy you are all experiencing.

Okay.Twas a metaphor.

Thus "social bonds" and "empathy" are concepts applicable in Manhattan in that set which has perfected what is known as "control talk" as a means of not only gaining hegemony but of conspicuouly displaying it.The neurological processes are likewise localised.It is a diluted version of "let them eat cake".

I am not trying to chase anybody away.I am trying to attract a certain type.I presume you use a similar technique in the social venues you frequent.
Literary magnetism is much more difficult than feminine magnetism to pull off.And success is measured in a differnent way.In order to "ask an expert" one has to find one to ask and if one does there is then a slight chance of being able to know.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:17 am
rayban1 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
To me, the concept of a god makes no sense in this day and time. Go back the billions of years we know about and trace evolution to the present, it serves no purpose for there to be a god orchestrating its direction, particularly considering the dead ends and extinctions that occur all along the way. Why would a god direct there be Neanderthals, for instance, simply to see them die off. We traverse the whole of earthly history and suddenly in the final eyeblink of time the concept of a god springs to the emergant self awareness of early humans. It is all too obviously a human invention to understand the world they found themselves in and their role in it. Fine for then. I personally reject the notion, seeing there is no demonstrable substance, no reason to invent a god anymore.


Perhaps there is no need to invent a God, but how about the need to invent a hereafter where the indestructible "soul" will reside forever? I think your explanation/rejection is far too simplistic. How do you explain the psychological need which is evident in so many humans the world over, to believe in someone/something greater than themselves?


For my answer to your question, I refer you to page 17 of this thread. In that post I wrote:

Quote:
The lecture I just attended and the discussion afterwards was fascinating and exactly on this very point. One highly knowledgeable psychoanalyst/neurologist said that he thought of spirituality or a search for a god as a search for attachment and empathy in order to restore or bolster damaged self esteem. He said that he thought of it as the result of failed attachment and represented the attempt to find that attachment. I don't call it love because what we call love is a complex issue and I don't have time to get into it. (The research being presented today did contain fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) images demonstrating the areas that are activated when maternal and romantic love is experienced. Also romantic love and maternal love which, while over lapping slightly, are not identical.)

Now, first let me say that the presenter had already demonstrated that empathy or the capacity to experience empathy is genomic (inherited) as well as environmentally influenced (early relationships with parents and family). But the presenter responded by saying that there are many forms of religion, religious belief and spirituality. And while the more rigid forms of religion did appear to be used by those with a traumatic past and/or a genetic predisposition to be less empathic or attuned (two necessary elements in relationship, unless that relationship is based on hate and some are, sad to say) it is also true that there are many empathically attuned individuals with empathic environmental pasts who enjoy religious experience. This may represent a need/wish to enjoy this relationship with empathic experience in a representational way. Or that spiritually is one way some individuals express and experience empathic attunement. One might guess that these people are the ones brought up in homes in which spirituality was used at least in part to express empathic attunement. These forms of religion are remarkably more positive and do not depend on guilt and punishment.


I explain the desire to believe in someone/something greater than ourselves in this way. We want what we want and will try to find a way to get it. If we want to believe in a higher power (in order to assuage guilt, or blame someone outside ourselves or to avoid the pain of loss) we invent a story that solves the problem, thus God and Heaven. It's a process of the brain that invents this story. Desire and solution are explainable by understanding how the brain works. In psychological terms, we can explain belief in God and the after life as a compromise formation, that is a method we use to gratify a wish and avoid pain.

shepaints wrote:
Quote:
Arthur Shopenhauer looks wild!


Yes, shepaints, many of those old scientists look wild and scary. I agree. Laughing
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:56 am
Lola wrote

<I explain the desire to believe in someone/something greater than ourselves in this way. We want what we want and will try to find a way to get it. If we want to believe in a higher power (in order to assuage guilt, or blame someone outside ourselves or to avoid the pain of loss) we invent a story that solves the problem, thus God and Heaven. It's a process of the brain that invents this story Desire. and solution are explainable by understanding how the brain works. In psychological terms, we can explain belief in God and the after life as a compromise formation, that is a method we use to gratify a wish and avoid pain.>

How wonderfully simple.............it's a process of the brain that invents this story. The hell you say.........while love is far too complex to examine in this space you can explain away religion in one sentence. Perhaps you are correct but don't you find it significant that such a large percentage of the worlds population shares this affliction? If religion, which has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of a billion people or more, can be defined in one sentence, I'll bet you could fully examine love in two sentences.

Perhaps you could tell me all about the soul in half a sentence.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:56 am
Here's an interesting article. The last paragraph is especially apt for our discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/magazine/08WWLN.html?pagewanted=all

Quote:
May 8, 2005
Of Two Minds
By JIM HOLT
The human brain is mysterious -- and, in a way, that is a good thing. The less that is known about how the brain works, the more secure the zone of privacy that surrounds the self. But that zone seems to be shrinking. A couple of weeks ago, two scientists revealed that they had found a way to peer directly into your brain and tell what you are looking at, even when you yourself are not yet aware of what you have seen. So much for the comforting notion that each of us has privileged access to his own mind.

Opportunities for observing the human mental circuitry in action have, until recent times, been almost nonexistent, mainly because of a lack of live volunteers willing to sacrifice their brains to science. To get clues on how the brain works, scientists had to wait for people to suffer sometimes gruesome accidents and then see how the ensuing brain damage affected their abilities and behavior. The results could be puzzling. Damage to the right frontal lobe, for example, sometimes led to a heightened interest in high cuisine, a condition dubbed gourmand syndrome. (One European political journalist, upon recovering from a stroke affecting this part of the brain, profited from the misfortune by becoming a food columnist.)

Today scientists are able to get some idea of what's going on in the mind by using brain scanners. Brain-scanning is cruder than it sounds. A technology called functional magnetic resonance imaging can reveal which part of your brain is most active when you're solving a mathematical puzzle, say, or memorizing a list of words. The scanner doesn't actually pick up the pattern of electrical activity in the brain; it just shows where the blood is flowing. (Active neurons demand more oxygen and hence more blood.)

In the current issue of Nature Neuroscience, however, Frank Tong, a cognitive neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University, and Yukiyasu Kamitani, a researcher in Japan, announced that they had discovered a way of tweaking the brain-scanning technique to get a richer picture of the brain's activity. Now it is possible to infer what tiny groups of neurons are up to, not just larger areas of the brain. The implications are a little astonishing. Using the scanner, Tong could tell which of two visual patterns his subjects were focusing on -- in effect, reading their minds. In an experiment carried out by another research team, the scanner detected visual information in the brains of subjects even though, owing to a trick of the experiment, they themselves were not aware of what they had seen.

How will our image of ourselves change as the wrinkled lump of gray meat in our skull becomes increasingly transparent to such exploratory methods? One recent discovery to confront is that the human brain can readily change its structure -- a phenomenon scientists call neuroplasticity. A few years ago, brain scans of London cabbies showed that the detailed mental maps they had built up in the course of navigating their city's complicated streets were apparent in their brains. Not only was the posterior hippocampus -- one area of the brain where spatial representations are stored -- larger in the drivers; the increase in size was proportional to the number of years they had been on the job.

It may not come as a great surprise that interaction with the environment can alter our mental architecture. But there is also accumulating evidence that the brain can change autonomously, in response to its own internal signals. Last year, Tibetan Buddhist monks, with the encouragement of the Dalai Lama, submitted to functional magnetic resonance imaging as they practiced ''compassion meditation,'' which is aimed at achieving a mental state of pure loving kindness toward all beings. The brain scans showed only a slight effect in novice meditators. But for monks who had spent more than 10,000 hours in meditation, the differences in brain function were striking. Activity in the left prefrontal cortex, the locus of joy, overwhelmed activity in the right prefrontal cortex, the locus of anxiety. Activity was also heightened in the areas of the brain that direct planned motion, ''as if the monks' brains were itching to go to the aid of those in distress,'' Sharon Begley reported in The Wall Street Journal. All of which suggests, say the scientists who carried out the scans, that ''the resting state of the brain may be altered by long-term meditative practice.''

But there could be revelations in store that will force us to revise our self-understanding in far more radical ways. We have already had a hint of this in the so-called split-brain phenomenon. The human brain has two hemispheres, right and left. Each hemisphere has its own perceptual, memory and control systems. For the most part, the left hemisphere is associated with the right side of the body, and vice versa. The left hemisphere usually controls speech. Connecting the hemispheres is a cable of nerve fibers called the corpus callosum.

Patients with severe epilepsy sometimes used to undergo an operation in which the corpus callosum was severed. (The idea was to keep a seizure from spreading from one side of the brain to the other.) After the operation, the two hemispheres of the brain could no longer directly communicate. Such patients typically resumed their normal lives without seeming to be any different. But under careful observation, they exhibited some very peculiar behavior. When, for example, the word ''hat'' was flashed to the left half of the visual field -- and hence to the right (speechless) side of the brain -- the left hand would pick out a hat from a group of concealed objects, even as the patient insisted that he had seen no word. If a picture of a naked woman was flashed to the left visual field of a male patient, he would smile, or maybe blush, without being able to say what he was reacting to -- although he might make a comment like, ''That's some machine you've got there.'' In another case, a female patient's right hemisphere was flashed a scene of one person throwing another into a fire. ''I don't know why, but I feel kind of scared,'' she told the researcher. ''I don't like this room, or maybe it's you getting me nervous.'' The left side of her brain, noticing the negative emotional reaction issuing from the right side, was making a guess about its cause, much the way one person might make a guess about the emotions of another.

Each side of the brain seemed to have its own awareness, as if there were two selves occupying the same head. (One patient's left hand seemed somewhat hostile to the patient's wife, suggesting that the right hemisphere was not fond of her.) Ordinarily, the two selves got along admirably, falling asleep and waking up at the same time and successfully performing activities that required bilateral coordination, like swimming and playing the piano. Nevertheless, as laboratory tests showed, they lived in ever so slightly different sensory worlds. And even though both understood language, one monopolized speech, while the other was mute. That's why the patient seemed normal to family and friends.

Pondering such split-brain cases, some scientists and philosophers have raised a disquieting possibility: perhaps each of us really consists of two minds running in harness. In an intact brain, of course, the corpus callosum acts as a constant two-way internal-communications channel between the two hemispheres. So our everyday behavior does not betray the existence of two independent streams of consciousness flowing along within our skulls. It may be, the philosopher Thomas Nagel has written, that ''the ordinary, simple idea of a single person will come to seem quaint some day, when the complexities of the human control system become clearer and we become less certain that there is anything very important that we are one of.''

It is sobering to reflect how ignorant humans have been about the workings of their own brains for most of our history. Aristotle, after all, thought the point of the brain was to cool the blood. The more that breakthroughs like the recent one in brain-scanning open up the mind to scientific scrutiny, the more we may be pressed to give up comforting metaphysical ideas like interiority, subjectivity and the soul. Let's enjoy them while we can.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:58 am
rayban1 wrote:
Lola wrote

<I explain the desire to believe in someone/something greater than ourselves in this way. We want what we want and will try to find a way to get it. If we want to believe in a higher power (in order to assuage guilt, or blame someone outside ourselves or to avoid the pain of loss) we invent a story that solves the problem, thus God and Heaven. It's a process of the brain that invents this story Desire. and solution are explainable by understanding how the brain works. In psychological terms, we can explain belief in God and the after life as a compromise formation, that is a method we use to gratify a wish and avoid pain.>

How wonderfully simple.............it's a process of the brain that invents this story. The hell you say.........while love is far too complex to examine in this space you can explain away religion in one sentence. Perhaps you are correct but don't you find it significant that such a large percentage of the worlds population shares this affliction? If religion, which has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of a billion people or more, can be defined in one sentence, I'll bet you could fully examine love in two sentences.

Perhaps you could tell me all about the soul in half a sentence.

:wink:


The soul is a concept used by us in order to gratify wishes and avoid pain. That's one sentence. Love is the same.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 08:23 am
Lola:-

I am waiting my dear.

On two threads.

I'll never make you a STAR like this.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 08:34 am
I often wait for you, so don't get uppity.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 09:19 am
I'm not getting uppity.I am merely letting you know that I notice things.Especially posts which are ignored.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:52 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
To me, the concept of a god makes no sense in this day and time. Go back the billions of years we know about and trace evolution to the present, it serves no purpose for there to be a god orchestrating its direction, particularly considering the dead ends and extinctions that occur all along the way. Why would a god direct there be Neanderthals, for instance, simply to see them die off. We traverse the whole of earthly history and suddenly in the final eyeblink of time the concept of a god springs to the emergant self awareness of early humans. It is all too obviously a human invention to understand the world they found themselves in and their role in it. Fine for then. I personally reject the notion, seeing there is no demonstrable substance, no reason to invent a god anymore.


Seems aweful circular Edgar. God doesn't exist because we have no reason to invent him anymore.

It presupposes that we have invented him.

Also, once you make the 'stretch' to read Genisis as an allegory - all that has to be done is see that God could seek a relationship with whatever intelligent animal came out of the evolutionary process. What is a few billion years to a God? This also seems to preserve man's free will in the thesistic process.

In the case of the Abramic faiths God chose to sart a relationship with Abrahm.

TTF
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/05/2024 at 10:50:30