Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 120 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 119 120
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
First let me say that I don't speak for all atheists. Second, I reiterate that none of this has anything remotely to do with science.

"Other than virtue--moral excellence--being its own reward, what motivates atheists to be virtuous?"

I guess I think that's enough for atheists.

"I presume rational atheists and theists, have a fear of breaking the law of the land and facing punishment in this life.. But only theists have a fear of facing some kind of judgement after death."

All true. Here's the thing: neither punishment in this life nor the next is entirely sufficient to keep people from doing evil. Of course, in my view 'evil' is a human perspective - and because of the law of unintended consequences we need to be very careful how we apply the term.

There is a sense, however, in which this stuff (minus the mystical junk) could eventually be amenable to some scientific analysis - and that could very well be an outgrowth of economic theory. Econ started out as a (very) soft science, but has really made dramatic progress in the last few decades. Nowadays there exists a body of theory that might permit analysis using techniques from my own chosen field of science, complex adaptive systems (CAS).

There is some interesting work that has been done to examine the effect that rules and policies have on organizations.
Check out the first four paragraphs of this Scientific American article: http://people.icoserver.com/users/eric/hbr_swarm.pdf

Also, the first 3 paragraphs of the following Harvard Business Review article:
http://people.icoserver.com/users/eric/hbr_unpredictable.pdf

I met Dr. Bonabeau when he came to speak at a CAS group I started at work. He's brilliant, but he's not the only person doing first rate research in this subject. I've fixated on his articles only because 1) they don't have a lot of the mathematical baggage of a lot of the CAS work that gets done and 2) they clearly convey the sense that these techniques (agent-based modeling and genetic algorithms) are getting to the point where they're able to support experimentation into 'higher level' problems (i.e. policy).

The potential linkage to ethics is pure intuition at this point. I'm looking at the possibility that some of these ideas might be applicable to examining policy issues or organizations a bit larger than corporations: government agencies or entire governments. I'm attempting to develop a research program for examining these issues, but it's a bit of a hard sell.




.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
As you write TFF: "There is a sense, however, in which this stuff (minus the mystical junk) could eventually be amenable to some scientific analysis - and that could very well be an outgrowth of economic theory."

Under the general heading of pneumatology--the study of the human spirit--it is, IMHO, already amenable to analysis.

PNEUMATOLOGY--a soft science. IMO, the use of it is of great value to understanding sociology and economics. Without faith (confidence) what is money worth? Who would invest in the markets, without faith?

MEASURING FAITH
For example, give me 100 people, or more, and, within a few minutes, I can--using what I call pneumatherapy technique--demonstrate who of the group will be among the 20% of the population who make good "trance subjects" and have the ability to demonstrate great faith, in good, evil, or just plain nonsense.

IMHO, faith, like hope and love, is a pneumatological tool, originating in the human spirit (pneuma). It has been used by autocratic tyrants like Hitler to destroy freedom, and by democratic statesmen like Washington to establish it.

Aldous Huxley, in his 1962 novel, Island, calls attention to the social significance of understanding the nature and function, for good or ill, of the normal human ability to go in and out of the trance state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)

THE FOLLOWING IS VERY SIGNIFICANT
In a foreword written twenty years after the original publication of Brave New World, Huxley wrote:

Quote:
If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the Utopian and primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity...In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque co-operative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not, (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle–the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"

Last edited by Revlgking; 07/02/07 03:46 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Under the general heading of pneumatology--the study of the human spirit--it is, IMHO, already amenable to analysis."

There is no reason whatever to think that such a thing as "spirit" exists as anything other than a metaphor for one aspect of the human mind. The example you give, even granting that such a thing as "trance" exists, is clearly an application of psychology. Just because astrology and astronomy both concern stars doesn't mean that every advance made in astronomy is evidence for astrology or that astrologers have a contribution to make to astronomy.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
I found that quote by Huxley very interesting, although I dont get how Brave New World got into the conversation (one of my favorite books).

"Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not, (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them."

Curious, how the science in that society (cloning, hyptnotism, worshipping the car manufacturer, drugs, and in a sense stem cells) destroys it and lets no room for personal freedom. Is this the direction our science is moving in? As opposed to Orwell's 1984, Brave New World envisions a world based not on hate and opressive dictatorships, but on "love" and laziness, in a sense. For the people, using their total freedom choose to have it taken away by making everyone the same or using drugs when upset. Could this be the way our country is headed under science for the people?
It is worthy to note that the characters in Brave New World, under love and freedom, end up as the same as in the culture of 1984, based on hate and tyranny.
Just a thought.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
It has been a long time since I read BNW; however, I think one of the major themes of it is that the the pursuit of trivial "happiness" can result in a form of slavery.

Also, BNW is an oppressive dictatorship:
1) people are genetically bred to do certain things - epsilons are not alphas;
2) people are conditioned to act in certain ways.

It's important to realize that due to bad eyesight, Huxley was stymied in his pursuit of being a doctor. He could not participate in science the way his famous brother and grandfather did. He advocated the use of hallucinogens.

One thing that a great writer can do - and Aldous was certainly that - is create contrived scenarios to illustrate their opinion, regardless of how that opinion stands in relation to the facts or to good sense.

Another example is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who created Sherlock Holmes. Doyle's absolute mastery of the language could create in the mind of the reader the inescapable illusion that Holmes was being logical. Doyle was a vastly better writer than he was a logician. So was Aldous Huxley.



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"The example you give, even granting that such a thing as "trance" exists, is clearly an application of psychology." TFF

Are you sure of what you speak? IMHO, the trance experience--of which I have had practical experience--is very much a part of the traditions of religion and the prophetic tradition--As WS Kroger, in his great book, Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, makes abundantly clear. Prophetic visions, including the Koran, came out of the trance state.

BTW, when I majored in psychology in the 1950's www.mta.ca it was then under the department of philosophy. I have been a student of the philosophies and the psychologies all my life.

This prompts me to say: There is so thing one singular field called "psychology"; there are schools of psychology--for example, there is behaviourism--Watson and Skinner-- which is contra to the analytical schools like that Freud, Jung, Adler, etc., Then there is structuralism like that of William James.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=psychology&fulltext=Search

YOU SEE I TEND TO BE PRAGMATIC IN MY APPROACH TO PSYCHOLOGY--as I do with religion.
One of the early advocates of pragmatism was William James, Harvard. He wrote the classic,
THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE--A Study in Human Nature:
===============================================================
It is a book that comprises his edited Gifford Lectures on "Natural Theology" delivered at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland between 1901 and 1902.

"Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see 'the liver' determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind."

These lectures concerned the nature of religion and the neglect of science, in James' view, in the academic study of religion. Soon after its publication, the book found its way into the canon of psychology and philosophy, and has remained in print for over a century. James would go on to develop his philosophy of pragmatism, and there are already many overlapping ideas in Varieties and his 1907 book, Pragmatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=psychology&fulltext=Search

I later discovered that the achaic term for psychology was pneumatology.

By the way, one of my other intellectual heroes is Carl Jung, who I believe was more of a pneumatologist than a psychologist. I also love the ideas and work of Milton Erickson, MD, father of North American hypnosis, and one of the founders of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)--a very practical and effective form of what I call pneumatherapy--healing of the self, or self-actualization, holistically--body, mind and spirit.

I respect the animal kingdom, but IF WE WERE JUST ANIMALS would we be having this interesting dialogue?

In MHO, we are spiritual beings who happen to have a mind and a body. We differ from animals in that they are mind and body beings. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise I will keep an open mind, and spirit. smile

Also, check out the work of Abraham Maslow http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html
...and Victor Frankl, logotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy

As you can see, I am very pragmatic and eclectic in my approach.
Yes, I am in favour of useful medicines, especially those found in good foods.

Last edited by Revlgking; 07/02/07 08:50 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
If there really is such a thing as a "trance" and that is a huge "if", imo, how could it not be a subject of psychological study?

I do not think it is obvious that such a thing exists or not - only because I have not studied it in any depth. I can easily imagine, though, that there are many 'facts' about trances and altered states of consciousness which are widely known and a lot less widely refuted.

It is not clear to me the extent to which Jung's work constitutes actual science.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, a healthy skepticism, in MHO, is a healthy thing. Congratulations! I began my student-life as skeptic. I still think of myself as one.

However, When I observed the trance phenomenon save my daughter's life when she was seven and one-half years of age, I began to take it seriously. Since then, I have seen it work in thousands of cases, including major dental-surgery. I had major dental surgery done a few years ago.

At my request, and without any anesthesia, my dentist did fixed-bridge surgery on me to replace two missing teeth. After the surgery. he declared: "I am amazed..."

BTW, going into trance does not, necessarily, involve going into a state of unconsciousness. I was completely alert during the surgery on my teeth.

Since the experiences that I actually had with my daughter's health, my personal health and that of many others, I have become less and less skeptical regarding the power of the mind over the body. All this is prompted by, what all forms of theism, call the spirit.

BTW, there is no rule which says that you have to accept that you are a spiritual being, who happens to have a mind and a body. The choice, spiritually speaking, is, exclusively, yours.

If you so wish, you are perfectly free to conclude that you are nothing more than a clever animal with no conscious future as a human being. smile

BTW, I presume you have no objection to those of us who are inclined to choose otherwise. Agreed?


Last edited by Revlgking; 07/02/07 10:08 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I could add: If we who believe that we will survive to live in the future are WRONG, who will ever know and be able to make fun of and ridicule us?

But if we are on the money, think of the fun we will have.
Be assured, I will not ridicule anyone; I plan just to have fun, okay? laugh


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I have no objection to those who are inclined to believe in spirits, souls etc., so long as they do not attempt to masuerade their personal convictions as science.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I am glad you agree that it is okay to have personal convictions. After all, perhaps all that we call the sciences, today, got their beginning when someone started with a personal conviction that such and such could be possible. Too bad many of the early scientists--some of them clergy--for example, Copernicus--had to suffer, and not just ridicule, for their convictions.

I like the saying, which I think Will R. Durant uses in is his great STORY OF PHILOSOPHY: All science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art. This is why I believe we always need to make room for the "not quite sciences", yet.

BTW, who here is willing to actually say: "I am not a spiritual and human being. I am not a soul, a free and unique individual--one who has some self-awareness that I am me and not someone else. I am simply a clever, domesticated animal.

Any time someone more clever than I chooses, they are free to own and use me. I hope to be lucky enough to be someone's pet. I hope I will at least get a rich owner who is willing to feed me well and take me for my daily walk." smile laugh

Last edited by Revlgking; 07/03/07 05:07 AM.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Y'know, I think it's just the semantics of how the word "spirit" is used, that is making this seem like a discussion from two different sides. Whether "spirit" is quantifiable, objective, or extant in whatever mode, shouldn't be the source of a disagreement. The effects of "spirit," what we see as manifested in a person that can be attributed to "spirit," or how a person relates to the world around them (motivated by what one might call spirit), is the same for both "sides" of this discussion.

Hey, I wrote this (above) after TFF's 11:56 AM response. It still seems like a good point. My issue now, is with the semantics of the word "animal," as Revl uses it. There seems to be a big difference between the spiritual human and the domesticated animal.

I think that there is a big difference in their (our) respective levels of complexity, but not so much of a difference in the respective content of "spirit." I could even argue that other animals have more spirit than humans (of course, depending on how you define spirit).

I find myself seeing both points of view as valid and equatable; but needing a bit of interpretation, or translation, based on the semantics of the word, "spirit," or the word "animal." It's mostly in the objective/subjective point-of-view area that I see the difference of opinion. Ultimately, I think there is very close agreement here (except for the semantics).

We're all just trying to understand and classify the world as best we can. If that is evolution's goal, then we should cetainly appreciate the differences in points-of-view that contribute to the evolution of understanding.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, who here is willing to actually say: "I am not a spiritual and human being. I am not a soul, a free and unique individual--one who has some self-awareness that I am me and not someone else. I am simply a clever, domesticated animal.

Any time someone more clever than I chooses, they are free to own and use me. I hope to be lucky enough to be someone's pet. I hope I will at least get a rich owner who is willing to feed me well and take me for my daily walk." smile laugh -Revl.
Hey Revl, I remember as a kid, going to school in the mornings, being very jealous of our dog laying in the sunlit patch on the rug.


I might be willing to raise my hand here, but I'd like to qualify the perspective from which I am agreeing to be called a domesticated animal. From the perspective of both BNW and 1984, aren't we all already kind of at that point?
*_*

But now I'll go back to deluding myself into thinking I'm unique, etc., and be happy again. wink

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Good stuff, SA! Now sit! And give me your paw! And I'll give you your treat. smile

Last edited by Revlgking; 07/03/07 06:22 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

What we believe we are may hold no relation to what we actually are. I am an animal. For the most part I am domesticated. So are you. You act like that is a small accomplishment. I'm baffled that anyone could not see the wonder in it.

There is no evidence whatever to suggest that souls or spirits exist as anything other than metaphors or artifacts of the mind.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"There is no evidence whatever to suggest that souls or spirits exist as anything other than metaphors or artifacts of the mind."
Yes, there is. Hence my disagreement with you in your assertion that there is no souls or spirits. It could be a result of our evolutionary instincts passed down through the ages, which gives us reason and logic. For that is the best way to survive, as man tries to subjugate beast, and has found that fit to pass down. I was just reading Doyle's "The Lost World" and have found that in the book, how the "indians" defeat the hominids through superior brainpower and tame the dinosaurs.
We have a spirit. That is how I am thinking and typing this at this very moment. How else would we be able to do this?
"I think, therefore I am," as Descartes said.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
There is no credible evidence for souls. There is plenty of imagination and tin-like.

If reason and logic were the best things to help us survive, I suspect we'd be a lot at it than we are. The problem is that the world around us is changing. And we're getting to the point where that actually might be true.

As I said in another thread, Doyle was an irrationalist - a far better writer than he was a thinker.

Thinking is also what the brain does. There is no credible evidence that mind or spirit or soul exists separate from brains. Furthermore, damage to the brain CAN affect the effect that is called spirit or soul. A reasonable conclusion without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo is that soul is just another name for what the brain does.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Some thoughts on the above conversation:

The discussion is about experiences of the mind - experiences that require consciousness. In this context, I would expand the meaning of consciousness to include the experiences of dreams and dreamlike states, in which we are aware of phenomena that are not exclusively related to immediate sensory input.

We all experience consciousness. We don't deny that there is such a phenomenon. Yet no one knows what consciousness is. The brain is a biological device from which consciousness appears to emerge. Since we don't know the nature consciousness, we should be cautious about making assumptions or claims that suggest that we do.

There is room for speculation as a basis for scientific enquiry. The brain may not be the only environment from which consciousness can emerge. There may a 'large scale' consciousness that exists beyond the confines of the localised biological apparatus. As yet there is no proof, and it is wrong to make claims without evidence - but, as Carl Sagan said, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

We may reserve judgement, pending the results of research; but experiential evidence makes a significant, and often over-riding, contribution to the understanding of the experiencer. Scientists are sometimes inclined toward dogmatic denial, when in fact they should be prepared to say "there may be truth in that - let's try to find out".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"Scientists are sometimes inclined toward dogmatic denial, when in fact they should be prepared to say "there may be truth in that - let's try to find out"."

Sounds good to me. after all, science, IMHO, in not just about demonstrating what we know to be true, or false; it is also about exploring the whole of nature--physical, mental and spiritual--and our being willing to experiment in order to uncover new truths, or improve on old ones.

This question just came to mind: Are animals capable of being moral and human-like beings? Or are they dominated strictly by their instincts?

BTW, I plan to start a thread about "ethics"--the science of moral and human behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
To say that we don't know some things is not the same as saying we don't know anything. We do not know that biochemical processes are necessary for consciousness, but we do know that that is the only place we have ever observed it. I exclude, of course, people who have talked to clocks or bananas during LSD trips.

There's always room for speculation, but most of what's been said is not speculation. Instead it's been assertion and assumption. There's even room for scientific inquiry (by which I mean actual scientific inquiry and not the pretend stuff) if consciousness, soul, mind, are indeed by-products of the brain or some other physical system instead of some mystical "force" or "energy" ("force" and "energy" being the favorite words that non-scientists use when they want to pretend they're saying something scientific).

There are other animals on this earth right now that can be said to think. There may well be aliens who think. There is some reason to think that machines might some day 'think'. But we have no reason whatever to believe that rocks think or vacuums or toaster ovens.

And, Rev, ethics is not a "science" of anything.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, I agree with what you're saying, TFF (almost completely). The semantics might be an obstacle. Are thought and consciousness one and the same?





"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 14 of 120 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5