you seem to have some kind of dark experiences in the past with church or something.... cause you always sneak it in when it's completely irrelevant.
Yep, Soulsinging is a dark kinda guy, he is a shadow behind everyone of us.
I think it's kind of good that you like your dad. I think Soulsinging is trying to say that although your dad is cool, he is still a human. I can imagine in my mind what you mean when you say about your dad, and yes, your dad is a good, knowlegble person who likes to bring out good in people.
What is you reason for your belief in spirits and/or souls?
What evidence supports your belief?
What is the logical steps taken to this conclusion?
Every now and again i get the feeling that there is an Angel who looks after me. Because sometimes i do silly things and end up putting myself in danger.
I don't believe in it, and i don't have evidence, but when i avoid a messy situation by doing absolutely nothing, i always seem to think that someone has taken care of me.
Yep, Soulsinging is a dark kinda guy, he is a shadow behind everyone of us.
I think it's kind of good that you like your dad. I think Soulsinging is trying to say that although your dad is cool, he is still a human. I can imagine in my mind what you mean when you say about your dad, and yes, your dad is a good, knowlegble person who likes to bring out good in people.
well, i did say my dad gets on my nerves sometimes... and that he's got his share of mistakes.
i'm kinda holding off a bit though..... cause he was kinda getting to me. i have a slightly short temper.... which i'm working on.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, i did say my dad gets on my nerves sometimes... and that he's got his share of mistakes.
i'm kinda holding off a bit though..... cause he was kinda getting to me. i have a slightly short temper.... which i'm working on.
Everyone gets annoyed with their parents sometimes...but they are the sort of people who will help in a difficult time ( well that's how my dad is )
Recently i've spent my weekend with an asshole of a person in a country
i've never been before and who's language i didn't know. Upon my return to London i didn't think about anyone but my dad, and how good communication between us usually is. Sure me and my dad had rare big awful arguments, but we both help each other, because if we didn't have each other there would be no one else there to help, or advise
What would science be without a spoken and written language?
How would a determinist describe "making love?"
If the spoken-written language is only a science founded in determinism, does 'no' sometimes mean 'yes'?
If a brilliant individual illuminated a new idea to you, could that individual be considered a "brilliant soul"?
Where would culture be without language?
We'd be macaque monkeys dude.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
well there is a 21 gram diffrence of life right before death, not that it proves anything but something to ponder over, as i do believe we have souls.
Could be air from the lungs or any number of things that change after death.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
People believe in spirits and/or souls because of a binding of representations, typically of sensory and ideological nature, usually promoted by cultural symbolism.
For example, vector (14, 2, 38) represents a phenomenal experience "oneness" and is it's binding to vector (8, 15, 25), concept spirituality, is upregulated by it's cultural symbolism.
That's just a metaphorical example of how such a representational coherency might occur within the neuronal structure. Just like Pavlov's Dog, the bell and the meat are intrinsicly linked by upregulation of synapses according to Hebb's rule.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I mean, you experienced a phenomenal experience, that was inexplainable with your knowledge, and you were presented with the idea that it is indicative of spirituality and barring any other hypotheses and the implicit link between "spirituality" and "feel good" the paradigm lives.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Assuming that we do have souls, I don't see how that suddenly means there is a god. It just means we have some kind of life force inside of us that we have yet to understand. The idea of some kind of superior life force that has dominion over all life forces is a whole other concept.
I agree. I can say that I have "experienced" the power of a soul, felt the life force in a person, and again when it was gone, but I've yet to "experience" a sense of GOD. Not very scientific and I'll be the first to eat my hat if I'm wrong but if there is a GOD I don't believe that it is a Superior Force that has dominion over us all. And I do think that souls and GOD are seperate concepts.
I agree. I can say that I have "experienced" the power of a soul, felt the life force in a person, and again when it was gone, but I've yet to "experience" a sense of GOD. Not very scientific and I'll be the first to eat my hat if I'm wrong but if there is a GOD I don't believe that it is a Superior Force that has dominion over us all. And I do think that souls and GOD are seperate concepts.
Interesting. Yet, you feel that your experience has weight, whereas the experience of another, may not?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
wonderful words Jeanie, i specifically took those couple of sentences of your text so that they can stand out.
Thanks love.
Just the way I feel. I did know that she would live on inside me when she died, long before she actually did die. But since she has passed away, there have been days and situations when I have felt her presence in me. Known what she would say. Wondered at the timing of some things. Even considered that she is bringing things into my life that I need. Perhaps this is again just learned behaviour, or wishful thinking, but there have also been dreams in which we have had conversations about current situations that she was not privy to so again, perhaps it is my mind predicting what she would have to say on the situation based on all I know of her, but I prefer to think that it is just her, living on in me. I believe we carry our dead with us. That they are able to influence our current situation and our future even though physically they are no longer in our presence. Their words, their love, their views and opinions still shape us after they are no longer able to have actual physical input into our lives. It is no longer an external relationship but an internal one.
People believe in spirits and/or souls because of a binding of representations, typically of sensory and ideological nature, usually promoted by cultural symbolism.
For example, vector (14, 2, 38) represents a phenomenal experience "oneness" and is it's binding to vector (8, 15, 25), concept spirituality, is upregulated by it's cultural symbolism.
That's just a metaphorical example of how such a representational coherency might occur within the neuronal structure. Just like Pavlov's Dog, the bell and the meat are intrinsicly linked by upregulation of synapses according to Hebb's rule.
I'm willing to concur that perhaps it is just Pavlovian learned behaviour Ahnimus. However given the emotional nature of the connections we make, I find that a little too clinical. It may be that this can all be scientifically explained however because emotional connection is involved, the science offers no comfort and certainly isn't the first thing that comes to mind when one experiences connection. Maybe that's because the science is relatively new and the "spiritual" explanation has been a learned behaviour for much longer?
Interesting. Yet, you feel that your experience has weight, whereas the experience of another, may not?
Not at all.
I'm simply saying that I agree. That this is what I see, feel, think.
I'm well aware that others do not share this view or experience and that's ok by me. We are all different.
I don't know why I have a view that is different from others, or they from me. But certainly this is the case.
I realize that many people take great comfort from GOD and that they completely believe in his existence. Just as there are people that do not believe in the existence of GOD and that are able to find the answers they seek from science. I probably sit somewhere in the middle. But we are all entitled to our views and I would not presume to consider other people's views on this without merit.
People believe in spirits and/or souls because of a binding of representations, typically of sensory and ideological nature, usually promoted by cultural symbolism.
For example, vector (14, 2, 38) represents a phenomenal experience "oneness" and is it's binding to vector (8, 15, 25), concept spirituality, is upregulated by it's cultural symbolism.
That's just a metaphorical example of how such a representational coherency might occur within the neuronal structure. Just like Pavlov's Dog, the bell and the meat are intrinsicly linked by upregulation of synapses according to Hebb's rule.
Given my doctorate level experience in research, and my extensive philosophical training, I can confidently tell you that this is complete drivel. Just stop pretending. It's painful. Really. All assertions, unsubstantiated references to other people's rhetorical vectors and a few namedrops.
What is you reason for your belief in spirits and/or souls?
What evidence supports your belief?
What is the logical steps taken to this conclusion?
I don't believe that the rational, logical side of people is all there is to us. I think there's a lot more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy young Horatio!
Sure, our rationality counts for a large part of our make-up, but I don't believe it accounts for everything.
Civilizations which lasted for 5000 years or more existed with a day to day belief in, and engagement with, shamanistic, and mystical practices. From the ancient Egyptians, to the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, to the South American civilizations. I think it would be unwise to simply write them all off. Our way of thinking and of percieving the world is a relatively new one. I think we have a lot to learn from our ancient ancestors regarding such things as 'soul', and 'spirit' e.t.c.
Given my doctorate level experience in research, and my extensive philosophical training, I can confidently tell you that this is complete drivel. Just stop pretending. It's painful. Really. All assertions, unsubstantiated references to other people's rhetorical vectors and a few namedrops.
The vector examples were a reference to vector coding in neural networks. Assuming they aren't represented by local coding.
Do you even know what Pavlov's Dog is? Or who Donald Hebb was? Or what Hebb's Rule is? Do you know anything about upregulation of synapses? Long-Term Potentiation by NDMA channels?
You are the charlatan it seems.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't believe that the rational, logical side of people is all there is to us. I think there's a lot more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy young Horatio!
Sure, our rationality counts for a large part of our make-up, but I don't believe it accounts for everything.
Civilizations which lasted for 5000 years or more existed with a day to day belief in, and engagement with, shamanistic, and mystical practices. From the ancient Egyptians, to the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, to the South American civilizations. I think it would be unwise to simply write them all off. Our way of thinking and of percieving the world is a relatively new one. I think we have a lot to learn from our ancient ancestors regarding such things as 'soul', and 'spirit' e.t.c.
So you give much weight to introspection?
I think it's trumped by neural plasticity and how things a implicitly associated in such way that our brains can be made to believe anything through habituation. There is so much mysteria in our culture that it's pretty well guaranteed the average brain will believe something irrational.
Introspection and Emotional intelligence differ in conscious accessibility and temporal response. You can't consciously access the method or variables that go into introspective conclusions, the conclusions are taken primarily on faith. While the exact same information might be available to well-thought logic, the conclusions may or may not be the same. Given that you can't quantify your introspection, I would give more weight to the latter.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't believe that the rational, logical side of people is all there is to us. I think there's a lot more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy young Horatio!
Sure, our rationality counts for a large part of our make-up, but I don't believe it accounts for everything.
Civilizations which lasted for 5000 years or more existed with a day to day belief in, and engagement with, shamanistic, and mystical practices. From the ancient Egyptians, to the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, to the South American civilizations. I think it would be unwise to simply write them all off. Our way of thinking and of percieving the world is a relatively new one. I think we have a lot to learn from our ancient ancestors regarding such things as 'soul', and 'spirit' e.t.c.
I'd agree with you on this Byrnzie. Seemingly there is much that has not been explained or scientifically proven or disproven and one does have to look at all cultures and civilizations and wonder at it all. Particularly given that some of the medicines and herbal remedies are again enjoying a resurgence having been investigated by scientists who are discovering the beneficial properties of things that have been utilized for centuries in some cultures. If this is happening with medicines and things like architecture, land management and the like I often wonder at what other things we are yet to acknowledge from the past and these rich cultures.
By the way, I have a friend named John Pilger, though I'm willing to bet he didn't write that quote.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Given my doctorate level experience in research, and my extensive philosophical training, I can confidently tell you that this is complete drivel. Just stop pretending. It's painful. Really. All assertions, unsubstantiated references to other people's rhetorical vectors and a few namedrops.
If you are ignorant of synaptic plasticity. Then I question what kind of philosophy you pervert. If you don't know what Neurophilosophy is, then I suggest you get crackin' wise guy. I'm sure you are familiar with the terms and logic of Aristotle, Plato, Kant and Hume, but that is centuries old. We actually have science now that probes the brain and tells us a lot about ourselves. Read Pat or Paul Churchland, even Dennett isn't naive enough to ignore the brain. If you really had "extensive philosophical training" then you should know what I'm talking about.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
so tell me how the conclusions one comes to through inrospection are wrong. who decides they are wrong? and by what criteria are they deemed so?
john pilger is an australian journalist. and i mean a real journalist not an apologist for and an accomplice to the establishment.
Because of the brain. It always is.
If you take the "master gene" for the eyeball in a mouse and transmutate a fruit-fly with it, the eye develops as a fruit-fly eye and not a mouse eye. That is because the gene expression depends on epigenetic factors. The brain is similar to this. It learns by a very dirty process.
Neural networks consist of a number of neurons. The neuron consists of a soma (cell body), dendrites, and an axon. The neuron is excited and inhibited at the soma my other neurons. Beyond a certain thresh hold, the axon spikes causing a reaction somewhere else. When neurons fire together their connection strengthens. Essentially when two things in the real world appear to be related they get associated neurally. This is very oversimplified. But a lot of things can go wrong with this kind of dirty learning system. I personally like the idea that representations are vector coded as this allows for more possible representations and explains the reason for different frequencies. It also explains why representations are so diffuse in the brain, spanning much of the neocortex. That is something you cannot introspect, you have no idea what process is leading up to your thought. And it's potential for error.
There are thousands of different things people believe through introspection. It serves it's purpose to humans, but it's inferior for objectivity. I use introspection a lot, and I validate my introspection with observation. I hypothesized based on Mead's cross culture studies that gender brain differences were influenced by culture. It turns out it's probably right, for a couple of reasons.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you take the "master gene" for the eyeball in a mouse and transmutate a fruit-fly with it, the eye develops as a fruit-fly eye and not a mouse eye. That is because the gene expression depends on epigenetic factors. The brain is similar to this. It learns by a very dirty process.
Neural networks consist of a number of neurons. The neuron consists of a soma (cell body), dendrites, and an axon. The neuron is excited and inhibited at the soma my other neurons. Beyond a certain thresh hold, the axon spikes causing a reaction somewhere else. When neurons fire together their connection strengthens. Essentially when two things in the real world appear to be related they get associated neurally. This is very oversimplified. But a lot of things can go wrong with this kind of dirty learning system. I personally like the idea that representations are vector coded as this allows for more possible representations and explains the reason for different frequencies. It also explains why representations are so diffuse in the brain, spanning much of the neocortex. That is something you cannot introspect, you have no idea what process is leading up to your thought. And it's potential for error.
There are thousands of different things people believe through introspection. It serves it's purpose to humans, but it's inferior for objectivity. I use introspection a lot, and I validate my introspection with observation. I hypothesized based on Mead's cross culture studies that gender brain differences were influenced by culture. It turns out it's probably right, for a couple of reasons.
but does this equate to the thoughts we come to through introspection as being incorrect?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think it's trumped by neural plasticity and how things a implicitly associated in such way that our brains can be made to believe anything through habituation. There is so much mysteria in our culture that it's pretty well guaranteed the average brain will believe something irrational.
Introspection and Emotional intelligence differ in conscious accessibility and temporal response. You can't consciously access the method or variables that go into introspective conclusions, the conclusions are taken primarily on faith. While the exact same information might be available to well-thought logic, the conclusions may or may not be the same. Given that you can't quantify your introspection, I would give more weight to the latter.
In essence, only things that are quantifiable is to be lent weight? (Resisting the urge to go on a rant about quantitative/qualitative methods in science as if you were on of my students) I can remember several times here where you have claimed introspection as foundation and indirect proof of your own assertions. And nothing wrong with that. Introspection and irrational ideas are as much part of being human as logic and rationality.
Now in this thread you have asked people what they think and then how they believe in things like souls. And then write them all off as being mere mismatched impulses in the brain or something. That is offensive and not just a little disrespectful if you ask me. We know that you're a neuro-science/brain man, and we know that you hold it up as the one true science against which everything else must be held. Alternatively, you can accept some behaviourism, tops. That is a very narrow view to take, and one I have noticed often your own sources (scientists/papers) dont hold to.
Asking people what they think on a subject is fine. Arguing with your own point of view is fine. But you come across as a bit unnecessarily arrogant and insensitive when your response to 60 different accounts/opinions write them off as mismatches in their brains.
**Disclaimer** I dont necessarily believe much in soul and spirits either, although I don't write them completely off either. **Disclaimer**
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
In essence, only things that are quantifiable is to be lent weight? (Resisting the urge to go on a rant about quantitative/qualitative methods in science as if you were on of my students) I can remember several times here where you have claimed introspection as foundation and indirect proof of your own assertions. And nothing wrong with that. Introspection and irrational ideas are as much part of being human as logic and rationality.
Now in this thread you have asked people what they think and then how they believe in things like souls. And then write them all off as being mere mismatched impulses in the brain or something. That is offensive and not just a little disrespectful if you ask me. We know that you're a neuro-science/brain man, and we know that you hold it up as the one true science against which everything else must be held. Alternatively, you can accept some behaviourism, tops. That is a very narrow view to take, and one I have noticed often your own sources (scientists/papers) dont hold to.
Asking people what they think on a subject is fine. Arguing with your own point of view is fine. But you come across as a bit unnecessarily arrogant and insensitive when your response to 60 different accounts/opinions write them off as mismatches in their brains.
**Disclaimer** I dont necessarily believe much in soul and spirits either, although I don't write them completely off either. **Disclaimer**
Peace
Dan
Well, I basically said that the feeling associated with the concept of spirituality was such because it's culturally supported. No one else provided an alternative explanation for their belief.
I just said it in terms of neuroplasticity because it worked as a reduction. The brain has no other explanation for mentioned experience besides the culturally supported theory of spirituality. Unless one seeks a naturalist explanation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
but does this equate to the thoughts we come to through introspection as being incorrect?
Sometimes
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Both.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yep, Soulsinging is a dark kinda guy, he is a shadow behind everyone of us.
I think it's kind of good that you like your dad. I think Soulsinging is trying to say that although your dad is cool, he is still a human. I can imagine in my mind what you mean when you say about your dad, and yes, your dad is a good, knowlegble person who likes to bring out good in people.
Every now and again i get the feeling that there is an Angel who looks after me. Because sometimes i do silly things and end up putting myself in danger.
I don't believe in it, and i don't have evidence, but when i avoid a messy situation by doing absolutely nothing, i always seem to think that someone has taken care of me.
i'm kinda holding off a bit though..... cause he was kinda getting to me. i have a slightly short temper.... which i'm working on.
Everyone gets annoyed with their parents sometimes...but they are the sort of people who will help in a difficult time ( well that's how my dad is )
Recently i've spent my weekend with an asshole of a person in a country
i've never been before and who's language i didn't know. Upon my return to London i didn't think about anyone but my dad, and how good communication between us usually is. Sure me and my dad had rare big awful arguments, but we both help each other, because if we didn't have each other there would be no one else there to help, or advise
Where would culture be without language?
We'd be macaque monkeys dude.
Could be air from the lungs or any number of things that change after death.
People believe in spirits and/or souls because of a binding of representations, typically of sensory and ideological nature, usually promoted by cultural symbolism.
For example, vector (14, 2, 38) represents a phenomenal experience "oneness" and is it's binding to vector (8, 15, 25), concept spirituality, is upregulated by it's cultural symbolism.
That's just a metaphorical example of how such a representational coherency might occur within the neuronal structure. Just like Pavlov's Dog, the bell and the meat are intrinsicly linked by upregulation of synapses according to Hebb's rule.
I agree.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Interesting. Yet, you feel that your experience has weight, whereas the experience of another, may not?
Thanks love.
Just the way I feel. I did know that she would live on inside me when she died, long before she actually did die. But since she has passed away, there have been days and situations when I have felt her presence in me. Known what she would say. Wondered at the timing of some things. Even considered that she is bringing things into my life that I need. Perhaps this is again just learned behaviour, or wishful thinking, but there have also been dreams in which we have had conversations about current situations that she was not privy to so again, perhaps it is my mind predicting what she would have to say on the situation based on all I know of her, but I prefer to think that it is just her, living on in me.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Exactly gue! I completely agree.
I guess I have always wondered though why some people seek and others do not. It's an interesting conundrum.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm willing to concur that perhaps it is just Pavlovian learned behaviour Ahnimus. However given the emotional nature of the connections we make, I find that a little too clinical. It may be that this can all be scientifically explained however because emotional connection is involved, the science offers no comfort and certainly isn't the first thing that comes to mind when one experiences connection. Maybe that's because the science is relatively new and the "spiritual" explanation has been a learned behaviour for much longer?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Not at all.
I'm simply saying that I agree. That this is what I see, feel, think.
I'm well aware that others do not share this view or experience and that's ok by me. We are all different.
I don't know why I have a view that is different from others, or they from me. But certainly this is the case.
I realize that many people take great comfort from GOD and that they completely believe in his existence. Just as there are people that do not believe in the existence of GOD and that are able to find the answers they seek from science. I probably sit somewhere in the middle. But we are all entitled to our views and I would not presume to consider other people's views on this without merit.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Given my doctorate level experience in research, and my extensive philosophical training, I can confidently tell you that this is complete drivel. Just stop pretending. It's painful. Really. All assertions, unsubstantiated references to other people's rhetorical vectors and a few namedrops.
I don't believe that the rational, logical side of people is all there is to us. I think there's a lot more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy young Horatio!
Sure, our rationality counts for a large part of our make-up, but I don't believe it accounts for everything.
Civilizations which lasted for 5000 years or more existed with a day to day belief in, and engagement with, shamanistic, and mystical practices. From the ancient Egyptians, to the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, to the South American civilizations. I think it would be unwise to simply write them all off. Our way of thinking and of percieving the world is a relatively new one. I think we have a lot to learn from our ancient ancestors regarding such things as 'soul', and 'spirit' e.t.c.
The vector examples were a reference to vector coding in neural networks. Assuming they aren't represented by local coding.
Do you even know what Pavlov's Dog is? Or who Donald Hebb was? Or what Hebb's Rule is? Do you know anything about upregulation of synapses? Long-Term Potentiation by NDMA channels?
You are the charlatan it seems.
So you give much weight to introspection?
I think it's trumped by neural plasticity and how things a implicitly associated in such way that our brains can be made to believe anything through habituation. There is so much mysteria in our culture that it's pretty well guaranteed the average brain will believe something irrational.
Introspection and Emotional intelligence differ in conscious accessibility and temporal response. You can't consciously access the method or variables that go into introspective conclusions, the conclusions are taken primarily on faith. While the exact same information might be available to well-thought logic, the conclusions may or may not be the same. Given that you can't quantify your introspection, I would give more weight to the latter.
I'd agree with you on this Byrnzie. Seemingly there is much that has not been explained or scientifically proven or disproven and one does have to look at all cultures and civilizations and wonder at it all. Particularly given that some of the medicines and herbal remedies are again enjoying a resurgence having been investigated by scientists who are discovering the beneficial properties of things that have been utilized for centuries in some cultures. If this is happening with medicines and things like architecture, land management and the like I often wonder at what other things we are yet to acknowledge from the past and these rich cultures.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
why wouldn't one give weight to introspection.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's often wrong.
By the way, I have a friend named John Pilger, though I'm willing to bet he didn't write that quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_plasticity
If you are ignorant of synaptic plasticity. Then I question what kind of philosophy you pervert. If you don't know what Neurophilosophy is, then I suggest you get crackin' wise guy. I'm sure you are familiar with the terms and logic of Aristotle, Plato, Kant and Hume, but that is centuries old. We actually have science now that probes the brain and tells us a lot about ourselves. Read Pat or Paul Churchland, even Dennett isn't naive enough to ignore the brain. If you really had "extensive philosophical training" then you should know what I'm talking about.
so tell me how the conclusions one comes to through inrospection are wrong. who decides they are wrong? and by what criteria are they deemed so?
john pilger is an australian journalist. and i mean a real journalist not an apologist for and an accomplice to the establishment.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Because of the brain. It always is.
If you take the "master gene" for the eyeball in a mouse and transmutate a fruit-fly with it, the eye develops as a fruit-fly eye and not a mouse eye. That is because the gene expression depends on epigenetic factors. The brain is similar to this. It learns by a very dirty process.
Neural networks consist of a number of neurons. The neuron consists of a soma (cell body), dendrites, and an axon. The neuron is excited and inhibited at the soma my other neurons. Beyond a certain thresh hold, the axon spikes causing a reaction somewhere else. When neurons fire together their connection strengthens. Essentially when two things in the real world appear to be related they get associated neurally. This is very oversimplified. But a lot of things can go wrong with this kind of dirty learning system. I personally like the idea that representations are vector coded as this allows for more possible representations and explains the reason for different frequencies. It also explains why representations are so diffuse in the brain, spanning much of the neocortex. That is something you cannot introspect, you have no idea what process is leading up to your thought. And it's potential for error.
There are thousands of different things people believe through introspection. It serves it's purpose to humans, but it's inferior for objectivity. I use introspection a lot, and I validate my introspection with observation. I hypothesized based on Mead's cross culture studies that gender brain differences were influenced by culture. It turns out it's probably right, for a couple of reasons.
but does this equate to the thoughts we come to through introspection as being incorrect?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
In essence, only things that are quantifiable is to be lent weight? (Resisting the urge to go on a rant about quantitative/qualitative methods in science as if you were on of my students) I can remember several times here where you have claimed introspection as foundation and indirect proof of your own assertions. And nothing wrong with that. Introspection and irrational ideas are as much part of being human as logic and rationality.
Now in this thread you have asked people what they think and then how they believe in things like souls. And then write them all off as being mere mismatched impulses in the brain or something. That is offensive and not just a little disrespectful if you ask me. We know that you're a neuro-science/brain man, and we know that you hold it up as the one true science against which everything else must be held. Alternatively, you can accept some behaviourism, tops. That is a very narrow view to take, and one I have noticed often your own sources (scientists/papers) dont hold to.
Asking people what they think on a subject is fine. Arguing with your own point of view is fine. But you come across as a bit unnecessarily arrogant and insensitive when your response to 60 different accounts/opinions write them off as mismatches in their brains.
**Disclaimer** I dont necessarily believe much in soul and spirits either, although I don't write them completely off either. **Disclaimer**
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, I basically said that the feeling associated with the concept of spirituality was such because it's culturally supported. No one else provided an alternative explanation for their belief.
I just said it in terms of neuroplasticity because it worked as a reduction. The brain has no other explanation for mentioned experience besides the culturally supported theory of spirituality. Unless one seeks a naturalist explanation.
Sometimes