A question of spirits/souls

Jeanie

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

So you give much weight to introspection?

why wouldn't one give weight to introspection.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

why wouldn't one give weight to introspection.

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.

Ahnimus

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

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.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

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.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

but does this equate to the thoughts we come to through introspection as being incorrect?

Sometimes

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Alright. Then you acknowledge the unexplainable nature of the experiences? You seem to be saying that, but just want to be clear.

If so, that's somewhat close to the view I hold to such experiences. Namely that there is a true experience at the core, that is most often interpreted in the different prevailing cultural and religious settings. Such as a christian attributes god and jesus, a muslim allah and so on and so forth. This something is the reason we have all these religions, and why every culture anywhere have held some beliefs about spirituality/religion.

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

So you admit that you could be wrong then?

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Sometimes

clarify this for me ryan.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Alright. Then you acknowledge the unexplainable nature of the experiences? You seem to be saying that, but just want to be clear.

If so, that's somewhat close to the view I hold to such experiences. Namely that there is a true experience at the core, that is most often interpreted in the different prevailing cultural and religious settings. Such as a christian attributes god and jesus, a muslim allah and so on and so forth. This something is the reason we have all these religions, and why every culture anywhere have held some beliefs about spirituality/religion.

Peace
Dan

No, the experiences are unexplained not unexplainable. Many experiences can be explained by natural events, dehydration, starvation, stress, trauma, seizures, EM stimulation of temporal lobes. There are many natural explanations, they just aren't widely known or accepted. They don't appeal to emotions and seem to degrade the value of the experience. The folk psychological explanations are typical of the culture as you mentioned above. Which casts doubt on any of their validity.

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

So you admit that you could be wrong then?

Everything could be wrong. Up could be down and I could be your uncle Bob.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

clarify this for me ryan.

Some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lan_vital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_Theatre

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There are many natural explanations, they just aren't widely known or accepted. They don't appeal to emotions and seem to degrade the value of the experience.

Objective and scientific explanations do not degrade the value of experience. Objective and scientific methods of reason cannot degrade the nature of experience because they are entirely different issues. You can explain the most scientific explanation and that cannot change someone's experience. They go perfectly hand in hand--they are complementary. If you insist your explanation trumps the other person; if you use any method to minimize the subjective experience; if you insist it is either one or the other--objective or subjective; and if you use a derogatory demeanor and approach, the lack of objectivity and lack of reason itself indicates the emotional power struggle and personal imbalance at hand.

angelica

To add to my last post, I do not see any of your experts doing any of these methods, Ahnimus. Even the ones I dramatically disagree with (Richard Dawkins, for example). They realize their boundaries and what they can speak to as experts, and that they must clarify when speaking from opinion or speculation, etc.

Another example is that I have always agreed with my diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. However, I recognize that it goes far beyond what the scientists understand at this time. And for me, it's included spiritual experiences that have "healed me" in the perspective of illness. My experience cannot challenge the science aspect, like the science aspect cannot challenge my spiritual perception. The science perspective cannot challenge my spiritual experience effectively, anyway.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

To add to my last post, I do not see any of your experts doing any of these methods, Ahnimus. Even the ones I dramatically disagree with (Richard Dawkins, for example). They realize their boundaries and what they can speak to as experts, and that they must clarify when speaking from opinion or speculation, etc.

Another example is that I have always agreed with my diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. However, I recognize that it goes far beyond what the scientists understand at this time. And for me, it's included spiritual experiences that have "healed me" in the perspective of illness. My experience cannot challenge the science aspect, like the science aspect cannot challenge my spiritual perception. The science perspective cannot challenge my spiritual experience effectively, anyway.

True but your attributions are pointless to anyone else. Since they are matters of absolute faith. If you wanna have a debate, you need to provide things like evidence and theory. Which you don't.

Another problem with faith is that the faithful claim it unchallengable, yet, when an adversary subscribes to a faith it is often challenged. Who is to question Hitler's faithful assertion that slaying the Jews was God's command? It was a matter of faith and by your logic, nothing can refute it.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

True but your attributions are pointless to anyone else. Since they are matters of absolute faith. If you wanna have a debate, you need to provide things like evidence and theory. Which you don't.

If my point of view were pointless, and held no weight, say on this board, you'd be able to completely overlook it. And rather, it seems you are quite threatened by my personal experience and what it implies.

I'm about to start doing public speaking about my mental health issues, for educational purposes. I've completed training and will be doing it in a professional capacity. Personal experience holds a LOT of weight and we both know it. Particularly when emotions are involved--it hooks people unconsciously.