Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

neurons firing: part 2

Expand Messages
  • jser1692
    I forgot to address this part of the post in my response; I appologize. ... Indeed, the forcing of one s interpretation on others is the ultimate problem. I
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 3, 2001
      I forgot to address this part of the post in my response; I appologize.

      >where we have run into a problem is that we might wish to
      >force others to have the same interpretation and this leads to inquisitions
      >and burnings on the cross ...

      Indeed, the forcing of one's interpretation on others is the ultimate problem.
      I hold neither religion nor science as the bearer of Truth. Inquisitions and
      burnings on the cross demonstrate the hiddeous excesses of forcing upon others
      the christian interpretation of Truth. While it would be ignorant to believe
      that such things no longer happen, it would be unrealistic to believe that
      they happen with equal consistency, on an equal scale as such in past times.
      Further, such oppressive tendencies, though tragically powerful, present a
      clear front for resistance. Now, would it be misguided to say that science,
      once entirely threatened by religion, now holds the higher ground - at least
      in western society? Personally, I see christianity taking a back seat to the
      findings of this study, that survey, this finding, etc, concerning the means
      for directing one's life. The inherent dangers in a culture dominated by
      scientific (more accurately, scientism) processes, are founded in my prior
      post. Reducing a thinking, feeling, and vulnerable being to neurons
      firing-and all of those other "workings" that do little for humanity, save
      turning it into machines to further the agenda of scientism- results in pain
      and misery on a level entirely different form that of the christian
      inquisition. The oppression is invisible; that is, of course, until one turns
      on the television, converses with a coworker, or connects to the internet.
      What I hope to have related in this response, is that the criticism of
      religion, at this point in history, is entirely too safe. While any given
      interpretation of Truth warrants a good re-examination, it seems that the
      motives of such examinations are, at best, shady in the hands of one
      subscribing to a dominant interpretation.
      regards,
      John
    • Dustin Pickering
      I agree here. I read an article once that broke love down into chemical responses in the brain...I found it awfully pathetic. ...
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 3, 2001
        I agree here. I read an article once that broke love
        down into chemical responses in the brain...I found it
        awfully pathetic.



        --- jser1692 <jser1692@...> wrote:
        > I forgot to address this part of the post in my
        > response; I appologize.
        >
        > >where we have run into a problem is that we might
        > wish to
        > >force others to have the same interpretation and
        > this leads to inquisitions
        > >and burnings on the cross ...
        >
        > Indeed, the forcing of one's interpretation on
        > others is the ultimate problem.
        > I hold neither religion nor science as the bearer
        > of Truth. Inquisitions and
        > burnings on the cross demonstrate the hiddeous
        > excesses of forcing upon others
        > the christian interpretation of Truth. While it
        > would be ignorant to believe
        > that such things no longer happen, it would be
        > unrealistic to believe that
        > they happen with equal consistency, on an equal
        > scale as such in past times.
        > Further, such oppressive tendencies, though
        > tragically powerful, present a
        > clear front for resistance. Now, would it be
        > misguided to say that science,
        > once entirely threatened by religion, now holds the
        > higher ground - at least
        > in western society? Personally, I see christianity
        > taking a back seat to the
        > findings of this study, that survey, this finding,
        > etc, concerning the means
        > for directing one's life. The inherent dangers in a
        > culture dominated by
        > scientific (more accurately, scientism) processes,
        > are founded in my prior
        > post. Reducing a thinking, feeling, and vulnerable
        > being to neurons
        > firing-and all of those other "workings" that do
        > little for humanity, save
        > turning it into machines to further the agenda of
        > scientism- results in pain
        > and misery on a level entirely different form that
        > of the christian
        > inquisition. The oppression is invisible; that is,
        > of course, until one turns
        > on the television, converses with a coworker, or
        > connects to the internet.
        > What I hope to have related in this response, is
        > that the criticism of
        > religion, at this point in history, is entirely too
        > safe. While any given
        > interpretation of Truth warrants a good
        > re-examination, it seems that the
        > motives of such examinations are, at best, shady in
        > the hands of one
        > subscribing to a dominant interpretation.
        > regards,
        > John
        >
        >
        >
        > From The Exist List...
        > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • Paul R Turner
        When we reduce human actions and emotions to scientific explanation we risk the parochial view of the genetic fallacy , as Freud did in his analysis of
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
          When we reduce human actions and emotions to scientific explanation we risk the parochial view of the 'genetic fallacy', as Freud did in his analysis of religion.

          By concluding religion was symptomatic of a neurosis it became easy to dismiss the benefits of a religious life (though I am an atheist).

          Regards

          Paul

          --

          On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:16:45
          Dustin Pickering wrote:
          >I agree here. I read an article once that broke love
          >down into chemical responses in the brain...I found it
          >awfully pathetic.
          >
          >
          >
          >--- jser1692 <jser1692@...> wrote:
          >> I forgot to address this part of the post in my
          >> response; I appologize.
          >>
          >> >where we have run into a problem is that we might
          >> wish to
          >> >force others to have the same interpretation and
          >> this leads to inquisitions
          >> >and burnings on the cross ...
          >>
          >> Indeed, the forcing of one's interpretation on
          >> others is the ultimate problem.
          >> I hold neither religion nor science as the bearer
          >> of Truth. Inquisitions and
          >> burnings on the cross demonstrate the hiddeous
          >> excesses of forcing upon others
          >> the christian interpretation of Truth. While it
          >> would be ignorant to believe
          >> that such things no longer happen, it would be
          >> unrealistic to believe that
          >> they happen with equal consistency, on an equal
          >> scale as such in past times.
          >> Further, such oppressive tendencies, though
          >> tragically powerful, present a
          >> clear front for resistance. Now, would it be
          >> misguided to say that science,
          >> once entirely threatened by religion, now holds the
          >> higher ground - at least
          >> in western society? Personally, I see christianity
          >> taking a back seat to the
          >> findings of this study, that survey, this finding,
          >> etc, concerning the means
          >> for directing one's life. The inherent dangers in a
          >> culture dominated by
          >> scientific (more accurately, scientism) processes,
          >> are founded in my prior
          >> post. Reducing a thinking, feeling, and vulnerable
          >> being to neurons
          >> firing-and all of those other "workings" that do
          >> little for humanity, save
          >> turning it into machines to further the agenda of
          >> scientism- results in pain
          >> and misery on a level entirely different form that
          >> of the christian
          >> inquisition. The oppression is invisible; that is,
          >> of course, until one turns
          >> on the television, converses with a coworker, or
          >> connects to the internet.
          >> What I hope to have related in this response, is
          >> that the criticism of
          >> religion, at this point in history, is entirely too
          >> safe. While any given
          >> interpretation of Truth warrants a good
          >> re-examination, it seems that the
          >> motives of such examinations are, at best, shady in
          >> the hands of one
          >> subscribing to a dominant interpretation.
          >> regards,
          >> John
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From The Exist List...
          >> http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          >>
          >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >__________________________________________________
          >Do You Yahoo!?
          >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
          >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          >


          Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
          http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
        • Edward Alf
          hi again RL, in a sense, science has taken a dominant position ... or perhaps we should say that science provides words which are better understood, at least
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
            hi again RL,

            in a sense, science has taken a dominant position ... or perhaps we should
            say that science provides words which are better understood, at least in
            western society ...

            but religion, as we perceive it in hind-sight did have its role ... it
            allowed us to survive ... i use the word "us" in the social sense, since the
            "individual" is a modern concept ... keep in mind that it was the christian
            church which, for all its wrongs, did maintain knowledge through the dark
            ages ...

            and the inquisition was not in a sense wrong ... although it was carried to
            an extreme, especially in spain ... the perpetrators thought with some
            justification that they were doing the right thing ... in that era, the
            torments that were seen as occurring to those who went to hell, were much
            worse than could be done by the inquisition ... thus it was seen as better
            to crush a foot in a vice if this resulted in repentance and avoidance of
            hell ... in this, im not condoning the inquisitions actions, but only
            pointing out that they are explainable ... they have to be looked at in
            terms of the environment at the time, rather than in what we experience
            today ...

            i do not see a world based upon only science ... which is the reason for my
            assertion that the brain is "wired for spirituality" ... regardless of what
            science may bring to our knowledge, there is still a need for something more
            ... what i see happening in the 21st century is a progressive merger of
            science and religion ... my fear is what that religion may be ... with the
            completion of the human gnome project, we are able to "design" ourselves ..
            that is we can become an active participant in our own evolution ... but
            that raises the question of where we would be headed ... who will make the
            decisions on what future humans will be like? ... will we have the sort of
            two level society as detailed in the book, "The Time Machine"? ... that of
            grotesque workers living underground and the beautiful elite on the surface
            who serve as food for the workers? ... at least the christian church
            (regardless of some of its own actions) put forth the premise of loving one
            another ...

            existentialism is one manner of interpretation ... it is based upon man and
            the idea of defining himself through his existence ... Sartre's view was
            that of an atheist ... in my journey to date, im not sure if this is really
            fulfilling of my needs for spirituality ... i would take it that this was
            true for Sartre, but is it true in the common sense of mankind in general
            ... do we need something more ...

            regards

            eduard


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "jser1692" <jser1692@...>
            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:36 AM
            Subject: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2


            > I forgot to address this part of the post in my response; I appologize.
            >
            > >where we have run into a problem is that we might wish to
            > >force others to have the same interpretation and this leads to
            inquisitions
            > >and burnings on the cross ...
            >
            > Indeed, the forcing of one's interpretation on others is the ultimate
            problem.
            > I hold neither religion nor science as the bearer of Truth. Inquisitions
            and
            > burnings on the cross demonstrate the hiddeous excesses of forcing upon
            others
            > the christian interpretation of Truth. While it would be ignorant to
            believe
            > that such things no longer happen, it would be unrealistic to believe that
            > they happen with equal consistency, on an equal scale as such in past
            times.
            > Further, such oppressive tendencies, though tragically powerful, present a
            > clear front for resistance. Now, would it be misguided to say that
            science,
            > once entirely threatened by religion, now holds the higher ground - at
            least
            > in western society? Personally, I see christianity taking a back seat to
            the
            > findings of this study, that survey, this finding, etc, concerning the
            means
            > for directing one's life. The inherent dangers in a culture dominated by
            > scientific (more accurately, scientism) processes, are founded in my prior
            > post. Reducing a thinking, feeling, and vulnerable being to neurons
            > firing-and all of those other "workings" that do little for humanity, save
            > turning it into machines to further the agenda of scientism- results in
            pain
            > and misery on a level entirely different form that of the christian
            > inquisition. The oppression is invisible; that is, of course, until one
            turns
            > on the television, converses with a coworker, or connects to the internet.
            > What I hope to have related in this response, is that the criticism of
            > religion, at this point in history, is entirely too safe. While any given
            > interpretation of Truth warrants a good re-examination, it seems that the
            > motives of such examinations are, at best, shady in the hands of one
            > subscribing to a dominant interpretation.
            > regards,
            > John
            >
            >
            >
            > From The Exist List...
            > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Edward Alf
            Dustin, but that is all there is ... love is the way that we respond to others and ultimately it is only the manner in which the brain operates ... i dont see
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
              Dustin,

              but that is all there is ... love is the way that we respond to others and
              ultimately it is only the manner in which the brain operates ... i dont see
              it as pathetic ... the word would perhaps be "realistic" ... it does not
              change anything to realise how our brain operates ... love still remains as
              love ... people used to think that thunder was sent by the gods ... but now
              that we know it is only a matter of lightning superheating the air, does
              that change our awe at hearing it crash during a storm ... does a rainbow
              lose its beauty because we know it is due to refraction of sunlight ...

              what we feel and the way in which we interconnect with the world is all the
              result of brain processing ... this does not change anything ... only to
              make us more aware of who we are ...

              regards

              eduard

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Dustin Pickering" <dowotjon@...>
              To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:16 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2


              > I agree here. I read an article once that broke love
              > down into chemical responses in the brain...I found it
              > awfully pathetic.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- jser1692 <jser1692@...> wrote:
              > > I forgot to address this part of the post in my
              > > response; I appologize.
              > >
              > > >where we have run into a problem is that we might
              > > wish to
              > > >force others to have the same interpretation and
              > > this leads to inquisitions
              > > >and burnings on the cross ...
              > >
              > > Indeed, the forcing of one's interpretation on
              > > others is the ultimate problem.
              > > I hold neither religion nor science as the bearer
              > > of Truth. Inquisitions and
              > > burnings on the cross demonstrate the hiddeous
              > > excesses of forcing upon others
              > > the christian interpretation of Truth. While it
              > > would be ignorant to believe
              > > that such things no longer happen, it would be
              > > unrealistic to believe that
              > > they happen with equal consistency, on an equal
              > > scale as such in past times.
              > > Further, such oppressive tendencies, though
              > > tragically powerful, present a
              > > clear front for resistance. Now, would it be
              > > misguided to say that science,
              > > once entirely threatened by religion, now holds the
              > > higher ground - at least
              > > in western society? Personally, I see christianity
              > > taking a back seat to the
              > > findings of this study, that survey, this finding,
              > > etc, concerning the means
              > > for directing one's life. The inherent dangers in a
              > > culture dominated by
              > > scientific (more accurately, scientism) processes,
              > > are founded in my prior
              > > post. Reducing a thinking, feeling, and vulnerable
              > > being to neurons
              > > firing-and all of those other "workings" that do
              > > little for humanity, save
              > > turning it into machines to further the agenda of
              > > scientism- results in pain
              > > and misery on a level entirely different form that
              > > of the christian
              > > inquisition. The oppression is invisible; that is,
              > > of course, until one turns
              > > on the television, converses with a coworker, or
              > > connects to the internet.
              > > What I hope to have related in this response, is
              > > that the criticism of
              > > religion, at this point in history, is entirely too
              > > safe. While any given
              > > interpretation of Truth warrants a good
              > > re-examination, it seems that the
              > > motives of such examinations are, at best, shady in
              > > the hands of one
              > > subscribing to a dominant interpretation.
              > > regards,
              > > John
            • Edward Alf
              Paul, if we are aware that the brain processes information by means of chemical signals, how does that result in dismissing the benefits of religious life? ...
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
                Paul,

                if we are aware that the brain processes information by means of chemical
                signals, how does that result in dismissing the benefits of religious life?
                ...

                a "neurosis" is a mental or emotional disorder ... that was not my meaning
                ... how do you come to the conclusion that, simply saying that the brain
                tends towards spirituality and the processing is by chemical signals,
                implies a neurosis ...

                i can see i have opened up a controversy here ...

                regards

                eduard

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Paul R Turner" <paulturner@...>
                To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:38 PM
                Subject: Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2


                > When we reduce human actions and emotions to scientific explanation we
                risk the parochial view of the 'genetic fallacy', as Freud did in his
                analysis of religion.
                >
                > By concluding religion was symptomatic of a neurosis it became easy to
                dismiss the benefits of a religious life (though I am an atheist).
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > Paul
                >
              • Paul R Turner
                Edward You missed my point. I was not suggesting that religion is a neurosis from the use of science merely pointing out the inherent dangers (which Freud fell
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 6, 2001
                  Edward

                  You missed my point. I was not suggesting that religion is a neurosis from the use of science merely pointing out the inherent dangers (which Freud fell into) in using scientific evidence (which is not what I'm suggesting you have done) to describe human action. My point was that scientific evidence is a form of reductionism just ONE example of many is psychoanalysis, which reduces actions, speech etc to the unconscious disregarding the workings of cognitive processes.Sometimes we can benefit greatly if we resist the 'atomism' of science, the desire to reduce everything to its small constituent.

                  Regards

                  Paul
                  --

                  On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:18:47
                  Edward Alf wrote:
                  >Paul,
                  >
                  >if we are aware that the brain processes information by means of chemical
                  >signals, how does that result in dismissing the benefits of religious life?
                  >...
                  >
                  >a "neurosis" is a mental or emotional disorder ... that was not my meaning
                  >... how do you come to the conclusion that, simply saying that the brain
                  >tends towards spirituality and the processing is by chemical signals,
                  >implies a neurosis ...
                  >
                  >i can see i have opened up a controversy here ...
                  >
                  >regards
                  >
                  >eduard
                  >
                  >----- Original Message -----
                  >From: "Paul R Turner" <paulturner@...>
                  >To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:38 PM
                  >Subject: Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2
                  >
                  >
                  >> When we reduce human actions and emotions to scientific explanation we
                  >risk the parochial view of the 'genetic fallacy', as Freud did in his
                  >analysis of religion.
                  >>
                  >> By concluding religion was symptomatic of a neurosis it became easy to
                  >dismiss the benefits of a religious life (though I am an atheist).
                  >>
                  >> Regards
                  >>
                  >> Paul
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
                  http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
                • Edward Alf
                  Paul, i would agree with what you are saying in regard to the dangers ... but then there are dangers whether this be from reductionism or non-reductionism ...
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 6, 2001
                    Paul,

                    i would agree with what you are saying in regard to the dangers ... but then
                    there are dangers whether this be from reductionism or non-reductionism ...
                    religion (if one could refer to this as wholistic) has been responsible for
                    a tremendous amount of torment ... i find it difficult to read the bible
                    because of all the killing that is in it ... that is not to excuse science
                    which has merely made killing more efficient ...

                    the danger that lies within any system of thought is that someone may apply
                    it for his/her own purposes ...

                    however, all of that does not to say that we should ignore the simple fact
                    that the brain operates through the means of neurons ... that is not
                    reductionism in itself ... it all depends upon how you treat the brain from
                    that starting point ... it would be reductionism if one were to try to
                    analyse each thought down to the firings of single neurons ... but a true
                    understanding of our thinking process requires that we look at it from the
                    point of view of combinations ... if a set of neurons are dedicated to
                    identifying vertical or horizontal lines, this does not help in
                    understanding how the brain can recognize a chair ... a lot more is going on
                    ... the signals also must be "tagged" with other thoughts such as ones
                    previous experience with chairs ...

                    what i was trying to point out was that the human brain may be "wired for
                    spirituality" ... that there is an inherent need for spirituality which is
                    not obtained through learning ... it is already there (in our genes, so to
                    speak) ... if this true ... and i would suggest that it is ... then how do
                    we deal with existentialism? ... does existentialism satisfy the need for
                    spirituality? ... im not sure of this point ... on one hand i find it
                    intellectually satisfying, yet im still inclined to search for some form of
                    god/deity ... with little success to date ... to put the question another
                    way, can existentialism be taken as a religion, or is it only a philosophy
                    ...

                    regards

                    eduard

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Paul R Turner" <paulturner@...>
                    To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:41 AM
                    Subject: Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2


                    >
                    > Edward
                    >
                    > You missed my point. I was not suggesting that religion is a neurosis from
                    the use of science merely pointing out the inherent dangers (which Freud
                    fell into) in using scientific evidence (which is not what I'm suggesting
                    you have done) to describe human action. My point was that scientific
                    evidence is a form of reductionism just ONE example of many is
                    psychoanalysis, which reduces actions, speech etc to the unconscious
                    disregarding the workings of cognitive processes.Sometimes we can benefit
                    greatly if we resist the 'atomism' of science, the desire to reduce
                    everything to its small constituent.
                    >
                    > Regards
                    >
                    > Paul
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.