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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      • 0 Attachment
        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/
      • 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 3 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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/
          >
          >
          >
        • 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 4 of 8 , Mar 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            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
            • 0 Attachment
              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
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                >
              • 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 7 of 8 , Mar 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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
                • 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 8 of 8 , Mar 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.