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

Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.