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

Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.