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

Geocentric model of the universe etc....(Was Digest...)

Expand Messages
  • Patrick
    hi Eduard, et al. When I saw MIB I thought that alien in that guys head was interesting. When you think about it, we are always receiving information just like
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      hi Eduard, et al.
      When I saw MIB I thought that alien in that guys head was
      interesting. When you think about it, we are always receiving
      information just like computers do. I mean, when I look at an apple
      and see it as red, its not really red, thats just how our brain
      interprets it (some people confuse this with solipsism, but its
      nothing of the sort). Just like a computer sees input as a bunch of
      ones and zeroes, we see it in a meaningful way. Now I'm not going to
      argue that colors dont exist, physics has proved their existence
      through light waves, what I am saying is that this is our way of
      interpreting those light waves. If we could see light waves beyond
      this, like Infrared or ultraviolet waves, we would probably have
      another color for that. I didnt know that a Kaiser did that
      experiment on children, however I remember some ancient king or
      emperor tried it and the child said what sounded like bread in
      Persian or Sumerian or something and they thought that language was
      the original language.
      The reason we have these models is because humans are naturally
      curious. I wouldnt say that science is a religion, I think it would
      be more correct to say that religion is a science, that is-religion
      is an attempt to make sense of the universe.

      P~M

      --- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
      > hi Patrick et al,
      >
      > looks like i have opened up a good discussion here ...
      >
      > think of it this way ... remember in the movie Men in Black (MIB)
      when that
      > prince of another galaxy was found to be actually a small being
      inside the
      > head of the jeweler ... your brain is something like that ...
      however, the
      > difference being that, in the movie the little person would have
      his/her own
      > brain ... what im speaking of here is the action of neurons by
      themselves
      > within the human brain ...
      >
      > if on the other hand, this little person were a neuron, then the
      room that
      > he/she exists in would have no windows in the sense of what we
      think windows
      > are ... all that would the person would have is a slot on the wall
      of the
      > room which spits out something like a stock market tape with
      symbols that
      > represent the signals that come from the retina ... keep in mind
      that the
      > retina has only a finite number of cones and rods (the light sensing
      > devices) that produce the signals ... i hate to use the analogy,
      but it
      > would be similar to the 1's and 0's that are sent to your digital
      tv ... it
      > is not a fully formed picture that is transmitted to the neuron ...
      the
      > neuron has to take all those signals and put together what it
      thinks is the
      > picture ... i use the singular of "neuron" for the purpose of this
      message
      > ... in actuality "seeing" would involve millions of neurons ...
      >
      > in a sense this sort of mechanical/electrical process is even more
      > miraculous than what is commonly thought of as "seeing" ... the
      brain
      > manages to put together a logical semblance of what is out there in
      the real
      > world with sufficient accuracy to enable us to survive ... in
      otherwords the
      > interpretation is sufficient to inform the cavement and what is
      behind the
      > tree is a sabre-tooth tiger and not a rock ...
      >
      > take another example ... you are most likely aware that some lens
      will
      > invert the picture of the outside world ... a test was done by
      which a
      > person was given eye glasses with these lenses ... initially,
      everything
      > that he looked at was inverted ... but after a while, the brain was
      able to
      > reinvert the image so that it once more was right side up ... it is
      as if
      > the brian realised that it was reading the tape of symbols
      backwards and
      > made the necessary correction ... of course when he took the
      glasses off, he
      > had to wait an equal time for the brain to put things right
      again ...
      >
      > all of this applies to the other senses ... smell is only signals
      from the
      > nose ... taste is signals from the tongue ... touch is signals from
      the body
      > ... just as the 1's and 0's of your tv are the same whether this be
      of
      > BayWatch or X-files, the signals to the brain are basically the
      same ... the
      > brain is miraculously designed to sort all of this out ...
      >
      > it is not impossible to test the whether a child would create a
      religious
      > outlook when isolated from society, the germans (one of the
      Kaisars) did
      > something similar in that he conducted an experiment to find out if
      a child
      > would learn to talk without experiencing voices .. specifically he
      wanted to
      > find out what language would they develop on their own ... the
      children
      > were taken care of by nurses who where ordered not to talk to
      them ... in
      > the end, none of them learned to talk, but worse yet they all died
      due to
      > the lack of attention ... this says: (1) that the language neurons
      are there
      > at birth, but can deteriorate due to lack of use, and (2) love and
      caring is
      > an inherent human requirement ...
      >
      > i say that the brain is "wired for religion" or "wired for
      spirituality"
      > because i sense an inherent need for this type of experience ... i
      am not at
      > the stage where i can express this in some eloquent manner, but i
      feel it is
      > there none-the-less ... it is as if the human brain tries to
      interpret all
      > those 1's and 0's in a universal sense ... in the same way that a
      child
      > first tries to interpret the conventions of society ...
      >
      > the idea of a geocentric model of the universe is a good
      example ... if the
      > brain is not inclined towards religion, then why have even this
      view, even
      > though we know today that it is wrong? ... what makes humans want
      to define
      > their universe in the first place? ... my point was that this quest
      is
      > inherent and through particular brain processing (which is a
      scientific
      > fact) this involves neurons ... it may not be that we are wired in
      the sense
      > of something you can find, if you were to open someone's skull ...
      it may
      > only be the desire through neurons to do an accurate interpretation
      of the
      > universe around us ....
      >
      > regards
      >
      > eduard ...
    • Christopher Felton
      Very well articulated, Patrick. Hello, all. My name is Chris, and I, too, have been a lurker (at least part time). Patrick, I agree with most of what you ve
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Very well articulated, Patrick.
         
        Hello, all. My name is Chris, and I, too, have been a "lurker" (at least part time).  Patrick, I agree with most of what you've written. Though not used often to describe the state of religious people today, I feel that the word 'brainwashed' is appropriate. I find it ironic, though, that the most fundamental of these religionists are also the quickest to label one of another mystical persuasion as brainwashed.' Nonetheless, the latter, as well as the former, are of the same or similar herd mentality. Interestingly enough, I've also recognized that even atheists (which I am), can also fall privy to a "herd" type of mentality. For it isn't so much religion which influences one to be of this stock, as it is irrationality. After all has been considered, the only point within the message to which I am disagreeing is the statement, "we are wired for want of an explanation of the universe..."  I don't think we're even 'wired' for that. Man, in all of his complex nature, is still simplistically carnal. I think that the rational mind is more of a subtle discovery which must be stoked by deliberate, consistent, and objective thought, rather than an automatic machination which is naturally part of us. 



        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
      • Edward Alf
        Patrick & Folks, im a lighting engineer working for a civil aviation authority .. im involved in the design standards for the lighting that is used for
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Patrick & Folks,

          im a lighting engineer working for a civil aviation authority .. im involved
          in the design standards for the lighting that is used for guidance to pilots
          ... i started reading more on optical process in the brain, since i wanted
          to find out how fast the brain can process information ... that is, what
          should be the time duration of flashing signals like the stuff you see on
          towers .. anyway one thing led to another and, since im religiously
          inclined, i got into this neuron stuff and how we see the world ... there
          are lot of books on the subject and as in any field, there have been
          tremendous advances in the past few years ...

          i am starting to wonder about color itself ... assuming that we have the
          same quality of eyes (not color blind), if i select what i think is red, how
          come you recognize it as red also ... i can understand that red is actually
          a radiated energy having a wavelength of about 700 nanometers ... but why do
          both of us say that it is red? ... the only thing that is happening in the
          eye is that a molecule in one of the three types of cones (i.e. the red
          sensor cone) is bent (or is it unbent) to act as a kind of switch sending a
          single to the brain ... the signal itself has nothing to do with color ...
          it is just a signal ... so how come we now see the same thing? ... did we
          met in some past life and agree to call this 700 nanometer energy as "red"?
          ... interesting questions ...

          science cant be a religion ... at least the sort of science that we taught
          ... the principle of our science is based upon logic ... if you can know the
          speed and direction of an object at point A and then at point B, you can
          predict through formulas what will occur at point C ... science is based on
          rational thinking ... religion is irrational ... before you jump on that, im
          using the word "irrational" here in a specific manner and i do not mean
          something which is deficient ... irrational thinking can be just as valid as
          rational thinking ... religion is irrational because you cant get there
          through reasoning ... it primarily requires a certain leap of faith ...

          that is why i was wondering if existentialism can include a god, since
          existentialism seems to me to be a reasoned philosophy and therefore does
          not satisfy the brain's need for spirituality ....

          regards

          eduard


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Patrick" <ptmcgra@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:45 PM
          Subject: [existlist] Geocentric model of the universe etc....(Was Digest...)


          > hi Eduard, et al.
          > When I saw MIB I thought that alien in that guys head was
          > interesting. When you think about it, we are always receiving
          > information just like computers do. I mean, when I look at an apple
          > and see it as red, its not really red, thats just how our brain
          > interprets it (some people confuse this with solipsism, but its
          > nothing of the sort). Just like a computer sees input as a bunch of
          > ones and zeroes, we see it in a meaningful way. Now I'm not going to
          > argue that colors dont exist, physics has proved their existence
          > through light waves, what I am saying is that this is our way of
          > interpreting those light waves. If we could see light waves beyond
          > this, like Infrared or ultraviolet waves, we would probably have
          > another color for that. I didnt know that a Kaiser did that
          > experiment on children, however I remember some ancient king or
          > emperor tried it and the child said what sounded like bread in
          > Persian or Sumerian or something and they thought that language was
          > the original language.
          > The reason we have these models is because humans are naturally
          > curious. I wouldnt say that science is a religion, I think it would
          > be more correct to say that religion is a science, that is-religion
          > is an attempt to make sense of the universe.
          >
          > P~M
        • Edward Alf
          Christopher, i can see there is a difficulty with my statement of the brain being wired for spirituality ... it tends to give the idea of a sort of
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Christopher,
             
            i can see there is a difficulty with my statement of the brain being "wired for spirituality" ... it tends to give the idea of a sort of robot-like existence ... perhaps i should have said an inclination or predisposition towards spirituality ... the brain operates by means of neurons and neural transmitters ... that is basically a fact and has been known since before Dr. Penfield was doing his studies in Montreal in the late 40s ... all of this is a matter of signals and processing ...
             
            much of what we do is a reaction to outside stimuli ... once the stimulus is gone, we may file away the memory for later retrieval ... but this implies a process of learning ... the thought that comes to my mind is whether spirituality is something that is inherent to human beings ... do we naturally seek after it ... or is this a kind of conditioning ... im beginning to think that it is inherent .. something that we are born with .. thus my use of the word "wired", to imply something that we are born with .. in our genes so to speak ...
             
            have fun
             
            eduard
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:55 PM
            Subject: Re: [existlist] Digest Number 226

            Very well articulated, Patrick.
             
            Hello, all. My name is Chris, and I, too, have been a "lurker" (at least part time).  Patrick, I agree with most of what you've written. Though not used often to describe the state of religious people today, I feel that the word 'brainwashed' is appropriate. I find it ironic, though, that the most fundamental of these religionists are also the quickest to label one of another mystical persuasion as brainwashed.' Nonetheless, the latter, as well as the former, are of the same or similar herd mentality. Interestingly enough, I've also recognized that even atheists (which I am), can also fall privy to a "herd" type of mentality. For it isn't so much religion which influences one to be of this stock, as it is irrationality. After all has been considered, the only point within the message to which I am disagreeing is the statement, "we are wired for want of an explanation of the universe..."  I don't think we're even 'wired' for that. Man, in all of his complex nature, is still simplistically carnal. I think that the rational mind is more of a subtle discovery which must be stoked by deliberate, consistent, and objective thought, rather than an automatic machination which is naturally part of us. 


            From The Exist List...
            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist


            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

          • skip2maloo2000@yahoo.com
            ... being wired for spirituality ... it tends to give the idea of a sort of robot-like existence ... perhaps i should have said an inclination or
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 7, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
              > Christopher,
              >
              > i can see there is a difficulty with my statement of the brain
              being "wired for spirituality" ... it tends to give the idea of a
              sort of robot-like existence ... perhaps i should have said an
              inclination or predisposition towards spirituality ... the brain
              operates by means of neurons and neural transmitters ... that is
              basically a fact and has been known since before Dr. Penfield was
              doing his studies in Montreal in the late 40s ... all of this is a
              matter of signals and processing ...
              >
              > much of what we do is a reaction to outside stimuli ... once the
              stimulus is gone, we may file away the memory for later retrieval ...
              but this implies a process of learning ... the thought that comes to
              my mind is whether spirituality is something that is inherent to
              human beings ... do we naturally seek after it ... or is this a kind
              of conditioning ... im beginning to think that it is inherent ..
              something that we are born with .. thus my use of the word "wired",
              to imply something that we are born with .. in our genes so to
              speak ...
              >
              > have fun
              >
              > eduard
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Christopher Felton
              > To: existlist@y...
              > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:55 PM
              > Subject: Re: [existlist] Digest Number 226
              >
              >
              > Very well articulated, Patrick.
              >
              > Hello, all. My name is Chris, and I, too, have been a "lurker"
              (at least part time). Patrick, I agree with most of what you've
              written. Though not used often to describe the state of religious
              people today, I feel that the word 'brainwashed' is appropriate. I
              find it ironic, though, that the most fundamental of these
              religionists are also the quickest to label one of another mystical
              persuasion as brainwashed.' Nonetheless, the latter, as well as the
              former, are of the same or similar herd mentality. Interestingly
              enough, I've also recognized that even atheists (which I am), can
              also fall privy to a "herd" type of mentality. For it isn't so much
              religion which influences one to be of this stock, as it is
              irrationality. After all has been considered, the only point within
              the message to which I am disagreeing is the statement, "we are wired
              for want of an explanation of the universe..." I don't think we're
              even 'wired' for that. Man, in all of his complex nature, is still
              simplistically carnal. I think that the rational mind is more of a
              subtle discovery which must be stoked by deliberate, consistent, and
              objective thought, rather than an automatic machination which is
              naturally part of us.
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              >
              > Hello! your domain today!
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From The Exist List...
              > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              > With all due respect, gentlemen, all this talk of neurons firing
              misses the mark as far as I am concerned. If I'm sitting in a cozy,
              romantic restaurant, and accross the table from me is, say, Gillian
              Anderson, who has taken a mysterious liking to graying philosophy
              professors in their late thirties (O.K., in their forties), I am far
              less interested in learning exactly which facial muscles have
              contracted when she smiles than in the good old language of motives
              and intentions. It may be accurate to speak of the neurochemical
              processes and/or neurons "firing" when she lifts an eyebrow or her
              eyes sparkle, but it isn't the sort of thing that will be uppermost
              in my mind. British philosopher, Roger Scruton, has expressed the
              same point as follows: "When the judge asks me why I put arsenic in
              my wife's tea, he will not be satisfied by my saying 'Because
              electrochemical impulses from my brain caused my hand to reach for
              the bottle and tip it into the waiting teacup'--although that may be
              a true answer to the question 'Why?' construed as scientists construe
              it, as request for cause. For it is an answer OF THE WRONG KIND."

              Is there a difficulty here concerning the distinction between
              description and causal explanation? Is there a chicken and egg
              problem too? For which comes first: the intention that produces a
              neurochemical reaction?, or the neurochemical reaction which produces
              the intention? Just a thought.
              >
              >
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              ----------
              > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
            • Edward Alf
              hi, i totally agree with your point ... not necessarily with Gillian Anderson as the object of interest, but at least the point that i would not be focused
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 7, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                hi,

                i totally agree with your point ... not necessarily with Gillian Anderson as
                the object of interest, but at least the point that i would not be focused
                upon how my neurons happen to be firing ... :-)

                this all started when opened the subject of whether there could be a god
                worship within existentialism ... im aware that some referred
                existentialists did believe in god ... however, what i see is a rational
                thought out philosophy and this is counter to religion and spirituality
                which is irrational ... again, im not using the word "irrational" in the
                sense of something which is wrong ... irrational thinking is simply another
                (right brain, global) way of thinking ....

                so im wondering where does the religion and spirituality come in? ... the
                way i see it, human beings have an inherent tendency towards the spiritual
                ... i have referred to this as being "wired for religion" in the sense of
                your brain, which operates on the basis of neurons, has this inclination
                from birth ...

                as we enter into the 21st century there is a desire for some kind of
                spiritual satisfaction ... i would suspect that that is the reason why a lot
                of use are on this list in the first place ... but i dont see within
                existentialism anything which would provide this satisfaction ... whether
                this is put in terms of neurons or whatever, i would still like to find out
                from members how they see spirituality coming into this, if at all ...

                regards

                eduard

                > With all due respect, gentlemen, all this talk of neurons firing
                > misses the mark as far as I am concerned. If I'm sitting in a cozy,
                > romantic restaurant, and accross the table from me is, say, Gillian
                > Anderson, who has taken a mysterious liking to graying philosophy
                > professors in their late thirties (O.K., in their forties), I am far
                > less interested in learning exactly which facial muscles have
                > contracted when she smiles than in the good old language of motives
                > and intentions. It may be accurate to speak of the neurochemical
                > processes and/or neurons "firing" when she lifts an eyebrow or her
                > eyes sparkle, but it isn't the sort of thing that will be uppermost
                > in my mind. British philosopher, Roger Scruton, has expressed the
                > same point as follows: "When the judge asks me why I put arsenic in
                > my wife's tea, he will not be satisfied by my saying 'Because
                > electrochemical impulses from my brain caused my hand to reach for
                > the bottle and tip it into the waiting teacup'--although that may be
                > a true answer to the question 'Why?' construed as scientists construe
                > it, as request for cause. For it is an answer OF THE WRONG KIND."
                >
                > Is there a difficulty here concerning the distinction between
                > description and causal explanation? Is there a chicken and egg
                > problem too? For which comes first: the intention that produces a
                > neurochemical reaction?, or the neurochemical reaction which produces
                > the intention? Just a thought.
                > >
              • Juan Menendez
                ... Well, what can I say to a man who fails to find Gillian Anderson attractive? I m afraid that this alone has the effect of casting doubts upon your rational
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 9, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Edward Alf <ealf@...> wrote:
                  > hi,
                  >
                  > i totally agree with your point ... not necessarily
                  > with Gillian Anderson as
                  > the object of interest, but at least the point that
                  > i would not be focused
                  > upon how my neurons happen to be firing ... :-)
                  >
                  > this all started when opened the subject of whether
                  > there could be a god
                  > worship within existentialism ... im aware that some
                  > referred
                  > existentialists did believe in god ... however, what
                  > i see is a rational
                  > thought out philosophy and this is counter to
                  > religion and spirituality
                  > which is irrational ... again, im not using the word
                  > "irrational" in the
                  > sense of something which is wrong ... irrational
                  > thinking is simply another
                  > (right brain, global) way of thinking ....
                  >
                  > so im wondering where does the religion and
                  > spirituality come in? ... the
                  > way i see it, human beings have an inherent tendency
                  > towards the spiritual
                  > ... i have referred to this as being "wired for
                  > religion" in the sense of
                  > your brain, which operates on the basis of neurons,
                  > has this inclination
                  > from birth ...
                  >
                  > as we enter into the 21st century there is a desire
                  > for some kind of
                  > spiritual satisfaction ... i would suspect that that
                  > is the reason why a lot
                  > of use are on this list in the first place ... but i
                  > dont see within
                  > existentialism anything which would provide this
                  > satisfaction ... whether
                  > this is put in terms of neurons or whatever, i would
                  > still like to find out
                  > from members how they see spirituality coming into
                  > this, if at all ...
                  >
                  > regards
                  >
                  > eduard
                  >
                  > > With all due respect, gentlemen, all this talk of
                  > neurons firing
                  > > misses the mark as far as I am concerned. If I'm
                  > sitting in a cozy,
                  > > romantic restaurant, and accross the table from me
                  > is, say, Gillian
                  > > Anderson, who has taken a mysterious liking to
                  > graying philosophy
                  > > professors in their late thirties (O.K., in their
                  > forties), I am far
                  > > less interested in learning exactly which facial
                  > muscles have
                  > > contracted when she smiles than in the good old
                  > language of motives
                  > > and intentions. It may be accurate to speak of the
                  > neurochemical
                  > > processes and/or neurons "firing" when she lifts
                  > an eyebrow or her
                  > > eyes sparkle, but it isn't the sort of thing that
                  > will be uppermost
                  > > in my mind. British philosopher, Roger Scruton,
                  > has expressed the
                  > > same point as follows: "When the judge asks me why
                  > I put arsenic in
                  > > my wife's tea, he will not be satisfied by my
                  > saying 'Because
                  > > electrochemical impulses from my brain caused my
                  > hand to reach for
                  > > the bottle and tip it into the waiting
                  > teacup'--although that may be
                  > > a true answer to the question 'Why?' construed as
                  > scientists construe
                  > > it, as request for cause. For it is an answer OF
                  > THE WRONG KIND."
                  > >
                  > > Is there a difficulty here concerning the
                  > distinction between
                  > > description and causal explanation? Is there a
                  > chicken and egg
                  > > problem too? For which comes first: the intention
                  > that produces a
                  > > neurochemical reaction?, or the neurochemical
                  > reaction which produces
                  > > the intention? Just a thought.
                  > > >
                  > Hi Edward,

                  Well, what can I say to a man who fails to find
                  Gillian Anderson attractive? I'm afraid that this
                  alone has the effect of casting doubts upon your
                  rational faculties. Fortunately, those doubts are
                  dispersed the moment I read your posted
                  messages--which are well-written and cogent.

                  Suppose that you are right, that there is an inherent
                  yearning for religious experience, that we are all--as
                  Kierkegaard suggests--"God intoxicated men." Why seek
                  a scientific explanation as the most illuminating in
                  this context? I contend that it would be the least
                  illuminating. From the days when we might have talked
                  of similar topics in a cave after killing a bison (and
                  I am convinced that, even then, people did so), it
                  seems highly plausible that a universal human
                  experience is the sense of the numinous, that is, the
                  awareness of our smallness as beings agaisnt the
                  awesome enormity of the universe. Add to this, the
                  certainty of death (prehistoric persons had a
                  life-expectancy of 28 years, up to the nineteenth
                  century life expectancy hovered at 40 years or so),
                  and you begin to see why it is perfectly rational and
                  understandable for subjective, Freudian kinds of
                  reasons, that humans would reach for something
                  greater.

                  It follows from this that prescientific humans would
                  project those yearnings on to "spirits" representing
                  natural elements and then on to a single master spirit
                  and, eventually, on to a very abstract God, who is the
                  master principle of the universe. And yet...

                  I fear that we may discover that gods and/or God
                  are/is less a being or entity "really" existing in the
                  universe, than a human hope born in fear: What if the
                  universal human religious impulse or God, if you like,
                  is less a window from which we see out into the
                  universe, than a mirror reflecting our own
                  subconscious aspirations? If this is so, then we'd
                  still have human courage and laughter, the possibility
                  of love, and shared courage at the sense of that
                  infinite star-stuff which is us too.

                  Cheers,

                  Gilligan
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                • Edward Alf
                  hi Gilligan et al, well what can i say ... i suppose Gillian Anderson is attractive, but it seems so shallow .. at least on the X-files ... a very attractive
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 9, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    hi Gilligan et al,

                    well what can i say ... i suppose Gillian Anderson is attractive, but it
                    seems so shallow .. at least on the X-files ... a very attractive woman to
                    my mind would be Marilyn Monroe .. and i dont mean the one who sang "happy
                    birthday" to Kennedy ... but rather the Norma Jean Baker who stared in the
                    movie "Misfits" with Clark Gable, Montgomery Clift and Eli Wallach ...
                    absolutely beautiful ... anyway im off topic ...

                    to give a scientific explanation does not deminish the idea that humans
                    reach out for the divine ... it is just the way in which we do it ... those
                    cavemen sitting around the recently bison were also using their neurons ...
                    if neurons is not the most illuminating explanation, then what would be
                    illuminating? ... im open on this ... i just think that when you get into
                    the abstract as saying that it is our inner soul or something, then it
                    detaches from reality ... i dont think that knowing our retinas are lined
                    with rods and cones lessens our appreciation for the beauty of a rose ...

                    i dont think that our worship of gods is born out of fear ... i think that
                    "fear" is the means by which religious authorities have kept "their" flock
                    under control ... if you dont follow the dogma, you will spend eternity in
                    hell, having some demon pull out your liver ... i would prefer that worship
                    is born out awe ...

                    i agree that we would still have human love, courage and laughter regardless
                    of how or what we believe ... our belief system is simply a means for focus
                    and to some extent, motivation ... whether you believe in Jehovah or Wilson
                    the basketball it amounts to the same thing ...

                    when we look out onto the world, we see chaos ... so many things are
                    happening ... it is a normal response to try to make some sense or order out
                    of it all ... a god provides some kind of focus ... lets say you are to go
                    out shopping for clothes ... i always find this a traumatic experience ...
                    but if i say that i am going to adopt a style, say of wearing only black
                    like Johnny Cash, then suddenly a path is open in the chaos .. i only look
                    at things that are black ... i have not really obtained order in the world
                    .. there are still red and blue shirts, but i have the ability to focus and
                    this is a way of survival for me ... and i suggest that this is all that we
                    want .. so that we can get on with our lives ...

                    i was wondering how others on this list might have mingled religious outlook
                    with philosophical existentialism ... or are they, like myself, still
                    searching ....

                    regards

                    eduard

                    > > Hi Edward,
                    >
                    > Well, what can I say to a man who fails to find
                    > Gillian Anderson attractive? I'm afraid that this
                    > alone has the effect of casting doubts upon your
                    > rational faculties. Fortunately, those doubts are
                    > dispersed the moment I read your posted
                    > messages--which are well-written and cogent.
                    >
                    > Suppose that you are right, that there is an inherent
                    > yearning for religious experience, that we are all--as
                    > Kierkegaard suggests--"God intoxicated men." Why seek
                    > a scientific explanation as the most illuminating in
                    > this context? I contend that it would be the least
                    > illuminating. From the days when we might have talked
                    > of similar topics in a cave after killing a bison (and
                    > I am convinced that, even then, people did so), it
                    > seems highly plausible that a universal human
                    > experience is the sense of the numinous, that is, the
                    > awareness of our smallness as beings agaisnt the
                    > awesome enormity of the universe. Add to this, the
                    > certainty of death (prehistoric persons had a
                    > life-expectancy of 28 years, up to the nineteenth
                    > century life expectancy hovered at 40 years or so),
                    > and you begin to see why it is perfectly rational and
                    > understandable for subjective, Freudian kinds of
                    > reasons, that humans would reach for something
                    > greater.
                    >
                    > It follows from this that prescientific humans would
                    > project those yearnings on to "spirits" representing
                    > natural elements and then on to a single master spirit
                    > and, eventually, on to a very abstract God, who is the
                    > master principle of the universe. And yet...
                    >
                    > I fear that we may discover that gods and/or God
                    > are/is less a being or entity "really" existing in the
                    > universe, than a human hope born in fear: What if the
                    > universal human religious impulse or God, if you like,
                    > is less a window from which we see out into the
                    > universe, than a mirror reflecting our own
                    > subconscious aspirations? If this is so, then we'd
                    > still have human courage and laughter, the possibility
                    > of love, and shared courage at the sense of that
                    > infinite star-stuff which is us too.
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > Gilligan
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                    > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    >
                    > From The Exist List...
                    > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                  • Juan Menendez
                    ... Marilyn Monroe is definitely a very attractive woman. Yet one may find Gillian Anderson, who conveys a cooler, more intelligent (in my opinion) kind of
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 9, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Edward Alf <ealf@...> wrote:
                      > hi Gilligan et al,
                      >
                      > well what can i say ... i suppose Gillian Anderson
                      > is attractive, but it
                      > seems so shallow .. at least on the X-files ... a
                      > very attractive woman to
                      > my mind would be Marilyn Monroe .. and i dont mean
                      > the one who sang "happy
                      > birthday" to Kennedy ... but rather the Norma Jean
                      > Baker who stared in the
                      > movie "Misfits" with Clark Gable, Montgomery Clift
                      > and Eli Wallach ...
                      > absolutely beautiful ... anyway im off topic ...
                      >
                      > to give a scientific explanation does not deminish
                      > the idea that humans
                      > reach out for the divine ... it is just the way in
                      > which we do it ... those
                      > cavemen sitting around the recently bison were also
                      > using their neurons ...
                      > if neurons is not the most illuminating explanation,
                      > then what would be
                      > illuminating? ... im open on this ... i just think
                      > that when you get into
                      > the abstract as saying that it is our inner soul or
                      > something, then it
                      > detaches from reality ... i dont think that knowing
                      > our retinas are lined
                      > with rods and cones lessens our appreciation for the
                      > beauty of a rose ...
                      >
                      > i dont think that our worship of gods is born out of
                      > fear ... i think that
                      > "fear" is the means by which religious authorities
                      > have kept "their" flock
                      > under control ... if you dont follow the dogma, you
                      > will spend eternity in
                      > hell, having some demon pull out your liver ... i
                      > would prefer that worship
                      > is born out awe ...
                      >
                      > i agree that we would still have human love, courage
                      > and laughter regardless
                      > of how or what we believe ... our belief system is
                      > simply a means for focus
                      > and to some extent, motivation ... whether you
                      > believe in Jehovah or Wilson
                      > the basketball it amounts to the same thing ...
                      >
                      > when we look out onto the world, we see chaos ... so
                      > many things are
                      > happening ... it is a normal response to try to make
                      > some sense or order out
                      > of it all ... a god provides some kind of focus ...
                      > lets say you are to go
                      > out shopping for clothes ... i always find this a
                      > traumatic experience ...
                      > but if i say that i am going to adopt a style, say
                      > of wearing only black
                      > like Johnny Cash, then suddenly a path is open in
                      > the chaos .. i only look
                      > at things that are black ... i have not really
                      > obtained order in the world
                      > .. there are still red and blue shirts, but i have
                      > the ability to focus and
                      > this is a way of survival for me ... and i suggest
                      > that this is all that we
                      > want .. so that we can get on with our lives ...
                      >
                      > i was wondering how others on this list might have
                      > mingled religious outlook
                      > with philosophical existentialism ... or are they,
                      > like myself, still
                      > searching ....
                      >
                      > regards
                      >
                      > eduard
                      >
                      > > > Hi Edward,
                      > >
                      > > Well, what can I say to a man who fails to find
                      > > Gillian Anderson attractive? I'm afraid that this
                      > > alone has the effect of casting doubts upon your
                      > > rational faculties. Fortunately, those doubts are
                      > > dispersed the moment I read your posted
                      > > messages--which are well-written and cogent.
                      > >
                      > > Suppose that you are right, that there is an
                      > inherent
                      > > yearning for religious experience, that we are
                      > all--as
                      > > Kierkegaard suggests--"God intoxicated men." Why
                      > seek
                      > > a scientific explanation as the most illuminating
                      > in
                      > > this context? I contend that it would be the least
                      > > illuminating. From the days when we might have
                      > talked
                      > > of similar topics in a cave after killing a bison
                      > (and
                      > > I am convinced that, even then, people did so), it
                      > > seems highly plausible that a universal human
                      > > experience is the sense of the numinous, that is,
                      > the
                      > > awareness of our smallness as beings agaisnt the
                      > > awesome enormity of the universe. Add to this, the
                      > > certainty of death (prehistoric persons had a
                      > > life-expectancy of 28 years, up to the nineteenth
                      > > century life expectancy hovered at 40 years or
                      > so),
                      > > and you begin to see why it is perfectly rational
                      > and
                      > > understandable for subjective, Freudian kinds of
                      > > reasons, that humans would reach for something
                      > > greater.
                      > >
                      > > It follows from this that prescientific humans
                      > would
                      > > project those yearnings on to "spirits"
                      > representing
                      > > natural elements and then on to a single master
                      > spirit
                      > > and, eventually, on to a very abstract God, who is
                      > the
                      > > master principle of the universe. And yet...
                      > >
                      > > I fear that we may discover that gods and/or God
                      > > are/is less a being or entity "really" existing in
                      > the
                      > > universe, than a human hope born in fear: What if
                      > the
                      > > universal human religious impulse or God, if you
                      > like,
                      > > is less a window from which we see out into the
                      > > universe, than a mirror reflecting our own
                      > > subconscious aspirations? If this is so, then we'd
                      > > still have human courage and laughter, the
                      > possibility
                      > > of love, and shared courage at the sense of that
                      > > infinite star-stuff which is us too.
                      > >
                      > > Cheers,
                      > >
                      > > Gilligan
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > __________________________________________________
                      > > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                      > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                      > >
                      > > From The Exist List...
                      > > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      > Hi Edward,

                      Marilyn Monroe is definitely a very attractive woman.
                      Yet one may find Gillian Anderson, who conveys a
                      cooler, more intelligent (in my opinion) kind of aura,
                      equally attractive in a very different way. Similarly,
                      there is not much disagreement between us when it
                      comes to ultimate matters of religious impulse and our
                      place in the cosmos.

                      I guess my take on this is to suggest, if you'll
                      forgive the expression, that we should render on to
                      Caesar what is his, and on to God what is His. By that
                      I mean, that you don't really need science to explain
                      the religious impulse in people, just common sense.
                      There is simply too much pretentious scientific
                      explanation of what is basically expressive of our
                      nature as humans. People feel small and insignificant,
                      so they invent or discover something greater than
                      themselves that can help them cope with the pain of
                      being human. Some of us need that (for me) "crutch"
                      and some of us don't. I don't. I am not a believer. I
                      do not really accept the concept of God.

                      I fear that as traditional concepts of God become less
                      and less intellectually respectable, more and more
                      people tend to deify science--which is very
                      unscientific, but it is "scientism." Science
                      talk--often having no real meaning--is the jargon of
                      our times. I suggest we take a step back and consider
                      whether we need an elaborate scientific way of stating
                      the obvious.
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    • Edward Alf
                      i dont believe in common sense ... it seems to imply that the verification of truth is dependent some kind of democratic vote ... if 3 people versus 2 say that
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 9, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        i dont believe in common sense ... it seems to imply that the verification
                        of truth is dependent some kind of democratic vote ... if 3 people versus 2
                        say that the sun comes up in the west, then it must be so ... or to put it
                        another way, the problem of common sense is that it is all so very uncommon
                        ...

                        anyway ... i think you are speaking about two different things in reference
                        to science giving explanation and people wanting to invent something greater
                        than themselves ... if science gives an explanation it isnt to the detriment
                        of anyone (well perhaps to some) ... but it does provide a better grasp on
                        reality ... if religion is just neurons firing away, then some groups would
                        have to find some other reason for persecuting their fellow humans ... and
                        the church just might come to the realisation that we are here on earth for
                        more than just creating more "souls" ... that is if there is indeed such a
                        thing as a "soul" ...

                        with respect to finding something greater, i think that this is a basic
                        tendency for everyone .. a human sort of thing ... i dont think it is a
                        "crutch" ... it is more in the way of providing a focus ... that does not
                        mean that people who do not have a specific religion do not need a focus ...
                        i would bet that these people find focus in other ways ...

                        i accept the concept of god ... not that i believe in a god right now, but i
                        accept the concept and am going in that direction ... i intend to invent one
                        if i cant find suitable candidate ... afterall that is what the present
                        religions did ... they invented their god and wrote the books and everyone
                        went along with it, not because it was logical, but because it was
                        successful ... that is the proof of the pudding ...

                        but you may object that this is not the same thing ... one does not simply
                        go around inventing gods upon whim ... well lets look at an example ...
                        perhaps a poor one, but i will detail it anyway ... say you have been
                        advised by your doctor to go on an ocean cruise ... but you cant afford the
                        cost ... so you come to me and i tell you i would charge you only $50 ...
                        astonished, you ask how i would do it for so little ... i explain that an
                        ocean cruise is reducible down to only one sensation ... that of the rolling
                        deck beneath your feet ... thus, i will paint over your windows and get my
                        cousin to use his forklift to rock your house back and forth ... voila, an
                        ocean cruise ... but you object ... to you a cruise is more than a rolling
                        deck, there has to be the smell of the salt laden air and the sound of gulls
                        flying overhead ... ok ... for an extra $25 i can blow salt air through your
                        ventilation system ... and i think i can trap a few gulls that have been
                        scavenging around the town dump ... you can see how this goes ... it is not
                        the thing in itself (the cruise) which is of importance but the sensations
                        that come to your brain (sense of rolling, smell of salt air, sound of
                        gulls) ... so too it is not religion or god of themselves that are of
                        importance, but what you get out of it ... it was once said that god created
                        man, because he needed an audience ... i suppose you could turn that around
                        to say that man created god because man preferred to be an audience ...

                        my point is that all of this is a matter of function ... what role does god
                        perform and what are the derived benefits ...

                        i suppose that that is a rational way of looking at an irrational activity
                        ... but one can follow a certain logic and come to the conclusion that it is
                        time to make the jump to the irrational (leap of faith, so to speak) ...

                        the bottom line is that in order to make that leap, we have to have a solid
                        foundation and therefore, we may need an elaborate scientific way of stating
                        the obvious ....

                        have fun ...

                        eduard



                        > > Hi Edward,
                        >
                        > Marilyn Monroe is definitely a very attractive woman.
                        > Yet one may find Gillian Anderson, who conveys a
                        > cooler, more intelligent (in my opinion) kind of aura,
                        > equally attractive in a very different way. Similarly,
                        > there is not much disagreement between us when it
                        > comes to ultimate matters of religious impulse and our
                        > place in the cosmos.
                        >
                        > I guess my take on this is to suggest, if you'll
                        > forgive the expression, that we should render on to
                        > Caesar what is his, and on to God what is His. By that
                        > I mean, that you don't really need science to explain
                        > the religious impulse in people, just common sense.
                        > There is simply too much pretentious scientific
                        > explanation of what is basically expressive of our
                        > nature as humans. People feel small and insignificant,
                        > so they invent or discover something greater than
                        > themselves that can help them cope with the pain of
                        > being human. Some of us need that (for me) "crutch"
                        > and some of us don't. I don't. I am not a believer. I
                        > do not really accept the concept of God.
                        >
                        > I fear that as traditional concepts of God become less
                        > and less intellectually respectable, more and more
                        > people tend to deify science--which is very
                        > unscientific, but it is "scientism." Science
                        > talk--often having no real meaning--is the jargon of
                        > our times. I suggest we take a step back and consider
                        > whether we need an elaborate scientific way of stating
                        > the obvious.
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                        > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                        >
                        >
                        > From The Exist List...
                        > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.